Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

Prof. George Athas:

You wrote:  “And here is the crux of your argument: IF. There is absolutely 
no certainty in this if, and of all the things you've posted about this 
connection, there is nothing, I repeat n-o-t-h-I-n-g that shows any warrant 
for this connection. In fact, you persist with this despite being shown hard 
evidence to the contrary. So really, you should be writing: "If Genesis 15: 
18-21 reflects the Amarna Age, as I think it does, even though the evidence 
goes completely against it, then…"  I'm sorry, Jim, but this argument 
occupies the realm of fantasy, not real scholarship.”

Rather than there being “n-o-t-h-I-n-g that shows any warrant for this 
connection”, let me list here 7 items of hard evidence I have come up with to 
show that the Patriarchal narratives reflect the unique situation that 
applied in Canaan in Years 12-14 of Akhenaten’s reign, a short period of time 
that I see as being coterminous with the Patriarchal Age, with the vast bulk 
of the Patriarchal narratives having been composed, in my opinion, by a year 
or two after the end of the Amarna Age.

1.  Only during the Amarna Age would it make sense for 8 of 10 names of 
peoples at Genesis 15: 18-21 to be names of Hurrians, because that is the 
only time period when Hurrian princelings dominated the ruling class of 
Canaan [per the Hurrian-type names of princelings in the Amarna Letters that 
I set forth in my prior post].  I have set forth a linguistic analysis of 
these 8 names that is more convincing than anything else out there.

2.  A league of 5 rebellious princelings with Hurrian-type names formed in or 
about Year 13 north of Canaan.  I have shown that one literal reading of the 
second half of Genesis 14: 4 is:  “…and Year 13 they rebelled.”

3.  The Great Syrian War, which was frightening to the early Hebrews but, 
semi-miraculously, ended up being very helpful to the early Hebrew, as it 
totally devastated the Hurrians, who had recently been dominating Canaan, 
began in or about Year 14, per Genesis 14: 5.  [Scholars split as to the 
exact year.]  The powerful leader of the winning coalition was a Hittite king 
who had seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly expedient of murdering his 
own older brother, named Tidal, hence the nasty Patriarchal nickname Tidal at 
Genesis 14: 1.

4.  If Amarna Letter EA 254, per the original reading of its hieratic docket 
number, is dated to Year 12 [with the alternative view being Year 32, the 
date which Rob Acosta and some scholars prefer], then we know that in Year 12 
the notorious Canaanite strongman Lab’ayu had just now commandeered Shechem, 
and that Jerusalem was ruled by the Hurrian princeling IR-Heba, who hated 
tent-dwellers intensely because he feared that rival west Semitic-speaking 
rulers like Lab’ayu might organize the west Semitic-speaking tent-dwellers 
and oust IR-Heba from Jerusalem.  Chapters 12-13 of Genesis occur about one 
year before the Year 13 date referenced at Genesis 14: 4, so it’s Year 12.  
Genesis 12: 6 notes “the Canaanite” at Shechem in Year 12:  that’s the 
Canaanite strongman Lab’ayu.  That’s why Abram does not pitch his tent at 
Shechem, nor does Abram ever go back to Shechem, but rather Abram pitches his 
tent farther south at Beth-El.  Genesis 13: 7 notes “the Canaanite” and “the 
Perizzite”, and then Lot exits Bethel by going “east” at Genesis 13: 11.  
“The Canaanite” is Lab’ayu, and “the Perizzite”, a Hurrian nickname based on 
piri as one version of the Hurrian word for “lord”, references Hurrian 
princeling IR-Heba at Jerusalem.  Those two notorious princelings as of Year 
12 are why Abram and Lot need to vacate hill country.  In leaving Bethel Lot 
cannot go straight north, back through Shechem, though Lot has looked north 
at Genesis 13: 10.  Lot has to take a detour, going east from Bethel, and 
only when he gets to the Jordan River can he turn north and head for soft 
city life on the northwest corner of the Jordan River Valley, at the east 
edge of the fertile Jezreel Valley.  Abram has said at Genesis 13: 9 that 
Abram will go the opposite direction from Bethel that Lot goes, so Abram 
exits Bethel by going west.  Note that both men wisely avoid both Shechem and 
Jerusalem, which as of Year 12 were ruled by those two notorious rulers.  
This is unique to Year 12, because Lab’ayu is assassinated in the first half 
of Year 13, so after that time Abram could have pitched his tent at Shechem, 
and Lot could have gone north from Bethel back through Shechem on his way 
north to the Rehov area.

5.  In going the opposite of “east” [that is, west] from Bethel, Abram goes 
to the Ayalon Valley, west of hill country and Jerusalem.  Based on the later 
city name Elon in the Ayalon Valley, we know that oak trees were prominent 
there, which are mentioned three times in the Patriarchal narratives.  By 
contrast, no place named Elon or anything like that has ever existed in 
southern hill country, which is the traditional site of the Patriarchs’ 
Hebron.  Whereas hill country had lost 90% of its population after the end of 
the Middle Bronze Age, and was devastated by the lack of rainfall, the 
Shephelah only lost 50% of its population, and was much better land, 
especially in the Late Bronze Age.  Studies of the eastern Ayalon Valley in 
the Late Bronze Age show that not a single city or town was located there at 
that time, making it a true rural nirvana for Abram.  There are only two 
Amorite princelings in Canaan proper in the Amarna Letters, one of them being 
Milk-Ilu of Gezer in the western Ayalon Valley.  Genesis 14: 13 refers to an 
Amorite princeling with the Patriarchal nickname Mamre, who allies with 
tent-dwellers and Hurrians [Aner] and Canaanites [Eshkol].  Milk-Ilu 
historically was accused by IR-Heba of collaboration with tent-dwellers, a 
charge that Nadav Na’aman sees as being accurate.  Milk-Ilu allied with 
Hurrians Tagi and Shuwardata, and with the Canaanite family of Lab’ayu and 
his sons.

6.  Abram loves the eastern Ayalon Valley, and gives it the Hurrian-based 
Patriarchal nickname of XBR-W-N, where the XBR root is the Hurrian word 
“heaven”.  Reading between the lines, the  o-n-l-y  princeling that the early 
Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives really liked was Milk-Ilu, who 
allied with the first Hebrews and did not try to take advantage of them [as 
Lab’ayu did], and was not weak and ineffectual [as Milk-Ilu’s immediate 
would-be successor was].  The early Hebrew author deftly honors XBR-W-N, the 
eastern Ayalon Valley site of the Patriarchs’ Hebron, and Amorite princeling 
Milk-Ilu, by using the root of those two names as names for Jacob’s 
descendants at Genesis 46: 17, back to back:  XBR and MLKY-)L [where the 
Amorite ending -Ilu is replaced by the Hebrew ending -)L].   

7.  The Amarna Age ended when Akhenaten died after reigning more than ½-way 
through his Year 17, numerically symbolized by the number 17½.  The first 
half of the Patriarchal narratives ends when Abraham dies at stated age 17½ 
tenfold “years” [Abraham having witnessed 175 total New Years, counting both 
fall and spring New Years].  The Patriarchal narratives then end when Joseph 
dies 17½ tenfold regular years after Abraham’s birth.  Those two ending 
dates, featuring 17½ tenfold, are there to confirm that the Patriarchal Age 
ended when the Amarna Age ended:  over ½-way through Akhenaten’s regnal Year 
17.  

Rather than there being “n-o-t-h-I-n-g that shows any warrant for this 
connection”, the foregoing 7 objective facts strongly support my view that 
the Patriarchal Age was the Amarna Age, and that the vast bulk of the 
composition of the Patriarchal narratives was completed a year or two after 
the end of the Amarna Age.  The scholarly view that you teach, which holds 
that multiple authors after the Late Bronze Age used old folktales to conjure 
up a fictional Patriarchal Age, sounds sophisticated but cannot stand the 
light of day.  There is no way that multiple authors who post-date the Late 
Bronze Age, even if they had the benefit of old folktales, could possibly 
under any circumstances have come up with the foregoing specific, detailed 
facts that fit only one historical period:  Years 12-14 of the Amarna Age.

The Patriarchal narratives are much older, and much more historically 
accurate, than university scholars realize.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois