Biblical Hebrew Forum

[rob acosta <robacosta AT hotmail.com>]

The Errors of Jim Stinehart

    For several years now, Mr Stinehart has proposed that the events of 
Genesis, specifically Gen 14 ,takes placein what he calls the "beautiful 
Galilee" and not as traditionally believed, in the southern Levant.
   The foundation of these beliefs are the assumption that the war of the 
kings of Mesopotamia against Sodom andcompany were in reality a retelling of 
the Great Syrian War. In his view the "four kings" against the five cities 
ofthe Dead Sea were really Hittite King Suppiluliumas as Tidal, I believe, 
and his confederates, Atikama, a king of Ugarit andthe man Stinehart 
considers to be the Darth Vader of the time, Aziru, of whom he says, his 
wicked betrayal was the"iniquity of the Amorites" spoken of in Genesis.    He 
stated the total destruction of the city of Qatna was the inspiration for the 
Hebrew myth of Sodom and Gomorrah.    He mentions Akizzi as the prince of the 
"unfortunate Qatna" and believes Akizzi is mentioned by some nickname 
inGenesis. Mr Stinehart has cited the letters of Akizzi to Pharaoh mentioning 
4 other princes who were willing to join in leaguewith Qatna against those 
horrible Hittites and this he says reflects the five kings of Genesis 14 who 
rebel.
He believes Genesis 14 recalls with "pinpoint accuracy" the real details of 
the Great Syrian War and that the Amarna Lettersand Genesis are telilng the 
same story.    From this he puts forth his theories that Beersheba and all 
events regarding Esau, Abraham etc are taking place in the north ofCanaan, 
not the south.    It is quite apparent Mr Stinehart is not at all a careful 
student of history. This is a simple observation not meant to be 
disrespectful.It is simply very apparent he has made a number of errors more 
diligent researchers wouldn't.    Examples.
   1. It has recently come to light that the king of Qatna during the Great 
Syrian war was Idanda, not Prince Akizzi.A tablet has been found, in the 
palace of Qatna, of a message from General Hanutti of the Hittites, addressed 
to KingIdanda, telling him to prepare for war.       King Idanda responds by 
fortifying the city walls and arming every able bodied man in the city. He is 
either murdered, or taken captiveby the Hittites and Akizzi immediately takes 
power.
  2.    The letters of Prince Akizzi, to the Pharaoh, are POST war letters 
from a Qatna that was obviously never destroyed.The alliance he mentions 
(Niya, Nuhasse, etc, Stinehart's "Five against four)) takes shape long after 
Suppiluliumas had returned to Hatti. (William J. Murnane "The Road to Kadesh")
     Aziru, the grand villain in Mr Stinehart's view, was likely a captive of 
Egypt, or about to be, by the time of the GreatSyrian war. His "betrayal" as 
Mr Stinehart so dramatically puts it, shifting the loyalty of the Amurru from 
Egypt to the Hittites,didn't take place until some years after the war and 
was no great surprise to the Egyptians and was of little consequence to the 
Hebrews.
    In short..there never was a "four against five" in the Great Syrian war 
reflecting Genesis 14. Qatna was never destroyed by the Hittites asMr 
Stinehart has repeatedly claimed...therefore it could never have served as 
inspiration for the destruction of Sodom as Mr Stineharthas so often claimed.
 It continued to thrive under Akizzi (who complained to Pharaoh about a drop 
in trade after the war and the lack of gold to rebuild an idol) and survived 
as a city until the 7th century BCE.
    The Hebrews were never in terror of the "Mighty Hittites". A horrendous 
plague, some say small pox, killed Suppiluliumas, his son,  decimated the 
Hittites and actually swept across much of the region only a few years after 
the Great Syrian war.
  Genesis 14 is not "redolent of the 14th century" as Mr Stinehart has so 
often claimed. The extensive speculationabout the "nicknames" in Genesis of 
which Mr Stinehart is so fond were a total waste of time as none of the 
participants,Suppiluliumas, Akizzi, Azuru, were on the same field at the same 
time.
   Mr Stinehart bases many of his theories on the current tragic condition of 
the land Palestine. He is apparently completely unawareof the fact the land 
we see today is not at all reflective of the condition of Palestine in the 
Bronze Age. He apparently neverread the descriptions of Palestine by the 
Egyptians in the Papyrus Anastassi and other records, never read of 
theincredible devastation wrought over the centuries by deforestation by the 
Romans, Arabs and other groups.  For example , Mr Stinehart has claimed there 
were never any trees in the Edom we know so it could never have beenthe 
"hairy" or tree covered land of Seir. He is apparently unaware of the 
smelting operations of Faynan which requiredmillions of tons of trees to make 
charcoal...trees that Roman records show were cut down from the highlands 
of...Edom.Smelting 101. Not trees to make charcoal, no smelting of copper. 
What we now see in what was Edom is a land deforestedby the Romans.He has 
also never heard of the Ottomans deforesting southern Jordan to build the 
Hegaz Railroad.If there weren't any trees to begin with, why would the 
Ottomans build a special railroad to access them?   Instead of realizing 
that, like North Africa, once the "granary of Rome",now a desert, the land of 
Palestine, including the "beautiful Galilee" is but a faint shadow of what it 
once was. In fact, it can accurately be said the entire Mediterranean is but 
a shadow of whatit once was thanks primarily to Rome. Instead, Mr Stinehart 
uses Presentism, and a mangling of the history of the Great Syrian War as a 
foundation for his beliefs.      
   Rob Acosta