[b-hebrew] Hurrian and the Masoretic Text
JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Tue Apr 27 10:15:50 EDT 2010
In response to my writing “What does that have to do with Amorites?
Genesis 14: 7 refers to Amorites being at XCCN TMR”, you wrote:
“Other than your presuppositions, what problem is there with that?”
One of the main arguments that scholars make against the historicity of the
“four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 is that Amorites are
allegedly portrayed, non-historically, as living south of the Dead Sea. When you
say, “what problem is there with that?”, you’ve got the whole historicity of
the Patriarchal narratives riding on it!
Karl, about the only part of the Bible that university scholars concede is
very old, pre-dating the 1st millennium BCE, is chapter 14 of Genesis. If
the “four kings against five” is a truly ancient composition, as many
(perhaps even a majority of) university scholars concede is the case, then how
could an ancient author portray Amorites as living south of the Dead Sea, when
every single person in the ancient Near East at the time knew that the
Amorites lived primarily in Lebanon, and were never south of the Dead Sea?
Karl, if we give up on that key point, we’re dead ducks.
The Amorites historically were in Lebanon, and are attested as being in and
near Hasi in the north-central Beqa Valley in the Amarna Letters.
Everything makes sense if Hasi is a shorthand, simplified version of XCCN TMR, which
itself is a virgin pure Hurrian name. Neither the Hurrians (Biblical “
Horites” at Genesis 14: 6) nor the Amorites were ever south of the Dead Sea.
Nothing at Genesis 14: 6-7 is, or is portrayed as being, south of the
Genesis 14: 7 (in reverse order). XCCN TMR is Hasi in the Beqa Valley.
The Amorites are in the Beqa Valley. (MLQY means either “valley” or “valley
dwellers”, and in context is referring to the Beqa Valley. [(MLQY is not
nonsensically talking about the descendants of Abraham’s future
great-great-grandson Amalek.] QD$ is the historical Qadesh of Upper Galilee located
just south of the southern entrance to the Beqa Valley. And En-mishpat is “Eye
on Seat of Justice”, that is, “Eye on Mt. Hermon”, being an alternative
name for (not a former name of) Qadesh of Upper Galilee, per items #4 and #5
on the Thutmose III list. “En-mishpat” is similar to the first line of the
song that modern residents of the kibbutz at Qadesh of Upper Galilee sing
today: “Facing the radiance of the Hermon”.
_http://www.malkiya.co.il/info/about1.htm_ (http://www.malkiya.co.il/info/about1.htm) It’s the same
concept, based on the same geography, 3,500 years later. (There’s nothing like
that in the Sinai Desert, nor is any name “Kadesh barnea” or “QD$” attested
in the Sinai Desert either. Rather, everything’s way up north, up Lebanon
Genesis 14: 6 (in reverse order). El-paran means “Great Desert”, and is
logically referring to the Great Desert -- the impassable Syro-Arabian Desert
that borders the entire eastern edge of the Transjordan, and which
stretches all the long way east to Babylon. “Horites” are the historical Hurrians
attested in the central Transjordan. Seir/“well-wooded” HRRM/“hill country”
is the well-wooded hill country on the east bank of the Jordan River.
There’s no hill country, and nothing well-wooded, south of the Dead Sea. There’
s n-o-t-h-i-n-g at Genesis 14: 6-7 south of the Dead Sea. Moreover, we
can use the Amarna Letters to verify the exact movement of troops south from
Ashteroth through the Transjordan (Genesis 14: 5-6). Then they “return”
/$WB back north past Qadesh of Upper Galilee and on into the Hurrian-dominated
Beqa Valley, “indeed even”/GM unto the small enclave of Amorites at and
near Hasi/XCCN TMR (Genesis 14: 7). In the entirety of the Hebrew Bible, the
three verses that have the most explicit secular historical backing,
verifying virtually each and every word in those three verses, are Genesis 14: 5-7.
Karl, Genesis 14: 6-7 has pinpoint historical accuracy, if only we, unlike
university scholars, are willing to look north of the Dead Sea, which is the
geographical locale that the author of chapter 14 of Genesis is talking
The problem is not with the Biblical text. The Biblical text is perfect
(or nearly perfect; unfortunately, one or two letters were added by later
scribes in error). The problem, rather, is that no university scholar is
willing to look north of the Dead Sea in a Bronze Age historical context in
evaluating the peoples and places referenced at Genesis 14: 6-7. That’s why the
Hurrian analysis of XCCN TMR is important. Karl, don’t you think it’s
strange that university scholars ignore XCCN entirely, and purport to match TMR
to a Roman-era village south of the Dead Sea? Why would such a village be
thought to be in continuous existence from the Bronze Age to Roman times?
And with the same name? And yet every single other Biblical author, including
Joshua and Ezra, missed that precious village entirely? Is that a
convincing theory of the case? That’s the scholarly view, believe it or not.
Instead of dreaming that the Roman-era village of Tamar has a
1,000-year-old unattested history and never changed its name in all that time (while
nevertheless being missed by every Biblical author and every Egyptian historical
document, except the ancient author of chapter 14 of Genesis), and ignoring
XCCN/Hazezon entirely, which is the scholarly way, why not consider a
Hurrian analysis of XCCN TMR? Karl, we’ve got all the documented history on our
side in supporting the pinpoint historical accuracy of the “four kings
against five”. When scholars claim it’s all fiction, in part on the basis of
their allegation that Amorites are being non-historically portrayed in the
Biblical text as living south of the Dead Sea, how can you breezily say: “
[W]hat problem is there with that?”
E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g is riding on that. The Amorites historically were in
Lebanon, not south of the Dead Sea. The Amorite state of Amurru in northern
coastal Lebanon is prominent in the Amarna Letters, and three Amarna
Letters document Amorites in the Beqa Valley at and near Hasi. The second half of
Genesis 14: 7 has pinpoint accuracy historically, and is talking about the
Beqa Valley in eastern Lebanon in the Bronze Age (not fictional people and
fictional places south of the Dead Sea, as university scholars would have
it). XCCN TMR needs to be associated historically with Amorites, in order for
the “four kings against five” to be historically accurate. It is! The
Hurrian analysis of XCCN TMR cinches the deal. The Masoretic Text has a
perfect 7-letter match to that ancient Hurrian name, whose shortened and
simplified equivalent is Hasi, which had an Amorite ruler in the Hurrian-dominated
Beqa Valley in Bronze Age Lebanon.
More information about the b-hebrew