Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] (MQ: "Deep Place"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: George.Athas AT moore.edu.au, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] (MQ: "Deep Place"
  • Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:07:15 -0500 (EST)


Prof. George Athas wrote (in a post addressed to Karl):

“Rather than assume that scholars are all naturalist Nazis, it may just be
worth engaging with the ideas they put forward. Scholarship is a
conversation. The academy is an Areopagus —a marketplace where ideas are
traded,
evaluated, synthesised, and occasionally 'purchased' for integration. Sure,
there
are peddlers hawking wares down blind alleys, but no matter how loud they
shout, they won't be taken seriously until they come into the square and
conduct a conversation.”

Good. Then let’s “conduct a conversation” with the scholarly community as
to the following important question. Per my last post on this thread,
there are dozens of cases where two different places in Canaan have the same
Biblical name. Therefore it makes no sense to assume that Place A in Genesis
is the same place as Place B in II Samuel just because they have the same
name. Rather, we should ask if similar descriptions apply to Place A and
Place
B. If the descriptions in fact are diametrically opposite, with not a
single point of convergence or overlap, then the only reasonable conclusion
is
that despite Place A having the same name as Place B, they must be two
entirely different places, having completely different geographical locations.

The scholarly community knows that King David’s Hebron, per II Samuel, is
described as being (LH and HR, and is not described as being (MQ. Likewise,
the scholarly community knows that the Patriarchs’ Hebron is described in
Genesis as being (MQ [Genesis 37: 14], and is not described as being (LH or
HR. The scholarly community should note that leaving Genesis aside for a
moment, there is not a single place that the Bible describes as being both
(MQ
and either (LH or HR. Not one. So a logical question for the scholarly
community to consider is whether the Patriarchs’ Hebron is the same place as
King David’s mountainous city of Hebron, given that (i) many places in Canaan
have the same name but are two entirely different places; (ii) the Bible
never at any point says that King David established Israel’s first capital
city
at the place where the Patriarchs of old had sojourned; (iii) Genesis 13:
9, 11 says that Abram went the opposite of “east” of Bethel in going to the
Patriarchs’ Hebron, whereas King David’s Hebron, by contrast, is the
opposite of “north” of Bethel, and if one wanted to leave Bethel and go to an
(MQ/“deep place”, the logical thing to do would be to go west from Bethel to
the Ayalon Valley in the Shephelah, so that Genesis 13: 9, 11 fits perfectly
with Genesis 37: 14 if the Patriarchs’ XBRWN is the northeast Ayalon
Valley; (iv) non-biblical sources pre-dating the Exile report not a single
geographical place name anywhere as being comprised of the five letters XBRWN
[to
the best of my knowledge], so that what the Bible says about XBRWN in
Genesis and about XBRWN in II Samuel is of critical importance, and in
particular
the meaning of the Biblical words (LH and HR and (MQ can be expected to be
extremely important in asking whether these two places are one and the same
place; and (v) Genesis 37: 14 explicitly says that the Patriarchs’ Hebron is
(MQ: a “deep place”, whereas King David’s Hebron is the highest altitude
city in all of Canaan, being located in a basin near the top of Mount
Hebron, rather than being a “deep place”.

I own many long scholarly books that analyze Genesis. To the best of my
own knowledge, the only scholar who has even mentioned this question, albeit
in passing and indirectly, is Prof. Robert Alter of Berkeley. But rather
than asking if the Patriarchs’ XBRWN is one and the same place as King
David’s
city of XBRWN, which to me would be a logical question to ask, Prof. Alter
instead assumes that the Biblical text is wrong, and that Genesis 37: 14
errs in its description of the Patriarchs’ XBRWN as being (MQ. By the way,
Prof. Alter tacitly seems to admit that King David’s mountainous city of
XBRWN
would never be described in Biblical Hebrew as (MQ:

“14. the valley of Hebron. The validity of this designation can be
defended only through ingenious explanation because Hebron stands on a
height.” “
Genesis” (1996), p. 211.

Dare I mention that Genesis never uses the word “height” in describing the
Patriarchs’ XBRWN? Never. The Patriarchs’ XBRWN is never described as
being HR. Isn’t that suspicious, if Genesis is allegedly describing the
highest altitude city in all of Canaan? Why assume that the Bible is “wrong”
in
its description of the Patriarchs’ XBRWN as (MQ at Genesis 37: 14, instead
of asking if the scholarly assumptions are dead wrong as to whether the
Patriarchs’ XBRWN is one and the same place as King David’s mountainous city
of
XBRWN?

Nobody is more eager to “conduct a conversation” with the scholarly
community than I am. Prof. George Athas, why is it that not a single
university
scholar has ever a-s-k-e-d whether the Patriarchs’ Hebron is one and the
same place as King David’s mountainous city of Hebron? The Patriarchs’
Hebron is never described as being “up”/(LH in the “mountains”/HR, but rather
is described as being a “deep place”/(MQ. King David’s Hebron, by sharp
contrast, is repeatedly described as being “up”/(LH in the “mountains”/HR,
and is never described as being a “deep place”/(MQ. For example, the best
known three consecutive verses that describe King David’s Hebron use the word

up”/(LH five times! If one is describing the mountainous city of King David
’s Hebron, it’s virtually impossible not to use the word “up”/(LH for the
highest altitude city in Canaan:

“And it came to pass after this, that David enquired of the LORD, saying,
Shall I go up [(LH-1] into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said
unto him, Go up [(LH-2]. And David said, Whither shall I go up [(LH-3]? And
he said, Unto Hebron. So David went up [(LH-4] thither, and his two wives
also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabal's wife the Carmelite. And
his men that [were] with him did David bring up [(LH-5], every man with his
household: and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron.” II Samuel 2: 1-3

Since the Patriarchs’ Hebron and King David’s mountainous city of Hebron
are described in diametrically opposite ways, wouldn’t it make sense for
scholars to “conduct a conversation” about that topic? How can we verify or
falsify what the Patriarchal narratives say if scholars will not “conduct a
conversation” as to whether the Patriarchs’ Hebron is the eastern Ayalon
Valley, the opposite of “east” of Bethel, being a classic (MQ/“deep place”,
rather than being, on the ubiquitous conventional view, the faraway
mountainous city of King David’s Hebron, “up”/(LH in the “mountains”/HR of
southern
hill country? If no aspect of the description of the Patriarchs’ XBRWN
overlaps with any aspect of the description of King David’s mountainous city
of
XBRWN, shouldn’t scholars then “conduct a conversation” as to whether these
are two entirely different places? Until and unless we grapple with where
the Patriarchs’ XBRWN is portrayed in Genesis as being located, we will not
be able to evaluate what level, if any, of historical accuracy applies to
the account in chapters 12-14 of Genesis of Abram’s first experience of going
to the Patriarchs’ XBRWN.

Prof. Athas, by all means, let’s “conduct a conversation”. Despite the
fact that the Patriarchs’ XBRWN and King David’s mountainous city of XBRWN
have the same name, shouldn’t we ask if they may possibly be two completely
different places? And shouldn’t a key to resolving this important issue,
which makes the b-hebrew list a great place to discuss this question, be the
Biblical Hebrew words (LH, HR and (MQ, with the first two such words
characterizing King David’s Hebron, whereas the last such word, by sharp
contrast,
characterizes the Patriarchs’ Hebron? I have read and considered all the
mainstream scholarly sources I can get my hands on. I’m ready, willing and
able
[and indeed eager] to “conduct a conversation” with you and the scholarly
community generally about this critical issue. Rather than ignoring
scholarly commentary, I promise that I will give due consideration to
whatever
scholarly sources you may cite. Let’s ask if the Patriarchs’ XBRWN is a
different place than King David’s mountainous city of Hebron, focusing on the
following three Biblical Hebrew words: (LH, HR and (MQ. Prof. George Athas,
let’
s “conduct a conversation”!

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page