Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear John,

My argument is that if a text cannot get basic information of a particular
period correct then it was probably not written in that period. It is a
*necessary condition* that if the Genesis reports are to be taken as
written around the time that they refer to they need to show awareness of
the period that are supposed to belong to in such a way as to cover all
aspects dealt with. While allowing some leeway of inaccuracy through
transmission and faulty memory, errors such as those concerning the
Philistines provide a *sufficient condition* to refute claims of the texts
having been written as relatively contemporary accounts and preserved
through the millennium.

It is not sufficient to show that some of the data contained in the
narratives are correct. Nor is it sufficient to assume that such
information could have survived through a continuous written tradition that
led to the second century BCE documents.

(As a, though related, side issue, I argued that nomadic societies are
almost always illiterate, that scribal learning happened in schools in the
fertile crescent, and that nomadic life was not in any way conducive of the
production and maintenance of written traditions. What may be
intellectually possible to you regarding the patriarchal period -- the
maintenance of records and the manufacture and use of materials for writing
-- does not particularly help given the indications that we have about text
production and maintenance in the near east.)

I don't want to be bound by your assumptions regarding transmission of
information as in the case of a 1550 destruction of Jericho somehow
appearing in much later texts, especially when we have the precedent of Ai,
the ruin, having developed an aetiological explanation as to why it was a
ruin. Need we have anything more for the attributed destruction of Jericho
by Joshua?

You seem to be arguing with the expectation of the American army officer
prisoner of war who, after obtaining a German SS uniform and perfectly
falsified documents, escaped from the concentration camp only to be
arrested at first contact with the Germans because he was black. The
Philistines does not seem to be an arguing point. It can't be explained
away by facile approaches such as i) it was writer's licence, ii) there
were Philistine precursors, iii) the archaeological evidence is wrong, or
iv) there was another bunch called Philistines. Ignoring the Philistines is
like the officer ignoring his being black.

Supplying me some fellow's hypothesis that the river Pishon was real and in
Arabia doesn't require me to explain how that hypothetical information got
into the OT/HB. You may show me if you can.

Dealing specifically with a few of your points:

>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 

Kenyon hadn't unearthed the walls of Jericho so she was only hypothesizing.

>[2] destroyed by fire

Many, if not most, ruins were burnt at some stage. It's a shame that
Jericho wasn't burnt at the time Joshua would have it.

>[3] not plundered of grain 

I could find no comments on grain in the Joshua account. This point might
be important to you but seems totally irrelevant to me.

>[4] soon after harvest time 

Where did this datum come from? The siege took place not long after the
Passover.

>[5] no lengthy siege

Any evidence of a siege at all? JR Bartlett ascribes the MB II abandonment
to an earthquake and a subsequent plague.

>[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!).

You may have gripes with the archaeological information, but these gripes
won't help you to redate the destruction of Jericho, will they?

I could not take your discussion of the MB I and II periods at all
seriously when you relate them so neatly to various patriarchs -- when you
consider that these periods were in no way such discretely separated
entities as your analysis would imply. It seems incredible that you could
say Abraham was in the MB I while Isaac was in MB II. Try and pass that one
by any of the archaeologists you know.

>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, 

You may have problems here but they don't seem to bear on the problems at
hand.

>and
>the Amarna letters show Jerusalem to be an important city even though
>archaeologically it's practically a zero at the time.  

Though Jerusalem gets a mention, where on earth do you get "important city"
from? What criterion do you use for important?

>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!" 

Look at the current state of research in the area. It is not simply on the
shoulders of Albright. Although the vast majority of scholars in the field
accept the currently held location of Bethel as correct (Mazar for example
expressly stresses this) despite the complications it implies, you are
championing a lone scholar who advocates that they are all wrong. OK, why
are they all wrong?

>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!"

It would seem you are backing a loser. With the vast majority of biblical
archaeologists wanting the biblical accounts to be correct, noone seems
convinced by the necessity of Livingston's arguments.


Ian