Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Walter Mattfeld" <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com>]

Contra John Ronning's assertions, that it is impossible that e-Tell could be
Ai because it doesn't meet the topographical criteria of the biblical
account, an Israeli scholar did an article on Ai's location in 1985, and was
"fully satisfied" from his on the site investigations that  Khirbet
et-Tell's topography  met the biblical criteria.

Zevit did an article on Ai's location and carefully mapped out the battle
sequences, locating them on a topographical map. He has personnally visited
the site on numerous occasions and has argued that Ai is indeed et-Tell (cf.
pp.58-69, Ziony Zevit, "The Problem of Ai," Biblical Archaeology Review,
March/April 1985, Vol. XI, No.2)

Zevit observes:

"Another way of resolving the question is to deny that the site I have been
calling by its modern Arabic designation, Khirbet et-Tell, is the one
designated by the bible as Ai. In other words, ancient Ai has yet to be
found. However, ALL GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT POINT TO
THE AREA OF KHIRBET ET-TELL AS THE LOCATION OF AI." (p.61)

"In the course of my visits to et-Tell, I have been struck by the astounding
extent to which the topographic details of the battle of Ai stated or
implied in the biblical accounts can be identified on the ground at Khirbet
et-Tell and the immediate vicinity." (p.64)

"These striking topographical details reinforce the conclusion reached on
general considerations that et-Tell is to be identified with Ai. In fact
they guarantee that the Ai story in the bible was told about Khirbet
et-Tell. They also disqualify Albright's suggestion that the Ai story in the
bible originated in connection with the destruction of the Late Bronze Age
city at Bethel and later was transferred to Ai; the topographical and
geographical details of the biblical description do not fit Bethel.

On the other hand, these geographical and topographical details do not prove
that the Ai story actually occurred. They demonstrate only that the story
was told as having occurred in a particular place that can be identified by
geography and topography.

The excavations at Khirbet et-Tell, which we may now identify as the site
which the biblical author had in mind (and in his mind's eye) when referring
to Ai, provide further illumination of the biblical narrative. Indeed, in
light of the archaeological evidence, I conclude that the Ai story was told
not against the backdrop of the large Early Bronze Age city but the small
Iron Age village. Again, let me caution that this does not mean that the Ai
story in the bible is historically accurate; it means only that the story
was told about the site as it existed in the Iron Age, a relatively small
village built on the acropolis among the ruins and deserted buildings and
plazas of an Early Bronze Age city that had ben destroyed a thousand years
earlier.

The Iron Age village of Ai covered only approximately twenty percent of the
area ovvupied by the Eraly Bronze Age city; that is, this small village
covered about 6 acres within the Early Bronze walls." (p.65)

Zevit, proposes that Ai does not mean "ruin," he suggests the word was
originally "ghay" noting the Septuagint renders Hebrew ha-`Ai as Aggai or
Gai :

"Etymologically, Ai does not refer to a ruin. In antiquity the name would
have been pronounced ghay (gutteral gh) which would not have been associated
by an Israelite with his Hebrew word for "ruin," `iy. The two words simply
don't sound anything like each other. Arabic cognates suggest that the name
gay may have referred to some topographical feature of the city. The word
gay may have referred to the height of the city.

I note biblical en-Gedi appears in Arabic as ain-Jedi, suggesting a g/j
transliteration is possible ? In a previous post I suggested that the
Septuagint's Gai might be preserved at the spring of Wadi Ein el-Jaya, and
Wadi el Jaya, adjacent to et-Tell.

Aharoni noted that sometimes the biblical site name is preserved in the
general area of the ancient site in some other physical feature:

"Not every name that has been preserved on the map of Palestine has remained
fastened to the site of the original settlement, i.e. the tell or the ruin
whose archaelogical remains suit the period of the historical town. There
are cases where the name has been transferred to a nearby location. It is
therefore possible to establish two rules:
1. Preservation of the name on a nearby geogrphical feature...the name maybe
preserved in an adjacent spring, e.g. `Ain Shems at the foot of Tell
Rumeileh (Beth-Shemesh), or `Ain Seridah at Deir Ghassaneh (Zeredah). On
occasion it may be found ascribed to a streambed passing close to the tell,
e.g. Wadi Yabus, which bears the name of Jabesh (-gilead) or Wadi el-Qeini
which points to the nearby location of biblical Kinah." (p.123, "The Study
of Toponymy," Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, A Historical
Geography, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, [1967], 1979, ISBN
0-664-24266-9)

Conclusions:

On-site investigations of the topography of et-Tell re-enforce the site
being biblical Ai/Gai. The "smallness" of Ai in the biblcal narrative
(Joshua 7:3) is accounted for by identifying the small Early Iron Age
village being Ai by Zevit.

All the best,

Walter

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany