Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

David Hamuel:
 
Thank you for clarifying that citation concerning Seir/Jazer.  (I typed 
that post on my secondary computer which, believe it or not, does not allow 
links to be cut and pasted.)
 
1.  Though the modern evidence is vastly less important than the ancient 
evidence, the fact that the citation is old, dating to 1850, is a positive, 
not a negative.  That shows that at least since 1850, the ruins near Jazer 
have been called Seir.  But the rest of this post focuses on the much more 
important ancient evidence.
 
2.  There’s no “Jazer” by that name in the Patriarchal narratives, the 
Amarna Letters, or on the Thutmose III list.  But all three such sources 
reference “Seir” where we might have expected to see “Jazer”.  That may well 
indicate that this town in the middle of hill country in the Transjordan was 
called “Seir” in the Late Bronze Age, whereas from the Iron Age to the 
present it has been called “Jazer”.
 
3.  Jazer has an important location, being in the very middle of the long 
north-south range of hill country along the east bank of the Jordan River in 
the Transjordan.  In the ancient world, the most logical way to reference 
the hill country of the Transjordan would be to refer to either “the hill 
country of Seir [Jazer]” or “the land of Seru [Seir/Jazer]” or “the land of 
Seir [Jazer]”.  
 
4.  Now consider the following three critical phrases from ancient times:
 
(i)  At Genesis 14: 7, “the hill country of Seir” makes perfect sense if it
’s referring to the hill country north and south of Jazer.  That’s where 
the Horites/Hurrians historically were, per Amarna Letter EA 197.  It can’t 
be referring to Mt. Seir south of the Dead Sea, as scholars would have it, 
because (a) there were no Hurrians south of the Dead Sea, and (b) it makes no 
sense for a military party that started at Ashteroth to be mucking about in 
the desolate Arabah south of the Dead Sea.
 
(ii)  In Amarna Letter EA 288: 26, it would make sense for Abdi-Heba of 
Jerusalem to refer to the nearby hill country in the Transjordan near Jazer, 
using the phrase “the land of Seru”.  It would make no sense for Abdi-Heba to 
care a fig about a handful of Bedouin-type people in the desolate Arabah 
south of the Dead Sea.
 
(iii)  Most obviously is “the land of Seir” at Genesis 32: 4.  If that 
were Mt. Seir south of the Dead Sea, Jacob would be in no fear of running 
into 
Esau!  No, the reference in context there must be to the hill country of the 
Transjordan, north and south of Jazer/Seir.
 
5.  If we could just get university scholars to take a new look at the 
actual, northern geography of the Patriarchal narratives, we could inaugurate 
a 
renaissance in the study of the Patriarchal narratives.  If scholars would 
consider a northern geography of the Patriarchal narratives, all of a sudden 
they would see the text’s historicity.
 
David, all it would take is for one university scholar to take a serious 
new look at the underlying geography of the last 40 chapters of Genesis.  If “
the hill country of Seir” at Genesis 14: 6 is the hill country north and 
south of Jazer, then all of a sudden, like magic, Genesis 14: 6 is 
historical, 
per Amarna Letter EA 197.  If the Biblical Hebrew common words $WB and GM at 
Genesis 14: 7 are given their normal meanings, then the military party 
returned from near Jazer back north to Ashteroth, passed by Qadesh of 
Galilee, 
and entered the fields (or “plain”, that is, non-mountainous area) of the “
valley”/(MQY, being the Beqa Valley (not the Amalekites!), and ended up 
attacking the Amorites who historically (in the Late Bronze Age) were indeed 
at 
Hasi/Hazezon, just as the text accurately states.  That’s Amarna Letters EA 
177 and EA 175.
 
Why oh why won’t even one university scholar ever consider that $WB at 
Genesis 14: 7 may mean “return”, just like it does 390 other times in the 
Bible?  Or consider that in context, Seir in chapters 14 and 32 of Genesis 
must 
mean Jazer?
 
Although Yigal Levin is one of my very favorite university scholars, note 
that in his posts on these threads, he does not even  c-l-a-i-m  to have any 
inscriptions from the secular history of the ancient world to back up the 
scholarly view, which insists upon an Ezra-age ultra-southerly geography of 
the Patriarchal narratives.  That’s because there are no such inscriptions in 
the secular history of the ancient world to back up that scholarly view.  
There’s no there there.  All the many inscriptions, rather, back up a 
northern 
geography of the Patriarchal narratives.  So if the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 is 
historical Qadesh of Upper Galilee, per many Late Bronze Age inscriptions, 
then per the reference at Genesis 20: 1 to QD$, Isaac was born, in 
fulfillment of the Covenant, in Upper Galilee.  What’s wrong about that?  
That’s 
what the text is telling us.  GRR/Gerar is GLL/GLYL/Galilee, as attested at 
item #80 on the mid-15th century BCE Thutmose III list of places in Canaan.  
The text is telling us where Isaac is born, if only we would interpret the 
text on the basis of historical names that are attested in the Late Bronze 
Age.
 
David, if we could get just one university scholar to consider a northern 
geography of the Patriarchal narratives, then the historical foundation of 
Judaism is right there, right in the received text, with pinpoint historical 
accuracy.  It’s simply a question of getting the historical geography right, 
and considering historically attested geographical place names.
 
Your interest in Biblical Seir is much appreciated.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois