Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] anything about Amarna

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] anything about Amarna
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 08:56:43 EDT


Dear Professor Yigal Levin:

1. Let’s start with your point #3: “[T]he 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.”

(a) A majority of mainstream scholars agree that chapter 14 of Genesis is
truly ancient, probably dating all the long way back to the Late Bronze Age.

(b) Yet 100% of mainstream university scholars deny that the “four kings
against five” is a verifiable historical event.

If you and I could prove that Genesis 14: 1-11 is an accurate portrayal, by
an early Hebrew contemporary, of the first year of the Great Syrian War (in
Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign), you would become the most famous Biblical
scholar of your generation.

2. Your point #2 is not accurate, where you say:

“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.”

(a) 100% of mainstream university scholars say that chapter 14 of Genesis
is “non-historical”, at least in the sense that it has not been
historically verified.

(b) The 7 scholars I cited do n-o-t say the opposite. No, what they say
is that chapter 14 of Genesis is really, really old. As you yourself
correctly said in your point #3 noted above: the fact that the source is
truly
ancient does not necessarily mean “that that source is historically accurate.”

(c) University scholars are indeed “such a closed-minded guild as you
[Jim] claim that they are.” Not a single university scholar has ever looked
north of the Dead Sea in evaluating Genesis 14: 6-7. That’s the hallmark of
being an incredibly “closed-minded guild”.

But you can change all that!

3. Now we get to the crux of my argument. Since the source for chapter 14
of Genesis is incredibly old, that does guarantee one thing: the Amorites
and Hurrians will not be presented as living south of the Dead Sea. No Late
Bronze Age author would ever say such a thing, because everyone in the Late
Bronze Age knew that the Amorites and Hurrians lived north (usually far
north) of the Dead Sea, not south of the Dead Sea.

Therefore, you could inaugurate a renaissance in the study of the
Patriarchal narratives by being the first university scholar to look north of
the
Dead Sea in analyzing Genesis 14: 6-7. Since chapter 14 of Genesis is so
old,
the Amorites and Hurrians must be north of the Dead Sea. Most other names
at Genesis 14: 6-7 can easily be verified by Late Bronze Age historical
inscriptions from north of the Dead Sea, primarily, but not exclusively, on
the
basis of the Amarna Letters (with a little help from the Thutmose III list
and some Hurrian analyses).

4. If you’ve followed my logic so far, I hope you will be willing to
abandon your point #1. That’s crucial. In your point #1, you said:

“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).”

The portions of the Bible that place the Amorites or Hurrians south of the
Dead Sea are all 1st millennium BCE compositions, as I believe you would
agree. For example, Deuteronomy 1: 19 as to the Amorites, and Genesis 36:
8-43
as to the Horites/Hurrians.

Prof. Levin, with all due respect, the whole key to figuring this whole
thing out is precisely n-o-t to “use internal biblical evidence”! That’s
the whole key! For example, in evaluating XCCN TMR at Genesis 14: 7, the
worst thing to do is to rely on Ezra’s post-exilic II Chronicles 20: 2. How
on
earth would Ezra be expected to understand the geography and peoples in a
Late Bronze Age composition? And why would you, of all people, think of
Ezra,
of all people, as being an altruistic antiquarian. Not!

Are you following my logic? Since chapter 14 of Genesis is generally
admitted to be a Late Bronze Age composition, that means that the proper way
to
evaluate the underlying geography of Genesis 14: 6-7 is precisely to ignore
entirely all 1st millennium BCE portions of the Bible, which in order to
please university scholars is going to have to be treated as being virtually
the
entire Bible except chapter 14 of Genesis itself. Instead, we’ll rely
solely on Late Bronze Age inscriptions, from north of the Dead Sea.

5. Now here’s the payoff. Though they don’t realize it, the #1 reason
why 100% of mainstream university scholars deny the historicity of the “four
kings against five” is precisely because they completely misunderstand the
underlying geography of Genesis 14: 6-7. It’s absolutely true that nothing
that is reported at Genesis 14: 1-11 ever happened in secular history
s-o-u-t-h of the Dead Sea. True enough. But a-l-l of it did happen
historically -- n-o-r-t-h of the Dead Sea! Prof. Levin, there’s a perfect
historical
match to the first year of the Great Syrian War, if only you would be the
first university professor in the world to look n-o-r-t-h of the Dead Sea,
use Late Bronze Age historical inscriptions, and ignore entirely all of the
Bible that dates to the 1st millennium BCE.

Prof. Levin, you’re a recognized expert in Biblical geography, and your
former mentor, Anson Rainey, is the best known expert on Biblical geography
in
the whole world. When you speak, people listen. The key to recovering the
pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11 is to get the underlying
geography right.

Prof. Levin, the world would be a better place if I could convince you to
look north of the Dead Sea at historical inscriptions from the Late Bronze
Age in evaluating the underlying geography of Genesis 14: 6-7, while ignoring
Ezra entirely. And ignore all the rest of the Bible that dates to the 1st
millennium BCE as well (and of course the medieval pointing).

You are the most open-minded university professor that I know. I fear that
if I cannot convince you, I will not be able to convince anyone. Since
chapter 14 of Genesis is really old, it must be presenting the Amorites and
Hurrians as living north of the Dead Sea. Let’s re-evaluate the underlying
geography of Genesis 14: 6-7 on that basis, using only historical
inscriptions
from the Late Bronze Age. Then you will soon discover that Genesis 14: 1-11
is a pinpoint historically accurate, contemporary account by the first
Hebrew of the first year of the Great Syrian War, which indeed did feature,
historically, “four kings against five”, in Year 14, at a valley of tilled
fields near a salt sea, just as the Biblical text says.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page