Popular article by Jeff Chadwick on the excavations in Area F

Jeff Chadwick (AKA AMK) has passed on a very nice short popular article in the BYU Religious Education Review that he wrote on the results of our excavations in Area F (where he serves as Field Director of Area F).

Here is the article – check it out – very nice! Chadwick_-_Gath_of_the_Philistines-A_Decade_of_Digging_-_BYU_Rel_Ed_Review2013-1

 

Aren

3 thoughts on “Popular article by Jeff Chadwick on the excavations in Area F

  1. Judges 1:17 mentions a city that can only be Gath but calls it Tzafit (Hebrew Tzafit is rendered as “Zephath” in the King James Version).

    -And I always thought “צְפַת” referred to a place in the Beersheba Valley (c.f., Num 14:45, 21:3, Deut 1:44, Josh 12:14, 15:30, 19:4, 1 Sam 30:30)!

    Like

  2. Achish Melek Gat

    pithom’s observation is the generally accepted model. However, the term tzafit (or tzefat, as pointed in MT) does not appear in any of the passages pithom cites. The term Hormah (with a chet in MT) appears in each of those cited passages. Hormah also appears in Judges 1:17 as an alternative name for Tzafit. While the references in Joshua probably relate to the same period as the destruction mentioned in Judges 1:17, the event in Numbers and Deuteronomy is not related. The term ‘hormah’ means “banned” or “consigned to destruction” and might well be applied to more than one destroyed site. While my phrase “can only be Gath” is a simplistic approach in a short piece for general readers, the more complex model behind it suggests that the term ‘Hormah’ in Judges 1:17 does not represent the same as in the passages cited by pithom. Rather, given its appearance in a direct series of attacked sites which goes on to name Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, the model I prefer for Tzafit in Judges 1:17 is that it refers to Gath, a site which the biblical writer would cluster with Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron because of their later association in the Philistine pentapolis. In this model, the writer either uses the term ‘hormah’ as a descriptive name for the devastated Tzafit/Gath after Judah’s attack. It is also possible that the term ‘hormah’ is actually a mistake in geography by the writer (or, more likely, a later editor) who did not know what to make of the name Tzafit. The Judges 1:17 reference is certainly not a settled issue, and there is not enough data for definitive proof, so pithom’s observation above, which is the standard model, should be given due consideration. That said, I like the Tzafit/Gath identification on a number of levels, and am comfortable standing by it.
    With best wishes,
    Achish Melek Gat (JRC)

    Like

  3. Achish Melek Gat

    SORRY, CAN’T EDIT THE ABOVE, SO HERE IS THE CORRECTED VERSION :)

    pithom’s observation is the generally accepted model. However, the term tzafit (or tzefat, as pointed in MT) does not appear in any of the passages pithom cites. The term Hormah (with a chet in MT) appears in each of those cited passages. Hormah also appears in Judges 1:17 as an alternative name for Tzafit. While the references in Joshua probably relate to the same period as the destruction mentioned in Judges 1:17, I suspect it is not the same event. And the event in Numbers and Deuteronomy is not related to Judges 1:17 or to the Joshua references. The term ‘hormah’ means “banned” or “consigned to destruction” and might well be applied to more than one destroyed site. While my phrase “can only be Gath” is a simplistic approach in a short piece for general readers, the more complex model behind it suggests that the term ‘Hormah’ in Judges 1:17 does not represent the same site as in the passages cited by pithom. Rather, given its appearance in a direct series of attacked sites which goes on to name Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron (see Judges 1:18), the model I prefer for Tzafit in Judges 1:17 is that it refers to Gath, a site which the biblical writer would cluster with Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron because of their later association in the Philistine pentapolis. In this model, the writer uses the term ‘hormah’ as a descriptive name for the devastated Tzafit/Gath after Judah’s attack. It is also possible that the term ‘hormah’ is actually a mistake in geography by the writer (or, more likely, in my opinion, a later editor) who did not know what to make of the name Tzafit. The Judges 1:17 reference is certainly not a settled issue, and there is not enough data for definitive proof one way or another, so pithom’s observation above, which is the standard model, should be given due consideration. That said, I like the Tzafit/Gath identification on a number of levels, and am comfortable standing by it.

    With best wishes,
    Achish Melek Gat (JRC)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s