Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Yigal Levin:
 
[I hope you meant to post the message to me below, rather than it being 
off-list.  To me it sounds like a post, not like something off-list.  I hope 
I 
am not doing something wrong here.]
 
You wrote:  “The "Amarna Age" lasted less than 20 years. Are you claiming 
that this is all the time the Patriarchal Age took as well? Besides, I don't 
se any
 references to Aten in the Patriarchal narratives either.”
 
 
1.  Let me answer your second question first.  In the Amarna Age, Aten and 
Ra (or Re) were often viewed as being the same, semi-monotheistic god.  (That
’s a gross oversimplification, but there’s no reason to get into Egyptian 
theology here.)  The city most identified with Ra/Re was On (called “
Heliopolis” by the Greeks).  The name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly 
father-in-law 
honors the god Ra, and may even be blatantly monotheistic:  “Potiphar” may 
mean “the gift of  t-h-e  Ra”.  If so interpreted, the definite article “the
” would be outrageously monotheistic.  Potiphar is from On.  To see the 
name Re, rather than Aten, at Amarna, just look at the names of Akhenaten’s 
last two daughters -- Neferneferure and Setepenre -- where both end in Re, 
and 
neither has an explicit reference to Aten.  If the reference to Joseph being 
age 30 “years”, in 6-month “years”, when he became an Egyptian official 
is a disguised reference to Year 15, based on Joseph being undoubled age 15, 
then as of Year 15 Akhenaten’s last two daughters had been born, and their 
names had honored Re directly, as being an indirect reference to Aten.
 
The foregoing is oversimplified, but so be it.  The point is that the final 
long section of the Patriarchal narratives in Egypt is chock-full of 
references to Re/Ra, one way or the other, while not having a single 
reference, in 
any way, shape or form, to Amen.  Indeed, many books of the Bible have the 
Hebrew word Amen, but not the Patriarchal narratives.  So if the Patriarchal 
narratives were composed in the Amarna Age, with the Hebrew author wanting 
Akhenaten to stand tall and resolutely resist the dreaded Hittites north of 
Canaan, then it would behoove that Hebrew author never to mention Amen while 
talking about Egypt, and rather to mention Re.
 
2.  I see the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives as having been composed in 
Year 15 of Akhenaten’s reign, by the first Hebrew, with the finishing 
touches, especially all the numbers, having been added shortly after 
Akhenaten’s 
death.  The Hebrew author knows that Akhenaten was the first historical 
monotheistic leader of a people, who ruled over his people in Egypt for 17 
years, because Genesis 47: 28 says precisely that as to Jacob/“Israel”:  that 
he 
was the first historical monotheistic leader of a people, who ruled over 
his people in Egypt for 17 “years”.  Moreover, when Joseph is said twice to 
die at age 110, that likely is a symbolic reference to 11 tenfold, given that 
Joseph is Jacob’s 11th son.  Similarly, when Abraham is said to die at age 
175 “years”, that likely is a symbolic reference to 17½ tenfold, 
referencing the fact that we know that Akhenaten died more than ½-way through 
his 
regnal Year 17, an objective historical fact which suggests the peculiar 
number 
17½.  The numbers in the text concerning the deaths of the two great 
Patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob, thus deftly memorialize the precise length of 
Akhenaten’s reign.  (Indeed, the  e-n-t-i-r-e  internal timeline of the 
Patriarchal narratives is built on that same, peculiar number, a number that 
is not 
prominent in any other literature in 5,000 years of mankind’s long history:  
17½.)  No other Biblical author, and no human being in the 1st millennium BCE 
or later, knew those specific historical facts, which cannot possibly be 
coming from multiple 1st millennium BCE authors of the Patriarchal 
narratives, 
as today’s scholars would have it.  The pinpoint historical accuracy of the 
Patriarchal narratives as to all numbers, in the context of the Amarna Age, 
is truly breathtaking.
 
In the ancient world, there was a sophisticated technique, used to rare 
(indeed unique) perfection by the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal 
narratives, 
whereby a storyline was created, which in a literal sense would today be 
said to be “fictional”, but yet the main point of that storyline was to 
eternally memorialize, in story-telling form, what had actually happened in 
secular history, rather than recounting legends, etc.  It was much closer to 
non-fiction than to fiction, yet the storyline was carefully crafted, rather 
than 
being merely a passive recording of what had literally happened in secular 
history.
 
In order to save the tent-dwelling Hebrews in rural northern and central 
Canaan from the dreaded Hittites, the first Hebrew had to get Akhenaten to 
rise to the occasion.  The Hebrew author shrewdly realized that the main 
impediment in that regard was that Akhenaten was drowning in his own tears 
over 
his horribly deteriorating personal family situation.  Akhenaten kept having 
this terrible, paralyzing thought that perhaps what all Egypt was whispering 
was in fact right:  that Egypt would have been much better off if Akhenaten’
s more meritorious older brother had lived to become pharaoh, rather than 
Akhenaten becoming pharaoh.  Note how that particular, odd, unusual fact 
pattern applies so strikingly to the first two Patriarchal successions.  
Ishmael 
is the more meritorious older (half-)brother, who on his own meritorious 
initiative comes to have descendants who are chieftains of 12 tribes.  But 
the 
younger brother, Isaac, though not being a towering figure in terms of 
individual merit, is nevertheless the divinely-approved proper choice to be 
the 
sole leader of the next generation of new monotheists.  The next Patriarchal 
succession is but a variation on that same theme.  The older (full-)brother, 
Esau, is the great hunter who provides meat for his father, but 
nevertheless the brainy younger brother, Jacob, is the divinely-approved 
proper choice 
to be the sole leader of the next generation of new monotheists.  Akhenaten 
would have absolutely loved both of those two stories.  The other, somewhat 
similar, scenario that was plaguing Akhenaten in Years 13-15 was the thought 
that perhaps Egypt would have been better off if his father had chosen as 
his successor a manly son by a minor wife.  To counter that negative thought, 
in the Patriarchal narratives Ishmael cannot be Abraham’s proper choice, 
despite Ishmael’s merit, because Ishmael’s birth mother is not Sarah, who is 
Abraham’s original main wife #1.  Likewise, in the last Patriarchal 
succession, Joseph cannot be the right choice, despite his tremendous merit 
and 
manliness, because his birth mother Rachel was not Jacob’s original main wife 
#1.  Rather, the divinely-approved proper choice to be the sole leader of the 
next generation of new monotheists must be Judah, a younger son, whose birth 
mother was the original main wife #1 of his father (namely Leah, who 
married Jacob 7 days before Rachel did).  We see that Akhenaten would have 
dearly 
loved all of those Patriarchal succession stories.
 
So Yes, I do indeed see the historical time period of the Patriarchal Age 
as being exceedingly short.  Virtually all of the many stories from chapter 
14 of Genesis to the end of Genesis relate to what actually happened in 
secular history in Years 12-15 of Akhenaten’s reign.  (The only exceptions 
are a 
small handful of material added centuries later.)
 
Today, what we love about the Patriarchal narratives is that it gives us a 
wonderful look at what life was like for the first Hebrews, who lived in 
tents in northern and central Canaan, and it is a contemporary written record 
of what the first Hebrews’ divinely-inspired religious views were.  Yet at 
the time, in my controversial view, what motivated the composition of the 
Patriarchal narratives was a perceived desperate need by the first Hebrew to 
get 
pharaoh Akhenaten out of his family doldrums, so that Akhenaten would take 
the lead in getting all of Canaan and Egypt to stand united as one against 
the dreaded Hittites, who for a very brief moment in time, especially in Year 
14, seemed potentially to be on the road to brutally conquering much of the 
Near East.  That’s the dire way things looked in Year 15, when the 
Patriarchal narratives were composed.    
 
That’s why there’s no mention of Amen, at all, even indirectly, in the 
Patriarchal narratives.  Amen was only totally out of style in Egypt for a 
very 
short period of time, which basically corresponds to the Amarna Age.  The 
Amarna Age is the only historical period of time when the substantive content 
of the text of the Patriarchal narratives makes historical sense.
 
3.  Not to bring up a bad subject, but in my view, the only way that 
scholars can ever be made to realize that the Patriarchal narratives have 
pinpoint 
historical accuracy, in the context of the Amarna Age, is if we could get 
scholars to re-examine the underlying geography of the Patriarchal 
narratives.  The radical ultra-southerly re-interpretation of the geography 
of the 
Patriarchal narratives by Ezra in post-exilic times, many centuries after the 
fact, is what has made Genesis 14: 5-7 seem like nonsensical fiction.  But in 
fact, if we get the geography right, almost every word of those three Bible 
verses, which relate to a very “minor” phase of the Great Syrian War in 
Year 14, can be historically verified by reference to Amarna Letters EA 197, 
EA 177 and EA 175.  Until and unless we can get university scholars like 
yourself to consider the possibility of a northern geography for the 
Patriarchal 
narratives, the pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives 
will remain hidden.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois