Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Alishaya & Genesis

Expand Messages
  • George
    Jon, 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
    Message 1 of 106 , Aug 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Jon,

      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
      the difference".

      Is there a possible intersection of what might be considered
      an unusual combination of scenarios?

      Regards,

      George


      , not
      > only from the phonetics of the spelling but also from the association
      > with Javan, Tarshish and Kittim.

      --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "driver40386" <jon442@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- 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
      >
    • Djehuti Sundaka
      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
      Message 106 of 106 , Aug 19, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        people.

        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
        his footsteps.

        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.

        Djehuti Sundaka

        --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "stinehartjimr"
        <jimstinehart@...> wrote:
        >
        > 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 ShechemÂ…."
        >
        > 1. Jacob/"Israel" is presented in the Patriarchal narratives as
        > being the first historical monotheistic leader of a people.
        [Abraham
        > is presented as being the first historical monotheist, but only
        one
        > son (Isaac) of Abraham remains within the Covenant, and only one
        son
        > (Jacob) of Isaac remains within the Covenant, so the first
        historical
        > monotheistic leader of a people (at least 70 Hebrews, per Genesis
        46:
        > 27, counting mainly only males) is Jacob/"Israel".]
        >
        > 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
        by
        > young Shechem, but also by his powerful father, the leader of
        Shechem.
        >
        > (b) The men of Shechem are not altruistically offering to help
        > out the habiru/Hebrews, but rather hope to aggrandize themselves
        by
        > co-opting the habiru/Hebrews. Here is what the leader of Shechem
        is
        > portrayed as saying to the men of Shechem in Genesis: "`Shall not
        > their cattle and their substance and all their beasts be ours?'"
        > Genesis 34: 23 In secular history, many Amarna Letters, for
        example
        > from Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem, complain and complain that the men of
        > Shechem are trying to take over all of central Canaan for
        themselves.
        >
        > (c) The leader of Shechem gets in trouble with the first
        > historical monotheistic leader of a people because his son had
        been
        > consorting with the habiru/Hebrews. Laba'ayu says to Akhenaten in
        > Amarna Letter #254 what Hamor is clearly implied to have said to
        > Jacob: "I did not know that my son was consorting with the
        habiru".
        >
        > (d) In an attempt to deflate the tensions, the leader of Shechem
        > makes a requested goodwill gesture to the early monotheists
        (either
        > going to Egypt to meet with Akhenaten in secular history, or
        having
        > himself and his men circumcised in chapter 34 of Genesis), knowing
        > that this requested goodwill measure will make the leader of
        Shechem
        > temporarily vulnerable.
        >
        > (e) The forces of the first historical monotheistic leader then
        > launch a surprise attack on the leader of Shechem and the men who
        are
        > with him at the time, ruthlessly killing the leader of Shechem.
        This
        > action is not taken upon the direct order of the first historical
        > 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
        it
        > is only Jacob's sons (the actual perpetrators), not Jacob himself
        > (the first historical monotheistic leader of a people, whose
        forces
        > had killed the leader of Shechem), who are in potential danger: "Â…
        > and a terror of God was upon the cities that were round about
        them,
        > and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob." In secular
        > 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
        is
        > thereafter not portrayed as being hated by the Canaanites
        generally.
        >
        > 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
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.