Rob Acosta: If the moderators will allow a new thread on the “four kings against five” , I would be delighted to address the issues you have raised. There have been some recent developments on scholarly views as to the timing and circumstances of the destruction of Qatna in the Late Bronze Age. In light of those new scholarly findings [which I believe were not known when I posted on Qatna years ago], I provisionally withdraw all of my previous comments about Qatna [pending an examination of the new information out there about the destruction of Qatna]. But Qatna in any event is a very minor element of my theory of the case. Rather, what is of critical importance to my theory of the case are several of the other items that you mention, in particular the identification of the 9 contending parties in the “four kings against five”. In order to keep this post fairly short, I will only discuss the historical identities of the four attacking rulers. The Bible presents four attacking rulers at Genesis 14: 1, 9. One has a kingly Hittite name, “Tidal”, suitable as a pejorative Patriarchal nickname for mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma, who had seized the Hittite throne by murdering his own brother named “ Tidal”. One has a Hurrian name, “Arioch”, suitable as a pejorative Patriarchal nickname for the Hurrian princeling ruler of Qadesh on the Orontes; in Hurrian, “Arioch” can be viewed as implying “the son of a Hurrian lord, not the father”, which references the fact that Etakkama left his father in the lurch in eastern Anatolia and returned to Syria as a Hittite partisan to claim his patrimony of Qadesh on the Orontes. One has a west Semitic name, Amrapel, suitable as a pejorative Patriarchal nickname for the west Semitic-speaking ruler of Amurru, as its west Semitic meaning is “Amorite Splittest”, and Aziru split off Amurru from the rest of Canaan and sold out to Hittite-dominated Syria. Finally, KDRL(MR (LM is a suitable pejorative Patriarchal nickname for King Niqmaddu II of Ugarit, because it means, in Ugaritic [kdr l (mr (lm]: “sacred vessel (falls) into excrement -- all the previous kings of Ugarit”, referring to the historical fact that Niqmaddu sold out the previous independence of Ugarit to the Hittites as the opening act of the Great Syrian War, so that the kings of Ugarit would never be independent again. Your post raises the key question of whether, as a point of historical fact, those four rulers were indeed the four attacking rulers in the Great Syrian War in western Syria, which I see as being the historical counterpart of the “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11. Since you seem to be raising mostly historical questions here, even though on the b-hebrew list we usually discuss linguistic issues [such as why the above four names, in their different languages, have the pejorative meanings I have described], let me simply quote here one of the best-known English-speaking authorities on the Great Syrian War in western Syria. His classic text on Canaan is admittedly getting a little old now, and does not reflect the latest findings concerning Qatna. Also, I realize that many aspects of the Great Syrian War are debated by historians. But one of the few items of agreement among historians of the period is who the four attacking rulers were in the Great Syrian War in western Syria [and the recent findings regarding Qatna have not changed that]. Donald B. Redford, “Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times” (1992), at pp. 175-176: “Suppiluliumas came himself to Alalakh, and Niqmaddu dutifully crossed the Orontes and prostrated himself before the great [Hittite] king. Ugarit had voluntarily seceded from Egypt [and had inaugurated the Great Syrian War in western Syria by selling out to the Hittites, in the face of attacks from five neighboring Hurrian princelings]. …Etakama, determined to rehabilitate his image with Suppiluliumas, led a small detachment of Hittite troops to ravage the district. …Aziru sent his own troops to assist Etakama against Amki and Upe, and he himself occupied Tunip.” So we see who are the four attacking rulers in the Great Syrian War in western Syria: (i) Hittite King Suppiluliuma [Biblical nickname “Tidal”, a Hittite name]; (ii) Ugaritic King Niqmaddu [Biblical nickname KDRL(MR (LM, a curse in Ugaritic]; (iii) Hurrian princeling Etakkama of Qadesh on the Orontes [Biblical nickname “Arioch”, a Hurrian name]; and (iv) the west Semitic-speaking Amorite ruler of Amurru, Aziru [Biblical nickname “Amrapel”, a west Semitic name]. The most accessible original source to confirm the foregoing analysis is Amarna Letter EA 197, which references 3 of the 4 attacking rulers by name, and identifies them as being inimical to the interests of Egypt in the greater Canaan area. [That Amarna Letter does not mention Ugarit or its king, but everyone agrees that the opening act of the Great Syrian War in western Syria is when Niqmaddu shocked the world by inviting mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma into Syria.] On the b-hebrew list, my main point has been the linguistic contention that the ethnicities of the historical four attacking rulers in the Great Syrian War in western Syria are exact matches to the languages used by the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives in creating pejorative Biblical nicknames for the four attacking rulers at Genesis 14: 1-11: one Hittite, one Ugaritic, one Hurrian, and one Amorite. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
