Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Ian,

And thanks for your continuing interest as well.

Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> Thanks for your continuing interest in the subject.
>
> . . .
>
> Let me explain: I did not feel that it was necessary to look at that >datum 
> at the time: the indication of perhaps well maybe a dry river bed 
>is actually one of the four rivers. (I am acquainted with David Rohl's
> demostration that the four rivers of the garden were in the border area of
> Turkey/Iran. So somebody else says something else. Another person of 
> course will have some other explanation.) I could go further into this (eg
> "Looking for Dilmun", G.Bibby), but one datum in itself doesn't help the
> argument I perceived you were making.
>
> (BAR after all is in the business of making money and has few scholarly
> restrictions.)

Ian, my point is I think you have a position that can't survive "a
single datum" against it, especially from the early bronze age.  Your
position (that it is not possible for bronze age traditions to have been
passed down to the Israelites in written form) is like a balloon - you
can make it as grand as you want, but a single pin-prick finishes it. 
This is the second time you've brought in the name David Rohls in
association with this "datum" (first time by assumption, this time by
bringing in his name even though you have been informed that he's
irrelevant to this issue).  The author of the article I referenced was
formerly of your persuasion, and he says, "now I am recanting." 
Dismissing it in advance as of suspect scholarship is not helpful.

On Jericho, let's suppose for the sake of argument that it was destroyed
in 1550 BC. That actually makes your position more difficult, since you
have to explain how the Israelites got all this accurate information
about the destruction of Jericho by someone else four hundred plus years
before there was even a tiny, illiterate Israel and a thousand years
before they decided to make up stories about their past ([1] walls
falling down outwards so the invaders could go in; in Kenyon's own words
"These [red bricks] probably came from the wall on the summit of the
bank" - note that's Kenyon, not Garstang, and she's talking about enough
brick for a 12 feet high, six feet wide wall [2] destroyed by fire [3]
not plundered of grain [4] soon after harvest time [5] no lengthy siege
[6] no escape with the foodstuffs).  Personally, I think it more likely
that the people with all the accurate information about how it happened,
also knew when it happened and who did it.  But even if the date was
wrong, that's five or so more pin-pricks in your balloon.  (Another
problem with Kenyon's
dating is that she has 20 distinct architechtural phases in the last 100
years of occupation!).

Your response to my discussion of the MB I and II periods and the fact
that the best archaeological "fit" with the patriarchal itinerary has
Abraham in MB I and Isaac and Jacob in MB II (which is where the
biblical chronology places them) does not help your credibility
either.  I point out that the biblical information implies that Shechem
was founded shortly before Jacob's arrival there, and long after the
time Abraham passed through, and that this matches archaeological
findings using the biblical dates.

Your response: "Then there's the tree of Moreh that sprouts into a city
in two generations. (I find it difficult to believe that this sort of
thought is seriously proposed.)"

What exactly is the difficulty here?  The time period indicated between
the two visits is almost 200 years (you can do the math yourself).  I
should think that the difficulty would be in continuing to insist there
is zero possibility that this information was passed down in written
form, especially when you have the same sort of match with other cities
and with the Negev.

The archaeology of the late bronze age disagrees with the Pharaoh's map
lists not just at Hebron but also Dibon which is listed at a date more
than 500 years before there are any archaeological remains of it, and
the Amarna letters show Jerusalem to be an important city even though
archaeologically it's practically a zero at the time.  I'm willing to
wait for further information on all these and other discrepancies, but
even if they remain discrepancies, that doesn't help your position.

Then, when I point out problems with the current model, e.g. Albright's
"Bethel," you respond: "Albright was digging in the wrong place!" 
Surely you don't think Albright was infallible - recall Albright also
said that Abraham was a donkey caravaneer.  Albright did not claim to
have any proof that his site was Bethel and he admitted in
correspondance with Livingston that he didn't seek to verify Robertson's
identification which was made by estimating 12 Roman miles on horseback
- it turns out he was two miles off - so yes, "Albright was digging in
the wrong place!"


> . . .  such a datum could have been derived from other sources at any 
> time. I can't see that it helps you.

The point I think you miss is that whatever the source was for the
course of the Pishon River, the information was no longer available
anywhere after the end of the early bronze age, unless it was in written
form.  The Israelites are the only ones that we know of that preserved
it, and they are the only ones we know of who claimed to know who the
Philistines are descended from.  Do you see that your admission that the
Israelites might have gotten this ancient, accurate information about
the Pishon from somewhere else means that they also might have ancient,
accurate information about the precursors of the Philistines, so you can
no longer logically make your case that reference to "Philistines" in
Genesis can ONLY be explained as an assumption on the part of the
Israelites that the Philistines (all of them) were always in Canaan?

Yours,

John Ronning