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

Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    Jim Stinehart wrote:  1. You wrote: “[W]hy go to Akkad to drink the waters of the Euphrates when there is a source much closer to hand. The
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim Stinehart wrote:  "1. You wrote: “[W]hy go to Akkad to drink the waters of the Euphrates
      when there is a source much closer to hand. The Proto-Semitic signs were
      quite sufficiently early to meet the needs of someone wishing to use them and
      were written not by scribes but by miners.”
      I don’t think you would say such a thing if you looked at the Qeiyafa
      Ostracon that dates to about 1000 BCE. That’s the earliest known alphabetical
      text that has been claimed by some to be Hebrew. It’s indecipherable! In
      fact, the Qeiyafa Ostracon probably is not even Hebrew, and it’s definitely
      not the Hebrew alphabetical script. Please see the following fine article
      by Christopher Rollston that shows just how very primitive the Qeiyafa
      Ostracon is: “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats

      _http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_
      Musings_and_Caveats_
      (http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_Musings_and_Caveats)
      This ostracon is not written right to left. And the direction of the
      letters varies. "
       
      Yes, I most certainly would have said the same thing.  You seem to be unaware that Ugaritic was written from left to right and that there are texts that are boustrophedron, i.e., one line left to right with the following right to left (and then left to right again.  I'm not constrained to argue that they Qeiyafa Ostracon represents Hebrew.  Rollston does not disagree that it is NW Semitic in nature—only that it may not be Hebrew.  So what?  That really has no bearing on the case at hand.  Akkadian cunieform?  Hardly.  That is rather farfetched.

      george

      gfsomsel

       search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
       love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
       defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus
      _________



      >________________________________
      > From: "jimstinehart@..." <jimstinehart@...>
      >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 2:00 PM
      >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...
      >
      >

      >
      >
      >George Somsel:
      >
      >1. You wrote: “[W]hy go to Akkad to drink the waters of the Euphrates
      >when there is a source much closer to hand. The Proto-Semitic signs were
      >quite sufficiently early to meet the needs of someone wishing to use them and
      >were written not by scribes but by miners.”
      >I don’t think you would say such a thing if you looked at the Qeiyafa
      >Ostracon that dates to about 1000 BCE. That’s the earliest known alphabetical
      >text that has been claimed by some to be Hebrew. It’s indecipherable! In
      >fact, the Qeiyafa Ostracon probably is not even Hebrew, and it’s definitely
      >not the Hebrew alphabetical script. Please see the following fine article
      >by Christopher Rollston that shows just how very primitive the Qeiyafa
      >Ostracon is: “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats
      >”
      >_http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_
      >Musings_and_Caveats_
      >(http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_Musings_and_Caveats)
      >This ostracon is not written right to left. And the direction of the
      >letters varies. This is Early Alphabetic, which was followed by Phoenician,
      >and only later by Old Hebrew script. Scholars cannot agree as to what
      >words are there, what direction the writing is, whether it’s merely a list of
      >names, and what the meaning may be. By sharp contrast, every west Semitic
      >word in the Amarna Letters, written in cuneiform, is clearly known. Yes, in
      >part that’s because we have an Akkadian synonym, which makes things easy.
      >But even if these west Semitic words were extracted from the text and shown
      >out of context, in most cases their Biblical Hebrew equivalents would be
      >obvious.
      >The point is that alphabetical Hebrew could not have been used to record
      >any part of the Torah in the Late Bronze Age, by Moses or anyone else,
      >because the non-Ugaritic alphabet was in such a rudimentary stage at that time
      >that it’s virtually indecipherable today.
      >2. You wrote: “Then there was a cunieform alphabet in use for a
      >language very closely related to Canaanite and Hebrew at Ugarit which was also
      >old enough to have been used.”
      >That’s true but irrelevant. The Ugaritic alphabet was never picked up by
      >any other people. It died on the vine.
      >3. You wrote: “That it is reasonably certain that someone who could be
      >called Moses living in the time proposed could have writen the pentateuch
      >is not proposed due to any concern that writing was not known at the time
      >(though that may have been considered the case at one time).”
      >Moses could not have written the Torah in the Late Bronze Age using an
      >alphabet. No way. Take a quick look at the pathetic Qeiyafa Ostracon and you’
      >ll see why. (Moses did not operate in Ugarit, so it’s irrelevant that
      >Ugarit had a decent alphabet.) Meanwhile, it would have been child’s play,
      >from a writing standpoint, for Moses to record a significant part of the
      >Torah (especially including the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives) in
      >cuneiform using west Semitic words. The Amarna Letters show how easy it was to
      >record dozens of west Semitic pre-Hebrew words in cuneiform in the mid-14th
      >century BCE. No sweat. On tablets. To be carried around in an ark or
      >chest, containing tablets on which cuneiform was used to write west Semitic
      >words.
      >4. You wrote: “It is due to internal inconsistencies which indicate
      >that various sources have been used in the assemblage of the pentateuchal
      >accounts.”
      >That theory of the case does not apply to the Patriarchal narratives. As
      >I mentioned, in 7 out of 7 cases in the Patriarchal narratives, every
      >firstborn son (Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Manasseh) gets the shaft
      >and properly so. That’s the hallmark of a single author who repeats his
      >main point over and over and over again. Likewise, each Patriarch’s name makes
      >sense in Hebrew, yet has a more profound meaning in Hurrian. Once again,
      >that’s the hallmark of a single author, coming up with all these names.
      >Moreover, every main story in the Patriarchal narratives accurately reflects
      >the peculiar, unique world of Years 12-14: the Kassites of K$-D-YM, who
      >ruled only during the Late Bronze Age; “Naharim” as the name of the Hurrian
      >Late Bronze Age great power state in eastern Syria; dozens of Hurrian
      >names, reflecting the fact that only during the Amarna Age was the ruling
      >class of Canaan dominated by Hurrian charioteers/maryannu; the historical
      >Amorite name Milk-i-Ilu, which is honored and set forth in full at Genesis 46:
      >17, MLK -Y- ‘L, immediately after the XBR root of the Hurrian-based name
      >xa-bu-ru-u-ne/XBRWN/“Hebron”, with Milk-i-Ilu historically having ruled
      >the “valley” that is referenced at Genesis 37: 14 through the beginning of
      >Year 14, and with “Year 13” being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4;
      >the bloody Shechem incident of Year 13 is nicely recalled in chapter 34 of
      >Genesis; Jacob is the semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for
      >17 shanah, as is Akhenaten for 17 years, and each breaks with his irate
      >father-in-law from far-off Naharim, with the last straw in each case being
      >certain family statues/teraphim that are never handed over to that irate
      >father-in-law, who had forced the semi-monotheist to marry one of his daughters
      >against his will. Shall I go on? Each such story is utterly redolent of
      >Years 12-14, which means that (i) there was only one author, with no “
      >internal inconsistencies” in the main stories (though there are, unfortunately,
      >a handful of later editorial additions that routinely are anachronistic),
      >and (ii) it was all recorded at the direction of the first Hebrew by a
      >Hurrian scribe, on 50 tablets in cuneiform, using west Semitic words, a year or
      >two after Akhenaten’s demise.
      >Think 50 tablets of west Semitic words written in cuneiform, not the
      >alphabet, because the alphabet is not old enough to handle the truly ancient,
      >historically accurate, Patriarchal narratives, which come to us straight from
      >the Late Bronze Age.
      >Jim Stinehart
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Joe Dan Boyd
      I am enjoying the Stinehart/Somsel exchange very much, but keep wishing that each would simply state his views, concede disagreement with the other while also
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 24, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I am enjoying the Stinehart/Somsel exchange very much, but keep wishing that each would simply state his views, concede disagreement with the other while also allowing for the possibility that both may have valid points and/or argumentative flaws and allow readers to make their own distinctions as to validity. Meanwhile, thanx to both for stimulating my curiosity and admiration for passion. 


         
        Joe Dan Boyd Communications 
        5107 N. FM 312
        Winnsboro TX 75494
        Email: joedan@...
        My Website: www.joedanboyd.com
        My Spiritual Blog: www.tinneychapeltoday.blogspot.com
        Church Website: http://www.tinneychapel.org/home.html
        Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/joedanboyd
        Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/joedanboyd?ref=profile
        903-375-4603 my office VOIP phone

        903-850-4394 my cell phone
        903-629-3408 my home land line



        ________________________________
        From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...>
        To: "biblicalist@yahoogroups.com" <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 4:27 PM
        Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...


         
        Jim Stinehart wrote:  "1. You wrote: “[W]hy go to Akkad to drink the waters of the Euphrates
        when there is a source much closer to hand. The Proto-Semitic signs were
        quite sufficiently early to meet the needs of someone wishing to use them and
        were written not by scribes but by miners.”
        I don’t think you would say such a thing if you looked at the Qeiyafa
        Ostracon that dates to about 1000 BCE. That’s the earliest known alphabetical
        text that has been claimed by some to be Hebrew. It’s indecipherable! In
        fact, the Qeiyafa Ostracon probably is not even Hebrew, and it’s definitely
        not the Hebrew alphabetical script. Please see the following fine article
        by Christopher Rollston that shows just how very primitive the Qeiyafa
        Ostracon is: “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats

        _http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_
        Musings_and_Caveats_
        (http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_Musings_and_Caveats)
        This ostracon is not written right to left. And the direction of the
        letters varies. "
         
        Yes, I most certainly would have said the same thing.  You seem to be unaware that Ugaritic was written from left to right and that there are texts that are boustrophedron, i.e., one line left to right with the following right to left (and then left to right again.  I'm not constrained to argue that they Qeiyafa Ostracon represents Hebrew.  Rollston does not disagree that it is NW Semitic in nature—only that it may not be Hebrew.  So what?  That really has no bearing on the case at hand.  Akkadian cunieform?  Hardly.  That is rather farfetched.

        george

        gfsomsel

         search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
         love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
         defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________


        >________________________________
        > From: "jimstinehart@..." <jimstinehart@...>
        >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
        >Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 2:00 PM
        >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...
        >
        >

        >
        >
        >George Somsel:
        >
        >1. You wrote: “[W]hy go to Akkad to drink the waters of the Euphrates
        >when there is a source much closer to hand. The Proto-Semitic signs were
        >quite sufficiently early to meet the needs of someone wishing to use them and
        >were written not by scribes but by miners.”
        >I don’t think you would say such a thing if you looked at the Qeiyafa
        >Ostracon that dates to about 1000 BCE. That’s the earliest known alphabetical
        >text that has been claimed by some to be Hebrew. It’s indecipherable! In
        >fact, the Qeiyafa Ostracon probably is not even Hebrew, and it’s definitely
        >not the Hebrew alphabetical script. Please see the following fine article
        >by Christopher Rollston that shows just how very primitive the Qeiyafa
        >Ostracon is: “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats
        >”
        >_http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_
        >Musings_and_Caveats_
        >(http://www.academia.edu/591966/The_Khirbet_Qeiyafa_Ostracon_Methodological_Musings_and_Caveats)
        >This ostracon is not written right to left. And the direction of the
        >letters varies. This is Early Alphabetic, which was followed by Phoenician,
        >and only later by Old Hebrew script. Scholars cannot agree as to what
        >words are there, what direction the writing is, whether it’s merely a list of
        >names, and what the meaning may be. By sharp contrast, every west Semitic
        >word in the Amarna Letters, written in cuneiform, is clearly known. Yes, in
        >part that’s because we have an Akkadian synonym, which makes things easy.
        >But even if these west Semitic words were extracted from the text and shown
        >out of context, in most cases their Biblical Hebrew equivalents would be
        >obvious.
        >The point is that alphabetical Hebrew could not have been used to record
        >any part of the Torah in the Late Bronze Age, by Moses or anyone else,
        >because the non-Ugaritic alphabet was in such a rudimentary stage at that time
        >that it’s virtually indecipherable today.
        >2. You wrote: “Then there was a cunieform alphabet in use for a
        >language very closely related to Canaanite and Hebrew at Ugarit which was also
        >old enough to have been used.”
        >That’s true but irrelevant. The Ugaritic alphabet was never picked up by
        >any other people. It died on the vine.
        >3. You wrote: “That it is reasonably certain that someone who could be
        >called Moses living in the time proposed could have writen the pentateuch
        >is not proposed due to any concern that writing was not known at the time
        >(though that may have been considered the case at one time).”
        >Moses could not have written the Torah in the Late Bronze Age using an
        >alphabet. No way. Take a quick look at the pathetic Qeiyafa Ostracon and you’
        >ll see why. (Moses did not operate in Ugarit, so it’s irrelevant that
        >Ugarit had a decent alphabet.) Meanwhile, it would have been child’s play,
        >from a writing standpoint, for Moses to record a significant part of the
        >Torah (especially including the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives) in
        >cuneiform using west Semitic words. The Amarna Letters show how easy it was to
        >record dozens of west Semitic pre-Hebrew words in cuneiform in the mid-14th
        >century BCE. No sweat. On tablets. To be carried around in an ark or
        >chest, containing tablets on which cuneiform was used to write west Semitic
        >words.
        >4. You wrote: “It is due to internal inconsistencies which indicate
        >that various sources have been used in the assemblage of the pentateuchal
        >accounts.”
        >That theory of the case does not apply to the Patriarchal narratives. As
        >I mentioned, in 7 out of 7 cases in the Patriarchal narratives, every
        >firstborn son (Haran, Lot, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Manasseh) gets the shaft
        >and properly so. That’s the hallmark of a single author who repeats his
        >main point over and over and over again. Likewise, each Patriarch’s name makes
        >sense in Hebrew, yet has a more profound meaning in Hurrian. Once again,
        >that’s the hallmark of a single author, coming up with all these names.
        >Moreover, every main story in the Patriarchal narratives accurately reflects
        >the peculiar, unique world of Years 12-14: the Kassites of K$-D-YM, who
        >ruled only during the Late Bronze Age; “Naharim” as the name of the Hurrian
        >Late Bronze Age great power state in eastern Syria; dozens of Hurrian
        >names, reflecting the fact that only during the Amarna Age was the ruling
        >class of Canaan dominated by Hurrian charioteers/maryannu; the historical
        >Amorite name Milk-i-Ilu, which is honored and set forth in full at Genesis 46:
        >17, MLK -Y- ‘L, immediately after the XBR root of the Hurrian-based name
        >xa-bu-ru-u-ne/XBRWN/“Hebron”, with Milk-i-Ilu historically having ruled
        >the “valley” that is referenced at Genesis 37: 14 through the beginning of
        >Year 14, and with “Year 13” being explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4;
        >the bloody Shechem incident of Year 13 is nicely recalled in chapter 34 of
        >Genesis; Jacob is the semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for
        >17 shanah, as is Akhenaten for 17 years, and each breaks with his irate
        >father-in-law from far-off Naharim, with the last straw in each case being
        >certain family statues/teraphim that are never handed over to that irate
        >father-in-law, who had forced the semi-monotheist to marry one of his daughters
        >against his will. Shall I go on? Each such story is utterly redolent of
        >Years 12-14, which means that (i) there was only one author, with no “
        >internal inconsistencies” in the main stories (though there are, unfortunately,
        >a handful of later editorial additions that routinely are anachronistic),
        >and (ii) it was all recorded at the direction of the first Hebrew by a
        >Hurrian scribe, on 50 tablets in cuneiform, using west Semitic words, a year or
        >two after Akhenaten’s demise.
        >Think 50 tablets of west Semitic words written in cuneiform, not the
        >alphabet, because the alphabet is not old enough to handle the truly ancient,
        >historically accurate, Patriarchal narratives, which come to us straight from
        >the Late Bronze Age.
        >Jim Stinehart
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • jimstinehart@aol.com
        George Somsel: 1. You wrote: “You seem to be unaware that Ugaritic waswritten from left to right and that there are texts that are boustrophedron,i.e., one
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 24, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          George Somsel:

          1. You wrote: “You seem to be unaware that Ugaritic waswritten from left to right and that there are texts that are boustrophedron,i.e., one line left to right with the following right to left (and then left toright again.”

          How could I be “unaware” of that, when Rollston’s fine articlediscusses that issue in detail?

          The Hebrews were never in northwest Syria at Ugarit, andnever used the Ugaritic alphabet. Thefact that “Ugaritic was written from left to right” has no relevance to the keyissue here: no precursor of the Hebrewalphabet, in particular the Phoenician alphabet, was capable of writing downany significant part of the Torah prior to 1200 BCE. Meanwhile, we know from the Amarna Letters thatcuneiform worked wonderfully in the Late Bronze Age to write down west Semiticwords, most of which have a direct equivalent in classic Biblical Hebrew wordsfrom 7th century BCE Jerusalem.

          2. You wrote: “I'm not constrained to argue that theyQeiyafa Ostracon represents Hebrew. Rollston does not disagree that it is NWSemitic in nature—only that it may not be Hebrew. So what?”

          Rollston points out in detail that the Qeiyafa Ostracon isindecipherable, and that it’s pathetically rudimentary. The person who did the Qeiyafa Ostracon couldnot possibly have written down any portion of the Torah, which is very complex. By sharp contrast, it would have been easyfor IR-Heba’s former scribe, who had lived in Jerusalem, to write down thePatriarchal narratives as dictated by the first Hebrew, using cuneiform to recordthe west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words that the first Hebrew spoke. We know that cuneiform would have workedperfectly to write down west Semitic words, because we have dozens of westSemitic words recorded in the Amarna Letters as proof.

          3. You wrote: “Akkadian cunieform? Hardly. That is ratherfarfetched.”

          Why would it be “rather farfetched” for Moses to operateusing cuneiform to write west Semitic words? He wasn’t using cuneiform to write Akkadian words. No, a scribe with a Hurrian name like M$H/“Moses”used cuneiform, at the oral direction of the first Hebrew, to write down thePatriarchal narratives at the end of the Amarna Age, using cuneiform to writewest Semitic words on 50 tablets. Those 50tablets, written on both sides in cuneiform using west Semitic words (notAkkadian words!) and weighing only about 15 pounds or so in total, were thencarried around for centuries by the early Hebrews in an ark or chest. Rather than being “farfetched”, that’s theonly way to account for the pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchalnarratives in the context of Years 12-14 of the Amarna Age. The Qeiyafa Ostracon was so rudimentary as toits use of the alphabet that it could not possibly have been used to carry outthat task in the Late Bronze Age, which task rather was easily and effortlesslydone by using cuneiform to write west Semitic words. There’s nothing “farfetched” about it. The substantive content of the Patriarchalnarratives demands a written composition by a contemporary in the Amarna Age. In that time period, for anyone south of Ugarit/northwest Syria, using cuneiform to write west Semitic words, not alphabeticwriting, was the only way to go.

          Jim Stinehart





























          .







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • George F Somsel
          Jim Stinhart wrote:  Why would it be “rather farfetched” for Moses to operateusing cuneiform to write west Semitic words?   Because you cannot produce
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 24, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim Stinhart wrote:  "Why would it be “rather farfetched” for Moses to operateusing cuneiform to write west Semitic words?"
             
            Because you cannot produce a single shred of evidence for such an … (I hesitate to give it even so much value) … hypothesis.  English could be written in fraktur as well, but that doesn't indicate that it ever was.  Well, that wasn't a most felicitous example.  It might be possible to write English using a certain convention in some Chinese script, but I don't know that this has ever been attempted nor can I understand why one would attempt it.

            george

            gfsomsel

             search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
             love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
             defend the truth till death.

            - Jan Hus
            _________



            >________________________________
            > From: "jimstinehart@..." <jimstinehart@...>
            >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
            >Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 4:07 PM
            >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...
            >
            >

            >
            >
            >George Somsel:
            >
            >1. You wrote: “You seem to be unaware that Ugaritic waswritten from left to right and that there are texts that are boustrophedron,i.e., one line left to right with the following right to left (and then left toright again.”
            >
            >How could I be “unaware” of that, when Rollston’s fine articlediscusses that issue in detail?
            >
            >The Hebrews were never in northwest Syria at Ugarit, andnever used the Ugaritic alphabet. Thefact that “Ugaritic was written from left to right” has no relevance to the keyissue here: no precursor of the Hebrewalphabet, in particular the Phoenician alphabet, was capable of writing downany significant part of the Torah prior to 1200 BCE. Meanwhile, we know from the Amarna Letters thatcuneiform worked wonderfully in the Late Bronze Age to write down west Semiticwords, most of which have a direct equivalent in classic Biblical Hebrew wordsfrom 7th century BCE Jerusalem.
            >
            >2. You wrote: “I'm not constrained to argue that theyQeiyafa Ostracon represents Hebrew. Rollston does not disagree that it is NWSemitic in nature—only that it may not be Hebrew. So what?”
            >
            >Rollston points out in detail that the Qeiyafa Ostracon isindecipherable, and that it’s pathetically rudimentary. The person who did the Qeiyafa Ostracon couldnot possibly have written down any portion of the Torah, which is very complex. By sharp contrast, it would have been easyfor IR-Heba’s former scribe, who had lived in Jerusalem, to write down thePatriarchal narratives as dictated by the first Hebrew, using cuneiform to recordthe west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words that the first Hebrew spoke. We know that cuneiform would have workedperfectly to write down west Semitic words, because we have dozens of westSemitic words recorded in the Amarna Letters as proof.
            >
            >3. You wrote: “Akkadian cunieform? Hardly. That is ratherfarfetched.”
            >
            >Why would it be “rather farfetched” for Moses to operateusing cuneiform to write west Semitic words? He wasn’t using cuneiform to write Akkadian words. No, a scribe with a Hurrian name like M$H/“Moses”used cuneiform, at the oral direction of the first Hebrew, to write down thePatriarchal narratives at the end of the Amarna Age, using cuneiform to writewest Semitic words on 50 tablets. Those 50tablets, written on both sides in cuneiform using west Semitic words (notAkkadian words!) and weighing only about 15 pounds or so in total, were thencarried around for centuries by the early Hebrews in an ark or chest. Rather than being “farfetched”, that’s theonly way to account for the pinpoint historical accuracy of the Patriarchalnarratives in the context of Years 12-14 of the Amarna Age. The Qeiyafa Ostracon was so rudimentary as toits use of the alphabet that it could not possibly have been used to carry outthat task in the Late Bronze
            Age, which task rather was easily and effortlesslydone by using cuneiform to write west Semitic words. There’s nothing “farfetched” about it. The substantive content of the Patriarchalnarratives demands a written composition by a contemporary in the Amarna Age. In that time period, for anyone south of Ugarit/northwest Syria, using cuneiform to write west Semitic words, not alphabeticwriting, was the only way to go.
            >
            >Jim Stinehart
            >
            >.
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • jimstinehart@aol.com
            George Somsel: You wrote: “[Y]oucannot produce a single shred of evidence for such an … (I hesitate to give iteven so much value) … hypothesis [that
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 24, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              George Somsel:

              You wrote: “[Y]oucannot produce a single shred of evidence for such an … (I hesitate to give iteven so much value) … hypothesis [that someone like Moses used cuneiform towrite down west Semitic words to record the Patriarchal narratives].”

              A. As I demonstratedin a prior post, we know that, based on the substantive content of thePatriarchal narratives, someone recorded the Patriarchal narratives in writingshortly after Akhenaten’s death. For example, Jacobis said to be, as Akhenaten historically was, an early semi-monotheist who wasthe leader of his people in Egypt for 17 shanahor years. Genesis 47: 28. Jacob is portrayed as being age 13 tenfold shanah [Genesis 47: 9] shortly beforeJoseph does what Akhenaten’s vizier historically did in Year 13: confiscate for pharaoh the valuable landalong the Nile River at firesale prices. 13 tenfold years after Abraham’s birth the strongman ruler of Shechem isportrayed in chapter 34 of Genesis as being assassinated under very unusualcircumstances, just as historically happened in Year 13. Mamre the Amorite, who is historical Milk-i-Ilu,is portrayed in chapter 14 of Genesis as taking his last actions in the valleyin Year 14 (that is, “in the fourteenth year” at Genesis 14: 5, right afterGenesis 14: 4 explicitly refers to “Year 13”), just as Milk-i-Ilu historicallydid, per the Amarna Letters. Akhenatenrudely broke with his father-in-law from Naharim in or about Year 12, 7thmonth, and Jacob is portrayed at Genesis 31: 30-34 as doing the same thing 12.7tenfold years after Abraham’s birth, with the last straw in both cases beingcertain family statues that were never turned over to the irate father-in-lawwho had forced the early semi-monotheist to marry one of his daughters againsthis will. Not only are all those storiesutterly redolent of what historically happened in Years 12-14 [and in no otherhistorical time period], but also note that in each case the e-x-a-c-t Year is indicated (one way or the other) in the received text of Genesis. Is that ultra-spectacular or what? Yes! That’s why we know that the Patriarchal narratives had to have beenrecorded in writing shortly after Akhenaten’s death, by a contemporary who knewexactly what he was talking about.

              B. The question thenbecomes: what writing method would havebeen used to write down the Patriarchal narratives at the end of the Amarna Agein the mid-14th century BCE?

              The Ugaritic alphabet, which you oddly mentioned twice, isof no help here, because the Hebrews were never in northwest Syria, and no oneoutside of Ugarit ever used the Ugaritic alphabet. The Hebrew alphabet is of no help, becausethe Qeiyafa Ostracon shows how rudimentary the Hebrew alphabet was in 1000 BCE,and that’s 350 years after Amarna. Tothe best of my knowledge, no mainstream scholar has ever claimed that prior to1200 BCE any significant part of the Torah could have been written down insouthern Canaan using an alphabet. Withthe Ugaritic alphabet being unavailable to the Hebrews, there was no otheralphabet in existence at that early date that could handle a complexcomposition like the Patriarchal narratives.

              C. The only optionleft, then, is that cuneiform was used to write down west Semitic words. We know for a fact that such was easy to do,and worked perfectly, based on dozens of west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words beingrecorded in the Amarna Letters in cuneiform, with most of such words beingeasily matched to Biblical Hebrew words that occur in II Samuel.

              As further proof of that proposition, here are 7 westSemitic words written by the scribe of IR-Heba, the Hurrian princeling ruler ofJerusalem, in Amarna Letters dating to Years 12-14:

              (1) ma-ax-si-ra-mu. “Look, theland of Gezer, the land of Ashkelon and Lachish gave them food, oil, andwhatever they need/ma-ax-si-ra-mu.” Amarna Letter EA 287: 14-16. “whatever they need” = Deuteronomy 15: 8: MXSRW.

              (2) zu-ru-ux. “Look, this land ofJerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me. The strong arm/zu-ru-ux of the king gave it to me.” Amarna Letter EA 287: 25-28; also EA 288: 34. “arm” = ZR‘Y at Genesis 49: 24. See also II Samuel 1: 10; 22: 35.

              (3) ca-du-uq. “Look! My king, my lord! I have a just/ca-du-uq case.” AmarnaLetter EA 287: 32. “just” = Genesis 38: 26: CDQH. Seealso II Samuel 15: 4.

              (4) la-qa-xu. “They took/la-qa-xu their tools….” Amarna Letter EA 287: 36. “…but they have been taken/la-qa-xu ….” Amarna Letter EA 287: 53-57. “they took” = Deuteronomy 31: 26: LQX. [Inthe Bible, the lamed/L normally drops out.] See also II Samuel 9: 5 and many other places in II Samuel, thoughusually without the L being expressed.

              (5) ga-ag-gi-mi. “…and I had totake shelter by a support from the roof/ga-ag-gi-mi.” “roof” = Deuteronomy 22: 8: GG [as the root]. See also II Samuel 11:2; 16: 22; 18: 24.

              (6) $a-de-e. “…in thecountryside/$a-de-e of Yalona.” Amarna Letter EA 287: 53-57. “field” = Genesis 23: 11: $DH. See also II Samuel 1: 21 and many other places in II Samuel.

              (7) a-ba-da-at. “…all the landof the king, my lord, will be lost/a-ba-da-at.” Amarna Letter EA 288: 52-53. “lose” = Exodus 10: 7: ’BDH. Seealso II Samuel 1: 27.

              Whereas there was no usable alphabet in southern Canaan in the mid-14thcentury BCE, we see from the above 7 west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words in theAmarna Letters from Jerusalem how easy it was in that time period to write downwest Semitic/pre-Hebrew words in cuneiform. A scribe in 7th century BCE Jerusalem who communicated incuneiform with Assyria and Babylonia would have no trouble reading such west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords written in cuneiform, because most such words have a direct equivalent inthe Hebrew of 7th century BCE Jerusalem, such as II Samuel.

              That is far, far more than “a single shred of evidence forsuch an … (I hesitate to give it even so much value) … hypothesis [that someonelike Moses used cuneiform to write down west Semitic words to record thePatriarchal narratives].” Of course, weno longer have the original 50 tablets on which the Patriarchal narratives wererecorded in cuneiform using west Semitic words. Those 50 tablets were destroyed by the Babylonians when they destroyedthe temple in Jerusalem in the early 6th century BCE. But no matter; we do have the Hebrew alphabetical receivedtext, which for the most part is an incredibly accurate reproduction of thoseoriginal 50 tablets, though in alphabetical Hebrew, rather than being cuneiformwriting of west Semitic words.

              The Patriarchal narratives are much older, and much more historicallyaccurate, than university scholars realize.

              Jim Stinehart










              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • George F Somsel
              Jim Stinehart wrote:  A. As I demonstratedin a prior post, we know that, based on the substantive content of thePatriarchal narratives, someone recorded the
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 24, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim Stinehart wrote:  "A. As I demonstratedin a prior post, we know that, based on the substantive content of thePatriarchal narratives, someone recorded the Patriarchal narratives in writingshortly after Akhenaten’s death. "
                 
                You demonstrated no such thing.  You asserted as much (no demonstration involved).  Who wrote down the events of the Trojan War, and when?  (No, don't say "Homer").  Who wrote the story of the fox and the grapes?  Was it immediately after the fox decided that they probably weren't very appetizing?
                 
                Jim Stinehart wrote:  "The Ugaritic alphabet, which you oddly mentioned twice, isof no help here, because the Hebrews were never in northwest Syria, and no oneoutside of Ugarit ever used the Ugaritic alphabet."
                 
                The Hebrews were never in Akkad either prior to their deportation on two occasions (much later).  To whom were the Ugaritans writing?  For their posterity alone?  Or did those Documents in Hittite and Akkadian actually go to someone who used those languages? 
                 

                george

                gfsomsel

                 search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
                 love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                 defend the truth till death.

                - Jan Hus
                _________



                >________________________________
                > From: "jimstinehart@..." <jimstinehart@...>
                >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                >Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 6:47 PM
                >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...
                >
                >

                >
                >
                >George Somsel:
                >
                >You wrote: “[Y]oucannot produce a single shred of evidence for such an … (I hesitate to give iteven so much value) … hypothesis [that someone like Moses used cuneiform towrite down west Semitic words to record the Patriarchal narratives].”
                >
                >A. As I demonstratedin a prior post, we know that, based on the substantive content of thePatriarchal narratives, someone recorded the Patriarchal narratives in writingshortly after Akhenaten’s death. For example, Jacobis said to be, as Akhenaten historically was, an early semi-monotheist who wasthe leader of his people in Egypt for 17 shanahor years. Genesis 47: 28. Jacob is portrayed as being age 13 tenfold shanah [Genesis 47: 9] shortly beforeJoseph does what Akhenaten’s vizier historically did in Year 13: confiscate for pharaoh the valuable landalong the Nile River at firesale prices. 13 tenfold years after Abraham’s birth the strongman ruler of Shechem isportrayed in chapter 34 of Genesis as being assassinated under very unusualcircumstances, just as historically happened in Year 13. Mamre the Amorite, who is historical Milk-i-Ilu,is portrayed in chapter 14 of Genesis as taking his last actions in the valleyin Year 14 (that is, “in
                the fourteenth year” at Genesis 14: 5, right afterGenesis 14: 4 explicitly refers to “Year 13”), just as Milk-i-Ilu historicallydid, per the Amarna Letters. Akhenatenrudely broke with his father-in-law from Naharim in or about Year 12, 7thmonth, and Jacob is portrayed at Genesis 31: 30-34 as doing the same thing 12.7tenfold years after Abraham’s birth, with the last straw in both cases beingcertain family statues that were never turned over to the irate father-in-lawwho had forced the early semi-monotheist to marry one of his daughters againsthis will. Not only are all those storiesutterly redolent of what historically happened in Years 12-14 [and in no otherhistorical time period], but also note that in each case the e-x-a-c-t Year is indicated (one way or the other) in the received text of Genesis. Is that ultra-spectacular or what? Yes! That’s why we know that the Patriarchal narratives had to have beenrecorded in writing shortly after
                Akhenaten’s death, by a contemporary who knewexactly what he was talking about.
                >
                >B. The question thenbecomes: what writing method would havebeen used to write down the Patriarchal narratives at the end of the Amarna Agein the mid-14th century BCE?
                >
                >The Ugaritic alphabet, which you oddly mentioned twice, isof no help here, because the Hebrews were never in northwest Syria, and no oneoutside of Ugarit ever used the Ugaritic alphabet. The Hebrew alphabet is of no help, becausethe Qeiyafa Ostracon shows how rudimentary the Hebrew alphabet was in 1000 BCE,and that’s 350 years after Amarna. Tothe best of my knowledge, no mainstream scholar has ever claimed that prior to1200 BCE any significant part of the Torah could have been written down insouthern Canaan using an alphabet. Withthe Ugaritic alphabet being unavailable to the Hebrews, there was no otheralphabet in existence at that early date that could handle a complexcomposition like the Patriarchal narratives.
                >
                >C. The only optionleft, then, is that cuneiform was used to write down west Semitic words. We know for a fact that such was easy to do,and worked perfectly, based on dozens of west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words beingrecorded in the Amarna Letters in cuneiform, with most of such words beingeasily matched to Biblical Hebrew words that occur in II Samuel.
                >
                >As further proof of that proposition, here are 7 westSemitic words written by the scribe of IR-Heba, the Hurrian princeling ruler ofJerusalem, in Amarna Letters dating to Years 12-14:
                >
                >(1) ma-ax-si-ra-mu. “Look, theland of Gezer, the land of Ashkelon and Lachish gave them food, oil, andwhatever they need/ma-ax-si-ra-mu.” Amarna Letter EA 287: 14-16. “whatever they need” = Deuteronomy 15: 8: MXSRW.
                >
                >(2) zu-ru-ux. “Look, this land ofJerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me. The strong arm/zu-ru-ux of the king gave it to me.” Amarna Letter EA 287: 25-28; also EA 288: 34. “arm” = ZR‘Y at Genesis 49: 24. See also II Samuel 1: 10; 22: 35.
                >
                >(3) ca-du-uq. “Look! My king, my lord! I have a just/ca-du-uq case.” AmarnaLetter EA 287: 32. “just” = Genesis 38: 26: CDQH. Seealso II Samuel 15: 4.
                >
                >(4) la-qa-xu. “They took/la-qa-xu their tools….” Amarna Letter EA 287: 36. “…but they have been taken/la-qa-xu ….” Amarna Letter EA 287: 53-57. “they took” = Deuteronomy 31: 26: LQX. [Inthe Bible, the lamed/L normally drops out.] See also II Samuel 9: 5 and many other places in II Samuel, thoughusually without the L being expressed.
                >
                >(5) ga-ag-gi-mi. “…and I had totake shelter by a support from the roof/ga-ag-gi-mi.” “roof” = Deuteronomy 22: 8: GG [as the root]. See also II Samuel 11:2; 16: 22; 18: 24.
                >
                >(6) $a-de-e. “…in thecountryside/$a-de-e of Yalona.” Amarna Letter EA 287: 53-57. “field” = Genesis 23: 11: $DH. See also II Samuel 1: 21 and many other places in II Samuel.
                >
                >(7) a-ba-da-at. “…all the landof the king, my lord, will be lost/a-ba-da-at.” Amarna Letter EA 288: 52-53. “lose” = Exodus 10: 7: ’BDH. Seealso II Samuel 1: 27.
                >
                >Whereas there was no usable alphabet in southern Canaan in the mid-14thcentury BCE, we see from the above 7 west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words in theAmarna Letters from Jerusalem how easy it was in that time period to write downwest Semitic/pre-Hebrew words in cuneiform. A scribe in 7th century BCE Jerusalem who communicated incuneiform with Assyria and Babylonia would have no trouble reading such west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords written in cuneiform, because most such words have a direct equivalent inthe Hebrew of 7th century BCE Jerusalem, such as II Samuel.
                >
                >That is far, far more than “a single shred of evidence forsuch an … (I hesitate to give it even so much value) … hypothesis [that someonelike Moses used cuneiform to write down west Semitic words to record thePatriarchal narratives].” Of course, weno longer have the original 50 tablets on which the Patriarchal narratives wererecorded in cuneiform using west Semitic words. Those 50 tablets were destroyed by the Babylonians when they destroyedthe temple in Jerusalem in the early 6th century BCE. But no matter; we do have the Hebrew alphabetical receivedtext, which for the most part is an incredibly accurate reproduction of thoseoriginal 50 tablets, though in alphabetical Hebrew, rather than being cuneiformwriting of west Semitic words.
                >
                >The Patriarchal narratives are much older, and much more historicallyaccurate, than university scholars realize.
                >
                >Jim Stinehart
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • jimstinehart@aol.com
                George Somsel: 1. To my assertionthat “As I demonstrated in a prior post, we know that, based on the substantivecontent of the Patriarchal narratives,
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 24, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  George Somsel:

                  1. To my assertionthat “As I demonstrated in a prior post, we know that, based on the substantivecontent of the Patriarchal narratives, someone recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing shortly after Akhenaten’s death", you responded: “You demonstrated no such thing. You assertedas much (no demonstration involved). Who wrote down the events of the TrojanWar, and when? (No, don't say "Homer"). Who wrote the story of thefox and the grapes? Was it immediately after the fox decided that they probablyweren't very appetizing?”

                  I have listed a half dozen specific events in thePatriarchal narratives where an exact Year number is indicated. In each case, we can verify both the specificevent and the exact Year number by reference to a non-biblical source: the Amarna Letters. Someone who knew the same detailed informationas is in those Amarna Letters from Years 12-14 recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing, shortly after these historical events transpired.

                  2. You wrote: “The Hebrews were never in Akkad either priorto their deportation on two occasions (much later).”

                  The Hebrews never wrote in Akkadian. Cuneiform will work for any language. We know from Amarna Letters written in southern Canaan that inparticular, cuneiform works well for recording either Akkadian words or westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words. The Hebrews hireda scribe, who likely was IR-Heba’s former scribe, to write down the Patriarchalnarratives shortly after Akhenaten’s death, using cuneiform to write westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words, most of which, as I have shown, match to classic Hebrew words in II Samuel.

                  3. You wrote: “To whom were the Ugaritans writing? Fortheir posterity alone? Or did those Documents in Hittite and Akkadian actuallygo to someone who used those languages?”

                  The people of Ugarit never wrote to the Hebrews, who livedin tents in south-central Canaan at that time.

                  But we know for a fact that tent-dwellers in the same valleywhere the Hebrews preferred to sojourn, in the same year, namely Year 14, diduse writing. See Amarna Letter EA 273:

                  “May the king [pharaohAkhenaten], my lord, take cognizance of his land, and may the king, my lord,know that the Apiru wrote to Ayyaluna and to Sarxa [Zorah], and the two sons ofMilkilu barely escaped being killed.”


                  4. The Patriarchal narratives are much older,and much more historically accurate, than university scholars realize. That’s thanks to cuneiform being used on 50tablets to write down the Patriarchal narratives using west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords, at the end of the Amarna Age. Theearly Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was a contemporary who knewexactly what happened in Year 12, in Year 13, and in Year 14. A few years later he hired IR-Heba’s formerscribe to write it all down, in cuneiform using west Semitic words, on 50tablets that were still intact in the days of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah, in 7thcentury BCE Jerusalem. That’s the onlyway that the received alphabetic Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives canhave the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy that it does have as tothe birth of Judaism in Year 14.



                  Jim Stinehart











                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • George F Somsel
                  Jim Stinehart wrote:  1. To my assertionthat “As I demonstrated in a prior post, we know that, based on the substantivecontent of the Patriarchal
                  Message 8 of 16 , Dec 24, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jim Stinehart wrote:  "1. To my assertionthat “As I demonstrated in a prior post, we know that, based on the substantivecontent of the Patriarchal narratives, someone recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing shortly after Akhenaten’s death", you responded: “You demonstrated no such thing. You assertedas much (no demonstration involved)."
                     
                    No, we don't know that anyone recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten's death.  What would make you assume such.  You seem to assume many things. 
                     
                    I wish you would refrain from saying that you demonstrated something and that something occurred in a particular fashion when we know no such thing,  What we know is that someone wrote a narrative THAT something occurred.  Whether it actually occurred when depicted or when it was recorded are things we do not know positively.  We can conclude from indications in the narrative that they DID NOT become recorded when depicted. 

                    george

                    gfsomsel

                     search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
                     love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                     defend the truth till death.

                    - Jan Hus
                    _________



                    >________________________________
                    > From: "jimstinehart@..." <jimstinehart@...>
                    >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                    >Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 8:13 PM
                    >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...
                    >
                    >

                    >
                    >
                    >George Somsel:
                    >
                    >1. To my assertionthat “As I demonstrated in a prior post, we know that, based on the substantivecontent of the Patriarchal narratives, someone recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing shortly after Akhenaten’s death", you responded: “You demonstrated no such thing. You assertedas much (no demonstration involved). Who wrote down the events of the TrojanWar, and when? (No, don't say "Homer"). Who wrote the story of thefox and the grapes? Was it immediately after the fox decided that they probablyweren't very appetizing?”
                    >
                    >I have listed a half dozen specific events in thePatriarchal narratives where an exact Year number is indicated. In each case, we can verify both the specificevent and the exact Year number by reference to a non-biblical source: the Amarna Letters. Someone who knew the same detailed informationas is in those Amarna Letters from Years 12-14 recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing, shortly after these historical events transpired.
                    >
                    >2. You wrote: “The Hebrews were never in Akkad either priorto their deportation on two occasions (much later).”
                    >
                    >The Hebrews never wrote in Akkadian. Cuneiform will work for any language. We know from Amarna Letters written in southern Canaan that inparticular, cuneiform works well for recording either Akkadian words or westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words. The Hebrews hireda scribe, who likely was IR-Heba’s former scribe, to write down the Patriarchalnarratives shortly after Akhenaten’s death, using cuneiform to write westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words, most of which, as I have shown, match to classic Hebrew words in II Samuel.
                    >
                    >3. You wrote: “To whom were the Ugaritans writing? Fortheir posterity alone? Or did those Documents in Hittite and Akkadian actuallygo to someone who used those languages?”
                    >
                    >The people of Ugarit never wrote to the Hebrews, who livedin tents in south-central Canaan at that time.
                    >
                    >But we know for a fact that tent-dwellers in the same valleywhere the Hebrews preferred to sojourn, in the same year, namely Year 14, diduse writing. See Amarna Letter EA 273:
                    >
                    >“May the king [pharaohAkhenaten], my lord, take cognizance of his land, and may the king, my lord,know that the Apiru wrote to Ayyaluna and to Sarxa [Zorah], and the two sons ofMilkilu barely escaped being killed.”
                    >
                    >
                    >4. The Patriarchal narratives are much older,and much more historically accurate, than university scholars realize. That’s thanks to cuneiform being used on 50tablets to write down the Patriarchal narratives using west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords, at the end of the Amarna Age. Theearly Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was a contemporary who knewexactly what happened in Year 12, in Year 13, and in Year 14. A few years later he hired IR-Heba’s formerscribe to write it all down, in cuneiform using west Semitic words, on 50tablets that were still intact in the days of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah, in 7thcentury BCE Jerusalem. That’s the onlyway that the received alphabetic Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives canhave the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy that it does have as tothe birth of Judaism in Year 14.
                    >
                    >
                    >Jim Stinehart
                    >
                    >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • jimstinehart@aol.com
                    George Somsel: You wrote: “[W]edon t know that anyone recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY afterAkhenaten s death. What would make you assume such.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Dec 25, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      George Somsel:

                      You wrote: “[W]edon't know that anyone recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY afterAkhenaten's death. What would make you assume such. You seem to assume manythings.”

                      The Patriarchal narratives contain 37 numbers that are aperson’s age or a length of time. If allsuch 37 numbers are redolent of the Amarna Age, then we can be assured thatsomeone indeed “recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten'sdeath.”

                      In this short post, let’s look at the most obvious suchnumber, which appears at Genesis 47: 28:

                      “And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen shanah….”

                      The non-archaic meaning of shanah is a 12-month year. On that level of meaning, Jacob/“Israel” is portrayed in Genesis as beinga semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for 17 years. Outside of the Bible, only one person in5,000 years of history was a semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egyptfor 17 years: pharaoh Akhenaten (whosefinal regnal year was his Year 17). Thusthe number 17 at Genesis 47: 28 is utterly redolent of the Amarna Age, whichlasted 17 years: each of Jacob andAkhenaten was a semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for 17 years.

                      But what about the other 36 numbers in the received text ofthe Patriarchal narratives? Are theylikewise redolent of the Amarna Age? Ifso, then as we can explore, we can be quite sure that someone indeed “recordedthe patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten's death.”

                      Jim Stinehart











                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • HUMAP@aol.com
                      Hello again. I did not realize that my screen name identified me when I made my last post. I am Mark Anthony Phelps. Hiding behind a screen name smacks of
                      Message 10 of 16 , Dec 25, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello again. I did not realize that my screen name identified me when I made my last post. I am Mark Anthony Phelps. Hiding behind a screen name smacks of disingenuousness. I didn't intend to smack in such fashion.


                        I assume if you are arguing for a historical Moses writing the Pentateuch (which I have no interest in debating either way). then I assume that you are arguing for the Moses narratives to be literal, that he was raised in the court of an Egyptian pharaoh. Now that I have spent a second five minutes considering your theory, I must admit I am completely perplexed as to why one would ever assume that a member of the Egyptian royal family would write about events among any ethnic group in Akkadian, even if it were the diplomatic lingua franca. Why cuneiform rather than hieroglyphics, which one would assume to be the first language of the court (regardless of his ethnicity which the narrative states he knew about)? I am sorry, it is just bizarre. It does raise the question of why it would have been done in an alphabet, as opposed to Egyptian, if Moses were indeed raised in the royal court.


                        Secondly, to put forth such an ambitious theory, you would need to have a large number (corresponding at some rate to those attributed to Hebrew-Hebrew textual transmission problems) of occurrences in textual transmission in which translation from Akkadian copies to Hebrew copies (orally or written) would be evident. Further, orthographic confusion among Akkadian signs or auditory confusion could be posited for early steps in the transmission process. I have not taken time to reflect upon what sorts of conceptual issues arise when going from syllabic to alphabetic documents, but there must be several (e.g., mistaking a logogram for a syllabic value). You have a few haphazard bits of circumstantial evidence which are not remotely close to coherent (I am thinking of your assertions about time and labeling EA personages as biblical ones: virtually nothing in your list can withstand scrutiny, and I just do not want to take the time to dismember each one), let alone convincing. Sorry, it is a question that held my attention for a few minutes, and I would have loved to have seen some fruit. Alas, there is no hope for this tree.


                        Back to Shapan reading to Josiah. What are you suggesting that the context of Jeremiah dictating to Baruch who then in turn reads the scroll to Jehoiakim who then destroys the text (Jer 36)? Is Baruch the lone literate one of this triad? Was he writing in a language the other two did not know? Again, there are reasons why things are read to others that have nothing to do with being illiterate in Akkadian. Tie your creativity to hard evidence, and your work will be profitable for all of us. I am sorry to be a buzzkiller.


                        Mark






                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: jimstinehart <jimstinehart@...>
                        To: biblicalist <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 3:15 am
                        Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...






                        George Somsel:

                        1. To my assertionthat “As I demonstrated in a prior post, we know that, based on the substantivecontent of the Patriarchal narratives, someone recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing shortly after Akhenaten’s death", you responded: “You demonstrated no such thing. You assertedas much (no demonstration involved). Who wrote down the events of the TrojanWar, and when? (No, don't say "Homer"). Who wrote the story of thefox and the grapes? Was it immediately after the fox decided that they probablyweren't very appetizing?”

                        I have listed a half dozen specific events in thePatriarchal narratives where an exact Year number is indicated. In each case, we can verify both the specificevent and the exact Year number by reference to a non-biblical source: the Amarna Letters. Someone who knew the same detailed informationas is in those Amarna Letters from Years 12-14 recorded the Patriarchalnarratives in writing, shortly after these historical events transpired.

                        2. You wrote: “The Hebrews were never in Akkad either priorto their deportation on two occasions (much later).”

                        The Hebrews never wrote in Akkadian. Cuneiform will work for any language. We know from Amarna Letters written in southern Canaan that inparticular, cuneiform works well for recording either Akkadian words or westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words. The Hebrews hireda scribe, who likely was IR-Heba’s former scribe, to write down the Patriarchalnarratives shortly after Akhenaten’s death, using cuneiform to write westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words, most of which, as I have shown, match to classic Hebrew words in II Samuel.

                        3. You wrote: “To whom were the Ugaritans writing? Fortheir posterity alone? Or did those Documents in Hittite and Akkadian actuallygo to someone who used those languages?”

                        The people of Ugarit never wrote to the Hebrews, who livedin tents in south-central Canaan at that time.

                        But we know for a fact that tent-dwellers in the same valleywhere the Hebrews preferred to sojourn, in the same year, namely Year 14, diduse writing. See Amarna Letter EA 273:

                        “May the king [pharaohAkhenaten], my lord, take cognizance of his land, and may the king, my lord,know that the Apiru wrote to Ayyaluna and to Sarxa [Zorah], and the two sons ofMilkilu barely escaped being killed.”


                        4. The Patriarchal narratives are much older,and much more historically accurate, than university scholars realize. That’s thanks to cuneiform being used on 50tablets to write down the Patriarchal narratives using west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords, at the end of the Amarna Age. Theearly Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was a contemporary who knewexactly what happened in Year 12, in Year 13, and in Year 14. A few years later he hired IR-Heba’s formerscribe to write it all down, in cuneiform using west Semitic words, on 50tablets that were still intact in the days of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah, in 7thcentury BCE Jerusalem. That’s the onlyway that the received alphabetic Hebrew text of the Patriarchal narratives canhave the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy that it does have as tothe birth of Judaism in Year 14.


                        Jim Stinehart

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • jimstinehart@aol.com
                        Mark Anthony Phelps: You wrote: “I assumethat you are arguing for the Moses narratives to be literal, that he was raisedin the court of an Egyptian pharaoh.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Dec 25, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mark Anthony Phelps:

                          You wrote: “I assumethat you are arguing for the Moses narratives to be literal, that he was raisedin the court of an Egyptian pharaoh. Now that I have spent a second five minutesconsidering your theory, I must admit I am completely perplexed as to why onewould ever assume that a member of the Egyptian royal family would write aboutevents among any ethnic group in Akkadian, even if it were the diplomaticlingua franca. Why cuneiform rather than hieroglyphics, which one would assumeto be the first language of the court (regardless of his ethnicity which thenarrative states he knew about)?”

                          1. No Hebrew, whetherMoses or anyone else, wrote in Akkadian. But early Hebrews in the Late Bronze Age wrote west Semitic words incuneiform, rather than in alphabetical Hebrew, because alphabetical Hebrew didn’texist yet.

                          2. I for one do notassume that Moses was “a member of the Egyptian royal family”. The name M$H doesn’t make good sense inEgyptian. The Egyptian common word msi, which is often asserted to be the Egyptian root of the nameM$H, has an s like sin or samekh, not sh like shin. Likewise, R‘MSS [“Ramses”],at Exodus 1: 11 as a personal name and at Exodus 12: 37 as a geographical placename, is spelled with a samekh. So if,as routinely alleged, M$H is an Egyptian name based on the Egyptian word msi and, many would insist, merely ashortened form of R‘MSS, then the sibilant should be samekh. But it isn’t. It’s shin. The Hebrew pun on the name “Moses” at Exodus2: 10 is on the Hebrew common word M$H with a shin, not a samekh or sin.

                          Where a final -H is usually a Semiticization of a foreign name,for the name M$H [“Moses”] we need a non-west Semitic root M$, to which -H canthen be added. mu$ in Hurrian means “exalted, sublime, just”. Many Hurrian proper names begin with Mu$, such as: Mu$-te$up; Mu$-teya; Mu$-$enni; Mu$-apu; Mu$-tilla; Mu$u$-$e, etc. mu$is a wonderfully positive word in Hurrian, that is usually used in conjunctionwith praising the divine attributes of a deity.

                          M$ -H [“Moses”] is a Semiticized version of the Hurrian commonword mu$. As a proper name, it means “Exalted, Sublime,Just”. The Semiticized -H ending meansthat the person, although of Hurrian ancestry, is committed to living inCanaan.

                          3. And now consider thatMoses’s wife also has a Hurrian name. CPR-H, as the name of Moses’s wife, indicates that Zipporah was a Hurrian (a LateBronze Age people in northern Mesopotamia/Mitanni), who may have been associatedwith the Kassites (a Late Bronze Age people who originated near the Zab Riverin the Zagros Mountains and ruled southern Mesopotamia).

                          The Kassites are from the Zagros Mountains, and the Zab Riveroriginates in the Zagros Mountains. Zab- is a Hurrian root meaning “steal”,and there’s a Hurrian common word: za-ab-ri¸ also spelled sa-ap-ri, meaning “angry”, perhaps inthe sense of “tempestuous”.

                          The name of Moses’s wife is CPR-H: ssade-peh-resh-he. The final -H in her name, as in the name M$-H[“Moses”], may be a Semiticization, meaning that Zipporah was committed tostaying with the Hebrews in or near Canaan, rather than planning to return toMesopotamia to resume her old Hurrian ways, per Exodus 18: 2. Ssade/C, which may have been an emphatic sinin the Late Bronze Age, is usually Z or S in Hurrian, and here either suchHurrian letter is used in the Hurrian common word za-ab-ri¸ also spelled sa-ap-ri. Peh/P is either P or B in Hurrian, andhere either such letter is used. So theHurrian common word sa-ap-ri is afine linguistic match to CPR -H, the name of Moses’s wife Zipporah.

                          As to za-ab-ri/sa-ap-rimeaning “angry” or “tempestuous” as a Hurrian common word, Zipporah definitelyseems “tempestuous”, and even “angry”, in the ambiguous incident related atExodus 4: 25 (which is one of only three Bible verses that mention her name,and the only Bible verse using her name in which Zipporah is active): “Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut offthe foreskin of her son, and cast [it] at his feet, and said, Surely a bloodyhusband [art] thou to me.” By contrast,Zipporah definitely does not act like “a little bird”, so the conventional westSemitic etymology of her name, based on CPWR in Hebrew meaning “a little bird”,is suspect. Moreover, if Zipporah iscalled a “Kassite” at Numbers 12: 1 [being the interpretation that I myselffavor for that ambiguous passage], and if her homeland is the Hurrian state ofMDYN/Mitanni (discussed below), then Zipporah could not have a west Semiticname. In fact, Zipporah well lives up toboth aspects of her Hurrian name CPR -H/za-ab-ri/sa-ap-ri: she’sboth (i) “angry” and “tempestuous”, per Exodus 4: 25 and the meaning of theHurrian common word za-ab-ri/sa-ap-ri; and (ii) her name za-ab-ri recalls the Zab River as the original homeland of theKassites.

                          The word sa-ap-ri usedas a woman’s name is redolent both of (i) the Hurrians, and (ii) the Kassites. As to the Hurrians, note the reference atExodus 2: 15 to MDYN as being Zipporah’s homeland. The root of the country name “Mitanni” is theHurrian verb mid-, so this name ofthe only Hurrian great power state could be rendered as: mi-da-a-ni. That would come into Hebrew as MDYN,where Hebrew yod/Y is consistently used to render the Hurrian true vowel A asits own separate segment in Hurrian proper names. As to the Kassites, see K$-YT at Numbers 12: 1(where the root is K$, which compares to the K$ root in K$-D-YM, meaning "Kassite country people", at Genesis 11: 28, 31;15: 7). Finally, as noted above sa-ap-ri or za-ab-ri is redolent of the Zab river which originates in theZagros Mountains as the original homeland of the Kassites. Mitanni and the Kassites and Hurrian-basednames are all redolent of the Late Bronze Age historical time period; in particular, Mitanni and Kassites make nosense in any other time period.

                          4. The Moses tradition is aHebrew remembrance of Hurrians who helped the early Hebrews by using theirknowledge of cuneiform to write west Semitic words. Hebrew sacred scripture was never written inAkkadian, but at least the Patriarchal narratives for 700 years were written incuneiform, using west Semitic words. Thescribe whom the first Hebrews hired likely was an ethnic Hurrian with a Hurrianname like M$-H [“Moses”], who probably had a Hurrian wife with a Hurrian namelike CPR-H [“Zipporah”].

                          Jim Stinehart




                          _._,_.___
























                          .







                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • George F Somsel
                          Jim,   You resort to the ridiculous.  This conversation is finished.  Moreover, I will NEVER respond to another of you posts until you remove the ingrown
                          Message 12 of 16 , Dec 26, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jim,
                             
                            You resort to the ridiculous.  This conversation is finished.  Moreover, I will NEVER respond to another of you posts until you remove the ingrown hair from your brain so you can engage in an intelligent conversation.  You may post (so long as the moderator allows), but you will not get a response.

                            george

                            gfsomsel

                             search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
                             love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                             defend the truth till death.

                            - Jan Hus
                            _________



                            >________________________________
                            > From: "jimstinehart@..." <jimstinehart@...>
                            >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                            >Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 9:33 AM
                            >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...
                            >
                            >

                            >
                            >
                            >George Somsel:
                            >
                            >You wrote: “[W]edon't know that anyone recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY afterAkhenaten's death. What would make you assume such. You seem to assume manythings.”
                            >
                            >The Patriarchal narratives contain 37 numbers that are aperson’s age or a length of time. If allsuch 37 numbers are redolent of the Amarna Age, then we can be assured thatsomeone indeed “recorded the patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten'sdeath.”
                            >
                            >In this short post, let’s look at the most obvious suchnumber, which appears at Genesis 47: 28:
                            >
                            >“And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen shanah….”
                            >
                            >The non-archaic meaning of shanah is a 12-month year. On that level of meaning, Jacob/“Israel” is portrayed in Genesis as beinga semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for 17 years. Outside of the Bible, only one person in5,000 years of history was a semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egyptfor 17 years: pharaoh Akhenaten (whosefinal regnal year was his Year 17). Thusthe number 17 at Genesis 47: 28 is utterly redolent of the Amarna Age, whichlasted 17 years: each of Jacob andAkhenaten was a semi-monotheistic leader of his people in Egypt for 17 years.
                            >
                            >But what about the other 36 numbers in the received text ofthe Patriarchal narratives? Are theylikewise redolent of the Amarna Age? Ifso, then as we can explore, we can be quite sure that someone indeed “recordedthe patriarchal narratives SHORTLY after Akhenaten's death.”
                            >
                            >Jim Stinehart
                            >
                            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • HUMAP@aol.com
                            Jim. This is the last exchange I choose to have here, as I am unable to intuit the layers of background assumptions you have and I cannot even begin to unravel
                            Message 13 of 16 , Dec 26, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim.


                              This is the last exchange I choose to have here, as I am unable to intuit the layers of background assumptions you have and I cannot even begin to unravel what you are asserting. I just want a bit of clarity.

                              I have no clue as to what it is you are asserting when you write that no "Hebrew" including Moses wrote in Akkadian, but rather wrote west Semitic words in cuneiform. You invoke EA letters for what purpose then? The scribes wrote in bad Akkadian. It is Akkadian, the Akkadian of the Kassites which you mention in your convoluted response to me. Yes, they used WS glosses and verbal forms. It is still Akkadian, bad, bad Akkadian.


                              I don't know what you call the Nuzi tablets, but they are referred to as being written in a dialect of Akkadian. Jim, do you know Akkadian? William Moran gave the world proto Hebrew by his work in EA, and terrorized me and everyone else who had him for Akkadian. I had to translate Nuzi tablets from drawings (no transliterations existed) for Raymond Westbrook at grad school number two. Whatever Hurrian and EA and west Semitic glosses and grammar mean to you, this is all under the umbrella of Akkadian. I have no idea as to what your point is in all this. I would like to, so I can find something redeeming. What you have presented so far reminds me of Wittgenstein's notion of a private language. Nothing is getting conveyed here.


                              The Moses tradition is really about giving props to the Hurrians for helping them with writing in cuneiform (but not Akkadian--never mind the cuneiform that the Hurrians used was Akkadian)? I really would like to say something here with a straight face. I cannot.It is just a bad idea.


                              Jim, you are a bright, creative guy. Use it for the forces of good from now on. Work within the scholarly consensus and modify it, rather than creating whole new models that no one will follow. Thanks for your time. I wish you the best.


                              Mark





                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: jimstinehart <jimstinehart@...>
                              To: biblicalist <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 5:59 pm
                              Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Did Moses Know the Alphabet? Was There Writing in Ancie...






                              Mark Anthony Phelps:

                              You wrote: “I assumethat you are arguing for the Moses narratives to be literal, that he was raisedin the court of an Egyptian pharaoh. Now that I have spent a second five minutesconsidering your theory, I must admit I am completely perplexed as to why onewould ever assume that a member of the Egyptian royal family would write aboutevents among any ethnic group in Akkadian, even if it were the diplomaticlingua franca. Why cuneiform rather than hieroglyphics, which one would assumeto be the first language of the court (regardless of his ethnicity which thenarrative states he knew about)?”

                              1. No Hebrew, whetherMoses or anyone else, wrote in Akkadian. But early Hebrews in the Late Bronze Age wrote west Semitic words incuneiform, rather than in alphabetical Hebrew, because alphabetical Hebrew didn’texist yet.

                              2. I for one do notassume that Moses was “a member of the Egyptian royal family”. The name M$H doesn’t make good sense inEgyptian. The Egyptian common word msi, which is often asserted to be the Egyptian root of the nameM$H, has an s like sin or samekh, not sh like shin. Likewise, R‘MSS [“Ramses”],at Exodus 1: 11 as a personal name and at Exodus 12: 37 as a geographical placename, is spelled with a samekh. So if,as routinely alleged, M$H is an Egyptian name based on the Egyptian word msi and, many would insist, merely ashortened form of R‘MSS, then the sibilant should be samekh. But it isn’t. It’s shin. The Hebrew pun on the name “Moses” at Exodus2: 10 is on the Hebrew common word M$H with a shin, not a samekh or sin.

                              Where a final -H is usually a Semiticization of a foreign name,for the name M$H [“Moses”] we need a non-west Semitic root M$, to which -H canthen be added. mu$ in Hurrian means “exalted, sublime, just”. Many Hurrian proper names begin with Mu$, such as: Mu$-te$up; Mu$-teya; Mu$-$enni; Mu$-apu; Mu$-tilla; Mu$u$-$e, etc. mu$is a wonderfully positive word in Hurrian, that is usually used in conjunctionwith praising the divine attributes of a deity.

                              M$ -H [“Moses”] is a Semiticized version of the Hurrian commonword mu$. As a proper name, it means “Exalted, Sublime,Just”. The Semiticized -H ending meansthat the person, although of Hurrian ancestry, is committed to living inCanaan.

                              3. And now consider thatMoses’s wife also has a Hurrian name. CPR-H, as the name of Moses’s wife, indicates that Zipporah was a Hurrian (a LateBronze Age people in northern Mesopotamia/Mitanni), who may have been associatedwith the Kassites (a Late Bronze Age people who originated near the Zab Riverin the Zagros Mountains and ruled southern Mesopotamia).

                              The Kassites are from the Zagros Mountains, and the Zab Riveroriginates in the Zagros Mountains. Zab- is a Hurrian root meaning “steal”,and there’s a Hurrian common word: za-ab-ri¸ also spelled sa-ap-ri, meaning “angry”, perhaps inthe sense of “tempestuous”.

                              The name of Moses’s wife is CPR-H: ssade-peh-resh-he. The final -H in her name, as in the name M$-H[“Moses”], may be a Semiticization, meaning that Zipporah was committed tostaying with the Hebrews in or near Canaan, rather than planning to return toMesopotamia to resume her old Hurrian ways, per Exodus 18: 2. Ssade/C, which may have been an emphatic sinin the Late Bronze Age, is usually Z or S in Hurrian, and here either suchHurrian letter is used in the Hurrian common word za-ab-ri¸ also spelled sa-ap-ri. Peh/P is either P or B in Hurrian, andhere either such letter is used. So theHurrian common word sa-ap-ri is afine linguistic match to CPR -H, the name of Moses’s wife Zipporah.

                              As to za-ab-ri/sa-ap-rimeaning “angry” or “tempestuous” as a Hurrian common word, Zipporah definitelyseems “tempestuous”, and even “angry”, in the ambiguous incident related atExodus 4: 25 (which is one of only three Bible verses that mention her name,and the only Bible verse using her name in which Zipporah is active): “Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut offthe foreskin of her son, and cast [it] at his feet, and said, Surely a bloodyhusband [art] thou to me.” By contrast,Zipporah definitely does not act like “a little bird”, so the conventional westSemitic etymology of her name, based on CPWR in Hebrew meaning “a little bird”,is suspect. Moreover, if Zipporah iscalled a “Kassite” at Numbers 12: 1 [being the interpretation that I myselffavor for that ambiguous passage], and if her homeland is the Hurrian state ofMDYN/Mitanni (discussed below), then Zipporah could not have a west Semiticname. In fact, Zipporah well lives up toboth aspects of her Hurrian name CPR -H/za-ab-ri/sa-ap-ri: she’sboth (i) “angry” and “tempestuous”, per Exodus 4: 25 and the meaning of theHurrian common word za-ab-ri/sa-ap-ri; and (ii) her name za-ab-ri recalls the Zab River as the original homeland of theKassites.

                              The word sa-ap-ri usedas a woman’s name is redolent both of (i) the Hurrians, and (ii) the Kassites. As to the Hurrians, note the reference atExodus 2: 15 to MDYN as being Zipporah’s homeland. The root of the country name “Mitanni” is theHurrian verb mid-, so this name ofthe only Hurrian great power state could be rendered as: mi-da-a-ni. That would come into Hebrew as MDYN,where Hebrew yod/Y is consistently used to render the Hurrian true vowel A asits own separate segment in Hurrian proper names. As to the Kassites, see K$-YT at Numbers 12: 1(where the root is K$, which compares to the K$ root in K$-D-YM, meaning "Kassite country people", at Genesis 11: 28, 31;15: 7). Finally, as noted above sa-ap-ri or za-ab-ri is redolent of the Zab river which originates in theZagros Mountains as the original homeland of the Kassites. Mitanni and the Kassites and Hurrian-basednames are all redolent of the Late Bronze Age historical time period; in particular, Mitanni and Kassites make nosense in any other time period.

                              4. The Moses tradition is aHebrew remembrance of Hurrians who helped the early Hebrews by using theirknowledge of cuneiform to write west Semitic words. Hebrew sacred scripture was never written inAkkadian, but at least the Patriarchal narratives for 700 years were written incuneiform, using west Semitic words. Thescribe whom the first Hebrews hired likely was an ethnic Hurrian with a Hurrianname like M$-H [“Moses”], who probably had a Hurrian wife with a Hurrian namelike CPR-H [“Zipporah”].

                              Jim Stinehart

                              _._,_.___




















                              .


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]










                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • jimstinehart@aol.com
                              Mark: 1. You wrote: “I haveno clue as to what it is you are asserting when you write that no Hebrew including Moses wrote in Akkadian, but rather wrote
                              Message 14 of 16 , Dec 26, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mark:


                                1. You wrote: “I haveno clue as to what it is you are asserting when you write that no"Hebrew" including Moses wrote in Akkadian, but rather wrote westSemitic words in cuneiform. You invoke EA letters for what purpose then? Thescribes wrote in bad Akkadian. It is Akkadian, the Akkadian of the Kassiteswhich you mention in your convoluted response to me. Yes, they used WS glossesand verbal forms. It is still Akkadian, bad, bad Akkadian.”

                                The “WS glosses” to which you refer are old west Semiticwords, many of which are found (though usually with different endings) in IISamuel. So that small number of westSemitic words written in cuneiform in the Amarna Letters can be calledpre-Hebrew. That is proof that in theLate Bronze Age, it was easy to write pre-Hebrew words using cuneiform. Back then, the alphabet was not yetsufficiently developed to write Biblical Hebrew, but it was easy to writepre-Hebrew words using cuneiform. NoHebrew wrote Akkadian words, but the early Hebrews wrote westSemitic/pre-Hebrew words using cuneiform, just like the west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords [“WS glosses”] found in the Amarna Letters. If Moses wrote anything in the Late Bronze Age,he would have written pre-Hebrew using cuneiform, as alphabetical Biblical Hebrewdid not yet exist.

                                2. You wrote: “I don't know what you call the Nuzi tablets,but they are referred to as being written in a dialect of Akkadian.”

                                No, the Nuzi tablets are written in Hurrian, usingcuneiform.

                                3. You wrote: “Whatever Hurrian and EA and west Semiticglosses and grammar mean to you, this is all under the umbrella of Akkadian.”

                                That’s not true. Cuneiformis a writing system, which can be used to write either Akkadian words orHurrian words or west Semitic words. Youcan call it Akkadian-style cuneiform, but cuneiform is by no means limited towriting Akkadian words. The Nuzi tabletshave Hurrian words and Hurrian names written in cuneiform, and there are dozensof old west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words scattered throughout the Amarna Letters,written in cuneiform.

                                4. You wrote: “The Moses tradition is really about givingprops to the Hurrians for helping them with writing in cuneiform (but notAkkadian--never mind the cuneiform that the Hurrians used was Akkadian)?”

                                The name “Moses” is a Hurrian name, as is the name of hiswife, “Zipporah”. It is likely that thefirst Hebrews engaged a Hurrian scribe to write down the Patriarchal narrativesin cuneiform [Akkadian-style cuneiform, if you will], using west Semitic/pre-Hebrewwords [not Akkadian words!].

                                5. You wrote: “Work within the scholarly consensus and modifyit, rather than creating whole new models that no one will follow.”

                                The scholarly consensus i-s that if Moses wrote downparts of the Torah in the Late Bronze Age, then he would have used cuneiform towrite west Semitic/pre-Hebrew words. Asa Hebrew, Moses would not write Akkadian words, that’s for sure. But Moses could not use alphabetical BiblicalHebrew in the Late Bronze Age, because we know from the Qeiyafa Ostracon thatthe alphabet was not sufficiently developed yet prior to 1200 BCE to be used towrite down any significant portion of the complex, sophisticated Torah.

                                The substantive content of the Patriarchal narrativesrequires that the Patriarchal narratives must have been written down in theLate Bronze Age. The only way for aHebrew to do that was to have a scribe write down west Semitic/pre-Hebrew wordsusing cuneiform.

                                Jim Stinehart










                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • jimstinehart@aol.com
                                Miles: * You wrote: “There is a different feel to a backdated narrative. Genesis is a backdated narrative as are the Gospels to some extent since they
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jan 4, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Miles:
                                  *
                                  You wrote: “There is a different feel to a backdated narrative. Genesis
                                  is a backdated narrative as are the Gospels to some extent since they were
                                  written many decades after the fact.”
                                  *
                                  Nothing could be further from the truth as to the Patriarchal narratives,
                                  which were recorded on 50 cuneiform tablets, using west Semitic words, only
                                  a few years after the fact. Let me quickly note a few examples of the
                                  pinpoint historically accurate specific details from Years 12-14 that are in
                                  the received text:
                                  *
                                  1. “Year 13” is explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4. That is the
                                  historical year in which 5 parties rebelled in central Syria against the
                                  Hittites, leading to the “four kings against five” historically in Year 14,
                                  which is “the fourteenth year” at Genesis 14: 5. “Tidal” is a bona fide
                                  Hittite royal name, but analysts have missed that it is a pejorative
                                  Patriarchal nickname. The mighty Hittite king who led a coalition of 4 rulers in
                                  winning the Great Syrian War in western Syria was Suppiluliuma I, who had
                                  gained the Hittite throne by the dubious expedient of murdering his own older
                                  brother named: “Tidal”. (That exact Late Bronze Age spelling of
                                  Tudhaliya is verified at Ugarit.) So the Hittite king is effectively called “
                                  Murderer” in the Patriarchal narratives, and the exact dating of this military
                                  conflict is overtly set forth in the Biblical text.
                                  *
                                  2. One year before “Year 13”, that is in Year 12, Genesis 13: 18
                                  presents Abram as first coming to a “broad true valley” (per Genesis 37: 14):
                                  Ayalon – Mamre. Genesis 14: 13 soon clarifies that Mamre refers to the
                                  ruling princeling of the area in Year 12, who has the following Patriarchal
                                  nickname: “Mamre the Amorite”. And it all checks out perfectly. In Year 12,
                                  the Ayalon Valley was in fact governed from Gezer by Milk-i-Ilu, who was
                                  an Amorite princeling with an Amorite name. Abram attains an invaluable
                                  covenant relationship with him (but not with his successor), so it’s not so
                                  surprising that one of Jacob’s descendants who goes to Egypt has been given
                                  his historical name in his honor, which appears at Genesis 46: 17 immediately
                                  after the XBR root of “Hebron”: MLK -Y- ’L = Milk-i-Ilu.
                                  *
                                  3. To make sure that we know that “Year 13” at Genesis 14: 4 is
                                  referring to the real Year 13, during Akhenaten’s 17-year reign, Genesis 47: 28
                                  portrays Jacob as being like Akhenaten: an early semi-monotheist who was the
                                  ruler of his people in Egypt for 17 shanah/years.
                                  *
                                  4. Historically, in Year 13 Pharaoh’s vizier confiscated for Pharaoh much
                                  fine land along the Nile River at firesale prices. Joseph is portrayed as
                                  doing that as Pharaoh’s vizier, and we are even given the exact historical
                                  date, by means of shortly thereafter Jacob being stated to be age 13
                                  tenfold shanah. Genesis 47: 9
                                  *
                                  The entirety of the Patriarchal narratives works just like that.
                                  Virtually all of the main stories in the Patriarchal narratives reflect the
                                  detailed facts on the ground from Years 12-14, as verified by the Amarna Letters
                                  and other non-biblical sources. Such pinpoint accuracy, which routinely
                                  includes giving us (one way or the other) the e-x-a-c-t Year date[!], could
                                  only result from the Patriarchal narratives having been recorded on 50
                                  tablets, using cuneiform to write west Semitic words, a year or two after
                                  Akhenaten’s death.
                                  *
                                  Jim Stinehart

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.