Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Data:
Pharaoh reported that Dibon was occupied at a particular time.
Modern archaeologists report that Dibon was not occupied at that time.

So, either Pharaoh or modern archaeologists are mistaken. Since Pharaoh was
there at the time, I think it is more likely that modern archaeologists are
mistaken. There is a similar situation with Tadmor, mentioned in Assyrian
sources long before the foundation date attributed by archaeologists.

Conclusion:
Reports from modern archaeologists that any place (whether Dibon, Jericho,
Ai, Jerusalem or wherever) was unoccupied at any particular time are
unreliable.

Corollary:
These reports seem to be the primary data for the postings of Walter
Mattfeld and others who post on this list, and indeed apparently for many
entries in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Since their arguments are based on
unreliable data, their conclusions should also be treated as unreliable.

Peter Kirk

----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Mattfeld <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 5:46 AM
Subject: Jericho's anomalies (Dibon, Hiel the Bethelite)


> Dear John,
>
> Thanks for going the extra mile and digging up the bibliographic citations
> on Dibon as requested. Could you explain the nature of "the disagreement"
> about Dibon's being a city conquered by a Bronze Age Pharaoh ?
>
> I am in agreement with you that if Bronze Age Pharaohs are mentioning the
> place as having been conquered, then some kind of occupation is suggested.
> But the archaeology report indicates the place was unoccupied. In light of
> your important contribution, I will rewrite the Dibon information, noting
> the disagreement.

<snip>