Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer", Part I

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer", Part I
  • Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:35:50 EST


Kevin P. Edgecomb

You wrote: “And yet, Mr. Stinehart, the Kassites called the area Shanharu,
and this is the accepted origin of Shin`ar. The alteration of the third
consonant, from ha to `/gh/g/ is common.”

Now we’re finally getting somewhere.

1. I am delighted to see that you agree that “Shinar” is not “Sumer”.
That means that Genesis 14: 1 is not nonsensically positing that a king of
Sumer
was one of the four attacking rulers in the Patriarchal Age. Sumer went
extinct many centuries before the Patriarchal Age.

So far, so good.

2. I am absolutely delighted by your reference to the “Kassites”. Yes! So
you are admitting that the author of the Patriarchal narratives knew the
Kassites, and associated them with Ur and southern Mesopotamia. Yes, that is
really exciting. Now we take a look at the phrase “Ur of the Kasdim”. This
is
routinely mistranslated as “Ur of the Chaldeans”, and then people laugh at
the
Patriarchal narratives for not knowing that in the Patriarchal Age, the
Kassites ruled Ur, and the Chaldeans were not in existence yet. But by your
own
admission, you are seeing the author of the Patriarchal narratives as being
well
aware of the historical Kassites, who ruled Ur and all the rest of southern
Mesopotamia in the mid-14th century BCE.

We’re off to a great start.

3. Now we get to “Shinar” and “Shanharu”. For starters, why on earth
would the Hebrews call a portion of Kassite Babylonia “Shanharu”? Does that
make
any sense? The Patriarchal narratives have “Ur” and “Kasdim”. Why switch
to “Shanharu” in chapter 14 of Genesis only?

4. Did a king of Shanharu, in a portion of Kassite Babylonia, ever join with
a Hittite king (with “Tidal” being the Hittite kingly name “Tudhaliya”) to
put down a penny ante rebellion by 5 penny ante Canaanite princelings in
greater Canaan? Of course not. Why would chapter 14 be telling such a
nonsensical
tale?

5. I hope you read my exciting analysis of the name “Amrapel”, showing that
it is a dead ringer for the name of Aziru’s most prominent brother.
Certainly you would agree, wouldn’t you, that “Amrapel” is a virgin pure west
Semitic
name? Why would a ruler with a virgin pure west Semitic name be said to be a
king of a portion of Kassite Babylonia? How ridiculous can you get?

Note that your views always manage to make chapter 14 of Genesis look
ridiculous and non-historical. Why are you trying so hard to do that? Why
not
accept that Amrapel of Shinar is the historical Aziru, the iniquitous Amorite
of
Amurru, near Shinar/Mt. Lebanon?

6. If you really want to start arguing about putting a G in there, then you
will have to consider the Egyptian evidence. "Sangar", which is “Shinar”
viewed as having an archaic ghayin, meant Syria, not Babylon, to the
Egyptians.
Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep II in the 15th century BCE tells a charming story
where "Sangar" clearly means Syria, not Babylonia:

"Amenophis II…proceeds to characterize himself as…the owner of various
cities in Syria. Each is contemptuously identified metaphorically as a
female:
Sangar is a slave-girl, Byblos [in northern Lebanon] a maidservant, Alalakh
[on
the border between northwestern Syria and southern Anatolia, north of
Lebanon,
the center of Mukish in the 15th and 14th centuries BCE] a little girl, and
Arapkha [modern Kirkuk, a ways east of Syria, in Assyria, very far north of
Babylon] an old woman." Donald Redford, Akhenaton: The Heretic King (1984),
at p.
32.

Egyptian troops never got close to Babylonia, but they did traverse, and
temporarily conquer, all of greater Syria. In this story Amenhotep II is
bragging
about being the conqueror and lord of greater Syria. In mentioning captive
"Sangar", Amenhotep III clearly is not referencing Babylonia, a place never
reached, much less conquered, by Egypt. Moving now to the highly-relevant
time
period of the mid-14th century BCE, in Amarna Letter EA 35 the King of Cyprus
mentions only two foreign rulers: Hatti and "the King of Sangar". Control
of
the west coast of Syria/Ugarit, which was critical to Egypt's trade with
Cyprus, was at that time being contested between the Hittites ("Hatti") and
the
Hurrian state of Nahrima/Naharim/Mitanni/Midyanniy in easternmost Syria.
(Genesis 24: 10 accurately references the mid-14th century BCE word
“Naharim.”) It
makes perfect sense for "Sangar" (or "Sanhar") to mean "Syria" in Amarna
Letter EA 35, while making no sense at all for "Sangar" to mean "Babylon".
There
would be no reason whatsoever for the King of Cyprus to be talking about
Babylon, a country that, so unlike Syria, was entirely irrelevant to the
vital
trading relationship between Cyprus and Egypt in the mid-14th century BCE.
Finally, in the first half of the 14th century BCE, Pharaoh Amenhotep III
(the old
pharaoh in the Amarna Letters and in the Patriarchal narratives) left three
topographical lists which include a reference to "Sangar". In none of these
three
topographical lists does a meaning of "Babylonia" for "Sangar" make sense,
whereas in all three topographical lists a meaning of "Syria" for "Sangar"
makes
perfect sense, as all three topographical lists are talking about trade
involving the west coast of Syria (Ugarit), an area of the world over which
Babylon
had not the slightest influence at that time. We know from Amarna Letter EA
1 that Amenhotep III knew the word for "Babylonia", namely "Karadunise", and
that such word never appears on any of Amenhotep III's topographical lists.
Either Amenhotep III is always mentioning Babylon on these topographical
lists,
or he is never mentioning Babylon. The King of Babylon was about the only
ruler in the whole world who was famously not invited to one of Amenhotep
III's
huge sed mega-parties. Amarna Letter EA 3 also tells us that Amenhotep III
"forgot" about the messengers Babylonia had sent for six long years, during
which
period Amenhotep III "forgot" to give the new King of Babylon any gift beyond
a nominal greeting-gift. By sharp contrast, Amenhotep III never forgot to
put "Sangar" on his topographical lists, most of which obviously have nothing
to
do whatsoever with Babylon, which was one of the few places in the world that
was totally beyond Egypt's control (and hence not to be emphasized in Egypt's
topographical lists). The only reasonable conclusion to draw from the
foregoing is that in the mid-14th century BCE, "Sangar" meant "Syria" to the
Egyptians, as a clever play on the Hebrew and Amorite words for Mt.
Lebanon/Shenir/Shinar/"Sangar" on the southwest corner of Syria, and Sangar
as an important
ancient city in eastern Syria, and that "Sangar" did not mean "Babylon".
Though
this Egyptian controversy may seem slightly off-topic to the b-Hebrew list,
in
fact it is important to realize that all the words in Genesis 14: 1, such as
"Shinar", are thoroughly redolent of the world of the mid-14th century BCE,
including such world's particular and peculiar choice of vocabulary.

We’ll continue this discussion in my next post.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page