Biblical Hebrew Forum

[barre AT access1.com]

Right, but who wants to be certain?  It is not even possible theoretically.  
I can also add that 
Hivites are thought to be Hurrians and the Hurrian names are well attested at 
El Amarna 
where they appears as rulers of cities just as does Hamor.  Further, I have 
learned we can 
narrow Lab'aya dates to 1370-1350 which would place Jacob's fighting years in 
this span.  
Further, both Hamor and Jacob would have been regarded as habiru and it seems 
likely that 
Abram migrated during this era and joined the trend.  So in the end I do not 
subscribe to the 
view that we are seeking certainly but merely assessing the probability of a 
hypothesis such as 
this which may either be degraded, remain as is, or be strengthened by the 
data and 
additional evidence that time will bring.  The hypothesis is offered, as are 
all in my view, for 
consideration, assessment and further research.  Also, Jacob calls the former 
inhabitants of 
the city "Amorites," which seems not to be those who come from the west but 
those who 
migrated westward, for that is what they did.

I have been talking about this quest for what about to "quick and cheap" 
certainty.  It is an 
arbitrary value.  Is the DH certain.  No, it will never be.  Is it highly 
probable, virtually certain 
or what.  It is not heuristically profitable to limit our interests only to 
theses that rate high in 
probability.  Why, especially since the field is empirical and therefore 
dynamic.  Therefore, 
my theses are not offered to "convince" people but to offer a hypothesis that 
best accounts 
for the data such as it is at the present time.  In practical terms, the 
hypothesis is in your head 
and you will be able to watch for relevant data or new evidence that affects 
its status.  
Whether it goes up or down makes no difference to me because my task is to 
reconstruct this 
culture accurately and objectively on the basis of the best information 
available.  Very few 
understand this methodological stance and that in my view marks them as 
amateurs.

The hypothesis, with its limited data, is nonetheless an important one for 
the simple reason 
that it has no competition.  It is the reigning hypothesis, presently by 
default.  It is also 
interpretively useful, for it indicates that we should be looking to the 
Amarna age for 
patriarchal origins--not in the many others that have been suggested on the 
basis of parallel 
customs from Nuzi or Genesis 14.  Actually, I guess the thesis does have 
competition.  So 
which is more probable and why?   Assessment.  Does it not make sense that 
the patriarchs 
would come in to be habiru in the century before the emergence of Merneptah's 
Israel?  It 
also fits into my relative chronology.  So basically, my view is to generate 
hypothesis, 
whatever may be the scope of the data, and to introduce them to the field to 
make their own 
assessment and so that they will watch for relevant data or the introduction 
of new evidence 
for or against.  Scholars who are strongly attached to their own ideas and 
have a difficult time 
concluding that they are wrong betray their lack of objectivity--which I am 
sure you will 
agree foundational with regard to competent research.

It is hard to be certain?  Is is rare, yea theoretically impossible. So what? 
 On a probability 
scale of 1-10, we should be constructing on those hypothesis that radiate out 
from 5.  
Lemche is only interest in probably 8-10.  But those are the thesis that need 
the least work 
but yet provide a springboard to deal with related issues of a lower 
probability rating.

So if you want me to launch into a diatribe, simple state something like "it 
is hard to be sure," 
or "it is not falsifiable," or "it is too speculative" or some such phrase 
that reflects a shallow 
methodology.  Here is what I follow.  It is known as the "hermeneutical 
circle."

Data - Evidence - Hypothesis - Evidence - Data

Relevant data in isolated from which arguments are made to support a 
hypothesis of varying 
probability.  Time usually produces either more data and therefore new 
evidence or new 
evidence may be construed from the original data.  These in turn affect the 
hypothesis, either 
supporting or degrading its probability level.  With a change in the 
hypothesis, the previous 
evidence and data are seen afresh, pointing the way to finding new relevant 
data and there 
new evidence which again affects the hypothesis and the cycle begins again. 
Therefore, it is 
most important that hypothesis be constructed irrespective of their initial 
probability rating.  
This is why I call my latest "A Working Synthesis."  Analysis and synthesis 
are mutually 
informing and we won't get very far with modest syntheses of particular 
issues.  Therefore, I 
suppose I am finding myself calling for an adequate methodology that does not 
disparage the 
formulation of hypothesis on the basis of their probability rating.  Indeed, 
the generation of 
hypotheses is critical to the enterprise, especially in light of the 
minimalist malaise.  The quest 
for certainty is not achieved by restricting oneself to high probability 
theses.  That leads 
nowhere as is so brilliantly illustrated by you know who.  No, hope for solid 
finding must 
engage in the generation of any hypothesis since it introduces ideas for 
consideration by the 
Academy.

Can we be certain?  Almost, virtually certain, but with a little patience.

Thank you for letting me get this off my chest.

Regards,

LMB

> ** Original Subject: Re:
> ** Original Sender: Job Wei <h9398374 AT hkstar.com>
> ** Original Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 19:40:36 -0800

> ** Original Message follows... 

>
> Dear Dr Barre,
> 
> At 12:58 AM 06/02/2000 -0800, you wrote:
> >Dear Mr. Wei,
> >
> >I have put together an argument that dates Jacob and I thought it would be
> of interest.
> >
> >As Jacob was not originally a part of the Abrahamic line, we must remove
> him from our 
> >relative chronology and date him independently.
> 
> Yes
> 
>   One of the El Amarna letters (286) 
> >states that Labayu had given up Shechem.  This may well be the Hivites to 
> >whom 
> >Hamor belonged.  It is also possible that Hamor himself took the city,
> explaining why he 
> >so proudly named his son after it.   With regard to the fate of Shechem,
> the Labayu--
> >Hamor--Jacob sequence allows us to relatively date Jacob's migration from
> Aram to this 
> >generation as a contemporary of Labayu (before he was killed by the people
> of Gina) and 
> >of Hamor.  Therefore Jacob's migration from Aram and his presence in 
> >northern 
> >Palestine may be syncretized with Hamor's seizure of Shechem from Labayu in
> the 
> >Amarna era.
> 
> It is very difficult to be certain.  The link is indeed a possibility but
> there are no conclusive evidences to find Jacob taking over Shechem from
> Labayu or Hamor directly.
> 
> Thanks for sharing,
> 
> Wei
> 


>** --------- End Original Message ----------- **

> 





---------------------------
L.M. Barre
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael
Point Loma, California