Re: Alishaya & Genesis
Okay, you write:
"I feel pretty comfortable that Elishah of Gen. 10:4 is Alishaya..."
And I feel pretty comfortable that Genesis was written most
recently, probably around 200 BCE (50 years or so before Daniel
joined the Old Testament). Some people put the Table of Nations
around the 600's BCE.... so that's about 400 years to "split
Is there a possible intersection of what might be considered
an unusual combination of scenarios?
> only from the phonetics of the spelling but also from the association--- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "driver40386" <jon442@...>
> with Javan, Tarshish and Kittim.
> --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "George"
> <historynow2002@> wrote:
> > Jon,
> > If you are using Hebrew to calculate identities (of people or
> > places) where at least one of them is not Hebrew, I think you
> > can dispense with spelling completely.
> George, wouldn't you agree that spelling is a guide to pronunciation?
> There is no-one alive who knows the correct phonetic rendering of
> ancient Hebrew, Egyptian, Hittite, Hurrian, etc. We make comparisons
> with like-sounding names in the same language then move to
> like-sounding names in a different language. There are no absolutes,
> homophonic comparisons are prettymuch the backbone of the study of
> ancient toponyms.
> In Akkadian we say "Alishaya", in Egypt - Aras, Ugarit - Alsy, Linear
> A - Arasijo, none of these terminate with an "r" as we see in Ellasar
> of Gen. 14:1. What we do see is a/e - l/r - s/sh, pretty consistent.
> The nearest homophonic to Ellasar in my opinion is the ancient city of
> Alishar, some 80 km S/E of Hattushas, well inside Hittite territory.
> There may well have been an Awariku of Alishar lost to history, but
> thats an assumption.
> I feel pretty comfortable that Elishah of Gen. 10:4 is Alishaya, not
> only from the phonetics of the spelling but also from the association
> with Javan, Tarshish and Kittim.
> regards, Jon
- You haven't presented any parallels. As usual, you've selectively
distorted the actual situations in an attempt to create parallels.
Neither AkhnAtn nor the Patriarchal characters were monothsists. In
either case, they were at most henotheists with the god Atn only
being worshipped by AkhnAtn who was in turn worshipped by the
The apiru were not a pastoral people of great herds. They were a
socioeconomic entity composed mainly of mercinaries. Consorting
with them implied consorting with rebels and therefore treason.
Labayu's execution was ordered by the state due to the attacks he
faciliated against other cities such as Megidow with the aid of the
apiru. His remaining two sons were later killed for following in
The biblical account portrays Shechem as a city established by
Hamor, naming it after his son. It is only portrayed as being a
mere site in the time of Abraham (Genesis 12:6). However it's known
from archaeology that Shechem had been around as a major city of the
land hundreds of years prior since the Middle Kingdom. Labayu
certainly didn't establish Shechem or name it after one of his sons
and therefore can't be paralleled with Hamor.
As is clearly seen, the parallels simply aren't there.
--- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "stinehartjimr"
> Djehuti Sundaka:
> You wrote: "[T]he association of Yaaqob with Shechem is actually
> more likely to have been an association of the name `YisraEl' with
> the territory of Shechem ."
> 1. Jacob/"Israel" is presented in the Patriarchal narratives as
> being the first historical monotheistic leader of a people.
> is presented as being the first historical monotheist, but onlyone
> son (Isaac) of Abraham remains within the Covenant, and only oneson
> (Jacob) of Isaac remains within the Covenant, so the firsthistorical
> monotheistic leader of a people (at least 70 Hebrews, per Genesis46:
> 27, counting mainly only males) is Jacob/"Israel".]by
> The first historical monotheistic leader of a people in secular
> history was Akhenaten.
> 2. Chapter 34 of Genesis features the following very specific
> events relating to Shechem and the first historical monotheistic
> leader of a people:
> (a) The men of Shechem have been consorting with the tent-
> dwelling people of Canaan (habiru/Hebrews). In Genesis, this is
> graphically portrayed in young Shechem being intimate with Jacob's
> daughter Dinah without having requested or obtained the prior
> approval of Jacob (or of Dinah's full-brothers), and the proposed
> union of Dinah and young Shechem, a union strongly backed not only
> young Shechem, but also by his powerful father, the leader ofShechem.
> (b) The men of Shechem are not altruistically offering to help
> out the habiru/Hebrews, but rather hope to aggrandize themselves
> co-opting the habiru/Hebrews. Here is what the leader of Shechemis
> portrayed as saying to the men of Shechem in Genesis: "`Shall notexample
> their cattle and their substance and all their beasts be ours?'"
> Genesis 34: 23 In secular history, many Amarna Letters, for
> from Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem, complain and complain that the men ofthemselves.
> Shechem are trying to take over all of central Canaan for
> (c) The leader of Shechem gets in trouble with the first
> historical monotheistic leader of a people because his son had
> consorting with the habiru/Hebrews. Laba'ayu says to Akhenaten inhabiru".
> Amarna Letter #254 what Hamor is clearly implied to have said to
> Jacob: "I did not know that my son was consorting with the
> (d) In an attempt to deflate the tensions, the leader of Shechem
> makes a requested goodwill gesture to the early monotheists
> going to Egypt to meet with Akhenaten in secular history, orhaving
> himself and his men circumcised in chapter 34 of Genesis), knowingShechem
> that this requested goodwill measure will make the leader of
> temporarily vulnerable.are
> (e) The forces of the first historical monotheistic leader then
> launch a surprise attack on the leader of Shechem and the men who
> with him at the time, ruthlessly killing the leader of Shechem.This
> action is not taken upon the direct order of the first historicalit
> monotheistic leader, and is morally very questionable.
> (f) Yet the people of Canaan for the most part silently applaud
> this effective "Decapitation of the Shechem Offensive". In
> particular, only the actual perpetrators of the killing, not the
> first historical monotheistic leader himself, are in danger of
> reprisal. We see this in the odd phrasing of Genesis 35: 5, where
> is only Jacob's sons (the actual perpetrators), not Jacob himselfforces
> (the first historical monotheistic leader of a people, whose
> had killed the leader of Shechem), who are in potential danger: "them,
> and a terror of God was upon the cities that were round about
> and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob." In secularis
> history, Laba'ayu's own son in the Transjordan continues to claim
> loyalty to pharaoh Akhenaten after his father's murder.
> (g) The end result, somewhat surprisingly, is that there
> effectively are no reprisals. The Decapitation of the Shechem
> Offensive is tremendously successful, and is generally popular
> throughout Canaan. In the Patriarchal narratives, Jacob's family
> thereafter not portrayed as being hated by the Canaanitesgenerally.
> How many specific parallels do you want? Chapter 34 of Genesis is
> coming straight out of the Amarna Letters from about Year 14 of
> Akhenaten's reign.
> Jim Stinehart