b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
- To: 'John Ronning' <ronning AT nis.za>
- Cc: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: RE: conquest etc.
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 23:10:51 +0100
Either you did not understand or choose not to understand my point: If
something does not accord with biblical narrative: move it away, go to some
other place, because the Bible must be right historicallywise because we say
so and have decided in advance that it may be so. Furthermore, this
discussion tried to place a date of the exodus at the end of the MB period,
and now you are talking about tghe LB period. And who says that Ai according
to Josh is small? The story tells us that it was a difficult place to
conquer for the multitudes of Israel. Reda the text as it stands in the HB
and not a rationalistic paraphrase of it.
NPL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Ronning [SMTP:ronning AT nis.za]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January, 2000 22:01
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: conquest etc.
>
> Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> >
> >
> > Because there are few other tells in the neighborhood that will make an
> Ai.
>
> As you know, only one is needed, like Kirbet el-Maqatir
> which is a small site (as Joshua describes it, unlike
> et-Tell which is a huge site), and had a late bronze age
> fortress with gate, as described in Joshua, and whose
> topography matches the descriptions in Joshua (unlike
> et-Tell).
>
> > 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,
>
> Or is it the old game, that evidence that is taken as being
> against the historicity of Joshua cannot be given up no
> matter how flimsy - like Bethel = Beitin based on a 19th
> century (AD!) tradition, with zero epigraphic evidence for
> it, and despite not agreeing with ancient descriptions of
> its locations based on Roman mile markers?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John Ronning
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
-
conquest etc.,
Niels Peter Lemche, 01/27/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: conquest etc., Peter Kirk, 01/27/2000
- Re: conquest etc., John Ronning, 01/27/2000
-
RE: conquest etc.,
Niels Peter Lemche, 01/27/2000
- Re: conquest etc., John Ronning, 01/28/2000
- RE: conquest etc., Niels Peter Lemche, 01/27/2000
- Re[2]: conquest etc., Peter Kirk, 01/28/2000
- RE: Re[2]: conquest etc., Niels Peter Lemche, 01/28/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.