Historiography and Jonathan
mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Feb 22 16:03:08 EST 1999
Let me take these one at a time:
>If the Tanakh mentions Hittites in Hebron and elsewhere in Biblical
Noone else seems to mention any Hittites south of north-western Syria
(Yamkhad). There is almost no opportunity for a Hittite group to have been
in the Judea area. That race names survive is not a particularly strange
event; what they actually signified though could easily be a different
matter. Ever heard of the Vandals?
>if , in 2 Sam. 24 (paralleled in 1 Chr), David buys the Temple
>Mount from the Jebusite arawnah/awarnah = Hurrian ewir;
This is interesting -- now that I understand --, but at best a secondary
argument that by itself has no value in establishing a Hurrian contact with
Jerusalem. You are using a phonetic change to reconstruct a possible
connection with a Hurrian word. Don't you find that a little too hopeful?
and the Tell El
>Amarna Tablets are full of Canaanite kinglets with Indo-European and
>Hurrian names, with the ruler of Jerusalem, Puti-Heba, having a Hurrian
>name (Hebat was a Hurrian goddess),
What have Hurrian names got to do with the Hittites? I guess this is
another linguistic argument. Yet, we are dealing with biblical accounts not
Amarna letters. I can't see the logic of bringing in those letters.
>then don't the biblical and the
>extra biblical evidence intermesh?
>Isn't the Bible preserving early
>traditions about the autochtonous inhabitants of Palestine?
I wouldn't dream of denying the possibility. I would expect some to get
through, just as earlier sources have come through into the book of Esther
with Ishtar and Marduk.
>And isn't it
>strange that a Hasmonean or Herodian author still fad access to such
>ancient traditions, whether oral or written?
We don't know the trajectory. All we have are the late texts. How they
actually got to the form we have now doesn't seem readily apparent. You may
guess one, but what value will it have?
More information about the b-hebrew