Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Jim,
> Harold Holmyard:
>  
> You wrote:  “The fact that such a coalition happened in the 14th century 
>  indicates that it could have happened earlier, too. The biblical dates for 
> Abraham suggest that he was born in 2166 B.C. and died in 1991 B.C.  So the 
> events in Genesis 14 happened long before the 15th century, according to the 
> biblical evidence.”
>  
> Your proposed dates are impossible in secular history.
>  
> 1.  No Hittites Yet
>  
> Per Trevor Bryce, “The Kingdom of the Hittites” (1998) at p. 16:
>  
> “The Hittite kingdom was founded in the early or middle years of the 
> seventeenth century.”
>  
> So a ruler with the vintage Hittite kingly name of “Tidal” could not have 
> been operating near Canaan prior to the 17th century BCE at the earliest.
>   

HH: I did a research paper in seminary on all the archeological evidence 
for Hittites early in Canaan, long before the 17th century. My professor 
lost it, but there are plenty of finds that suggest the same kind of 
people found among the Hittites. They are called Hittite in the 
archeological papers.
>  
> 2.  No Hurrians in Canaan Yet
>  
> Per Amelie Kuhrt, “The Ancient Near East, Volumes I and II” (1995), at p. 
> 286:
>  
> “[I]n the period c. 1850 and 1600, Hurrians appear to be present in 
> increasing numbers throughout northern Mesopotamia and Syria, as well as in the areas 
> where they were located earlier (north-west Iran and north-east Iraq).”
>  
> There is no support in secular history for seeing any Hurrian presence in the 
> greater Canaan area prior to the Late Bronze Age.  Indeed, the only Hurrian 
> state was Naharim (accurately referenced by that very name at Genesis 24: 10), 
> on the upper Euphrates River, in the 15th -14th centuries BCE.  Note also that 
> the Patriarchal narratives reference the historical Hurrians, a people who 
> died out in the Late Bronze Age.  To cite Amelie Kuhrt again, at p. 283:
>  
> “The term ‘Hurrian”…reminds the present-day reader of the Old Testament ‘
> Horites’ (Gen. 14.6;  36.20…)”.
>  
> “Arioch” is a vintage Hurrian princeling name.  The Hurrians do not appear 
> in greater Canaan, in any capacity, prior to the Late Bronze Age. 
>   

HH: I have not studied this in detail, but the name could have been used 
elsewhere. According to Wikipedia, Arioch is a Hebrew name meaning 
":fierce lion." It is also supposed to be the name of a grandson of the 
legendary Assyrian queen Semiramis in the Ninus legend. There are names 
common to several peoples. The Horites don't have tto be the Hurrians. 
And again, this is an argument from silence.
>  
> 3.  Four Rulers Against the Five Only Happened Once
>  
> Only once in recorded history did 4 rulers, one with a kingly Hittite name, 
> one with a princeling Hurrian name, and two with west Semitic names, destroy a 
> coalition of 5 princeling rulers in or near Canaan.  That was in the mid-14th 
> century BCE.
>  
> Pinpoint historical accuracy is the hallmark of the Patriarchal narratives.
>   

HH: But you are denigrating the historical accuracy by denying the 
biblical dates. A coalition need not be the only coalition that existed. 
You don't seem to realize that we are talking about a period thousands 
of years ago, and little evidence of the many historical events remains, 
relatively speaking.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard