Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Jim,

we basically have two nouns side by side. There is no logical way of
interpretting this phrase other than a construct phrase. The meaning is
quite simple something like 'in the mountain range of Seir'.

Turning back from the mountains of Seir to an oasis/settlement in Wadi Paran
makes perfect sense. I see absolutely no reason to hypothesis the Gulf of
Aqaba and this just sounds ridiculous.

Genesis 14:3 tells us how they marched to the valley of Siddim, that is to
the Salt Sea. So is the Valley of Siddim? Or is it the Salt Sea? It was the
Valley of Siddim at the time of the battle! But now it's the Salt Sea at the
time of authorship and translation is made in terms that the reader is
likely to be familiar with. The same is true of Qadesh versus En-Mishpat.

The missing wells are in the Valley of Siddim. The valley of Siddim is now
buried under millions of cubic metres of dense salt water. That's why the
bitumen now floats on the water.

The phrase wells, wells of bitumen uses the double for a reason. This is
emphasising quantity. A bit like saying 'the song of songs' emphasizing the
best song ever. This is basically saying there were lots and lots of bitumen
pits. Something like 'pits upon pits of bitumen'. None of the locations you
suggest fit this description. The only place that does is now under the dead
sea.

If you're looking for pinpoint historical accuracy in Genesis then you ought
to try widening the scope of your search. It's from cover to cover my
friend.

James Christian


On 3 May 2010 21:50, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> James Christian:.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.  HRRM vs. HR
>
>
>
> For there to be “a construct relationship” at Genesis 14: 6, we might 
> expect to see a construct form:  HRY or HRRY.  But instead we see HRRM.  
> That looks nothing like the construct forms at all, but rather seems to be 
> an archaic version of the regular plural form:  HRYM.
>
>
>
> In terms of substantive meaning, the only key issue here is singular vs. 
> plural.  HRRM looks like an archaic plural, literally meaning “hills” or 
> “mountains”, and hence meaning:  “hill country”.  Note that the phrase B 
> HRRM %(YR at Genesis 14: 6 is quite different from the phrase B HR %(YR at 
> Genesis 36: 8 and Genesis 36: 9.  HR is a 2-letter singular, and means 
> “Mt.”.  HRRM is a 4-letter plural, and means “hill country”.
>
>
>
> As long as HRRM is some kind of plural, then the two characteristics of 
> this place are, quite obviously, that it is (i) well-wooded/%(YR (ii) hill 
> country/HRRM.  Those are precisely the two most prominent characteristics 
> of the well-wooded hill country north and south of Seir/Jazer in the 
> Transjordan, similar to the hill country north of Jerusalem.  There’s no 
> well-wooded hill country south of the Dead Sea!
>
>
>
> The phrase at Genesis 14: 6 could have three slightly different meanings, 
> but they all refer to the same place north of the Dead Sea, on the east 
> bank of the Jordan River in the Transjordan:
>
>
>
> (i)  in hill country seir/in well-wooded hill country [where %(YR is either 
> a common noun, and/or in the Late Bronze Age it was an adjective and 
> HRRM/hill country, having a singular meaning though a plural form, may have 
> been a plural of majesty in the Late Bronze Age, and like Elohim take a 
> singular adjective]
>
>
>
> (ii) in hill country [near the city of] Seir/Jazer [which city name means 
> “Well-Wooded”]
>
>
>
> (iii)  in hill country [which comprises the district of] Seir/Jazer 
> [“Well-Wooded”]
>
>
>
> “Seir” literally means “hairy”, and hence “well-wooded”.  Gesenius 
> initially says “rough”, but then he clarifies that by saying “clothed, and, 
> as it were, bristled with trees and thick woods”.  In my view (as opposed 
> to Gesenius), that’s the well-wooded hill country of the Transjordan, in 
> the district of Seir/Jazer, in Gilead, north and south of the ancient city 
> of Seir/Jazer.
>
>
>
> Please note that in the entirety of the Hebrew Bible, a reference to a 
> named mountain, such as Mt. Seir (e.g. at Genesis 36: 8-9),  a-l-w-a-y-s  
> takes a singular form of HR or HRR,  n-e-v-e-r  a plural form (like the 
> archaic HRRM).
>
>
>
> Chapter 14 of Genesis knows nothing of an Edom south of the Dead Sea.  That 
> 1st millennium BCE concept of a state of Edom is front and center in the 
> very late Genesis 36: 8-43, but is totally absent from the truly ancient 
> chapter 14 of Genesis.  As to the area south of the Dead Sea, there was no 
> there there in the mid-14th century BCE, when chapter 14 of Genesis was 
> composed.  That area is never mentioned in the Amarna Letters or in chapter 
> 14 of Genesis.
>
>
>
> As something of a corollary to the above analysis, the singular word HR at 
> Genesis 14: 10 probably does not mean “hill country”, but rather literally 
> means “mountain”, and in English would more naturally be rendered as 
> “mountains”.  Whereas it would make sense for defeated rulers to flee to 
> inaccessible mountains [HR], it would not make much sense for them to flee 
> to hill country [HRRM].
>
>
>
> 2.  Horite Troglodyte Cave-Dwellers vs. Historical Hurrians
>
>
>
> Are you viewing the Horites at Genesis 14: 6 as being mythical troglodyte 
> cave-dwellers south of the Dead Sea?  Here’s a helpful comment on that 
> subject from the Zondervan KJV Study Bible (2002) at p. 23:
>
>
>
> “Horites.  Formerly thought to be cave dwellers (the Hebrew word hor means 
> ‘cave’), they are now known to have been the Hurrians, a non-Semitic people 
> widely dispersed throughout the ancient Near East.”
>
>
>
> Though delicately not mentioned in that quote, the historical Hurrians are  
> n-e-v-e-r  attested south of the Dead Sea.  The early Hebrew author of the 
> truly ancient chapter 14 of Genesis certainly knew the historical Hurrians, 
> and knew (as did everyone else at that time) that the Hurrians never lived 
> south of the Dead Sea.
>
>
>
> 3.  Is El-Paran the Gulf of Aqaba?  Is QD$ Kadesh-barnea?
>
>
>
> You seem reluctant to embrace the very peculiar scholarly view that 
> El-Paran, which means “Great Desert”, is referring to a navigable body of 
> water, namely the Gulf of Aqaba, 100 long miles south of the southern end 
> of the Dead Sea.  So let’s examine your view.  Why would troops sent by a 
> coalition of 4 attacking rulers assault “some settlement/oasis in Wadi 
> Paran down in the Arabah”?  That makes no sense.  What’s more, you’ve then 
> lost all sense of “return” in the word $WB at the beginning of Genesis 14: 
> 7.  Now you begin to see the reason why scholars make the gargantuan 
> ultra-leap of trying to view El-Paran/Great Desert as somehow, some way 
> meaning a navigable waterway, the Gulf of Aqaba, 100 long miles south of 
> the Dead Sea.  Only by dreaming up a locale that incredibly far south can 
> one possibly claim that in some sense, the troops then “return”/$WB by way 
> of the desert oasis Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai Desert.
>
>
>
> Awkwardly for the scholarly view of Genesis 14: 5-7, Genesis never mentions 
> Kadesh-barnea.  QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 is, rather, historical QD$, that is, 
> QD$ of Upper Galilee.  In his article on Kadesh-barnea that I have often 
> cited, Prof. Yigal Levin notes the medieval pointing done in the Middle 
> Ages as to the QD$ that is in Upper Galilee.  While pointing out that fact 
> from the Middle Ages, that long article on Kadesh-barnea never alludes to 
> any historical inscription from the ancient world referencing any QD$, much 
> less a Kadesh-barnea, by those names (or anything similar to those names), 
> in or near the Sinai Desert.  On this thread, Prof. Yigal Levin has 
> recently emphasized that in identifying XCCN TMR at Genesis 14: 7, Prof. 
> Levin relies on Ezra’s post-exilic Chronicles.  James Christian, doesn’t it 
> bother you that scholars  n-e-v-e-r  reference any historical inscriptions 
> from the ancient world in analyzing Genesis 14: 6-7?  Karl sees Ezra as 
> being inerrant in identifying peoples and places in the truly ancient 
> chapter 14 of Genesis.  Are you surprised that the university scholarly 
> community simply follows Karl and Ezra in analyzing the geography of the 
> “four kings against five”?  If you were expecting the university scholarly 
> community to have some secular historical support for its agreement with 
> the age-old, pre-scholarly analysis of Genesis 14: 6-7, with the 
> traditional analysis having been formulated when there was almost no 
> knowledge of the secular history of the Bronze Age (and hence relying 
> entirely on later books in the Bible, not secular historical inscriptions 
> from the ancient world), you may be surprised to find out that there’s 
> nothing like that in the scholarly analysis of this issue.  Although Prof. 
> Yigal Levin disagrees with Karl as to whether the “four kings against five” 
> is historical or fictional, please note that Prof. Levin passively follows 
> Karl’s traditional identification of all peoples and places at Genesis 14: 
> 6-7.  There’s nothing out there in the scholarly literature that goes 
> beyond Karl’s overt reliance on Ezra’s post-exilic writings in identifying 
> peoples and places at Genesis 14: 6-7.  So the person you should rightly be 
> citing is Karl, because university scholars simply follow Karl, not vice 
> versa, in identifying peoples and places at Genesis 14: 6-7.  No, 
> university scholars don’t agree with Karl that the Amarna Letters date to 
> the 8th century BCE.  Yet university scholars nevertheless fully agree with 
> Karl’s basic point that the Amarna Letters are 100% irrelevant in 
> identifying peoples and places at Genesis 14: 6-7.  I respect Karl’s view, 
> which is internally consistent, even though it’s not my own view.  But why 
> do university scholars passively follow Karl’s approach to identifying 
> peoples and places at Genesis 14: 6-7, while  n-e-v-e-r  mentioning the 
> Amarna Letters in their scholarly analyses of this issue?
>
>
>
> 4.  Does HW) Mean “Being the Former Name of a Place Later Called”?
>
>
>
> To ask the question is to answer it.  HW) means “that is”.  En-Mishpat is 
> an alternate, contemporary name of QD$ of Upper Galilee.  Variants of both 
> names are found at items #4 and #5 on the mid-15th century BCE Thutmose III 
> list, referring to Qadesh of Upper Galilee, whose view is dominated by 
> towering, nearby Mt. Hermon (which the pagans viewed as being Baal’s “seat 
> of justice”/mishpat).  Your assertion that “This is obviously a 
> modernization for the reader” is not true.  Rather, it’s a vintage Late 
> Bronze Age phrase (verified by the Thutmose III list) that was never 
> updated by anyone.
>
>
>
> 5.  “Wells, Wells of Bitumen”
>
>
>
> On a separate thread, I noted that an Israeli scientist has confirmed that 
> there were no “wells, wells of bitumen” at the Dead Sea.  That phenomenon 
> is definitely found in the southern Beqa Valley, and in some form applies 
> at Babenna near the west coast of Syria (just south of Ugarit, not far from 
> the city of Niya) as well.
>
>
>
> 6.  Place of Final Battle
>
>
>
> The place of final battle was well north of Ashteroth, not in the 
> Transjordan, because at the beginning of Genesis 14: 7 the troops of the 4 
> attacking rulers “return”/$WB back north to the Ashteroth area in the 
> northern Transjordan, and then they proceed north from there all the way 
> through the Beqa Valley, including Hasi/Hazezon-tamar/XCNN TMR/“the wisdom 
> of nine” [in Hurrian].  We know from Richard Hess’s scholarly and minute 
> analysis of the names in the Amarna Letters that the Beqa Valley at Hasi 
> was one of the places where Amorites lived in the mid-14th century BCE, as 
> accurately recalled at Genesis 14: 7.  %DYM means “tilled fields”.  There 
> is no “valley of tilled fields” south of the Dead Sea!  And no Amorites 
> there either.  And no well-wooded hill country, and no Horites/Hurrians.  
> And no “wells, wells of bitumen” either.   N-o-t-h-i-n-g  in the text fits 
> the scholarly/conventional/fundamentalist view of Genesis 14: 6-7.   
> N-o-t-h-i-n-g.
>
>
>
> Rather, Genesis 14: 1-11 has pinpoint historical accuracy in portraying the 
> final battle as occurring in a valley of tilled fields north of the Beqa 
> Valley near a salt sea (where historically there were both Amorites and 
> Hurrians galore) -- the Orontes River Valley in west-central Syria, north 
> of the Beqa Valley, near the Mediterranean Sea.  In Year 14 (per Genesis 
> 14: 5).  “Four kings against five”.  Amorites, Hurrians and Hittites, 
> wherever one looks.  And bitumen is exported from that part of Syria to 
> this very day.
>
>
>
> Having been defeated at or near the city of Niya in the Orontes River 
> Valley (a “valley of tilled fields”), by an enemy who can come from the 
> northeast, the defeated princelings had two main choices for fleeing.  One 
> would be to take the road west to the nearby port city of Latakia, staying 
> just south of Ugarit, and perhaps as an evasive action passing through 
> Babenna and its famous bitumen pits (whether quarry pits or wells).  The 
> other tactic would be to abandon the roads entirely, and flee southwest 
> into the rugged mountains (with the latter tactic proving to be a better 
> strategy).  Note that these two logical routes of flight, after a final 
> losing battle at the city of Niya in the Orontes River Valley in western 
> Syria, match nicely to what Genesis 14: 10 says:  “Now [an area near] the 
> Valley of Siddim [the Orontes River Valley] was full of bitumen pits 
> [‘wells, wells of bitumen’], and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, 
> some fell into them, and the rest fled to the mountains.”
>
>
>
> The final battle occurs in the pivotal first year of the Great Syrian War.  
> Once we get the underlying geography right, instead of always fighting what 
> the text so clearly and unequivocally says, and look  n-o-r-t-h  of the 
> Dead Sea (where no university scholar has ever seen fit to look), we see 
> that  e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g  matches perfectly to the well-documented secular 
> history of the mid-14th century BCE.  E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.
>
>
>
> Just be willing to take a look at ancient historical inscriptions from  
> n-o-r-t-h  of the Dead Sea, that’s all.  It’s all there, and it’s fully 
> historical to a fault.
>
>
>
> 7.  “Pinpoint historical accuracy” -- thy name is Genesis 14: 1-11.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
>
>
>