Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Rob Acosta wrote:
 
1.  “I am puzzled by this statement because scholars I've read report the 
opposite.  In the "Chronology of the Amarna Letters" by the reknowned EF 
Campbell he writes the most famous figures of that era, Labayu, Miliku and 
Abdi 
Heba were long dead by the time the Egyptian Maya became commissioner of 
Gezer which he says can be conclusively placed in Year 8-9 of Akhenaten.”
 
Maya is mostly associated with Year 16 in the Amarna Letters, at the very 
end of Akhenaten’s reign, when Akhenaten was planning an invasion of Syria 
that, probably because of Akhenaten’s declining health, never happened.  Thus 
a classic reference to Maya is at Amarna Letter EA 216:  “I have heard the 
message of the king [Akhenaten], my lord, to his servant to make preparations 
before the arrival of the [Egyptian] archers.  I am now making preparations 
in accordance with the command of the king, my lord.  I obey most carefully 
the words of Maya, the commissioner of the king, my lord.”
 
2.  “Yet you claim they were alive in Year 12 and somehow play a part in 
the story of Abraham, Lotand Melchezidek.  Scholars I've read agree Labayu 
died before both the deaths of Amenophis lll and Abdi Ashirta...”
 
The hieratic docket date on Amarna Letter EA 254 is either Year 12 [my 
view, and the original reading by Knudzon] or Year 32 [the view of some 
recent 
scholars].  If the reading is Year 32, then Lab’ayu, Abdi Ashirta and 
Milk-Ilu all died before Akhenaten’s reign began, so that the so-called 
“Amarna” 
Letters are a misnomer, since all the letters from quarrelsome princelings in 
southern Canaan on that view pre-date Amarna.  Using common sense, when 
Amenhotep III, the “King of Kings”, the richest and most popular pharaoh in 
history, was at the absolute pinnacle of his tremendous power in Year 32, 
would that be the time for a Canaanite strongman like Lab’ayu to try to carve 
out a new state of Greater Shechem over Pharaoh’s strenuous objections?  That 
defies common sense.  Rather, the “Canaanite” Lab’ayu made his move, not sur
prisingly, when Akhenaten was sole pharaoh, in Year 12, with Akhenaten 
being a much weaker pharaoh than his father regarding having the ability to 
control matters in Canaan.  Moreover, if Lab’ayu sent EA 254 to Thebes in 
Year 
32, being 16 years before Amarna was built, then why would the original of 
that tablet be in the Amarna archives in the first place?
 
Rob, I recognize that many scholars see EA 254 as being dated Year 32, in 
which case none of the exciting letters from southern Canaan have anything 
whatsoever to do with Akhenaten or Amarna.  But I see such scholarly view, 
which is one of two main competing scholarly views, as being untenable on the 
merits. 
 
3.  “In short, according to scholars,there are no records of Jerusalem or 
the Hill Country in the second half of Akhenaten's rule.”
 
Rob, though several scholars do in fact hold that view, is it plausible?  
Why on earth would there not be a single letter from a southern Canaan 
princeling dating to Year 12 or thereabouts in the entire Amarna archive?
 
4.  “This is not personal opinion but is according to Campbell, Na'aman, 
Kitchen and Redford. Please be kind enough to provide documented sources for 
your assertions which clearly contradict theirs.”
 
Cyril Aldred, the most respected biographer of Akhenaten, sees an 11-year 
co-regency.  Wm. Moran, the highly respected editor of the Amarna Letters, is 
neutral as to the subject.  In particular, he specifically notes the 
realistic possibility that EA 254 may date to Year 12, in which case all of 
the 
letters from quarrelsome princelings in southern Canaan would date to the 
second half of Akhenaten’s reign.  As Wm. Moran says at p. xxxvii of his 
edition 
of the Amarna Letters:  “One is the reading of the hieratic docket on EA 
254, a letter from Lab’ayu:  ‘year 12’ or ‘year 32’?  If the first, then it 
must refer to Amenophis IV [Akhenaten] and would require a very late date 
for the entire southern corpus.”
 
Moreover, an article published last month by Nadav Na’aman may throw new 
light on this subject. That article is available here:
_http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Naaman.pdf_ 
(http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Naaman.pdf) 
 
It appears that most, and perhaps virtually all, of the Amarna Letters 
about quarrels among princelings in southern Canaan relate to either the 
Lab’ayu 
affair regarding Shechem, or to the Qiltu affair in the Shephelah;  the 
Qiltu affair seems to have immediately followed the Lab’ayu affair, and 
involved Lab’ayu’s sons.  Na’aman, whose article focuses on the Qiltu affair 
in 
the Shephelah, remarks at p. 290: “[M]ost of the gewald [“gewald” may be 
Yiddish for “Good grief!”, meaning the letters from princelings regarding 
disconcerting rebellions and the like] letters [from the Shephelah area] 
refer to 
one of two major events:  the Qiltu affair, and the widespread rebellions 
that broke out all over the region in the later Amarna period.” P. 290.  The 
Qiltu affair seems to have taken about one year to play out, and it seems to 
have almost immediately followed the Lab’ayu affair, as one key question in 
the Qiltu affair is how the sons of the recently assassinated Lab’ayu would 
operate after their father’s death.  After citing Amarna Letter EA 287: 
29-31, in which IR-Xeba, the Hurrian princeling ruler of Jerusalem, accuses 
Milk-Ilu, the princeling ruler of Gezer in the Ayalon Valley, and the sons of 
Lab’ayu as being in cahoots with the ‘Apiru, Na’aman at p. 291 characterizes 
this as showing that Milk-Ilu and Lab’ayu (himself, not merely his sons) 
sometimes allied with the ‘Apiru:  “There is a perfect accord between ‘
Abdi-Xeba’s accusations that Milk-Ilu and Lab’ayu stand behind the 
‘rebellion’ 
and that Gezer, Ashkelon, and Lachish supported the rebels….”  With each of 
the Lab’ayu affair and the Qiltu affair seeming to take a little over one 
year to play out, and with the latter seeming to almost immediately follow 
the 
former, it appears that all of the “gewald” letters from southern Canaan 
concerning quarrels among princelings come from a period of time of about 
three years.
 
Thus, either all the exciting Amarna Letters from princelings in southern 
Canaan are during Akhenaten’s reign, in Years 12-14, or all such letters 
pre-date Amarna, being Years 32-34 of Amenhotep III, and have nothing 
whatsoever 
to do with Akhenaten.  Common sense tells us that the “Amarna” Letters 
primarily concern Amarna, regarding correspondence from mere princelings in 
southern Canaan.  
 
5.  The Biblical testimony supports my view.  The second half of Genesis 
14: 4 references Year 13, meaning that chapters 12-13 of Genesis occur in 
Year 
12.  Genesis 12: 6 refers to the “Canaanite” at the major city-state of 
Shechem.  That’s Lab’ayu in Year 12, shortly before his grand plans for 
Greater Shechem bit the dust with his assassination early in Year 13.  
Everything 
in the Patriarchal narratives fits the original reading of the hieratic 
docket on EA 254 as being Year 12.  In particular, the unique Hebrew phrasing 
at the end of Genesis 12: 6 and in the second half of Genesis 14: 4 fits the 
unique situation in southern Canaan in Year 12 perfectly, while not matching 
well to any other era.
 
There is a split in scholarly opinion as to whether all, or none, of the 
exciting letters from quarrelsome princelings in southern Canaan date to 
Years 
12-14 of Akhenaten’s reign, as opposed to dating [incongruously, in my 
opinion] to Amenhotep III’s prior reign.  Given that split, and given the 
fact 
that the Biblical testimony solidly supports the first view, I myself go with 
the first view.  The second half of Genesis 14: 4 is referring to 
historical Year 13.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois