b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
- To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] anachronisms
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:55:23 -0800 (PST)
--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com> wrote:
> Everything I've read about the Philistines says they
> arrived in Palestine in the 12th century. But Abraham visited them in
> Gen.21 & 26, and the exodus group had to avoid going through their land
> (Ex.13:17). So if historians are right about the Philistines, the
> Biblical texts are anachronistic.
Actually not all scholars agree on this. You might try reading for example
Dr. John Bimson, 'The Philistines: their origins and chronology reassessed',
JACF 4 (1990) 58-76. Of course this is a never ending debate on this and
other lists, but there is in fact no proof whatever that what the biblical
authors mean by Philistines are people who only appeared in the southern
Levant in the 12th century BCE.
> I have previously mentioned the strong archaeological evidence against
> the story of the complete evacuation of northern Israel in 2 Kings 17.
This has echoes of Rolf's view that Judea was completely empty of any people
or animals for 70 years after the destruction of the First Temple. I don't
see why the biblical text needs to be read that way or why 2 Kgs 17 should be
read in a similar way. We know the destruction and exile of northern Israel
was a real event. Yet the biblical text as far as I can see nowhere states
that every single Israelite was taken away.
> The story is also anachronistic in using the word Shomron to
> refer to the northern territory rather than the capital city.
It appears for the first time in Assyrian texts under Adad-nirari III. He
refers to king Joash as iu-a-su KUR sa-me-ri-na-a-a, lit. "Joash of the land
of Samaria"; see RIMA 3, A.0.104.7. Because of the gentilic ending a-a this
is usually translated "Joash the Samaritan." Still, in no way can Shomron in
2 Kgs 17 be considered anachronistic of the northern territory. Also see Brad
E. Kelle, 'What's in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern
Kingdom and Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical
Interpretation', JBL 121 (2002) 639-666.
Tory Thorpe
Modiin, Israel
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?,
Gabe Eisenstein, 02/05/2009
- Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?, K Randolph, 02/05/2009
-
Re: [b-hebrew] anachronisms,
Tory Thorpe, 02/06/2009
-
Re: [b-hebrew] anachronisms,
George Athas, 02/06/2009
- Re: [b-hebrew] anachronisms, Tory Thorpe, 02/06/2009
-
Re: [b-hebrew] anachronisms,
George Athas, 02/06/2009
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?,
JimStinehart, 02/05/2009
- [b-hebrew] Philistines, George Athas, 02/05/2009
- Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?, Doug Belot, 02/05/2009
- Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?, Rolf Furuli, 02/06/2009
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?,
Gabe Eisenstein, 02/06/2009
- Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?, K Randolph, 02/06/2009
- Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?, Harold Holmyard, 02/06/2009
- Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?, dwashbur, 02/06/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.