Dewayne Dulaney:
You wrote: “Jim, as you probably know, many conservative students of the Patriarchal narratives, such as myself, see Abraham as fitting into an earlier time, ca. 2000 B.C. One line of evidence for this is the similarity of the patriarchal customs to those of area cultures such as Nuzi and Mari in that period. Perhaps I overlooked it in an earlier discussion, but I don't recall seeing you discuss that viewpoint and why you disagree with it. I'd be interested in your thoughts.”
1. Nuzi. Nuzi is a Hurrian province of the Hurrian great power state of Mitanni, which was defeated in the Great Syrian War in Late Amarna. Nuzi is roughly contemporaneous with Amarna, a-n-d Amarna is the only time when Hurrian princelings dominated Canaan. So the only historical time period when it makes sense to see Nuzi/Hurrian customs on display in Canaan is the Amarna Age, which I see as being the Patriarchal Age.
2. Hurrian Princelings Dominate Canaan and Many Hurrian Names in Patriarchal Narratives: Only in the Amarna Age. We know from the many Hurrian names of princelings in the Amarna Letters that the Amarna Age was the only time when Hurrian princelings dominated Canaan. Here are the names of 12 such Hurrian princelings in the Amarna Letters, whose names are either Hurrian names or the Sanskrit names often favored by Hurrian royalty and Hurrian princelings: IR-Heba, Arawana, Biridiya, Tagi, Biryawaza, Shuwardata, Satatna, Endaruta, Yamiuta, Yasdata, Arsawuya, Turbazu.
There are likewise many Hurrian names in the Patriarchal narratives. For example, all four named individuals of the 5 rebellious parties at Genesis 14: 2 have Hurrian names: (i) BR‘ : BRġ : “Bera” Bu-ru-ġi; (ii) BR$‘ : BR$ġ : “Birsha” : Eb-ri-ši-ġi; (iii) $N’B : “Shinab” : $e-na-ib; and (iv) $M’BR : “Shemeber” : $ummi-ebri.
Also, Isaac arranges for his favorite son -- older twin son Esau -- to marry two women born in Canaan whose fathers are said to be Hurrians [KJV “Hittite”, where XTY in fact means “the praise Teshup people”/the Hurrians, having nothing to do with the classic Hittites way up north in Anatolia]. Both of Esau’s first two wives have Hurrian names at Genesis 26: 34: (i) “Judith” : YHWDYT : YHWD - Y -T : A-xi-ú-ti -ya -t; and (ii) “Basemath” : B%MT : B% - M - T : Bi-su -ma -t. What’s particularly interesting here is that Year 13 in Late Amarna is virtually the only time when such story makes sense. Prior to Year 13, there were few Hurrian females born in Canaan who were old enough yet to marry. But beginning in Year 14, the Hurrian presence in Canaan fell off a cliff, as an indirect result of the terrible defeat of the Hurrians by the Hittites in the Great Syrian War in Year 14 up north in Syria.
3. Abnormally Dry Climate. Whereas 2000 BCE was a normal climate for Canaan, the Late Bronze Age in general, and the Amarna Age in particular, were by contrast abnormally dry, with frequent droughts in Canaan. Although Yapaxu, as the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Year 13, was the first Hebrews’ greatest nemesis, nevertheless one has to feel a little bit sorry for him when he tells pharaoh Akhenaten that the terrible drought in Year 13 in the Ayalon Valley has been truly devastating: “May the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord, my god, know that the means of subsistence have disappeared from my country [the Ayalon Valley], and indeed I have nothing at all.” Amarna Letter EA 300: 10-14. Now compare that straight up to what is reported in the Patriarchal narratives. After Abram has gone south past Bethel (Genesis 12: 8), and is proceeding southwest along the Diagonal Route through the Ayalon Valley (Genesis 12: 9), the text reports at Genesis 12: 10 that “there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.” Note the close match to the foregoing Amarna Letter.
Patriarch #2 Isaac has the same problem of drought-famine in southern Canaan (Genesis 26: 1). Isaac initially plans to go to Egypt to avoid the drought-famine in southern Canaan, as his father had done, but this time YHWH advises Isaac instead to go up north to GRR/Gariree/Galilee. Note that the name of the historical princeling ruler of northwest Galilee in Year 13 (per the Amarna Letters) is the same as the name of the princeling ruler of northwest Galilee with whom Abraham and Isaac deal: “Abimelek”. Finally, the same situation applies when Patriarch #3 Jacob is back at the Patriarchs’ Hebron in the northeast corner of the Ayalon Valley [where the defective spelling of “Ayalon” is ’LN, which we see three times at Genesis 13: 18; 14: 13 and 18: 1, each time followed by a xireq compaginis, and then the name “Mamre”, because Mamre the Amorite (historical Milkilu the Amorite) was the princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley when Abram first came there in Year 12]. Jacob/“Israel” again has to deal with a terrible drought-famine, and like his grandfather ends up having to go to Egypt.
The portrayal of a terrible drought-famine in southern Canaan in each of three successive generations of the Patriarchs does not fit the normal climate that applied to Canaan in 2000 BCE. But it fits perfectly the terrible drought-famine in the Ayalon Valley in Year 13 of Late Amarna, which I see as being the Patriarchal Age.
4. Firstborn Son Gets the Shaft and Properly So. In 7 out of 7 cases, the Patriarchal narratives portray the firstborn son as getting the shaft and properly so: Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Zerah. In Year 13, the firstborn son of Milkilu the Amorite, namely Yapaxu (see Amarna Letter EA 298), was the first Hebrews’ greatest nemesis and threatened to drive them out of their beloved valley; firstborn son Yapaxu definitely deserved to get the shaft, and thankfully he did. You see, the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives hoped to get pharaoh Akhenaten to remove Yapaxu as the disliked new ruler of the Ayalon Valley. Akhenaten himself was a younger son, who resented the fact that his father had so heavily favored Akhenaten’s older brother. All the winning sons in the Patriarchal narratives are younger sons, as the early Hebrew author, a younger son, was trying to convince younger son Akhenaten to remove from power firstborn son Yapaxu.
5. Great Difficulty of Early Monotheist Siring a Son by Original Main Wife #1 as Proper Heir. Perhaps the best-known story in the Patriarchal narratives is Abraham’s long quest to sire a son as heir by Sarah, his original beloved main wife #1. Isaac also has to wait 20 long shaneh (10 years in 12-month years) before he can sire a son as heir by his original beloved main wife #1. Jacob is a variation on the same general theme, as his marital arrangements don’t begin until he is already past the normal marrying age, and then he merely gets engaged, and so he has to wait 7 more years before getting married. Likewise, Akhenaten was an early monotheist who had a terrible time trying to sire a son as his proper heir by his original beloved main wife #1 (Nefertiti).
Note how clearly the Patriarchal narratives are carefully crafted to appeal to Akhenaten: (i) an early monotheist (ii) who was a younger son and (iii) who had a terrible time siring a son as his proper heir by his original main wife #1, and (iv) who had the power to remove from power the first Hebrews’ greatest nemesis -- Yapaxu, as the new, hated princeling ruler of the Ayalon Valley in Year 13. Amarna Letter EA 273 reports that some tent-dwellers/habiru wrote to Ayalon and tried to kill Yapaxu (who was one of the two sons of prior ruler Milkilu). The first Hebrews tried the kinder, gentler route of indirectly appealing to Akhenaten, via their composition of the Patriarchal narratives, to remove hated Yapaxu from power in the Ayalon Valley. All of this is utterly redolent of Year 13, while making little sense in any other time period.
* * *
I will stop there. I have tried to give you 5 specific examples where everything about the Patriarchal narratives fits perfectly to Year 13 in Late Amarna, yet would fit any other historical time period very awkwardly, if at all. It is my considered opinion that the Patriarchal Age was very short, being limited to Late Amarna.
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Melchizedek
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
Dewayne:
Jim’s reasons are without evidence to back them up.
#1 During the Amarna period, Egypt was the dominant power, and had troops stationed throughout Canaan. That’s why the letters were written to Pharaoh in the first place.
#2 The only evidence of Hurrian names in Canaan is Jim’s speculations. Further, Jim’s claims that Isaac arranged Esau to marry Canaanite women is directly contradicted by Genesis 26:34–35. Those women were Hittites, not Hurrians.
There were two different peoples whose names were transliterated into English as “Hittite”—one was descendent from Canaan, therefore a Hamitic people native to the land of Canaan, the second an Indo-European people who settled in Anatolia. Jim refuses to acknowledge that fact.
#3 Conflating Abraham with Isaac, and making other claims that can’t be substantiated.
Incidentally, the famine Jim mentions is consistent with that recorded in 1 Kings 17–18. There’s no reason that there couldn’t have been other famines that have been lost to history, contrary to Jim’s claims.
#4 If we take this first born myth to its logical conclusion, that is Jim’s way of saying that the whole Patriarchal chronicles are a myth and not accurate history. Here Jim contradicts himself and contradicts himself, and ties himself into such semantic knots that it’s difficult to follow him. Along the way he makes claims that are unsubstantiated and contradicted by recorded history.
#5 Another mythologizing, claiming that Genesis is on the same level as Manetho and many other ancient “histories”.
Throughout it all, he seems to think that Genesis was written as a myth to get the favor of Pharaoh, as if the Patriarchs even cared about Pharaoh, or the different pharaohs beyond as third parties with whom they had occasional contact and otherwise didn’t mention.
Jim admits that he spent 10 years developing his theory. He repeatedly claimed that if certain stories that he made could be proven false, that his whole myth would fall apart; but when those claims were proven false, did he abandon his myth?
He now signs his posts “Dr. James R. Stinehart”, I wonder why he doesn’t include the initials JD? Is it because he doesn’t want to admit that he’s a lawyer? Neither a historian nor a linguist? And that lawyers don’t have a high reputation in our society?
Karl W. Randolph.
Jim’s reasons are without evidence to back them up.
#1 During the Amarna period, Egypt was the dominant power, and had troops stationed throughout Canaan. That’s why the letters were written to Pharaoh in the first place.
#2 The only evidence of Hurrian names in Canaan is Jim’s speculations. Further, Jim’s claims that Isaac arranged Esau to marry Canaanite women is directly contradicted by Genesis 26:34–35. Those women were Hittites, not Hurrians.
There were two different peoples whose names were transliterated into English as “Hittite”—one was descendent from Canaan, therefore a Hamitic people native to the land of Canaan, the second an Indo-European people who settled in Anatolia. Jim refuses to acknowledge that fact.
#3 Conflating Abraham with Isaac, and making other claims that can’t be substantiated.
Incidentally, the famine Jim mentions is consistent with that recorded in 1 Kings 17–18. There’s no reason that there couldn’t have been other famines that have been lost to history, contrary to Jim’s claims.
#4 If we take this first born myth to its logical conclusion, that is Jim’s way of saying that the whole Patriarchal chronicles are a myth and not accurate history. Here Jim contradicts himself and contradicts himself, and ties himself into such semantic knots that it’s difficult to follow him. Along the way he makes claims that are unsubstantiated and contradicted by recorded history.
#5 Another mythologizing, claiming that Genesis is on the same level as Manetho and many other ancient “histories”.
Throughout it all, he seems to think that Genesis was written as a myth to get the favor of Pharaoh, as if the Patriarchs even cared about Pharaoh, or the different pharaohs beyond as third parties with whom they had occasional contact and otherwise didn’t mention.
Jim admits that he spent 10 years developing his theory. He repeatedly claimed that if certain stories that he made could be proven false, that his whole myth would fall apart; but when those claims were proven false, did he abandon his myth?
He now signs his posts “Dr. James R. Stinehart”, I wonder why he doesn’t include the initials JD? Is it because he doesn’t want to admit that he’s a lawyer? Neither a historian nor a linguist? And that lawyers don’t have a high reputation in our society?
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Melchizedek
Karl:
You wrote: “Jim’s claims that Isaac arranged Esau to marry Canaanite women is directly contradicted by Genesis 26:34–35. Those women were Hittites, not Hurrians.”
What I said was that Esau’s first two wives are ethnic Hurrians who were born in Canaan. They are not “Canaanite women”, if that phrase is given its normal English meaning of being Semitic women in Canaan. They’re ethnic Hurrian women, both of whose parents were ethnic Hurrians who were now living in Canaan. Year 13 is virtually the only time when Hurrian princelings had dominated Canaan long enough so that they could have sired female children in Canaan who were now old enough to be of marriageable age, yet Hurrian women were still considered highly desirable brides (which was no longer the case after Year 14, once the Hurrians had been permanently devastated by the mighty Hittites in the Great Syrian War).
There is no way that Esau’s wives were Hittites! The Hittites were never as far south as Canaan. By contrast, during the Amarna Age, and only during the Amarna Age, Hurrian princelings dominated Canaan, as we know from the many Hurrian names of princelings in the Amarna Letters.
KJV mis-transliterates XTY as “Hittites”. At the time the KJV translation was done, no one had ever heard of either the Hittites or the Hurrians, so it is inevitable that KJV will mis-transliterate a Hurrian name like XTY. XTY is the Hebrew rendering of the well-attested Hurrian name Xuti-ya. See Nana Nozadze, “Vocabulary of the Hurrian Language”, Tbilsi State University Press, Georgia (2007), pp. 163-164. Note that the consonants match perfectly, and interior vowels are not rendered in the old-style defective spelling of non-west Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives. The Hurrian name Xuti-ya means “Praise Teshup”, where the Hurrians’ main god was uniquely Teshup.
The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives uses this well-attested Hurrian name as the basis for one of the many Patriarchal nicknames that means “Hurrians”. The yod/Y at the end does double-duty: (i) on the one hand, it is the Hurrian theophoric suffix that means “Teshup”; but (ii) it also is the standard Hebrew ending that means “people”. So XT-Y at Genesis 26: 34 means the “Praise Teshup People”, that is, the Hurrians.
In Year 13, Isaac was delighted to be able to secure two Hurrian brides (both of whom had been born in Canaan) for his favorite son, namely his older twin son Esau. While that sequence makes perfect sense in Year 13, it is hard to make good sense of that sequence in any other time period.
It would be non-historical if the classic Hittites from eastern Anatolia were portrayed in Genesis as being in Canaan, as the classic Hittites never got that far south. In fact, the Patriarchal narratives have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in portraying Hurrian women who had been born in Canaan as being highly desirable brides in Year 13.
University scholars add to their fairy tale-like analysis of the Patriarchal narratives by making comments like this as to the name of Esau’s first wife:
“ ‘Judith’ only used here as a proper name in the OT. In later texts it means a female Judean, i.e. Jewess.” Gordon Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary Genesis 16-50” (1994), p. 205.
Indeed, the Hurrian common word xuti is the root of both (a) XT-Y/Xuti-ya as an apt Patriarchal nickname for the Hurrians, and (b) the name of Esau’s first wife, which is YHWD - Y -T : A-xi-ú-ti -ya -T. A-xi-ú-ti -ya -T is but an elongated variant of xu-ti -ya, to which -T has been added to make this into a Hurrian woman’s name. (T and D are interchangeable within Hurrian. Both xudi and xuti are attested as different spellings of the same Hurrian common word that means “to praise”. In the cuneiform writing in which the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives were first recorded, there was no difference between he/H and heth/X.) The final -T is the standard Hurrian feminine ending for a woman’s name (so that, for example, the name of the chief Hurrian goddess, Heba, is written as Heba -T/Hebat).
My gosh. There are no classic Hittites from Anatolia, and no Jewesses, in the Patriarchal narratives, for heaven’s sake! Rather, Genesis 26: 34 has pinpoint historical accuracy in portraying two ethnic Hurrian women who had been born in Canaan as being highly desirable brides for a Semitic man (Esau) in Canaan in Year 13. It all makes perfect sense in Year 13, while being virtually inexplicable in any other historical time period. Ditto for virtually everything else in the Patriarchal narratives as well.
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “Jim’s claims that Isaac arranged Esau to marry Canaanite women is directly contradicted by Genesis 26:34–35. Those women were Hittites, not Hurrians.”
What I said was that Esau’s first two wives are ethnic Hurrians who were born in Canaan. They are not “Canaanite women”, if that phrase is given its normal English meaning of being Semitic women in Canaan. They’re ethnic Hurrian women, both of whose parents were ethnic Hurrians who were now living in Canaan. Year 13 is virtually the only time when Hurrian princelings had dominated Canaan long enough so that they could have sired female children in Canaan who were now old enough to be of marriageable age, yet Hurrian women were still considered highly desirable brides (which was no longer the case after Year 14, once the Hurrians had been permanently devastated by the mighty Hittites in the Great Syrian War).
There is no way that Esau’s wives were Hittites! The Hittites were never as far south as Canaan. By contrast, during the Amarna Age, and only during the Amarna Age, Hurrian princelings dominated Canaan, as we know from the many Hurrian names of princelings in the Amarna Letters.
KJV mis-transliterates XTY as “Hittites”. At the time the KJV translation was done, no one had ever heard of either the Hittites or the Hurrians, so it is inevitable that KJV will mis-transliterate a Hurrian name like XTY. XTY is the Hebrew rendering of the well-attested Hurrian name Xuti-ya. See Nana Nozadze, “Vocabulary of the Hurrian Language”, Tbilsi State University Press, Georgia (2007), pp. 163-164. Note that the consonants match perfectly, and interior vowels are not rendered in the old-style defective spelling of non-west Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives. The Hurrian name Xuti-ya means “Praise Teshup”, where the Hurrians’ main god was uniquely Teshup.
The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives uses this well-attested Hurrian name as the basis for one of the many Patriarchal nicknames that means “Hurrians”. The yod/Y at the end does double-duty: (i) on the one hand, it is the Hurrian theophoric suffix that means “Teshup”; but (ii) it also is the standard Hebrew ending that means “people”. So XT-Y at Genesis 26: 34 means the “Praise Teshup People”, that is, the Hurrians.
In Year 13, Isaac was delighted to be able to secure two Hurrian brides (both of whom had been born in Canaan) for his favorite son, namely his older twin son Esau. While that sequence makes perfect sense in Year 13, it is hard to make good sense of that sequence in any other time period.
It would be non-historical if the classic Hittites from eastern Anatolia were portrayed in Genesis as being in Canaan, as the classic Hittites never got that far south. In fact, the Patriarchal narratives have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in portraying Hurrian women who had been born in Canaan as being highly desirable brides in Year 13.
University scholars add to their fairy tale-like analysis of the Patriarchal narratives by making comments like this as to the name of Esau’s first wife:
“ ‘Judith’ only used here as a proper name in the OT. In later texts it means a female Judean, i.e. Jewess.” Gordon Wenham, “World Biblical Commentary Genesis 16-50” (1994), p. 205.
Indeed, the Hurrian common word xuti is the root of both (a) XT-Y/Xuti-ya as an apt Patriarchal nickname for the Hurrians, and (b) the name of Esau’s first wife, which is YHWD - Y -T : A-xi-ú-ti -ya -T. A-xi-ú-ti -ya -T is but an elongated variant of xu-ti -ya, to which -T has been added to make this into a Hurrian woman’s name. (T and D are interchangeable within Hurrian. Both xudi and xuti are attested as different spellings of the same Hurrian common word that means “to praise”. In the cuneiform writing in which the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives were first recorded, there was no difference between he/H and heth/X.) The final -T is the standard Hurrian feminine ending for a woman’s name (so that, for example, the name of the chief Hurrian goddess, Heba, is written as Heba -T/Hebat).
My gosh. There are no classic Hittites from Anatolia, and no Jewesses, in the Patriarchal narratives, for heaven’s sake! Rather, Genesis 26: 34 has pinpoint historical accuracy in portraying two ethnic Hurrian women who had been born in Canaan as being highly desirable brides for a Semitic man (Esau) in Canaan in Year 13. It all makes perfect sense in Year 13, while being virtually inexplicable in any other historical time period. Ditto for virtually everything else in the Patriarchal narratives as well.
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
S_Walch
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm
Re: Melchizedek
Could someone just lock this thread already. It'll be best for everyone's sanity.
Ste Walch
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
LOL! And I should return to my ignoring Jim Stinehart and his Perry Mason like courtroom theatrics. They might work before a jury and judge, but look silly in a scholarly discussion. Now that I know he’s a lawyer, they don’t bother me as much, though I still think they’re silly.S_Walch wrote:Could someone just lock this thread already. It'll be best for everyone's sanity.
No, I didn’t read his latest essay. If I follow my own advice, I should start now.
Probably everyone else on this list should do as I, and not feed the ….
Karl W. Randolph.
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
After making the above claim, I did go back and read his essay. I was curious because I knew that his response was to what I wrote.kwrandolph wrote:No, I didn’t read his latest essay. If I follow my own advice, I should start now.
Sorry, Jim, that essay is so ridiculous that it doesn’t deserve a response.
Karl W. Randolph.