Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalist] Numbers Show Antiquity of Patriarchal Narratives

Expand Messages
  • jimstinehart@aol.com
    Norm: * 1. You wrote: “Gen 26:23 doesn t say Isaac is going to a drainage basin. It says Isaac is going to Beer-Sheva, which is a Tel. That s why he
    Message 1 of 64 , Jan 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Norm:
      *
      1. You wrote: “Gen 26:23 doesn't say Isaac is going to a drainage
      basin. It says Isaac is going to Beer-Sheva, which is a Tel. That's why he goes ‘
      up’.”
      *
      Your assertion that Biblical Hebrew uses “go up”/‘LH when a person goes
      to a city on a tel is simply false. Consider the following example from the
      Patriarchal narratives: “And it came to pass at that time, that Judah
      went down/YRD from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose
      name [was] Hirah.” Genesis 38: 1. Judah goes “down” to the city of
      Adullam, which was located on a tel: Tell esh-Sheikh Madhkur.
      *
      When Isaac is said to “go up”/‘LH to Beersheba, that means that Beersheba
      must be located at a significantly higher elevation than where Isaac has
      recently been. Going to a city that is situated on a tel is n-o-t “going up
      ”/‘LH in Biblical Hebrew. The wells at the southern Beersheba are located
      at the bottom of a drainage basin, so Isaac cannot “go up”/‘LH to the
      wells at the southern Beersheba. By sharp contrast, Beersheba of Galilee is
      located fairly high up in the foothills of Galilee, at a much higher
      elevation than where Isaac has previously been re-digging wells near the west
      coast of Upper Galilee. Note how the Hebrew wording fits Galilee so naturally,
      while not being capable of being forcefit to the southern Beersheba.
      *
      Note also that both the Hebrew author and his entire audience knew that it
      is impossible to dig a series of permanent wells, whether called Sitnah,
      Eshek, Rehoboth or otherwise, in the general vicinity of the southern
      Beersheba. Nor could the well at the southern Beersheba be the least important
      well in any such series of wells. That description of a series of fine,
      permanent wells (that are worth sabotaging by rival mercenaries/“Philistines”
      ) fits the west coast of Upper Galilee and the inland foothills at
      Beersheba of Galilee perfectly, while being impossible in the general vicinity of
      the southern Beersheba. Both the author and his entire audience knew that
      the o-n-l-y permanent wells in the general vicinity of the southern
      Beersheba were located at the bottom of the drainage basin there, in a dry area
      where permanent wells were not to be found elsewhere. When chapter 26 of
      Genesis talks about Isaac re-digging a series of wells and then “going up”/‘
      LH to Beersheba, that fits Beersheba of Galilee perfectly, while not
      fitting the more famous southern Beersheba at all.
      *
      2. You wrote: “If we don't know anything about Beer-sheba of Galilee
      during the Bronze Age, not even if it was called Beer-sheba, then it's
      obvious that you shouldn't postulate it as the place mentioned in Genesis. To do
      so is to engage in pure guesswork.”
      *
      If you’re talking about non-biblical sources, then it’s a similar
      situation at both Beershebas. There is little evidence of Late Bronze Age
      occupation of southern Beersheba, and no non-biblical evidence that the wells
      there were called “Beersheba” prior to the 4th century BCE or so. Moreover,
      Isaac is living in tents and sojourning by wells where there is little or no
      settled population anyway, so archaeology is not going to be able to prove
      much of anything here. Rather, we should carefully study the text and
      ask what part of Canaan fits what the text says. That’s Upper Galilee as to
      GRR in the Patriarchal narratives. One has to “go up”/‘LH to Beersheba of
      Galilee, whereas in Biblical Hebrew one would not be said to “go up”/‘LH
      to the bottom of the drainage basin where the wells at the southern
      Beersheba were located. Isaac does not go to a city at Beersheba, but even if he
      did, going to a tel on which a city is situated does not mean that one has “
      gone up”/‘LH to that city, per Genesis 38: 1 quoted above. And whereas a
      sequence of wells fairly near Beersheba of Galilee is an objective fact,
      since near the west coast of Upper Galilee (near the base of the hills of
      Galilee) is the best place in all of Canaan to dig permanent wells, such a
      sequence of permanent wells would be impossible near the southern Beersheba,
      which is world-famous precisely because it is the only place in that dry
      area where permanent wells could be dug.
      *
      3. You wrote: “No, I don't get your chronology. It looks absurd to me.”

      *
      I see the Patriarchal Age as being Years 12-14 of the 17-year Amarna Age.
      Virtually all of the main stories in the received text refer to that one,
      unique, very short time period.
      *
      Jim

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • richfaussette
      ... Dr. Shepherd, You closed the thread two minutes after reading my post. That s a visceral response. I apologize. Richard Faussette
      Message 64 of 64 , Jan 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Shepherd" wrote:
        >
        > This thread is closed.
        >
        >
        >
        > Blessings,
        >
        >
        >
        > Jerry
        >
        >


        Dr. Shepherd,
        You closed the thread two minutes after reading my post.
        That's a visceral response.
        I apologize.

        Richard Faussette
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.