Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au>]

Hi Ian!

> [...] 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.

Of course - agreed. And I think most people would agree that Genesis was 
probably
penned in the 7th-6th century at the earliest. A further problem, though, is 
that it
probably wasn't created ex nihilo <boom boom! for the other thread>. A great 
portion
of it almost certainly had oral roots a lot older but which we just can't 
really
trace. So, there is that possibility of "you never know"! I admit it's slim, 
but
nothing is secure in our field.

> 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. [...]

No arguments there.

> 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.

No problems here either.

> Sorry, George. The rhetoric is perhaps inappropriate.

Forgive and forget!

> 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.

Well, I'm not trying to fit the Philistines or Hittites into the biblical 
text - I'm
suggesting that maybe the biblical literature got something right here. Maybe 
they
didn't.

One big failure of your analogy is that the round earth is 100% certainly 
proved. Very
very little in biblical studies and the history of ancient Palestine is 100% 
secure.
It sounds like we've already proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Philistines 
had no
pre-1250 existence, or that Hittites were confined to Anatolia and northern 
Syrian
states. I'm sure you agree that we're not dealing with an exact science.

For example, remember the Ezra-Nehemiah debate? It was thought that the text 
got it
wrong in putting Nehemiah after Ezra until numismatic evidence actually 
showed we had
thought wrongly. Even the most reasonable theory in biblical studies rests on 
shaky
ground. Perhaps, as biblical scholars and archaeologists of Palestine, we 
should
introduce a new discipline: Time Machine Manufacturing. :-)

> 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?

Personally, I'm not arguing for relocating Bethel and Ai and the rest. We 
deal with
what we have, but with the caution that we may have to completely revise when 
new
evidence shows up. With the Philistines, I'm not arguing for their origins in 
S-W
Palestine to vindicate Genesis - I'm merely relaying a good argument that I 
read on
the subject which examined the archaeological evidence from Philistia, Egypt, 
and
other places. I'm sorry I can't recall better the arguments, but I remember 
thinking
that they were convincing.

> Or what the
> sons of the south (bani yamini, Benjamin) were doing around Mari circa 1700
> BCE?

Haven't these bani yamini been shown to be totally unrelated to the Binyamin 
of
Palestine? Again, I can't recall the arguments or the references, but I seem 
to
remember the connection was discredited.

> 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?

I read something about this too, though again I can't remember the argument or
reference. I think it dealt with the name Asher in PA1 from a linguistic view 
point
and somehow discredited it. I don't think I found it convincing though.

> >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.

Well, are they actually Chinese characters? If so, then we have to posit some 
type of
Chinese connection.

> 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 don't have my copy of Littlefield's thesis on me at the moment. Hope to get 
it soon.
Then I hope to get time enough to read it. Don't hold your breath! Just take 
it from
me that there is a viable alternative theory to the Philistine origins (not 
any of the
other Sea Peoples mentioned in Medinet Habu).

> >> 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.

Of course we are. But when we're dealing with such unknown quantities, it's 
hard to
reconstruct those situations with much certainty. I hope this year that 
someone
digging in the Fertile Crescent uncovers that certain bit of info we've all 
been
waiting for. But that take the spice out of our field which makes it so 
delicious.

> 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.

Ditto! Moving on...

Best regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Dept of Semitic Studies,
University of Sydney
- Email: gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------
Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm
---------------------------------------------------