Dear Jim, Suffice it to say that you are employing the methodology that what happens today is the key to the past. That is the evolutionary methodology. As Karl as also pointed out, things were a lot different in that time period. Furthermore, when one looks at I & II Kings in which building activity was tremendous especially under Solomon, then it is not surprising to see not many trees. For you to say there were no oak trees in Hebron is directly contradict the text that repeatedly says so in several different contexts.
Regarding the Hittites, the text says "Ephron the Hittite." We do know that Rameses II fought against the Hittites in the 13th Century and it came to a draw. But that is 13th Century. It is reasonable to see Hittites, maybe not in great numbers, to be residing in the land of Canaan. Furthermore, the Amorites also lived in the land. The land of Canaan had different people groups living there. Finally, Hittite does Not equal Hurrian neither are the names of the locations nicknames. The text in no way indicates that Kiriath-Arba means "City of Four." It clearly state in four places that Kiriath-Arba was the former name of the present day "Hebron;" no more, no less. Now, if you believe that the Patriarchal narratives are accurate, then you must accept them as presented or else you are picking and choosing. That is poor methodology. I reject that type of methodology. You eisegeting the text and doing a poor job at that. Rev. Bryant J. Williams III ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] gen. 25 (tam?) [Here, in a different format, is a slightly revised version of the post I sent in earlier. Hope this one works.] Rev. Bryant J. Williams III: One of the main differences between the view of you and Karl, and my view, is that you (and I think Karl) see the Patriarchal narratives as having been composed in the Middle Bronze Age and relating to the Early Bronze Age, whereas I see the Patriarchal narratives as having been composed and relating to the Late Bronze Age. That is an honest disagreement. As I presume you are aware, most university scholars today insist that the Patriarchal narratives were composed by multiple authors in the 1st millennium BCE, none of whom knew very much about the Bronze Age. Let’s compare these three basic theories regarding two specific items that you raise. 1. You wrote: “Now, I can see Abram dwelling near a large amount of oaks because Northern California from about 50 miles South of Redding, CA on I-5 going North has plenty. Its weather is very much like Israel's with its Mediterranean climate. I can actually picture Abram sitting under a very large Oak (cf. 14:13, 24;18:1).” The city of Hebron does not have a Mediterranean climate. It is nowhere near the Mediterranean Sea, but rather abuts the utterly bleak Judean Desert. In the Late Bronze Age [my theory], there were no oak trees at the city of Hebron. The Late Bronze Age was abnormally dry, and oak trees do not usually grow as far south as the city of Hebron, because it’s too hot and there’s not enough rain. On the other hand, there was a lot more rain in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, and so in that time period [your theory], one might imagine oak trees at the city of Hebron. On the scholarly view, multiple 1st millennium BCE authors are making up a pre-history of the Hebrews. To them, the “days of old” would presumably have meant “dry years”, since the climate in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE was much wetter and better than in the Late Bronze Age. So to me it seems unlikely that 1st millennium BCE authors would imagine rare oak trees being at the city of Hebron in the Patriarchal Age. What works on all theories is if, per Genesis 13: 9, 11, Abraham goes west after Lot has gone east from Bethel. Then Abraham sojourns in the northern Shephelah, the Aijalon Valley, which in Biblical times was ringed by magnificent oak trees, being perfectly in accordance with what the Biblical text says. 2. You wrote: “Genesis 23:17-20 has Abraham purchasing from Ephron the Hittite a piece of land called the Cave of Machpelah, east of Mamre near Hebron (formerly Kiriath-Arba, vs. 2; cf. also Josh 14:15; 15:13 and Judg 1:10) which had trees.” (a) There were no Hittites from eastern Anatolia in Canaan. Rather, XTYmeans XuT-iYa, the most common Hurrian name at Nuzi. The Biblical “Hittites” are the historical Hurrians, who dominated Canaan as princeling rulers in the mid-14th century BCE. This is indicating the Late Bronze Age, as no other time period fits the Hurrians being in Canaan as important lords. (b) The word “formerly” does not appear in the Biblical text. Rather, HW) means “that is”, and does not mean “formerly”. Kiriath is a standard west Semitic word for “city”. “Arba” means “four” in west Semitic, while meaning “(Hurrian) lord” in Hurrian. There is no “City of Four” in non-biblical records, and the number four makes no sense as a Biblical nickname here. Rather, this is the “City of the Hurrian Lord(s)”. It’s a perfect Biblical nickname, because “Ephron” in Hurrian also means “(Hurrian) lord”. The text is telling us that Abraham bought Sarah’s gravesite from a Hurrian lord at a Hurrian-dominated city in the Late Bronze Age. The Hurrian nomenclature here strongly supports my Late Bronze Age dating, and cannot be squared with either your Middle Bronze Age composition date, or the scholarly view that multiple authors made this stuff up in the 1st millennium BCE. (c) Genesis 37: 14 tells us that the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”, that is, X-BR-W-N, is a “valley”. That’s the Aijalon Valley in the northern Shephelah, with valleys having no formal names in the Bronze Age. Whereas Abraham sojourns in a verdant, low-lying rural valley [that makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?], Abraham has to deal with city folk to purchase Sarah’s gravesite. In the Late Bronze Age, that meant going to a city dominated by Hurrian lords to buy a plot of land from a Hurrian lord. Kiriath Arba is on one level a nickname for RB-T, Rubutu, a Hurrian-dominated city on the southern edge of the Aijalon Valley. It is not the former name of the mountainous city of Hebron. In the Bronze Age, the name of the city of Hebron was “Qiltu”. Rubutu is associated with Hurrian lords in the Amarna Letters. At Amarna Letter EA 289: 11-17 IR-Heba, the Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem, reports: “Such was the deed that Milkilu and Tagi did: they took Rubutu.” At Amarna Letter EA 290: 5-13 IR-Heba reports: “Here is the deed against the land that Milkilu and Suwardata did: against the land of the king [Akhenaten], they ordered troops from Gazru [Gezer], troops from Gimtu, and troops from Qiltu [the city of Hebron]. They seized Rubutu.” Both “Tagi” and “Suwardata” are Hurrian names. So although “Rubutu” is a Semitic name, meaning “Great/RB City” in west Semitic, these two Amarna Letters show that Rubutu likely was dominated by Hurrian lords in the Amarna Age. Thus QRYT )RB( is a twofold Patriarchal nickname, on one level meaning “City of the (Hurrian) Lord(s)” in Hurrian, and on another level meaning “Rubutu”/RB - T, a city that was dominated by Hurrian lords in the mid-14th century BCE. 3. The rest of your post does not deal with words that appear in the Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives, so I have no comment. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois -----Original Message----- From: Bryant J. Williams III <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 11:40 am Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] gen. 25 (tam?) Dear Jim, Your reply came back garbled. See below. Rev. Bryant J. Williams III ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 3:19 PM _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
