[b-hebrew] gen 28 sulam

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 15:08:17 EST 2012


On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:55 AM, <JimStinehart at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> Prof. Yigal Levin:
> ** **
> 1.  You wrote:  “Jim, even if Sulam were a foreign loanword, that in
> itself would not be proof of how old the story is.”
> ** **
> If SLM is a Hurrian loanword, that would tend to indicate an Amarna Age
> composition date for the Patriarchal narratives, because we know from the
> Amarna Letters that that was the only time period when Hurrian princelings
> dominated the ruling class of **Canaan**.

What makes you think that Hurrians dominated the ruling class?

For example, the fate of Abdi-Heba parallels that of wicked King Jehoram, a
native Jewish king in Jerusalem 2 Chronicles 21. With the archaeological
data indicating a late date for the Amarna latters, why shouldn’t we
consider that these were just two different names for the same king, a
common practice in those days?

> ** **
> 2.  Now consider whether the scribe of Hurrian princeling ruler IR-Heba
> of Jerusalem may have been the very person who, after IR-Heba was gone, the
> first Hebrews retained to record in writing an outline of the Patriarchal
> narratives, using cuneiform to write pre-Hebrew west Semitic words.  We
> know from Amarna Letter EA 273, which deals with the identical succession
> crisis that threatened the first Hebrews’ continued ability to live in
> their beloved homeland, that tent dwellers in the valley in Year 14
> sometimes retained scribes to record their thoughts in writing.  Now
> consider the following truly  s-t-u-n-n-i-n-g  similarities in the
> peculiarities of the writing style of IR-Heba’s scribe and the
> peculiarities of the writing style in the received text of the Patriarchal
> narratives:

Why shouldn’t we take these “s-t-u-n-n-i-n-g  similarities” to be evidences
that we are dealing with a continuation of the same people and nation?

> ** **
> (a)  These are the only texts from **Canaan** that use *xireq compaginis*in common words.
> ** **
> (b)  These are the only texts from **Canaan** that routinely use Hurrian
> common words in a positive manner.  [The *hapax legomenon* SLM has been
> the focus of this thread.]

You have yet to show that there is any need to consider this a Hurrian

> ** **
> (c)  These are the only ancient texts from Canaan that refer to northern *
> *Mesopotamia** as “Naharim”.  Genesis 24: 10.  Amarna Letter EA 287: 35.

Jews continued calling that area Naharaim long after Genesis, even after
the Babylonian Exile in 1 Chronicles 19:6, therefore this is no indication
of the date.

> ** **
> (d)  These are the only texts from Canaan that refer to southern **
> Mesopotamia** as “Kassite land”.  Genesis 11: 28, 31;  15: 7.  Amarna
> Letter EA 287: 36.

Why do you think that Genesis was careful to indicate that Abraham came
from Ur of the Chaldeans, if not to distinguish that city from Ur of the
Sumarians? The same way we distinguish Lafayette, Louisiana from Lafayette,
Indiana? Or Evanston, Wyoming from Evanston, Illinois?

> ** **
> (e)  Each of these texts refers to the most important princeling in the
> lives of the first Hebrews, using the same spelling of his historical name:
> Milk-i-Ilu.  Genesis 46: 17.  Amarna Letter EA 287: 29.

A great-great-grandson of Abraham was “the most important princeling in the
lives of the first Hebrews”?C’mon!

>  ** **
> If IR-Heba’s former scribe was retained by the first Hebrews, shortly
> after Akhenaten’s death, to record in writing an abbreviated outline of the
> Patriarchal narratives, that would nicely explain both (i) the foregoing
> remarkable similarities in the writing peculiarities of the received text
> of the Patriarchal narratives as compared to IR-Heba’s Amarna Letters, and
> (ii) the  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy of the Patriarchal
> narratives regarding all the many historical details of the traumatic
> events that happened in the first Hebrews’ valley [Genesis 37: 14] in Years
> 12-14.

I’m stunned that Jacob asking Joseph to check up on his brothers, expecting
that everything is going well, can be called “traumatic events that
happened in the first Hebrews’ valley”. The illogic of this idea floors me.

> ** **
> Do you see how very important it is to identify various *hapax legomenon*like SLM in the Patriarchal narratives as being Hurrian loanwords?

No, not at all.

> ** **
> Jim Stinehart
> ****Evanston**, **Illinois

Jim: you are building speculation upon speculation, before you’ve shown
that the first one is to be accepted you’ve already used it as a basis for
the next.

I see you’ve abandoned trying to make a linguistic argument for your
thesis, relying instead on a highly speculative historical argument, which
makes it off limits for this discussion group.

Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20121129/9d6f8c81/attachment.html 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list