Comments on BiblePlaces Blog: National Geographic on Qeiyafa

Anonymous - you make a good point. I certainly ag...

2008-11-26T22:54:00.000-06:00

Anonymous - you make a good point. I certainly agree that biblical locations were updated in the text (e.g., 2 Chr 20:2), though it is easier to recognize when the later name is given explicitly.

With regard to Shaaraim, though, it is more difficult. For one, the site is not mentioned directly in 1 Samuel, but rather as a road. I am unaware of the names of roads being updated in the biblical text. Second, I maintain that the location of Qeiyafa (on a hill somewhat in the middle of nowhere) would not naturally lend itself to the name of a road.

Third, according to the excavations, Qeiyafa was a single period site (20-40 years?), which makes it a poor candidate as an "updated name." If we could prove this, then we would have a very narrow window for the writing/editing of Joshua and 1 Samuel; my guess is that this would be pretty easy to disprove with other data from those books. Fourth, I think it's even more unlikely that a relatively small site (though well-fortified) with a very brief history would give its name to a road. Azekah is better in every regard: close, bigger, stronger, and much longer history. (See Josh 10:11 for Azekah as a destination on a route.)

The reason that I believe that the Philistines did not flee on the "way to Azekah" is that they were fleeing away from Azekah, towards the Philistine cities. If so, Shaaraim should be found west, not east, of Azekah.

Todd - about the Shaaraim in Joshua and Samuel - I...

2008-11-26T16:41:00.000-06:00

Todd - about the Shaaraim in Joshua and Samuel - I don't think it would be difficult to claim that later editors and scribes edited/updated the geographical identifications and landmarks to make the text more understandable to the contemporary reader - this would account for the name to appear both by Joshua and with Saul - both instances before the site would have been built by David, Solomon or Rehavam

Also, appreciate the link in previous post. I alw...

2008-11-26T10:41:00.000-06:00

Also, appreciate the link in previous post. I always come here for a good "historical geography" perspective.

After hearing Garfinkle's presentation it seems as...

2008-11-26T10:40:00.000-06:00

After hearing Garfinkle's presentation it seems as if the pottery assemblage is definitively not Philistine. There are no Mycenaean imports, no Philistine bichrome, and the assemblage has been described as typical of the Judean hill country by Gitin and Maeir, and similar to the assemblage during this time period of their respective sites by Dever and Lederman/Bunimovitz.