Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Dear Jim,

 

All that my silence suggests is that I'm tired of arguing with you, when I
know in advance that you won't accept anything I say anyway. But I'll take
the bait. 

 

1.      You've totally ignored my post asking that we keep the biblical
Amorites, Hittites and Horites separate from the Amurru, Hatti and Hurrians
that appear in ANE documents. Not that there is no connection, but that we
don't have enough information and just assuming that they are the same is
very misleading. So let's first use internal biblical evidence. Within the
Bible, the Amorites live all over Canaan, including the south of the country
(although not exactly south of the Dead Sea, which is nor a very hospitable
area). 
2.      You keep claiming that "university scholars" insist that Gen. 14 in
non-historical. Now you cite 7 scholars who say the opposite. Which just
goes to prove, that "university scholars" are not such a closed-minded guild
as you claim that they are.
3.      In any case, the fact that Gen. 14 seems "out of place" in Genesis
just means that it was taken from a different source, not that that source
is historically accurate. 

 

Yigal Levin 

 

  _____  

From: JimStinehart AT aol.com [mailto:JimStinehart AT aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:26 AM
To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] anything about Amarna

 

Dear Professor Yigal Levin:
 
You wrote:  "The fact that some members.keep responding to Jim's






 
posts are proof that the A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E pinpoint accuracy of the






 
Patriarchal narratives is a topic which does interest some members.."
 
As to Biblical geography, which is one of your areas of expertise, the key
question is the  d-a-t-e  of the composition of chapter 14 of Genesis.  If
chapter 14 of Genesis is a truly ancient composition, dating all the long
way back to the Late Bronze Age, then there is no way that it would portray
the Hurrians as living south of the Dead Sea, or the Amorites as living
south of the Dead Sea.  Everyone in the Late Bronze Age knew that the
Hurrians and Amorites lived north (often very far north) of the Dead Sea.
 
So in evaluating your acceptance of the age-old traditional view that all
peoples and places at Genesis 14: 6-7 are portrayed in the text as living
south of the Dead Sea, the key is the  d-a-t-e  of the composition of
chapter 14 of Genesis.
 
Set forth below are 7 mainstream scholars who assert that chapter 14 of
Genesis is truly ancient.  Can't you see that on that mainstream scholarly
view, the geographical consequence is that the Amorites and Hurrians are
portrayed at Genesis 14: 6-7 as living  n-o-r-t-h, not south, of the Dead
Sea?  If my logic or facts are wrong here, then why don't you tell us why?
James Christian for sure, and probably many others on the b-hebrew list, was
greatly hoping that you would "put me out of my misery" by explaining why
the Amorites and Hurrians at Genesis 14: 6-7 are portrayed as living south
of the Dead Sea.  Your silence suggests that my argument here is very
strong.
 
*       *       *
 
1.  "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 an early date, scarcely later
in fact than the middle of the second millennium [BCE]."  E.A. Speiser, The
Anchor Bible Genesis (1962), Doubleday, New York, at pp. 105-106.  
 
2.  "The most enigmatic chapter in Genesis, chapter 14, seems to stand
utterly alone and without connection to any of the sources or strands of
tradition found elsewhere in the book."  Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (1980),
at p. 134. 
 
3.  "Gen 14 is usually considered a stray boulder within Genesis..  [T]he
account antedates J.  .Generally it has been held that it does not belong to
any of the usual pentateuchal sources, but that it comes from a special
source.  Its annalistic style and international perspective set it apart
from J, E, D, or P.  .[T]he chapter consists largely of pre-J material..
[I]t represents old tradition.  The presence of.some stylistic
idiosyncrasies suggests that it may be based on an older written source."
Gordon J. Wenham, World Biblical Commentary:  Genesis 1-15 (1987), Thomas
Nelson, Nashville, Tennessee, at pp. xxix, 306-307.
 
4.  "An unusual spectrum of literary features [in chapter 14 of
Genesis].suggests that the narrator is updating an ancient record."  Bruce
K. Waltke, Genesis:  A Commentary (2001), Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
at p. 227.
 
5.  "Scholarship is virtually unanimous in identifying this chapter as the
product of a different literary source from the three principal strands out
of which Genesis is woven.  .The dating of the narrative is in dispute, but
there are good arguments for its relative antiquity.."  Robert Alter,
Genesis:  Translation and Commentary (1996), W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
New York, at p. 58.
 
6.  "Almost every sentence [in chapter 14 of Genesis] is full of antiquarian
information, and nowhere in the patriarchal stories do we find such a mass
of historical and geographical detail.  Recent study of the ancient Near
East has shown that much of this material must derive from very ancient
tradition."  Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (1961), Revised Edition, The Old
Testament Library, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, at p. 175.  
 
7.  "[E]ach element of Genesis 14 has its exact counterpart in the laws of
war and in the etiquette of booty restoration found sporadically in the
[Late Bronze Age] international treaties of Boghazkoi [Hittites] and
Ugarit."  Yochanan Muffs, "Abraham the Noble Warrior:  Patriarchal Politics
and Laws of War in Ancient Israel", The Journal of Jewish Studies London,
1982, vol. 33, no. 1-2, at p. 82. 
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois