Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

George Athas:

 

In response to Karl’s statement that “Abraham and his sons and grandsons didn’t use stone or clay for their writing”, you wrote:  “Karl, my question is how do you know what Abraham and his sons used or didn't use? You are saying that the evidence for this no longer exists, so how on earth do you know it? This seems to be nothing more than an argument from silence. I'm certainly not against the idea, but I'd like to know how we could test for it. If we can't, you have to admit that you are purely speculating here.”

 

I have set forth objective evidence indicating that the Patriarchal narratives were originally written on clay tablets in Akkadian cuneiform in the late Amarna time period, and not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew [except for chapters 14 and 49 of Genesis] until 7^th century BCE Jerusalem.  When I mentioned that on a different thread, you wrote:  “All that is pure speculation, too.  It's based on opinion, idiosyncratic interpretation, and wild speculation.”

 

After publicly accusing me of “wild speculation”, please be so kind as to specify which of the following key arguments of mine are “wild speculation”:

 

1.  Geographical Location of Patriarchs’ “Hebron”

 

The Patriarchs are never said to “go up”/(LH to the Patriarchs’ Hebron, nor are “mountains”/HR ever mentioned in connection with the Patriarchs’ Hebron.  Rather, at Genesis 37: 14 the Patriarchs’ Hebron is explicitly stated to be (MQ, which per Gesenius is “a low tract of land of wide extent, fit for corn land…, and suited for battlefields”.  In the entire Hebrew Bible, every single (MQ in Canaan south of the Jezreel Valley is located either east or west of the Watershed Ridge Route.  If Biblical Hebrew words mean anything, it is  i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e  that an (MQ could be located  o-n  the Watershed Ridge Route, much less near the top of the tallest mountain in southern Canaan.  At Genesis 13: 9, 11 Abram tells Lot that Abram will go the opposite way from Bethel, or at least a different way from Bethel, as Lot, and Lot goes “east” from Bethel.  Thus Abram cannot go east of the Watershed Ridge Route, so in order to come to an (MQ in southern Canaan, Abram must go west of the Watershed Ridge Route, which brings him to the Ayalon Valley, southwest of Bethel and west of Jerusalem.  The name XBRWN is not attested in the 2^nd millennium BCE as a geographical site in Canaan;  that’s because it’s a Patriarchal nickname, meaning “Heaven on Earth” in Hurrian, for the Patriarchs’ favorite place in southern Canaan to sojourn.  It’s certain that the mighty fortress in the Early and Middle Bronze Age that was located at or near the location of the modern city of Hebron was definitely  n-o-t  called XBRWN at that time, or it would have appeared on the Egyptian Execration Lists.  At II Samuel 2: 1 King David (LH/“goes up” to that site, and that site in southern hill/HR country is called XBRWN in later books in the Bible.  But with the name XBRWN being of little if any help in determining the geographical location of the Patriarchs’ Hebron, what counts is what the text of the Patriarchal narratives says as to XBRWN.  The words (LH and HR are never used.  (MQ is used.  As such, the text indicates that the Patriarchs’ XBRWN was the northeast Ayalon Valley.  The foregoing is not “wild speculation”, though it does differ from your non-text-based traditional view.

 

2.  Time Period of the Patriarchal Age

 

Each Patriarch experiences a terrible drought-famine and considers moving to Egypt to avoid it.  That fits the unduly dry Late Bronze Age perfectly, while not making good sense in any other historical time period.  The presence of dozens of Hurrian names in the text makes sense only in the mid-14^th century BCE, which was the only time in history when Hurrian charioteers dominated the ruling class of Canaan, as we know from the Amarna Letters.  [For example, “Aner” at Genesis 14: 13, as the name of a princeling in south-central Canaan who is allied with the governing princeling of the Ayalon Valley, is a Hurrian name.]  The only time period in history when it is realistic for Abram as a tent-dweller to be in covenant relationship with the princeling ruler of the valley where the first Hebrews sojourned, per Genesis 14: 13, is the Late Bronze Age.  In particular, the Amarna Letters confirm that Milk-i-Ilu, who was the Amorite princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Years 12-13, was well-known throughout southern Canaan for being allied with tent-dwellers/Apiru.  [See e.g. IR-Heba’s Amarna Letter EA 287: 25-32.]  The pre-eminent scholar regarding the Ayalon Valley in the Late Bronze Age is Alon Shavit, who in “Settlement Patterns in the Ayalon Valley in the Bronze and Iron Ages”, Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 27(2)  (2000):  189-230 says at p. 212:  “The Northern Hills [that is, the northeast quadrant of the Ayalon Valley] were affected by the trends like the Central Hill Country [north of Jerusalem, where “the number of sites declined to 6% [!] of their number during the MB”] and suffered a significant decline during the Late Bronze Age.  All of the LB settlements [in the Ayalon Valley] except Kh. El-Rujm were located near the Ayalon stream tributaries [in the southern half of the Ayalon Valley], south and west of the stream.  …[V]ery few people settled in the hills north of the Ayalon Valley [in the Late Bronze Age].  [This, despite the notable fact that:]  During the MB and Iron Age II, [by contrast,] this region was very densely populated.  Thus, it had a considerable economic capacity, and an agriculture based on viticulture developed in this region.”  So we see that the one window of opportunity that tent-dwellers had to sojourn in the fine land of the rural northeast Ayalon Valley when it was largely vacant was the Late Bronze Age;  historically tent-dwellers were welcomed there in Years 12-13 by the Amorite princeling ruler Milk-i-Ilu.  The Patriarchal nickname of Amorite princeling Milk-i-Ilu is “Mamre the Amorite”, and the invaluable confederate relationship the first Hebrews historically enjoyed with him is honored by having one of Jacob’s descendants named after his historical name “Milk-i-Ilu”, where at Genesis 46: 17 next to the XBR root of XBRWN we see:  MLK -Y- )L.  Based on the foregoing objective facts, it is not “wild speculation” that Abram was in confederate relationship with historical Milk-i-Ilu in the Ayalon Valley in Years 12-13.

 

Please note in this regard that the  o-n-l-y  time prior to the mid-1^st millennium BCE when significant amounts of writing [letter-length or longer] are attested in south-central Canaan is precisely the Amarna Age, per the Amarna Letters.  That’s the only time when the Patriarchal narratives could have started out as a written composition.  Years 12-14 are referenced at Genesis 14: 4-5.  That’s the Patriarchal Age, based on what the text says.  That’s not “wild speculation”.

  

3.  Biblical Egyptian Names

 

If the Patriarchal narratives were composed in Year 14 and written down in Akkadian cuneiform 4 years later, and for the most part not transformed into alphabetical Biblical Hebrew until late 7^th century BCE Jerusalem, then we would predict the following as to the Biblical Egyptian names near the end of Genesis, being three items that would be impossible if the Patriarchal narratives were, as ordinarily supposed, an oral tradition:  (i) there would be a confusion of gutturals, because Akkadian cuneiform cannot distinguish one guttural from another, and a Jewish scribe in 7^th  century BCE Jerusalem would not be familiar with exotic Egyptian names from 700 years earlier;  (ii) yet except for the gutturals, every other aspect of the spelling of these Biblical Egyptian names would be letter-for-letter perfect, because they were written down by a contemporary in the late Amarna time period;  and (iii) all of these Biblical Egyptian names would be utterly redolent of Year 14 at Amarna.  We see such confusion of the gutturals in the name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly father-in-law, Potipherah, where the final ayin/( in the received text was meant to be a heth/X [which is what makes this a completely different name than “Potiphar” as the name of Joseph’s initial Egyptian master], and in the name translated as “Pharaoh”, where the final he/H was also meant to be a heth/X [which makes this name an updated version of the name “Akhenaten”].  Other than such gutturals, every letter of every Biblical Egyptian name near the end of Genesis is letter perfect as to the expected Biblical Hebrew spelling of the Egyptian words that comprise these names.  And all of these Biblical Egyptian names are utterly redolent of Year 14 at Amarna.  For example, the unattractive nature of Akhenaten’s self-centered form of monotheism comes out clearly in the name of Joseph’s Egyptian father-in-law [who is a high-priest of Ra from On], once it is recognized that the last letter in his name was meant to be heth/X:  “[Akhenaten Is] The One and Only One Who Knows The Distant God Ra”.  My detailed, letter-for-letter analysis of these various Biblical Egyptian names is not “wild speculation”.

 

Based on all the objective evidence I have set forth in support of my non-traditional view that the Patriarchal narratives are truly ancient as a written text and are historically accurate, I am disappointed to see you to write off my entire well-considered, fact-based and text-based view of the Patriarchal narratives as follows:  “All that is pure speculation, too.  It's based on opinion, idiosyncratic interpretation, and wild speculation.”  My text-based view, as opposed to your non-text-based traditional view of the above three key subjects regarding the Patriarchal narratives, is not “wild speculation”.  Rather, it’s what the  t-e-x-t  says.

 

Dr. James R. Stinehart

Evanston, Illinois