Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Nir Cohen:
 
1.  You wrote:  “your theory is based on a single biblical verse. genesis 
37:14.”
 
Not true.  Equally important is the fact that whereas King David’s 
mountainous city of Hebron way up in southern hill country is repeatedly [and 
not 
surprisingly] characterized in the Bible as being “up”/(LH and in the “
mountains”/HR, Genesis never refers to the Patriarchs’ Hebron as (LH or HR.  
Also, Genesis 13: 9, 11 says that the Patriarchs’ XBRWN is the opposite of 
“east
” of Bethel.  In the entirety of the last 40 chapters of Genesis, there’s 
no aspect of the description of the Patriarchs’ XBRWN that fits the Bible’s 
description of King David’s Hebron.  
 
2.  You wrote:  “i see no problem in present day hebron possessing nearby 
valleys, being in the mountain!”
 
That’s the main point of this thread.  In  E-n-g-l-i-s-h , we can refer to 
King David’s high altitude city of Hebron as being situated in the “valley” 
of Hebron, as it is nestled in a basin surrounded by mountain peaks, which 
is what is called in English a mountain “valley”.  But the Hebrew word (MQ 
means “a deep place”.  Leaving aside the contested identities of places 
called (MQ in Genesis for the moment, if we look at all the rest of the 
Bible, 
we see that (MQ is only used to describe a deep, true broad valley, or a 
deep place that is connected to a true broad valley.  In a majority of cases 
in 
the Bible, (MQ is used to describe places in the Shephelah.  In Biblical  
H-e-b-r-e-w , the word (MQ cannot be used to describe the highest altitude 
city in Canaan -- King David’s city of Hebron high up in the mountains of 
southern hill country -- or the territory that is near such high altitude 
city. 
 
3.  You wrote:  “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….”
 
After the Exile, the Jews re-interpreted their sacred scripture on a 
pro-Jerusalem, Judah-centric basis.  One way to confirm that the Patriarchal 
narratives are incredibly old is to recognize that they are neither 
pro-Jerusalem 
nor Judah-centric.  The Patriarchs are portrayed as usually sojourning in a 
place that was just outside the territory that Judah actually controlled:  
the Ayalon Valley.  After the Exile that was re-interpreted [though the 
words of the text were never changed] to view the Patriarchs as supposedly 
having sojourned in or near the highest altitude city in all of Canaan:  King 
David’s city of Hebron.  But as noted in #1 above, that post-exilic 
reinterpretation of the underlying geography of the Patriarchal narratives 
cannot be 
squared with what the unchanged received text actually says.
 
4.  You wrote:  “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.”
 
The received text of the Patriarchal narratives is, except for updated 
spelling, very close to what it originally was, in my opinion.  It has very 
few “
footnotes”, that is, later editorial additions.  If such a later editorial 
addition had been added, it might have been along the lines of trying to 
equate King David’s first capital city of Israel with where the Patriarchs 
sojourned.  Thank goodness no such later footnote was ever added.
 
If you focus on the three words (LH, HR and (MQ, you’ll see that the 
Patriarchs’ XBRWN cannot possibly be at, or near, the highest altitude city 
in 
Canaan, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with King David’s city of 
Hebron.
 
The point of this thread is to focus on the precise parameters of the 
Biblical Hebrew word (MQ.  The word (MQ occurs 69 times in the Bible.  In my 
opinion, (MQ in the Bible never refers to a high altitude mountain valley, it 
never refers to the mountainous city of Hebron or the territory in that 
city’s 
general vicinity, it never refers to Shechem, and it never refers to the 
Kidron wadi.  Rather, (MQ means “a deep place”, and usually refers to some 
part of the Shephelah, the Jordan River Valley or the Jezreel Valley, all of 
which are low altitude “deep places”.  If so, then Genesis 37: 14 cannot be 
referring to the locale of King David’s city of Hebron, the highest altitude 
city in all of Canaan, or the area near such city, but rather must be 
referring to the “deep place”/(MQ that is opposite of “east” of Bethel:  the 
eastern Ayalon Valley in the northeast Shephelah. 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois