Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Nomadic Scribes?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: Nomadic Scribes?
  • Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:43:43 -0500 (EST)



Some extracts from Ian's posting:

"Kenyon's discoveries at tell el-Sultan have been born out with the
findings of the middle bronze wall last year (Nigro & Marchetti) that
shows that the site did not continue to be occupied after the middle
bronze... The walls of Jericho put all this theorising to rest. Jericho
was abandoned before the late bronze period, with few traces of anything
later... Nigro has said that the find of the walls intact dating to the
middle bronze with no successive walls (and no successive inhabitation)
puts an end to the speculation regarding Joshua's conquest of the city."

Saying the same thing three times doesn't make it more true. Some clever
archaeologist may discover 16th century AD (or whatever) walls around
Jerusalem, intact (or a lot more so than any at Jericho). By your argument
and Nigro's, that "puts an end to any speculation" that Jerusalem might
have been inhabited at any later time. Unfortunately (for the theory, not
the people!) this can easily be disproved by a visit to a site still
teeming with inhabitants. Disproof of Nigro's theory for Jericho may be
harder because of the time gap (if Garstang's evidence cannot be
rehabilitated), but that doesn't make his argument any stronger.

"As far as I know the fall of Hazor has been connected to the arrival
of the Philistines."

Is there any archaeological indication (rather than theorising)
whether Hazor was destroyed by Philistines or Israelites? If there is
no clear evidence that the Philistines were involved, I see no reason
to reject the historical record that the Israelites did this.

Peter Kirk




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page