Identifying Two Sets of Editorial Additions to Genesis

[Jim Stinehart]

Identifying Two Sets of Editorial Additions to Genesis

1. “which is__________”

I agree with those scholars who see the phrase “which is_______”, when it follows a geographical place name at Genesis 14: 2, 3, 8, as being a later-added editorial addition:

“It may be too that the glosses on place names in vv 2 [‘which is Zoar’, with the same such phrase also appearing at v. 8], 3 [‘which is the salt sea’], 7, 17 are…to be ascribed to…the J editor: they clarify the sense of the story without adding to it. These editorial additions simply update and clarify the account: even after they are removed there is left a coherent and well-integrated narrative….” Gordon J. Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary: Genesis 16-50” (1994), p. 306.

In my opinion, however, there should be no assumption that these later-added editorial additions were (i) honest attempts at passively updating the nomenclature of the original version, or (ii) in any event are factually accurate. For reasons (and with consequences) that we can explore later, it is more likely, rather, that these later-added editorial additions were put in precisely to c-h-a-n-g-e the original meaning of these verses.

Assuming then that such phrases are later-added editorial additions, Genesis 14: 2-3 originally read as follows (using the KJV translation):

“2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela…. 3 All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim….”

2. “…unto this day”

The presence in the Hebrew Bible of the phrase “unto this day” is routinely viewed as signaling the presence of a later redactor. Brevard S. Childs, “A Study of the Formula ‘Unto This Day'”, Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963), pp. 279-292. “Even Noth admitted that the phrase ‘unto this day’ in I Kings 8.8b cannot belong to the historian’s source….” Richard D. Nelson, “The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History”, JSOT Press (1981), p. 25.

Accordingly, much of Genesis 19: 37-38 must be later-added editorial additions, namely the following two phrases: (1) “and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day”; (2) “and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day”.

As such, the original version of Genesis 19: 37-38, which tells us that each of Lot’s two youngest daughters bore their father a son, was likely limited to the following:

“37 And the first born bare a son…. 38 And the younger, she also bare a son….”

* * *

If the foregoing two sets of phrases in Genesis are later-added editorial additions (as seems quite likely and accords with modern scholarly thought), then we can make an exciting geographical discovery, which will enable the “four kings with five” in chapter 14 of Genesis to have a virtually one-to-one match (both geographically and otherwise) with an important Bronze Age military conflict based on non-biblical sources. For if those two above sets of phrases in Genesis are entirely disregarded for purposes of ascertaining the original intent of the Patriarchal narratives, then we find to our surprise the following:

(1) Lot’s Sodom is located n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, nowhere near the Dead Sea (as has been the supposition since at least the days of Ezra), per Genesis 13: 9, which is no longer contradicted by either Genesis 14: 3 or Genesis 19: 37-38.

(2) Lot’s Sodom is a completely different place than the Sodom of King Bera at Genesis 14: 2. Whereas Lot’s Sodom is near Zoar per chapter 19 of Genesis, Genesis 14: 2 no longer says that King Bera’s Sodom was near Zoar (and it wasn’t).

The southerly re-interpretation of the underlying geography of the Patriarchal narratives was completed by the time of Ezra (and may possibly have been largely accomplished already by editors in 7th century BCE Jerusalem). But if we prune away the above-noted two sets of later-added editorial additions, we will find (for reasons that can be discussed later) that originally (before Jerusalem had become a holy city to the Hebrews), the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives portrayed the following: (i) Lot’s Sodom is located in the Jezreel Valley, n-o-r-t-h of Bethel; (ii) King Bera’s Sodom is located in northern inland Syria; and (iii) no one in the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives is ever anywhere near the Dead Sea!

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Mark Lightman]

Assuming then that such phrases are later-added editorial additions, Genesis 14: 2-3 originally read as follows...

Hi, Jim.

To separate tradition and redaction is to go beyond the evidence and is therefore pseudoscience. You are correct, all we are left with is competing assumptions.

[Jim Stinehart]

Mark:

You wrote: “To separate tradition and redaction is to go beyond the evidence and is therefore pseudoscience. You are correct, all we are left with is competing assumptions.”

1. “Tradition” and “Redaction”

W-h-y did later editors add the four above-noted editorial additions to the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives, thereby shifting the location of Lot’s Sodom from the Jezreel Valley to the Dead Sea? W-h-y did that “tradition” develop, and w-h-y was that “redaction” done, between pre-exilic and post-exilic times?

The reason is that the Jezreel Valley is located in the heart of Israel, not close to Judah, whereas the Dead Sea is located just southeast of Judah, nowhere near Israel. With the Hebrews being reduced geographically to greater Jerusalem after the Assyrian onslaught, the geography of the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives was re-imagined/re-interpreted/deliberately mis-interpreted by editors in 7th-6th century BCE Jerusalem, in order to transform the Patriarchs, retroactively, into southern Hebrews.

Note that all four later-added editorial additions set forth in the first post on this thread have the effect of imposing, retroactively, an ultra-southerly geography upon the Patriarchal narratives. Absent those later-added editorial additions, Lot’s Sodom is, per Genesis 13: 9, located n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, in the lush Jezreel Valley (no longer contradicted by the references to Moab and Ammon at Genesis 19: 37-38, the geographical elements of which verses are a later-added editorial addition).

2. “Pseudoscience”

But now comes the exciting part. All university scholars (i) say that the “four kings with five” in chapter 14 of Genesis is fictional, and (ii) base that assertion in large part on the very dubious premise of giving full faith and credit to those four later-added editorial additions, which shift the location of Lot’s Sodom from the Jezreel Valley to the Dead Sea, and Bera’s Sodom from northern inland Syria to the Dead Sea. Instead of “pseudoscience”, there’s a rational way to determine whether those four later-added editorial additions have transformed what originally was an historically accurate account of the Great Syrian War in northern Syria in Years 13-14 of Late Amarna into a non-historical mishmash. We simply ask (as no university scholar has ever done) whether Genesis 14: 1-4 has pinpoint historical accuracy regarding the instigating events of the Great Syrian War, if the above four later-added editorial additions are pruned away.

Bera’s Sodom is not located near Lot’s Sodom, as we see once the reference to “which is Zoar” at Genesis 14: 2 is discarded (as being a later-added editorial addition); Lot’s Sodom is located near Zoar per chapter 19 of Genesis, but Bera’s Sodom is not. Rather, the fighting in which Bera engages takes place near Bera’s Sodom in a Valley of Cultivated Fields, where “Siddim” means “cultivated fields”. There is no reference to the Dead Sea, per the discarded editorial addition of “which is the salt sea” at Genesis 14: 3. Instead, the Valley of Cultivated Fields/Siddim is the Orontes River Valley in Syria and eastern Lebanon, which truly is a valley of cultivated fields.

Note that Genesis 14: 4 accurately reports that the instigating events of the Great Syrian War occurred in Year 13 (of Late Amarna).

And the Great Syrian War, just like Genesis 14: 1-4 portrays it, indeed featured a winning coalition of four rulers (one of whom has a Hittite royal name) demolishing a league of five rebellious rulers.

That isn’t “pseudoscience”. Rather, if the four above-noted later-added editorial additions are ignored (as they should be, in recovering the originally-intended geography of the Patriarchal narratives), then the pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-4 in recalling the instigating events of the Great Syrian War in Year 13 is truly stunning. The Patriarchal narratives were composed in the Late Bronze Age and recorded in cuneiform writing at that time. That is why, once we prune away the handful of later-added editorial additions in the received text, the original version of the Patriarchal narratives turns out to have such incredible accuracy in recalling so many details of historical incidents (such as the “four kings with five”) that occurred at the time of the historical birth of Judaism in the mid-14th century BCE.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

As noted in my first post on this thread, if certain phrases in Genesis are viewed, in accordance with what probably is the majority view of university scholars (and is my view), as being later-added editorial additions, then in my considered opinion: (1) Lot’s Sodom is near Zoar, but Bera’s Sodom is not near Zoar, with Bera’s Sodom being a completely different place than Lot’s Sodom; (2) Bera’s Sodom is not stated to be near the salt sea; and (3) Lot’s Sodom is not portrayed as being near Moab or Ammon. As noted in my second post on this thread, one important proof that this analysis is correct is that if I am right that Bera’s Sodom is located in northern inland Syria (rather than at the Dead Sea, as heretofore erroneously assumed beginning in the 7th or 6th century BCE, per these later-added editorial additions), then Genesis 14: 1-4 has pinpoint historical accuracy in recalling the specific details of the instigating events of the Great Syrian War in Year 13 of Late Amarna.

But now let’s examine a second proof of this theory, which is entirely Biblical. If Lot’s Sodom is the Jezreel Valley, then for starters Genesis 13: 9 can be given its natural reading. Abram and Lot provisionally agree [subject by implication, however, to later divine disposition] that Lot would have the northern two-thirds of Canaan [including the lush Jezreel Valley as an integral part of the Greater Jordan River Valley, which Lot claimed by walking east of Bethel to the Jordan River], whereas Abram would be restricted [absent future divine disposition] to the southern one-third of Canaan. Yet YHWH immediately reassures Abram, once Lot has left, that Abram and his descendants will in fact inherit a-l-l of Canaan [not just the southern one-third of Canaan, to which Abram is temporarily restricted per his recent agreement with Lot].

The second proof of this theory that we are exploring then is that Genesis 20: 1 now makes perfect sense, instead of being nonsensical on the traditional and scholarly readings. Once Lot’s Sodom has gone up in smoke, on my theory of the case that is the divine signal that Lot’s former claim to the northern two-thirds of Canaan has now been divinely rejected; Lot is reduced to living in a cave. Though Abraham cannot be sure that Lot is dead, note that Abraham does not send a servant to see if Lot has survived, nor does Abraham ever express the slightest concern, a-f-t-e-r Lot’s Sodom has been destroyed, about Lot. That’s because Abraham knows that the destruction of Sodom was YHWH’s way of removing Lot’s former claim to the northern two-thirds of Canaan, which for some years now had restricted Abraham to being limited to sojourning exclusively in the southern one-third of Canaan.

Now, per Genesis 20: 1, Abraham immediately makes a beeline for northern Galilee, thereby perfecting Abraham’s claim to a-l-l of Canaan. The minute Lot’s Sodom in the Jezreel Valley goes up in smoke, that is the divine sign that Lot’s former, provisional claim to the northern two-thirds of Canaan is gone, per YHWH’s longstanding promise that Abraham will inherit a-l-l of Canaan by divine right.

By the time of Ezra (and perhaps a century earlier than that), and thereafter to this very day, Genesis 20: 1 has always been given an ultra-southerly geographical interpretation. But that makes no sense. Why on earth would Abraham choose that moment and time [when Lot’s Sodom has just now been destroyed by fire and brimstone] to start wandering about the Sinai Desert, far from Canaan, near Kadesh-barnea? That makes no sense on any level. Rather, we should instead give Genesis 20: 1 a northerly interpretation, because that’s what the original author originally intended. QD$ is not Kadesh-barnea, but rather is the Qadesh in eastern Galilee that was later called Kadesh-Naphtali. GRR [“Gerar” per KJV] is not a completely unattested name of a place in the general vicinity of Gaza, near Egypt. Why would anyone trust II Chronicles 14: 13-14 to make an altruistic and accurate record of the actual location of GRR? Rather, those two verses in Chronicles are Ezra’s way of cementing an ultra-southerly re-interpretation of the geography that underlies the Patriarchal narratives. No, Biblical GRR is in fact the KRR at item #80 on the Late Bronze Age Thutmose III list of places in Canaan, where we know from the Egyptian spelling of Megiddo at item #2 that Egyptian K is used for west Semitic gimel/G, and Egyptian R is west Semitic resh/R and/or west Semitic lamed/L. GRR is Gariree, which later came to be pronounced Galilee in the Iron Age.

Now Genesis 20: 1 makes perfect sense on all levels, if given a northerly interpretation, where Lot’s recently-destroyed Sodom is properly viewed as being located in the Jezreel Valley. Without even waiting for the dust literally to settle from the fiery destruction of Lot’s Sodom, Abraham immediately moves his family far northwest to Upper Galilee, in order to perfect Abraham’s claim to a-l-l of Canaan, once (and as soon as) Lot’s provisional claim to the northern two-thirds of Canaan has been divinely rejected. Rather than being senseless, Genesis 20: 1 is inevitable! It had to be that way; it couldn’t be any other way. At Genesis 13: 9 Lot chooses the northern two-thirds of Canaan, with Lot’s Sodom being located in the lush Jezreel Valley. But the very moment that YHWH quashes any claim of Lot to any part of Canaan, then Abraham is immediately off like a shot to perfect Abraham’s claim to a-l-l of Canaan, by leaving southern Canaan and commencing to sojourn in the far northwest corner of Canaan in Upper Galilee.

Though no one has ever challenged Ezra’s ultra-southerly re-interpretation/deliberate mis-interpretation of the geography that underlies the Patriarchal narratives, that in fact is the only way to recover the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, and indeed for the storyline to even make good sense. We must discard the later-added editorial additions noted in my first post on this thread and with them Ezra’s ultra-southerly re-interpretation of the geography of the Patriarchal narratives. Then everything will flow naturally from there.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

We have been noting on this thread that, once certain phrases in Genesis are recognized as being later-added editorial additions, there are many indications that Lot’s Sodom was located in the lush Jezreel Valley, rather than in the rugged Dead Sea area as previously supposed. In this post, let’s take a look at two different perspectives on Lot’s choice as to where to go when he separated from his uncle Abram at Bethel: (i) Lot’s perspective; (ii) Ezra’s perspective.

A. Lot’s Choice Upon Separating from Abram: Lot’s Perspective

Lot represented the senior line of his grandfather Terakh’s descendants in Canaan, as Lot’s father Haran was Abram’s older brother. As such, Lot may well have thought it appropriate for Lot to receive a double share of Canaan, per the custom later documented at Deuteronomy 21: 17 favoring firstborn sons.

Based on what Lot does soon after separating from Abram, it seems likely that Lot was already planning to sell his herd, move into a house with a roofbeam over his head, and live the soft city life. (By contrast, Abram continues to live the virtuous life of living in tents.)

Finally, Lot is not portrayed as being out for adventure. Rather, surely Lot would choose a “sure thing”, not a “pig in the poke”, as to which part of Canaan to make his adopted home.

When Lot separates from his uncle at Bethel, here is what Abram says to Lot: “Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.” Genesis 13: 9

Faced with that choice, from Lot’s perspective certainly Lot would choose to “take the left hand”, that is, take all of Canaan north of Bethel. That gives Lot a double share of Canaan as the senior branch of Terakh’s descendants in Canaan, namely the northern two-thirds of Canaan. That also gives Lot the very best stretch of land in all of Canaan, namely the Jezreel Valley, which has always been the breadbasket of central Canaan. The soft city life that Lot craved was there to be had in the wealthy cities of the lush Jezreel Valley. And note that Lot was well aware of just how attractive the Jezreel Valley was, with Lot having recently passed through there on his way from eastern Syria to Bethel.

There’s no way that Lot would choose to live in the Dead Sea area! Not. That would grant Abram 7/8 of Canaan. There was no soft city life to be had at or near the Dead Sea. And Lot knew nothing of the Dead Sea area. No, certainly Lot would choose the sure thing of the soft city life of the lush Jezreel Valley, n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, being on “the left hand”/north of Bethel.

With Lot making the logical choice of Canaan north of Bethel (which he formalizes by proceeding east of Bethel to the Jordan River, thereby claiming the entire Greater Jordan River Valley, of which the Jezreel Valley is an integral part as the main tributary to the Jordan River), Genesis 13: 9 now makes perfect sense. “f thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right”. That is e-x-a-c-t-l-y what Abram does. Lot having chosen to “take the left hand”, that is, the northern two-thirds of Canaan, Abram is provisionally left [until YHWH’s divine intervention in chapter 19 of Genesis] with only the southern one-third of Canaan, where Abram duly commences to sojourn.

B. Lot’s Choice Upon Separating from Abram: Ezra’s Perspective

The authors of later books in the Bible seem to be well aware of the Patriarchs, yet there is a surprising lack of great reverence for the Patriarchs in the Hebrew Bible after Genesis. Ironically, and somewhat shockingly, one has to wait until the New Testament to see over-the-top reverence for Abraham: “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom”. Luke 16: 22. Based on this passage, it is likely that Jews in the 1st century AD greatly revered Abraham, just as both Jews and Christians do to this very day. But why doesn’t one see that over-the-top reverence for the Patriarchs in books of the Hebrew Bible after Genesis?

The answer is that based on the original geography of the Patriarchal narratives, the Patriarchs were not southern Hebrews, whereas the books in the Hebrew Bible after Genesis were composed almost exclusively by southern Hebrews, most of whom lived in Jerusalem. In the original version of the Patriarchal narratives (before the later-added editorial additions), not only is Jerusalem not a holy city, but in fact the land that would later become the future state of Judah is largely ignored: (i) no one ever steps foot in the heartland of the future state of Judah, between Jerusalem and King David’s city of Hebron [the Patriarchs’ Hebron was located in the northern Ayalon Valley, being an area later contested by Judah, Israel and the Philistines]; (ii) no one is ever in the Dead Sea area (just southeast of Judah and far away from Israel); (iii) Lot’s Sodom is in the very heart of the future state of Israel, being located in the Jezreel Valley; and (iv) the second favorite place of the Patriarchs to sojourn in Canaan was also in Israel, in GRR/Gariree/Galilee [KJV: “Gerar”] -- Upper Galilee.

Ezra represents the culmination of the post-exilic repositioning of the Patriarchs to be, retroactively, southern Hebrews, who would then be duly revered by the Jews of Jerusalem. Ezra, to his credit, never changed any words that were already in the sacred scripture of the Patriarchal narratives. [That’s why we can, today, fairly easily reconstruct what the original version of the Patriarchal narratives was, simply dropping the later-added editorial additions.] But what Ezra and his predecessors, dating back to 7th century BCE Jerusalem, did do was the following: (i) a few editorial additions were added into the Patriarchal narratives which, as documented in the first post on this thread, deftly changed the location of Lot’s Sodom from the Jezreel Valley to the Dead Sea area; (ii) post-exilic books gratuitously gave ultra-southerly locations for certain geographical place names that appear in the Patriarchal narratives, in particular II Chronicles 14: 13-14 as to GRR/“Gerar”, and II Chronicles 20: 2 as to Hazezontamar [that’s vintage Ezra!]; and (iii) all ambiguous geographical place names in the Patriarchal narratives were uniformly given an ultra-southerly interpretation [for example, QD$ at Genesis 20: 1 was now interpreted as meaning Kadesh-barnea, rather than the originally-intended Kadesh up north that was later called Kadesh-naphtali].

* * *

Unfortunately, no university scholar has ever challenged Ezra’s ultra-southerly re-imagining, re-interpreting and deliberate mis-interpreting of the underlying geography of the Patriarchal narratives, even though in many cases (such as Genesis 20: 1, discussed in my previous post on this thread), that renders the received text senseless. Note in particular how Genesis 13: 9, quoted above, explicitly refutes the unanimous scholarly view that Lot’s Sodom is portrayed as being located in the Dead Sea area. Genesis 13: 9 does n-o-t say (as scholars would in effect have it): “f thou wilt take the right hand, then I also will go to the right”, so that both Abram and Lot sojourn in southern Canaan, south of Bethel. No, Genesis 13: 9 very clearly instead says: “f thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right”. Abram unequivocally says that Abram will sojourn in southern Canaan (which he does), with Abram going right/south of Bethel, if and only if Lot chooses to “take the left hand”, that is, if Lot chooses to go left/north of Bethel to sojourn in northern Canaan.

The author of the Patriarchal narratives portrays Lot’s Sodom as being located in the Jezreel Valley, n-o-r-t-h of Bethel, nowhere near the Dead Sea area.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

The conventional view that there is only one place in chapter 14 of Genesis called “Sodom” simply does not make good sense. Why would Genesis 14: 10 portray King Bera of Sodom as dying, if the same King Bera of the same Sodom is living at Genesis 14: 17? The answer is that King Bera’s Sodom, which is one of five rebellious parties at Genesis 14: 1-9, is a completely different place than Lot’s Sodom, so that Lot had nothing to do with King Bera.

On the linguistic front, consider now that many scholars try to tell us that “Bera”/BR‘ is a west Semitic name that means “In Evil”:

“It is striking that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah have names compounded with רע ‘evil’ and רשע ‘wicked’. It is not surprising that from the targumists onward, commentators have suggested that “Bera” and “Birsha” are pejorative nicknames given to these kings.” Gordon J. Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary: Genesis 16-50” (1994), p. 309.

Scholars then also equate Bera’s Sodom with Lot’s Sodom, leading to the following absurd result. After heroically rescuing his nephew Lot near Damascus, Syria, how on earth could Abram be thought to return Lot to a ruler whose name means, in Abram’s native language, “In Evil”? How can university scholars ask us to believe such a ridiculous analysis?

The name “Bera” doesn’t make sense in west Semitic because it’s not a west Semitic name; rather, it’s a Hurrian name, which means “[Teshup Is] Strong” in Hurrian. That mysterious Hebrew ayin at the end of BR‘ is used to render ghayin, which in Hurrian is one of the most common Hurrian suffixes. As to the first two letters in BR‘, both BR and BRR in Hebrew mean “pure, clean”, which can hardly be the meaning of the name “Bera” on any theory of the case.

All of these various problems disappear, and the text as is makes perfect sense, if King Bera’s Sodom is a Hurrian state in northern inland Syria (with “Bera” being a Hurrian name), whereas Lot’s Sodom, by sharp contrast, is a Semitic place located in Canaan (where the only named individual, Melchizedek, has a vintage west Semitic name), in the Jezreel Valley north of Bethel (per Genesis 13: 9). What has confused analysts here is that these two very different places have been given the same Patriarchal nickname by the Hebrew author: “Sodom”. There is no historical place that is attested outside of the Bible as having the name “Sodom”. Rather, “Sodom” is an apt Patriarchal nickname (meaning "good fields place") for each of (i) King Bera’s Hurrian homeland in northern inland Syria, and (ii) Lot’s adopted homeland in the Jezreel Valley in (west Semitic-speaking) Canaan.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

My prior posts on this thread have shown that (i) Lot’s Sodom was located in the Jezreel Valley, north of Bethel [on the “left hand” of Bethel, per Genesis 13: 9] in the heart of the future state of Israel (far from the future state of Judah, and nowhere in the general vicinity of its traditional location at the Dead Sea), and that (ii) the Sodom of princeling ruler “Bera” was located in inland northern Syria, which was a key locale in the Great Syrian War that began in Year 13 [see the reference to “Year 13” at Genesis 14: 4] and that featured, per Genesis 14: 9, a coalition of four rulers demolishing a league of five rebellious parties. Both historically and Biblically, there were in fact only four named rulers regarding those five rebellious parties, because the 5th party, Tunip, had no ruler at the time of the Great Syrian War.

Historically, the four rebellious princelings were Hurrians, two of whom had Hurrian-based Hurrian names, and two of whom had Akkadian-based Hurrian names (with 30% of the names of Hurrians at Nuzi being Akkadian-based). If the “four kings with five” in chapter 14 of Genesis has pinpoint historical accuracy regarding the Great Syrian War, then we would rightly expect all four named rebellious princelings to have names that are Patriarchal nicknames which are Hurrian names. By contrast, if the “four kings with five” is non-historical, as university scholars insist is the case, then we would not expect any of such rebellious rulers to have Hurrian names. So whether the Patriarchal narratives are historically accurate, having been recorded in cuneiform during Late Amarna, as opposed to being non-historical tall tales as university scholars would have it, can largely be determined on the basis of linguistics. As we will now see, all four named rebellious princelings do indeed have Hurrian names (being apt Patriarchal nicknames for the historical four rebellious Hurrian princelings in the Great Syrian War), with letter-for-letter spelling accuracy.

1. “Bera” : BR‘

BR‘ : BRġ, transliterated/mis-transliterated by KJV (at a time when both the Hurrian language and the Hurrians were completely unknown) as “Bera”, is a Hurrian name: Bu-ru-ġi. As with the Hittite name “Tidal”, the final Hebrew letter ע/ayin/‘ in this name is a ghayin, which here renders a ghayin-type heth in Hurrian. Each CV [consonant-vowel] syllable is represented by a single Hebrew consonant, per Hebrew defective spelling standard practice (with a Hurrian vowel not being rendered by any Hebrew letter unless such Hurrian vowel is its own separate syllable). The root of this name, per the Hebrew letters בר/BR (and of necessity implying the applicable vowels), is bu-ru, an attested Hurrian common word that means “strong”. In order to make such Hurrian common word into a name, to such root has then been added the standard Hurrian formative/suffix -ġi (which may literally mean “coming from”, but usually is not translated). The meaning of this name is: “Strong [is Teshup]”.

2. “Birsha” : BR$‘

BR$‘ : BR$ġ, transliterated/mis-transliterated by KJV as “Birsha”, is a Hurrian name: Eb-ri-ši-ġi. Where B and W are interchangeable in Hurrian, and the Hebrew rendering of a Hurrian double consonant always drops the first consonant, Eb-ri-ši-ġi is equivalent to the attested Hurrian common word ewriššiġi, which means “royal”. The name’s meaning is then: “[Teshup is the true] Royal”.

The scholarly claim that the foregoing two names mean, respectively, “In Evil” and “In Wicked” in Hebrew is absurd on its face. What parents would give their sons such names?!?!? No way. Rather, these are Hurrian names with appropriate meanings (in Hurrian).

3. “Shinab” : $N’B

$N’B, transliterated/mis-transliterated by KJV as “Shinab”, is a Hurrian name: Še-na-ib. In rendering Hurrian names, Hebrew א/aleph/’ is prosthetic, merely being (an optional) confirmation that this is a VC syllable. Compare Še-na-be, which is an attested Hurrian name at Nuzi. This name is equivalent to the Hurrian common word še-na-ib, which means “my brother”. The name’s meaning then is: “[Teshup is] My Brother”.

4. “Shemeber” : $M’BR

$M’BR, transliterated/mis-transliterated by KJV as “Shemeber”, is a Hurrian name: Šummi-ebri. The Hebrew rendering of this Hurrian name drops the first M of the doubled consonant (as per usual), and (as also per usual in the Hebrew rendering of Hurrian names) Hebrew א/aleph/’ is prosthetic: Šu-mi-eb-ri. šummi as an attested Hurrian common word means “hand”. Ebri is one of the many forms of the Hurrian common word that means “lord”. The name’s meaning is: “Hand of the Lord”.

* * *

The two keys to recovering the pinpoint historical accuracy of chapter 14 of Genesis in chronicling the Great Syrian War are as follows:

(i) Geography. The Sodom of princeling ruler “Bera” is not located anywhere near the Dead Sea, as heretofore unanimously supposed by all scholars, but rather is located at the opposite end of Syro-Canaan: the Hurrian state of Mukishe in northern inland Syria.

(ii) Linguistics. The names of the four rebellious princelings are senseless in west Semitic, but make perfect sense on all levels as Hurrian names. That is to say, these are Hurrian-based Patriarchal nicknames for the four historical Hurrian rebellious princelings in the Great Syrian War in Years 13-14 of Late Amarna.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

Having done additional research, I hope that I may be permitted to update and revise my prior analysis on this thread of the Biblical names “Bera” and “Birsha” at Genesis 14: 2. As noted previously, I see those two Biblical names as being apt Patriarchal nicknames for historical Hurrian princelings Addu-nirari and Ittur-Addu. In Year 13 [compare the reference to “Year 13” at Genesis 14: 4], those two princelings were key figures in instigating the Great Syrian War, which I see as being the “four kings with five” that is referenced at Genesis 14: 9.

To update and revise my prior post on those two Biblical names, I now realize that Addu-nirari and Ittur-Addu are Akkadian-based names of Hurrian princelings that have similar meanings: “Haddu is my help” [per Richard Hess, “Amarna Names”, pp. 68-69] and “Haddu has relented”. [I discovered that in Akkadian, ittur is the preterite of the Akkadian verb taru which, per Black’s “A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian”, regarding divinities in proper names means “relent”.] Likewise, as we shall now see, I have now figured out that “Bera” and “Birsha” are similarly Akkadian-based Hurrian names that have similar meanings: “Regarding [making a decision via] (casting) lots” and “Regarding a decision [made via casting lots]”. As such, “Bera” and “Birsha” are very apt Patriarchal nicknames for these two historical Hurrian princelings.

1. “Bera” : BR‘ : Pu-ru-ux

BR‘ is the expected Hebrew spelling [as discussed below] of Pu-ru-ux, which is the main element of the following Akkadian-based Hurrian name that is attested at Nuzi: Pu-ru-ux-le-e-a. (Gelb, Purves, “Nuzi Names”, p. 119. Note also the two additional Hurrian names cited below that begin with Pur-xu- or Pu-ur-xu-.) [Per “Nuzi Names”, about 30% of the Hurrian names attested at the Hurrian province of Nuzi are Akkadian-based Hurrian names.]

pūru means “a lot” in Akkadian, and is used in the sense of “to cast a lot” or “to draw lots for”, in conjunction with coming to a decision.

B and P are interchangeable within Hurrian and in the cuneiform rendering of Hurrian proper names in the Amarna Letters. For example, the name of the Hurrians’ chief god alternates between “Teshup” with a P, and “Teshub” with a B, in the Amarna Letters.

Thus the Hebrew letters bet-resh/BR can render buru or puru in this Akkadian-based Hurrian name.

The Hurrian suffix -ux is probably simply a variation of the standard Hurrian formative/suffix -xe, in which case it means “regarding” or “relating to” or “coming from”. [Pu-ru-ux, as an initial element in other Hurrian names, is alternatively spelled Pur-xu- or Pu-ur-xu-, and per “Nuzi Names” at p. 217, -xu may well be simply a variant of -xe. Though the precise meaning may not be absolutely clear, in any event we know that the -ux element in Pu-ru-ux is a Hurrian suffix that featured the Hurrian phoneme ghayin, and that as such it would be expected to be rendered by the Hebrew letter ayin.] As noted in my prior post, a Hurrian suffix featuring Hurrian heth was pronounced in Hurrian as a ghayin, rather than as a regular heth. Accordingly, the Hebrew letter ayin/‘ is used to render that Hurrian ghayin phoneme.

So the expected Hebrew rendering of Pu-ru-ux as a Biblical Hurrian name is either PR‘, or the exact three Hebrew letters that we see in the received text: BR‘.

2. Birsha : BR$‘ : Pur-ra-a$-xe

BR$‘ is the expected Hebrew spelling of the following Akkadian-based Hurrian name that is attested at Nuzi: Pur-ra-a$-xe. (“Nuzi Names”, p. 118.)

purussû means “decision” in Akkadian. Based on the Akkadian root pūru meaning “a lot”, this word can imply making a “decision” on the basis of casting “lots”. The Pur-ra-a$ element in the attested Hurrian name Pur-ra-a$-xe is the Hurrian rendering of the Akkadian noun purussû.

With P and B being interchangeable in this context (as noted above), and with Hebrew routinely dropping the first of doubled consonants, we would expect the Pur-ra-a$ element in this attested Hurrian name to be spelled BR$ in Hebrew defective spelling. The final Hurrian suffix in the attested Hurrian name Pur-ra-a$-xe is -xe, which as noted above was pronounced as a ghayin in Hurrian, and hence is rendered by the Hebrew letter ayin/‘. Thus the expected Hebrew rendering of the attested Akkadian-based Hurrian name Pur-ra-a$-xe is exactly what we see in the received text: BR$‘.

* * *

We see that “Bera” and “Birsha” at Genesis 14: 2 are very apt Patriarchal nicknames for historical Hurrian princelings Addu-nirari and Ittur-Addu, who played a key role in the Year 13 instigating events of the Great Syrian War [the Biblical “four kings with five”]. [As I noted in my first post on this thread, the phrase “which is sea the salt” at Genesis 14: 3 is generally, and rightly, recognized as being a later-added editorial addition. As such, in my opinion such phrase should be given no credence whatsoever in determining the location of Bera’s Sodom, which I myself see as being located in northern inland Syria -- the site of the Great Syrian War.]

As usual, the pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in the context of Year 13 is truly breathtaking. The more research I do, the more I am convinced of that.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois