Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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