Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[6]: burial (was Life after Death)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
  • To: mc2499 AT mclink.it, b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[6]: burial (was Life after Death)
  • Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 12:44 -0500 (EST)



Dear Ian,

Let me respond to some of your points - I don't have time to go into
the details of all of this:

You asked "Could you say what it is about these passages that make you
think specifically of Egypt (in the "Middle Kingdom")?"

Well, here are some points from John Bright's "History of Israel" (3rd
edition, SCM 1981): "There are, of course, some anachronisms... The
wanderings of the patriarchs in Palestine fit perfectly in the
situation of the Execration Texts, when the land, held loosely or not
at all by Egypt, was (especially in the central and southern mountain
range) still rather thinly settled. The Beni-Hasan picture illustrated
the ease with which groups might move from Asia into Egypt... The
towns that figure in the patriarchal stories - Shechem, Bethel,
Jerusalem, Hebron - were actually in existence by the period Middle
Bronze II". I know that doesn't quite answer your question, but no
time for more now, sorry.

You wrote "...Genesis is, despite the number of fragments, surprisingly
poorly represented, suggesting that it had not developed too much support by
the second and first centuries BCE."

That is, one heterodox Jewish sect may have made relatively little use
of Genesis. But it is, I think, not disputed that the book was written
long before this, certainly before its LXX translation!

You wrote: "The Hittite information in Genesis is patently wrong"

Do you have any solid evidence to prove that there were NO people
called Hittites in southern Canaan in (say) the 19th century BC?

>According to Genesis, Abraham and other patriarchs
>came from Mesopotamia,

You wrote: "Ur of the Chaldeans... that nice anachronism."

But I did not mention Ur, as I know there are problems with that text,
I was thinking of Haran.

You wrote: "Does one need a long list of indications pointing to a
later date for the construction of Genesis than what has already been
provided?"

I haven't seen any indications pointing to a late date for the
sources, only indications pointing to a later (i.e. Moses' time or
later) final redaction.

You wrote: "The site of the Old City at the end of the eleventh century BCE
is extremely limited in size, never more than one hundred and fifty metres
in width... Nahman Avigad wrote... "It is difficult to understand how a city
like this could have served -- despite its topographical limitations -- as
capital of the country and a royal residence, as the national and religious
centre and as a place of inhabitation." He goes on to wonder how long it
stayed this dimension."

I'm not sure why he needs to wonder as 1 Kings answers his question:
the city was extended greatly in Solomon's time, on to the northern
hill which has not been investigated - and probably expansion in that
direction had already started in David's time. Doubtless Avigad, as an
archaeologist, would wish to confirm this by excavation, but as that
is impossible at present I suggest that we (at least provisionally)
accept the only evidence we have which is the written record.
Meanwhile, one can do a surprising amount in an area 400m x 150m (the
size of the City of David according to the map in my Bible) - try
comparing with the sizes of walled cities in Italy which were city
states in the Middle Ages.

Peter Kirk




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page