Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Language, migration and Jewish identity

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Language, migration and Jewish identity
  • Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 17:39:00 EST


Yitzhak Sapir:
You wrote: "I note that most of those who accept the Exodus as historical
in light of archaeology, believe it took place around the time of the Amarna
correspondence. Of
course, Jim Stinehart here views the Amarna correspondence as dating to the
time of the Patriarchs -- this would also generally rule out Hyksos periods
as the time of the Exodus".
1. I am surprised to see you say that people who believe in an historical
Exodus see the Exodus as being around the time of the Amarna period. That is
not a mainstream religious view, is it?
2. If we're going to discuss these topics here, even generally, then I think
it should be pointed out that secular scholars at leading universities in
the West will not permit any analogies to be asserted between the Bible and
the Amarna period. That applies both to the Exodus and to the Patriarchal
narratives.
Indeed, analogies of anything in the Bible to Egypt are generally prohibited
by academic secular scholars in the West. Secular scholars insist that we
should look solely to Mesopotamia for inspirations for the Bible, despite
the
fact that 100 years of scholarly effort in that direction have produced
surprisingly little.
3. People naively think that secular scholars have carefully compared the
Patriarchal narratives to the Amarna correspondence and have found very few
similarities. In fact, such a comparison is not permitted by secular
scholars
in the West. So if you were to say to a secular scholar, for example, that
the killing of Lab'ayu, the leader of Shechem, in the Amarna Letters seems a
lot like the killing of Hamor, the leader of Shechem, in chapter 34 of
Genesis, in that both killings were done by the forces of the first
historical
monotheistic leader of a people (Akhenaten in secular history, Jacob in the
Bible), but not at that leader's direct order, and under morally
questionable
circumstances, but with a fine result nonetheless, and with this being the
only
moment in history when Shechem had a legitimate chance to dominate all of
central Canaan absent this Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive, by
organizing
tent-dwelling peoples to do Shechem's bidding, here is what would happen.
You
would be accused of being a religious fundamentalist, and the secular
scholar
would not lower himself to even put forth an argument that the differences
in the two accounts allegedly outweigh the similarities. Was it Lab'ayu in
Amarna Letter EA 254, or Hamor in chapter 34 of Genesis, who as the leader
of
Shechem utters this immortal line shortly before his death? "I did not know
that my son was consorting with the [habiru/Hebrews]."
You would get the same scholarly reaction if you were to assert that
Akhenaten, the first historical leader of a monotheistic people in secular
history,
and Jacob, the first historical leader of a monotheistic people in the
Bible,
each oddly and rudely broke off relations with his father-in-law on the
far-off upper Euphrates River over the strange issue of certain statues
(golden
statues in secular history, teraphim in Genesis) that the first monotheistic
leader, from far to the west, failed to deliver to his irate father-in-law
on
the upper Euphrates River. Was it Tushratta from the far-off upper
Euphrates
River in Amarna Letter EA 29, or Laban from the far-off upper Euphrates
River in chapter 31 of Genesis, who utters these words to his monotheistic
son-in-law from far to the west, shortly before all relations were
permanently
broken off by the monotheistic son-in-law: "I asked for statues…. Now, may
my
[son-in-law] give me the statues…. Why is it for you a source of
distress…?"

The same would also happen if you were to assert that the only substantive
Amarna Letter we have that was written by Akhenaten (Amarna Letter EA 162)
is
expressly on the topic of "the iniquity of the Amorites", which is
referenced
so memorably at Genesis 15: 16. Do you realize that secular scholars, in
their published works, try to tell us that "the iniquity of the Amorites" at
Genesis 15: 16 refers to untoward sex practices of Gentiles in Lebanon? Why
the
heck would the Hebrews be claiming in their sacred scripture that there
would be a delay in the Hebrews' return to Canaan, for hundreds of years,
until
the sex practices of Gentiles in Lebanon changed? Is that a sensible
reading
of that fine text? Wouldn't the early Hebrews, by sharp contrast, be
vitally concerned about the ominous fact that in the mid-14th century BCE,
both the
Amorites in northern Lebanon (Aziru), and the Amorites in Ugarit just north
of Lebanon (Niqmaddu II) [but not Abimilki of Sur in southern Lebanon, who
by
contrast was a good Amorite], iniquitously sold out to the dreaded Hittites,
thereby imperiling the very existence of the new Hebrews? That was the
historical "iniquity of the Amorites". Who the heck cares about the sex
practices of Gentiles in Lebanon? Isn't a looming potential genocide of the
early
Hebrews by the fearsome Hittites a lot more important subject than that?
Just
because Akhenaten excoriates the historical "iniquity of the Amorites" in
selling out northernmost Canaan to the Hittites in Amarna Letter EA 162,
does
that mean that we are forced to go with the secular scholars' view that the
author of Genesis 15: 16 was supposedly upset about some allegedly untoward
sex
practices of Gentiles in Lebanon? Was it Isaac's wife Rebekah at Genesis
27:
46, or Akhenaten in Amarna Letter EA 162, who utters these immortal words of
invective? "I loathe my life because of the Hittites…."
People naively think that secular scholars have considered these issues
objectively and in detail, and have rejected the comparison of the
historical
time period of the Amarna Letters to the historical time period of the
Patriarchal narratives on the merits. In fact, no secular scholar from a
leading
university in the West is permitted to consider such arguments.
4. As you know, secular scholars at leading universities in the West
unfortunately consider the Patriarchal narratives to be "fairy tales",
composed by
multiple authors and incoherently edited, with the Patriarchal narratives
allegedly not being pulled together until a 1,000 years or so after the fact
(of
when the Patriarchs were supposed to have lived). Yet there's nothing about
the Patriarchal narratives that is in the nature of "fairy tales". All the
stated ages of people make perfect sense if viewed in terms of 6-month
"years". There is a monolithic viewpoint in the Patriarchal narratives from
beginning to end, which would be impossible to sustain if there were
multiple
authors and incoherent editing. And the pinpoint historical accuracy of the
Patriarchal narratives as to the mid-14th century BCE secular historical
time
period could not possibly be coming from a mid-1st millennium BCE
composition.
5. In order to bring this post back to Hebrew language issues, which is the
long suit of this b-Hebrew list, may I ask how you yourself explain the
presence in the Patriarchal narratives (at Genesis 14: 14) of the 15th
century
BCE word chânîykîm? If the Patriarchal narratives were not composed in the
mid-14th century BCE, during the historical Patriarchal Age (my
controversial
view of the case), then how did that word get into a mid-1st millennium BCE
composition?
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page