In our review of Biblical place names that feature a proper name in construct plural, we now examine XMT D)R, in Naphtali [eastern Upper Galilee], at Joshua 21: 32. The XMT here is usually viewed as being defective spelling of feminine plural construct [whose long-form version would be XMWT], and is so considered here. XMH is a feminine noun that means “sun, heat of the sun, heat”. XMT here is usually viewed as meaning “hot springs” [plural]. D)R may be a variant of DWR, meaning “generation”, but perhaps here D)R is simply a proper name; it’s the proper name of a city at Joshua 11: 2 and 12: 23. The usual English transliteration is Hammoth-dor [where XMT is treated as being a shortened version of XMWT]. We don’t know for sure where in Naphtali/Upper Galilee this otherwise unknown town was located, but one suspects that it was at the far northern edge of Naphtali, being at the effective northern boundary of Hebrew-controlled Canaan. This is supported by the fact that XMT D)R is sometimes viewed as being the same place as XMWN at Joshua 19: 28, in which case it must be close to Sidon and southern Lebanon. There, however, it’s stated to be in Asher. But Asher and Naphtali were contiguous. Perhaps this town was on the border between Asher and Naphtali, on the northern edge of Canaan. Joshua 19: 35 has XMT, but it’s probably a different city, though in Naphtali. It’s usually viewed as meaning “hot spring” [singular]. It’s pointed differently, and there’s no following word for a construct form. It’s near the southern edge of Naphtali, near the Sea of Galilee. II Samuel 8: 9 has XMT, pointed differently, and it probably has a completely different meaning: “fortress”. It’s a major Syrian city in the Orontes River Valley. Joshua 13: 5 has XMT, or possibly LBW) XMT, sometimes called “Labo of Hamath”, which is sometimes viewed as being the ideal [but only an unattained ideal] hypothetical northern border of Israel. It’s in the Beqa Valley in eastern Lebanon, near Baalbeck, just south of the beginning of the Orontes River Valley. So there are four cities in northern Canaan or north of Canaan called XMT, though based on two different roots. XMT is viewed here as primarily being a proper name, being the proper name of these four cities. The meaning of XMT D)R, per the pattern we have been seeing for Biblical place names where a proper name is in construct plural, is as follows: “[concerning the four] Hamaths [in Galilee, Lebanon and Syria, the one that was effectively the northernmost border of the Hebrews, being the Hamath] of Dor”. This place does not appear elsewhere in the Bible, or in non-Biblical sources. It likely had little importance other than its geographical location as the northern boundary of the Hebrews’ effective control. As always, when we see a proper name like this in construct plural in a Biblical place name, the emphasis is on location, location, location. Here it’s showing the northern [not northeastern] outer boundary of Hebrew-controlled Canaan, on the northern edge of Naphtali. Note that the rare construct plural place names we have seen nicely delineate the approximate borders of the land of Canaan/Israel. R)MWT B-GL(D is the northeast corner of Canaan/Israel. RMWT NGB and QRYWT XCRWN collectively denote the southern edge of Canaan/Israel. And XMT D)R is the northern edge of Canaan/Israel. [The other borders were natural, and did not need explaining: the Mediterranean Sea on the west, and the Dead Sea on the southeast.] In every case, a Biblical place name that features a proper name in construct plural puts the focus on location, location, location. For a non-interior site, this use of construct plural indicates an otherwise unimportant town that is roughly on the outer boundary of the land of Canaan/Israel. My own interest is the even rarer cases of interior sites that have a proper name in construct plural, where the focus is on each such site having a strategic location near a “pipe”/socket/narrow passageway/NQB. It is quite remarkable, in any event, how every one of these place names with a proper name in construct plural conforms to this strict, predictable pattern we have observed. Prof. Yigal Levin reflects the scholarly consensus when he writes: “In general, analyzing place-names according to standard biblical Hebrew grammar is very iffy. Unlike prose, in which the author at least is able to carefully choose every phase, place-names are "facts on the ground", and who knows what local dialect produced this or that form in what period?” I respectfully disagree entirely. Every Biblical geographical place name I have been able to find using construct plural follows a strict, predictable pattern. Where the word/name in construct plural is a proper name, as in the place names noted above, then the focus is on location, location, location. Most of such place names are not interior sites, in which case they denote the approximate outer boundaries of the land of Canaan/Israel. In the rare cases of interior sites, on the other hand, each has a strategic location near a “pipe”/socket/narrow passageway/NQB, just like )DMY NQB. I myself do not see these types of Biblical place names as being “local dialect” anomalies that are hard to understand. On the contrary, one key to understanding the historical foundation of the Bible is to ask what the implication would be if the basic word/name in the name of the village at I Samuel 10: 3 were treated as being a proper name and were put into masculine construct plural form [instead of being in masculine construct singular, as it is at I Samuel 10: 3]. At the time that I Samuel 10: 3 was composed, the cities of Lower and Upper Beth Horon dominated the main passageway from central hill country to the northern Shephelah, so this village’s location by that time was not very important. Hence there was no reason at I Samuel 10: 3 to use masculine construct plural, which would put the focus on location, location, location. But if an earlier composition used masculine construct p-l-u-r-a-l for this same village name [using old-style defective spelling], that would mean that prior to the building of the Beth Horon cities, back in the Bronze Age, this tiny village had had an incredibly important strategic location, near a “pipe”/socket/narrow passageway/NQB, just like )DMY NQB. Same. The geographical implications of that consideration of Hebrew grammar are huge, indeed requiring a new look at all the conventional geographical assumptions underlying the Bible. The masculine construct plural form of the village name at I Samuel 10: 3 is, in my opinion, the key to understanding the geography of the Bible. One of the greatest Bible mysteries of all time can be solved by use of Hebrew grammar. Masculine construct plural is the key. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
