Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT xsinet.co.za>]

Ian H. wrote, re. Ai

> 
> This does not reflect the analyses of the vast majority of archaeologists.
> There is no "switch" going on, except by those who don't like the fact that
> Ai has been identified as a site which doesn't fit late literature 

What a marvelous combination of illogical statements!
Archaeologists identify "biblical" Ai as et-Tell based on
"late literature" (i.e. the fact that et-Tell means roughly
the same as ha`ay), but when that same "late literature" is
cited to show the incompatibility of et-Tell and Ai in
Joshua, you say that the objection is invalid because it's
based on "late literature."  Are suggesting that the
identification of Ai with et-Tell is based on early
literature?

> It's a shame your source cannot be dated before the second century BCE --

Which is more than 2000 years before your sources for Ai =
et-Tell and Bethel = Beitin.

Sorry, life's too short to deal with the rest of your post. 
Just more of the same.

Regards,

John