Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> . . .
> I really can't understand the importance that a datum fit what the 
> >biblical stories mention. Is it, well they got this one bit right, so >all 
> the rest must basically be right as well?

No, if you recall, the point under discussion (which you said you wanted
to get back to) was whether it was possible that bronze
age traditions could have been handed down in written form to the
Israelites by their forefathers.  To show that such is possible, it is
not necessary to show that "all the rest must be basically right". The
"datum" under discussion was from the early bronze age.  I take it
you are now admitting it is possible but are just trying to change the
subject?  Or do you have another explanation?  And if they knew such
minutiae from the early bronze age, isn't it possible they also knew who
the early inhabitants of Gerar were related to (you certainly don't).

> . . .
> The walls of Jericho put all this theorising to rest. Jericho was 
> >abandoned before the late bronze period, with few traces of anything 
> >later.

This abandonment is theorized on the basis of pottery finds and tomb
abandonment, so your argument is circular here, since both Garstang and
Kenyon found plenty of LB I pottery, whether Nigro has or not, and
continued tomb occupation in LB I is shown by Egyptian scarabs from the
18th - 14th centuries. (I do apologize for including the mention of the
C-14 date, which I now understand to be obsolete information).

Concerning Gibeon, as I noted there is a similar problem with Hebron,
which lacks LB I remains, yet it is on Pharaoh's map list from that
era.  Whatever explains the discrepancy at Hebron (not to mention
Jerusalem) may also apply to Gibeon and other MB cities listed in Joshua
that do not have significant LB I remains.

Cordially,

John Ronning