Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer"

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] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer"
  • Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:41:24 EST


Kevin P. Edgecomb:

I will address your substantive points, but in a different order.

1. I asked you whether you now admit that “Chedorlaomer” can be analyzed in
terms of its three constituent words. KDR + L + AoMR is made up of the three
ordinary Hebrew words KDR and L and AoMR.

Rather than giving an honest, direct answer, here is what you wrote:

“The four kings of Genesis 14 are all Mesopotamia-based.”

How could a “Mesopotamia-based” ruler have a name comprised of three
ordinary Hebrew words?

You are in denial on this issue.

2. I also asked you if you now admit that “Amrapel” is a virgin pure west
Semitic name, and in fact is the name of Aziru’s most prominent brother.
Once
again, you are incapable of giving a direct response, but instead you wrote:

“That there were several to bear the name means nothing.”

That is, you indirectly admit that “Amrapel” at Genesis 14: 1 is the
historical name of Aziru’s most prominent brother, but then you insist that
this “
means nothing”. How can that “mean nothing”? You insist that Amrapel is a “
Mesopotamia-based” ruler, yet you tacitly admit that “Amrapel” is a virgin
pure west Semitic name from west Semitic-speaking Amurru in northern Lebanon.

You are in denial on this issue.

3. You wrote: “Tidal most certainly does not equate to Tudhaliya, mooting
your point. A more likely possibility would be something like the city name
Tuttul….”

If that’s so, and a “city name Tuttul” is one of the four attacking rulers
(how did you come up with that one?), then how can so many university
scholars
who are experts in these matters be so deluded about this? Here is a
sampling
of the virtually unanimous scholarly view that “Tidal” at Genesis 14: 1 is
the Hebrew version of the Hittite kingly name “Tudhaliya”:

“Scholars are agreed that Tidal represents in cuneiform Tudhaliya. There
were in fact no fewer than 5 Hittite Kings of the name." E.A. Speiser,
“Genesis”
(1962), Doubleday, New York, at p. 107. "Tid'al is universally recognized
as an early form of Tudkhalia, well known from the Hittite world". Kenneth
Kitchen "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?", Biblical Archaeological
Review,
March/April 1995, at p. 56. "Tidal…can be identified as the Hittite royal
name Tudhalias, which belongs to a number of Hittite kings between the
seventeenth and thirteenth centuries B.C." John Van Seters, “Abraham in
History and
Tradition” (1975), Yale University Press, New Haven, at p. 113. "Tudkalias
begins a new Hittite dynasty…." F.F. Bruce, "The Hittites and the Old
Testament",
The Tyndale Old Testament Lecture, 1947, at
_http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/_ (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/) ,
at p. 21.

4. You wrote: “Kasdim is likewise considered to derive from the Kassite
word for Akkad/Babylonia/Shanharu: Karduniash. The presentation of that
second
consonant alternately as /r/l/s/sh/ indicates that it was a lateral
fricative,
represented in different ways depending upon convention.”

That is helpful. It helps show the mid-14th century BCE pinpoint historical
accuracy of the particular vocabulary used in the Patriarchal narratives.

5. You wrote: “[W]hat possesses you to equate Amenhotep III with the
pharaoh of Exodus, or any other one mentioned in the Bible, for that matter?
No
doubt you are working with an alternate chronology in addition to an
alternate
philology....”

(a) I see no secular historical evidence for an Exodus. I have never
suggested or hinted that Amenhotep III might be “the pharaoh of the Exodus”.
All my
posts are on the Patriarchal narratives, if you haven’t noticed, never on the
Book of Exodus.

(b) Amenhotep III historically shares the characteristics emphasized for
Pharaoh at the end of chapter 12 of Genesis. Amenhotep III is the only
pharaoh
famous for taking into his harem, on a routine basis, semi-royal half-sisters
of minor powers in Canaan. Amenhotep III is also the only pharaoh famous for
vastly overpaying for foreign goods brought into Egypt on long-distance
caravans. Amenhotep III near the end of his reign was also leaning in a
semi-monotheistic direction a bit, and both he and his son Akhenaten had
troubles siring a
male heir. So Amenhotep III might be expected to be more sympathetic to an
early Hebrew like Abraham than virtually any other pharaoh in history
(except,
of course, Akhenaten himself, who is the model for the Pharaoh at the end of
Genesis).

(c) I obviously am not using any “alternate chronology”, as you falsely
allege, since I repeatedly refer to the time period of the Amarna Letters as
being the mid-14th century BCE.

6. You wrote: “You have my respect for your devotion, but not for your
stubbornness in rejecting and resisting the conclusions of people who know a
good
deal better than you in the subjects under question.”

Do you mean by that that I should abide by your earlier directive not to
analyze the name “Chedorlaomer” in Hebrew or Ugaritic? Are you saying that
when
Isaac Fried of Boston University analyzes the name “Chedorlaomer” in Hebrew,
he is crazy to be doing a Hebrew analysis on a name of a ruler who, you
insist
over and over again, is a “Mesopotamia-based” ruler? If you cannot admit
that it is child’s play to analyze the name “Chedorlaomer” as being comprised
of three routine Hebrew words, and that “Amrapel” is a virgin pure west
Semitic name that seems indistinguishable from the actual name of Aziru’s
most
prominent brother, then why on earth should I consider you to be a person
“who
know[s] a good deal better than [I] do in the subjects under question”?

Once you realize that “Chedorlaomer” is comprised of three Hebrew words that
are also three Ugaritic words, and that “Amrapel” is a virgin pure west
Semitic name, you will eventually realize that neither Chedorlaomer nor
Amrapel is
presented in the text of chapter 14 of Genesis as being, nonsensically and
non-historically, a “Mesopotamia-based” ruler.

All the objective facts are against you. “Chedorlaomer” and “’Eylam” and “
Amrapel” and “Shinar” are west Semitic nicknames. “Arioch” is a nickname
that is a Hurrian princeling name. “Elassar”/Alisar is the name of the city
in the Hittite heartland where Etakama, the Hurrian princeling on whom Arioch
is based, was re-educated by the Hittites. And “Tidal”/Tudhaliya is most
assuredly a bona fide Hittite kingly name from the first half of the 2nd
millennium
BCE. As such, these 7 nicknames perfectly match the four attacking rulers in
the “four kings against the five” military operation that took place in Year
14 of Akhenaten’s reign. “Tidal” is the nickname for historical Hittite
King Suppililiuma I. “Arioch” is the nickname for historical Hurrian
princeling
Etakama, who was re-educated by the Hittites at “Elassar”/Alisar. “Amrapel”
is the nickname for Aziru, the iniquitous Amorite of Amurru, located within
sight of Mt. Lebanon, which is “Shinar”. And “Chedorlaomer” is the nickname
for historical Niqmaddu II of Ugarit, with “’Eylam” being a derogatory
Hebrew nickname for Ugarit that means, as I will show in a later post, “The
Great
Dissembler”. It all matches perfectly to the well-documented secular history
of the mid-14th century BCE.

The key to understanding chapter 14 of Genesis is to overcome your denial
that (i) the name “Chedorlaomer” is comprised of three ordinary Hebrew words,
and that (ii) “Amrapel” is a virgin pure west Semitic name, that is
indistinguishable from the actual name of Aziru’s most prominent brother.

All the objective facts are against your traditional, old-fashioned view that
all four attacking rulers in chapter 14 of Genesis are “Mesopotamia-based’
rulers. In fact, not a single one of those four attacking rulers is from
Mesopotamia. Chedorlaomer is from Ugarit. Amrapel is from Amurru. Tidal is
from
Anatolia. And Arioch is from Qadesh, the city-state in northern Lebanon.
There is not a single “Mesopotamia-based” ruler in the lot. If you would
just
take a moment to analyze which names are west Semitic names, which name is a
Hurrian name, and which name is a bona fide Hittite kingly name, it would all
become clear.

The two critical issues here are issues on which there is great expertise on
this b-Hebrew list. (1) Can the name “Chedorlaomer” easily be analyzed as
being composed of three Hebrew words? (2) Is the name “Amrapel” a west
Semitic name that seems indistinguishable from the actual name of the most
prominent brother of Aziru of west Semitic-speaking Amurru? Those are the
two key
issues on which the historicity, or lack of historicity, of Genesis 14: 1-12
depends. You have the losing side of both of those two key issues. These
are not
“Mesopotamia-based” rulers.

No matter how much you may fervently wish Genesis 14: 1-12 to be
non-historical and nonsensical, the brute fact of the matter is that Genesis
14: 1-12
evidences pinpoint historical accuracy as to the well-documented secular
history
of the mid-14th century BCE. The key names “Chedorlaomer” and “Amrapel” tell
the (west Semitic) tale.

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)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page