Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Avi Wollman:
 
You wrote:  “I enjoyed your ideas BUT could you attempt to write it without 
the mockery of others sense, tradition, YHVH, fairy tales and such. It would 
help those who want to see truths when it is done in a less biased fashion. 
There really is no holiness in secular scientific findings :-) .”
 
I apologize if anything I wrote about the “four kings against the five” was 
viewed as being “mockery of others…tradition”, much less “mockery of…YHVH”. 
 In fact, I greatly respect the traditional religious view of chapter 14 of 
Genesis, and my view has much in common with that traditional religious view:
 
1.  We each view the “four kings against the five” as being closely based on 
an actual historical event.
 
2.  We each see the “four kings against the five” as an important element in 
the historical foundation of Judaism.
 
What I oppose is the tendency of modern secular scholars to view the 
Patriarchal narratives in general, and chapter 14 of Genesis in particular, 
as being 
somewhat akin to a “fairy tale”, to use the exact, pejorative wording of 
famed 
Biblical Minimalist Niels Peter Lemche.
 
I must say, though, that I do not fully agree with your final statement:  “
There really is no holiness in secular scientific findings”.  The historical 
facts are out there to document that the “four kings against the five” is 
closely based on an actual historical event.  I myself see no conflict here 
between 
the essence of what chapter 14 of Genesis presents, and the “secular 
scientific findings” concerning the mid-14th century BCE, which I view as 
being the 
historical Patriarchal Age.
 
We on the b-Hebrew list have a chance to change the world.  We are blessed 
with the finest and most open-minded moderators on the Internet.  Just think 
if 
we could get one university scholar to take chapter 14 of Genesis seriously, 
instead of always writing it all off as fanciful fiction involving a king of 
the predecessor of Persia and three other “Mesopotamia-based” kings. 
 
We on the b-Hebrew list could change the world, if we could just get one 
university scholar to raise the following objective points about the “four 
kings 
against the five”:
 
1.  Since the name “Chedorlaomer” is composed of three Hebrew words, which 
are also Ugaritic words, Chedorlaomer could represent princeling ruler 
Niqmaddu 
II of Ugarit.
 
2.  Since the name “Amrapel” is the name of Aziru’s most prominent brother, 
and since the first three letters of that name mean “Amorite” and “Amurru”, 
Amrapel could represent the iniquitous Amorite Aziru of Amurru.
 
3.  Since “Arioch” is a Hurrian princeling name, Arioch could represent the 
Hurrian princeling ruler of Qadesh, namely Etakama, who was Aziru’s partner 
in 
crime in looting northern Lebanon unceasingly in the mid-14th century BCE.
 
4.  “Tidal” is usually and correctly viewed by scholars as being the Hebrew 
version of the Hittite kingly name “Tudhaliya”.  Since Hittite King 
Suppililiuma I, the mightiest Hittite king of all time, killed his older 
brother named 
Tudhaliya/“Tidal” to seize the Hittite throne, and since Suppililiuma in fact 
did in secular history most all of the things that Tidal is reported to do in 
chapter 14 of Genesis, Tidal may represent Hittite King Suppililiuma I.
 
5.  Since the above 4 attacking rulers in secular history certainly did band 
together to destroy a league/bereit of 5 rebellious princelings, which they 
did in spectacular fashion, this military conflict in secular history could 
well 
be described using the exact wording at Genesis 14: 9:  “four kings against 
the five”.  If we interpret the four names of the four attacking rulers to be 
appropriate nicknames, then we have two west Semitic-speaking rulers, one 
Hurrian-speaking ruler, and one Hittite-speaking ruler, just as in secular 
history. 
 There’s not a single “Mesopotamia-based” ruler in sight, either in the text 
of chapter 14 of Genesis, or in the secular history of the mid-14th century 
BCE regarding this historical military conflict.
 
6.  Suppililiuma/“Tidal” certainly was a “king of nations”, as stated at 
Genesis 14: 1, since he ruled the Hittites, the non-Hittite people of 
Anatolia, 
the Hurrians who previously had dominated Syria, and the Amorites in Syria as 
well.
 
7.  Etakama/“Arioch” was re-educated in the Hittite heartland, in or near 
Alisar, so it makes sense for the text to describe Arioch as being “of 
Elassar”
/Alisar.
 
8.  If Amrapel is the west Semitic-speaking “bandit king” Aziru of Amurru, 
then the reference to “Shinar” must be to Mt. Hermon/Mt. Lebanon, per 
Deuteronomy 3: 8-9, on the eastern edge of Amurru, rather than “Shinar” 
having the 
same meaning as that word is used in the late, inaccurate Book of Daniel.
 
9.  Similarly, if Chedorlaomer is princeling ruler Niqmaddu II of Ugarit, “’
Eylam” must mean “Dissembler”, coming from the Hebrew and Ugaritic root verb ’
elam, describing the first Hebrews’ negative view of Ugarit, rather than “’
Eylam” having the same meaning as that word is used in the late, inaccurate 
Book of Daniel.
 
If we on the b-Hebrew list could get just one university scholar to take the 
above approach to chapter 14 of Genesis, we could change the world.  All of a 
sudden, academia would be confronted with the realistic possibility that the 
Patriarchal narratives may be closely based on well-documented secular 
history, 
as reported by a contemporary in the mid-14th century BCE, rather than being 
fanciful fiction dreamed up by four southern Hebrews, J, E, P and D, in the 
mid-1st millennium BCE.
 
I guess I am dreaming.  But it’s a pleasant dream, isn’t it?  Someday we may 
succeed in forcing university scholars to take the historicity of the 
Patriarchal narratives seriously.  The Patriarchal narratives are in fact the 
rock-solid historical foundation of Judaism.  
 
The only role that JEPD played regarding the Patriarchal narratives was to 
reinterpret the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives in the mid-1st 
millennium 
BCE.  For the most part, they did not change the actual wording of the text, 
thankfully, but they reinterpreted the northern Canaan locales to be southern 
Canaan locales.  As one key example of that, the world-famous wealthy island 
city-state in southern Lebanon, Sur, was reinterpreted to mean the western 
edge 
of the Sinai Desert.  Though that was not an appropriate place for Abraham 
and 
Sarah to go to have their baby, it did neatly remove newly hated Sur from the 
picture (with the wealthy Lebanese city-state of Sur having failed to help 
the 
southern Hebrews try to prevent Babylonia from destroying Jerusalem).  This 
reinterpretation enabled the southern Hebrews in the mid-1st millennium BCE 
to 
view Isaac as being born in southernmost Canaan, in or near beloved Judah.
 
But the original wording (though not the original spelling) of the 
Patriarchal narratives is still right there, staring us in the face.  It 
still has 
amazing pinpoint historical accuracy, just as it always has.  If we could 
give up 
the mid-1st millennium BCE southern Hebrew bias which has been enshrined in 
the 
traditional religious view of the Patriarchal narratives for the last 2,500 
years, and give up the Biblical Minimalism that has been important in 
academia 
for over 100 years and that has dominated academia since about 1970, we would 
see the Patriarchal narratives in a new light.  In my view, the Patriarchal 
narratives are very closely based on the well-documented secular history of 
the 
mid-14th century BCE, and they are told from a northern pre-Hebrew 
perspective 
by a single author, rather than being fiction generated in the mid-1st 
millennium BCE by four southern Hebrews.
 
That’s my controversial view of the case.  I never mock anyone’s religious 
views, and I certainly never mock YHWH.  I have the utmost respect for the 
traditional religious view of the Patriarchal narratives in particular, since 
it 
is sincere and honest, and it takes the Patriarchal narratives seriously.  I 
am 
trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, not to be “callous” in responding to my 
academic opponents, but I do find it hard to respect their consistent refusal 
to 
take the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives seriously.
 
Chedorlaomer was not a king of the predecessor of Persia who was, 
nonsensically, planning to take the hostages Lot, Lot’s wife, and Lot’s 
daughters back 
to the Iranian plateau.  No way.
 
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)