Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Walter Mattfeld" <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com>]

Subject: Re: Exodus and the Philistines
> Jonathan D. Safren:


> Dear Walter,
> Why do you claim that "the way of the Land of the Philistines" is an
> anachronism? Because you have a preconceived  theory that the Exodus is
> connected to the Hyksos? And if it's not an anachronism? That would fit
> in very well with the Rameses II theory, wouldn't it? Whop renamed Tanis
> P(r)-Raamses and (re)built both that city and P(r)-Atum?
> You are tailoring the evidence of the text (or ignoring it) to fit your
> theories, instead of tailoring your theoiies to fit the evidfence of the
> text. Is that good scientific method?

Jonathan your logic escapes me on this, perhaps you are misunderstanding me.
I am arguing that it is impossible that the Exodus narratives were written
by an "eyewitness to the events," whether those events be the Hyksos Exodus
of 1540 BCE, 1446 BCE (1 Kings 6:1) or the "putative" 1250 BCE Exodus under
Ramses II.

The Pelest arrived ca. 1177 BCE, "they could not have been in place" to
prevent Israel's return from Egypt via the "way of the Philistines."
Obviously whoever wrote this account had not the foggiest notion of when the
Philisitines had arrived, because earlier in Genesis he has them "cutting
deals" with Abraham in the 3rd millenium in the Beersheba/Gerar vicinity ! A
real eyewitness to the Exodus, whether it was 1540, 1446 or 1250 BCE would
have no knowledge about Philistines, and there would accordingly be no
reason to make Israel travel south to the Red Sea and Mt. Sinai, to
eventually launch attacks into the Hebron hill country from Kadesh Barnea.

Ergo, whoever wrote Genesis and Exodus had to have lived, at the very least,
several hundred years after the 1177 BCE arrival of the Philistines
(Pelest), when the rememberence of just when the Pelest had arrived had been
erased from the collective memory banks. The narrator did however preserve a
"kernel of truth or historicity" about the Philistines in Genesis, he had
them as descendants of the Egyptians. Ramses III after defeating the Pelest
in 1177 BCE boasted of "sealing them in his name" and establishing them in
fortresses to the east of Egypt and the Gaza area. Evidently vague memories
of the Pelest settling down in Philista after their defeat and return from
Egypt is what is behind the Genesis' Table of Nations account which suggests
that the Philistines are the descendants of Mizraim (Egypt). We know of
course, that they did not "originate" in Egypt, they were defeated there and
from there were settled in coastal Canaan by Ramses III, their homes being
perhaps the Anatolian littoral.

As pointed out in Mr. Kilmon's reply to Mr. Bailey, some scholars have
attempted to argue for an Exodus after the 1177 BCE arrival of the Pelest,
to substantiate the Exodus story, that is, the fear of taking "the way of
the Philistines." As you well know this theory has not enjoyed much support
amongst scholars because Pharaoh Merneptah (1125-1215 BCE) declared he had
defeated Israel in Canaan, so they understand quite rightly, the Exodus had
to have occurred before that time, not after 1177 BCE and the arrival of the
Pelest.

It is my understanding that the Exodus as portrayed in the Pentateuchal
narratives never really happened as described, it is a fictious fantasy
story. Yet, I agree with you, that "kernels of historicity or truth" can be
teased out of the texts. Because it is a make-believe fairy tale, the
archaeological evidence cannot be mustered to substantiate it (rather like
looking for "evidence" of King Arthur's fairy-tale story "Camelot").

The Hyksos Exodus events cannot be made to support to Pentateuchal
narrative's details. The 1250-1210 BCE archaeological "facts" cannot be made
to fit the narratives either. In all cases, 1540, 1446 or 1250 BCE, there is
no Sihon the Amorite at Heshbon to hinder the Israelite advance on Canaan
via the plains of Jericho, Heshbon not being settled until after 1200 BCE
according to the archaeological record. Obviously, whoever wrote the
Pentateuchal narratives was not an eyewitness to events of the 13th century
when Humanists believe the Exodus occurred. If he had been a real
eyewitness, he would know nothing about Sihon the Amorite king of a
non-existent Heshbon, and this story would not be part of the Pentateuch.

Where did the Pentateuchal narrator get the notion Israel was in bondage in
Egpyt as slaves for several hundred years ? The Hyksos account doesn't
preserve this notion. We know however that the mighty warrior Pharaohs of
the 18th Dynasty carried off into Egyptian captivity thousands of
Canaanites, including several thousand apiru (Canaanite abiru, whence Hebrew
?). These apiru slaved in quarries and mud-pits building the mighty
monuments of the 18th dynasty. I would argue that here in the 18th Dynasty
we have the "historical kernels" behind Israel being portrayed as slaves.
But the historical sequence has been torn free of its moorings and
retrojected into Hyksos times, the Hyksos were transformed into a liberated
Israel by the Pentateuchal narrator.

I am of the understanding that the Hyksos expulsion of the 16th century BCE
was such a traumatic event, bringing on slavery in Egypt for Canaanite
captives (including captive Apiru/Abiru), and vassalage to the 18th dynasty
Pharaohs and their successors, that the Canaanites and still later, the
biblical "Hebrew-Israelites" preserved this event in written records as well
as oral traditions. I would argue that it was "the cornerstone of all
subsequent Canaanite chronologies" till being picked up by the state of
Israel, perhaps in Davidic or Solomonic times.  I know of no other way to
account for the 1540 BCE Exodus date preserved in Acts 13:18-21 in
conjunction with 1 Kings 2:10-11, and 1 Kings 6:1, and the 1540 BCE Hyksos
"alternate" expulsion date currently proposed by K.A. Kitchen.

As noted by an earlier poster to this list (the gentleman's name slips my
mind), Ramses II transformed his defeat or stalemate by the Hittites at
Kadesh into a great victory made possible by Egypt's gods and his own
peronal bravery. The same my have happened with the Hyksos expulsion, later
generations creating a false story that their God brought them out of Egypt
with a stong arm, defeating the invincible Egyptians.

Schematically, this my listing of the "historical kernels" behind the
Pentatuchal narratives concerning the Egyptian Captivity, Exodus, and
Conquest of Canaan by a fictious Moses and Joshua:

2300 BCE Early Bronze Age walls of Jericho show collapses due to earthquake
activity. Before the weakend wall can be hurriedly repaired the city is
torched by EB IV/MBI invaders (perhaps from Transjordan ?). Ai is also
destroyed in an earlier phase of the Early Bronze Age and abandoned till
Iron Age I. (These kernels lie behind the fictional Joshua story)

After 1200 BCE Heshbon is settled. (This explains why Pentateuchal
narratives are not eye-witness/contemporary accounts of an Exodus occuriing
1540, 1446 or 1250 BCE)

Pelest/Philistines arrive ca. 1177 BCE, settling Philista, placed there by
Pharaoh Ramses III (This explains Genesis' garbled notion the Philistines
are the sons of Egypt/Misraim, and proves Pentateuchal narratives are not
eyewitness/contemporary accounts of an Exodus occurring 1540, 1446, or 1250
BCE)

The warrior-Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty ransack Canaan and carry off into
an Egyptian Captivity "Apiru/Abiru" as well as others "to slave" in quarries
and mud-pits building Egypt's monuments.(This explains how Israel came to be
portrayed as slaves in Egypt)

In every case, these "historical kernels" have been torn out of their true
historical contexts and "garbled together" into a fictious history of how a
merciful God delivered his people from their invincible oppressors and gave
them a Promised Land.

The Exodus is a story of Condemnation and Hope. It had to have been created
for an audience receptive to the message and willing to be inspired by it.
I note that "Hopelessness" for the people of Israel begins with the Assyrian
conquest and vassalage of Israel and Judah (Israel carried into Captivity
722 BCE, while thousands of Judaeans are carried into captivity in 701 BCE
by Sennacherib). Only God can deliver them out of the Assyrian's hand. This
theme of God's deliverance is reinforced with Assyria's fall. Hopelessness
sets in again with Babylon's conquest and destruction of Judah and
Jerusalem. So, the "Hopelessness theme of the Pentateuch, relying on God's
deliverance," is best addressed to an audience of the 8th through 6th
centuries BCE.

Genesis to 2 Kings is a national history ending in 560 BCE, and endings date
beginnings (Genesis and the Pentateuch). At about this same time, the mid
6th century BCE the first Greek "Prose-Histories" appear. This suggests to
me Genesis-2 Kings is not 500 years of layers by a fictious JEDP, but one
author, as posited by Whybray (1987).

As you know I argue that Japheth's blessing is for Cyrus and his Persians,
he being of royal Median blood via his Median grandfather Astyages, plus the
fact that the Persians were called Medes by Jews, Greeks, Egyptians, and
Mineans of South Arabia. Madai's Japhethic descent is the Athenian Greek
Medus myth, used by Datis, Darius I Median general, in 490 BCE to justify
the invasion of Greece. Jews in the Persian court picked this up, making the
Medes the descnedants of Iapetos/Japheth. Thus, I understand Genesis-2 Kings
to be a 5th century BCE composition. The great error made by scholars is
that that have butchered the text up into isolated books studying each "in
isolation from the others." I am arguing that this national history is a
single composition, and in order to determine its date one must go through
all the texts with a fine-toothed comb, assembling all the historical
markers, from Genesis to 2 Kings, to determine the date (the 5th century BCE
and the Medus Myth).

All the best,

Walter

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany