Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:29 PM, James Spinti <JSpinti AT eisenbrauns.com>wrote:

>  Karl,
>
> I, too, grew up in academia, and am still in academia 50+ years later. I
> am saddened that you had so many negative experiences and that they
> color your interpretation of the data.


Excuse me, it is not the data that I am arguing against, rather
interpretations.

I guess my most negative experience concerned undiagnosed dyslexia. Had I
realized what it does, I wouldn’t have tried to take so many math heavy
courses (math usually doesn’t have context to catch dyslexic mistakes) and
would now still be in academia.


> Certainly, there is some of what
> you describe--heaven knows I've kicked against the consensus at times.
> But, you must bring data that supports your claims


That’s just it. I keep bringing up data, and get consensus thrown back at
me.


> and
> listen--carefully--to the critics and their reasons for rejecting your
> interpretation. Chances are pretty good they might be right. Even if
> they aren't, you can learn why they are objecting and dig deeper in
> those areas.
>
> Unless you read the Akkadian (and bad Akkadian, at that) of the Amarna
> letters, don't be too quick to date them later. They are definitely LBA,
> in my opinion.
>
> James
>
> What I keep hearing is that the Akkadian of the Amarna letters is dated by
the Egyptian history. Then to claim that we can date the letters by the
Akkadian used, makes a circular argument.

The data that I know of from archaeology and a competing history (namely the
Bible) pretty much rules out the Amarna period as being before the 11th
century BC at the earliest, and more likely ninth to eighth centuries BC.
Therefore which should I follow: the consensus, or the data?

Karl W. Randolph.