Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Whereas Yigal Levin is "mainstream", I am historical in that I accept Joshua
as a source that pre-dates Thutmosis III. But at the same time I recognize
that my main contribution to this discussion is linguistic and literary, not
archaeology. As such, I am willing to defer to those who have on the ground
archaeological experience unless there is clear evidence to the contrary,
which you also don't have.

>From a literary viewpoint, when the context says that the cities were in the
hills, they were in the hills. Your theory is controversial precisely
because it violates the linguistic and literary structure of the texts
involved. Whether the text is historically accurate or not is beyond the
purview of this group - Yigal says it is not, I say it is - but the
linguistic, contextual and literary structure clearly places all these towns
in the highlands. I have no choice but to reject your theory on that basis
alone.

(Remember, B-Hebrew is not a site to argue about history, but to discuss the
language and literature of Biblical Hebrew. But where a theory has a
literary and/or linguistic aspect to it, we may discuss that literary and/or
linguistic aspect.)

Secondly the texts indicate that the climate has greatly changed since the
time the texts were written. E.g. the comment was made that there was at
least one forest in the Negev as late as the sixth century BC, as well as
other indications of climate change. If the texts are accurate history, then
much of your theory falls apart, because it is based on modern
reconstructions of ancient climate that ancient texts indicate are wrong. A
second reason I have to reject your theory, and again based on literary and
linguistic grounds.

You have not begun to address the linguistic and literary objections, which
are the subject of B-Hebrew.

Thirdly, while I'm not a professional archaeologist, I have taken formal
training in the subject and have been on a dig, One of the things that
struck me about archaeology is how little is preserved, and how much guess
work is involved in interpreting even that little that has been preserved.
As a result, you are confidently striding out where angels fear tread in
your use of the archaeological data.

Fourthly, I disagree with your methodology. When looking at ancient
documents contemporary to the events recorded, I assume that the documents
are accurate unless there is good evidence to the contrary. (Manetho's
history doesn't count, as it was written long after the events and is widely
criticized as inaccurate, even though some historians still swear by it. The
reason it doesn't count is because it is derivative, not primary.) Go to the
primary documents, and follow them where they lead. Instead you do exactly
the same methodology as the "mainstream scholars" you so deride: you start
with theory, then go fishing for information to support the theory, while
ignoring data that contradicts your theory. The only difference is that your
theory starts with different assumptions that those of the "mainstream".

Fifth, you are just plain illogical. If the Bible is the most accurate
record of the Bronze Age, then you have to admit that Abraham lived in the
early bronze age, that the exodus took place during the middle bronze age,
and so forth, because that's what the text explicitly says when correlated
to modern nomenclature. The "mainstream scholars" get around this literary
and linguistic claim by claiming that these were not contemporary, primary
documents, rather they are recorded legends from long afterwards that were
written up to look as if they were primary documents. I disagree with the
"mainstream scholars", but at least their theory is logically consistent,
and they don't violate linguistics and literary analysis.

Another practice where you do the same things as the "mainstream scholars"
is to assume that place names were unique, that other cities or places did
not have the same or similar names. It is that presupposition that makes
many people claim that the reference to Dan in Genesis 14:14 is an
anachronism: in Genesis this was some place on the way to Damascus, while
Laish was off the beaten path, Judges 18:7. In many of the references to
Bethlehem, it is specified that it is in the region of Ephrata, or of Judah;
though the Bible doesn't mention another town with the same name, the often
use of an extra distinguishing name or context leads to the conclusion that
there was another pre-Babylonian exile place in another tribe or area that
had the same name. And we find this specifically that a couple of cities
given to Judah had the same names as cities given to Ephraim: this is not
necessarily evidence of different authorships reflected in Joshua, rather it
is just as likely that the founders of the cities had chosen the same names.
Hence the listing of a city name on Thutmosis' list could very well refer to
a similarly named place in a different area than among those cities given to
Judah. Thus it is illogical to insist that similarly name places in
Thutmosis' list and Joshua's list of cities assigned to Judah must refer to
the same sites.

In conclusion, do you claim that the story of Abraham is a distorted set of
legends from the 14th century BC Aijelon, or a true history of 18th to 19th
centuries Canaan? Your present theory that the Bible is accurate but talks
about 14th century BC Aijelon makes no sense, as it is illogical to claim
that the text is both highly accurate and a distorted legend. Once we cut
out this illogical double-speak, your methodology and presuppositions puts
you clearly within the same camp as the "mainstream" which you so deride.

Karl W. Randolph.