Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Also, your logic is self contradictory. If you judge Genesis 36 as late
because of a mention of Kings of Israel then you should judge Genesis 14 as
late because of a mention of Dan on the way to Damascus. Dan hadn't yet even
been born let alone become the father of a tribe with a territory named
after him. Back to the drawing board Jim.

James Christian

On 1 May 2010 02:51, James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>