yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
Sun Dec 30 14:30:16 EST 2007
On Dec 30, 2007 1:01 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> Thanks for the specific examples, now we have something to discuss.
No, we don't. Edom was not set up as a political entity hundreds of years
before Moses, and the Bible is not in discussion here -- archaeological
evidence that has implications for the Bible is. In any case, my point to
Yigal was that someone who believes in prophecy will have a problem, if
he has methodology guiding him beyond the simple "if it happened future
to the time it was written, it could be prophecy." Such methodology
guided rabbis in the Talmud and the classic commentators. My reply on
the archaeological evidence was not meant to start a discussion about it.
The clear archaeological evidence that I gave is -- so far as I know -- not in
dispute among the reputable archaeologists working on sites in the Levant.
Or do you have some particular archaeologist of the Levant in mind when
you say some of my facts are disputed? Also, following Uri's "dictum,"
that "it would be a truism to state that individual opinions, on this list or
elsewhere, are valueless unless based on specific knolwedge of the work
discussed," it would be wise to at least read the book which was clearly
presented as the authoritative source and background to the post I made,
instead of responding and dismissing it as "sloppy scholarship." I didn't
even get to write my Kenneth Kitchen review yet which relates to a point
I mentioned. The Bible clearly states that Lachish was destroyed. It says
that Eglon was placed on xrm just like Lachish. xrm generally has
connotations with destruction but even if it just means that everyone in
Lachish was killed, and the city was banned from continued habitation,
that would be visible in the archaeological record. Instead, the city
continues to be inhabited for a 100 years after Hazor. Ai, which is said
to be destroyed -- and you agree on that -- was not destroyed then but
a thousand years before Hazor. Also, reevaluation of the finds from
Hazor in light of new finds from Lachish indicate that the "destruction"
took decades. The archaeological evidence for the destructions don't
match up with the Biblical account. The view that they did was once
current and it was discredited, to the degree that today practically no
archaeologists of the Levant dispute this. If you have archaeological
evidence or sources that relate to this issue, then you are welcome to
point out disputes that I am not aware of. But please don't claim that
there is a dispute on non-archaeological possibly theological grounds,
when the thread deals with the archaeological evidence only.
More information about the b-hebrew