Gentlemen,
Please moderate your rhetoric. Stick to the issues (even methodological ones). Ad hominem is irrelevant.
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.
-
Kirk Lowery
- Site Admin
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Melchizedek
Dear Prof. Kirk Lowery:
You wrote: “Please moderate your rhetoric. Stick to the issues (even methodological ones). Ad hominem is irrelevant.”
I have put forth a serious proposal on this thread that Genesis 14: 1-4 has pinpoint historical accuracy in reporting the Year 13 instigating events of the Great Syrian War.
1. The phrase that KJV translates as “in the thirteenth year” at Genesis 14: 4 can be viewed as referring to Year 13 of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign. Historically, that is the most likely year for the instigating events of the Great Syrian War (which was then fought the following year, in Year 14 per Genesis 14: 5), according to leading historian Trevor Bryce.
2. The phrase that KJV translates as “served” at Genesis 14: 4 does not necessarily mean that for the 12 preceding years, the parties that in Year 13 would become a league of 5 rebellious parties had been “serving Chedorlaomer as an overlord as subjugated vassals” for those 12 years, as Biblical scholars have unfortunately assumed. Note that per Genesis 25: 23, that identical Hebrew word abad can instead mean: “to respect, primarily in terms of respecting the territorial claims and territorial integrity of a co-equal”. At Genesis 25: 23, ask yourself in what respect Rebekah’s divine dream is correct that her older twin son Esau will end up “serving”/abad her younger twin son Jacob. In the Patriarchal narratives, that divine dream comes true o-n-l-y in the following respect: Esau “respects” his younger twin brother Jacob, in terms of Jacob having received from their father Isaac the grand blessing naming Jacob (not Esau) future Patriarch #3, meaning that it will be Jacob and his 12 named sons who will be given primacy to the territory of Canaan. Esau in due course “respects Jacob, primarily in terms of respecting the territorial claims and territorial integrity of a co-equal”, when Esau moves out of Canaan into the northern Transjordan in chapter 36 of Genesis. Please note that in Genesis, Esau n-e-v-e-r serves his younger twin brother Jacob as an overlord as a subjugated vassal.
Likewise, for 12 years the 5 rulers who will later become rebellious do n-o-t serve Chedorlaomer as an overlord as subjugated vassals. Rather, for those 12 years they respect the territorial claims and territorial integrity of Chedorlaomer as their co-equal and neighbor to the west (on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea at Ugarit, per #3 below).
3. Then in Year 13, the key instigating event of the Great Syrian War historically is identical to the key instigating event of the “four kings with five” as reported at Genesis 14: 3. Certain members of the 5-party rebellious league begin making raids on Chedorlaomer’s homeland, which is located immediately north of where a “vale of Siddim” [KJV]/valley of cultivated fields/the Orontes River Valley in Syria empties into a “salt sea” [KJV], that is, the Mediterranean Sea. That’s Ugarit.
4. As to Genesis 14: 2, a few years ago Prof. Yigal Levin basically agreed with my analysis that the names “Sodom”, “Gomorrah”, “Admah”, “Zeboiim” and “Bela” are Patriarchal nicknames, each of whose west Semitic meanings is “good fields place”. That’s because the 5 rebellious parties historically were states or city-states along the Orontes River Valley in inland west-central northern Syria that were famous for their fine fields of grain that made them the breadbasket of their region. What has confused Biblical analysts here is that the early Hebrew author uses the s-a-m-e apt Patriarchal nickname, “Sodom”, for a second, totally different place, namely Lot’s adopted hometown in the Eastern Jezreel Valley [historical Shunem] in central Canaan. The Eastern Jezreel Valley (i) is bounded by a roughly circular circle of three Amarna Age cities (Shunem, Ginti and Beth Shan), (ii) is an integral part of the Greater Jordan River Valley (because the Jezreel River flows east from Jezreel into the Jordan River Valley proper), and (iii) is adjacent to the Jordan River Valley proper. As such, the Jordan River Valley is the KKR/circle of the Jordan, which was incredibly attractive to Lot because it featured great cities that were rich largely because of the fine fields of grain that surrounded them, hence the Patriarchal nickname “Sodom” for historical Shunem (where Amarna Letter EA 365 shows that pharaoh Akhenaten himself had a fine estate of good agricultural fields). (The KKR of the Jordan cannot possibly be the totally desolate Arabah south of the Dead Sea or a locale west of there, as Biblical scholars would have it, because such area south of the Dead Sea is not “well watered”, nor for that matter can it be seen from a mountain near Bethel, nor is it circular, and it's the "Arabah" not the "Jordan", thereby deftly failing every single test of where chapter 13 of Genesis tells us where Lot went upon separating from his uncle Abram.)
The four named rebellious princelings each has a Hurrian name: Bu-ru-ġi/BR‘, Eb-ri-$$i-ḫi/BR$‘, $e-na-ib/$N’B, and $u-mi-eb-ri/$M’BR. That’s because historically, all 5 rebellious parties were Hurrian states or city-states in northern Syria. The 5th historical state, Tunip, temporarily had no princeing ruler at all in Years 13-14, which is why no ruler’s name is given for the 5th rebellious state at Genesis 14: 2. Note the pinpoint historical accuracy of e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g Genesis 14: 1-4 has to say about the Year 13 instigating events of the Great Syrian War/the “four kings with five”.
Finally, as to Genesis 14: 1, all agree that “Tidal” is a bona fide Hittite kingly name. That’s an apt, if pejorative, Patriarchal nickname for historical Suppiluliuma I, who had seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly fratricidal deed of murdering his own older brother whose historical name was “Tidal”, and who historically did in Year 14 everything that Biblical Tidal is reported as doing in Year 14 (with “Year 14” being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 5). As I posted in a separate thread not too long ago, the 13 Hebrew letters in the name and original [defective spelling] title of “Chedorlaomer” make perfect sense in Ugaritic, which is the only place in 5,000 years of human history that had the phrase mlk ‘lm as an attested kingly title. “Arioch” is a Hurrian name with Hittite connections, and “Amraphel” is a fitting west Semitic name for an Amorite princeling ruler who is mockingly referred to as being the would-be king of Hurrian-dominated central Syria : “Shinar” : $NġR : $a-an-ġa-ar, per Amarna Letter EA 35: 49.
Each of the names and titles of the Biblical winning coalition of 4 rulers is an apt, and highly pejorative, Patriarchal nickname for the historical winning coalition of 4 rulers in the Great Syrian War: (i) Biblical “Tidal” is historical Hittite King Suppiluliuma; (ii) Biblical “Chedorlaomer” is historical King Niqmaddu II of Ugarit; (iii) Biblical “Arioch” is the historical Hurrian princeling ruler of Qadesh-on-the-Orontes in southern Syria, Etakkama, who already by the beginning of Year 13 was a Hittite puppet, hence the disparaging reference thereto via use of the Hittite word “elassar” as his derogatory kingly title; and (iv) Biblical “Amraphel” is historical Aziru, who should have contented himself with being the Amorite ruler of the Amorite state of Amurru in northern Lebanon, but who the Amarna Letters show in fact was always dabbling in Syria, which ill-fated adventurism eventually forced Aziru to become a Hittite puppet after the end of the Great Syrian War.
Biblical analysts are wrong to claim that chapter 14 of Genesis features a king of Elam allying with the Hittites (absolutely impossible historically) to discipline 5 wayward vassals who lived in an extremely wealthy area south or southwest of the Dead Sea (absolutely impossible, both historically and geographically). In the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives, for that matter, Elam is never once referenced, nor is anyone ever portrayed as being in the general vicinity of the poverty-stricken, desolate Dead Sea. If university scholars would take a look at what the Biblical text actually says, they would be amazed to find that Genesis 14: 1-4 in particular features p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in describing exactly what happened in Year 13 as the instigating events of the Great Syrian War, which Biblically is the “four kings with five”, and which both non-biblically and Biblically was fought in northern Syria, with the Hittites being the grand winner, and with no Elam at all.
* * *
To that serious proposal of mine, to which I have devoted well over 10 year of my life refining, Karl answers as follows: the Amarna Age was about 800 BCE, so that all of my discussion of a mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age/Patriarchal Age is, in Karl’s view, completely false.
Prof. Kirk Lowery, I have tried to keep my “rhetoric” “moderate” on this thread in responding to what Karl has to say.
But to get this thread back on track, Prof Kirk Lowery, dare I ask you what y-o-u-r own response to my proposal above is? I would g-r-e-a-t-l-y appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “Please moderate your rhetoric. Stick to the issues (even methodological ones). Ad hominem is irrelevant.”
I have put forth a serious proposal on this thread that Genesis 14: 1-4 has pinpoint historical accuracy in reporting the Year 13 instigating events of the Great Syrian War.
1. The phrase that KJV translates as “in the thirteenth year” at Genesis 14: 4 can be viewed as referring to Year 13 of Akhenaten’s 17-year reign. Historically, that is the most likely year for the instigating events of the Great Syrian War (which was then fought the following year, in Year 14 per Genesis 14: 5), according to leading historian Trevor Bryce.
2. The phrase that KJV translates as “served” at Genesis 14: 4 does not necessarily mean that for the 12 preceding years, the parties that in Year 13 would become a league of 5 rebellious parties had been “serving Chedorlaomer as an overlord as subjugated vassals” for those 12 years, as Biblical scholars have unfortunately assumed. Note that per Genesis 25: 23, that identical Hebrew word abad can instead mean: “to respect, primarily in terms of respecting the territorial claims and territorial integrity of a co-equal”. At Genesis 25: 23, ask yourself in what respect Rebekah’s divine dream is correct that her older twin son Esau will end up “serving”/abad her younger twin son Jacob. In the Patriarchal narratives, that divine dream comes true o-n-l-y in the following respect: Esau “respects” his younger twin brother Jacob, in terms of Jacob having received from their father Isaac the grand blessing naming Jacob (not Esau) future Patriarch #3, meaning that it will be Jacob and his 12 named sons who will be given primacy to the territory of Canaan. Esau in due course “respects Jacob, primarily in terms of respecting the territorial claims and territorial integrity of a co-equal”, when Esau moves out of Canaan into the northern Transjordan in chapter 36 of Genesis. Please note that in Genesis, Esau n-e-v-e-r serves his younger twin brother Jacob as an overlord as a subjugated vassal.
Likewise, for 12 years the 5 rulers who will later become rebellious do n-o-t serve Chedorlaomer as an overlord as subjugated vassals. Rather, for those 12 years they respect the territorial claims and territorial integrity of Chedorlaomer as their co-equal and neighbor to the west (on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea at Ugarit, per #3 below).
3. Then in Year 13, the key instigating event of the Great Syrian War historically is identical to the key instigating event of the “four kings with five” as reported at Genesis 14: 3. Certain members of the 5-party rebellious league begin making raids on Chedorlaomer’s homeland, which is located immediately north of where a “vale of Siddim” [KJV]/valley of cultivated fields/the Orontes River Valley in Syria empties into a “salt sea” [KJV], that is, the Mediterranean Sea. That’s Ugarit.
4. As to Genesis 14: 2, a few years ago Prof. Yigal Levin basically agreed with my analysis that the names “Sodom”, “Gomorrah”, “Admah”, “Zeboiim” and “Bela” are Patriarchal nicknames, each of whose west Semitic meanings is “good fields place”. That’s because the 5 rebellious parties historically were states or city-states along the Orontes River Valley in inland west-central northern Syria that were famous for their fine fields of grain that made them the breadbasket of their region. What has confused Biblical analysts here is that the early Hebrew author uses the s-a-m-e apt Patriarchal nickname, “Sodom”, for a second, totally different place, namely Lot’s adopted hometown in the Eastern Jezreel Valley [historical Shunem] in central Canaan. The Eastern Jezreel Valley (i) is bounded by a roughly circular circle of three Amarna Age cities (Shunem, Ginti and Beth Shan), (ii) is an integral part of the Greater Jordan River Valley (because the Jezreel River flows east from Jezreel into the Jordan River Valley proper), and (iii) is adjacent to the Jordan River Valley proper. As such, the Jordan River Valley is the KKR/circle of the Jordan, which was incredibly attractive to Lot because it featured great cities that were rich largely because of the fine fields of grain that surrounded them, hence the Patriarchal nickname “Sodom” for historical Shunem (where Amarna Letter EA 365 shows that pharaoh Akhenaten himself had a fine estate of good agricultural fields). (The KKR of the Jordan cannot possibly be the totally desolate Arabah south of the Dead Sea or a locale west of there, as Biblical scholars would have it, because such area south of the Dead Sea is not “well watered”, nor for that matter can it be seen from a mountain near Bethel, nor is it circular, and it's the "Arabah" not the "Jordan", thereby deftly failing every single test of where chapter 13 of Genesis tells us where Lot went upon separating from his uncle Abram.)
The four named rebellious princelings each has a Hurrian name: Bu-ru-ġi/BR‘, Eb-ri-$$i-ḫi/BR$‘, $e-na-ib/$N’B, and $u-mi-eb-ri/$M’BR. That’s because historically, all 5 rebellious parties were Hurrian states or city-states in northern Syria. The 5th historical state, Tunip, temporarily had no princeing ruler at all in Years 13-14, which is why no ruler’s name is given for the 5th rebellious state at Genesis 14: 2. Note the pinpoint historical accuracy of e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g Genesis 14: 1-4 has to say about the Year 13 instigating events of the Great Syrian War/the “four kings with five”.
Finally, as to Genesis 14: 1, all agree that “Tidal” is a bona fide Hittite kingly name. That’s an apt, if pejorative, Patriarchal nickname for historical Suppiluliuma I, who had seized the Hittite throne by the dastardly fratricidal deed of murdering his own older brother whose historical name was “Tidal”, and who historically did in Year 14 everything that Biblical Tidal is reported as doing in Year 14 (with “Year 14” being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 5). As I posted in a separate thread not too long ago, the 13 Hebrew letters in the name and original [defective spelling] title of “Chedorlaomer” make perfect sense in Ugaritic, which is the only place in 5,000 years of human history that had the phrase mlk ‘lm as an attested kingly title. “Arioch” is a Hurrian name with Hittite connections, and “Amraphel” is a fitting west Semitic name for an Amorite princeling ruler who is mockingly referred to as being the would-be king of Hurrian-dominated central Syria : “Shinar” : $NġR : $a-an-ġa-ar, per Amarna Letter EA 35: 49.
Each of the names and titles of the Biblical winning coalition of 4 rulers is an apt, and highly pejorative, Patriarchal nickname for the historical winning coalition of 4 rulers in the Great Syrian War: (i) Biblical “Tidal” is historical Hittite King Suppiluliuma; (ii) Biblical “Chedorlaomer” is historical King Niqmaddu II of Ugarit; (iii) Biblical “Arioch” is the historical Hurrian princeling ruler of Qadesh-on-the-Orontes in southern Syria, Etakkama, who already by the beginning of Year 13 was a Hittite puppet, hence the disparaging reference thereto via use of the Hittite word “elassar” as his derogatory kingly title; and (iv) Biblical “Amraphel” is historical Aziru, who should have contented himself with being the Amorite ruler of the Amorite state of Amurru in northern Lebanon, but who the Amarna Letters show in fact was always dabbling in Syria, which ill-fated adventurism eventually forced Aziru to become a Hittite puppet after the end of the Great Syrian War.
Biblical analysts are wrong to claim that chapter 14 of Genesis features a king of Elam allying with the Hittites (absolutely impossible historically) to discipline 5 wayward vassals who lived in an extremely wealthy area south or southwest of the Dead Sea (absolutely impossible, both historically and geographically). In the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives, for that matter, Elam is never once referenced, nor is anyone ever portrayed as being in the general vicinity of the poverty-stricken, desolate Dead Sea. If university scholars would take a look at what the Biblical text actually says, they would be amazed to find that Genesis 14: 1-4 in particular features p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy in describing exactly what happened in Year 13 as the instigating events of the Great Syrian War, which Biblically is the “four kings with five”, and which both non-biblically and Biblically was fought in northern Syria, with the Hittites being the grand winner, and with no Elam at all.
* * *
To that serious proposal of mine, to which I have devoted well over 10 year of my life refining, Karl answers as follows: the Amarna Age was about 800 BCE, so that all of my discussion of a mid-14th century BCE Amarna Age/Patriarchal Age is, in Karl’s view, completely false.
Prof. Kirk Lowery, I have tried to keep my “rhetoric” “moderate” on this thread in responding to what Karl has to say.
But to get this thread back on track, Prof Kirk Lowery, dare I ask you what y-o-u-r own response to my proposal above is? I would g-r-e-a-t-l-y appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Yigal Levin
- Moderator
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:38 am
- Location: Tzur-Yigal, Israel
Re: Melchizedek
Dear Jim,
You wrote:
"4. As to Genesis 14: 2, a few years ago Prof. Yigal Levin basically agreed with my analysis that the names “Sodom”, “Gomorrah”, “Admah”, “Zeboiim” and “Bela” are Patriarchal nicknames, each of whose west Semitic meanings is “good fields place”. "
I may be going senile, but I find it difficult to believe that I would have ever written such a thing.
In any case, I must say that youre constant return to Gen. 14 has not been a good thing for this forum. The moderators have not banned you (and a couple of additional "one issue" members) because you don't technically break any rules, but you must have noticed that I and many others have basically stopped engaging with the forum.
Yigal Levin
You wrote:
"4. As to Genesis 14: 2, a few years ago Prof. Yigal Levin basically agreed with my analysis that the names “Sodom”, “Gomorrah”, “Admah”, “Zeboiim” and “Bela” are Patriarchal nicknames, each of whose west Semitic meanings is “good fields place”. "
I may be going senile, but I find it difficult to believe that I would have ever written such a thing.
In any case, I must say that youre constant return to Gen. 14 has not been a good thing for this forum. The moderators have not banned you (and a couple of additional "one issue" members) because you don't technically break any rules, but you must have noticed that I and many others have basically stopped engaging with the forum.
Yigal Levin
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
Dear Yigal:
What made it worse was that he writes such long essays, I haven’t read his latest one, that suck the air out of other discussions.
As one who is largely an autodidact in Biblical Hebrew, I could throw out ideas that were wrong, and others would correct me. But today, those who would correct me are largely not there.
I’ve considered leaving b-hebrew, but I don’t know where one can find a forum such as what b-hebrew used to be. No, it wasn’t perfect, but it had enough variety to carry on discussions on several subjects—grammar, syntax, lexicography, specially difficult verses, among others—but all of that is gone.
Karl W. Randolph.
No you’re not.Yigal Levin wrote:I may be going senile,
No, you didn’t.Yigal Levin wrote: but I find it difficult to believe that I would have ever written such a thing.
No it hasn’t. And this isn’t merely a constant return to Gen. 14 as it’s written, rather Gen. 14 as Dr. James Stinehart, JD, thinks it should have been written in order to fit his theory.Yigal Levin wrote:In any case, I must say that youre constant return to Gen. 14 has not been a good thing for this forum.
What made it worse was that he writes such long essays, I haven’t read his latest one, that suck the air out of other discussions.
That is what bothers me.Yigal Levin wrote:… but you must have noticed that I and many others have basically stopped engaging with the forum.
As one who is largely an autodidact in Biblical Hebrew, I could throw out ideas that were wrong, and others would correct me. But today, those who would correct me are largely not there.
I’ve considered leaving b-hebrew, but I don’t know where one can find a forum such as what b-hebrew used to be. No, it wasn’t perfect, but it had enough variety to carry on discussions on several subjects—grammar, syntax, lexicography, specially difficult verses, among others—but all of that is gone.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Melchizedek
Dear Prof. Yigal Levin:
I noted in my last post: “As to Genesis 14: 2, a few years ago Prof. Yigal Levin basically agreed with my analysis that the names ‘Sodom’, ‘Gomorrah’, ‘Admah’, ‘Zeboiim’ and ‘Bela’ are Patriarchal nicknames, each of whose west Semitic meanings is ‘good fields place’."
To that you responded: “I may be going senile, but I find it difficult to believe that I would have ever written such a thing.”
Quoted in full below is what you posted on 1-30-2010. The background to your post is that you were responding to my assertion that each of the above five names is a west Semitic Patriarchal nickname that means “good fields place”, as the “first level” of the etymologies I was exploring for those five names:
“I must admit that I actually like your ‘first level’ of etymologies for the five cities. Connecting all five names to agriculture could be the author's way of reminding us what a fertile place the ‘Kikar’ was before it was overturned. The problem with that is that the more such names can be shown to be literary devices on the part of the author, the less ‘historical’ the whole story is likely to be.”
To me, what you say there makes perfect sense, so why do you say that “I find it difficult to believe that I would have ever written such a thing”?
But since you have now brought up this specific issue, please let me know if you would have any objection to the following statement of mine concerning this matter:
“Prof. Yigal Levin of Bar-Ilan University, Israel, though tentatively approving of the general nature of such etymologies, perceptively commented: ‘The problem with that is that the more such names can be shown to be literary devices on the part of the author, the less ‘historical’ the whole story is likely to be’.”
Prof. Levin, I certainly don’t want to mis-quote you. Am I misunderstanding what you said in your 1-30-2010 post?
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
I noted in my last post: “As to Genesis 14: 2, a few years ago Prof. Yigal Levin basically agreed with my analysis that the names ‘Sodom’, ‘Gomorrah’, ‘Admah’, ‘Zeboiim’ and ‘Bela’ are Patriarchal nicknames, each of whose west Semitic meanings is ‘good fields place’."
To that you responded: “I may be going senile, but I find it difficult to believe that I would have ever written such a thing.”
Quoted in full below is what you posted on 1-30-2010. The background to your post is that you were responding to my assertion that each of the above five names is a west Semitic Patriarchal nickname that means “good fields place”, as the “first level” of the etymologies I was exploring for those five names:
“I must admit that I actually like your ‘first level’ of etymologies for the five cities. Connecting all five names to agriculture could be the author's way of reminding us what a fertile place the ‘Kikar’ was before it was overturned. The problem with that is that the more such names can be shown to be literary devices on the part of the author, the less ‘historical’ the whole story is likely to be.”
To me, what you say there makes perfect sense, so why do you say that “I find it difficult to believe that I would have ever written such a thing”?
But since you have now brought up this specific issue, please let me know if you would have any objection to the following statement of mine concerning this matter:
“Prof. Yigal Levin of Bar-Ilan University, Israel, though tentatively approving of the general nature of such etymologies, perceptively commented: ‘The problem with that is that the more such names can be shown to be literary devices on the part of the author, the less ‘historical’ the whole story is likely to be’.”
Prof. Levin, I certainly don’t want to mis-quote you. Am I misunderstanding what you said in your 1-30-2010 post?
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Yigal Levin
- Moderator
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:38 am
- Location: Tzur-Yigal, Israel
Re: Melchizedek
Jim, now you've quoted me correctly, showing how you took the five-year-old exerpt and completely mis-used it. I wrote that I liked the "first level" of your suggestion that the names of the "cities of the Kikar" were agraculturally-based. No-where did I support your assertion that this "proved" the "pinpoint accuracy" of the story. Quite the opposite: what I wrote was that "The problem with that is that the more such names can be shown to be literary devices on the part of the author, the less ‘historical’ the whole story is likely to be".
And that's all I intend to comment on the matter.
Best,
Yigal Levin
And that's all I intend to comment on the matter.
Best,
Yigal Levin
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: Melchizedek
Dear Prof. Yigal Levin:
You wrote: “Jim, now you've quoted me correctly, showing how you took the five-year-old exerpt and completely mis-used it. I wrote that I liked the "first level" of your suggestion that the names of the "cities of the Kikar" were agraculturally-based. No-where did I support your assertion that this "proved" the "pinpoint accuracy" of the story. Quite the opposite: what I wrote was that "The problem with that is that the more such names can be shown to be literary devices on the part of the author, the less ‘historical’ the whole story is likely to be".”
1. I have never said or implied that you see any aspect of the Patriarchal narratives as having “pinpoint accuracy”. I am well aware that you consistently say the opposite.
2. What I said, rather, was that you provisionally agreed with my suggestion that the names “Sodom”, “Gomorrah”, “Admah”, “Zeboiim” and “Bela” may be west Semitic Patriarchal nicknames that each means “good fields place”.
3. As I see it, you have now re-confirmed your support for my linguistic analysis of those five names (along with also re-confirming that you don’t see the Patriarchal narratives as having pinpoint historical accuracy), when you write: “I wrote that I liked the ‘first level’ of your suggestion that the names of the ‘cities of the Kikar’ were agriculturally-based.”
The last thing in the world I would want to do would be to mis-quote my favorite professor [you].
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “Jim, now you've quoted me correctly, showing how you took the five-year-old exerpt and completely mis-used it. I wrote that I liked the "first level" of your suggestion that the names of the "cities of the Kikar" were agraculturally-based. No-where did I support your assertion that this "proved" the "pinpoint accuracy" of the story. Quite the opposite: what I wrote was that "The problem with that is that the more such names can be shown to be literary devices on the part of the author, the less ‘historical’ the whole story is likely to be".”
1. I have never said or implied that you see any aspect of the Patriarchal narratives as having “pinpoint accuracy”. I am well aware that you consistently say the opposite.
2. What I said, rather, was that you provisionally agreed with my suggestion that the names “Sodom”, “Gomorrah”, “Admah”, “Zeboiim” and “Bela” may be west Semitic Patriarchal nicknames that each means “good fields place”.
3. As I see it, you have now re-confirmed your support for my linguistic analysis of those five names (along with also re-confirming that you don’t see the Patriarchal narratives as having pinpoint historical accuracy), when you write: “I wrote that I liked the ‘first level’ of your suggestion that the names of the ‘cities of the Kikar’ were agriculturally-based.”
The last thing in the world I would want to do would be to mis-quote my favorite professor [you].
Jim Stinehart
Dr. James R. Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: Melchizedek
I suspect that the place name אדמה ADMAH of Gen. 14:2 has little to do with 'earth' nor with 'red'. It is apparently a variant of עצמה 'large and massive', like ADAM himself.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
talmid56
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:02 am
- Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA
Re: Melchizedek
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.
Dewayne Dulaney
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.
Dewayne Dulaney
Dewayne Dulaney
דואיין דוליני
Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/
כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
דואיין דוליני
Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/
כִּ֤י שֶׁ֨מֶשׁ׀ וּמָגֵן֮ יְהוָ֪ה אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים חֵ֣ן וְ֭כָבוֹד יִתֵּ֣ן יְהוָ֑ה לֹ֥א יִמְנַע־ט֝֗וֹב לַֽהֹלְכִ֥ים בְּתָמִֽים׃
--(E 84:11) 84:12 תהלים
-
kwrandolph
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Melchizedek
That’s just one line of evidence, there are others as well.talmid56 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.
Incidentally, these lines of evidence for an early dating of Abraham are also lines of evidence that the Egyptian history as presently taught in universities is wrong. For example, the history of Joseph in Egypt mirrors that of Imhotep. Archaeological and historical evidences place the Exodus in the 13th dynasty. The record of the years before the Exodus places Abraham either 430 years before (LXX) or 645 years earlier (MT) (this is one place where I suspect that the LXX is more accurate than the MT).
Taking all these lines of evidence together, the claim that Abraham is accurately placed during the Amarna period (as computed by “experts”) is absurd, and a clear contradiction to the text as written. Thus the claim that the Patriarchal narratives are accurate history yet are from the Amarna period (as computed by “experts”) is contradictory and stretches credulity way beyond the breaking point.
That’s not counting the evidences that the Amarna letters were written during the divided kingdom period.
Will you get a clear answer? ………talmid56 wrote: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.
Dewayne Dulaney
Karl W. Randolph.