Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Ken Litwak wrote to Loren Crow:
>   What I am suggesting in particular, is how we may expect to make
>progress in undestanding when we hold contradictory assumptions about
>the genre and hsitorical reliability of the accounts in, for example,
>the Former Prophets?  IN other words, your view on monotheism in Israel
>is only complelling or meaningful if I share roughly the same view of
>these documents.  


Dear Ken,

On what criteria would you base your understanding of the "hsitorical
reliability of the accounts in, for example, the Former Prophets"?

>   The othet thing I am saing in particular is that this thread came out
>of a thread on various tings like PHilistines and HIttites, in which a
>coupelof posters made broad statements based on the lack of
>arcaeological evidence.  

This is a misrepresentation of a position that I have put forward. You talk
of "lack of archaeological evidence" with regard to Philistines and
Hittites (amongst other things) and their relationship with biblical
narratives. It is not a matter of "lack of evidence", but archaeological
evidence to the contrary. The use of Philistines at Gerar is a simple
anachronism. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence are clear on the
arrival of the Philistines in the Levant in the twelfth century: epigraphic
from the walls of Medinet Habu and a series of Ugaritic letters,
archaeological from Palestine and other sites in the Mediterranean. The
biblical narratives indicate that the Philistine had always been in the
Palestinian area, even making them a Hamitic group.

The biblical material regarding the Philistines is blatantly not
historical. This suggests that what we in the twentieth century attempt to
read as history needs to be reconsidered in the genre of cultural
tradition, aetiologies ("how did we get here?", "how did this situation
come to be?"). The "inaccuracies" regarding the Philistines indicate
important information about the Hebrews, that our literalistic readings of
cultural traditions lead us into erroneous assumptions, and that the
history was different from the events gleaned in the cultural traditions,
in the present case that the patriarchal tales and the conquest need to be
reconsidered. The archaeological evidence from sites like Beersheba,
Jericho and Ai underline the discordance of biblical texts with regard to
the archaeological and epigraphic evidence.

What needs to be done is to analyse the OT/HB texts to work out what
exactly is going on regarding the actual developments in Hebrew events,
because naive literalism has proven unable to deal with the evidence. That
the Philistines seem to have always been in Palestine suggests that the
Hebrews arrived after the Philistines -- if not in body, at least in
consciousness (ie by the time their self image had developed the
Philistines already were a local power). If the Hebrews as a single group
actually came into the Promised Land, then they probably came from the
south, from areas that were perhaps later called Esau. After all, he was
the "one from Sinai", who "dawned from Seir"

None of this is particularly new to my knowledge, but it does help to make
more sense of the biblical narratives: when in Deut1:5 Moses was "beyond
the Jordan in Moab", the point of view is from within the Promised Land, as
is Deut26:9, "he brought us into this place and gave us this land". The
insistent periphrasis, "the place that the Lord your God will choose" is
the necessary means to refer to the Jerusalem temple at the time of
writing. Deut28:36ff is a specific reference to the fall of Jerusalem: note
v41, "You shall have sons and daughters, but they shall not remain yours,
for they shall go into captivity."

>My point in aprticuarl, and I will ask you
>directly Loren, how much of what you believe to historical, from the
>moment youread this post, going backwards as far as you want, is based
>solely on archaeological and epigraphic evidence as opposed to wrien
>sources?  NOt much, I  bet.  How much of your view of what is historical
>is based on pure, objective history?  None, I bet.  So we should stop
>with this nonesense about needing archaeolgoical evidence ike that would
>prove something.  Do you disagree?  

What we know of the events that happened in Mesopotamia and the rest of the
fertile crescent comes specifically from the archaeological and epigraphic
materials found. Our knowledge of such erstwhile lost worlds as the Hittite
kingdom comes from their records and those of the Egyptians. The Mitanni
have existence because of the epigraphic record. We now know a great deal
about the Egyptians because of the rich remains left behind. One cannot
expect literary works such as many of those found in the Bible to be
particularly useful to the periods they attempt to refer to when they can
only be dated back to the second century BCE, a thousand years or so after
many of the events.


Ian

>we all know that Ian Hutchinson seems to consider Bablylonain records 
>infallible and the Scriptures of Israel worthless historically.

                                               -- Ken Litwak

"Infallible" and "worthless" are not functional words in my vocabulary.