Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Jim,

[Jim Stineheart]
the whole key to figuring this whole thing out is precisely  n-o-t  to “use
internal biblical evidence”!

[Bryant]
The first factor in Biblical exegesis is to look at the "internal evidence."
The second factor is to look for any genre indicators: prose, in this case.
The third factor is to look at the overall context.
The fourth factor is to at the various keywords, phrases, sentences, 
paragraphs,
chapters, etc. for patterns, etc.

Once the above is done, then look for any evidence within the corpus, e.g. 
later
comments about the text from other portions of the Hebrew canon/text.

The one looks at the external evidences in archaeology. Is there 
correspondence
or not? If there is great, if not, then one must accept that one's hypothesis 
is
either wrong, go back to the drawing board or create a new hypothesis that 
fits
the EXISTING evidence. Let the evidence lead.

Now, even then, the evidence may be so scant that it would be wise not to hang
one's theory on that evidence. Since what we know of the EBA, MBA, and LBA is
scant, it is unwise to postulate a theory on such a small thread unless there 
is
something that gives credence to the theory in first place. I might add that
one's theory could be correct, but if one's theory is based on looking in the
wrong century, then it is worthless (Genesis 14 would be situated in the 21st
Century BC = EBA).

Now, concerning the Amarna Letters, it appears that they were written in the
late 15th century - to early 14th century BC. This would correspond to the 
time
of the conquest of Joshua, 1407 - 1400 BC and the early Israelite settlements 
in
the hill country and foothills of Canaan.

BTW, you have bought in to the discredited dating of the Pentateuch by these
so-called "university professors." Furthermore, just because the "generally"
accepted dating of the composition of Genesis 14 is considered LBA (according 
to
you which I do not accept), does not mean that the events recorded occurred in
the LBA.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
To: <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] anything about Amarna


>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 
3:19
PM