[b-hebrew] gen 28 sulam

JimStinehart at aol.com JimStinehart at aol.com
Thu Nov 29 16:09:31 EST 2012

1.  You  wrote:  “What makes you think that  Hurrians dominated the ruling 
A majority of the names of princelings in Canaan in the Amarna Letters are 
Hurrian-type names.  Hurrian princelings only began to be  favored near the 
end of the reign of Akhenaten’s father.  By the time of Akhenaten’s death, 
the  Hurrians in Syria had been decimated by the  Hittites and were on the 
road to virtual extinction by the end of the following  century.  So the only 
time when  Hurrian princelings dominated the ruling class of Canaan was 
during the Amarna Age. 
2.  You  wrote:  “[T]he 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?” 
“Heba” is a Hurrian name, being the Hurrian name of the  Hurrians’ chief 
goddess.  IR-Heba  uses Hurrian common words in his Amarna Letters, he allies 
mainly with fellow  Hurrian princelings like Endaruta and Surata and 
$uwardatu, and he uses the  Hurrian number 318:  just as appears  at Genesis 14: 
14.  IR-Heba is as  Hurrian as the day is long:  he  bears a Hurrian name, he 
uses Hurrian common words, he associates primarily with  fellow Hurrians, 
and he uses the quintessential Hurrian number 318.  By stark contrast, King 
Jehoram has  nothing whatsoever to do with the Hurrians. 
3.  You  wrote:  “Jews continued calling that  area Naharaim long after 
Genesis, even after the Babylonian Exile in 1  Chronicles 19:6, therefore this 
is no indication of the date.” 
Yes, Jews continued to use the word “Naharim”, but they  got it from the 
truly ancient Patriarchal narratives.  In non-biblical literature, the name  “
Naharim” is confined to the Late Bronze Age: 
“The general region in which the ancestral home of  Harran is situated is 
called Aram-Naharaim in  the Old Testament.  The last element  in this name 
occurs first in the Eighteenth Dynasty in the Egyptian sources as  Nxrn, and 
in the Amarna letters as Naxrima.”  John van Seters, “Abraham in History 
and  Tradition” (1975), p. 58. 
Thus the geographical place name “Naharim” at Genesis 24:  10 is one 
important linguistic indication that Joseph’s birth is portrayed in  the Bible as 
occurring in or about the 18th Dynasty during the Amarna  Age, not 
substantially earlier. 
4.  You  wrote:  “Why do you think that  Genesis was careful to indicate 
that Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldeans, if not to distinguish that city 
from  Ur of the  Sumarians?” 
Karl, why would you, of all people, follow the scholarly  route of changing 
the second letter in K$DYM to a lamed/L?  Scholars do that so that they can 
claim  that a reference is being made to the mid-1st millennium BCE  
Chaldeans.  I would think you would  stick to what the letters actually are in the 
received Masoretic text.  The first two letters are K$, which  reference 
the Kassites.  The second  letter dalet/D is an abbreviated form of the 
Kassite word for “country”, which  is duniash, and/or it’s the Akkadian  word for 
“country”, which is tu.  Note that the Patriarchal narratives and  IR-Heba’
s scribe in the Amarna Letters refer to southern Mesopotamia in the same 
peculiar way, as being “Kassite  land”. 
5.  You  wrote:  “A great-great-grandson of  Abraham was “the most 
important princeling in the lives of the first  Hebrews”?C’mon!” 
The early Hebrews appreciated the historical Amorite  princeling Milk-i-Ilu 
so much, with whom Abram had had an invaluable confederate  relationship, 
that the name Milk-i-Ilu is honored by being set forth as one of  the names 
of the 70 Hebrews who are portrayed as leaving Canaan for  Egypt at Genesis 
46: 17. 
6.  You  wrote:  “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.” 
Actually, by the phrase “traumatic events that happened  in the first 
Hebrews’ valley”, I was thinking primarily of the succession crisis  when 
Milk-i-Ilu died in early Year 14.  If his awful firstborn son, Yapaxu, became and 
remained the new ruler of  the valley, the Hebrews might well be driven out 
of the valley, because unlike  his younger brother, Yapaxu hated tent 
dwellers.  T-h-a-t  is why 7 of 7 firstborn sons in the  Patriarchal narratives 
are portrayed as getting the shaft and properly so:  Haran,  Lot, Ishmael, 
Esau, Reuben, Er,  Manasseh. 
7.  You  wrote:  “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.” 
On the contrary, this thread has focused on SLM being a  mysterious hapax 
legomenon that is  inexplicable on a Hebrew linguistic analysis, but that 
makes perfect sense on a  Hurrian linguistic analysis.  “Heba”  is a Hurrian 
goddess name that is the basis for the “Hivites” in Genesis.  Each of “
Naharim” and “Kassite land” is  a stunning match in nomenclature between the 
Patriarchal narratives and  IR-Heba’s Amarna Letters.  And  finally, it’s a 
great linguistic discovery to find the name “Milk-i-Ilu” spelled  in full at 
Genesis 46: 17, since on my theory of the case that was the  historical name 
of the princeling who was most important to the first  Hebrews.   
The words and names in the received text of the  Patriarchal narratives are 
testament to its great antiquity and unparalleled  historical accuracy, in 
a Years 12-14 historical context. 
Jim Stinehart 
Evanston, Illinois  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20121129/df54bfb4/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list