Hi Jim ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Cc: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:09:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XRB: "Mt. Horeb" vs. "desert"
XRB: “Mt. Horeb” vs. “desert” If at Exodus 3: 1 XRB-H is a common word with the generic meaning of “[to the] desert”, then Exodus 3: 1 says: “Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of MDYN: and he led the flock to the backside of the uncultivated land [MDBR], and came to the mountain of God in the desert/XRB-H.” On that reading, we know that the mountain of God in the desert is located near MDYN, but nothing is said about Mt. Sinai or the south Sinai. However, many scholars view XRB-H in that passage as meaning “[to] Mt. Horeb”, and as necessarily implying: “[to] Mt. Sinai [in the south Sinai]”. On that basis, Exodus 3: 1 has often been interpreted to read as follows: “Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert [MDBR], and came to the mountain of God, even to Mt. Horeb[, that is, to Mt. Sinai in the south Sinai].” One major problem with that second interpretation of Exodus 3: 1, even though it may be the majority view, is that then Moses’ actions make no sense. If XRB-H at Exodus 3: 1 is interpreted as meaning “even to Mt. Horeb[, that is, to Mt. Sinai in the south Sinai]”, then Moses is portrayed as driving his father-in-law’s flock about 100 miles over treacherous terrain, deep into the Sinai, to desolate Mt. Sinai in inland south Sinai. It would be fine for a flock to graze over 100 miles of steppeland, or marginal pastureland, but not in the terrible terrain of inland southern Sinai. Note that the name “Mt. Sinai”, which is synonymous with horrendous terrain, does not appear at Exodus 3: 1, whereas the name MDYN does appear. And instead of interpreting XRB to be a proper name, “Mt. Horeb”, it makes more sense, grammatically and otherwise, to view XRB at Exodus 3: 1 as being a common word with the generic meaning “desert”. Exodus 3: 1 simply says that Moses “led the flock to the backside of the uncultivated land [MDBR], and came to the mountain of God in the desert/XRB-H.” It says nothing about Mt. Sinai, the south Sinai, or driving the flock through 100 miles of treacherous terrain, none of which would make sense as Moses tends his father-in-law’s flock in and near MDYN. Exodus 3: 1 makes perfect sense on all levels once XRB-H is recognized as being a common word with the generic meaning of “[to the] desert”. Exodus 3: 1 has nothing to do with Mt. Sinai or the south Sinai, or with Moses driving his father-in-law’s flock 100 miles over treacherous terrain to a desolate locale in south Sinai, none of which would make any sense. We should jettison the majority view and adopt a sensible interpretation of Exodus 3: 1. ----- That option is simply not possible because Exodus 3:12 makes it explicit that the Israelites will serve God on that very mountain where He first appeared to Moses. Whether that mountain is actually the place called Mt.Sinai today, is another question that should probably be asked in an archaeological group rather than b-hebrew. Shalom Chavoux
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
