Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Jim,

you are completely out of touch with reality. Read Genesis 14:6 and then try
and tell me that this account is not referring to places South of the dead
sea. As Karl has already stated to you here on planet Earth the mountains of
Seir and the desert of Paran are very much South of the dead sea.

James Christian

On 1 May 2010 00:42, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  James Christian:
>
>
>
> 1.  You wrote:  “Where you lose people, even those who doubt the 
> authenticity of Genesis and the reliability of its contents, is your 
> blatant refusal in face of the linguistic facts that the story of Sodom and 
> Gomorah relates how a once fertile region became a desolate waste.”
>
>
>
> My post was limited to chapter 14 of Genesis.  There is nothing in chapter 
> 14 of Genesis about “how a once fertile region became a desolate waste.”
>
>
>
> Once one leaves chapter 14 of Genesis, then one loses most all mainstream 
> university scholars as to a Late Bronze Age composition date.  So in the 
> last few days I have narrowly limited my comments to chapter 14 of Genesis. 
>  I disagree with your interpretation of chapter 19 of Genesis, but for 
> right now, I’d prefer to keep the focus on chapter 14 of Genesis.
>
>
>
> 2.  You wrote:  “When you make claims such as no mountains South of the 
> dead sea….”
>
>
>
> That’s totally false.  I am very well aware of the fact that there are 
> mountains south of the Dead Sea.  I have posted on that very subject 
> several times in recent days.  Genesis 36: 8-9 is talking about Mt./HR 
> Seir, south of the Dead Sea.  My point is that chapter 14 of Genesis, by 
> sharp contrast, is talking about HRRM/hill country, not Mt. Seir south of 
> the Dead Sea.  The word %(YR means “hairy”, and is often thought to imply 
> “well-wooded”.  There is well-wooded hill country in the Transjordan, 
> that’s for sure, but there’s no well-wooded hill country south of the Dead 
> Sea.
>
>
>
> Indeed, HR at Genesis 36: 8-9 vs. HRRM at Genesis 14: 6 is a perfect issue 
> concerning Biblical Hebrew language issues to discuss on the b-hebrew list. 
>  So many of the words in chapter 14 of Genesis are archaic that it must be 
> a Late Bronze Age composition.
>
>
>
> 3.  You wrote:  “…you alienate your readership even further. I was in the 
> Arabah only a few weeks ago as I made my way from Eilat to Jerusalem for 
> the passover along the King's highway and I can assure you that there is a 
> mountain range on the Israel - Jordan border that stretches from Aqaba 
> right the way up to the dead sea. I can also assure you that many of the 
> mountains have a distinct reddish colour which we associate with Edom. “
>
>
>
> There you go again talking about Genesis 36: 8-43, whereas by contrast, I 
> am talking about truly ancient chapter 14 of Genesis.
>
>
>
> In the Patriarchal Age, there was no state of Edom.  All mainstream 
> scholars see that famous passage in chapter 36 of Genesis as being very 
> late:
>
>
>
> “[Genesis] 36: 31 (‘these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom 
> before a king reigned over the Israelites’) suggests that the list 
> originates from the period of the early monarchy [10th century BCE].  If it 
> were from an earlier period [the Late Bronze Age], such a statement would 
> be impossible.”  Gary Rendsburg, “The Redaction of Genesis”, at p. 110.* *
>
>
>
> In fact, I believe that Yigal Levin himself made a comment along those very 
> same lines recently.
>
>
>
> If you want to talk about the 1st millennium BCE state of Edom, you can 
> talk about Genesis 36: 8-43.  But I’m talking about the Patriarchal Age in 
> the mid-14th century BCE, per the truly ancient composition of chapter 14 
> of Genesis.
>
>
>
> Indeed, one of my key arguments is the exact opposite of what you assert.  
> HRRM at Genesis 14: 6 is referring to the hill country of the Transjordan, 
> not to Mt./HR Seir south of the Dead Sea in the 1st millennium BCE state of 
> Edom.
>
>
>
> I am very well aware that there are “mountains [that] have a distinct 
> reddish colour” south of the Dead Sea.  But that part of the world is never 
> referenced in any way, shape or form in chapter 14 of Genesis.  That’s my 
> point, you see.  If we could just get the underlying geography right for 
> the “four kings against five”, then we could convince mainstream scholars 
> that they are in error in denying the historicity of Genesis 14: 1-11.  The 
> geography is critical.  Professor Yigal Levin is one of the leading 
> Biblical geographers in the world, based on his published article about QD$ 
> and the talk he will be giving for Anson Rainey concerning Biblical 
> geographical matters.  Until and unless we can get someone of Prof. Levin’s 
> great stature to glance  n-o-r-t-h  of the Dead Sea in analyzing Genesis 
> 14: 6-7 on the basis of Late Bronze Age historical inscriptions, mainstream 
> scholars will never see the pinpoint historical accuracy of the “four kings 
> against five” in its description of the harrowing first year of the Great 
> Syrian War.  The geography is the key to re-establishing the historicity of 
> the “four kings against five”.  That’s our only chance of getting 
> mainstream university scholars to change their minds about Genesis 14: 1-11.
>
>
>
> Both the early Hebrew author of the truly ancient chapter 14 of Genesis, 
> and today’s university scholars, know that the Hurrians and the Amorites 
> never lived south of the Dead Sea.  Consequently, the unanimous view of the 
> scholarly community today that the Amorites and Horites/Hurrians at Genesis 
> 14: 6-7 are portrayed as living south of the Dead Sea is dead wrong.  
> That’s my point.  Until and unless we can get university scholars over that 
> hump, there’s no chance that they’ll recognize the pinpoint historical 
> accuracy, in a Late Bronze Age context, of the “four kings against five”.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>