Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Silver Eiger" <silver.eiger AT mail.ee>]

About the reference to the biblical evidence to the story of Joshua:
There was a time when some people took as historically true the biblical story
of Nineveh, Sargon, or Belshazzar. Others disregarded and ridiculed this
biblical evidence. But eventually, it was the Bible that stood the test of 
time
and was vindicated. Now of course, there is far less that is yet to be
unearthed, than it was in the 19-th century. But the ongoing battle between
chronologies and interpretations what we see here, gives only evidence to the
fact that the picture of those bygone times is far from clear. Some favor Rohl
or Bimson others believe in Kenyon or the majority. Still others are sure that
God knew the situation best and preserved the most detailed record of it 
through
the inspiration. A couple of lost tablets or artifacts could fill some vital
gaps in our knowledge and change the whole scene. And many things will never 
be
found again. That may be called speculation, but it is probably not too much
worse than some others. There is actually no reasonable reason to assert the
Bible is wrong. Though there may be some higly scholarly reasons. It is no 
good
to be dogmatic in this regard too. The scanty evidence that is presently
available, may as well be just inadequately interpreted. Maybe there is no 
point
in fighting too seriously about this. Sorry for such unscholarly views.

Silver Eiger

----- Original Message -----
From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 8:03 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Stop with the Rohl material. [Michael]


Michel,

Here we totally agree. New ideas are always welcomed when they are supported
by evidence and interpretations of evidence. Some will because of the
biblical evidence take the story of Joshua to be histoically true, and they
can do it seriously because they have the biblical evidence; other people
will disregard the biblical version because of other evidence, but we can
discuss the issues related to it because whether pro et contra, we have
material that is relevant to the discussion and forms the basis of --well,
of course very different theories.

NPL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Banyai Michael [SMTP:banyai AT t-online.de]
> Sent: Saturday, 12 February, 2000 01:00
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re[2]: Stop with the Rohl material.
>
> I must comply with Prof. NP Lemche about Rohl even if I mean there are
> serious grounds to question the chronology.
>
> > If Rohl got into a serious
> > dialogue with the people he seemingly is opposition to, the case may be
> > different. To go after Rohl in any serious way is at the present wild
> goose
> > hunting.
>
> His method is unconsistent and jumpy. Of course, it can not be expected
> from a revision proposal of this scale to solve on the spot all problems.
> This would be unrealistic. But at least to stress the still open problems.
>
> One has to play the game with open cards. A matter of honestity.
>
> A discussion of Rohls or others chronologic revision doesn´t make sense so
>
> long there are no new arguments to be brought. We have no ground to chew
> the 1000-th time the same stuff again.
> This is no revisioned chronology fan club, I hope, but I suppose all are
> interested in new original ideas.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Banyai Michael
>
> ---
> 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.

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: silver.eiger AT mail.ee
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.