Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

I would think the opposite - like much of the conquest narrative in Joshua,
it reflects the Iron II geography of the time of its composition. However,
unlike the cases of Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Hebron and other sites which simply
did not exist in the Late Bronze or Iron I periods, nowhere does Joshua
claim that the town of Beth Horon was conquered. Assuming, as the
archaeological evidence seems to point to, that the town(s) of Beth Horon
were Israelite and not Canaanite, the important road known as the Beth Horon
Acsent (today's route 443) was only given that name during the Iron Age.

Yigal


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
To: "Walter R. Mattfeld" <mattfeld12 AT charter.net>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Beth-horon Origin


> On 03/09/2004 16:10, Walter R. Mattfeld wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > This survey of course raises questions. If Joshua routed a Canaanite
> > coalition at the ascent/descent of Beth-horon, is this alluding to the
> > MB site, as there is no LBA site (assuming a LBA Exodus of ca. 1446 or
> > 1260 BCE) ?
> >
> Alternatively, of course, this is an allusion to a well-known
> geographical feature and place on the main road. This could have
> retained its Canaanite name even through a period of abandonment.
> Alternatively, the contemporary name could have been written by a late
> redactor in place of the original name or generalised description.
>
> Or then the Conquest could have been a MB event.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>