Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>>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; 

Ahlstrom has Mt Gilboa in Beth-Shan territory. Between Gina and Beth-Shan
there was another principality called Shunem. See Ahlstrom's map 8.

>>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, 

It has been stretched to fit perhaps, but there's no positive evidence to
be adduced from the argument, just a bunch of hypotheses that don't fit the
facts, yet again.

>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. 

He simply was not a son of Saul, if Saul were Lab'ayu. Nor is there any
mention of the sons of Lab'ayu taking Hebron, or any problems with them
heard from Hebron.

>2 Sam 2:8-9 Ishbaal becomes 
>king over Transjordan 

What, Gilead? Mutba'lu became king of Pehel (Pella) which doesn't mean
Gilead, but only a small portion. Ishbaal also had control "over all
Israel". The two are incompatible.

>and nominally over the northern hill country 
>(from north of Jerusalem to Mount Gilboa), 

"(Gilead,) the Ashurites, Ephraim, Benjamin, and over all Israel."

>but his capital is in 
>Transjordan, no doubt because the Philistines (1 Sam 31:7) and then 
>David were contesting the hill country. 

This is bible not Amarna letters.

>No doubt the other rulers 
>thought that Saul's sons were ganging up on them, 

I thought you said that there was only one left!? Can you keep a straight
face here?

>and the Biblical 
>text could easily have omitted a period of tacit alliance between 
>David and Ishbaal, 

So, in the end there's very little to support any of the claims that are
being made, because "could easily" and "no doubt". This adds up to wishful
thinking in my books.

>when they could have jointly written to Egypt (EA 
>250) for support against the Philistine aggression. 

"could", eh? So there's actually nothing to support the interpretation.

>And then there was 
>an alliance between David and Ishbaal's army commander Abner (2 Sam 
>3:4). 

He defected.

>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.

I see nothing serious in this, with all the hypotheses and no facts.

>>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, 

Yes, well, Saul sets up a monument on Mount Carmel (1Sam15:12), ie it was
in his power to do so, therefore part of his dominion, but clearly outside
the realm of Lab'ayu.

>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. 

(The southern barrier for Lab'ayu's realm was Gezer and Jerusalem.)

>(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. 

Saul fought against the kings of Zobah (1Sam14:47) which is up beyond
Damascus. If Dan was not part of his kingdom, then why was he fighting in
Zobah if he had no territories near there?

>Yes, I think this 
>Amarna Palestine could well be reflected (with a somewhat selective 
>view) in the Saul stories.

You can say it but look at Ahlstrom's map based on the Amarna letters, then
change your mind.

>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. 

Abdi-Khepa was a big fan of Egypt, had probably been trained there, and
actively supported Egypt's presence both in Palestine and Jerusalem
(Redford, "Egypt, Canaan, Israel", p270, based on Amarna material. (This of
course is not a situation in which a David is going to rip off a city under
the tutelage of Egypt.)

>Presumably 
>during the intervening period Bethshan was either abandoned or was 
>tolerated as a beleagured outpost. 

Check out some Egyptian history. 

>It no doubt figured in the treaty 
>Solomon made with Pharaoh (Haremhab?) when he married his daughter. 

Rohl's rubbish still hasn't given you any reason to assume you can use a
text which *cannot be dated before the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls* as
having any significance to a period a thousand years earlier. (Remember the
simple legal procedure here: if an ordinary witness cannot be placed at the
scene, the testimony cannot be given any weight.)

>As 
>for Nubian troops in Jerusalem, I suppose they were a token effort by 
>Egypt to protect the city from David.

All this stuff is based on Rohl reassigning names to suit himself, claiming
for example that Saul was actually called Lab'ayu and that Ishbaal was
referred to as Mutba'lu. Imagine you being referred to as Pietro or Pedar.
These are not your names, though they are equivalents. Rohl merely assumes
they are the same because it suits his purposes. 

>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. 

It's not a matter of difficulty, his work has been *falsified* through the
Assyrian material.

>I have yet to see any good archaeological argument against Rohl.

Look at where Kenyon puts the artifacts generally known as Philistine --
12th century. This material is not long after the Mycenaean III B and the
Ramses III material. the archaeological evidence puts Ramses III at the
basic time the Sea Peoples' artifacts arrived in Palestine. OK, you wanna
claim that the Sea Peoples were not Philistines, but the archaeological
evidence places the Sea Peoples' materials in the twelfth century along
with Ramses III artifacts, ie Ramses III objects are just prior to the
spread of Sea Peoples' artifacts, so he is archaeologically linked to the
Sea Peoples -- and this was the point in the previous post on the subject
which invalidates Rohl's stuff. From there there is a continuous sequence
of ceramic items (eg from Tell Beth Mirsim) to show continuous development
of the pottery all the way down to Greek times and beyond. Just read
Kenyon's chapter on the Late Bronze and those following, as well as
Ahlstrom's similar chapters (ch5 - ch12).

If you want to date artifacts from the twelfth century in the ninth, what
happens to the sequences of pottery from the twelfth through to the ninth?
Remember there are correspondences also with Mycenaean wares and those with
other cultures.

If Ramses III can be located at the same time as the Sea Peoples then it is
probable that the Sea Peoples are the Philistines. and that Rohl's
chronology is yet again rubbish.


Cheers,


Ian