Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>the identification of Kittim with Qode is not my 100%, serves as a
>plausible example, but Enkomi-Alasia was abandoned cca. 1050 BC maybe in
>favour of Salamis. Thus if we had the equation Alasia=Elisha, Kition
>different of Kittim, we get a period pre-1050 for this part of the list of
>Genesis.

If you are willing to throw away the Kittim/Kition 
equivalence, Michael, I don't really understand 
why you want to keep the Alashiya/'ly$h equation. 
It is after all more linguistically distant.

I've already indicated that Tar$i$ is quite similar 
to the Assyrian version Tarsisi from the eighth 
century, while not very similar to the Hittite Tarsa.

>This corresponds the real-political partition of this part of the world
>cca. 1050 (simultaneously with the Balaam reference), 

I think by putting undatable traditions before 
historically valid sources, you get to stack 
the deck -- at least for yourself.

It's plain why you have to deny the Kition 
link. Your fanciful dating system is shot 
otherwise.

While you're not looking at data, you may as 
well forget that Tubal in Gen 10:2, historically 
Tabal, didn't make its appearance in history
until after 850. Or the post-Hittite Bit-
Togarmah. Or one of the descendants of 
Kush, Shabtakah, was really a descendant of 
Kush, being a Kushite pharoah of Egypt, circa 
700 BCE.

>among independent
>coastal or island-states in South-Anatolia. Inland powers with access to
>the Mediteranean are listed separately of "Jaman". The header Jaman could
>be either contemporary with the creation of the list (see the appearence
>of the toponym in Ugaritic documents, thus in the said region) or later as
>most of these countries came under Greek rule.

As you seem arbitrarily committed to such 
a ludicrously early dating for Gen 10:4, I 
guess you won't be prepared to look at the 
literary pedigree of the table of nations, 
which can be derived from both Jubilees 
and the Genesis Apocryphon, both from the 
2nd century BCE and both more primitive 
than the Genesis account, suggesting that 
they are from an earlier recension of 
Genesis than the current one which you are 
betting on.

The trouble with not doing your duty is that 
you have no way of knowing any historical 
data about what you are attempting to 
analyse. You cannot assume your date and 
work backwards: you may assemble and 
mobilise a lot of data, but to what end, when 
you can't derive anything historically useful?


Ian