[b-hebrew] gen 28 sulam

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 18:55:38 EST 2012


Jim:

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:09 PM, <JimStinehart at aol.com> wrote:

> **
>
> Karl:
>
> ** **
>
> 1.  You wrote:  “What makes you think that Hurrians dominated the ruling
> class?”
>
> ** **
>
> 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.
>

The Bible concentrates on the Divided Kingdom, with Labaya (a good Hebrew
name) prominent in the Northern Kingdom, while for a while there was
Abdi-Heba (the first part of the name Hebrew) in Jerusalem. You are
changing the latter’s name to fit your presuppositions. Labaya fits the
profile of King Ahaz of Samaria. Indications are that we are dealing with
Israelites in Samaria and Jerusalem, even in the Amarna Letters.

> ** **
>
>
>
> **
>
> 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.
>

That’s no evidence for when Joseph’s birth occurred. If accurate, that’s
only evidence of Egyptian ignorance. It could also be a case of loss of
prior Egyptian records that named that place.

Again, this is an argument from silence. Given the fragmentary state of
ancient records, an argument from silence is no argument.

> ** **
>
> 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.
>

When a place has a common English name, I see no need to affect a
pseudo-scholarly attitude and call it by its local name when speaking
English. After all, we talk about Cologne, not Köln, Lake Lucerne and not
Vierwaldstädtersee of William, not Wilhelm, Tell fame, Lake Geneva and not
Lac Leman, Moscow and not Moskva, and so forth. Even personal names,
e.g. Rebecca not Rivka, Jesus instead of what could have been Yi-hay-sue at
that time, Jacob instead of Ya-a-qo-be, and so forth. I see no reason to
affect a snooty attitude so as not to give common English names when
speaking English.


>   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”.
>

Incidentally, it was the translators of the LXX who called it the land of
the Chaldeans. They knew the Hebrew name, yet they chose to use a different
name. What did they know that our modern scholars don’t, or don’t want to,
know?

> ** **
>
> 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.
>

Where is your evidence for this so-called confederate relationship? What
evidence from written sources that name both Abraham and this Milk-i-Ilu as
being contemporaries and in a confederate relationship? Where is Abraham
listed by name in any document from the period you concentrate on? Look,
you need evidence, not speculation, to convince us.

We have historical evidence that Abraham lived probably during the first
dynasty of Egypt, and his great-grandson Joseph was sold to Egypt during
the third dynasty. Centuries later, during the 13th dynasty, “Asiatic”
slaves, Israelites, left the country leaving it in such a shattered state
without an army (drowned in the Red Sea) that the Hyksos a few years later
were able to invade and take over the country unopposed, “without a
battle”. This is the historical picture given in Genesis and Exodus with a
couple of references to archaeology and Egyptian history.

This is the documentation. If you want to claim that this documentation is
wrong, you need other documentation. So far you have presented only
speculation, often speculation on very shaky basis. Why should we believe
your speculation when we have documentation saying otherwise?

> ** **
>
> 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.
>

This has nothing to do with that verse in Genesis.

>
>
> 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,
>

Nonsense! Others on this list have shown that this is a perfectly normal
Hebrew derivative from its Hebrew root.

You said you want to hear our response, but when you refuse to listen to
it, why should we bother?

>
>
> **
>
> 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.
>

The words contained in the received text in their contexts point to far
greater antiquity than what you are arguing  for. This is based on the
linguistic analysis of the text as it has been preserved. Right now, I’ll
remain with the text as understood by standard linguistic analysis.

> ** **
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> ****Evanston**, **Illinois****
>
> ** **
>
Right now, we have documentation on one side, and your often baseless
speculation on the other. Which is more believable?

Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20121129/639cc83e/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list