Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

James Christian:

If I'm thinking straight, then the only thing that matters to my theory of 
the case is whether HRRM is singular or plural.  Yes, I am glad that you 
pointed out what I had looked up on my own:  the Septuagint seems to see a 
plural.  My theory is hurt if there is a reference to "Mt. Seir" at Genesis 
14: 6.  But as I see it, the reference to "Mt. Seir" is at Genesis 36: 8-9, 
using HR in the singular, and is completely different from the HRRM we see at 
Genesis 14: 6.  If it's a plural at Genesis 14: 6, then a translation of 
"hill country" makes sense, and a translation of "Mt. Seir" does not make 
sense.  My one and only main concern here is whether Genesis 14: 6 is (or at 
least may be) referring to "hill country", rather than referring to "Mt. 
Seir".

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: Tue, May 4, 2010 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Wells, Wells of Bitumen"


Hi Jim,
slow down mate. Take the time to read what people are saying to you and then
espond. Firstly, I would like to observe that you are making a royal mess
f the system we have here of trying to keep discussions appropriate to the
ubject title so that people searching the archives might find what they
ere actually looking for. George has already pulled us up on this on the
ings thread because it was going way away from what Karl wanted to start a
iscussion on. Then you started a thread about wells of bitumen and while
hat promised to be going somewhere we seem to have gotten back to your
ssay in a single email style with about 100 different issues in them. I
idn't have time to read your entire essay response (I rarely do) but here a
ew observations.
You misrepresented me by saying I deny it to be a plural. I accept this as a
ossibility and in fact have offered the LXX translation as corroborative
ine of evidence for this traditional understanding. However, where I have
o pull you up is in the way you call George and Don's an 'erudite
nalysis'. What analysis? All they have done is raised objections to a
onstruct interpretation. They are both still to date to offer a sensible
ranslation which demonstrates an alternative understanding. There is no
ther logical way of understanding this phrase in this context than that of
 construct relationship. If you believe there is then please offer a
oncrete translation that illustrates this alternative interpretation. In
ou can't then the silence speaks for itself.
James Christian
On 4 May 2010 18:13, <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?

 As to the construct issue, I’m delighted to go with the erudite analyses of
 Don Vance and George Athas (which are much appreciated). [I will refrain
 from saying “I couldn’t have said it better myself.”]

 My own analysis is simply that the regular plural is HRYM, and this archaic
 plural is HRRM.

 You’re saying that there was a city named “HRRM”?  And that the %(YR that
 follows HRRM means “(in the district of) Seir”?  No city named HRRM is
 attested south of the Dead Sea or elsewhere, to the best of my knowledge.
  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?

 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:  “the ‘hairy’, i.e. ‘well-wooded
 ’. Cf. [the Arabic word for] trees”.  A site on the Internet gives the
 following Arabic for tree and trees:  “Tree = shajra;  Trees = shajar”.  I
 also quoted Gesenius, who sees Seir as meaning “clothed, and, as it were,
 bristled with trees and thick woods”.

 So I most definitely did not “make it up”.  Many analysts see %(YR as
 meaning “well-wooded”.  Historically, the area south of the Dead Sea was
 never “
 well-wooded”.  But in Biblical times, the hill country of the Transjordan
 was definitely “well-wooded”.  The facts are all on my side, as usual.  You
 can call my marshalling of objective facts “a fairy tale”, but that’s the
 identical lingo that the Biblical Minimalists use to characterize the
 Patriarchal narratives as a whole.

 3.  You wrote:  “How many times do we have to repeat that Qadesh in Genesis
 14 is most likely the same Qadesh as in Numbers 33:6 and Deuteronomy 32:51,
 which was in the wilderness of Zin south of the Dead Sea, and not the same
 as Qadesh Barnea?  That you keep returning to this theme is not only
 intellectual laziness, but also intellectual dishonesty.”

 My apologies.  University scholars see the QD$ at Genesis 14: 7 as applying
 to Kadesh-barnea, and I honestly forgot that you and James Christian have a
 different locale for QD$.

 I presume your Numbers reference is a typo, and you meant Numbers 33: 36.
 As I read Numbers 33: 6-37, the Hebrews made a long journey through
 desolate
 wilderness, and though they made many recorded stops, they never seem to
 have encountered any people along the way, precisely because it was such a
 desolate wilderness.  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?  I don’t see how your theory of Genesis 14:
 6-7 makes any sense on any level.

 On your theory of $WB, the 4 attacking rulers are making military attacks
 in the wilderness of Zin area, and then after going a little ways away,
 they “
 return”/$WB”, and then they come to QD$ “in the wilderness of Zin south of
 the Dead Sea”.  So the essence of your theory of Genesis 14: 6-7 is that 4
 attacking rulers focused their military efforts during this phase of the
 military campaign “in the wilderness of Zin south of the Dead Sea”.  Why?
  Do
 you consider that to be a plausible theory of the case?  It makes no sense
 on any level to me.

 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?  And from there, they could have then struck the Amorites who
 historically are known to have lived in and near Hasi [XCCN TMR] in the
 north-central Beqa Valley.  In fact, Amarna Letters EA 174, EA 175, EA 176
 and EA 363
 verify such an attack on Amorites in and near Hasi.  Those Amarna Letters
 reference the Hittite attackers, with Tidal being a Hittite name, and also
 Etakkama, a Hurrian with a strong Hittite connection.  Arioch is a Hurrian
 name,
 and Elassar is a Hittite word, nicely showing a Hittite connection.  So if
 we look north of the Dead Sea, not only is the military operation logical,
 instead of ludicrous, but also we can verify each step of the troop
 movements
 by reference to various Amarna Letters!  Everything checks out perfectly.
 Even the word GM, meaning “indeed, even”, accurately reflects the
 historical fact that it was unusual to find Amorites in the
 Hurrian-dominated Beqa
 Valley, with the one important enclave of Amorites being at and near Hasi,
 exactly as Genesis 14: 7 portrays the matter, with pinpoint historical
 accuracy.

 You started your post with HRRM as allegedly being an unattested name of an
 unattested city south of the Dead Sea, and now you’re on to claiming that
 there’s a QD$ south of the Dead Sea that is an unattested name of an
 unattested desert oasis.  Are the Amalekites an unattested name of an
 unattested
 people south of the Dead Sea?  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?  Are the Horites an unattested name of an
 unattested people south of the Dead Sea?  My gosh, your analysis is just as
 bad as Rainey’s map (and indeed for the most part is indistinguishable from
 it, except that your unattested name QD$ is at a different location than
 his
 unattested name QD$).






 And what, pray tell, are you doing with “En-Mishpat”? As to an unattested
 desert oasis, is this an unattested former name of the unattested later
 name
 of an unattested desert oasis in the Arabah?  “En-Mishpat” makes perfect
 sense as meaning “Eye on Seat of Justice”, that is, “Eye on Mt. Hermon”,
 and hence being a perfect alternative name for Qadesh of Upper Galilee,
 where
 the Israeli members of the kibbutz there today sing of “Facing the radiance
 of Mt. Hermon”.  That makes sense today, just as it did in the Bronze Age,
 if the locale is Qadesh of Upper Galilee, just south of towering Mt. Hermon
 and the Beqa Valley.  But how does “En-Mishpat” make any sense “in the
 wilderness of Zin south of the Dead Sea”?  And whereas I have a variant of
 the
 name En-Mishpat attested at item #5 on the Thutmose III list, you, as
 always,
 have nothing attested historically at all.

 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?  Yigal Levin
 recently said that instead of doing a Hurrian analysis, he identifies XCCN
 TMR at Genesis 14: 7 as being Ein-gedi per II Chronicles 20: 2.  Please
 note
 that when you ask Prof. Yigal Levin about the truly ancient chapter 14 of
 Genesis, he answers in terms of Ezra’s post-exilic Chronicles, while never
 mentioning a single historical inscription from the ancient world.  Kinda
 like
 your analysis, come to think of it.

 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?
  If you don’t trust an Israeli scientist, who can you trust?  Why are the
 facts always on my side?

 6.  To my reference to “‘return’/$WB back”, you said:  “Stop misusing the
 term ‘return’ in this context.”

 I will agree that you do not grotesquely torture the Biblical Hebrew
 language like the university scholarly view does.  They have El-Paran/Great
 Desert
 meaning a navigable waterway (!!!), namely the Gulf of Aqaba, and they have
 $WB meaning “and then they made a very wide turn to the right (and
 proceeded into the Sinai Desert)”.  Even HALOT itself won’t countenance
 that
 bizarre view of $WB.

 But your view makes even less sense from a military perspective than does
 the university scholarly view.  You have the 4 attacking rulers spending
 all
 of Genesis 14: 6 and Genesis 14: 7 “in the wilderness of Zin south of the
 Dead Sea”.  Why would 4 attacking rulers spend so much time “in the
 wilderness of Zin”?

 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$).  Since the military sequence began at Ashteroth in the
 northern Transjordan per Genesis 14: 5, $WB at the beginning of Genesis 14:
 7 is
 logically saying that the troops of the 4 attacking rulers returned to the
 Ashteroth area, that is, they returned back north to the Ashteroth area.
 Only after that did they come to En-Mishpat (QD$).  Here’s the Hebrew text:

 W-Y$BW W-YB)W )L-(YN M$P+ HW) QD$

 That second phrase, W-YB)W, means:  “and came to”.  So first they
 returned, and then after that, they came to En-Mishpat (QD$).  That is to
 say, first
 they returned (back north) to the Ashteroth area, and then (continuing to
 proceed further north) they came to En-Misphat (QD$), that is, Qadesh of
 Upper Galilee (which is north by northwest of Ashteroth).  On your view of
 the
 case, to which place did the 4 attacking rulers return/$WB,  b-e-f-o-r-e
 they came to En-Mishpat (QD$)?  The natural reading, as I see it, is that
 En-Mishpat (QD$) is somewhere beyond the place to which the troops
 returned.

 7.  Karl, there’s  n-o-t-h-i-n-g  historical to support your view of
 Genesis 14: 6-7, or James Christian’s view, or the scholarly view.
 N-o-t-h-i-n-g.   Why do you all think that the text portrays
 Horites/Hurrians and
 Amorites as living south of the Dead Sea, when certainly the Hebrew author
 of this
 ancient text knew the historical Hurrians and the historical Amorites, and
 knew that they did not live south of the Dead Sea?  Why do such historical
 facts never seem to slow down any analyses of Genesis 14: 6-7, whether
 scholarly or non-scholarly?
 Except me, no one ever points to any historical inscriptions in analyzing
 Genesis 14: 6-7.  That’s where you all have gone wrong.  Why abandon
 history?
  That’s what the Biblical Minimalists want us to do.  Relying on unattested
 names of unattested sites [HRRM;  QD$] plays right into the hands of the
 Biblical Minimalists.

 Karl, why not instead consider an historical approach, that does not rely
 on unattested names of unattested sites?  Genesis 14: 1-11 is fully
 historical, and fully verifiable historically, if you’d just give the
 Biblical text
 half a chance.  Take a look at Bronze Age inscriptions from  n-o-r-t-h  of
 the Dead Sea.  Then  e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g  checks out perfectly.  There’s no
 need to dream up any unattested names of any unattested sites.  There’s no
 way
 that the troops of 4 attacking rulers would waste their precious time
 mucking about the desolate Arabah south of the Dead Sea, focusing their
 attention
 on a QD$ “in the wilderness of Zin south of the Dead Sea”.  That makes no
 sense on any level.  With the fertile, and strategically located, Beqa
 Valley ripe for the taking, which is where the Amorites referenced at
 Genesis 14:
 7 historically lived, why muck around “in the wilderness of Zin south of t
 he Dead Sea”?  What sense does that make?  The Amarna Letters even let us
 monitor the exact troop movements as they happen.  Everything is verified
 to
 the nth degree.  It’s just a question of relying on historical inscriptions
 from the ancient world  n-o-r-t-h  of the Dead Sea, instead of making up,
 and
 then relying upon, unattested names of unattested sites and peoples south
 of
 the Dead Sea.

 Jim Stinehart
                                                        Evanston, Illinois


 _______________________________________________
 b-hebrew mailing list
 b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
 http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

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