Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 34:8 consorting with the hapiru

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: George.Athas AT moore.edu.au, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 34:8 consorting with the hapiru
  • Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 17:37:22 EDT


George Athas:

You wrote: “The biggest hurdle in your theories is the fact that no one in
the biblical narratives has the same name as anyone in the Amarna
correspondence. That's pretty big misalignment. (Ok, go ahead and tell me how
apparently that's of no significance...)”

With all due respect, your assertion is simply not true.

1. Abimelek is the same name for the ruler of Shur in Gerar/Galilee in the
Amarna Letters and in chapters 20, 21 and 26 of Genesis. And Abimelek has
the same problem in both sources: access to contested water wells.

2. Bieri in Amarna Letter EA 174 is close to Bera at Genesis 14: 2, both
of whom are being ravaged by the rampaging Hittites.

3. B-Risha at Genesis 14: 2 is likewise close to Abdi-Risha at Amarna
Letter EA 363, having the identical circumstances as noted at #2 above.

4. The Hurrians are the historical Hurrians (in the Transjordan).

5. The Amorites are the historical Amorites (in Lebanon).

6. QD$ is attested as qd$ in Ugaritic literature, being the same name of
the same city in eastern Upper Galilee.

7. Tidal is the Hittite kingly name Tidal. Yes, it’s a Patriarchal
nickname, and a nasty one at that. In context it means “Murderer”, because
Hittite King Suppiluliuma I seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly
expedient
of murdering his own older brother named Tidal. He’s the primary military
figure in the “four kings against five”, both in chapter 14 of Genesis and
historically in the Great Syrian War.


I can list more names that match the world of the mid-14th century BCE if
you like. I honestly do not see that as a major problem with my theory of
the case. On the contrary, that i-s a major problem for the view of
university scholars, who cannot match a single name at Genesis 14: 6-7 to any
attested name south of the Dead Sea in the ancient world. There’s not even a
single match on the scholarly view of the case, George. Nothing. Nada.
Meanwhile, I’ve got “Hurrians”, “Amorites” and “QD$” for sure, and I could go
on.

George, do you realize that no university scholar has e-v-e-r asked any
of the following pertinent questions about names in chapter 14 of Genesis, as
far as I have been able to determine?

(1) What does the Hurrian name “Arioch” mean? Is it based on a Hittite
word, which in turn is based on an Indo-Aryan word, and does it mean “Mr.
Aryan”?

(2) Is “Elassar” a Hittite word? If so, what does it mean, and what is
the significance of that?

(3) Do the letters in “Chedorlaomer” make perfect sense as a Ugaritic
curse?

(4) Is MLK (LM at Genesis 14: 1 in defective spelling attested in only one
place in the ancient world, namely at Ugarit in the 14th century BCE? What
is the significance of that objective fact?

(5) Is XCCN TMR at Genesis 14: 7 a Hurrian name?

If university scholars were right that it’s all non-historical fiction, why
then the refusal of any university scholars to investigate any of those
fairly obvious questions about names in chapter 14 of Genesis?

As you well know, Yigal Levin, an expert in Biblical geography, and a very
fine and open-minded person, has steadfastly refused to ever consider
looking north of the Dead Sea as a possible analysis of the names of peoples
and
places at Genesis 14: 6-7. Why? If it’s all fiction, why do university
scholars absolutely refuse to look into any of these fairly obvious questions
about names that I raise?

Is there a “Big Secret” here? What’s the “Big Secret”? Why don’t any
of your colleagues on the planet see fit to ask the above questions about
names in chapter 14 of Genesis? The world would be interested in their
scholarly investigations, believe you me. Why does Jim Stinehart have to do
all
this work on his own? What gives?

It would be wonderful, wonderful, wonderful if university scholars were to
get interested in investigating the names in chapter 14 of Genesis, and then
publish their findings in some forum that would be accessible to all. That
would be great, wouldn’t it? Why aren’t university scholars doing that,
George? What are you guys hiding from us? Are you hiding good news or bad
news? Why no scholarly investigation, at least no scholarly investigation
that has been published and is accessible, of the foregoing questions about
names in chapter 14 of Genesis?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page