Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: More Rohl rot
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    01/10/1999 06:46

<snip>

>Here's a rehash of Ahlstrom, p245-247, that reflects on the rubbish about 
>Saul:
>
>When Lab'ayu was king of Shechem, Abdi-Hepa was ruler of Jerusalem (EA 
>287). Lab'ayu was captured, taken to Acco and was to be sent to Egypt by 
>ship (EA 245). He bribed his way out, but was killed at Gina (south-west of 
>Hazor). Lab'ayu was succeeded by two sons. One of Abdi-Hepa's letters 
>mentions their alliance with the king of Gezer. Oh, and Abdi-Hepa complains 
>about the Nubian troops stationed in Jerusalem.
>
>1) Lab'ayu's death is nothing like that of Saul's. 
>2) More than one son survived Lab'ayu
>3) The king of Jerusalem during and after Lab'ayu was Abdi-Hepa 
>   (and I bet he must have been David, right???)
>4) The structure of the zone of Palestine differs completely
>   from that portrayed in I Samuel. Each town had its own ruler. 
>5) Nubian troops in Jerusalem??
>
>PK: Thank you for this rehash. Rohl's interpretations for your 
>information: 1) Gina is Jenin which is the nearest town to Mount 
>Gilboa; Saul was killed not at Gina, but by men of Gina in the battle 
>at Gilboa.

Neither the biblical nor the Amarna texts say this.

PK: This is compatible with the Biblical text, which does not mention 
the provenance of the archers who wounded Saul (1 Sam 31:3) before the 
charioteers reached him (2 Sam 1:6). Do the Amarna letters say that 
Saul was killed in the city of Gina? In letter EA 250, quoted by Rohl, 
the "two sons of Labayu" write: "Wage war against the people of Gina 
for having killed our father". In letter EA 245, quoted by Rohl, 
Biridiya of Megiddo says he wanted to capture Labayu alive but: "I 
took my place behind him and rode with Yashdata. But before my arrival 
they had struck him [Labayu] down." This passage could well refer to 
the battle of Gilboa.

>2) One son and one son-in-law, Ishbaal (= Mutbaal) and David.

Ahlstrom says, "Two of his sons seem ot have ruled the territory (ie 
Shechem) and one of them, Mut-Ba'lu, became king of Pehel (Pella)... One of 
the letters mentions that Lab'ayu's sons were in an alliance with Milkilu 
of Gezer."

Supposedly David was king of Hebron at the time and there was no accord 
between him and Ishbaal. And there was a battle at Gibeon between David and 
Ishbaal's forces.

Rohl's analysis here is at best wishful thinking.

PK: 2 Sam 2:2 David became king in Hebron. 2 Sam 2:8-9 Ishbaal becomes 
king over Transjordan and nominally over the northern hill country 
(from north of Jerusalem to Mount Gilboa), but his capital is in 
Transjordan, no doubt because the Philistines (1 Sam 31:7) and then 
David were contesting the hill country. No doubt the other rulers 
thought that Saul's sons were ganging up on them, and the Biblical 
text could easily have omitted a period of tacit alliance between 
David and Ishbaal, when they could have jointly written to Egypt (EA 
250) for support against the Philistine aggression. And then there was 
an alliance between David and Ishbaal's army commander Abner (2 Sam 
3:4). Rohl is making a serious attempt to see if we have here two 
different reports of the same people and events. It at least deserves 
careful study.

>3) No, Abdi-Hepa was the last Jebusite ruler.

Whew!! Fortunate.

>4) Precisely
>which towns in the hill country, other than Jerusalem? Rohl has 
>Labayu/Saul as ruler of the hill country (apart from Jerusalem) and 
>parts of Transjordan. Shechem is in his territory, but not his 
>capital.

Megiddo, Gina, Yanuammu, Pella, Hazor, Ta'anak, Hebron, Lachish and others. 
One would think that Adbi-Tishri, king of Hazor, was just as big a 
disturbance as Lab'ayu. This is not the Palestine of the Saul stories.

PK: This leaves quite a large area of sparsely populated hill country 
for Saul/Labayu to control, from the edge of Jerusalem northwards to 
Mount Gilboa. Probably Megiddo, Ta'anak and Gina were content with 
controlling the trade routes and the nearby plains. Saul also seems to 
have controlled some areas south of Jerusalem e.g. Bethlehem, En Gedi, 
but not Hebron which first comes into the story when David settles 
there. (Had he driven out an earlier ruler? Maybe the Amarna letters 
can answer that.) The king of Hazor's lands were no doubt further 
north, in Galilee which Saul never controlled. Yes, I think this 
Amarna Palestine could well be reflected (with a somewhat selective 
view) in the Saul stories.

Why omit the Nubian troops in Jerusalem? Bethshan was the Egyptian 
stronghold in Palestine and it functioned on into the times of Ramses III, 
but this "revised chronology" would have all Israel in David's hands before 
the time of Ramses III. The fact is that Rohl doesn't deal with the facts.

PK: I thought Egypt largely lost control of Palestine during 
Akhenaten's reign and didn't get it back until Rameses II. Presumably 
during the intervening period Bethshan was either abandoned or was 
tolerated as a beleagured outpost. It no doubt figured in the treaty 
Solomon made with Pharaoh (Haremhab?) when he married his daughter. As 
for Nubian troops in Jerusalem, I suppose they were a token effort by 
Egypt to protect the city from David.

With this, his errors in Assyrian chronology in order to make his other 
chronology work and the fact that archaeology doesn't allow his 
chronological revisions, I'd recommend that you file the book in the WPB*. 
It seems to be a deceptive manipulation of the evidence readily available. 
(Here I am in Rome with very few bibliographical resources and I have 
enough here to deal with this stuff.)

PK: I accept that there is a difficulty with Assyrian chronology. I 
have yet to see any good archaeological argument against Rohl.

Peter Kirk