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 7th 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 2nd 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-14th
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-1st
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 7th 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 7th 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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
