Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear George,

If there was a problem with my rhetoric in the previous post, I'm sorry.

George: 
>>>>> It's certainly not impossible to have two groups of Heth's.

Ian: 
>>>> It is not impossible. What relatively contemporary source would you 
>>>> like to put forward as suggesting there was such a second group?

George: 
>>>Well, the Bible! :-)

Ian:
>> I did say "relatively contemporary source". Given that the earliest copies
>> we have date to the second century BCE, I wonder how you will ever show 
>> that
>> the relevant biblical sources are a "relatively contemporary source". I bet
>> you wouldn't like it if someone tried to sell you Manetho's story of
>> Osarsith as reflective of 14th century BCE Egypt.

George:
>But -- the Bible does mention events which have something to do with
history - um,
>like Hezekiah's tunnel and the wars of Sennacherib; um, like Mesha; and like
>Nebuchadnezzar and the defeat of Judah; like Jehoiachin - and I could go on. 

Yes, that was the point of the Osarsiph reference. It does mention things
that are related to the past, but strained through the centuries of
tradition and rewriting it has very little hope of meaningfully representing
the basic events of the past(s) involved with any coherence. However we have
strayed onto a generic discussion about the "bible" when the topic at hand
was indications of when elements in Genesis were written (or not written).

My interest here is history: what can be uncovered to date the production of
Genesis. You cannot use Gore Vidal's book "Creation" which gives a fair
amount of historical detail as a blueprint of events that happened in the
Persian empire. We know when "Creation" was written, but we don't know when
Genesis was written. In trying to establish guidelines for when the text was
put together, you cannot simply use the text you are trying to date in a
literalistic manner.

Daniel for example is set in the Persian court during later exilic times,
yet the scholarly world is well aware that it was written in 165 BCE. It
mentions kings and situations related to history, sometimes correct,
sometimes in error, but that is totally irrelevant to the work and its
purposes. Judith is another example of a text, set in the time of
Nebuchadnezzar (indicated as the king of Assyria, forcing another Seleucid
interpretation), that claims one period and indicates another. This seems to
be a cultural artifact. Too often people equate such a situation with moral
terms based on literal understandings, ie if it's not historical, it must be
a fraud (etc), -- a line of thought that is in no way useful. We are dealing
with cultural traditions, not legal documents.

>Now, I'm
>not saying that therefore the Bible is accurate at every point, or even on
these very
>events, but these various points of contact with verifiable history means
we have to
>give it a bit more credit than just saying, "The earliest manuscripts are
2nd cent.
>BCE, so they're useless." I agree - the job of making these contact points 
>for
>anything patriarchal is well nigh impossible, but to simply write various
bits of info
>off because we've set other hypotheses into concrete doesn't quite seem
scholarly to
>me.

When the evidence is overburdening that many elements from these
partriarchal stories relate to later times, the usual thing to do is work on
the notion that such works were produced in those later times.

>> I thought we were doing history, George, putting evidence together to
>> reconstruct the past, calling our best shots, not running and hiding when 
>> we
>> don't like what we see.
>
>That's a little cheap, Ian. I ain't hiding from history, nor do I dislike
what I see.

Sorry, George. The rhetoric is perhaps inappropriate. The thought is there
however. The other possibilities you seem to be considering are like those
people in the face of photographs of the earth from space looking to
reinterpret the evidence (eg trick photography, manipulated image) to
maintain the flat earth theory. This is how the efforts seem to me of
suggesting that there was an alternative X so that the biblical reference to
X can slide by the threat imposed by the currently understood X. One
mentions the Hittites we understand and people suggest there was another
separate group called the Hittites. One mentions the Philistines and they
are revised to become Canaanite. One mentions Ur of the Chaldeans and
"Chaldeans" gets revised. Ai gets relocated. And so on. If I mention the
archaeological indications that Beersheba (visited by Isaac) did not exist
until the iron age, what revision of the data would come forth? Or what the
sons of the south (bani yamini, Benjamin) were doing around Mari circa 1700
BCE? Or for that matter why Asher is mentioned in the Papyrus Anastasi I
from the late 13th century when Palestine seemed well in the hands of the
Egyptians?

>You seem to be making moral judgments here which have no place in such a
forum as
>this. 

I fear that the moral judgments are being manifested in the necessity to
produce numerous alternative unsupportable theories to circumvent data that
questions the "historical veracity" of certain biblical narratives.

>I just so happen to be considering other possibilities -- that seems to be
>attempting to tackle the evidence, not hide from it! However, it strikes me
as odd
>that you take such a reflex action of disapproval when the evidence can be
interpreted
>differently to what you would like it. I agree that it's unlikely there
were scores of
>Hittites in Palestine at whatever time you'd like to posit - but it's
certainly not
>impossible. In fact, it is more than probable that there were perhaps a
handful of
>Hittites in Palestine, as well as Mesopotamia and even Egypt, even if not
hoardes of
>them. Or, it's just possible that there was a group of people called
"Hittim" who
>weren't actually Hittites from Anatolia. Unlikely, but we just don't know.
We can't
>pontificate about whether there was or there wasn't because we just don't
know. You
>are of course entitled to your opinion that there weren't - seems
reasonable enough.
>But we can't announce it as Torah of God.

The table of nations makes clear that we are not talking of just any
"handful of Hittites", but a nation.

Would you argue from a few strange marks on some of the DSS that Chinese
people were responsible for them? I think it is not reasonable to exclude
the more "unlikely" theories -- at least until they become a bit more likely.

>> (I would probably like to argue from the drawings of Philistine ceramics
>> I've seen that there doesn't seem to have been anything like it in 
>> Palestine
>> prior to the Philistine arrival. The anthropoid sarcophagi [...]
>> If these people were native Canaanites as you would like us to believe, why
>> is it that the majority of them come by sea as did those people who 
>> attacked
>> Ugarit on the far north of the Levantine coast not too long before Ramses
>> III stopped the Philistines and why do they wear non-Semitic clothing? The
>> indications are that the Philistine ships fought with the Egyptians near 
>> the
>> eastern mouth of the Nile. The essential point is that there were no
>> Philistines in Palestine prior to the twelfth century, not that the
>> Philistines merged with the local Semitic population.
>> [...]
>
>Valid points which I would raise myself - but then I read Littlefield's
arguments and
>her analysis of the evidence seems quite sound. I still have difficulties
with parts
>of it, but generally, her points were well made.

The pottery comparison I had heard of was between material found in Cilicia
and Philistine stuff -- however I could easily have a faulty memory. I'll
wait for your reading.

>> I find it difficult to see the motivation for wanting to hide the fact that
>> there was enormous turmoil in the Hellenic group of Indo-European peoples
>> that brought about a wake of destruction ranging from Miletus to the gates
>> of Egypt, that this was to a great extent a sea carried destructive force,
>> that this force included Philistines who were part of the whole movement.
>
>Who wants to hide any fact? You make it sound like I have a sinister scheme
and I'm
>rubbing my hands together craftily while I mention these other hypotheses. 
>Just
>because I mention hypotheses which don't quite match up with yours doesn't
mean have a
>secret agenda, powered by an evil motive to hide the facts of history and
rewrite it
>to create a world where Hittites live on every street corner in the Fertile
Crescent
>and where Philistines are really Canaanites dressed up as Greeks - or maybe
they're
>really Hittites. I'm just mentioning possibilities. Take them or leave them
- but
>don't pontificate on them.

I didn't think we were dealing with mere "possibilities", George. I thought
we were in the endeavour of trying to reconstruct past events and situations. 

>> (Oh, and thanks for the background on Kush. I'll have to find out who
>> actually called the zone where the Kassites were during Hammurabi's time
>> Kush. I'd forget about Kushan
>
>I wouldn't.

I meant only that Kushan was not directly related to Kush (as Kushshara was
not) and should therefore not be related to the term.

We seem to be getting caught up in the rhetoric and perhaps manifesting
rather opposing aims in our postings. I do hope we can overcome this sort of
thing. It is not my intention to get stuck on such things and I'm sorry if
we do.


Ian