Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Karl:
 
You wrote:  “You completely misrepresent the theology of Tanakh! The whole 
theology was based on the expectation that the history was accurate, unlike 
other
 religions in other countries. As such, if the history is wrong, then the
 theology means nothing.”
 
No leading university in the West today would accept such a view.  Very few 
university scholars today see the Bible as being accurate history in all 
regards.
 
It is ironic, Karl, because I am the one who is trying to show that the “
four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 is completely historical, with 
most of the many details in that Biblical text being verifiable by reference 
to Amarna Letters.
 
By contrast, here is the mainstream university view of the historicity of 
the “four kings against five”:
 
(1)  “In recent literature [as of 1970,  p-r-i-o-r  to the heyday of 
Biblical Minimalism], the consideration of Gen 14 as historical has generally 
been 
given up.”  Thomas Thompson, “The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives
” [written in 1970], at p. 187.
 
(2)  Writing in 2006, Anson Rainey asserts that there is a “total lack of 
any link with known Ancient Near Eastern sources” for the military conflict 
reported in chapter 14 of Genesis.  “The Sacred Bridge”, at p. 114.
 
(3)  K.A. Kitchen, in his book “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” 
(2003), can say only that chapter 14 of Genesis is “an archaic memory” (p. 
321), rather than asserting that it accurately describes a specific military 
conflict documented in secular history.  In particular, Kitchen can identify 
no historical Elamite operations south of Syria.  On the same page, Kitchen 
laments the “common prejudice against the historicity of Gen. 14”.
 
(4)  “[N]o king of Elam named Kutir/Kudur-Lagamar [‘Chedorlaomer’] is 
attested, nor is there the slightest evidence of Elamite political or 
military 
engagement in Palestine at any time in history.”  Anchor Bible Dictionary at 
p. 893. 
 
Karl, your approach to “helping” here is to throw out secular historical 
records altogether, especially anything coming out of Egypt.  But in fact, 
the Amarna Letters written to pharaoh Akhenaten, which by the way were 
written 
by non-Egyptian people in Canaan (not by Egyptians!), support to the nth 
degree the pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11.
 
Some day, some university scholar out there will consider giving the 
Biblical Hebrew common word $WB its normal meaning at the beginning of 
Genesis 14: 
7.  When that day comes, the historicity of the “four kings against five” 
will come shining through, and the Patriarchal narratives will be revealed 
to have been about northern Canaan, not southern Canaan, prior to Ezra.
 
The key is to consider the normal meaning of $WB at the beginning of 
Genesis 14: 7.  Given its normal meaning, all the rest of the places in 
Genesis 
14: 7 must be located north of Astheroth, not south, including QD$, which 
then 
is Qadesh of Upper Galilee.  Isaac is portrayed as being born not too far 
from there, in Upper Galilee.  Until and unless some university scholar 
considers the normal meaning of $WB at Genesis 14: 7, the academic community 
will 
go on thinking that the “four kings against five” is completely 
non-historical.  People like yourself who are knowledgeable about Biblical 
Hebrew 
could help, by considering the normal meaning of $WB at Genesis 14: 7.  
Saying 
that all Egyptian records are bogus does not help.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois