Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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