Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Jim,

I've got to be honest with you Jim I only read the first paragraph and then
scrolling down I saw the length of your email and didn't really read it
because I started to see many references to Genesis 14 again.

My understanding of your position was that only Genesis 14 is old and
reliable. You now seem extending your analysis to Genesis 20 if my quick
skim of your email wasn't wrong. Please answer which parts of the Torah you
now classify as old and reliable.

James Christian

On 10 May 2010 17:40, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  James Christian:
>
>
>
> Isaac is portrayed in chapter 21 of Genesis as being born in Upper Galilee, 
> near Hurrian country.  What seems inexplicable in west Semitic makes 
> perfect sense in Hurrian, regarding the name rendered in west Semitic as 
> “Qadesh”/QD$.
>
>
>
> Both Qadesh on the Orontes and Qadesh of Upper Galilee are in Hurrian 
> country, and have rulers with Hurrian-type names in the Amarna Letters.  So 
> it makes sense that the original name of each place was a Hurrian name, 
> which was later taken over into west Semitic as QD$.  The fact that the 
> Qadesh that is in the Orontes River Valley has three completely different 
> spellings in the Amarna Letters suggests that it was originally a Hurrian 
> name, since Hurrian names notoriously have many different alternative 
> spellings in west Semitic.  Finally, Karl’s point that there are many 
> places in greater Canaan called Qadesh is consistent with the view that 
> desert oases south of Canaan were originally called QD$/“sanctuary” in west 
> Semitic, which makes sense for a desert oasis, but that up north, the name 
> was originally a Hurrian name, with a completely different meaning, but it 
> sounded quite a bit like QD$, so eventually it came to be called QD$ by 
> west Semitic-speaking people.  QD$ on the Orontes and QD$ of Upper Galilee 
> were not “sanctuaries” at all, but rather were important market cities, as 
> such being involved in “grain” distribution.
>
>
>
> For the two famous cities up north that eventually became known as QD$ 
> (both the one on the Orontes, and also the one in eastern Upper Galilee), 
> it is likely that in each case, the city’s original name had been “Great 
> Grain” in Hurrian.  “Grain” in Hurrian is kadi, or KD, per p. 92 of the 
> Fournet/Bomhard Hurrian website.  “Great” in Hurrian is $a-wu, or $W, at p. 
> 99.  “Great Grain” in Hurrian would be KD$W.  [In Hurrian, adjectives 
> usually functioned as suffixes, so the adjective would be stuck onto the 
> end of the noun, being one word in the agglutinative language of Hurrian.  
> It’s literally “Graingreat”, being one word, with the noun coming first, in 
> Hurrian.]   Hurrian had no Q [see p. 9], so Hurrian K could have sounded as 
> much like west Semitic Q as west Semitic K [with those two letters having 
> similar, though not identical, sounds in west Semitic].  The point is that 
> Hurrian K could come out as either K or Q on the mid-15th century BCE 
> Thutmose III list, since the Hurrians themselves made no distinction 
> between these two slightly different west Semitic sounds.
>
>
>
> Now, for the first time, item #1 on the Thutmose III list from the mid-15th 
> century BCE makes perfect sense:  QD$W.  [Google “Paul James Cowie 
> Archaeowiki” for the website that, after you make three selections 
> referencing the T III list, sets forth the entire T III list.  Although 
> Cowie does a fairly good job of showing the names on the T III list, many 
> of his proposed identifications are suspect or wrong.  Also check p. 72 of 
> Anson Rainey’s “The Sacred Bridge”, which often has a more detailed 
> analysis.]  With Egyptian Q being equivalent to Hurrian K, QD$W at item #1 
> on the T III list is KD$W, meaning “Great Grain” in Hurrian.  It’s a  
> p-e-r-f-e-c-t  match in Hurrian.  Today we see that as being QD$, but 
> that’s the west Semitic, later version, with the original having been 
> KD$W/QD$W in Hurrian, meaning “Great Grain”, for Qadesh on the Orontes in 
> the heart of Hurrian country.
>
>
>
> Now look at item #4 on the T III list.  It’s KT$WN, and as we will now see, 
> it’s actually the same Hurrian name, which likewise later came out in west 
> Semitic as QD$.  Egyptian T and D are interchangeable on the T III list [so 
> that MKT at item #2 is Megiddo, with Egyptian T being a D].  The final N is 
> a common suffix on the T III list, and is optional.  KT$W -N is KD$W, where 
> the Egyptian T is interchangeable with D, and an optional, standard [west 
> Semitic] suffix N has been added.  Once again, the match in Hurrian is  
> p-e-r-f-e-c-t.  Both of these city names were originally the same, and were 
> Hurrian KD$W.  But when the Hurrians died out, their language died with 
> them.  So KD$W later came to be the similar-sounding QD$ in west Semitic.  
> The spellings vary ever so slightly on the T III list.  What would ideally 
> have been KD$W comes out at item #1 as QD$W, and at item #4 as KT$W-N.  
> It’s all the same name, being “Great Grain” in Hurrian, but later becoming 
> similar-sounding QD$ in west Semitic.  See how everything makes perfect 
> sense if one applies a Hurrian analysis to these names of cities located in 
> Hurrian country?
>
>
>
> But now comes the most exciting part of all.  Item #4 on the T III list, 
> namely KT$W-N, is Qadesh of Upper Galilee.  From basic geography, we know 
> that such city is an “eye” on the “great” Mt. Hermon.  That’s precisely the 
> alternative name of Qadesh of Upper Galilee that is set forth at item #5 on 
> the T III list!  (YN $W = “Eye on Great”, that is, “eye” on the “great” 
> mountain of nearby towering Mt. Hermon.  Yes, (YN is west Semitic and $W is 
> Hurrian, but that’s just the same as in the name of Jerusalem’s ruler at 
> the time, Abdi-Heba.  Abdi is virgin pure west Semitic, while just as 
> surely, Heba is virgin pure Hurrian for the name of the Hurrian goddess 
> Heba.  [One alternative spelling, as is typical for Hurrian words being 
> rendered in the western alphabet, for this Hurrian goddess is Khipa.  Note 
> how dramatically these alternative spellings vary.]  (YN $W is not a 
> “scribal error”, as Anson Rainey asserts in “The Sacred Bridge”.  No way!  
> At Genesis 14: 7, the Hebrew author uses an all-west Semitic version of the 
> west Semitic-Hurrian combination that appears on the T III list.  $W 
> meaning “great” in Hurrian is replaced by M$P+, meaning “seat of justice” 
> in Hebrew.  So both at items #4 and #5 on the T III list, and at Genesis 
> 14: 7, this city in eastern Upper Galilee has two names:  (1) QD$, being 
> the west Semitic version of the original Hurrian KD$W, which originally 
> meant “Great Grain” in Hurrian, but whose west Semitic virtual sound 
> equivalent is QD$, meaning “sanctuary”;  and (2) (YN M$P+, being the 
> all-west Semitic version of the original west Semitic-Hurrian combination 
> (YN $W, meaning “Eye on Great” in the part-Hurrian version, and “Eye on 
> Seat of Justice” in the all-west Semitic version, in both cases referring 
> to nearby towering Mt. Hermon.  Originally, there was a clever play on 
> words here in Hurrian, where $W in Hurrian meant both that the grain was 
> “great” in the city name KD$W, while that same word $W in Hurrian also 
> meant that nearby Mt. Hermon was “great” in the alternative name for the 
> same city:  (YN $W.
>
>
>
> The QD$ at both Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 is Qadesh of Upper Galilee, 
> attested by that name (in the older Hurrian version) at item #4 on the T 
> III list, and whose alternate name of En Mishpat is attested by that name 
> (with the second half being in Hurrian on the T III list) at item #5 on the 
> T III list.  [In Ugaritic literature, this name of the city in Upper 
> Galilee, not surprisingly, came out as qd$.  QD$ is the west Semitic 
> version of the Hurrian name KD$W.  The sounds are very similar, though the 
> underlying meanings are completely different.]
>
>
>
> Moving on now to the other three geographical place names at Genesis 20: 1, 
> GRR/Gerar is attested as KRR at item #80 on the T III list.  [Egyptian K is 
> routinely used to render west Semitic G, as in Megiddo being MKT at item #2 
> on the T III list.]  GRR is GLL [or, in full spelling, GLYL], that is, 
> Galilee.  The Egyptians used the same letter, R, for either west Semitic R 
> or west Semitic L.  Confusion between R and L, or R softening to L over the 
> course of time, is why the older version is R, in GRR and KRR, whereas the 
> later version is L, in GLL/GLYL.
>
>
>
> Shur is not attested on the T III list, because that impregnable, arrogant 
> island city-state just off the northwest corner of Upper Galilee did not 
> have to kowtow to Thutmose III.  But it’s all over the Amarna Letters 
> [though a different letter is used for the sibilant at the beginning of the 
> name;  the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives refused to call that 
> arrogant island city-state “divine rock”, which was its arrogant proper 
> name, so he changed the sibilant at the beginning of the name].  Note that 
> the name of the ruler of Shur [who dominated Gerar/GRR/northern Galilee, 
> and hence is “king of GRR” at Genesis 20: 2, that is, King of Galilee] is 
> identical in chapters 20, 21 and 26 of Genesis as in the Amarna Letters:  
> Abimelek.  Abimelek’s influence extended throughout much of Galilee, as in 
> Amarna Letter EA 148 he complains about what Hazor is doing.  Note that he 
> does not complain about his junior partner, Qadesh of Upper Galilee.  
> That’s why in going to see Abimelek, Abraham wisely goes by way of Qadesh 
> of Upper Galilee, rather than going by way of Hazor.  The pinpoint 
> historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives is truly breathtaking.
>
>
>
> Both in the Amarna Letters and in chapters 21 and 26 of Genesis, Abimelek 
> is the only ruler in the book who ever complains, and who indeed constantly 
> complains, about not having needed access to well water.  It’s the same 
> Abimelek, with the same, very peculiar, major league water problem.
>
>
>
> The original concept of Galilee/GLYL/GLL/GRR was the land between QD$ in 
> eastern Upper Galilee and Shur on the northwest corner of Upper Galilee.  
> [Later Galilee came to have a somewhat broader meaning, including Lower 
> Galilee.]  After Abraham left the Patriarchs’ Hebron, per Genesis 20: 1 he 
> lived between QD$ and $WR, and he sojourned in GRR.  Historically, that’s 
> Upper Galilee, and the wording of Genesis 20: 1 reads very naturally.  
> That’s where Isaac was born, being a locale nowhere close to the future 
> state of Judah.
>
>
>
> NGB is also on the T III list at item #57, and refers to 
> Adamah-Negev/Adamah-Nekev in eastern Galilee.  [Cowie errs in seeing it as 
> referring to the Negev Desert.  The Thutmose III campaign against the 
> forces of Qadesh on the Orontes never went into the Negev Desert.  The 
> cities near item #57 are nowhere near the Negev Desert.  Other scholars 
> properly see NGB at item #57 as being in northern Canaan.]  That reference 
> clarifies that Abraham went north by way of the Jordan River, being the 
> long way around that avoided the many Hurrian princelings in western Lower 
> Galilee.
>
>
>
> Thus both (i) (YN M$P+ and QD$ at Genesis 14: 7, and (ii) all four 
> geographical place names at Genesis 20: 1 -- NGB, QD$, $WR and GRR -- are 
> attested on the T III list and/or in the Amarna Letters.  But on several 
> occasions, we need to use a Hurrian analysis to understand these names.  
> The equivalent to (YN M$P+, using the original Hurrian word for the second 
> name, was (YN $W [per item #5 on the T III list].  The Hurrian forerunner 
> of QD$ was KD$W [which on the T III list is both item #1, as QD$W, 
> regarding Orontes, and item #4, as KT$W + N, regarding Upper Galilee].
>
>
>
> Now that there’s finally, at long last, a Hurrian language website, it’s 
> quite easy to track these names down and understand them.  Instead of 
> relying on scholars, who so often fail to do any Hurrian analysis at all, 
> we can figure these things out for ourselves.  Scholar Aharoni says that 
> it’s shocking that Qadesh of Upper Galilee was allegedly, and 
> unaccountably, left off of the T III list, and scholar Anson Rainey says 
> that item #5 on the T III list is allegedly a “scribal error”.  No way!  
> They’re both wrong.  Item #5 is perfect as is, and is the part-Hurrian 
> equivalent of En Mishpat, being an alternative name of Qadesh of Upper 
> Galilee, whose modern Israeli kibbutz theme song similarly starts out:  
> “Facing the radiance of Mt. Hermon”.  Item #4 on the T III list is also 
> perfect, and is the Hurrian version of west Semitic QD$, being the 
> supposedly missing Qadesh of Upper Galilee.  Heavens, these scholars know 
> that these places were located in Hurrian country.  So why not apply a 
> Hurrian analysis and resolve these otherwise inexplicable matters?
>
>
>
> If you want pinpoint historical accuracy in a Late Bronze Age historical 
> context in northern Canaan, chapter 14 of Genesis is the best place to 
> start.  But to understand what’s going on there, a focus on Hurrian is 
> needed for place names in Hurrian country.  If one fully understands 
> Genesis 14: 7, then it’s relatively easy to understand Genesis 20: 1.  In 
> telling us again and again that Genesis 14: 7 and Genesis 20: 1 are 
> fictional, university scholars rely very heavily on the false scholarly 
> claim that allegedly, (YN M$P+, QD$ and GRR are unattested in the secular 
> history of the ancient world.  Not!!!  Just look at items #4 and #5 on the 
> T III list and think Hurrian, and look at item #80 on the T III list and 
> forget the overwhelming scholarly bias against Genesis talking about 
> Galilee.  These names are fully historical in a Late Bronze Age historical 
> context, if we, unlike university scholars, are willing to look  n-o-r-t-h  
> of Jerusalem and the Dead Sea to identify these historical names from the 
> Late Bronze Age.  It matters not how many times university scholars 
> solemnly vow that they will  n-e-v-e-r  look north of the Dead Sea in 
> evaluating the historicity of those 3 names.  Those 3 names are fully 
> historical (as is all of Genesis 14: 1-11, for that matter), for anyone 
> willing to look at Late Bronze Age inscriptions from north of the Dead Sea.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>