Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Eve and the Hivites

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: greifer AT hotmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eve and the Hivites
  • Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:22:37 EST


Kenneth Greifer:

You refer to my alleged “claim about the stories in Genesis being based on
the Amarna letters”.

Not true. The Patriarchal narratives were composed at the same time as the
Amarna Letters, rather than the Patriarchal narratives being in any way
based on the Amarna Letters. The Patriarchal narratives tell us how the
first
Hebrews reacted to this tumultuous, dangerous situation. The Amarna Letters
give us the views of Amorite and non-Semitic princelings living in the same
places where the Patriarchs sojourned, and during the same time period, but
naturally from a different point of view.

The stories in Genesis are n-o-t based on the Amarna Letters. But the
Patriarchal narratives are coming out of the same historical time period, in
the same geographical place. It’s the same world. That’s why the
vocabulary of these two sources is so similar. We don’t have the vowels for
$KM.
Instead of Shek-em, the pronunciation may well have been, per Amarna Letter
289: 23: $a-ak-mi. On the other hand, the princeling ruler of Jerusalem
with
that famous non-Semitic name honoring the pagan goddess Xeba may have
pronounced the name of that city differently than did the first Hebrews. But
it’
s the same city name for the same city. Recalling the very recent past when
Xamor and his son Shechem had been consorting with the tent-dwelling
Hebrews, why wouldn’t we rightly expect IR-Xeba of Jerusalem to write
disapprovingly to Pharaoh: “Should we do as Labayu [Biblical Xamor], who
gave Shechem
to the habiru?” Kenneth Greifer, how could you possibly get the two sources
to be closer than that? We’ve got one Amarna Letter in which
Labayu/Biblical Xamor admits that his son had been consorting with the
tent-dwelling
habiru at Shechem, and we’ve got Amarna Letter EA 289 when IR-Xeba of
Jerusalem
complains that Labayu/Biblical Xamor had been giving away Shechem to the
tent-dwellers. The Patriarchal narratives are not based on the Amarna
Letters.
Rather, the first Hebrews were living that life, and they recorded the
traumatic incidents that they surmounted, such as the bloody Decapitation of
the
Shechem Offensive. The general situation that the Bible reports here is
all historically verified, detail for detail, by what the princelings of
Canaan write to Pharaoh in that very same time period.

The long suit of the b-hebrew list is words in the Hebrew Bible. The word
XW-Y in chapter 34 of Genesis had seemed inexplicable. But once you realize
that Labayu had temporarily displaced/co-opted the non-Semitic ruling class
at Shechem, it’s not too hard to figure out who the “Hivites” are.
IR-Xeba is complaining about what the new Amorite strongman of Shechem had
been
doing. Just look at that name IR-Xeba, and look at XW-Y, and realize that
both the intervocalic B and the W may well have been pronounced V. There’s
the
answer, suddenly staring us in the face. The two sources back each other
up, even though they naturally have different points of view. My point is
that as we on the b-hebrew list try to figure out the meaning of these
mysterious words in the Hebrew Bible, if we have and apply a little
historical
background, and are willing to consider the “foreign elements” in Canaan with
whom the first Hebrews unfortunately were forced to contend, then we may be
able to figure out many of these longstanding Biblical mysteries.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page