Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Bryant,

I fail to see even the slightest connection to Hebrew language in this 
thread. So it will not be allwed to cary too far. From a historical point of 
view, it's adding speculation on top of speculation - what's the point?

Yigal Levin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
To: <torythrp AT yahoo.com>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hyksos


> Dear List,
>
> New Topic,
>
> Based on what Tory has indicated about the mistakes made regarding the
> Philistines (Peleset), I am wondering if the Hyksos were 
> Asiatic-Canaanites or
> of the first wave of the Sea Peoples. My reasoning is that according to 
> the
> Hebrew Text, Israel departed Egypt 430 years from the day that Jacob 
> entered
> Egypt. Assuming for the sake of argument (hypothesis) that 1446-5 BC is 
> correct
> for an early date, then 1446 + 430 = 1876 BC. This would place Joseph at 
> the
> reign of Sesostris III. The "new king" who arose over Egypt (Ex. 1:8) 
> would be a
> Hyksos king NOT an Egyptian Pharaoh called king. Ex. 1:7 does indicate 
> that
> Israel had grown exponentially during the period in which they had lived 
> in
> Goshen; thus, being a threat to any King or Pharaoh.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tory Thorpe" <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Philistines and anachronisms
>
>
> > --- On Fri, 2/6/09, "Gabe Eisenstein" <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The attempt to make the Philistines of Genesis&Exodus into a different,
> > > completely unknown group is motivated only by awareness of the
> > > anachronism.
> >
> > For the so-called arrival of the Peleset (i.e. Philistines) in the 
> > southern
> Levant during the 12th century BCE there is really nothing but the old Sea
> Peoples hypothesis which is now coming under increasing criticism. It is 
> based
> on two basic assumptions: (1) that the first mention of Peleset in 
> Egyptian
> texts signals the advent of this people-group in the southern Levant; and 
> (2)
> that pottery styles can serve as ethnic markers announcing their arrival.
> > As for assumption 1, that no pharaoh we know of earlier than Ramesses III
> seems to make explicit mention of the Peleset would be support of the 
> recent
> arrival hypothesis were it not for the fact that the pharaohs rarely made
> distinctions between the residents of Pa-Canaan. They were all
> Asiatic-Canaanites to most pharaohs. We have reason to believe now, for 
> example,
> that Merneptah was not the first pharaoh to mention Israel by name. It 
> seems
> that honor may actually belong to a pharaoh of the 18th dynasty who 
> mentions an
> Israel in the proximity of Ashkelon and Canaan (Manfred Goerg). None of 
> the
> pharaohs between the 18th dynasty and Merneptah mention Israel yet it 
> appears
> that there may have been such an entity in the Levant all that time.
> > We see in the Medinet-Habu texts of Ramesses III that the Peleset are not
> invading newcomers of the Levantine coast. They are mentioned in the Year 
> 5 text
> concerned with the Libyan war and thus they were already residents before 
> the
> great Asiatic war of Year 8 and presumably long since Aegeanized due to
> continuous contact with the Aegean. What is actually described in the 
> Egyptian
> texts for Year 8 is an Asiatic uprising against Ramesses III (not an 
> invasion by
> Sea Peoples) supported by Hittite satellite states in Cilicia and also 
> Syria.
> > Turning to assumption 2, much like languages pottery styles are not 
> > reliable
> ethnic markers. This was demonstrated long ago by Ruth Amiran (1969) with 
> Aegean
> pottery forms. These were present in the Levant all through the Late 
> Bronze Age.
> They cannot be safely used as evidence of new ethnic arrivals from the 
> Aegean in
> Iron I because such wares were already there. But more importantly, there 
> is no
> evidence any migrants from Cyprus/Aegean styled themselves "Peleset" 
> before they
> arrived.
> > At approximately the beginning of Iron I we do have archaeological 
> > evidence of
> a fresh influx from Cyprus/Aegean (as shown by changes in diet, changes in
> architecture, tablewares, etc.) but no monochrome pottery is found in any 
> 20th
> dynasty context until the last days of Ramesses VI or later (Finkelstein, 
> 1998).
> Myceneaen IIIC:1b pottery, the so-called hallmark of the Philistines, 
> appeared
> only after the reign of Ramesses III (Killebrew, 2000).
> > So the old arrival hypothesis is currently faced with a dilemma and AFAIK 
> > a
> consensus has not yet emerged. On the one hand the inscriptions of 
> Ramesses III
> show that Peleset were already residents of the Levant before Year 5. On 
> the
> other hand the distinctive material culture which is assumed to announce 
> the
> arrival of the Peleset does not appear until 40 or more years after they 
> were
> beaten by Ramesses III in Year 8 (Aharoni, 1978).
> > If there is a legitimate reason to call any of the newcomers from Cyprus 
> > or
> the Aegean at the beginning of Iron I Peleset as if none of the 
> pre-existing
> inhabitants were calling themselves Peleset before they became a military
> concern for Ramesses III it has yet to be found. For that one needs to 
> produce
> epigraphic evidence from Cyprus or from wherever one believes the Peleset
> originally came which actually mentions the Peleset. Lipinski is one who 
> is
> attempting to do this, but as of this writing the name Peleset/Philistim 
> is
> associated only with Egypt and the southern Levant in the literary 
> sources.
> > Keep in mind that the English were calling themselves English before and 
> > after
> the Normans invaded and became the ruling elite. The newcomers introduced
> changes but were not numerous enough to change the language. Thus no 
> historical
> candidates for the Genesis and Exodus Philistines as somehow distinct from 
> the
> Peleset mentioned by Ramesses III need be sought. Put simply, the term
> Philistine in Genesis and Exodus might very well be an anachronism but 
> there is
> to date zero evidence that it is.
> > Tory Thorpe
> > Modiin, Israel
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.18/1937 - Release Date: 
> > 02/06/09
> 11:31 AM
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew