To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Jericho's Anomalies (cut)
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 06:01:29 +0200
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.