Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 11.16 22/03/00 -0500, Peter Kirk wrote:
>Ian, let's leave David Rohl out of the argument. 

I seem to remember that you introduced him. Feel free to leave him out. He
seems to be similar to Josh McDowell, though he appeals to a slightly more
educated audience, and as such I see no reason to mention his hairbrained
ideas.

>I understand that 
>some people react to that name like a bull reacts to a red rag. Be 
>honest with yourself: would you have reacted so strongly if I had not 
>mentioned David Rohl?

Well, when you grossly misrepresent the material you were responding to,
almost certainly.

>I accept that from the same data I have reached a different conclusion 
>from Walter. 

This is rubbish, Peter. You left out half of the data. You can say whatever
you like, if you play so loose with your source data.

>I am not doing active research into this, but presumably 
>Walter expects readers on this list to point out to him the weak 
>points in his arguments, and that is what I am doing. My point is that 
>my conclusion is a valid alternative to Walter's. 

Your conclusion was invalid from the data you were reworking.

>If Pithom/Succoth 
>was occupied at two different periods, then that is good evidence for 
>the traditions about the place to originate in one of those two 
>periods. Walter has arbitrarily chosen the later of those two periods, 
>which fits better with the rest of his theory 

Though I gather you did not appreciate the argument, you cannot claim that
it was arbitrary.

>(though he has also argued for a Hyksos period Exodus). 

Or more precisely a Hyksos exodus, ie prototype of the Hebrew exodus, which
is a hypothesis I come to from other directions (in the post-exilic period).

>I am suggesting that the earlier 
>of the two periods is an equally valid alternative, 

To suggest it you need to argue against the material that Walter supplied,
not just omit it.

>which is supported 
>by the evidence from the site of Avaris/Ramses (Tell ed Daba) - though 
>I don't have the data to find out if the sites were abandoned by 
>Asiatics at the same time as in the Exodus narrative.

As you so keenly required of me, supply your sources.

>Meanwhile, what scholarly grounds do you have to oppose the theory 
>that there is a "historical kernel" (as Walter puts it) behind Exodus 
>narratives in a departure of Asiatics from Egypt at the end of the 
>13th dynasty? You can say that it is an argument from silence, though 
>the silence is not complete, but what else?

I'm not opposing the theory. We have an evident "exodus" with the expulsion
of the Hyksos. Jericho fell not long after this exodus. These Asiatics
though are currently thought to have at least partly been Hurrian, and, if
correct, this would explain why there is a strong Hurrian component in the
Canaanite onomasticon of the Amarna period. There is therefore a clear
exodus-type event available in the historical past of Canaan which can
supply a historical kernel for later musing. Just look how it ended up in
Manetho's leper story, which has an internal terminus a quo of the time of
Nebuchadnezzar, the time of the first historical influx of Hebrews into Egypt.

As I pointed out some time ago the linguistic evidence from Hebrew and
Phoenician indicates that Hebrew was so closely related to Phoenician in
the earliest epigraphic testimonies that the only major difference between
them was caused by Aramaic influence on Hebrew. Hebrew shows no evidence
whatsoever of any Egyptian linguistic influence despite its speakers
supposedly having spent four hundred years subjugated in Egypt.

The current model of the development of Iron Age Palestinian hill country
society involves a slow urbanization within the area -- no conquest, no
revolt. Those peoples who were to become Israelites and Judeans emerged
from the silence of the archaeological record forming small settlements
where there were none before them, moving from semi-nomadic to sedentary
life. Not only does a local growth of Hebrew speaking peoples fit the
archaeological evidence but it also reflects the linguistic evidence.

However, the archaeological evidence for an Iron Age emergence neither fits
the conquest tradition nor the Rohl chronological revisionism.

>As for Walter's latest contribution in which he mentions a number of 
>cities occupied in the Early Bronze and again in the Iron Age and 
>mentioned in the Exodus accounts, let me be a bit tongue in cheek in 
>suggesting that perhaps the "historical kernel" for the Exodus should 
>be pushed back to the Early Bronze ;-) 

I don't consider this any worse than the idea in your previous post.

>A more serious argument would 
>be that the cities of Arad, Heshbon and Dibon were on different sites 
>during the Conquest period - it is well known that cities do move 
>around and take their names with them.

Uh-huh, all these cities just so happened to have been on different sites.
I guess you believe when you buy a lottery ticket that you will win. 


Ian