Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Kenneth Greifer:
 
1.  You wrote:  “I also would like to say that even if you convince people 
that every place in Genesis is really north of where they currently believe, 
that won't prove that the patriarchal stories are based on the Amarna 
letters because they are totally different.”
 
You have misunderstood my argument.  What I am saying is that the early 
Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives lived at the same time as when 
the 
Amarna Letters were written.  I agree that the Patriarchal narratives are 
not based on the Amarna Letters.  But in my view the Patriarchal narratives 
and the Amarna Letters are differing reactions, in the same time period, to 
the turbulent reign of Akhenaten and the manifest threat from the dreaded 
Hittites up north.
 
2.  You wrote:  “ Someone died in Shechem in Genesis and someone died there 
in the Amarna letters, but the stories are totally different.”
 
In fact, the stories are very similar.  In both cases, the ruler of Shechem 
was killed in a sneak attack on behalf of, but not with the approval of, 
the first historical monotheistic leader of a people.  In both cases, the 
losing defense by the ruler of Shechem was virtually the same, verbatim:  “”I 
did not know that my son was consorting with the Apiru.”  Amarna Letter EA 
254: 30-37.  In both cases, quite surprisingly there were almost no bad 
repercussions from this dramatic action.  I see chapter 34 of Genesis as 
being the 
Hebrew account of the same Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive that is 
recounted in the Amarna Letters.
 
3.  You wrote:  “Even if you give 10,000 proofs that every place is north, 
you still can't give one proof that any of the stories match. We have to 
assume only one person in the ancient times fought over a well or only one 
person ever lent someone an idol and wanted it back.”
 
In the entirety of the Bible, and in the entirety of the Amarna Letters, 
only one person is consumed with the issue of getting access to contested 
water wells:  Abimelek.  Isn’t that telling us something?  Abimelek in 
chapters 
20, 21 and 26 of Genesis is not fictional, as university scholars insist is 
the case.  No way!  He’s fully historical Abimelek of the arrogant island 
city-state of Shur [Greek “Tyre”], with whom the Hebrews have a long 
love-hate relationship throughout the Bible.
 
As to someone wanting an idol back, remember that in both cases, the first 
historical monotheistic leader of a people, and his father, both had married 
women from the odd, far-away location of Naharim on the upper Euphrates 
River.  In each case, the monotheistic son broke off relations with his irate 
father-in-law from Naharim on the basis of certain statues that the 
monotheistic son-in-law never returned to that irate father-in-law from 
Naharim.  That
’s a pretty close match to the stories. in my view.
 
4.  You wrote:  “ All of these stories don't match at all, so your attempt 
to prove that the Torah in Genesis is phony is going to fail no matter what 
you say about locations in the north.” 
 
On the contrary, I am trying to supply the rock-solid historical anchor to 
the Torah, which university scholars say is totally lacking.  Rather than 
being “phony”, as university scholars would have it, the “four kings against 
five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 has pinpoint historical accuracy, in my considered 
opinion.
 
The historical Patriarchal Age is the mid-14th century BCE, when the first 
Hebrews were terribly threatened (though only for a few years) by the 
seemingly unstoppable Hittite war machine.  In a single year, the Hittites 
conquered most all of Syria, the northern coast of Lebanon, and severely 
pressured 
both the Transjordan and the Beqa Valley in eastern Lebanon.  Who could 
blame the early Hebrews for fearing that beloved Canaan might be next on the 
mighty Hittites’ hit list?
 
My goal is to show that the “four kings against five” was written the year 
after the first year of the Syrian War, and is an accurate account of the 
first year of the Syrian War that potentially threatened the very existence 
of the early Hebrews.  I am trying to supply a rock-solid Bronze Age 
historical beginning date for Judaism, in the face of the claim by university 
scholars that it’s all 1st millennium BCE fiction.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois