Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Stop with the Rohl material.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Stop with the Rohl material.
  • Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:00:04 +0100


>See note 20 to chapter 10 where Rohl shows clearly that
>he knows that the Gulatu in EA 292 & 294 is female.

Then why propose this name as being Goliath?

>>... He wan ts you to believe that David is mentioned in one letter when the
>>name, Tadua, is written by local scribes who know how to represent local
names
>>in Western Peripheral Akkadian. This simply cannot be "David" written under
>>Canaanite conditions.
>
>PK: You probably know more Akkadian than Rohl, or me. But Rohl
>suggests that David's name in Hebrew was originally something like
>"Daduya" = "beloved of YHWH" and then "Dad", with the form "David"
>being later.

While the letter clearly writes ta-du-a, it also writes ya-$u-ya for
Yashuya. So there is no justification for this blatently tendentious
manouvre. This is making the data fit the conclusions.

>Could these forms have been written "Tadua" in Akkadian?
>Actually Rohl writes "Dadua" when he quotes EA 256. Which is correct,
>"Tadua" or "Dadua"?
>
>>At the same time this letter from Mutba'lu was addressed to Yanhamu, an
Egyptian
>> high functionary who has travelled to many cities throughout the Levant.
As it
>>was addressed to Yanhamu (and found amongst the Amarna achives, Yanhamu
was at t
>>he time in Egypt. He was often in Egypt as evinced in other letters. If
Yanhamu
>>was in Egypt then so was Tadua and Bin-Elima (note, "-Elima" is the
correct form
>> and not as reported in Rohl, "-Enima",...
>
>PK: See chapter 10 note 12, where Rohl writes "We have chosen to
>accept the original reading of Bi-en-e-ni-ma as given by Knudtzon
>(1915, p.816) rather than Moran's Bi-en-e-li-ma (1987, p.309). The
>syllable 'li' is interchangeable with 'ni' in Akkadian."

The reason why Moran has chosen the form he has rather than that given by
Knudtzon is that there had been 80 years of know-how developed since
Knudtzon's time. Now e-li-ma is a relatively common theophoric element in
Canaanite/Phoenician names, evinced by the name Abd-Elima. To go back to
Knudtzon's reading Rohl would have to justify the step, for example show
that the Knudtzon reading represents a name from that era. Again, Rohl's
choice of going backwards seems tendentious.

>> ... but then had it been the way Rohl wants
>>it, he would still have to face the fact that Canaanite scribes know how
to do t
>>heir jobs). Does Rohl want to rewrite the OT/HB and send David to Egypt?
Sure, w
>>hy not? -- he's played so free with the facts so far.
>
>I think Mutbaal's "Just ask Benenima. Just ask Dadua. Just ask
>Yishuya." must be taken as a rhetorical flourish rather than a serious
>request to ask questions.

To decide that you should read a good selection of the Amarna letters and,
in doing so, you'd find that you were wrong.

>Anyway, did Mutbaal know that Yanhamu was in Egypt?

If you had read the letters you would know that they often knew when an
Egyptian commissioner was in Egypt. Note, for example, EA 284 in which
Shuwardata writes to the pharaoh and says, "Yanhamu the commissioner is
with you: let the king my lord send him!"

>They weren't in contact by telephone or E-mail! More likely he
>sent all his (very) snail mail to Yanhamu's HQ in Canaan and it was
>then forwarded to him wherever he happened to be.
>
[..]
>
>>In fact, there is only one name in all this that is actually close in his
>>reconstruction, and that is Yashuya. Had our Canaanite scribes wanted to
write
>>Ishbaal they would have, but they didn't, so obviously Mutba'lu's name
was in fact
>>Mutba'lu.
>
>I guess Rohl would argue that the original name was indeed
>Mutba'lu,

That accepted, there is no justification for this hypothetical name change
after death other than for tendentious purposes.

>but was later corrected to Ishbaal (and then Ishbosheth)
>when the form "Mut" went out of use, and perhaps because of the
>unfortunate alternative meaning "death".
>
>>His historical efforts have been falsified by the Amarna letters, which
tie the
>>Amarna Age strongly to the reigns of Burna-Buriash and the that of
Ashur-uballit
>>who was leading his re-nascent Assyria to become a major player in
Mesopotamia
>>in that epoch and not three hundred years later when Assyria was already
the maj
>>or player. (This is straight primary evidence.)
>
>Sorry, what is the "straight primary evidence" which gives an
>absolute date for these Assyrians?

It doesn't have to. It gives a very strong general dating indication. We
know how long it was from the time of Ashur-uballit till the time Ashur-dan
(commonly dated 1178-1133) dealt the blow to Babylon that gave Elam the
opportunity to unseat the Kassites, which in turn supplied the space for
the dynasty of Isin from which came the first Nebuchadnezzar. During this
last's reign Tiglath-pileser I came to the Assyrian throne and from there
you have a long line of assured Assyrian reigns. There are minimum
indications of lengths of reigns from epigraphy of the relevant periods of
the form, month X of year Y of king Z. If one wants to challenge this
status quo that is remarkably well documented, one needs to do the relevant
footwork.

>Surely there must be some
>interpretation (even if rather straightforward) involved in this?

Yes.

>Anyway, as I said above, many aspects of Rohl's arguments, including
>those I have posted to this list in recent weeks, do not depend at all
>on Rohl's absolute datings.

Try and make Rohl's theories work based on the data that we have from
Mesopotamia read in the context of the Amarna letters providing a solid
synchronization between the Amarna age and Ashur-uballit I & Burna-buriash II.


Ian





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page