Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Kevin P. Edgecomb
 
You wrote:  “And yet, Mr. Stinehart, the Kassites called the area Shanharu, 
and this is the accepted origin of Shin`ar.  The alteration of the third 
consonant, from ha to `/gh/g/ is common.”
 
Now we’re finally getting somewhere.
 
1.  I am delighted to see that you agree that “Shinar” is not “Sumer”.  
That means that Genesis 14: 1 is not nonsensically positing that a king of 
Sumer 
was one of the four attacking rulers in the Patriarchal Age.  Sumer went 
extinct many centuries before the Patriarchal Age.
 
So far, so good.
 
2.  I am absolutely delighted by your reference to the “Kassites”.  Yes!  So 
you are admitting that the author of the Patriarchal narratives knew the 
Kassites, and associated them with Ur and southern Mesopotamia.  Yes, that is 
really exciting.  Now we take a look at the phrase “Ur of the Kasdim”.  This 
is 
routinely mistranslated as “Ur of the Chaldeans”, and then people laugh at 
the 
Patriarchal narratives for not knowing that in the Patriarchal Age, the 
Kassites ruled Ur, and the Chaldeans were not in existence yet.  But by your 
own 
admission, you are seeing the author of the Patriarchal narratives as being 
well 
aware of the historical Kassites, who ruled Ur and all the rest of southern 
Mesopotamia in the mid-14th century BCE.
 
We’re off to a great start.
 
3.  Now we get to “Shinar” and “Shanharu”.  For starters, why on earth 
would the Hebrews call a portion of Kassite Babylonia “Shanharu”?  Does that 
make 
any sense?  The Patriarchal narratives have “Ur” and “Kasdim”.  Why switch 
to “Shanharu” in chapter 14 of Genesis only?
 
4.  Did a king of Shanharu, in a portion of Kassite Babylonia, ever join with 
a Hittite king (with “Tidal” being the Hittite kingly name “Tudhaliya”) to 
put down a penny ante rebellion by 5 penny ante Canaanite princelings in 
greater Canaan?  Of course not.  Why would chapter 14 be telling such a 
nonsensical 
tale?
 
5.  I hope you read my exciting analysis of the name “Amrapel”, showing that 
it is a dead ringer for the name of Aziru’s most prominent brother.  
Certainly you would agree, wouldn’t you, that “Amrapel” is a virgin pure west 
Semitic 
name?  Why would a ruler with a virgin pure west Semitic name be said to be a 
king of a portion of Kassite Babylonia?  How ridiculous can you get?
 
Note that your views always manage to make chapter 14 of Genesis look 
ridiculous and non-historical.  Why are you trying so hard to do that?  Why 
not 
accept that Amrapel of Shinar is the historical Aziru, the iniquitous Amorite 
of 
Amurru, near Shinar/Mt. Lebanon?
 
6.  If you really want to start arguing about putting a G in there, then you 
will have to consider the Egyptian evidence.  "Sangar", which is “Shinar” 
viewed as having an archaic ghayin, meant Syria, not Babylon, to the 
Egyptians.  
Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep II in the 15th century BCE tells a charming story 
where "Sangar" clearly means Syria, not Babylonia:
 
"Amenophis II…proceeds to characterize himself as…the owner of various 
cities in Syria.  Each is contemptuously identified metaphorically as a 
female: 
Sangar is a slave-girl, Byblos [in northern Lebanon] a maidservant, Alalakh 
[on 
the border between northwestern Syria and southern Anatolia, north of 
Lebanon, 
the center of Mukish in the 15th and 14th centuries BCE] a little girl, and 
Arapkha [modern Kirkuk, a ways east of Syria, in Assyria, very far north of 
Babylon] an old woman."  Donald Redford, Akhenaton: The Heretic King (1984), 
at p. 
32.
 
Egyptian troops never got close to Babylonia, but they did traverse, and 
temporarily conquer, all of greater Syria.  In this story Amenhotep II is 
bragging 
about being the conqueror and lord of greater Syria.  In mentioning captive 
"Sangar", Amenhotep III clearly is not referencing Babylonia, a place never 
reached, much less conquered, by Egypt.  Moving now to the highly-relevant 
time 
period of the mid-14th century BCE, in Amarna Letter EA 35 the King of Cyprus 
mentions only two foreign rulers:  Hatti and "the King of Sangar".  Control 
of 
the west coast of Syria/Ugarit, which was critical to Egypt's trade with 
Cyprus, was at that time being contested between the Hittites ("Hatti") and 
the 
Hurrian state of Nahrima/Naharim/Mitanni/Midyanniy in easternmost Syria.  
(Genesis 24: 10 accurately references the mid-14th century BCE word 
“Naharim.”)  It 
makes perfect sense for "Sangar" (or "Sanhar") to mean "Syria" in Amarna 
Letter EA 35, while making no sense at all for "Sangar" to mean "Babylon".  
There 
would be no reason whatsoever for the King of Cyprus to be talking about 
Babylon, a country that, so unlike Syria, was entirely irrelevant to the 
vital 
trading relationship between Cyprus and Egypt in the mid-14th century BCE.  
Finally, in the first half of the 14th century BCE, Pharaoh Amenhotep III 
(the old 
pharaoh in the Amarna Letters and in the Patriarchal narratives) left three 
topographical lists which include a reference to "Sangar".  In none of these 
three 
topographical lists does a meaning of "Babylonia" for "Sangar" make sense, 
whereas in all three topographical lists a meaning of "Syria" for "Sangar" 
makes 
perfect sense, as all three topographical lists are talking about trade 
involving the west coast of Syria (Ugarit), an area of the world over which 
Babylon 
had not the slightest influence at that time.  We know from Amarna Letter EA 
1 that Amenhotep III knew the word for "Babylonia", namely "Karadunise", and 
that such word never appears on any of Amenhotep III's topographical lists.  
Either Amenhotep III is always mentioning Babylon on these topographical 
lists, 
or he is never mentioning Babylon.  The King of Babylon was about the only 
ruler in the whole world who was famously not invited to one of Amenhotep 
III's 
huge sed mega-parties.  Amarna Letter EA 3 also tells us that Amenhotep III 
"forgot" about the messengers Babylonia had sent for six long years, during 
which 
period Amenhotep III "forgot" to give the new King of Babylon any gift beyond 
a nominal greeting-gift.  By sharp contrast, Amenhotep III never forgot to 
put "Sangar" on his topographical lists, most of which obviously have nothing 
to 
do whatsoever with Babylon, which was one of the few places in the world that 
was totally beyond Egypt's control (and hence not to be emphasized in Egypt's 
topographical lists).  The only reasonable conclusion to draw from the 
foregoing is that in the mid-14th century BCE, "Sangar" meant "Syria" to the 
Egyptians, as a clever play on the Hebrew and Amorite words for Mt. 
Lebanon/Shenir/Shinar/"Sangar" on the southwest corner of Syria, and Sangar 
as an important 
ancient city in eastern Syria, and that "Sangar" did not mean "Babylon".  
Though 
this Egyptian controversy may seem slightly off-topic to the b-Hebrew list, 
in 
fact it is important to realize that all the words in Genesis 14: 1, such as 
"Shinar", are thoroughly redolent of the world of the mid-14th century BCE, 
including such world's particular and peculiar choice of vocabulary.
 
We’ll continue this discussion in my next post.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.     
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)