Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

dear jim,

> .....XBRWN as (MQ at Genesis 37: 14, inst....

let us indeed conduct an open conversation on your newest theory. i hope 
that in your future answer(s) you will be as brief as i am, stick to the
facts, and will not just repeat endlessly your previous positions. my 
points against your argument are four:

1. your theory is based on a single biblical verse. genesis 37:14.

2. your interpretation of this verse is misleading. it is not written in gen 
37:14 that hebron is a valley. what is mentioned there is "the valley of 
hebron". 

now, i see no problem in present day hebron possessing nearby valleys, 
being in the mountain! though i must admit i do not know the topography 
too well (i have been there once or twice, under not too happy circumstances,
i'm afraid). in fact, most high places do possess nearby valleys, and you
yourself mention the valleys around jerusalem as an excellent example.

3. both moslim and jewish traditions connect present day hebron with abraham.
as far as i could check, the association of MEARAT HAMAKHPELAH with abraham is
very old. it was certainly established already in the hashmonay period,
i.e. second century BC, and it is very unlikely that the jews would forget
the place which symbolizes most their claim for canaan. actually, not just the
jews: perhaps also the edomites and ishmaelites, which may have passed 
on the same tradition to the arab moslims.

4. if the biblical text on abraham's hebron indeed had another geographic
location in mind, and given that present time hebron had a prominent role
going back at least since king david, as you yourself admit, one would expect
the biblical source on abraham's hebron to add a little footnote to the effect
that "hebron is now called so-and-so", as it indeed does in similar situation.

but it didnt.

weighing the pros and cons, for the time being, i think i stick to 
the traditional explanation...

nir cohen