Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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)