Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan D. Safren <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il>
To: George Athas <gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au>
Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: Sihon, King of the Amorites


> George Athas wrote:
>
> > So, then, are we positing here that there was a man called Sihon who was 
> > part of a
race of
> > ancient giants, who lived in the 13th century BCE? Why could not the poem 
> > have a
legendary
> > or even a mythic origin? Why must it have a source in an actual 
> > historical personage?
>
> [JSafren] Sihon is not called aa rafa' (which you translate giant in 
> accordance with the
> Deuteronomic explanation - but see the lit. on Dn'il the Ugaritic rpu') in 
> Numbers,
Deut., or
> Judges 11; Og is, as are te autochtonic, pre-Ammonite inhabitants of Ammon.

Yes, you're correct. Sihon is simply called "king of the Amorites". However, 
he is always
mentioned in connection with Og, who was a rapha (yes, the same as the rpu' 
in Ugaritic
literature -- legendary ancient heroes who lived in the underworld, yet had 
some influence
in human affairs). Do we accept Sihon as an historical personage yet reject 
Og's
historicity? Do we do so even though they are integrally associated together?

> In any case,
> anyone over 155 cm would have been a giant forf the ancient Israelites.

Yet why such a huge couch for Og? The various peoples classified generally as 
"rephaim"
were considered as some kind of terrifying, giant race (cf Anaqim - the 
"longnecks").

> Why posit a mythic source for the poem when neither  the poem itself nor 
> its prose
> superscription give any  such indication, neither in form nor content? It 
> reads like a
> straightforward paean of victory. No gods, no miracles, nothing out of the 
> ordinary. The
> "fire" and "flame" are figurative of the wrath and power of Sihon and 
> Heshbon.
>      And why can't it have its source in an actual historical personage, 
> besides the
> prevailing trend in Biblical scholarship to view every historical 
> description in the
Bible as
> part of "Israel's Mythic Past"? I will be the first one to admit the 
> non-historical
character
> of much of what is written in the Torah, but when something like this comes 
> out and hits
you
> in the face, why ignore it? I prefer to swim against the stream in this 
> case.

Yet, what is it that makes us accept Sihon as an historical figure and yet 
see Og as a
fantastical figure? Is it this poem? The existence of a poem or common 
proverbial song
doesn't relegate Sihon into the realm of history (or non-history for that 
fact). Sihon is
still just a literary character on the page. He hasn't jumped into the 
physical world with
this poem. You are right -- there may well have been someone called Sihon -- 
but how do we
know? If it is only the poem which leads us to this conclusion, then it's on 
shakey
ground.

>
> >
> > Why would an Israelite be interested in writing such a poem? Perhaps as a 
> > polemic
against
> > Moabites? See Num 21:28. The poem is a traditional saying, according to 
> > Num 21:27. The
> > Israelites obviously used it because it's in Numbers. So, an Israelite 
> > would have been
> > very much interested in writing such a poem if an Israelite could use it 
> > (as an
Israelite
> > obviously did). It serves the purpose of the Numbers narrative.
>
> [JSafren} But why heap such effusive praise on Sihon? It's the kind of 
> praise one might
expect
> from an Israelite victory song over Israel's own victories. But notice the 
> big
difference. The
> Israelite victory songs preserved in the Bible, such as the Song of 
> Deborah, accord the
> victory to YHWH. The Sihon song attributes the victory to Sihon alone, who 
> has defeated
"the
> people of Chemosh".

What better way to ham up the victory of the home side than to play up the 
strength of the
away side? Shalmaneser III did it in his description of Qarqar in 853 BCE. 
The Bible does
it many times. Make the enemy look very strong and powerful and their defeat 
is seen to be
even more spectacular.

> As you yourself admit, the song is a traditional saying, and its inclusion 
> in Numbers
would
> have served the Israelite historiographer very well: That selfsame Sihon 
> who defeated
the
> first king of Moab - was in turn defeated by the israelites under YHWH's 
> patronage.

> > Whether an Israelite originally composed it or not is another question. 
> > It's certainly
> > possible.
>
> [JSafren] If he did, then it's certainly a good forgery. Like the Tel Dan 
> Inscription?

Very cheeky!! :)

Best regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
 Dept of Semitic Studies,
 University of Sydney
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Tel Dan Inscription Website
http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
< gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au >