Biblical Hebrew Forum

[rob acosta <robacosta AT hotmail.com>]

Karl

     In response to the claims of Mr Stinehart regarding the location of 
oaks,and why Abraham supposedly preferredthe Ajulon Valley etc you wrote:
"You have not presented one whit of evidence to back up your claims. You
don?t know deserts. You don?t know shepherding. You don?t know history. You
don?t know Hebrew."
Karl W. Randolph.

     You are far more correct than you may realize and I applaud your 
reponse.His claims are not only completely undocumented, but refuted by 
archeobotanists, and paleobotanists.
     If I may, I would like to present what the scientific community has to 
say about conditions of  the Bronze Age Levant.I do this in the hope it will 
benefit future linguistic discussions by providing a solid scientific 
foundation.
Fact #1. Nearly the entire ancient Mediterranean was either destroyed or 
altered by deforestation, primarily inflicted bythe Romans. There are dozens 
of books on this subject. The best example of the destruction caused by 
Romandeforestation is North Africa. Once so fertile and forested it was 
called the "Granary of Rome". It was home tohundreds of Roman cities, some 
with a population over 50,000. Today it is little more than desert and 
scarcely a roman city can be found in the sand.       The ancient Levant was 
similarly destroyed by Roman and Arab deforestation.    According to Dr. Nili 
Liphschitz of Tel Aviv University:
    "The natural arboreal vegetation which existed in this region in ancient 
times was almost completely destroyed.....the composition of the original 
vegetation cannot be reconstructed in a simple way. Instead, a combination of 
palaeoecological,archaeological and historical research should be applied."
   So much for high school level assumptions about where Oaks were or weren't 
in ancient times.
    Dr. Nili Liphschitz concludes a certain species of oak forests dominated 
the ancient Levant to points south of both sides of the Dead Sea...
   A general view of the conditions of the ancient Levant can be found in S. 
Douglas Waterhouseexcellent article "A Land Flowing With Milk and Honey".
  I would like to sum up the conclusions of this work.
Fact #2. The Southern Levant, so denigrated by Stinehart , once boasted a 
layer of topsoil more than six feet thick.
Fact #3. The ancient southern Levant contained many large rivers and streams 
that flowed year round.               According to Mr Waterhouse:             
  "The Merikare texts of the Egyptian Ninth or Tenth Dynasties speak of 
southern Palestine as troubled by water and made inaccessible by many 
trees..."       ".Dense woodlands covered districts which are now largely, or 
even entirely, bereft of tree growth. Today, meager remnants of these once 
extensive forests are found in the Judean and upper Galilean hill country"

       The Egyptians, who were actually there, unlike Mr stinehart, 
complained the trees and vegetation of the southernLevant were so thick, path 
ways were dark even at noon.
     Even the Galilee is but a faint shadow of its former self says 
Waterhouse.
Fact #4.  The wildlife of the southern Levant resembled what is only found in 
present day Sub- Sahara.                The rivers of southern Palestine were 
home to Hippopotamus, and crocodiles. Hippo Ivory can be found in abundance 
at Megiddo and other sites. The forests were home to lions , bears and a 
species of bovine that stood nearly seven feet tall at the shoulders.         
       Waterhouse writes: "The hippopotamus was once found in the rivers of 
the coastal plain, (until at least the fourth century B.C.), possibly in the 
Jordan, and as far north as the Orontes River. Luxuriant swamp flora, such as 
water lilies and papyrus, served as an ideal habitat for these great beasts. 
Remnants of this flora were still surviving as recently as a hundred years 
ago along the upper Jordan and the coastal rivers."
"The Jackal, spotted hyena, wart hog, Megaderma-bat and even the rhino, were 
surprisingly all part of early, Syro-  Palestinian history and represent 
(with the animals enumerat-ed above) the last survivors of a fauna which had 
once invaded  the country from the north and east-before reaching the then 
Virgin African territories.
"Syro-Palestine was purportedly clothed with greenery; an abundance of 
herbage supported what must have been a veritable parkland teeming with wild 
life. "
    According to the Egyptians , the southern Levant had more lions than 
panthers or hyenas.
Fact # 5 Regarding the now virtually barren Central ridge, many 
archeobotanists report it was once heavily forested to a point south of the 
Dead Sea....Mr Waterhouse writes:
  " In the  environs of the Judean hill country, there existed a large 
coniferous forest of pine and cypress where now there is scarcely a tree 
substantial enough to be used for the building of houses or furniture!"

    The land of Edom also once boasted a forest, destroyed by deforestation. 
Proof of its existence can befound in the analysis of the  charcoal used  in 
the copper smelting slags in the Arabah. The trees used to smelt the copper 
ore havebeen identified as largely Oak originating in Edom.They certainly 
couldn't haul the trees in trucks from Lebanon. Enough of Edom's forests 
remained 100 years ago to help build the Hegaz Railway.    Mr Stinehart has 
declared time and again no oaks grew in Edom, but all any educated person has 
to do is readthe record of the building of the railway or the works of dozens 
of experts in the field.
Fact #6. The Philistines, invaders who had their choice of any part of the 
Levant they wanted, chose the SouthernLevant. The question is, if it was so 
undesirable, why did they settle there? The Philistines weren't fools. They 
needed land fertile enough to make their population independent , abundant 
water and as iron workers, FORESTS to provide coal for smelting. In fact, a 
Philistine kiln was recently discovered about 4 miles west of Bethlehem. 
Kilns require plentiful timber for charcoal.    The Southern Levant provided 
all the needs of the Philistines in addition to giving them what they wanted 
most,control of the north south-east west trade routes.     How could land 
good enough for the militaristic Philistines not be good enough for Abraham? 
If there were noforests in the area where did they get their wood to smelt 
iron? On trucks from the "Beautful Galilee"?   Transport of timber was 
extremely difficult in ancient times. The wood they used was local.
   Conclusion: The Levant of Abraham's time was a spectacular, fertile region 
from the south to the Euphrates.There was no difference between the lushness 
of the north vs south. That is only in the minds of present day 
individualsblinded by Presentism.Abraham's movements weren't dictated by the 
false assumption the Ajulon Valley was more desirable than the southernLevant 
or some non university level assumptions about the locations of oaks.   The 
314 trained soldiers under Abraham indicated his "household" consisted of 
over a 1,000 people. God may have promised all of Canaan, but it was to 
Abraham's descendants, not to him personally.  Canaan was an inhabited land 
and Abraham was restricted to open land not claimed by the Canaanite tribes.  
If Lot's household was of equal size we're easily looking at 2,000 people or 
more who couldn't risk angering the Canaanites by so many people trampling 
their land and eating their crops.   This was a very real danger. The Book of 
Jubilees tells us the rift between Lot and Abraham was due to Lot allowinghis 
men to graze cattle on the fields owned by Canaanites instead of restricting 
himself to open land. This practicecaused tension with the Canaanites who 
complained angrily to Abraham and is  why both Abraham and Lot had to leave. 
Saddled with a bad reputation amongst the locals Abraham and Lot had to move 
a considerable distance.    This is what the Jewish record says...not some 
fictional rewrite by Stinehart.
    The Amorite tribe, the "superpower" of Canaan in the early 2nd 
millennium,  dominated northern Canaan at that time according to the Mari 
Tablets and it is likely it was the Amorites Lot offended. It is therefore 
unlikely either would move deeper into Amorite territory no matter how 
Beautiful the Galilee. Abraham was a stranger, he could not dictate his 
choice of homes.  
   Arguments based on linguistics is one thing. But these simplistic, 
unfounded claims by Stinehart are painful to read. 

Rob AcostaColorado