Nir Cohen:
I’m not so sure that you and I are interpreting Ezekiel 16: 3 very
differently. It seems rather that my phrasing was misleading.
1. You wrote: “all the three nations: emorite, canaanite, hurrian, are
simply mentioned there for having been the lords of canaan at the time of
the patriarchs.”
Yes, that was the situation in Canaan right before the rise of the Hebrews.
That key historical fact is very nicely encapsulated at Genesis 14: 13 as
follows [where I will add my own comments in brackets]:
“Abram the Hebrew…dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite [that’s the “
Amorites”], brother [that is, a fellow princeling, though having no actual
blood connection] of Eshcol [that’s a Canaanite name, representing the “
Canaanites”], and brother of Aner [that’s a Hurrian name, representing the “
Hurrians”]….”
So I agree completely with you that on the eve of the Hebrews beginning
their great rise to prominence in Canaan, “emorite, canaanite, hurrian, are
simply mentioned there for having been the lords of canaan at the time of the
patriarchs.”
[Let me reiterate for the benefit of others reading this post that there’s
nothing in any of these passages about the classic Hittites from eastern
Anatolia. The Hebrew letters XTY have nothing whatsoever to do with the
classic Hittites from Anatolia, who were never in Canaan. Rather: XTY =
xu-ti-ya = a classic Hurrian personal name meaning “Praise Teshup” = an apt
Patriarchal nickname for the Hurrians.]
So far, so good.
2. You wrote: “there is no indication in the text to your allegation
that the hebrews were
associated, in this text, with the canaanites and emorites, more than with
the hurrians. this is only your personal interpretation.”
My phrasing must have been misleading. In fact, I’m the one who argues
that the Patriarchal narratives portray each Patriarch as marrying a
woman/Matriarch whose mother was an ethnic Hurrian. So I’m the one who
emphasizes
the maternal Hurrian connection regarding the early Hebrews, while not
emphasizing so greatly any connection to Canaanites or Amorites. In fact, the
greatest villain to the early Hebrews was an Amorite: Yapaxu.
Moreover, one of the most prominent but totally overlooked themes
throughout the entire Hebrew Bible is how the Hebrews gradually displaced the
Hurrian nobles in Canaan who, at the time of the birth of Judaism and the
Hebrews, had dominated the ruling class of Canaan.
The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives in fact had a quite
low opinion of the Canaanites, because for over a century they had been “
yesterday’s people”. Both the hill country north of Jerusalem, and the
northeast Ayalon Valley, being the two main places where the early Hebrews
sojourned, had lost about 90% of their Middle Bronze Age population by the
time of the Late Bronze Age Patriarchal Age. That was mainly a startling loss
of Canaanite population. In a real sense, that opened the door to other
peoples. When one looks at the names of the princelings in Canaan in the
Amarna Letters, it’s really quite shocking how relatively few non-Hurrian
non-Amorite names there are. The Canaanites had ruled the roost in Canaan
during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages [when Canaan was as strong as Egypt,
and there was a much better, wetter climate in Canaan]. But now, in the
mid-14th century BCE in the unduly dry Late Bronze Age, the new normal was
that Canaanites had become has-beens in Canaan. The Hurrians were more
cultured, better fighters, more dominant, and more admired in the eyes of the
early tent-dwelling Hebrews than were the declining Canaanites. Amorites
were much more dynamic than the Canaanites, but were few in number. And
although the Amorite princeling Milk-i-Ilu had been great through Year 13, his
firstborn son Yapaxu was the [short-lived] nemesis of the first Hebrews.
3. You wrote: “moreover, mention of these nations (including the
semitic ones) has in ezek. 16 a strong negative sense, as nations that
corrupted
the nation, as clear from his 16:44-48.”
Yes. The Hebrews are viewed as being YHWH’s Chosen People, and they
should not follow in the ways of other peoples. But of course Ezekiel is
saying that in relation to his own day, whereas the situation in the
Patriarchal
Age was quite different.
I don’t really disagree with what you say; it’s just that I was trying to
make a different point. Historically, the Hebrews first arose in a
Canaan which had the following characteristics [as accurately reflected
throughout the Patriarchal narratives, and as fairly accurately briefly
summarized
in one sentence at Ezekiel 16: 3]: (i) the Canaanites, who had been
dominant in Canaan for well over a millennium, were seemingly fading away;
(ii)
Amorites were more dynamic, but were few in number; and (iii) Canaan had
for a generation now been dominated, oddly enough, by dashing Hurrian
charioteers, yet even before the Patriarchs’ very eyes, it seemed that the days
of the Hurrians too might soon be numbered as well [since the Hurrian
homeland of MDYN/Mitanni in eastern Syria was being utterly crushed by the
Hittites under mighty Hittite King Suppiluliuma (Biblical “Tidal”)]. Canaan
was
hollowing out. But what was bad for Canaan as a whole was in fact a
perfect storm that benefited the fledgling Hebrews greatly. No wonder the
first
Hebrews thought that YHWH was on their side! For the time being the stars
had aligned exactly perfectly, against all odds.
4. You wrote: “by this i do not reject a miscigenous picture of canaan
in the early patriarchal time: quite on the contrary.”
I agree.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
