Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com>]

Hi Jim

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
<snip>
> 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.
But Jim, most place names in Canaan are only used for one place. When
the same name is used for different places, it is normally made clear,
by specifically adding more descriptions, e.g. Bethlehem _in_Judah_
etc.

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.

No, we should rather ask if there is any evidence that it refers to
two different places for the simple reason that for example Jezreel
could either refer to the city/town built on a low hill or to the
valley by the same name. But the two "places" are in the same area and
the name does not really refer to different places with the same name.

>
> 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”,
No, it talks about the valley of Hebron which need not be the city
itself, just as the Jezreel valley did not refer to the city itself.
You are reading things into the text that is not written in the plain
text by itself.

> 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?
Because there is no other indication that there ever were two separate
cities with the same name. Moreover, it is clearly stated that the
place only got the name "Hebron" later, after the settlement of Israel
in Canaan.

>
> 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

But where was David when he asked this question? Was he not coming up
from the land of the Philistines (Ziklag on the border of the
Philistines)? Whereas it appears as if Abraham was mostly trekking
along the central highlands (the "spine" of the land). The reason why
nobody has asked the question is because there has been little reason
to ask it. The ")MQ" of Hebron can be any of the valleys around the
city.

In addition, Hebron is mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions from the
late Bronze Age (i.e. long before David) and in the same region as the
later Hebron.
>
> 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”!
The thing with a conversation is that you have to both talk and listen
(and sometimes even be willing to change your mind!). Are you willing
to change your mind? The fact that the different words can be easily
explained without resorting to different places called Hebron and that
there is no other evidence that there ever were two different Hebrons,
would mean that your conversation had better be more convincing than
what you have said so far.

Shalom
Chavoux Luyt