by jimwalton » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:19 pm
Yes, I read through your argument about Ezekiel and Exodus re: child sacrifice, but I don't find them compelling, as you do. Taking the thrust of the Bible as a whole, child sacrifice is a ubiquitous and unfluctuating abomination. Also, in the Bible, God doesn't give bad laws. Hermeneutically, we let Scripture interpret Scripture, and while I appreciate all the work that went into your analysis, I don't buy it. You've spent some much time on one tree that you've missed the forest, in my opinion. You've missed the character of God and the nature of his revelation. We could go back and forth 100 times, but I don't agree with you. The scholarship of Walton, Block, and Greenberg ring more true to me than your work.
As far as the Israelites being Aramean and not Canaanite, according to Genesis 10, the Canaanites were descendants of Ham, and Aram and Abraham of Shem. This is confirmed several times through the Bible (Dt. 26.5; Gn. 25.20; 28.2). Isaac was forbidden to marry a Canaanite (Gn. 28.2). There was a concerted effort in Genesis to make sure all readers knew that the Israelites were not of Canaanite descent.
As far as I know, we don't really know the origin of the Canaanites. While the Bible attributes them to Ham for theological reasons, they were Semites. In the ancient Near East the designation "Canaanite" was more a geographical description than a people group. Canaan was a region, and people groups from that region were known as Canaanites. They are mentioned as early as the Ebla tablets in about 2300 BC.
But Abraham hailed from "Ur of the Chaldeans" (Gn. 11.31). This was probably not the famous Ur discovered and identified by Wooley in the early 20th c., but a location in northern Syria or southern Turkey, relatively near Haran. This is probably why Abraham's family is always said to have its homeland in Paddan Adam or Adam Naharaim (both Aramean locales) rather than Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates. In any case, the Bible always clearly distinguishes between Israelites and Canaanites.
Now I know that archaeologists have proposed all sorts of theories as to the origin of the Israelites, but there are distinctive differences between the Canaanites and Israelites, especially according to the archaeologists studying the Conquest. There is no end to the scholarly opinions about the origin of the Israelites, but it is certainly not a settled issue as you portray.
1. Finkelstein's research shows nearly 300 new settlements in the central hill country of Canaan during Iron Age I, clearly distinct from Canaanite culture.
2. The Merneptah Stele (1205 BC) refers to Israel as a people group, probably located in the Transjordan.
3. Biblical writings tie the Israelites with the Arameans, not with the Canaanites, as I have said.
Yes, I read through your argument about Ezekiel and Exodus re: child sacrifice, but I don't find them compelling, as you do. Taking the thrust of the Bible as a whole, child sacrifice is a ubiquitous and unfluctuating abomination. Also, in the Bible, God doesn't give bad laws. Hermeneutically, we let Scripture interpret Scripture, and while I appreciate all the work that went into your analysis, I don't buy it. You've spent some much time on one tree that you've missed the forest, in my opinion. You've missed the character of God and the nature of his revelation. We could go back and forth 100 times, but I don't agree with you. The scholarship of Walton, Block, and Greenberg ring more true to me than your work.
As far as the Israelites being Aramean and not Canaanite, according to Genesis 10, the Canaanites were descendants of Ham, and Aram and Abraham of Shem. This is confirmed several times through the Bible (Dt. 26.5; Gn. 25.20; 28.2). Isaac was forbidden to marry a Canaanite (Gn. 28.2). There was a concerted effort in Genesis to make sure all readers knew that the Israelites were not of Canaanite descent.
As far as I know, we don't really know the origin of the Canaanites. While the Bible attributes them to Ham for theological reasons, they were Semites. In the ancient Near East the designation "Canaanite" was more a geographical description than a people group. Canaan was a region, and people groups from that region were known as Canaanites. They are mentioned as early as the Ebla tablets in about 2300 BC.
But Abraham hailed from "Ur of the Chaldeans" (Gn. 11.31). This was probably not the famous Ur discovered and identified by Wooley in the early 20th c., but a location in northern Syria or southern Turkey, relatively near Haran. This is probably why Abraham's family is always said to have its homeland in Paddan Adam or Adam Naharaim (both Aramean locales) rather than Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates. In any case, the Bible always clearly distinguishes between Israelites and Canaanites.
Now I know that archaeologists have proposed all sorts of theories as to the origin of the Israelites, but there are distinctive differences between the Canaanites and Israelites, especially according to the archaeologists studying the Conquest. There is no end to the scholarly opinions about the origin of the Israelites, but it is certainly not a settled issue as you portray.
1. Finkelstein's research shows nearly 300 new settlements in the central hill country of Canaan during Iron Age I, clearly distinct from Canaanite culture.
2. The Merneptah Stele (1205 BC) refers to Israel as a people group, probably located in the Transjordan.
3. Biblical writings tie the Israelites with the Arameans, not with the Canaanites, as I have said.