Rev. Bryant J. Williams III: 1. You wrote: “[I]t is evident that the four different translations above: 2 FE and 2 DE ALL translate it as the former (12th, in the 13th, in the 14th year).”
(a) As we have been discussing on this thread, one possible literal interpretation of Genesis 14: 4 is that it says “…and Year 13 they rebelled”. No pre-20th century BCE scholar would have thought to make that translation, though, because Amarna, and Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign, were then unknown. (b) But here, for sake of argument let’s accept your interpretation. Note that Genesis 14: 5 says that a force that included a ruler with a Hittite name, Tidal, crushed a league of 5 rebellious princelings “in the 14th year” [per your wording]. Now consider when scholars think that the fighting in the Great Syrian War in western Syria occurred: (i) “If the Egyptian expedition against Kadesh, which had provoked this response, took place as Aziru was making his way into captivity, the Hittite response might have come in the same year – as early as the fall of Akhenaten’s year 14….” William J. Murnane, “The Road to Kadesh” (1990), p. 127. (i) “Therefore, it is suggested that the above events and developments should be spread over years 13 and 14 of Akhenaten; then the 'First' Syrian War can hardly fall any later than year 12 of Akhenaten as a reasonable minimal date.” Kenneth Kitchen, “Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology” (1962). Year 14 is the likely date of the Great Syrian War in western Syria. In Hebrew, the concept of Year 14, the date of that war, could be expressed by your phrase “in the 14th year”. Scholars see the league of 5 rebellious princelings as forming the year before the Great Syrian War in western Syria. That would be Year 13. Even on your conventional translation, the Biblical text is saying that a league of 5 rebellious princelings formed “in the 13th year”. That’s a quite nice match. [I see Genesis 14: 4 as saying “and Year 13 they rebelled”, which would be an exact match.] The point is that regardless of the translation, the references to 13 or 13th and 14 or 14th at Genesis 14: 4-5 match up beautifully to the timing of the Great Syrian War in western Syria, which historically featured a coalition, one of whose important members had a Hittite kingly name, that in Year 14 crushed a league of 5 rebellious princelings that had formed in Year 13, just as Genesis 14: 1-11 presents it. 2. The rest of your post points to the r-e-a-l problem here. You wrote: “Then there is the problem with the whole Amarna issue. Abraham is circa 20th Century BCE (2000). He is NOT the 14th Century BCE (1400) which is the time of Akhenatan's rule. So who ruled in Jerusalem, Meggido, Lachish, Sechem, etc. really does not help identifying the year Abraham was in Hebron, when you are looking in the wrong century; you are about 600 years off.” I realize that there are some geographical problems with my proposed match of the Great Syrian War in western Syria to the Biblical “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11. But the r-e-a-l problem is exactly as you put it: did the Patriarchal Age include the Amarna Age in the mid-14th century BCE? (a) Rev. Bryant J. Williams III, don’t you think it odd that of the hundreds of scholarly adherents to the Documentary Hypothesis, virtually none of those scholars sees any portion of the Patriarchal narratives as reflecting the Amarna Age? Those scholars tell us that the last 40 chapters of Genesis were composed by multiple authors, all of whom post-date the Late Bronze Age. If that’s the case, then why on earth wouldn’t part of the Patriarchal narratives reflect the Amarna Age, which shortly pre-dates the end of the Late Bronze Age? Why wouldn’t Genesis 14: 1-11 be an Iron Age recollection of the historical Great Syrian War in western Syria that happened in Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign? Why wouldn’t “the iniquity of the Amorites” be when both of the major Amorite powers, Ugarit and Amurru, sold out to the rapacious Hittites in or about Year 14 of Akhenaten’s reign, thereby potentially threatening that Canaan might be the next place to be forced into Hittite vassalage? Why wouldn’t the assassination of Hamor of Shechem in chapter 34 of Genesis be based, at least loosely, on the historical assassination of Lab’ayu of Shechem in the Amarna Age, where in both cases the ruler of Shechem was trying to ally with tent-dwelling people, and his son in both cases was explicitly “consorting with the [tent-dwellers] Hapiru”? Isn’t it significant that “Naharim” of the Amarna Letters matches perfectly to NHRYM at Genesis 24: 10, with the same spelling and referring to the same place: eastern Syria? (b) Although you place Abraham in the 20th century BCE, when do you see the Patriarchal narratives as having been composed? If they were composed prior to the mid-14th century BCE, then why is it that so many of the incidents in the Biblical text seem to match so nicely to the Amarna Age? On the other hand, if the Patriarchal narratives were composed after the mid-14th century BCE, then isn’t it possible that some of the high profile events of the Amarna Age made it into the Biblical text, even if on an anachronistic basis? My own view is that the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives was composed in Year 15 of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign, by the first Hebrew, and that the Biblical text has pinpoint historical accuracy in describing the historical background of Years 12-14. That’s why Genesis 12: 6 and 13: 7 know “the Canaanite” of Shechem, historical Lab’ayu, who for one year only, Year 12, controlled much of the Jezreel Valley and south-central Canaan. [The historical dating here depends on the original hieratic docket of Amarna Letter EA 254 from Lab’ayu of Shechem as having been read correctly as “Year 12”; that is the most logical dating of that letter in any event.] If Genesis 14: 4 is referring, directly or indirectly, to Year 13, then chapters 12 and 13 of Genesis would therefore reflect Year 12. The o-n-l-y time in history when it makes sense for Abram to refuse to pitch his tent at Shechem and rather to press on to Bethel, and for both Abram and Lot to leave Bethel with neither one of them retracing their steps to go back north to or through Shechem, is Year 12, when “the Canaanite” Labayu was terrorizing Canaan out of his new stronghold at Shechem, and “the Perizzite”, that is, Hurrian princeling IR-Heba, ruled Jerusalem, which is why Abram wisely avoided Jerusalem as well. In any other time period, there would have been no reason for Abram to give those two fine cities such a wide berth. In my controversial view, only in Year 12 do chapters 12 and 13 of Genesis make good sense. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
