Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

George:

You seem to be undercutting the scholarly analysis of KDR + L + (MR MLK
(YLM, when you write:

“IF Genesis were Ugaritic literature written in Ugaritic at Ugarit, then I
think we could talk further about your theory. But you're going to have a
hard time convincing anyone that that's what we have in Genesis. Your theory
is bordering on incredulous.

 I could just as 'plausibly' make the suggestion that MLK (LM means
'Concealed King' and that therefore Chedorlaomer is the throne name of none 
other
than Joash who was concealed by the priest Jehoiada.”

The scholarly view of Chedorlaomer is as set forth below.  Please note that
most scholars view the composition of chapter 14 of Genesis as long
pre-dating the Exile.

(1)  The Hebrew author of chapter 14 of Genesis knew the east Semitic
language of Akkadian, at least well enough to use the Akkadian version of the
Elamite word “kutir”, with the Akkadian version of that Elamite word being “
kudur”.

(2)  The Hebrew author of chapter 14 of Genesis knew the non-Semitic
language of Elamite, at least well enough to use the Elamite name of an 
Elamite
deity:  “lagamar”.

(3)  The Hebrew author of chapter 14 of Genesis knew the non-west Semitic
Sumerogram NIM, and represented it as (YLM.  [Alternatively, the Hebrew
author knew the Akkadian phrase KUR elammatum and represented it in Hebrew as
(YLM, etc.]

Note how the scholarly view requires the pre-exilic Hebrew author of
chapter 14 of Genesis to know at least some words in two or three different
non-west Semitic languages from far to the east.  Is that a sensible theory 
of the
case?

My view only requires the Hebrew author of chapter 14 of Genesis to know
several words in the west Semitic language of Ugaritic, a language that was
quite similar to Biblical Hebrew.

If you are arguing that it is “incredulous” to imagine an early Hebrew
author knowing the west Semitic language of neighboring Ugarit, then how can
scholars be right that the pre-exilic Hebrew author of chapter 14 of Genesis
knew words in the non-west Semitic languages of Akkadian, Elamite and
Sumerian, from far-away Mesopotamia and Elam?

George, I am sure you are well aware that dozens, if not hundreds, of
scholarly books have been written arguing that Ugarit had a fairly significant
influence on the Bible.  Yet you are arguing that it is “incredulous” that
the Hebrew author of chapter 14 of Genesis would know some words in the west
Semitic language of Ugaritic, a language that is quite similar to Biblical
Hebrew?

I thought you were going to defend the scholarly view of Chedorlaomer.  But
when you say that you “could just as 'plausibly' make the suggestion that
MLK (LM means 'Concealed King'”, you are thereby giving up the key scholarly
argument that (LM in defective spelling is the Biblical Hebrew rendering of
a non-west Semitic word for the country of “Elam”.  Once one gives up that
traditional, non-historical scholarly argument, there is then virtually
nothing left of the scholarly view that Chedorlaomer is portrayed in the
Patriarchal narratives as being a king of Elam.  And why would a king of 
far-away
Elam be portrayed at Genesis 14: 7 as conquering a series of cities in, of
all places, the Northern Negev Desert?  Does the scholarly view of chapter 14
of Genesis make any sense on any level?

A.  Now that you seem to have effectively abandoned the scholarly view of
Chedorlaomer, may I be so bold as to ask you what your own view of
Chedorlaomer is?  Do you see Chedorlaomer as being portrayed in chapter 14 of 
Genesis
as being a king of Elam?  If so, what is the basis for that view of yours?
If you are not relying (per the scholarly view) on the non-west Semitic
languages of Akkadian, Elamite and Sumerograms (which I certainly agree would
have been unlikely for a pre-exilic Hebrew author to know), then on what are
you relying to see Chedorlaomer as being a king of Elam?  George, perhaps you
are beginning to see the “incredulous” nature of the scholarly view of
chapter 14 of Genesis.  Don’t you think it’s suspicious that, to the best of
my knowledge, all university scholars in their published works unanimously
view Chedorlaomer as being a king of Elam?

B.  I realize that your proposal of Chedorlaomer possibly being Joash, who
was “concealed” by the priest Jehoiada, is sarcastic, not serious.  But
that sarcastic suggestion can nevertheless be helpful in extending our
linguistic analysis.  If we look only at the name and title of Chedorlaomer, 
then
Chedorlaomer might be, as you non-seriously suggest, a west Semitic-speaking
ruler who was “concealed”.  But in looking at Genesis 14: 1-11 as a whole,
we see that Chedorlaomer is portrayed as being allied with (i) a Hittite king
(since “Tidal” is a Hittite kingly name), (ii) a Hurrian princeling (since
“Arioch” is a Hurrian princeling name), and (iii) an Amorite princeling
(since the )MR at the beginning of the name “Amrapel” means “Amorite”, and
may also imply the Amorite state of “Amurru”).  Moreover, those four
attacking rulers are portrayed as destroying a league of five defending 
rulers, in
the “four kings against the five” at Genesis 14: 9.  Note how Joash totally
fails all of those other tests.  Joash was not allied with a Hittite king
and a Hurrian princeling and an Amorite princeling, with those four rulers
demolishing a league of five defending rulers.  But King Niqmaddu II of Ugarit
meets all of those additional tests!  Niqmaddu was indeed allied with (i)
Suppililiuma, a Hittite king (who had ruthlessly murdered his older brother
named “Tidal” to seize the Hittite throne), (ii) Etakkama, a Hurrian
princeling (ruler of Qadesh on the Orontes, who had been re-educated by the
Hittites at “Alisar”), and (iii) Aziru, the flamboyant Amorite princeling 
ruler of
the Amorite state of Amurru (who sold out Amurru to the new ruler of Syria
from “Senir” [Mt. Hermon] to “Singara” [ancient city in eastern Syria],
namely the Hittites).  Those four attacking rulers famously destroyed a league
of five defending rulers immediately north of Canaan proper, as documented
in the Amarna Letters.  In fact, it was that military operation that
permanently cut off northern Lebanon from henceforth being considered part of
Canaan, as northern Lebanon/Amurru iniquitously sold out to the Hittites and
became part of the Hittite Empire.

In 5,000 years of human history, only one ruler fits all the linguistic and
historical criteria set forth at Genesis 14: 1-11 for Chedorlaomer:  King
Nigqmaddu II of Ugarit.  It makes perfect sense for Niqmaddu to be
remembered, very negatively, in the Hebrews’ sacred scripture, because it was 
Niqmaddu
who sold out Ugarit to the dreaded Hittites, thereby potentially
threatening the continued existence of the tent-dwelling early Hebrews in 
Canaan
proper.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

**************Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222865043x1201494942/aol?redir=http:%2F%2F
ad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215692145%3B38015538%3Bh)