Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Ian wrote:

"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."

and later:

"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."

Bringing in an argument from race is irrelevant and potentially offensive. 
Don't forget you don't know the skin colour of other b-hebrew members.

A better analogy would be from a court case. You are presenting the case 
that Genesis is late (post-exilic? post-Maccabean?). One of your chief 
witnesses is this Philistine reference. The defenders of Genesis have found 
several good reasons to doubt the reliability of this witness - you mention 
six above (four numbered plus "inaccuracy through transmission and faulty 
memory"), I could add the possibility of deliberate replacement by a 
copyist of an obsolete name by a current one. To an unbiased jury this 
would, I think, be enough to cast significant doubt on this witness. So I 
think if (as the first extract suggests) this is the only evidence you want 
to present concerning Genesis, I think the jury would not accept that you 
have presented your case "beyond reasonable doubt".

Peter Kirk