Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

James Christian:
 
1.  Yes, Akhenaten was a younger son, who initially was unfavored by his 
father, whose mother was his father’s original main wife #1, and who came to 
be an important early monotheistic leader.  Ditto for all three Patriarchal 
successions:  Isaac, Jacob and Judah.
 
I see the close parallels here as being to the Patriarchal narratives, not 
to the Exodus.
 
But the scholarly community will not change its view of the Patriarchal 
narratives based on analogies like that.
 
2.  The only way I know to possibly get scholars to take the historicity of 
the Patriarchal narratives seriously is to focus on Genesis 14: 5-7.  As 
you may know, our fine moderator, Prof. Yigal Levin, is one of the leading 
experts in the world concerning Biblical geography (as reflected, for 
example, 
in his excellent explanation on this thread of the King’s Highway).  We 
could potentially move heaven and earth if we could get him to  
c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r  
the ordinary meaning of the word $WB at Genesis 14: 7.  On 390 other 
occasions in the Bible, $WB means “return” (here:  “and then they returned”), 
and $WB  n-e-v-e-r  means “and then they made a very wide turn to the right”.
 
If Prof. Yigal Levin would  c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r  the ordinary meaning of $WB at 
Genesis 14: 7, which, in the context of the military operation having 
started at Ashteroth per Genesis 14: 5, would mean “and then they returned 
(back 
north to the Ashteroth area)”, then he might jettison forever the erroneous 
geographical understanding that the scholarly community currently has of the 
Patriarchal narratives.
 
The key is to try to get Prof. Yigal Levin to ask what Genesis 14: 7 would 
mean if $WB had its ordinary meaning.  Then the earth would move.  The #1 
impediment to getting scholars to recognize the  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical 
accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is that scholars completely 
misunderstand the underlying geography of the Patriarchal narratives.  In the 
Patriarchal narratives, no one is ever portrayed as being south of Bethel or 
the 
Aijalon Valley (or, in the Transjordan, south of Jazer/Seir), except in going 
to and from Egypt.  Until scholars can be made to see that fundamental point 
as to geography, they will not take the historicity of the Patriarchal 
narratives seriously.
 
If Genesis 14: 5-7 were viewed in its proper northern geographical context, 
then each and every aspect of Genesis 14: 5-7 could be shown to have  
p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy, based on the Amarna Letters.  But as 
long 
as scholars insist on viewing Genesis 14: 5-7 as portraying events way down 
south, in large part by grotesquely misinterpreting $WB at Genesis 14: 7 as 
allegedly (and impossibly) meaning “and then they made a wide turn to the 
right”, there is no hope in showing the  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  historical accuracy 
of the “four kings against the five” at Genesis 14: 1-11.
 
The key is to get some scholarly expert on Biblical geography, such as our 
own Yigal Levin, to take a new look at the underlying geography of the 
Patriarchal narratives, instead of passively accepting Ezra’s radical 
ultra-southerly reinterpretation of the geography of the Patriarchal 
narratives.  The 
post-exilic Ezra did that in order to fool the governing Persians, not 
realizing that he would forevermore fool scholars for millennia.  If we could 
just 
get one fine, open-minded scholar like our own Yigal Levin to ignore II 
Chronicles and the medieval pointing, and instead focus exclusively on the 
received text of the Patriarchal narratives and the well-documented secular 
history of ancient Canaan, then the true geography and historicity of the 
Patriarchal narratives would come shining through.  The received text of 
Genesis 
14: 1-11 is perfect, as is, and is fully historical, with extraordinary 
historical accuracy.  But Genesis 14: 1-11 should not be viewed (and 
misinterpreted), as is the scholars’ invariable practice, through the false 
lens of II 
Chronicles and the medieval pointing. 
 
To respond to Karl’s recent post, most university scholars do not believe 
there was an historical Exodus.  Accordingly, in evaluating whether the 
Patriarchal narratives (unlike the Book of Exodus) have  p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t  
historical accuracy, it does not make sense for scholars to examine the 
Patriarchal 
narratives through the lens of the Book of Exodus.  Rather, a much more 
profitable approach for university scholars would be to do exactly what I 
have 
recommended:  compare Genesis 14: 5-6 straight up with Amarna Letter EA 197 
(while ignoring, at least for the moment, the Book of Exodus entirely, along 
with ignoring II Chronicles and the medieval pointing for purposes of 
identifying geographical place names in the Patriarchal narratives).
 
The b-hebrew list could do mankind a great service if it would take a fresh 
look at the meaning of the Biblical Hebrew common word $WB at the beginning 
of Genesis 14: 7.  It cannot possibly mean “and then they made a very wide 
turn to the right (and headed out to the tiny desert oasis of Kadesh-barnea 
on the Sinai Peninsula)”.  No way.  Rather, the natural meaning of $WB at 
the beginning of Genesis 14: 7 is:  “and then they returned (back north to 
the 
Ashteroth area, and continued on north to and past QD$/Qadesh of Upper 
Galilee)”. 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois