Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Charles Hutchesson <MC2499 AT mclink.it>]

Our George, responding to my:

> > When you consider that there is in fact only one of the Amarna 
> > texts that mentions KUR.$a-ak-mi (EA 289) and that doesn't
> > indicate that Lab'aya was its king -- only that he gave it to
> > the enemy --, it is really only speculation (which I also have
> > been guilty of for convenience sake) that places Lab'aya as
> > ruler of Shechem [...]

said:
 
> I sort of agree with you. The nature of the connection between 
> Lab'aya and Shechem is speculative, but it is not an illogical
> or improbable one. Lab'aya gave over the land of Shechem -- this
> implies a connection of some sort, whether he be its king, a
> chieftain in the area, or its garbage collector. 

That his son crops up as the king of Pihili a few years later is even more 
interesting. As you can see from the letters, these kingships are hereditary. 
If Lab'aya's son is the king of Pihili, then it's pretty certain that Lab'aya 
(despite any specious reading from the OT/HB) was also king of Pihili.

> Whether it's
> actually Shechem is also another question, though I don't see
> the problem with proposing a city state of Shechem with its
> "land" (KUR).

Have you got one other example of a city in the Amarna letters prefixed with 
KUR.?

> Exactly how Lab'aya was connected to KUR.$a-ak-mi 
> is not clear. I would *guess* that he had some kind of suzerainty
> over it, or if not, that he was able to affect the politics of
> the place in some way. I admit it is a guess, but it's not an
> unreasonable one.

The last idea seems reasonable, ie that he had some control over it for him 
to be able to give it to the Habiru (who obviously didn't include him, ie 
Lab'aya couldn't himself be included in the category of Habiru).


Cheers,


Ian