Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Nir Cohen:

Let me first address your archaeological concern, and then focus on the 
all-important issue of Hebrew grammar.

1.  Based on archaeology, one mainstream view (though it may be a minority 
view) is that in Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign, a coalition of 4 rulers, led 
by a Hittite king who had seized the throne by murdering his own older 
brother named Tidal, crushed a league of 5 rebellious princelings in western 
Syria:  the Great Syrian War in western Syria.  [What is perhaps the majority 
view holds that 2 members of the winning coalition did not join with the 
Hittites until a year or two after the fighting was over.]

Thus, there is plenty of archaeological support for Genesis 14: 1-11 being 
accurate history,  I-F  Biblical scholars were willing to (i) look at Year 14 
of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign as the time period, and (ii) look at western 
Syria as the possible locale of the “four kings against five”.  You see, the 
“problem” is not a lack of archaeological findings, but rather is that no 
Biblical scholar has ever been willing to consider the foregoing two 
possibilities.  Although the geographical locale is a major hurdle, 
nevertheless the main stumbling block, in my view, is that no Biblical 
analyst has ever been willing to  a-s-k  if Genesis 14: 1-11 relates to Year 
14 of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign.  That is to say, in order to prove the 
historicity of this part of the Bible, everything depends on Hebrew grammar 
(how the Hebrew text of Genesis 14: 4-5 is interpreted), and relatively 
little depends on additional archaeological findings.  In particular, if 
Biblical scholars would take seriously the idea that Genesis 14: 4 may 
explicitly refer to Year 13, then the door would swing wide open to proving 
the historicity of Genesis 14: 1-11.  With the dating issue being the 
paramount issue (in my opinion), everything depends on the Hebrew grammar of 
Genesis 14: 4-5.

2.  Your proposed translation of Genesis 14: 4-5 is certainly strange, though 
apparently several others on the b-hebrew list seem to agree with you: 

“12 years they laboured under the four rulers;  then, 13 ADDITIONAL (!!!) 
years they rebelled.  only ON the fourteenth year into the rebellion did the 
4 kings”
I have looked at about a dozen translations of Genesis 14: 4-5, and not a 
single one is anything like you suggest.

I agree that out of context, the second half of Genesis 14: 4 could mean 
either “and Year 13 they rebelled” or “and 13 years they rebelled”.  But in 
context, the latter translation seems senseless.  Whoever heard of a 13-year 
rebellion, with armed conflict then only occurring in the 14th year?

On the Hebrew grammar front, please look at II Kings 18: 13.  Note the 
presence of B/bet/ “in”,  a-n-d  the presence of $NH.  The word $NH is plural 
in concept in Hebrew, but when translating into English, it can either come 
out as “year” singular or “years” plural.  Everyone agrees that at II Kings 
18: 13, $NH should be translated as “year” singular in English, and the 
reference is to “And in the 14th year”.

In my opinion, it is not proper to insist on an ultra-literal translation of 
$NH as “years” plural, because often that does not make sense in English.  So 
we must be aware that $NH can mean “year” singular.  Consider for example the 
end of Genesis 17: 21.  The normal translation is “in the next year”.  The 
literal translation is “in year next”.  But an ultra-literal translation is 
wrong:  “in years next”.  Though $NH is plural in concept in Hebrew, 
nevertheless it often must be translated as “year” singular in English, 
depending on the context.  The same analysis applies to Genesis 26: 12.

So instead of “13 years”, plural, the phrase at Genesis 14: 4 can mean “Year 
13” singular.  In context, it does not make sense for a rebellion to last 13 
years before armed conflict begins, whereas it makes perfect sense for the 
rebellion to occur in Year 13 and the armed conflict to occur the next year, 
in Year 14.

3.  The exciting thing about this thread is that our fate is in our own 
hands.  Archaeologists and historians have come up with plenty of information 
to verify Genesis 14: 1-11.  The problem, rather, lies with experts in 
Biblical Hebrew.  I-F  a Biblical scholar would consider Akhenaten’s Year 14 
as a possible time period for the “four kings against five” [and also western 
Syria as the possible geographical locale], then everything would match up 
beautifully.  The #1 problem is to get people on the b-hebrew list to  a-s-k  
if the second half of Genesis 14: 4 could mean “and Year 13 they rebelled”, 
and then  a-s-k  if “Year 13” at Genesis 14: 4 could refer to Year 13 of 
Akhenaten’s 17-year reign.  Archaeology is not the problem (though scholars 
unfortunately have split opinions about the Great Syrian War in western 
Syria).  No, the #1 problem is to try to get at least one Biblical scholar to 
 c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r  if Genesis 14: 4 may be referring to Year 13.  The b-hebrew 
list, not archaeological or historical issues, is where the action’s at 
regarding verifying the historicity of Genesis 14: 1-11.  It’s all a question 
of Hebrew grammar!

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois