Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] "Bela (that is, Zoar)"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Bela (that is, Zoar)"
  • Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:40:57 EST


Karl:

You wrote: “You completely misrepresent the theology of Tanakh! The whole
theology was based on the expectation that the history was accurate, unlike
other
religions in other countries. As such, if the history is wrong, then the
theology means nothing.”

No leading university in the West today would accept such a view. Very few
university scholars today see the Bible as being accurate history in all
regards.

It is ironic, Karl, because I am the one who is trying to show that the “
four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 is completely historical, with
most of the many details in that Biblical text being verifiable by reference
to Amarna Letters.

By contrast, here is the mainstream university view of the historicity of
the “four kings against five”:

(1) “In recent literature [as of 1970, p-r-i-o-r to the heyday of
Biblical Minimalism], the consideration of Gen 14 as historical has generally
been
given up.” Thomas Thompson, “The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives
” [written in 1970], at p. 187.

(2) Writing in 2006, Anson Rainey asserts that there is a “total lack of
any link with known Ancient Near Eastern sources” for the military conflict
reported in chapter 14 of Genesis. “The Sacred Bridge”, at p. 114.

(3) K.A. Kitchen, in his book “On the Reliability of the Old Testament”
(2003), can say only that chapter 14 of Genesis is “an archaic memory” (p.
321), rather than asserting that it accurately describes a specific military
conflict documented in secular history. In particular, Kitchen can identify
no historical Elamite operations south of Syria. On the same page, Kitchen
laments the “common prejudice against the historicity of Gen. 14”.

(4) “[N]o king of Elam named Kutir/Kudur-Lagamar [‘Chedorlaomer’] is
attested, nor is there the slightest evidence of Elamite political or
military
engagement in Palestine at any time in history.” Anchor Bible Dictionary at
p. 893.

Karl, your approach to “helping” here is to throw out secular historical
records altogether, especially anything coming out of Egypt. But in fact,
the Amarna Letters written to pharaoh Akhenaten, which by the way were
written
by non-Egyptian people in Canaan (not by Egyptians!), support to the nth
degree the pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11.

Some day, some university scholar out there will consider giving the
Biblical Hebrew common word $WB its normal meaning at the beginning of
Genesis 14:
7. When that day comes, the historicity of the “four kings against five”
will come shining through, and the Patriarchal narratives will be revealed
to have been about northern Canaan, not southern Canaan, prior to Ezra.

The key is to consider the normal meaning of $WB at the beginning of
Genesis 14: 7. Given its normal meaning, all the rest of the places in
Genesis
14: 7 must be located north of Astheroth, not south, including QD$, which
then
is Qadesh of Upper Galilee. Isaac is portrayed as being born not too far
from there, in Upper Galilee. Until and unless some university scholar
considers the normal meaning of $WB at Genesis 14: 7, the academic community
will
go on thinking that the “four kings against five” is completely
non-historical. People like yourself who are knowledgeable about Biblical
Hebrew
could help, by considering the normal meaning of $WB at Genesis 14: 7.
Saying
that all Egyptian records are bogus does not help.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page