Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]

I can't answer all of this now, and I don't want this to get even 
longer. As you say, our positions are so far apart that we can hardly 
reach agreement in such a debate. But just a few points:

Your objections re "Philistines" and "Dan" can be met by assuming just 
a few places in which the text has been "modernised" at some time 
after the conquest (of Canaan by the Israelites), e.g. perhaps during 
the early monarchy. Now the Bible (if you want to treat it as one 
voice!!) is not silent on the coming of the Philistines - see 
Deuteronomy 2:23, which is even in the correct historical setting of 
shortly before the conquest. So quite possibly an original "Avvites" 
has been replaced by the contemporary "Philistines" in Genesis 21 and 
26. (Or could "Philistines" have meant "inhabitants of the area known 
as Peleshet" rather than having any ethnic designation? In Deuteronomy 
the invaders are known as "Caphtorites") And then in Genesis 14:14 we 
must simply assume that an original "Laish" has been replaced by the 
contemporary "Dan" (cf. Judges 18:29).

As for `Elyon, it is used as a name of God (admittedly without 'El) in 
Deuteronomy 32:8, which is generally regarded as an early poem, also 
in Numbers 24:16, where `Elyon is in parallelism with 'El. So this is 
hardly evidence for late dating.

If I found in an otherwise reliable text a reference to "Ephron the 
Martian", I would have to take it seriously. I would probably rule out 
that he came from the planet Mars - but then there is a difference 
that we know know, or think we know, that Mars is uninhabited, whereas 
we cannot assume that the Hittite country was uninhabited in the 19th 
century BC. But I might start thinking, was there a city called "Mars" 
somewhere else where this Ephron might have come from? If there is no 
evidence of such a city, I simply have to conclude that the reference 
to "Ephron the Martian" is no evidence for or against the reliability 
of that text, that it could be an error or a later correction, but 
that we simply don't know.

Peter Kirk