Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>I must principially give right to Ian, that "To understand a text we are
>attempting to analyse we have to be able to contextualise it."
>
>However, I mean, you apply the contextualisation, for example in the case
>of KA in an extremely Procustean manner. You are not contextualising the
>text, but, as I see it, you adjust the data (surely not deliberately),
>rejecting alternatives, so one has only one choice, your choice of
>contextualisation.
>
>What I have shown till now was, there are at least a couple of even better
>functioning models to explain KA and its function without disturbing in
>any way the sources.

This is simply not true. You phantasized on Teman, you tendentiously filled
in a lacuna, cited undatable materials, and did everything but provide a
functioning model based on historical or archaeological information. It was
clear that you simply didn't want to either agree or contemplate the notion.

You are left with a waystation on a trade route well out of normally
understood territories of Israel which bears a heavy Israelite presence.
This waystation I have linked architecturally to several places to the north
through the plastered low benches in the gate area.

Khirbet el-Qom contains similar cultic inscriptions about yhwh and his
asherah. It features the same plastered low benches. From here it is not far
to Lachish and Gezer which both feature the famous six-chambered gate
complex found in Hazor and Megiddo.

To the clear Israelite trajectory through the Shephelah and on down to
Kuntillat Ajrud, you've shown *nothing* tangible whatsoever. As to not
having disturbed the sources, you haven't used any anyway. You merely set up
a number of vacuous smoke-screens.

>A sea access hypothesis- and who wants to contest the
>existance of sea trade at the time?

Yes, who would want to? I haven't done so, have you?

>- would lay ad acta the whole discussion.
>
>So do I propose for every one, since the discussion seems to drift away.

It wasn't that much of a discussion, Michael. I am still shocked at the
derailment plan you attempted, for an idea which I think has merit and deals
with hard evidence -- a strong Israelite presence at Kuntillat Ajrud (a site
which was built by some state or other: it was neither religious or private
in scope) --, ie not based on denial of the Israelite presence, nor lacunae,
nor hypothesized kings of Teman, nor arguments from undatable texts.


Ian