Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

James Christian:
 
You wrote:  “Kind of has implications for your theories about Sodom and 
Gomorah. This is a clear context from a much later time indicating places of 
destruction and
 not of fertility.” 
 
Notice your key reference to “a much later time”.
 
At a much later time, the later Hebrews:
 
1.  Had forgotten about the Great Syrian War, and as such no longer had an 
historical understanding of Genesis 14: 1-11, though it still had good 
theological meaning.
 
2.  Had forgotten the actual sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, and so later books 
in the Bible had quite varying views of what that sin was.
 
3.  Worst of all, the post-exilic Jews honestly believed Ezra’s radical 
ultra-southerly reinterpretation of the underlying geography of the 
Patriarchal 
narratives.  As such, they thought that Genesis 14: 5-7 was describing a 
strange military campaign south of the Dead Sea, and that Isaac had been born 
in the Negev rather than in Upper Galilee.  But now that Upper Galilee was 
irrevocably lost by the post-exilic Jews, why not accept Ezra’s new view that 
Isaac had been born in the nearby Negev?  For Judah (as opposed to Israel), 
what Ezra said to fool the Persians actually made the Patriarchs more 
popular than ever among the southern Hebrews, because the Patriarchs were now 
re-conceptualized as having been southerners, instead of spending so much of 
their time way up north in Upper Galilee/GRR/Gerar (a land now long lost to 
the Jews of Judah).
 
Until the Enlightenment, none of that much mattered.  The theology was 
still good.  But then Westerners started demanding objective historical proof 
that the Patriarchal Age was historical, not fictional.  Yet no Westerner 
ever 
asked if in evaluating the underlying geography of the Patriarchal 
narratives, perhaps absolute reliance should not be placed on II Chronicles.  
GRR/Gerar will never be found in southwest Judah, where Ezra claimed it was.  
Historical GRR/Gerar is Galilee/GLL/GLYL, attested in mid-15th century BCE 
northern Canaan at item #80 on the Thutmose III list.
 
Scholars themselves admit that chapter 14 of Genesis may have been composed 
all the long way back in the mid-2nd millennium BCE.  Quoting from the 
mainstream Anchor Bible Series:  “Genesis xiv stands alone among all the 
accounts in the Pentateuch, if not indeed in the Bible as a whole.  …The date 
of 
the narrative has been variously estimated.  …A fresh re-examination of all 
the available scraps of evidence, both internal and external, favors any 
early 
date, scarcely later in fact than the middle of the second millennium [BCE].
”  Speiser, “Genesis” (1962), at pp. 105-106.  If the “four kings against 
five” was composed way back then, then it makes little sense to insist on 
interpreting the geography of Genesis14: 5-7 on the basis of Ezra’s 
post-exilic II Chronicles! 
 
If we look at the secular history of  n-o-r-t-h-e-r-n  Canaan in the Late 
Bronze Age, all the geographical place names in Genesis 14: 5-7 are there.  
(By contrast, at Genesis 14: 1-2 the Hebrew author had good reasons to use 
Hebrew nicknames.)  But if we do as scholars do in analyzing Genesis 14: 5-7 
and look solely in southernmost Canaan, per Ezra, none of those geographical 
place names will ever be found in secular historical inscriptions from the 
ancient world.  QD$ and GRR are big as life in Bronze Age northern Canaan, 
but are nowhere to be found in the secular history of southern Canaan.
 
My threads keep getting closed, but the substance of my geographical 
arguments is not refuted.  The pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 
1-11 is 
absolutely breathtaking, if one is willing to look to  n-o-r-t-h-e-r-n  
Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, and give the common Biblical Hebrew word $WB 
at 
the beginning of Genesis 14: 7 its normal meaning.  That’s all I’m asking.  
If that’s too controversial, then so be it.
 
Let me close with a Hebrew language issue that has great historical 
ramifications.  On my view, Biblical “Chedorlaomer” is historical Niqmaddu II 
of 
Ugarit, Biblical “Tidal” is historical Hittite King Suppiluliuma I, and the “
four kings against five” concerns the first year of the Great Syrian War.  
In that connection, it is noteworthy that chapter 14 of Genesis concludes in 
Ugaritic fashion, circa the end of the first year of the Great Syrian War, 
when Abraham promises not to take either “a string or a sandal lace” for 
returning Sodom’s looted goods:
 
“Speiser correctly observed that the phrase…neither a string nor a sandal 
lace [at the end of chapter 14 of Genesis] is based on Near Eastern formulae…
.  We now have a text from Ugarit remarkably close to Gen 14 in some ways.  
Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit, has been plundered by his enemies [members of the 
league of 5 rebellious princelings].  His suzerain, the Hittite king 
Suppiluliuma, comes to his rescue and drives the invaders away.  In response 
Niqmaddu attempts to give Suppiluliuma a gift as a sign of his appreciation.  
The 
text is damaged at this point, but may be restored to read as follows:  ‘
Suppiluliuma, the Great King, saw the loyalty of Niqmaddu, and as far as what 
belongs to Ugarit…Suppiluliuma, the Great King, will not touch anything, be 
it straw or splinter….’  Abram appears to follow similar royal etiquette 
[at the end of chapter 14 of Genesis] in refusing anything from the king of 
Sodom in return for his accomplishments.”  Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of 
Genesis Chapters 1-17 (1990), William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand 
Rapids, Michigan at p. 414
 
That is university scholarship at its finest.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois