Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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)