Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

OK. I now see where we seem to not be understanding each other. You seem to
have made certain assumptions about how I identify Qadesh. I know you seem
to have a beef with 'university scholars' but you really should establish
the beliefs of those you are debating with before challenging their views.

It is quite ironic really as just recently I challenged the identification
of Qadesh not so long ago on this list for the reason that Moses journey
doesn't make sense if we identify the Qadesh where he ends when he sends off
12 spies with Kadesh-Barnea. I don't see that identification as making any
sense as from there Moses applies to cross through Edom via the King's
highway (miles away) and then takes the alternative route on the other side
of the mountains having to go down past the Red Sea to go around Edom.

Also, you haven't addressed the other issues.

James Christian

On 3 May 2010 22:38, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  James Christian:
>
>
>
> You wrote:  “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.”
>
>
>
> You’re missing the point here.  Both Seir and El-Paran appear in Genesis 
> 14: 6.  Then the next word of the text is the first word of Genesis 14: 7, 
> which is $WB.  So  a-f-t-e-r  being at El-Paran, the troops of the 4 
> attacking rulers “return”.
>
>
>
> I agree with your intuition that trying to make “Great Desert”/El-Paran be 
> a navigable body of water, the Gulf of Aqaba 100 long miles south of the 
> Dead Sea, “just sounds ridiculous”.  But how else can the troops 
> “return”/$WB by way of Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai Desert?
>
>
>
> The real answer, of course, is that QD$ has nothing to do whatsoever with 
> any Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai Desert, but rather is referring to the 
> historical QD$ that was located in Upper Galilee.
>
>
>
> But if you’re going to stick with the traditional and scholarly view, and 
> ignore all inscriptions from ancient history, and claim that QD$ is 
> Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai Desert, then you’ve got to claim to see the 
> troops going  w-a-y  south of the Dead Sea, all the way to the Gulf of 
> Aqaba or thereabouts, or else you’ve got no hope with $WB/“return”.
>
>
>
> Why force $WB to try to have a meaning it never has anywhere else in Hebrew?
>
>
>
> Why force El-Paran to be a navigable waterway?
>
>
>
> Why force the Amorites to allegedly be non-historically portrayed as living 
> south of the Dead Sea?
>
>
>
> Why force the meanings of all those Hebrew words?  To what benefit?  After 
> forcing the meaning of all of those words, both common words and proper 
> names, what one ends up with is what Prof. Yigal Levin’s mentor, Anson 
> Rainey, says at p. 114 of “The Sacred Bridge”:  there is a “total lack of 
> any link with known Ancient Near Eastern sources” for the military conflict 
> reported in chapter 14 of Genesis.
>
>
>
> Why not instead go with the natural meaning of all the words at Genesis 14: 
> 1-11?  Why fight the text?  Look to historical inscriptions from the Bronze 
> Age, not to Ezra’s post-exilic Chronicles, and virtually every single word 
> at Genesis 14: 5-7 can be verified historically, with specificity.
>
>
>
> Why force the meaning of all those words, when that just ends up with 
> fiction?
>
>
>
> $WB means “return”.  El-Paran means “Great Desert”.  And the Amorites 
> historically never lived south of the Dead Sea.  E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g  is 
> north of the Dead Sea.  And it’s all historical.  My view does not require 
> the meaning of a single word in the Biblical text to be forced.  That’s one 
> of the great strengths of my view.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>