Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Jim,

I repeat your identification of the Horites with the Hurrians has no basis.
It only begins to have a basis when you apply circular logic of the
following type:

the Horites were Hurrians because this supports my theory-->My theory is
correct because the Horites were Hurrians-->the Horites were Hurrians
because this supports my theory-->ad infinitum

People who frequently participate in discussions on this list are pretty
much unanimously in accord that circular logic is not a good logical basis
to found your arguments on.

You further attempt to discredit the unambiguous descriptions of the Horites
by resting on foundations of certain assumptions about dates of authoriship.
You assume that both the Deuteronomy 2 and Genesis 36 descriptions are later
additions to the Torah. As late as the 1st millenium. Other than its
conflict with your theory you offer no critical dating of Deuteronomy 2 and
your only basis for judging the entire Genesis 36 account as late is because
of a reference to 'before there were kings in Israel'. There are a number of
possibilities you don't seem to be engaging with for the appearance of this
statement. You probably don't believe Moses was a prophet who was able to
foresee a time when there would be Kings in Israel so I won't bother going
down that route but one you may be willing to consider is this. Could it not
be that this one phrase is a later redaction to help the contemporary
readership and that you only have a basis for dating this one phrase and
*not* the entire chapter.

James Christian

On 6 May 2010 23:48, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  James Christian:
>
>
>
> You’re failing to consider when the various parts of the Bible were 
> composed.  The one and only prose section of the Bible that university 
> scholars will concede may date all the long way back to the Late Bronze Age 
> is chapter 14 of Genesis.  Moreover, Genesis 36: 8-43 is clearly a very 
> late addendum to the original Patriarchal narratives, with such addendum 
> dating to the 1st millennium BCE.  That’s why it refers to the 1st 
> millennium BCE state of Edom, and such state of Edom having kings before 
> Israel.
>
>
>
> 1.  You wrote:  “perhaps the first major problem is your identification of 
> the Horites with Hurrians. You simply have no basis to make this 
> identification. The Horites to the author of the Torah were a people native 
> the mountain of Seir which were driven out by the Edomites. See Deuteronomy 
> 2:12. We even have an extensive geneology of Seir and the Horites in 
> Genesis 36.”
>
>
>
> Deuteronomy and Genesis 36: 8-43 were composed in the 1st millennium BCE, 
> after the Hurrians had been extinct for centuries.  The author of Genesis 
> 36: 8-43 doesn’t even know that the Hurrians/Horites were not west 
> Semitic-speaking people:
>
>
>
> “[T]he Horites of Gen 36 have Semitic names, which also tells against 
> identifying them with the Hurrians. [Citations omitted.]”  Wenham, 
> “Genesis”, at p. 311.
>
>
>
> By contrast, the Horites at Genesis 14: 6 are the historical Hurrians.  
> Chapter 14 of Genesis was composed in the Late Bronze Age by a Hebrew 
> contemporary of the Hurrians, who knew exactly what he was talking about.
>
>
>
> 2.  You wrote:  “You have no basis for identifying them with the Hurrians. 
> They are presented as a small people native to mount Seir which we know 
> beyond a shadow of a doubt to be South of the Salt Sea (Dead Sea).”
>
>
>
> Not true.  Genesis 14: 6 refers to the hill country of Seir, not to Mt. 
> Seir.  Genesis 36: 8-9, by stark contrast, refers to Mt. Seir, and then 
> goes on to talk about the 1st millennium BCE state of Edom.  Mt. Seir is 
> south of the Dead Sea.  But Seir/Jazer, and the hill country of Seir, are 
> in Gilead.  Genesis 36: 8-43 knows nothing of the historical Hurrians.  
> Meanwhile, Genesis 14: 1-11 has pinpoint historical accuracy in the context 
> of the 1st year of the Great Syrian War, a war in which the Hurrians and 
> the Amorites figured prominently.  The historical Hurrians were never south 
> of the Dead Sea, as I believe you are conceding.
>
>
>
> 3.  You wrote:  “[T]here is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the 
> phrase El Paran. As used in the Hebrew text it looks like a proper name 
> with no definite article. In the LXX we see El translated as a type of tree 
> while Paran is used as a proper name. To add to the confusion the Vulgate 
> translates with plain of Paran. The one thing we are sure of is that Paran 
> is in the desert (MDBR) or at least near it if we follow your literal 
> translation and abandon the LXX and Vulgate understanding.”
>
>
>
> )YL means “oak tree”.  It’s as simple as that.  The place to find mighty 
> oak trees was in the Transjordan, not south of the Dead Sea.
>
>
>
> 4.  You wrote:  “Now if we are to use the LXX as a guide to what El means 
> (abandoning a proper noun interpretation) then we see it as a single 
> turpentine tree of Paran in the desert. A turpentine tree is the tree in 
> the photo I showed you. Not a mighty oak! The appearance of single 
> turpentine tree in an oasis at the end of the Horite territory in or near 
> the desert (MDBR) is not such a surprising find as you are making out. I've 
> sent you satellite images of MDBR and an Oasis to compare but you don't 
> seem to be taking them seriously or interacting with them.”
>
>
>
> Why would a single turpentine tree be worthy of the grand label El Paran?  
> El Paran must be referring to a mighty oak tree.  It had to be a 
> magnificent tree in order to be singled out for such attention.
>
>
>
> I agree that there was some vegetation south of the Dead Sea, and I’m sure 
> the oases are lovely there.  But none of that would have attracted the 
> concerted military attention of 4 attacking rulers at Genesis 14: 6 and 
> Genesis 14: 7!  No way.  Why would a powerful military coalition spend its 
> time mucking around in the wilderness of Zin, when it could be pressuring 
> the Transjordan, or burning down villages in the fertile, strategically 
> important Beqa Valley (both of which military actions are verified in the 
> Amarna Letters)?  Your overall theory of the case is not sensible.
>
>
>
> 5.  You wrote:  “Your theories require the relocation of the Edomites….”
>
>
>
> There were no Edomites in the Patriarchal Age.  That’s a 1st millennium BCE 
> concept.
>
>
>
> 6.  You wrote:  “…, their mount Seir, Paran, Hebron and just about 
> everything else (did I forget to mention Qadesh).”
>
>
>
> There’s no Mt. Seir in chapter 14 of Genesis.  That’s 1st millennium BCE 
> nomenclature from Genesis 36: 8-9.
>
>
>
> Paran means “desert”.  The biggest, baddest desert in the area is the 
> Syro-Arabian desert that flanks the eastern edge of the Transjordan.
>
>
>
> The city of Hebron 20 miles south of Jerusalem is too dry for sheep and 
> goats in the summer, and too cold and wet for camels in the winter.  
> There’s no way that Abraham and his 318 armed retainers would decide to 
> sojourn at such a forbidding, mountainous locale in lieu of the attractive 
> Aijalon Valley, which is the Patriarchs’ Hebron.   In the early 1st 
> millennium BCE, that city south of Jerusalem, which formerly had been 
> called Qiltu (in the Amarna Letters), was re-named by its new Hebrew 
> occupants “Hebron”, in honor of the Patriarchs’ original Hebron in the 
> Aijalon Valley.
>
>
>
> QD$ is historically attested as being the Qadesh in Upper Galilee.
>
>
>
> 7.  You wrote:  “You even go so far as to suggest that the Salt Sea is the 
> mediterranean not seeming to realise that this involves the valley of 
> Siddim being identified with the Mediterranean Sea. And you still don't see 
> the problems with your theory?!?”
>
>
>
> The Valley of Siddim is a “valley of tilled fields”.  There was indeed a 
> valley of tilled fields near the Mediterranean Sea:  the Orontes River 
> Valley in western Syria.  HW) at Genesis 14: 3 means “that is (near)”.  
> It’s not describing a massive ecological change.  Rather, it’s clarifying 
> that the valley of tilled fields being referenced in Genesis 14: 3, where 
> the big, final battle of the “four kings against five” took place, is the 
> valley of tilled fields that is near a salt sea.  That rules out the Beqa 
> Valley, and clarifies that the valley of tilled fields in question is the 
> Orontes River Valley.  That’s what happened historically, and that’s what’s 
> described at Genesis 14: 1-11.
>
>
>
> *       *       *
>
>
>
> If you would focus on chapter 14 of Genesis, you would see that Genesis 14: 
> 1-11 is fully historical in the context of the first year of the Great 
> Syrian War in Year 14 (of Akhenaten’s reign).  The early Hebrew author knew 
> that the Amorites and the Hurrians lived exclusively north of the Dead Sea, 
> not south of the Dead Sea as you would have it.
>
>
>
> It’s not my fault that later parts of the Bible, composed many centuries 
> after the Amorites and Hurrians had gone extinct, no longer knew where the 
> Amorites and the Hurrians had lived.  What I’m saying is that everything 
> about Genesis 14: 1-11 checks out historically, if it is viewed on its own 
> terms -- based on Late Bronze Age historical inscriptions from north of the 
> Dead Sea.   The “four kings against five” is not describing a nonsensical 
> series of military operations in the wilderness of Zin.  At Genesis 14: 6, 
> %(YR means “well-wooded”, HRRM means “hill country”, Horites means 
> “Hurrians”, and )YL means “oak tree”, all of which are totally redolent of 
> the Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age.  The problem is that later books in 
> the Bible lost track of what had actually gone on, historically, in the 
> Patriarchal Age, that’s all.  My goal in life is to re-establish the 
> historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, especially the “four kings 
> against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11.  I’ll let others worry about the rest of 
> the Bible.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>