Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

George:

On the linguistic front, I don't see where I am dealing with “ifs” in my
analysis of KDR + L + (MR MLK (YLM on this thread.

1.  In defective spelling, MLK (LM at Genesis 14: 1, 9 is identical,
letter-for-letter, to the unique Ugaritic title for Ugaritic kings, which in
Ugaritic is MLK (LM.  [You can confirm that precise Ugaritic phrase under 
HALOT’s
entry for the Hebrew word (WLM.]  There’s no “if” there.

2.  In the name “Chedorlaomer”, the first three letters are KDR.  KDR is a
Ugaritic word, one of whose many meanings is “vulture”.  There’s no “if”
there.

3.  In the name “Chedorlaomer”, the middle letter is L, which is a common
Ugaritic preposition, just as in Biblical Hebrew.  There’s no “if” there.

4.  In the name “Chedorlaomer”, the last three letters are ghayin-M-R (per
the Septuagint as to ayin vs. ghayin).  That is a Ugaritic word, which can
mean “a row of fallen grain”.  There’s no “if” there.

5.  On the scholarly view, by contrast, (YLM at Genesis 14: 1, 9 is almost
always “matched” to one or more of a series of words, none of which has
either an ayin/( or a yod/Y.  How can that be considered a “match”?  That’s
where your “ifs” are:  the scholarly view.  There is no close “match” of
(YLM in Biblical Hebrew to any one or more of NIM, hatamtu, hatalmtu, atamtu,
KUR elammatum, or elamtu.  None of those words has an ayin or a yod [the
first two letters in the Hebrew word (YLM].  Moreover, every one of those 
words
has one or more letters that are not in the Biblical Hebrew word (YLM at
Genesis 14: 1, 9.

6.  On the scholarly view, the name “Chedorlaomer” is analyzed as follows.
 The first half is kudur, being the Akkadian version of the non-Semitic,
Elamite word kutir.  The second half of the name “Chedorlaomer” is viewed by
scholars as being the (non-Akkadian) Elamite word “lagamar”, which has a
true G in the middle (not an ayin or a ghayin), which is thought to be an
Elamite deity.  There never was an historical person with the name
kutir-lagamar, as scholars nowadays admit.  How many “ifs” are there in that 
scholarly
view of the name “Chedorlaomer”?

7.  Every single published scholar, to the best of my knowledge, considers
Chedorlaomer to be portrayed at Genesis 14: 1, 9 as being a king of Elam,
who is portrayed at Genesis 14: 7 as making a series of conquests of cities in
the Northern Negev Desert.  Yet (i) there is no historical person named “
Chedorlaomer”, (ii) Elam  never had any contact whatsoever with the Hebrews or
Canaan, (iii) no king from Elam who came all the long way over to Canaan
would spend time campaigning in the Northern Negev Desert, while “forgetting”
to make any conquests at all in central Canaan or northern Canaan, and (iv)
not a single one of the five proper names in Genesis 14: 7 can be matched,
on the basis of secular historical inscriptions pre-dating the common era,
to any locale south or southeast of Gaza.  How many “ifs” are there in that
scholarly view?

If in your opinion the presence of “ifs” disqualifies a view from
consideration, then how on earth do scholars justify their age-old, 
non-historical
view that chapter 14 of Genesis portrays Chedorlaomer as being a king of
Elam?  Do you really think that scholars have solid arguments, not involving 
“ifs
”, to support the traditional, non-historical scholarly view that chapter
14 of Genesis portrays Chedorlaomer as being a king of Elam?  If so, then how
could I have missed all of those strong scholarly arguments, not involving “
ifs”, in all my reading of scholarly interpretations of chapter 14 of
Genesis?

If you know of a scholarly view of KDR + L + (MR MLK (YLM that does not
involve a whole fistful of “ifs”, both linguistically and historically, please
set it forth.  I’ve never seen it.

How can we make progress in understanding the Patriarchal narratives if we
are not allowed to challenge the age-old, non-historical scholarly view of
the identity of Chedorlaomer?  On the b-Hebrew list, we focus on linguistic
considerations.  On the linguistic front, I have set forth rock solid support
for my positions that (i) MLK (LM in defective spelling is identical,
letter-for-letter, to the unique Ugaritic title of Ugaritic kings, and that 
(ii) “
Chedorlaomer” consists of three well-known common words in Ugaritic.  I see
no “ifs” there.  Scholars for their part have set forth nothing comparable
in their published works in attempting to justify their age-old,
non-historical view that Chedorlaomer is portrayed in the Patriarchal 
narratives as
being a king of Elam who made grand conquests of cities in the Northern Negev
Desert.  In particular, the scholarly linguistic analysis of both KDR + L +
(MR and MLK (YLM is unbelievably weak, being chockfull of huge “ifs”
wherever one turns.

This thread is intended to be primarily a linguistic analysis of KDR + L +
(MR MLK (YLM, with the emphasis on possible parallels to those Biblical
Hebrew words from the Ugaritic language.  Isn’t this precisely the type of 
issue
that the b-Hebrew list is designed to explore?

Every one of my proposed linguistic matches above is letter-for-letter. 
Why would you seek to cut off discussion of this exciting issue, concerning
the possible connections between KDR + L + (MR MLK (YLM in Biblical Hebrew and
the Ugaritic words KDR and L and (MR [with a ghayin] and MLK and (LM [with
an ayin, and per the defective spelling in Biblical Hebrew]?  Look at all
those letter-for-letter matches to Ugaritic.  Although there are many
legitimate questions that can be raised as to the relevant meanings of these 
west
Semitic words, I see no “ifs” as to the basic linguistic analysis here.  KDR
+ L + (MR MLK (YLM is virgin pure west Semitic all the way, in every way.
The scholarly view that KDR + L + (MR MLK (YLM is the non-Semitic name and
non-Semitic title of a non-Semitic king of the completely irrelevant, far-off
non-Semitic country of Elam is not only full of “ifs”, but in fact is
completely untenable, on both linguistic and historical grounds.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823265x1201398681/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)