Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi,

Karl has on many occasions pleaded with you to learn Hebrew before
presenting your foundationless theories. The expression בְּהַרְרָם שֵׂעִיר
is quite clearly a construct relationship. Perhaps the most simple and
common grammatical construction in Hebrew that if you knew Hebrew you should
have immediately recognized. The translation would be something like
mountains of Seir or hills of Seir if you really prefer hills as your
translation. In any case, this is a quite clear reference to the mountain
range of Edom very much South of the dead sea.

Then after defeating the Horites in the mountains of Seir we are told that
the army marched עַד אֵיל פָּארָן אֲשֶׁר עַל־הַמִּדְבָּר. That is to say as
far as El-Paran 'which is in the desert'. The context and usage of El-Paran
clearly places El-Paran as a place in the desert not the name of the desert.
Given the preceeding geography of the path taken by the army this is most
likely some settlement/oasis in Wadi Paran down in the Arabah. It is only
after this long journey of conquests (Starting with the Rephaim in
Ashteroth-karnaim and ending with the Horites in the mountains of Seir) that
when the armies end up in El-Paran in the desert that they then march
against the Amalekites and Amorites in En-Mishpat. Notice that En-Mishpat is
translated for the reader as Kadesh. This is obviously a modernisation for
the reader. Something like saying "and after the Dutch built New Amsterdam,
that is to say New York". This is a clear sign of an old story with old
names with some light modernisation to help the reader recognise the places.
Then after the armies end up in Qadesh and only then did the kings of Sodom
and Gomorah, Admah and Zeboim march out against them and meet up in בְּעֵמֶק
הַשִּׂדִּים where there were pits of bitumin. Such a description could never
be even remotely imagined to be a place north of the dead sea.

After being defeated the survivors fled to the hills. The geography
presented is quite clear. We have a valley with tar pits with desert on the
one side and hills on the other. There is nothing in the transjordan which
could even remotely fit such a description.

James Christian

On 1 May 2010 03:58, <jimstinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

> James Christian:
>
> HRRM means "hill country".  That word is unique to Genesis 14: 6.  %(YR
> means "well-wooded".  The well-wooded hill country was in the Transjordan,
> not south of the Dead Sea.  El-paran as well is unique to Genesis 14: 6.
> When areas south of Canaan are being referenced, what one sees is MDBR P)RN
> at Genesis 21: 21, or Havilah at Genesis 25: 18.  In a sentence that begins
> (at Genesis 14: 5) with Ashteroth in the northern Transjordan, the natural
> meaning of El-paran/Great Desert is:  Great Desert, that is, the Great
> Desert/Syro-Arabian Desert that borders the entirety of the Transjordan.
> The words in both of these cases are different.  )YL P)RN and HRRM are both
> unique to chapter 14 of Genesis.  The scholarly view, believe it or not, is
> that El-paran means a navigable body of water, the Gulf of Aqaba, 100 miles
> south of the Dead Sea.  See the map on page 15 of Anson Rainey's "The Sacred
> Bridge".  But the natural meaning of El-paran is the Great Desert, which
> stretches in magnificent desolation from the Transjordan all the long way to
> Babylon.
>
> 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 6:51 pm
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 1 Kings 20:14 Who are the young men, princes of the
> districts?
>
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>