Daniel and Late Ezekiel?

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Tue Jun 22 21:25:10 EDT 1999


Dear George,

>> [...] How about the geography of the Hellenistic world that includes
Tarshish,
>> Rhodes (Dedan), Cyprus (Kittim) -- all interesting for the little
>> land-locked canton of Jerusalem --
>
>What's to preclude the knowledge of some geography in Jerusalem? 
>Prior to 587 BCE, Judah was probably a little more than just a 
>'canton' - I think we can call it a small state. 

You can call it what you like, but from my reading of the archaeology the
Assyrians had occupied much of the land that was not so mountainous. I
suppose they slowly lost hold because there seem to be indications of
Philistine penetration into the hinterland. The important note though is
that it was a landlocked city-state. For the relevance of Greek geography
one needs either contact with Greeks or contact with Phoenicians who sailed
to those ports. Both these options are available under the Persians and later.

>Regardless,
>though, the knowledge of a wider geography as a reason for late 
>dating is stretching it a bit. 

It's not simply the knowledge but the relevance of the places. There is no
reason for them except through contact in some way.

>It has to be on other grounds, 
>like the political and economic overtones you also mentioned.

Right.

>BTW - where is Tarshish??? I didn't know we had confirmed a location.

Working on the assumption that it is a port and noting Gen10:4's the sons
of Javan, we should be dealing with Tarsis, going along the Turkish coast
from east to west, the angle between that coast and the Levant is Elishah,
then comes Tarshish, then Kittim (Cyprus), and finally Dodanim (Rhodes).
Tarshish on this "map" fits Tarsis reasonably well.

>I remain unconvinced that Ezekiel is referring to the biblical Daniel - it
seems a definite
>reference to Dan'il to me. Your other points, though, are noted.

Can you see any reason for Ezekiel to somehow cite the Dan'il tradition
when Ezekiel's figure is both wise and righteous? Why is Ezekiel's spelling
closer to the Ugaritic name than that of Daniel? Why not a simple variant
on the one we all know and love?


Cheers,


Ian




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list