Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear John,

Thanks for your post.

>Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>
>Regarding the suggestion that there are two disinct groups of "Hittites"
>in the Bible:
>
>> This is making it a coincidence that the two groups had basically the same
>> self name. So by this logic, one could argue that the Elam referred to in
>> Gen14 wasn't the Elam in south west Iran, but some Elam we hadn't heard of
>> before much closer to the Dead Sea. Likewise with Shinar.
>
>Since Chedorlaomer is an Elamite name I don't think anyone would.  The
>suggestion that there are two unrelated Hittite groups (local and
>foreign) is not an ad hoc argument but is based on the Scriptural data
>and has been made by at least one Hittitologist that I know of.  

The "Scriptural data" has not been dated with any solidity: there is too
much evidence to show that elements of the text are later than the times a
modern literal reading allows. Therefore the "Scriptural data" cannot be
used with certainty in historical discussion. This is serious: as the
discussion is an attempt to find a means of dating the "Scriptural data" by
relating it to historical, archaeological and epigraphical information, it
is a logical foul to assume the historical veracity a modern literal reading
of the text may give that text.

>I think
>you are a bit incautious in stating that the events described in Genesis
>14 could not have happened, since to make such a statement your
>knowledge of the ANE world circa 2000 BC must be the complete opposite
>of the knowledge you ascribe to the Hebrews (i.e. you are omniscient,
>they know nothing). 

Perhaps you are right. I was merely trying to follow the practices of
historical analysis, taking them to their logical ends.

>Similarly with your statement about writing.  You
>cannot possibly know enough to say
>that families in the 2nd millenium BC could not possibly imagine writing
>down traditions to pass on to their children.

The evidence is relatively clear. Scribal abilities was an intensive
profession in the ancient near east, one that in itself was not easily
productive but which occupied most of the time of the scribe, requiring
access to a kiln and the materials for making writing tablets. One had to
learn one's art, which took time and a nomadic society in those times did
not provide the context either to supply the training nor to fund the 
endeavour.

>More on the Philistines:
>
>> If the Philistines, as all evidence shows, were Indo-Europeans, they 
>> weren't
>> Hamitic.
>
>IF they came from Indo-Europe, that wouldn't settle the question of
>their common ancestry with Egyptians, any more than the fact that Hebrew
>is a Canaanite language makes Israelites Canaanites (or Canaanites
>Semites).  I am (now) South African, so would you guess that I am
>related to Rolf Furuli (if I am right in assuming he is Norwegian)?

It was probably by geographical position that the Hebrews linked the
Philistines with Egypt -- they were closer physically to Egypt than to other
cultures.

John, the racial make-up of the Philistines may in fact be obscure --
Indo-European refers to a cultural complex rather than race or specifically
language. The direction from which these people came at the time they came
along with the culture they evinced necessarily excludes the possibility.

>> They arrived at a very precise time in history from the Aegean, via 
>> Cilicia, 
>> where some stayed, via Cyprus, causing destruction, as they did in Ugarit. 
>> That precise time, shown by archaeology, coincides with Ramses III's
report > of his stopping the Sea-Peoples, some of whose names I've supplied
above 
>> from the Hieroglyphic, and that was in the twelfth century -- about 800
>> years after the time they were supposed to have been in Gerar.
>
>I don't dispute that Ramses III had great battles with the sea peoples, or
>the archaeological evidence of the trail of destruction left by them on
>their way to Egypt, or that Ramses after the battle  gave them
>permission to settle in areas in which we find the Iron Age
>Philistines.  

(He didn't give them permission: he couldn't prevent them. He merely
repulsed them from Egypt.)

>That simply does not settle the question of whether there
>were already Philistines in that area. Your interpretation of the
>evidence (all of the sea peoples whom Ramses III confronted came from
>distant lands) does not necessarily follow from these data.  "The
>Peleset are never specifically associated with the islands or the sea,
>as some other Sea Peoples are. . . . There is evidence that some of the
>Sea Peoples may not have come from distant lands at all" (Peoples of the
>OT World, Baker, 1994, referencing John Brug, A Literary and
>Archaeological Study of the Philstines, British Archaeological Reports,
>International Series 265 [Oxford, 1985], 18-20).  

The clothing and weapons used by the Philistines, graphically portrayed on
the walls of Medinet Habu, show that they did come from distant lands. There
is nothing Canaanite or Egyptian about their accoutrements.

>I haven't checked this last reference (like I say
>I'm not an archaeologist), but I think it bears repeating that an
>interpretation of the evidence that excludes the possibility that
>biblical statements regarding pre-Iron Age Philistines are correct seems
>to presume an omniscience on your part that is not justifiable.

I'm trying not to take this "omniscience" rhetoric as offensive. Omniscience
has nothing to do with the situation. I try to follow coherent procedures in
attempting to establish what is known and knowable. 

>Concerning Ai:
>
>> There is no doubt about the location of Ai.
>>
>> The name actually says it all: (heap of) ruins. It doesn't augur well for a
>> report written about a functioning city.
>
>There is no doubt about the location of et-Tell, but the name doesn't
>"say it all."  At times there were two cities called Jericho, side by
>side.  

There was however no overlap in occupation.

>et-Tell was in ruin for centuries and a well-know landmark, so if
>a small city was begun near et-Tell it could have easily been called by
>the name of the well known landmark.  Such happenings are not uncommon
>(and to dispute the possibility you again have to be omniscient).

I am starting to find this heavy, John.

Your suggestion regarding et-Tell has not been followed by archaeologists
many of whom are financed by biblical establishments and who would be
willing to remove the problem of Ai: they have not found any "small city" so
that they could explain why Ai was not a ruin, ie the newer Ai. The fact
seems plain: the ruin was there at the time of writing and its state was
attributed to Joshua. After all he was the one who led the conquest.

>Concerning Jericho, and my point that the date of construction of the
>walls is not as relevant as the date of destruction:
>
>> Sorry, but it's irrelevant. The walls were uncovered last year. The main
>> gate this year. They are the latest walls at that site and they are from 
>> the
>> middle bronze period. It was an Italian team from the University of Rome 
>> "La
>> Sapienza" that uncovered the walls. The evidence is quite plain. The 
>> pottery
>> around the walls dates them precisely.
>
>Are you sure you want to say that it is impossible for walls built in
>the Middle Bronze Age to have survived until the Late Bronze Age?

Yes. The middle bronze pottery is extremely clear. There was no late bronze
pottery found under the walls, which would be necessary to date the usage of
the walls later.

>Concerning the course of the Pishon River, discovered buried under sand
>since the 3rd millenium BC, described in Genesis 2 (BAR July '96):
>
>> I haven't read the BAR article, but I guess it is Rohl stuff.
>
>The author is James Sauer, no relation to Rohl that I know.  If Sauer's
>article is quackery, then it should be easily refutable.  

As I said, I have not read the article. I cannot therefore comment. I did
know of Rohl who placed the river in north-west Iran flowing into the
Caspian Sea. Where exactly was this river written about by Sauer?

>Since the
>editor of BAR loves controversy (sells magazines), I'm sure he would
>eagerly print a rebuttal, but none has appeared (nor to Wood's article
>on Jericho more than 8 years ago [except for a weak rebuttal by
>Bienkowski which was refuted point by point by Wood]).  I think in this
>case the "argument from silence" makes sense.

Let Wood face the walls of Jericho. They are middle bronze. They were
uncovered last year. There is a silence from the middle bronze age onward:
the walls of Jericho didn't come tumbling down. They were abandoned,
probably for motives of water.


Ian