Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Karl wrote:  “[F]or you to say that the names had relationship to the type of 
people they were, is to treat the account as fiction.”
 
That is quite similar to what Professor Yigal Levin has said to me several 
times.
 
But if the author of chapter 14 of Genesis is an early Hebrew in the mid-14th 
century BCE, which is my theory of the case, then in the historical context, 
a non-royal author could not refer to a monarch by such ruler’s formal name.  
Rather, in that particular context, use of a nickname was required:
 
“[W]ith few exceptions, the vassals [princelings] never address the king by 
name”.  Wm. Moran, “The Amarna Letters”, at p. xxxv.
 
Likewise, although many Amarna Letters from princelings complain about the 
depredations of mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma, they don’t dare use the 
name “Suppiluliuma” itself, a name that appears in only a single Amarna 
Letter -- the one Amarna Letter written by Hittite King Suppiluliuma himself.
 
Most rulers’ names in the ancient world were theophoric names. That the 18 
names and titles for the 9 contending rulers at Genesis 14: 1-2 are 
nicknames, not formal historical names, can be deduced from the notable fact 
that no such name or title expressly honors a pagan deity.  By contrast most, 
and perhaps all, of the historical names of the nine contending rulers in the 
Great Syrian War in western Syria honor a pagan deity, which indeed is the 
case for the vast majority of Late Bronze Age names of rulers.  For example, 
the pagan god Haddad is honored by the names of contending rulers 
Niqma-haddu, Addu-nirari and Itur-haddu.  The name Aki-Te$$up is the classic 
form of a Hurrian princeling name, starting with a verb, and ending with the 
name of the Hurrian deity being honored.  The name Aki-Te$$up obviously 
honors the Hurrian god Te$$up.  “Most Hurrian names are theophoric 
compounds.”   Eric M. Meyers, “The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the 
Near East” (1997), at p. 96.  Likewise, most of the non-Hurrian names in the 
Amarna Letters are theophoric compounds as well.  As just one further example 
of this ubiquitous phenomenon, Thomas Thompson cites Akkadian theophoric 
names, and west Semitic theophoric names from Mari, Alalakh and Ugarit.  “The 
Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives”, at pp. 42-43.   The desire of the 
early Hebrew author of the “four kings against five” to avoid honoring a 
pagan god in the proper names in his composition is one of the reasons he 
decided to use nicknames for all 18 names and titles of the 9 contending 
rulers at Genesis 14: 1-2.
 
What both Karl and university scholars fail to realize is that it would be 
perfectly possible for an accurate account of the Great Syrian War in western 
Syria by an early Hebrew contemporary to use nicknames for the names and 
titles of the 9 contending rulers.  Especially in the historical context of 
the Amarna Letters, where the use of nicknames for monarchs was mandatory for 
non-royal authors, the use of nicknames at Genesis 14: 1-2 does not mean that 
the Biblical “four kings against five” is fictional, or that it was not 
composed and recorded by a contemporary of the event, or that it does not 
have pinpoint historical accuracy.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois






-----Original Message-----
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sat, Aug 21, 2010 9:20 am
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] a mystery regarding gen14:24?


Jim:


How can you expect people to accept your theory that Genesis 14 is 
historical, when you treat it as fiction yourself?


In the Hebrew Bible, almost none of the names of people had any relationship 
to what they became and their actions in life. So for you to say that the 
names had relationship to the type of people they were, is to treat the 
account as fiction.


Even taking your assumption that BR( is a noun that has a prefixed B-, the R( 
could come from four different sources:
1) RW( to moisten, as in watering.
2) R( friend, thus the name would mean Among friends.
3) R(H to feed
4) R(( to be displeasing.


So which source was it? Just from the name itself, you cannot say which 
source is the source for the name, if your assumption that the name is a noun 
with a prefixed B- is right. How do you know your assumption is right?

How do you expect to convince people that the story is historical when you 
treat it as fiction yourself?


Karl W. Randolph.