Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

 Karl:

1.  My first point cited the text:  “Genesis 13: 9, 11 says that Abraham went 
the opposite direction from Bethel as Lot, and that Lot went east.  Thus the 
text indicates that Abraham went west of Bethel, which would bring Abraham to 
one of the best places in all of Canaan for a huge flock of sheep and goats:  
the Aijalon Valley, in the northern Shephelah.”  

Your answer ignores what the text says, when you say:  “Historic Bethel is to 
the west of Jericho, almost straight north of Hebron. With Hebron closer to 
the lush grazing lands of the Negev, why would he stay to the north?”

But what the text says is that Abraham said he would go the opposite of 
whatever direction Lot went from Bethel, and that Lot went “east” from 
Bethel.  Why are you deviating from the text?  Why are you so opposed to the 
idea that, per what the text says, Abraham went west from Bethel?  What’s 
“wrong” with Abraham going west from Bethel?  Abraham is still in the 
Promised Land, and the northern Shephelah is a great place for a huge flock 
of sheep and goats.

2.  When I quoted Genesis 37: 14 as referring to the Patriarchs’ Hebron as 
being a “valley”, you made this odd remark:  “Hebron is on a height, 
surrounded by valleys. Genesis 37:14 says that Jacob was encamped in the 
“Valley of Hebron”, i.e. a valley next to Hebron, not that Hebron is a 
valley.”
 
In fact, the city of Hebron is surrounded by mountains.  If you consult any 
traveler’s report about the city of Hebron, what you’ll find is that the most 
salient feature of the city of Hebron are the high mountains that surround 
Hebron.  Abraham’s huge flock of sheep and goats would not have been where 
the walled fortress city was, but rather would have been on the towering 
mountainsides that surround the walled city.  On your view, Abraham chose 
this locale, even though with 318 armed retainers he was strong enough to 
choose to sojourn just about wherever he wanted to in Canaan.  You and the 
scholars see Abraham as choosing to tend his huge flock of sheep and goats on 
the towering mountainsides that surround the city of Hebron, even though (i) 
that makes no logical sense, and (ii) the text never says a word about 
“mountains” in connection with X-BR-W-N.

The height of these impressive mountains that surround the city now called 
Hebron has not changed one whit since the Early Bronze Age, so one can look 
at traveler’s reports of any vintage. I believe that the following account of 
“A Visit to Hebron” is from the late 19th century A.D., but its description 
of the high-altitude city of Hebron is timeless:  







“ Ancient Hebron stood higher than the present city, but as things now are, 
though the hills of Judea reach their highest altitude in the neighborhood, 
Hebron itself rests in a valley.  Most towns in Palestine are built on hills, 
but Hebron lies low.  Yet the surrounding hills are thirty-two hundred feet 
above the level of the Mediterranean….  For this reason Hebron is ideally 
placed for conveying an impression of the mountainous character of Judea.  
…The hills about Hebron tower loftily above you….”  Israel Abrahams, “The 
Book of Delight and Other Papers” (2006), at p. 32.
On your view, where Abraham sojourned with his sheep and goats was “the hills 
about Hebron [that] tower loftily above you”.
Here’s a much shorter, modern account, that says basically the same thing:  
“Hebron lies in a depression in the mountains of Judah;  the hills which 
surround it rise to an altitude of 3300 ft.”  John L. McKenzie, “The 
Dictionary of the Bible”, at p. 350. 




If you and the scholars were right as to the traditional location of the 
Patriarchs’ Hebron, why is there no mention in the Biblical text of 
mountains, or even hills, at or near the Patriarchs’ Hebron?  Instead, the 
text tells us three times about “oak trees” and “Amorites”, which fit the 
Aijalon Valley perfectly in the Late Bronze Age, while never once mentioning 
“mountains”, which would knock out the Aijalon Valley in any time period.

In describing the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”, the text never once says “mountains”, 
and it never once says “up”, although on the traditional and scholarly view, 
which is your view, the Patriarchs sojourn “up” in the rugged, high 
“mountains” that surround the city of Hebron.  The Hebrew word HR, meaning 
“mountain” or “hill”, appears 546 times in the Bible, including 15 times in 
the Patriarchal narratives, but not once in connection with X-BR-W-N in the 
Patriarchal narratives.  The Hebrew word (LH, meaning “up”, appears 889 times 
in the Bible, but not once in connection with X-BR-W-N in the Patriarchal 
narratives.  Karl, do you see how very loudly the dog is not barking?  Why 
isn’t there a single common word in the text of the Patriarchal narratives 
that is inconsistent with the low-lying Aijalon Valley west of Bethel being 
the Patriarchs’ X-BR-W-N?  Why is there nothing in the text about being “up” 
in the towering “mountains” that surround the city of Hebron?  The Aijalon 
Valley was surrounded by magnificent “oak trees”, whereas by stark contrast, 
the city of Hebron is surrounded by “mountains”.  The text three times refers 
to “oak trees” regarding the Patriarchs’ X-BR-W-N -- Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13, 
and 18: 1 -- but never refers to “mountains”. 

3.  Karl, my theory would be destroyed, and your theory would be confirmed, 
if the Biblical text said “mountains” or “up”, or that Lot went “north” from 
Bethel and Abraham went the opposite direction.  But instead, the text says 
“valley”, never “mountains” or “up”, and the text says that Lot went “east” 
from Bethel, with Abraham having promised to go the opposite direction from 
Bethel as Lot.  Thus everything that the Biblical text says, and does not 
say, is fully consistent with my view that the Patriarchs’ “Hebron” is the 
Aijalon Valley.  By contrast, the text does not support the traditional 
assertion by you and university scholars that the Patriarchs very oddly chose 
to sojourn in the rugged mountains that surround the city just northwest of 
the brutal Judean Desert.
 
Karl, if you would contrast the two locales we have been discussing as 
possible sites for the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”, I think you will see that what 
the text says, and does not say, strongly supports my view that Abraham chose 
to sojourn in the northern Shephelah.  That makes logical sense, and it’s 
what the text indicates.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois