Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Jim,

I have only bothered reading the first part of your very long response, so 
I'm only responding to that.

You have completely misunderstood my argument. I am not arguing that there 
was a Hebron before there was a Hebron. I am not arguing that there was a 
Hebron before the Iron Age. What I am arguing is that when the text uses 
"Hebron" it means "Hebron". Nothing more, nothing less. When Hebron came 
about is not of prime interest to me. When the author uses "Hebron", I think 
he means "Hebron". To me, that also probably indicates that the text is most 
likely to be late, when people were familiar with "Hebron".

Once again, your argument seems to be of the type: "It looks like a duck, 
quacks like a duck, feels like a duck, so it must be a 40-ton truck, because 
'duck' and 'truck' both end in 'uck'." It's just not reasonable. I can think 
of many other words that end in -uck, but I don't think they are germane to 
the discussion.

Sorry to be so forthright, but your theories really are spectacularly wild 
and singularly unconvincing. If you were to put them into a thesis, I doubt 
that a serious institution would consider them.


Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney)
Ph: 9577 9774. Mob: 0449 758 100
www.moore.edu.au