Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Alan Wood:
 
1.  You wrote:  “As I understand it, you are saying:  A place called Hebron 
in Genesis is described using (MQ.  The place called Hebron in Judges and 
Samuel is described using (LH or HR.  Based on your reading, these 
descriptions are incompatible (i.e. ‘outside Genesis’, they are not used of 
the same 
site).  Alter suggests that Genesis is wrong in its description.  You 
postulate that Genesis is describing a different place of a similar name.  
This is 
important to you because it fits with your wider thought on reading the 
patriarchal narratives.”
 
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.  And I think it’s a fitting topic for 
the b-hebrew list, because I am focusing on the meaning of three Hebrew 
words to make my point:  (LH and HR vs. (MQ.
 
2.  You wrote:  “It’s a lot easier to have a conversation if you get to 
the point sooner.”
 
My apologies for being longwinded.  However, I think it is important for 
everyone to realize that there are dozens and dozens of documented cases 
where 
two or more completely different places have the identical Biblical name.
 
3.  You wrote:  “That makes me wonder, where else does (MQ appear in odd 
ways in Genesis?  What other geographical descriptors are used strangely in 
Genesis?”
 
You are raising a delicate issue there.  Let me explain why my first 
several posts on this thread excluded Genesis.  I believe it is fair to say 
that 
outside of Genesis, there is broad agreement, with me included in the 
majority view in almost every case, as to what place is being referenced by 
any of 
the many places that have (MQ as part of their Biblical name.  As you know, 
I set forth the 12 best-known Biblical places outside of Genesis that are 
known by a name that includes (MQ.  For the most part, I believe that list is 
largely non-controversial.  Outside of Genesis, it seems clear that (MQ 
consistently refers either to a deep place that itself is a true broad 
valley, 
or to a deep place that is connected to a true broad valley, usually being 
some part of the Shephelah, the Jordan River Valley or the Jezreel Valley, 
and 
never referring to a high altitude mountain valley or a mere wadi.
 
But when one looks at the Patriarchal narratives, scholars have made all 
sorts of leaps of fantasy as to which places are being referenced that have 
(MQ in their names.  Scholars insist on forcing the Patriarchs to spend most 
of their time, when in Canaan, in or very near to the territory that, 
centuries later, became the state of Judah.  In fact, in my opinion the 
Patriarchs 
are never portrayed in Genesis as being in such territory!
 
In my opinion, that is why scholars have been so fanciful in dreaming up 
what the reference at Genesis 14: 17 to (MQ H-MLK means.  The traditional 
view, as stated by Gesenius, is to identify that (MQ/“deep place” as follows: 
 “
valley to the north of Jerusalem which was also called the King’s dale.”  
But there is no “deep place”/(MQ north of Jerusalem.  That traditional view 
makes no sense.  (MQ H-MLK traditionally is often thought to be Kidron, but 
Kidron is not a “deep place -- the king”:  “The Kidron Valley, actually a 
wadi as it consists of a dry river bed, cuts along the Old City [of 
Jerusalem] on the east and north side.”  Note that in the Bible, Kidron is 
always 
referred to as a mere “wadi”/NXL, never as a “deep place”/(MQ, such as at II 
Samuel 15: 23.  When the Bible uses the word (MQ, it means what it says and 
it says what it means, and it’s definitely not talking about the Kidron 
wadi!  
 
If a place in the Bible is called “deep place -- the king”, then surely 
that must be referring to the one and only truly “deep place”/(MQ in all of 
Canaan in which a true “king”, that is Pharaoh, took an active interest and 
stationed there the only Egyptian garrison in non-coastal Canaan proper:  
the Beth Shean Valley [located at the eastern end of the Jezreel Valley].  
That
’s the only place in all of Canaan proper that suits the name (MQ H-MLK.  
Let me quote here an official website for the Beth Shean Valley excavations 
to show how, in the Late Bronze Age, it was the one and only place deserving 
of the Biblical title (MQ H-MLK:  “deep place of the king [Pharaoh]”:
 
“The mound of Tel Beth-Shean…towers steeply above the Beth-Shean Valley….  
The tell's location is strategically incomparable: the northern and 
southern sides are defended by deep ravines, through which the Harod (Wadi 
Jalud) 
and Asi Rivers flow, until they converge to the east of the mound.  The site 
commands the main road descending from the Jezreel and Harod Valleys to the 
Beth-Shean Valley, which was a segment of the international highway that, 
even today, connects Israel's northern coastal plain with Transjordan. To the 
east of the mound, in the Beth-Shean Valley, this latitudinal road 
intersects with the important longitudinal thoroughfare which traverses the 
Jordan 
Valley.  From here, it continues north to the Huleh Valley and the Lebanese 
Bek'a. These strategic advantages, as well as the abundant water and fertile 
lands nearby, made Beth-Shean an attractive site for settlement from earliest 
times.  … The most important [archaeological] finds [there] belonged to the 
Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I, which was the time of the Egyptian New 
Kingdom (15th-12th centuries BCE).  During this era, Beth-Shean served as the 
center of Egyptian imperial rule in the north of Israel.  This period yielded 
temples, governors' residencies, and dwelling quarters of the soldiers and 
officials of the Egyptian garrison stationed at the site.  …One of the major 
questions which we faced was why did the Egyptians of the New Kingdom chose 
Beth-Shean as a garrison town?  It appears that… during the New Kingdom, the 
Egyptians chose to establish their administrative and military center in 
the north of the country at a site of strategic importance, but nevertheless 
played only a secondary role in the pattern of Canaanite settlement in the 
region.”  Text by Amihai Mazar, based on paper published in Biblical 
Archaeologist 60 (1997) pp. 62-76. 
http://www.rehov.org/project/tel_beth_shean.htm
 
The Patriarchal narratives in fact have great historical accuracy, and the 
nomenclature in the text is gorgeous.  But we must drop the later 
Judah-centric misinterpretation of this incomparable and truly ancient text, 
if we 
want to recover its historicity.  (MQ means a “deep place”, and MLK means 
“king
”, and the only “deep place” in Canaan directly controlled by a true “king
” [Pharaoh] in the Late Bronze Age was the Beth Shean Valley, where the 
only Egyptian garrison in inland Canaan proper was stationed.  That has 
nothing 
whatsoever to do with Jerusalem.  When the Patriarchal narratives say (MQ, 
that means a “deep place”, such as the Beth Shean Valley [or the Ayalon 
Valley], and it does not mean the “dry river bed” of the Kidron wadi north of 
Jerusalem.
 
The reason I initially excluded Genesis from this thread’s discussion of 
the meaning of (MQ is because only in the Patriarchal narratives have 
scholars 
declined to consider the actual “deep places”/true broad valleys that are 
referenced in that text that have names that include (MQ.  In the Bible, (MQ 
never means a mere wadi, and it never means a mountain valley located at 
high altitude.  Rather, in the Bible (MQ consistently means, including at 
Genesis 37: 14, a deep place that either itself is a broad, true valley, or 
that 
is connected to a broad, true valley -- such as the Beth Shean Valley or 
the Ayalon Valley.
 
Sorry for being longwinded again, but when one is going up against 
traditional wisdom that is supported by the scholarly community, it takes me 
some 
space to set forth my controversial views.  Genesis never portrays the 
Patriarchs as being in or near Jerusalem or southern hill country.  The 
Patriarchs 
are never on the Ridge Route between Jerusalem and the city of Hebron, but 
rather travel to and from Egypt “in stages” using the Diagonal Route through 
the Shephelah.  (MQ XBRWN at Genesis 37: 14 is a deep, true broad valley:  
the Ayalon Valley.  That’s why the Patriarchs’ Hebron is never described in 
Genesis as being “up”/(LH in the “mountains”/HR in hill country, or as 
being the opposite of “north” of Bethel.  The Bible means what it says and 
says what it means.  We just need to focus on the words (LH and HR and (MQ.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois