Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Karl wrote:  “You still haven’t acknowledged that the Tell Amarna letters
describe a
 Canaan consistent with the archeological findings for 9th to 8th centuries
BC, not earlier.”  And in a later post Karl wrote:  “[T]he ‘secular’
history of Egypt contradicts the history presented in the Bible. You have to
make a choice:  either the Bible is accurate history and ‘secular’ Egyptian
history wrong, or the Bible is inaccurate and ‘secular’ Egyptian history is
correct, or both are inaccurate, but what you cannot logically say is that
both are accurate.”

As to that second comment, I respectfully disagree.  I see the
well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE as matching 
beautifully to
what is presented in the Patriarchal narratives, as we will see in this post.
 As to Karl’s first comment, that raises two very different issues, the
second of which may be of general interest.  The first issue, which goes to
absolute dating in the ancient world, is probably not a fit subject for the
b-Hebrew list to discuss.  For what it’s worth, I myself accept all the
conventional dating of the ancient world by mainstream scholars, including 
viewing
the Amarna Letters as having been written in the mid-14th century BCE.  No
aspect of my view of the Patriarchal narratives involves changing any
mainstream scholarly views as to the dating of secular historical events in 
the
ancient world.

The second issue, however, is fundamental to how we view the Patriarchal
narratives.  If the Patriarchal narratives are chockfull of accurate
information about the secular history of the Bronze Age (my view), then the
Patriarchal narratives must have been composed in the Bronze Age, not many 
centuries
later (by multiple authors, in the mid-1st millennium BCE -- No way!).  But
if the Patriarchal narratives were composed in the Bronze Age by a single
contemporaneous author (my view), then historically it is impossible that the
Patriarchal narratives will passively report what literally happened, year
after year.  No such composition exists prior to Greek-style histories, which
were not invented until about a 1,000 years or so after any historical
Patriarchal Age.

If the Patriarchal narratives are coming out of the Bronze Age (my view),
then we must realize that they are going to be in story form (such as the
super-popular Tale of Sinuhe in the Middle Bronze Age, though the Patriarchal
narratives are much more accurate secular history than the Tale of Sinuhe).
That is, in the Bronze Age, historical facts were remembered by means of
incorporating actual historical facts into a memorable story.  In the case of
the Patriarchal narratives, the pinpoint accurate historical facts are there
(which are of critical importance in establishing the historical foundation
of Judaism).  But they have been incorporated, Bronze Age style, into a
memorable storyline about 3½ generations of one remarkable family.  On the
surface, the events play out over a period of 350 years (traditionally viewed 
as
being 12-month years).  But we must be alert to the fact that there may be a
single author of the Patriarchal narratives who was a contemporary of these
historical events and who, Bronze Age style, has incorporated the
historical events of a single year into a memorable story of 3½ generations 
of one
remarkable family.  For a Bronze Age composition, we cannot be sure, in
advance, that an historical event reported during Abraham’s years necessarily
happened earlier (much less centuries earlier), in secular history, than an
historical event reported during Joseph’s years.

In my controversial view, all five of the most important foreign policy
events reported in the Patriarchal narratives occurred in a single year in
secular history!  Let’s take a brief look at the five most important foreign
policy events in Year 15 of the strange Pharaoh’s reign documented by the
Amarna Letters.  We will see that they are in fact one and the same as the 
five
foreign policy events that are set forth in the received text of the
Patriarchal narratives, at the time of the historical birth of Judaism, by 
the first
Hebrews, in rural Canaan.

1.  The ruler of Shechem and the men who are with him are killed in a sneak
attack, after they tried to organize the tent-dwelling peoples of Canaan to
create a greater Shechem that would have dominated all of central Canaan.
This sneak attack is done by supporters of, but  n-o-t  on the order of, an
early monotheist.  Against the monotheist’s legitimate fears and
expectations, that bloody deed surprisingly ends up having no adverse 
repercussions
whatsoever.  Chapters 34 and 35 of Genesis

2.  An early monotheist who, along with his father, had oddly married a
woman from far-off Naharim, irrevocably breaks off relations with his
father-in-law from Naharim (Genesis 24: 10) on the upper Euphrates River.  
The last
straw is when such father-in-law is incensed with anger that his monotheistic
son-in-law from far to the west does not deliver certain important statues
to the father-in-law.  Genesis 31: 30-51

3.  Abimelek of Gerar (in northwest upper Galilee, per #80 on the Thutmosis
III list) has terrible trouble getting access to water wells on the
mainland.  Chapter 26 of Genesis

4.  Pharaoh confiscates the land along the Nile River and returns it to
pharaonic ownership, making provisions only for those priests who were loyal 
to
Pharaoh’s (unpopular) regime.  Chapter 47 of Genesis

5.  “Four kings against the five.”  Four attacking rulers absolutely
destroy a league of five rulers, and as such threaten to overrun all of 
Canaan.
One of the victorious four rulers has a Hittite kingly name, one has a
Hurrian princeling name, one has a west Semitic name that refers to the 
Amorites
of Amurru in northern Lebanon, and one has a west Semitic name, along with a
title [in defective Hebrew spelling: MLK (LM]  that historically was unique
to the rulers of Ugarit.  Chapter 14 of Genesis  [For MLK (LM in Ugaritic,
see HALOT re (WLM.  The nickname used in Genesis for that ruler is composed
of three west Semitic words that are both Hebrew words and Ugaritic words:
KDR + L + (MR.  (Bronze Age compositions by non-royalty used nicknames for
all kings, as we know from the Amarna Letters written by princelings from
Canaan.  The only exception in the Patriarchal narratives is the historical
name “Abimelek”.)  The nickname used in Genesis for the mightiest Hittite king
of all time (Suppililiuma) is the actual name of such king’s older brother
(TD(L/Tudhaliya), whom the king ruthlessly murdered in order to seize the
Hittite throne.   As to the unanimous scholarly view that chapter 14 of
Genesis is about a fictional king of Elam (east of Mesopotamia) who 
fictionally
rampages through the Northern Negev Desert, that ultra-absurd theory of the
case is enough to make a grown man cry.]

The Patriarchal narratives are a Bronze Age composition, not linear
Greek-style history.  In Genesis, the critically important historical events 
of
Year 15 of this Pharaoh’s reign are examined by means of portraying different
generations of Abraham’s family as reacting to these historical events.
Instead of occurring over a 350-year period, all these historical events in 
fact
occurred in just one year -- Year 15 of this Pharaoh’s reign.

JEPD knew nothing and cared less about such matters.  Rather, the author of
the Patriarchal narratives is a single Hebrew individual from Canaan, who
lived in the mid-14th century BCE, and who recorded with pinpoint secular
historical accuracy what happened in Year 15 of this Pharaoh’s reign -- the
year in which Judaism was born.  The Hebrew author (from Canaan) of the
Patriarchal narratives is himself the first Hebrew, and is the founder of 
Judaism
as a formal religion.  The Patriarchal narratives are in effect a portion of
his autobiography, brilliantly told in a convoluted, sophisticated,
ever-fascinating Bronze Age style.

The historical reason why the first Hebrews were absolutely convinced that
God was on their side was because their unending prayers to keep the dreaded
Hittites out of Canaan were, on a semi-miraculous basis, answered in full.
There was a better than 50/50 chance that the Hittites would overrun all of
Canaan in Year 15 of this Pharaoh’s reign.  But it never happened.
Moreover, the Hittite threat to Canaan disappeared almost as fast as it had 
arisen.
 The most powerful Hittite king of all time made a binding, non-written
agreement with this Pharaoh that the Hittites would stay out of Canaan proper,
as long as Egypt did not contest the fact that all of Syria and northern
Lebanon had suddenly been made a part of the newly-acquired Hittite empire.

The Hebrews then enjoyed the only lengthy period of quiet time, being 500
years (!), when they were not under threat of annihilation, in the long
history of the Hebrews and Jews.  I see Judaism as historically having been 
born
in Year 15 of this Pharaoh’s reign, when the first Hebrews’ heartfelt,
monotheistic prayers that YHWH not allow the dreaded Hittites to overrun 
beloved
Canaan were answered in full.  Everything in the Patriarchal narratives is
entirely redolent of the secular historical facts on the ground in Year 15
of this controversial, hated Pharaoh’s 17-year reign.  The first Hebrews woul
d strongly have preferred to have a different kind of pharaoh -- one who was
militarily strong, and who as such would have easily kept the feared
Hittites out of Canaan.  But the first Hebrews were stuck dealing with a 
pharaoh
who seemingly refused to lead Egyptian troops into Canaan (or western Syria)
to fight the dreaded Hittites.  The fact that modern historians do not like
this Pharaoh is not a legitimate reason for failing to realize that all of
the historical events narrated in the Patriarchal narratives revolve around
the crucial foreign policy events (which threatened the very existence of the
early Hebrews) that occurred in Year 15 of this Pharaoh’s 17-year reign.

Judaism was born out of adversity, with a far-less-than-ideal pharaoh on
the throne of Egypt at the time.  Why should that be a surprise?  Regardless
of how much modern historians love to hate this Pharaoh, this is the Pharaoh
at the end of Genesis, and this is the Pharaoh whom the first Hebrews were
stuck with, as the first Hebrews valiantly struggled to defend themselves and
their way of life against the fearsome Hittites, who were ominously
knocking on Canaan’s door just north of Canaan proper at the time.  The 
fervently
anti-Hittite rhetoric of the Patriarchal narratives (e.g. Genesis 27: 46) is
heartfelt, and is the key to understanding the historical context of the
Patriarchal narratives.  The only time in 5,000 years of history when the
Hittites were truly hated by the people of Canaan (including the first 
Hebrews)
was in Year 15 of this Pharaoh’s controversial reign.  That short-lived, but
very intense, hatred and fear of the Hittites defines the historical time
period of the Patriarchal narratives.

We come to see that the five above historical events in the Patriarchal
narratives are reported not in chronological order, but rather in order of
importance to the first Hebrews.  First and foremost, and overshadowing all
else, the Hittite threat to Canaan is directly reported in chapter 14 of 
Genesis
-- the “four kings against the five”, where Hittite King “Tidal” [i.e.,
Suppililiuma I] is the military leader of the four attacking rulers.  Next
comes Abimelek of Sur/Ssur/Tyre/Gerar, in chapters 20, 21 and 26 of Genesis,
because Abimelek was incredibly wealthy from sea trade and also independent.
It meant a great deal whether Abimelek would help bankroll a unified
opposition to the dreaded Hittites, as opposed to Abimelek deciding to do 
business
with the fearsome Hittites.  (Abimelek historically ended up not selling
out to the Hittites, as opposed to what Amurru and Ugarit iniquitously had
done.)  Third is the breaking of relations with Naharim in chapter 31 of
Genesis, because when the monotheists in the west cut off all relations with 
their
former best ally Naharim (on the upper Euphrates River), that instantly
weakened a possible coalition against the Hittites.  Fourth is the
local/regional threat of Shechem to take over all of central Canaan, in 
chapters 34 and
35 of Genesis (which in a sense was the local, mini-version of the
short-lived Hittite threat to Canaan).  Least important to the Hebrews is 
Pharaoh’s
notorious confiscation of land along the Nile River in chapter 47 of Genesis,
although the unpopularity in Egypt of that dramatic action potentially
threatened Pharaoh’s ability to decapitate the Shechem offensive in central
Canaan and to deal assertively with the dreaded, threatening Hittites just 
north
of Canaan.  Just as Terakh’s three sons are listed in order of importance,
not in birth order, at Genesis 11: 26, so also are these five historical
events set forth in order of importance to the first Hebrews, rather than 
being
in chronological order.  In fact, all five of these historical events took
place in the same year!

No one on earth cared a fig about the long-extinct Hittites in the “9th to
8th centuries BC”.  Heavens, that’s about when JEPD lived!  No, everything
in the Patriarchal narratives is thoroughly redolent of the well-documented
historical facts of Year 15 of this Pharaoh’s 17-year reign, in the mid-14th
century BCE, many centuries before J, E, P or D.  That was the year of the
historical birth of Judaism, by the first Hebrews, in rural Canaan, after
the first Hebrew, somewhat similarly to Abraham, returned to his tent-dwelling
ways in beloved Canaan, having spent a short, if exciting and eventful,
amount of time in Egypt.  No, Pharaoh didn’t commission a “statue” of the
first Hebrew (or of Joseph).  But Karl, what could one reasonably expect from 
a
super-egotistical Pharaoh?!  Welcome to Egypt.  That magnificent canehead I
referenced is as good as it gets as to a positive Egyptian portrait of a
Hebrew.  There’s nothing better in that regard in 3,000 years of the
iconography of ancient Egypt.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois