Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Prof. Yigal Levin:

 

 

You wrote:  “You've already explained in detail why you don't think that the Patriarchs' Hebron is where everyone else thinks it is.  Please DO NOT do so again, under any subject line.”

 

 

Fine.  I hope, however, that we might nevertheless be permitted to discuss on the b-hebrew list how the Biblical Hebrew words (LH and (MQ and HR work in the rest of the Bible [excluding Genesis].  O.K.?

 

 

In the entirety of the rest of the Bible, no human being is  e-v-e-r  said to “go up”/(LH to “a broad true valley”/(MQ.  So if one sees the word (MQ in the rest of the Bible, then take it to the bank, no one will ever be said to “go up”/(LH to such locale.  Unlike in English, in Biblical Hebrew [always excluding Genesis for all purposes of this post] the words HR [mountain, mountains, hill, hills] and (MQ are antithetical.  Whenever one sees the Biblical word (MQ, one will never see the Biblical word HR, and vice versa.  Whereas the Biblical Hebrew words (LH and HR go together like hand and glove, the word (MQ, by sharp contrast, is absolutely antithetical to both (LH and HR in the rest of the Bible.  That’s not English usage, but who cares about that, because it is Biblical Hebrew usage.

 

 

Note also that in the entirety of the rest of the Bible, whenever an (MQ in southern Canaan [south of the Jezreel Valley] is referenced, it is  a-l-w-a-y-s  located either west or east of the Watershed Ridge Route [which runs from north of Shechem south through hill country to the site of King David’s first capital city of Hebron in mountainous southern hill country].   N-e-v-e-r  in the rest of the Bible does one find an (MQ located on the Watershed Ridge Route itself.  Thus completely unlike the English word “valley”, the word (MQ in the rest of the Bible necessarily implies [in the context of southern Canaan] a place that both (i) is located east or west of the Watershed Ridge Route, and (ii) is at a lower elevation than hill country.  There’s not a single exception to that in the entire rest of the Bible.  So if one sees the word (MQ in the rest of the Bible, then take it to the bank, that (MQ in southern Canaan is  n-o-t  located on the Watershed Ridge Route, much less near the top of the highest mountain in Canaan on the dramatic southern end of the Watershed Ridge Route.

 

 

Finally, in the rest of the Bible [always excluding Genesis in this post], whenever there is an extended discussion of something going on near the top of the tallest mountain in Canaan, which beginning with II Samuel is portrayed as being King David’s first capital city of Hebron:  (a) one almost  a-l-w-a-y-s  sees the nomenclature (LH and HR, as people naturally “go up”/(LH to that site located high up in the “mountains”/HR of mountainous southern hill country;  and (b) one  n-e-v-e-r  sees a reference to (MQ:  “a true broad valley which, if located in southern Canaan, is located either west or east of the Watershed Ridge Route at an elevation lower than hill country”.  In the rest of the Bible, it would be  i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e  to reference that site near the top of the tallest mountain in Canaan by (1) never using the words (LH or HR, and (2) explicitly stating that such site in southern Canaan is an (MQ.

 

 

To me, these Biblical Hebrew words (MQ, (LH and HR have a clear meaning.  In particular [always excluding Genesis, per your request], the Biblical Hebrew word (MQ in the context of southern Canaan has a very specific meaning.  It means that no one will ever be portrayed as “going up”/(LH to that (MQ, it means that such (MQ is not located in the HR/mountains, and it means that such (MQ will of necessity be located either west or east of the Watershed Ridge Route at an elevation lower than hill country, not on the Watershed Ridge Route, much less way up/(LH near the top of the highest mountain/HR in Canaan on the dramatic southern end of the Watershed Ridge Route.

 

 

In the entirety of the Bible outside of Genesis, the Biblical Hebrew words (LH and (MQ and HR appear to me to have the above unambiguous meanings.  Prof. Yigal Levin, what am I missing here?  Any help from you or anyone else would be greatly appreciated. 

 

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois