Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:13 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> Karl:
>
> 1. You wrote:  “It [HRRM] is used only this once, and more than likely
> refers to a name of a city within Seir. That is the best way to explain the
> grammatical structure of the context.”
>
> You say that HRRM is “a name of city within Seir”, and James Christian
> says this is construct form.  Both of you seem to be denying this is a
> plural?
>

I don’t know about James, but I certainly deny that this is a plural. (I
notice that George Athas also seems to deny that it is a plural, if I
understand him right.) There are two reasons for that: 1) this is not a
normal form for a plural and 2) the construct state form of the plural does
not end in a mem.

>
> … No city named HRRM is
> attested south of the Dead Sea or elsewhere, to the best of my knowledge. …


This is the argument from silence logical fallacy.


> … Why
> are you so quick to deny that this is an historical reference to the
> well-wooded hill country near historical Seir/Jazer, and come up with an
> unattested
> name of an unattested city?
>

Because it is attested, in the Bible. But you refuse to acknowledge that
attestation.

>
> 2.  To my assertion that “Seir” literally means “hairy”, and hence “
> well-wooded”, you responded:  “No, it does not. That is a fairy tale that
> you
> made up.”
>
> I did not make that up.  I’m quoting BDB:


Alright, your ignorance can be explained.

The way I started writing my own dictionary was as notes in the margins of
BDB and other dictionaries, correcting their many mistakes.


> ….  Why would you think that such a desolate wilderness, “the
> wilderness of Zin south of the Dead Sea”, would attract concerted military
> activity by 4 attacking rulers?


The Bible doesn’t answer this question. Possibilities include that in the
early bronze age there was a rich town there that no longer existed later,
or that the four kings found it a handy place to bivouac while sending out
forces to attack surrounding areas, or other possibilities, but that’s
speculation.

>
> Why are you so sure that the 4 attacking rulers did not focus instead on a
> lucrative target like the QD$ that is located in lovely, prosperous Upper
> Galilee?


Do I need to repeat the many reasons why?


> …  Where does all this end?  Why are you so
> enamored of making unsupported claims about unattested names of unattested
> peoples and places south of the Dead Sea? …


Because, quite simply, they are attested. In the Bible.

Why are you so insistent in taking what is reported as an early bronze age
event, and twisting it to almost unrecognizable to shoe horn it into a later
event? It makes absolutely no sense in any way.

>
> 4.  You wrote:  “Who said anything about Ezra? Is this some fiction that
> you made up?”
>
> Do you see Ezra as being the author of post-exilic Chronicles?


There is no evidence for or against that Ezra was the author of the two
Biblical books of Chronicles. Further, those books were a condensation of
royal records at that time still existing from before the exile, focusing on
those events that the author(s) considered important.


> 5.  You wrote:  “Just because there aren’t any [‘wells, wells of bitumen’
> at the Dead Sea] today doesn’t mean that 4000 years ago there weren’t any
> that have since dried up.  Things change.  The present is not necessarily
> the key to the past.”
>
> Don’t you think an Israeli scientist would take those factors into account?
>

You can’t count on it. Scientists are human, and make mistakes. Further,
they are often slaves to their presuppositions, presuppositions that can
make them blind to possibilities forbidden by their presuppositions. People
see what they are prepared to see.


> 6.  To my reference to “‘return’/$WB back”, you said:  “Stop misusing the
> term ‘return’ in this context.”
>
> Moreover, the Hebrew text does not say that they returned to En-Mishpat
> (QD$).  No, it says “and then they returned, and they came to En-Mishpat
> (QD$)”
> .  That is to say, first they returned, and then after that, they came to
> En-Mishpat (QD$).


This statement shows your ignorance of Hebrew language and grammar. We
have repeatedly pointed out the correct reading.

>
> … Why abandon history?
>  That’s what the Biblical Minimalists want us to do. …
>

Why even mention the Biblical Minimalists? You have no grounds to attack
them. You differ from them only in degree, not in kind.

There are those who consider the Bible to be accurate history, and those who
deny such. The latter group includes both the Biblical Maximalists and the
Biblical Minimalists, and all degrees between. You clearly are a member of
the latter group.

I am in the former group that considers the Bible to be accurate history.

>
> Jim Stinehart
>                                                        Evanston, Illinois
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.