kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Jun 26 22:19:17 EDT 2006
Not anyone (last paragraph below) but there are
some who so do.
I was in a debate with someone online a couple
of years ago, who made the claim that he had
proof that the Bible was self-contradictory,
because there was a report of Abraham visiting
a place with a certain name, and he had done so
before someone else was born who had the same
name as the place where Abraham visited. He
refused to admit to the possibility that there may
have been at least two people with the same name
with the place named after the first individual. But
as my memory is fading of the incident, I don't
remember the name in Tanakh that was mentioned
(I think it was Midion), nor the name of the person
I debated. For me, the impression I got from the
discussion was that the person I debated thought
that there was only one person with that name,
therefore that Abraham visited a site with the same
name that a later individual carried was evidence
that the Biblical message was garbled.
I have run into similar situations elsewhere.
Similarly, there was a tribe and country in what is now
southern Turkey that had the name of Dan, not to be
confused with the Israelite tribe of Dan, and the Mari
Benjaminites are a different people than Israelite
Benjaminites. The names were reused. Maybe often.
A similar argument is found that because a location
had a name mentioned in Genesis, therefore there was
a town there. Abraham visited Beersheba, there is no
archeological evidence that there was a town there in
Abraham's time, therefore Genesis report is garbled
(despite Genesis' report that indicated that there was
only a well and pastureland at Beersheba in Abraham's
time, no town until later).
Karl W. Randolph.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il>
> If by "the claim you mentioned in the paragraph at the bottom of this note"
> you mean "the insistance of some scholars that anything in the ANE must be
> somehow related to the Bible, and that the "Patriarchal traditions" in the
> Bible MUST reflect a "pre-Israelite" reality", than I agree, this claim is
> also absurd.
> Where I don't think that I agree with you is when your state that "they
> assume that any name that is also reported in Tanakh therefore refers to a
> Biblical individual is a de facto denial that names may have been reused by
> ancient, Semitic peoples".
> Do you mean that anyone who thinks that "Abraham" was a real person
> automatically denies that there may have been other, unrelated, people who
> were also named "Abraham"? Why?
> Yigal Levin
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
More information about the b-hebrew