Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Qadesh of Genesis 20:1

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: kwrandolph AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Qadesh of Genesis 20:1
  • Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 14:41:43 EDT


Karl:

You wrote: “You have taken Genesis 31:30 out of context, a logical
fallacy. Not only have you taken it out of its linguistic context, but also
its
cultural
context. Once you restore Genesis to its context, then it is talking about
a
completely different event than the Amarna letter, a difference that is
easily recognized.”

How have I taken Genesis 31: 30 out of context? Here is how I view the
context.

1. Jacob was forced by his father-in-law from Naharim to marry a woman
from Naharim that he did not want to marry (Leah). Likewise, Akhenaten was
forced by his father-in-law from Naharim to marry a woman from Naharim that
he
did not want to marry (Tadu-Heba). Note that even the name “Naharim”
matches between the Amarna Letters and Genesis 24: 10. In 5,000 years of
human
history, this was the only time when a monotheistic man from far to the west
married, against his will, a woman from a far-off place then called “Naharim”
.

2. Jacob’s father (Isaac) had likewise married a woman from Naharim
(Rebakah), but so unlike the first historical monotheistic leader of a
people, the
father never had any trouble at all getting along with his in-laws from
far-off Naharim on the upper Euphrates River. Everything’s the same at
Amarna.
Akhenaten’s father (Amenhotep III) had married a woman from Naharim
(Gilu-Heba), but so unlike the first historical monotheistic leader of a
people,
the father never had any trouble at all getting along with his in-laws from
far-off Naharim on the upper Euphrates River. Indeed, the monotheist’s
father, both in the Bible and at Amarna, strongly supported the first
historical
monotheistic leader of a people marrying a woman from Naharim.

3. Jacob rudely broke off relations with his father-in-law from Naharim
(Laban). Likewise, Akhenaten rudely broke off relations with his
father-in-law from Naharim (Tushratta). In Genesis, this happens 12.7
tenfold regular
years after Abraham’s birth, and in the Amarna Letters it happens 12 years, 7
months into Akhenaten’s reign. Even the exact timing of this important
event matches.

4. The monotheistic son-in-law from far to the west had many legitimate
grievances against his father-in-law from Naharim, who was untrustworthy to a
fault. Yet the last straw in both cases was both identical and quite
bizarre. The irate father-in-law from Naharim imperiously demanded that the
monotheistic son-in-law from far to the west turn over certain desired
statues to
the irate father-in-law. But such statues were never forthcoming.

Karl, how can you get the stories closer than that? How can mainstream
university scholars say, on a unanimous basis, that this Biblical story is
pure
1st millennium BCE fiction? No one in the 1st millennium BCE knew, or
cared a fig about, Akhenaten’s breaking off relations with his irate
father-in-law from Naharim over the issue of certain statues that were never
handed
over.

That story in chapter 31 of Genesis sure looks to me like it’s coming
straight out of the mid-14th century BCE and the Amarna Age. Otherwise, how
could all of the many details above match so precisely?

Karl, if I’m understanding you correctly, here is your view of the
foregoing. The above events narrated in the Bible are historical, and
occurred in
the Early Bronze Age. Then in the 8th century BCE, well over a thousand
years later, the above events from the Amarna Letters occurred. The fact
that
the above aspects of the above events seem to be the same is pure
coincidence. Siding with 100% of university scholars, you view it as pure
coincidence
that Akhenaten and his father, just like Jacob and his father, married women
from a far-off place on the upper Euphrates River then called Naharim, and
in the son’s case married a woman from Naharim against his will, and then
the monotheistic son in each case rudely broke off all relations with his
untrustworthy father-in-law, with the last straw in both cases being certain
statues that the irate father-in-law from Naharim imperiously demanded, but
which were never turned over. How can you and all university scholars see
all
that as being pure coincidence? It only happened o-n-c-e in 5,000 years
of human history.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page