Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Amarna Letters

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] Amarna Letters
  • Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:04:52 EST


Kenneth Greifer:

1. You wrote: “Do you believe that in ancient history there was only one
person named Abimelech or was that a common name?”

“Abimelech” is a common name for a native west Semitic speaker. But it
would be rare for a ruler named “Abimelech” or “Abimilki” to be contending
with
foreign mercenaries/“invaders”/“Philistines” in violent disputes over
contested access rights to water wells. That combination would seem pretty
much
limited to Sur/“Tyre” in the 14th century BCE.

If Biblical “Gerar” is historical “Garu”, then we’ve got a great match here
between what the Bible says, and what actually happened in secular history.

2. You wrote: “Was it rare for people to fight over wells? Was the case in
the Amarna letters the only time in history that anyone fought over water?”

Sabotaging water wells is quite rare, absent an all-out war situation. Here
is what the Patriarchal narratives report is going on in that regard at Gerar:

“Now all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of
Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with
earth.”
Genesis 26: 15

“And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days
of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death
of Abraham….” Genesis 26: 18

That peculiar situation sounds unique to Sur. Eight Amarna Letters from
Abimilki of Sur deal with a similar situation. The rich island city-state of
Sur
could not get water from the mainland. Rival princelings, who often used
foreign mercenaries, were denying Abimilki access to those valuable water
wells.

3. You wrote: “Was only one person ever killed in Shechem?”

No. As you know, both in chapter 34 of Genesis and in secular history, the
leader of Shechem and all the men who were with him were killed. And in both
cases it was done under morally very questionable circumstances, involving
deception. In chapter 34 of Genesis, the men of Shechem had been weakened by
circumcising themselves at the Hebrews’ request, with circumcision being a
holy
rite to the Hebrews. In secular history, the leader of Shechem had a right
of
safe passage to Egypt, and was killed on his way to report to Akhenaten.
Neither monotheistic leader ordered the killing. Yet supporters of the
monotheistic leader, acting on their own motion, in each case killed the
leader of
Shechem and the men who were with him. Many people feared that such a
shocking turn
of events would turn central Canaan into a bloodbath. But a strange thing
then happened, both in secular history and in chapter 35 of Genesis. Most
all
the people of central Canaan were in fact happy that the big bad bullies of
Shechem were gone. There effectively were no reprisals at all.

As far as I know, there never was a Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive
situation like that except in Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign and in chapters
34-35
of Genesis.

4. You wrote: “Was only one person ever involved in a dispute over an idol
that someone else took?”

How many times does a monotheistic son-in-law from far to the west rudely
break off relations with his father-in-law from Nahrima/Naharim on the upper
Euphrates River, with the last straw being certain statues that the
father-in-law
is incensed that the monotheistic son-in-law from far to the west never
delivers to him? The only time I know such a thing happened was early in
Year 14 of
Akhenaten’s reign and in chapter 31 of Genesis.

5. You wrote: “All of these things sound like common things that would have
happened in those days and not unusual at all.”

(a) Sabotaging water wells in a non-war setting is not common except near
Sur.

(b) Killing the leader of Shechem and the men who were with him under
morally dubious circumstances involving deception, and having everything work
out
splendidly in that regard, is not common.

(c) A monotheistic son-in-law from far to the west rudely breaking with his
father-in-law from Nahrima/Naharim on the upper Euphrates River over a matter
concerning statues is not common.

I see all three of those shocking events as being fairly unique. They’re in
the Amarna Letters and the Patriarchal narratives, but that’s it, as far as I
know.

6. You wrote: “I am curious if Ralph Ellis would agree with you about the
Amarna letters and the patriarchal narratives being about the same events. I
think he agrees with most of what you say about Abraham being a pharoah, etc.”

(a) I do not know Ralph Ellis’s work.

(b) Abraham was not a pharaoh. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob represent
tent-dwelling Hebrews who were kinsmen of the Hebrew author of the
Patriarchal
narratives, who himself spent the majority of his life living in tents in
Canaan,
tending sheep and goats.

7. You wrote: “Why don't you contact him at his internet site and ask him?
If he thinks you are wrong, then I don't think anybody will agree with you
since he already agrees with many of your ideas and he seems pretty
open-minded
about alternative ways of looking at history.”

At your suggestion, I took a quick glance at Ralph Ellis’s Internet site. I
disagree with virtually everything he says. Abraham was not a pharaoh,
Abraham did not have 318 officers at his command, etc., etc.

Returning now to my own theory of the case, I do not understand why you are
so opposed to locating Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in their secular historical
context. It’s the university scholars, not me, who say this stuff is
fiction.
I, on the contrary, am trying to show that the Patriarchal narratives are
closely based on well-documented secular historical fact.

You have never gotten over the fact that I see the men of Jenin, not Simeon
and Levi, as being the people who in secular history literally killed the
leader of Shechem and the men who were with him at the time. The first
Hebrews
knew all about that historical incident. It was very important to the
survival
of the first Hebrews. That’s not fiction. It’s real. The author of the
Patriarchal narratives has used artistic license to project onto Simeon and
Levi
what the men of Jenin actually did in secular history. But it’s very closely
based on an actual historical incident. And it’s an historical incident
that,
if it had turned out differently, might well have led to the extinction of
the
new Hebrews. Both in secular history and in chapter 34 of Genesis, the men
of Shechem were trying to lure the habiru/Hebrews/tent-dwellers into becoming
cannon fodder for Shechem’s planned conquest of all of central Canaan. The
landless habiru/Hebrews were given vague promises of supposedly being able to
acquire landholdings in the new Greater Shechem in the future. It was a
tempting
offer, but accepting that offer would have been fatal to the new Hebrews.
These things actually did happen in secular history. It was a critical
moment
in the early history of the new Hebrews.

If the Patriarchal narratives are closely based on what actually happened in
secular history (my controversial view of the case), then we should be able
to
identify these big foreign policy events that are chronicled in the
Patriarchal narratives. That’s one of the things I am doing. For example,
given what
chapter 34 of Genesis says, we should be able to identify when in secular
history (i) Shechem tried to recruit habiru/Hebrews, and (ii) the leader of
Shechem, and the men who were with him, were killed under morally dubious
circumstances involving deception. (But we cannot expect to find the names
“Simeon”
and “Levi” in that regard.)

I am not viewing any Hebrew as being a pharaoh. The Patriarchs are portrayed
as having some of the same problems that bedeviled Akhenaten, especially as
to the difficulty of siring a male heir by one’s favorite main wife. But the
author of the Patriarchal narratives was a Hebrew who was primarily concerned
about the continuing welfare of his fellow tent-dwelling Hebrews in Canaan.
I
view the Patriarchal narratives as being a valuable account, closely based on
secular history, of how the first Hebrews managed to survive in the dangerous
world of mid-14th century BCE Canaan.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page