Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Karl:

 

You wrote:  “(MQ merely refers to a low place, lower than its surrounding territory. It can be a small hollow all the way to a large valley. It has nothing to do with “a low tract of land of wide extant, fit for corn …, and suited for battlefields.” as being necessary to its definition.  Indeed there is a low place between Hebron and Kiryat Arba, a valley that loops north around Hebron, then generally west. Today it is filled with fields, but if it weren’t, it would be a good place to set up an encampment with enough tents to house a few hundred people, probably a larger encampment than that which housed Jacob, his family, his slaves and their families. That small valley fits the definition of “Valley of Hebron” where Jacob had his encampment.”

 

1.  (MQ is never used in the Bible concerning King David’s Hebron located high up in southern hill country.  Rather, there we see the two key words which never appear regarding the Patriarchs’ XBRWN in Genesis:  (LH and HR.

 

2.  Moreover, I have looked at every use of (MQ in the Hebrew Bible regarding sites in Canaan south of the Jezreel Valley.  Each and every such (MQ is located either east or west of the Watershed Ridge Route.  Leaving aside Genesis 37: 14 [which is the passage in question], no (MQ is located on the Watershed Ridge Route in the Hebrew Bible.

 

3.  I myself have found no support in the Hebrew Bible for your assertion that a small valley located near the top of the highest mountain in southern Canaan would constitute an (MQ in the Hebrew Bible.    Based on my Biblical research, a small, high-altitude mountain valley would constitute a “valley” in  E-n-g-l-i-s-h , but would not constitute an (MQ in Biblical Hebrew.  The phrase “valley of Hebron” is acceptable in  E-n-g-l-i-s-h  in referring to where King David’s first capital city was located high up in southern hill country, but the Bible never refers to (MQ XBRWN concerning such site of King David’s first capital city, because a locale near the top of the highest mountain in southern Canaan is not an (MQ in Hebrew.  The English word “valley” has a much broader ambit than the Hebrew word (MQ. 

 

)YLWN goes together naturally with (MQ at Joshua 10: 12;   t-h-a-t  is where the Patriarchs’ XBRWN is located, hence the adroit and natural pairing of (MQ and the Patriarchs’ XBRWN at Genesis 37: 14.  But when the talk turns to the site of King David’s first capital city of Hebron, located in southern hill country near the top of the tallest mountain in southern Canaan, then whenever that site in southern hill country is referenced [a locale never mentioned in the Patriarchal narratives], one never sees (MQ.  Why?  Because (MQ in Biblical Hebrew, though fitting the low-lying broad true valley the Ayalon Valley perfectly, does not fit a site near the top of the tallest mountain in southern Canaan.

 

The Patriarchs’ XBRWN was located in the Ayalon Valley, and hence is characterized by the word (MQ, and never is characterized by the words (LH or HR.  By sharp contrast, King David’s Hebron high up in southern hill country is never characterized by the word (MQ, but rather is naturally characterized by the words (LH and HR.  If Biblical Hebrew words mean anything, the Patriarchs’ Hebron is not located at or near the locale of King David’s Hebron.  The two places have entirely different characteristics:  (MQ vs. (LH and HR.

 

Excluding Genesis 37: 14 itself, what passage in the Bible would you cite in support of your assertion that a small valley located near the top of the highest mountain in southern Canaan would constitute an (MQ in Biblical Hebrew?

 

Jim Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois