Yigal:
I agree with you that it sounds absurd. But no less
absurd than the claim you mentioned in the
paragraph at the bottom of this note.
While I know of no one who explicitly makes the
claim I reported below, that they assume that any
name that is also reported in Tanakh therefore
refers to a Biblical individual is a de facto denial
that names may have been reused by ancient,
Semitic peoples.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
Does anyone really make that claim? It sound absurd. Even in the Bible there
are often different charecters with the same name.
Yigal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> And may I add to that the refusal to acknowledge
> that some names may have been reused by different
> Semitic peoples. Not just may have, but most
> certainly were. Not only the names of individuals,
> but also the heads of tribes who passed their names
> onto their peoples and places.
>
> The myth that names were not reused is
> perpetuated by not recognizing that Tanakh is
> limited in its scope, recording only a small
> minority of the events and peoples that fall under
> its historical span.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
>>
>> Two things. First, the linguistic similarity of the Mari >> "Benjaminites" to
>> those in Israel. Second, the insistance of some scholars that anything >> in
>> the ANE must be somehow related to the Bible, and that the >> "Patriarchal
>> traditions" in the Bible MUST reflect a "pre-Israelite" reality.
>>
>> Yigal
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.