Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

Why does everyone persist in saying that Ai must be et-Tell and then 
use this as an excuse to rubbish the account in Joshua? There are 
plenty of other tells in the neighbourhood which could have been the 
site of the story in Joshua. Rohl and presumably Bimson suggest 
Khirbet Nisya, which was abandoned at the end of MB IIB. Rohl's table 
also shows Gibeon, el-Jib as being extant in MB IIB and abandoned at 
the end of that period. The other sites whose destruction at the end 
of MB IIB are listed by Rohl are: Jericho; Hebron (el-Khalil); Arad; 
Debir; Lachish; Hazor; Bethel (Beitin). I cannot confirm these data, 
but does anyone wish to dispute them?

Peter Kirk



Because there are few other tells in the neighborhood that will make an Ai.
And it is the old game--for people who have in advance decided that the
Bible must be true as far as historical events go--if a place can not be a
place--Biblewise--it is in another place. This trick has ben played over and
over again. bethel is not Bethel (Beitin), because it was founded later than
Joshua, Gibeon is probably not Gibeon because it was founded, and Ai is of
course not Ai because it did not exist anymore. The evidence of the Bible
always comes first, and anything else has to adjust to i; it can never be
the oppisite, or Peter Kirk mention an example that is different, and
finally answer my questions instead of presenting more rhetoric.

Moving around with chronology is another trick as if ANE chronology is such
a mess. Read about chronology, the state of the art, e.g. in Finegan or in
CANE or in other places. There have been black spots and some still remains
but in general, it can be controlled. So however you prefer it, the Amarna
period belongs to the 14th century. You can move around with it within a
couple of decades, and the picture painted of Palestine in the letters from
Palestine in the Amarna period does not conform with the one painted by the
Bible, and so forth.  

And again: What about the challenge: Is Kitchen a radical scholar because he
will not accept chronologies that moves around with his beloved Egyptians
(no irony here) in such a wilfull way?

I am still waiting for a response.

NPL