Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

You see Jim you are still not interacting with the sources are you. Amarna
letters are from Kings of civilised settlements. External sources to the
Amarna letters define the Amorites as primarily nomadic and getting up
peoples' noses. The Amorites in the Amarna letters (if that's what they are)
represent a minority of the Amorites and you have no basis for claiming that
the Amorites were never South of the Dead Sea based on the data.

Further, to be quite blunt I couldn't care or less what any modern historian
has ever said. We are discussing the sources. Not historians' opinions.

James Christian

On 8 May 2010 21:52, <jimstinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

> James Christian:
>
> Amorite rulers in the Amarna Letters were not nomadic.  Nor were they
> located south of Canaan, or on the southern edge of Canaan.  Rather, rulers
> with Amorite names in the Amarna Letters are concentrated in Lebanon, with
> some Amorite rulers being in Canaan south of Lebanon, usually fairly near
> the coast.  Ugarit also had many Amorites.  I do not believe that any
> secular historian has ever said that Amorites lived south of the Dead Sea.
> Historically, per the Amarna Letters, there was a rare concentration of
> Amorite rulers near Hasi, though most of the Beqa Valley was dominated by
> Hurrians at the time.  That's what Genesis 14: 7 is reflecting, and it's
> verified out the wazzoo by the Amarna Letters.
>
> The pinpoint historical accuracy of the "four kings against five", per the
> Amarna Letters, is breathtaking.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
> To: jimstinehart AT aol.com
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 1:38 pm
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Amorites
>
> And that's it? That's your 'evidence' that the Amorites were never South of
> the Dead Sea? A maybe just maybe this was the name of an Amorite king in the
> Beqa Valley? And that's conclusive proof that the Amorites were never South
> of the Dead Sea? You're not engaging very well with the sources are you. The
> Amorites were primarily nomadic. They were everywhere getting up everyone's
> noses.
>
>  James Christian
>
> On 8 May 2010 21:07, <jimstinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
>
>> James Christian:
>> 1.  [Amarna Letter] 175:003  [um-m]a ìl-da-a-ya Ì[R-ka]
>> Everyone agrees that’s a west Semitic name of the ruler of Hasi in the
>> north-central Beqa Valley.
>> Per Wm. Moran (the editor of the Amarna Letters) and apparently per Anson
>> Rainey as well, this west Semitic name starts with Il.  The classic
>> indicator of an Amorite name (as opposed to some other type of west
>> Semitic-speaking ethnic group) is “Il”.  That’s the Amorite version of a
>> name for the divine.  Moreover, the Amorites were very closely associated
>> with Lebanon in the mid-14th century BCE.  The Amorite state of Amurru
>> was the northern half of coastal Lebanon, not too far from Hasi.
>> 2.  But there’s additional exciting news in the neighborhood of this
>> Amarna Letter.  Remembering the names of the 5 rebellious princelings at
>> Genesis 14: 2, take a gander at Amarna Letters EA 174 and EA 363, which
>> except for the name of the rulers, are virtual carbon copies of Amarna
>> Letter EA 175 above.
>> The stylized nature of the names of the rebellious princelings has often
>> been noted:
>>
>> “*Bera…Birsha…Shinab…Shemeber.*   Note the alliterative pairs.  [Footnote
>> reference to] Sarna, *Genesis*, 102.”  Bruce K. Waltke, “Genesis:  A
>> Commentary” (2001), at p. 229.
>>
>> But moving on now to where university scholars have never gone, it is
>> interesting to compare the name of the first named rebellious princeling at
>> Genesis 14: 2 to the name of the princeling author of Amarna Letter EA 174
>> from the Beqa Valley complaining about the Hittite attacks there in Year 
>> 14:
>> Bera/BR( vs. Bieri/bi-e-ri.  Per Richard Hess’s analysis at pp. 57-58 of
>> “Amarna Personal Names”, this is a west Semitic name (and hence presumably
>> the name of an Amorite, since the locale is Lebanon), in which the ending
>> “often appears at Amarna as *i-u*.  The GN may be identified with the URU
>> *bi-i-ri* in the Akkadian texts from Ugarit (prU 3: 93 [RS 16:244:7])….”
>> Although the vowel sounds vary in the various ancient languages, all of
>> these names could be viewed as being B + vowel sound + R + vowel sound 
>> [with
>> the final Hebrew ayin/‘ being used here to approximate the final Amorite
>> vowel sounds;  early Biblical Hebrew had no vowel indicators].
>>
>> One might also compare the name of the princeling author of the Amarna
>> Letter EA 363 from the Beqa Valley in Year 14 -- ‘Abdi-Risha, which per 
>> Hess
>> at p. 16 is another west Semitic name -- with the names of the other three
>> named rebellious princelings:  Birsha, Shinab and Shemeber.  Note that
>> all four names feature the consonants B and R and Sh.  The English
>> transliteration “Birsha” is probably misleading here, as the root of the
>> name is likely R$(, with B being a preposition or other introductory
>> element, in which case the name might be rendered in English as B-Risha.
>> Indeed, if the introductory element [B] in B-Risha/BR$( were viewed as
>> being a shortened form of Abdi (which likewise is an introductory element),
>> then B-Risha could be viewed as simply being a shortened form of 
>> Abdi-Risha.
>> That is to say, B-Risha appears to be a Hebrew nickname that has been
>> deliberately designed to have overtones of the historical name Abdi-Risha,
>> who wrote an Amarna Letter to Akhenaten in Year 14 complaining about 
>> Hittite
>> outrages in the northern Beqa Valley.  Thus the first two of the four
>> stated names of the 5 rebellious princelings -- Bera and B-Risha -- are
>> definitely redolent of two of the three known names -- Bieri and Abdi-Risha
>> -- of the four princelings near Hasi in the north-central Beqa Valley who
>> wrote letters to Akhenaten complaining about the Hittites in Year 14.  And
>> the last two stated names can be viewed as being variants of the second
>> name.
>>
>> *       *       *
>>
>> Note how much light is spread on the league of 5 rebellious princelings by
>> analyzing the names of the Amorite princelings who complain about Etakkama
>> (Biblical “Arioch”) and the Hittites under Suppiluliuma (Biblical “Tidal”)
>> in Amarna Letters from the Beqa Valley in Year 14.  Yes, this gets us
>> into the topic of the use of Patriarchal nicknames at Genesis 14: 1-11, but
>> so be it.  Note how beautifully these Hebrew nicknames at Genesis 14: 2
>> of princelings match to the names of princelings in the Amarna Letters who
>> likewise were under attack in Year 14 from a coalition of attacking rulers
>> that included both a Hurrian (Etakkama/Arioch) and a Hittite
>> (Suppiluliuma/Tidal).
>>
>> Jim Stinehart
>> Evanston, Illinois
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> From: James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
>>   To: jimstinehart AT aol.com
>> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 12:47 am
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Amorites
>>
>> For the benefit of the list members here is a transcription of EA 175:
>>
>>  175:001  [a-na ]LUGAL EN-ia DINGIR[-ia d.UTU-]ia
>> 175:002  [qí]-bí-ma
>> 175:003  [um-m]a ìl-da-a-ya Ì[R-ka]
>> 175:004  L[Ú] KUR ha-sí a-na $u-pa-li
>> 175:005  up-ri GÌR-pí LUGAL EN-ia
>> 175:006  7 ù 7 am-qú-ut
>> 175:007  a-mur-mi né-e-nu e-ba-$[a-]nu
>> 175:008  a-na KUR am-qí URU.DIDLI.HÁ LUGA[L] E[N-]ia
>> 175:009  ù a-li-uk m.e[-tá-kà-m]a
>> 175:010  LÚ KUR qí-in-sà a-[na pa-ni]
>> 175:011  ÉRIN.MEß ha-at[-ta]
>> 175:012  [ù $]a-[k]a4-[an URU.DIDLI.HÁ]
>> 175:013  [LUGAL EN-ia a-na e-$a-ti]
>> 175:014  [ù li-di-mi LUGAL EN-ia]
>> 175:015  [ù li-di-na LUGAL EN-ia ]
>> 175:016  [ÉRIN.MEß pí-µá-a-te]
>> 175:017  [ù ni-pu-u$ URU.DIDLI.HÁ         ]
>> 175:018  LU[GAL EN-ia
>> 175:019  ù [ni-$a-a]b <URU.DIDLI.HÁ>
>> 175:020  a-na [L]UG[AL] E[N]-ia
>> 175:÷÷÷÷÷
>>
>>  As you can see it is highly reconstructed. The mention of Hasi is in
>> line 003 (ildaaya).
>>
>>  James Christian
>>
>> On 8 May 2010 08:40, James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also,
>>>
>>>  could you please show me where in EA175 there is this reference to the
>>> Amorites being in the Beqa Valley that you keep talking about?
>>>
>>>  http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/semitic/EA163-262.html
>>>
>>>  <http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/semitic/EA163-262.html>James Christian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 May 2010 08:34, James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim,
>>>>
>>>>  several issues here. Firstly, this thread is about the Amorites.
>>>> Please don't polute with a discussion about the Horites versus Hurrians.
>>>> There's another thread for that discussion.
>>>>
>>>>  Secondly, please stop presenting arguments against an identification
>>>> of Kadesh-Barnea or the Gulf of Aqaba. The last I checked nobody is
>>>> disagreeing with you on this. Qadesh was a common name.
>>>>
>>>>  Thirdly, we had a thread about El Paran and the evidence is against
>>>> your theory of Oak tree. Alon means Oak tree. Tereminthos means 
>>>> turpentine
>>>> tree. But please don't polute a discussion about the reach of the 
>>>> Amorites
>>>> with these kind of issues.
>>>>
>>>>  Finally, you eventually said something on topic. You have singled out
>>>> one particular period in one particular Amarna letter EA175 and limited 
>>>> the
>>>> Amorites to Hasi in the Beqa Valley. The Amorites were primarily nomadic 
>>>> and
>>>> their reach was far beyond one particular city in one particular valley.
>>>> They were all over the place causing an annoyance to neighbours in all
>>>> directions. They were so abundant that the Term Amorite was almost 
>>>> perfectly
>>>> synonymous with the term Canaanite. You seem to have gotten hung up on 
>>>> one
>>>> particular source and be trying to make the story fit into that source 
>>>> in a
>>>> time period which doesn't even align well.
>>>>
>>>>  In short, if you want to continue a discussion about the reach of the
>>>> Amorites in various periods then I'm happy to continue analysing the data
>>>> with you but please stay on topic without relying on massively embedded 
>>>> if
>>>> clauses and circular logic.
>>>>
>>>>  James Christian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 May 2010 05:37, <jimstinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Dear Everyone:
>>>>> 1.  Hurrians
>>>>> If the author of Genesis 14: 6 wanted to reference the historical
>>>>> Hurrians who historically lived in the Transjordan in the Late Bronze 
>>>>> Age
>>>>> (per Amarna Letter EA 197), the most he could be expected to do is to 
>>>>> refer
>>>>> to XRY/Horites/Hurrians, and use three words that are redolent of the
>>>>> Transjordan:  (i) HRRM/hill country;  (ii) %(YR/Seir/well-wooded;  and
>>>>> (iii) )YL/a magnificent, mighty oak tree.
>>>>> 2.  Qadesh
>>>>> If the author of Genesis 14: 7 wanted to reference historical Qadesh of
>>>>> Upper Galilee, an important city in the Late Bronze Age, the most he 
>>>>> could
>>>>> be expected to do is to use the historically-attested exact spelling 
>>>>> from
>>>>> Ugaritic literature, QD$, and pair it with a reference to (YN M$P+/En
>>>>> Mishpat/Eye on Seat of Justice/Eye on Mt. Hermon/Facing (the Radiance 
>>>>> of)
>>>>> Mt. Hermon.
>>>>> 3.  Amorites
>>>>> If the author of Genesis 14: 7 wanted to reference the historical
>>>>> Amorites who, per Amarna Letter EA 175, historically were at Hasi in the
>>>>> Beqa Valley in the Late Bronze Age, the most he could be expected to do 
>>>>> is
>>>>> to refer to )MRY/Amorites, after the troops of the 4 attacking rulers 
>>>>> had
>>>>> “returned”/$WB from the central Transjordan to the Ashteroth area and 
>>>>> then
>>>>> came to Qadesh of Upper Galilee, going north into the Beqa Valley where 
>>>>> the
>>>>> Amorites historically lived at Hasi.
>>>>> Genesis 14: 6-7 is fully historical in a Late Bronze Age historical
>>>>> context, and uses fully historical nomenclature.  It’s a perfect match
>>>>> to the world of the Amarna Letters in Year 14, a world that knew no
>>>>> wilderness of Zin and no Gulf of Aqaba, no troglodyte cave-dwellers 
>>>>> south of
>>>>> the Dead Sea, and no Kadesh-barnea.
>>>>> Jim Stinehart
>>>>> Evanston, Illinois
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
>>>>> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>>> Sent: Fri, May 7, 2010 2:05 am
>>>>> Subject: [b-hebrew] The Amorites
>>>>>
>>>>>  Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> the Amorites are identified with the Martu of Akkadian literature. Here 
>>>>> is
>>>>> an example of the way they were viewed by their Sumerian neighbours:
>>>>>
>>>>> *The MAR.TU who know no grain.... The MAR.TU who know no house nor 
>>>>> town, the
>>>>> boors of the mountains.... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles... who does 
>>>>> not
>>>>> bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat, who has no 
>>>>> house
>>>>> during his lifetime, who is not buried after death.*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> The Amorites were primarily a nomadic people. They did not respect
>>>>> territorial boundaries and wandered wherever they pleased so their 
>>>>> cattle
>>>>> could eat whatever the land offered. Civilised neighbours who worked and
>>>>> cultivated the land obviously did not take a liking to Amorite tribes
>>>>> wandering in and eating the fruits of their labours.
>>>>>
>>>>> The assumption that the wandering Amorites never reached as far as 
>>>>> Oases to
>>>>> the South of Dead Sea is not only baseless but almost certainly 
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> James Christian
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> b-hebrew mailing 
>>>>> listb-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>