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 th
e 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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
