George Athas has properly admonished us that in evaluating the geography concerning the Beersheba referenced in chapters 21 and 26 of Genesis, we should not adopt a view that would “require…a wholesale reinventing of ancient world geography”, but rather we should confine ourselves to a theory of the case that is “plausible”. At Genesis 26: 17-23, 32-33, Isaac constantly moves away from Abimelek, and as such is not changing direction. Isaac is portrayed as re-digging a series of four wells, each spaced about a day’s walk or so from the next. In digging this series of wells, only as to the last one, Beersheba, is Isaac said to go “up”: (LH [here in the form of Y(L]. Genesis 26: 23. Isaac is always moving in the same direction [away from Abimelek], so in that context, “up” must mean “at a higher elevation”. In this context, “up” cannot mean “north toward Canaan”, because Isaac is in Canaan at all times, and Isaac has not changed directions, suddenly switching to going north, but rather Isaac is always moving in the same direction -- away from Abimelek. [It also would not make sense for a ruler named Abimelek, who has many herdsmen and wells and lives in a place where Isaac has gotten rich growing wheat, to be thought to be living several days’ travel time south of Beersheba of the Negev, in the heart of the arid Negev Desert.] So in context, Genesis 26: 23 is explicitly telling us that this Beersheba is at a higher elevation than -- “up” from -- where Isaac has been. That makes perfect sense as to Beersheba of Galilee, which is in the foothills of the mountains of Galilee. Starting from Sur/Tyre on the coast [whose ruler in the Amarna Letters is named “Abimelek”, who is always complaining about contested access to water], if one slowly proceeded southeast, after about four days or so of slow travel, the first place to which one would go “up” is precisely Beersheba of Galilee, which is located “up” in the foothills of the mountains of GRR/Galilee. Indeed, Genesis 26: 17-23, 32-33 seems to have been composed with Beersheba of Galilee in mind, as it fits the physical locale of northwest Upper Galilee perfectly in all respects. Moreover, historically these wells near Sur/Tyre were of critical importance for Abimelek’s water supply in the Late Bronze Age. Genesis 26: 15, 18 tells us that elements hostile to Abimelek, being mercenaries and/or habiru and disparagingly called “Philistines” [“invaders”] in the Biblical text, had stopped up the wells near Abimelek’s place after Abraham’s death. At Amarna Letter EA 146, Abimelek of Sur/Tyre says: “Now, indeed, the ruler of Sidon, Zimredda, is hostile to me. Daily he does not permit me to fetch water: mima. I cry out. …There is no water: mima for them to drink. …Apiru.” We see that Amarna Letter EA 146 and Genesis 26: 15, 18 are telling the same story about the same ruler with the same name at the same place in the same time period with the same problem: contested access to water wells in northwest Upper Galilee, near Beersheba of Galilee. But what about the more famous Beersheba in the Negev? Could Isaac be said to go “up” to the Beersheba in the Negev? If “up” at Genesis 26: 23 means “at a higher elevation”, then it is impossible that the Beersheba in chapter 26 of Genesis could be Beersheba of the Negev, because so unlike Beersheba of Galilee, Beersheba of the Negev is located “down” at the bottom of a drainage “basin”. (1) Here is a typical old-time modern traveler’s report: “At last, at last, we went over a ridge and down into the oasis of Beersheba.” Melvin Grove Kyle, “Excavating Kirjath-Sepher’s Ten Cities” (1932), at p. 97. Note that one goes d-o-w-n to Beersheba of the Negev, not u-p . (2) “Beer-sheba is located in a topographical basin….” Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “International Standard Bible Encyclopedia” (1995), at p. 448. (3) “Only the northern portion of this region [the Negev] was extensively settled in biblical times; therefore the biblical term essentially refers to the Beer-sheba drainage basin. The environment of the Beer-sheba region consists of a semi-desert….” David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, “Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible” (2000), at p. 955. (4) “Beersheba resides in a wide basin that is surrounded by low, round hills.” John A. Beck, “Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery” (2010), at p. 26. The reason why Beersheba in the Negev is the only place in that general area that has good wells is precisely because it is the lowest place in the area, down into which the water drains. If Beersheba in the Negev were not located “down” in the bottom of a drainage “basin”, the world-famous famous wells there in that semi-arid region would not exist. Beersheba of the Negev is synonymous with being “down”, not “up”. We see that two words that are closely associated with Beersheba of the Negev are “down” and “basin”. Because Beersheba of the Negev is located “down” at the bottom of a drainage “basin”, one would not say that Isaac went “up” to Beersheba of the Negev. Rather, Genesis 26: 23 is telling us that Isaac went “up” to Beersheba of Galilee, which is located at a higher elevation than where Isaac has just now been: “up” in the foothills of the mountains of Upper Galilee. Given that Beersheba of the Negev is physically located “down” [at the bottom of a drainage “basin”], whereas Beersheba of Galilee is physically located “up” [in the foothills of the mountains of Galilee], my view that chapter 26 of Genesis is referring to Beersheba of Galilee [not the more famous Beersheba of the Negev] is the only “plausible” interpretation of this Biblical text. Unlike the traditional view, it is my view that in fact does not “require…a wholesale reinventing of ancient world geography”. “Up”/(LH fits Beersheba of Galilee perfectly, but does not fit Beersheba in the Negev at all. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois
-----Original Message----- From: George Athas <[email protected]> To: B-Hebrew <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Mar 11, 2011 9:32 pm Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The meaning of Beersheba Jim, I don't see any strength to your five arguments. They are all based on oblique ossibilities and remain very far from what I would call plausible, and require uch a wholesale reinventing of ancient world geography that I do not think it ctually fits in the real world. Sorry, but that's my honest opinion. EORGE ATHAS oore Theological College (Sydney, Australia) ww.moore.edu.au _______________________________________________ -hebrew mailing list [email protected] ttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
