Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

James Christian:

In Ugaritic mythology from the 14th century BCE, Dan'el is associated with 
Upper Galilee.  So Dan/Dan'el has always been associated with Upper Galilee.  
The reference makes perfect sense in a mid-14th century BCE context, in the 
days of the first Hebrews.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois






-----Original Message-----
From: James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 1 Kings 20:14 Who are the young men, princes of the 
districts?


Also, your logic is self contradictory. If you judge Genesis 36 as late
ecause of a mention of Kings of Israel then you should judge Genesis 14 as
ate because of a mention of Dan on the way to Damascus. Dan hadn't yet even
een born let alone become the father of a tribe with a territory named
fter 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 
f Genesis and the reliability of its contents, is your blatant refusal in 
face 
f the linguistic facts that the story of Sodom and Gomorah relates how a once 
ertile region became a desolate waste.”
>
>
>
> My post was limited to chapter 14 of Genesis.  There is nothing in chapter 
> 14 
f Genesis about “how a once fertile region became a desolate waste.”
>
>
>
> Once one leaves chapter 14 of Genesis, then one loses most all mainstream 
niversity scholars as to a Late Bronze Age composition date.  So in the last 
ew days I have narrowly limited my comments to chapter 14 of Genesis.  I 
isagree with your interpretation of chapter 19 of Genesis, but for right now, 
’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 
ea….”
>
>
>
> That’s totally false.  I am very well aware of the fact that there are 
ountains south of the Dead Sea.  I have posted on that very subject several 
imes in recent days.  Genesis 36: 8-9 is talking about Mt./HR Seir, south of 
he Dead Sea.  My point is that chapter 14 of Genesis, by sharp contrast, is 
alking 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 
ell-wooded hill country in the Transjordan, that’s for sure, but there’s no 
ell-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 
oncerning Biblical Hebrew language issues to discuss on the b-hebrew list.  
So 
any of the words in chapter 14 of Genesis are archaic that it must be a Late 
ronze Age composition.
>
>
>
> 3.  You wrote:  “…you alienate your readership even further. I was in the 
rabah only a few weeks ago as I made my way from Eilat to Jerusalem for the 
assover along the King's highway and I can assure you that there is a 
mountain 
ange on the Israel - Jordan border that stretches from Aqaba right the way up 
o the dead sea. I can also assure you that many of the mountains have a 
istinct reddish colour which we associate with Edom. “
>
>
>
> There you go again talking about Genesis 36: 8-43, whereas by contrast, I 
> am 
alking about truly ancient chapter 14 of Genesis.
>
>
>
> In the Patriarchal Age, there was no state of Edom.  All mainstream 
> scholars 
ee 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 
efore a king reigned over the Israelites’) suggests that the list originates 
rom the period of the early monarchy [10th century BCE].  If it were from an 
arlier period [the Late Bronze Age], such a statement would be impossible.”  
ary Rendsburg, “The Redaction of Genesis”, at p. 110.* *
>
>
>
> In fact, I believe that Yigal Levin himself made a comment along those very 
ame lines recently.
>
>
>
> If you want to talk about the 1st millennium BCE state of Edom, you can 
> talk 
bout Genesis 36: 8-43.  But I’m talking about the Patriarchal Age in the 
id-14th century BCE, per the truly ancient composition of chapter 14 of 
enesis.
>
>
>
> Indeed, one of my key arguments is the exact opposite of what you assert.  
RRM at Genesis 14: 6 is referring to the hill country of the Transjordan, not 
o 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 
olour” south of the Dead Sea.  But that part of the world is never referenced 
n any way, shape or form in chapter 14 of Genesis.  That’s my point, you see. 
 
f we could just get the underlying geography right for the “four kings 
against 
ive”, then we could convince mainstream scholars that they are in error in 
enying the historicity of Genesis 14: 1-11.  The geography is critical.  
rofessor Yigal Levin is one of the leading Biblical geographers in the world, 
ased on his published article about QD$ and the talk he will be giving for 
nson Rainey concerning Biblical geographical matters.  Until and unless we 
can 
et someone of Prof. Levin’s great stature to glance  n-o-r-t-h  of the Dead 
Sea 
n analyzing Genesis 14: 6-7 on the basis of Late Bronze Age historical 
nscriptions, mainstream scholars will never see the pinpoint historical 
ccuracy of the “four kings against five” in its description of the harrowing 
irst year of the Great Syrian War.  The geography is the key to 
re-establishing 
he historicity of the “four kings against five”.  That’s our only chance of 
etting mainstream university scholars to change their minds about Genesis 14: 
-11.
>
>
>
> Both the early Hebrew author of the truly ancient chapter 14 of Genesis, 
> and 
oday’s university scholars, know that the Hurrians and the Amorites never 
lived 
outh of the Dead Sea.  Consequently, the unanimous view of the scholarly 
ommunity today that the Amorites and Horites/Hurrians at Genesis 14: 6-7 are 
ortrayed as living south of the Dead Sea is dead wrong.  That’s my point.  
ntil and unless we can get university scholars over that hump, there’s no 
hance that they’ll recognize the pinpoint historical accuracy, in a Late 
Bronze 
ge context, of the “four kings against five”.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>

______________________________________________
-hebrew mailing list
-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
ttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew