Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Kadesh-barnea

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Kadesh-barnea
  • Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:57:36 EDT


1. QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 is Qadesh of Upper Galilee.

It’s identical in unpointed text to the QD$ of Upper Galilee that is
mentioned in the Bible at Joshua 20: 7, Joshua 21: 32, II Kings 15: 29 and I
Chronicles 6: 61[/76]. It’s attested with that same spelling in Ugaritic
literature. With a different spelling, we also see it at item #4 on the
mid-15th
century BCE Thutmose III list, and in the mid-14th century BCE Amarna Letter
EA 177.

2. By sharp contrast, no name QD$ or Kadesh-barnea is attested in the
Sinai Peninsula in the ancient world.

3. There is nothing in secular history to support the unanimous, but
totally erroneous, university scholarly view that QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 and
Genesis 20: 1 is Kadesh barnea in the Sinai Peninsula. N-o-t-h-i-n-g.

4. As to Bible interpretation (as opposed to secular history), both
Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 make a lot more sense if QD$ is the Qadesh in
Upper Galilee, rather than a Kadesh barnea in the Sinai Desert.

5. As to an historical approach to the Bible, if we are willing to look
north of the Dead Sea, virtually each and every name of a people or place at
Genesis 14: 6-7 can be readily verified by secular historical inscriptions
from the Late Bronze Age. By sharp contrast, not a single such name of a
people or place has a solid pre-Roman attestation south of the Dead Sea,
including QD$. One of the main reasons why university scholars insist that
the “
four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 is fictional, rather than having
pinpoint historical accuracy, is that no university scholar has ever looked
north of the Dead Sea to identify peoples or places mentioned in Genesis 14:
6-7. In Year 14 a military party, having secured the support of the
Horites/historical Hurrians in the Transjordan per Genesis 14: 5-6 and Amarna
Letter EA 197, historically passed by Qadesh of Upper Galilee, per the first
half of Genesis 14: 7 and the ambiguous Amarna Letter (because it is broken)
EA
177, and then, per the second half of Genesis 14: 7 and four unambiguous
Amarna Letters EA 174, EA 175, EA 176 and EA 363, that military party struck
the entire Beqa Valley, indeed even [GM] unto the Amorites at Hasi. Rather
than being “fictional”, essentially every word of those Bible verses can be
readily verified by reference to the foregoing Amarna Letters. But no
university scholar has ever compared those Amarna Letters to Genesis 14: 5-7,
because no university scholar has ever looked north of the Dead Sea to
evaluate
the names of peoples and places mentioned at Genesis 14: 6-7. Thus when
Anson Rainey, the most preeminent Biblical geographer alive, states at p. 114
of “The Sacred Bridge” that there is a “total lack of any link with known
Ancient Near Eastern sources” for the military conflict reported in chapter
14 of Genesis, we must remember that he denies that the Biblical Horites are
the historical Hurrians (at p. 114), and rather apparently sees the Biblical
Horites, per the 17th century AD King James approach, as being unattested
troglodyte cave-dwellers south of the Dead Sea. Modern university scholars
like Anson Rainey would rather view the Biblical Horites as being troglodyte
cave-dwellers south of the Dead Sea, than recognize that there are
Hurrian/Horite names galore in the Transjordan in Amarna Letter EA 197.
Needless to
say, Anson Rainey, along with all other university scholars, sees the QD$ at
Genesis 14: 7 as being a Kadesh barnea in the Sinai Desert, even though no
QD$ and no Kadesh barnea by those names is attested in the Sinai Desert in
the secular history of the ancient world.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page