Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment

Expand Messages
  • David Hall
    David Rohl published some content of interest to a few people, yet his claiming Joshua was Labayu of the Amarna letters was not widely accepted.  It is
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      David Rohl published some content of interest to a few people, yet his claiming Joshua was Labayu of the Amarna letters was not widely accepted.  It is easier to match Shishak with Shoshenq than Labayu with Yahshua (Joshua).  His attempts to shift chronologies to prove parts of the Bible were insufficient. 

      At Jericho there were only two tombs from the LBAI period found.  Most of the tombs were from the MBII.  Both the Garstang and Kenyon expeditions excavated tombs in areas west of the town ruins.  The widest extent of the occupation of Jericho was during the MBII and its destruction was placed close to the end of the MBII.  During this phase there were numerous destructions in southern Israel sometimes associated with the the defeat of the Hyksos and resurgence of native Egyptian power.  There was evidence of slight occupation during the LBAI in Jericho that may have ended close to 1400-1375.  Kenyon noted that Jericho was not a walled city during the time of its last (LBA) occupation.  The existence of partial ruined walls did not constitute a walled city.  Rohl did not explain the situation at Gibeon either.  Gibeon could not have been a royal city as described as in the book of Joshua until the Iron Age when it was a royal
      city of Israel.  There was no LBA occupation of the acropolis and no evidence of an LBA city on Gibeon hill.  An agricultural estate may have existed in the area during the LBA and remained hidden from surveyors.  The archaeological record contradicts the book of Joshua. 

      There are yet groups who will put out anyone who does not confess "inerrancy of the scriptures."  As for Genesis; you might find some historical coincidence such as Hapiru people from Canaan were serving as slaves/low caste servants in Egypt making bricks for the upper classes during the times of Tuthmosis III or later.  One ought not put too much trust in the book of Genesis for the geological records can never confirm a flood to the top of Ararat in the past 10,000 years, nor will one find Exodus proven true, even if a few of the ancestors of Israel left Egypt for Canaan.  One might actually find oneself further from the truth by trusting Genesis and ignoring archaeological and scientific evidence. 

      David Q. Hall

          



      ________________________________
      From: Cami McCraw <cmccraw@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 5:13:39 PM
      Subject: Fw: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment





      You mention David Rohl's work in the thread below. It took two years but his special TV program 'Pharaohs & Kings' was re-released last September on DVD.
      http://stretchprodu ctions.com/ RohlProducts. html
      -Cami McCraw

      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, "Christian Bogh" <packedmaniac@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear, Mr. David Hall
      >
      > I believe you missed my original point, because you still opt for the
      > "true/false" dichtomy. I didn't say that it was claimed that Genesis 1
      > is said to be 100% false (or Genesis for that matter.. as that is how you
      > begin your post). I said that most people, believers or non-believers, would
      > argue today that Genesis 1 (a very typical example, less likely to cause
      > discontention, that's why I picked it) is void of actual history. And that
      > is not the same as saying it is 100% false. It could be it was not written
      > with an actual historical perspective in mind. This is from principel, you
      > understand? I'm arguing from principle. We could be talking about any text,
      > non-biblical as well. Concerning minimalism.. I know of no minimalist, but I
      > could be wrong, who would argue using these true/false values that you have
      > set up. None: That is if there is no history to be found in the Biblical
      > text, say Gen 11, then it gets labeled as false. That's how the accusations
      > of "minimalism is antagonist to religion" that professor Noll commented on
      > are produced. From this assumption that minimalists are saying the Bible is
      > false. Only anti-minimalists are saying that minimalists are saying
      > that part of (or the whole) Bible is false. But lets ask professor Lemche,
      > Davies, Thompson or West...
      >
      > PS: sorry for the poor English, but no time to proofread it, I'm afraid..
      >
      > best wishes,
      > Christian Bogh
      > stud. teol
      > Copenhagen, Uni. of
      > 2008/12/3 David Hall <dqhall59@.. .>
      >
      > > "If say Genesis 1 is claimed to be void of actual history it doesn't
      > > follow that its then 100% false. Why was it written? For what purpose then?
      > > etc. instead of "when was it written", "who wrote it?" etc.. Those questions
      > > I believe are what concern minimalists (among other things)."
      > >
      > >
      > > If one takes the position that Genesis is false, could one yet take the
      > > position that King Hezekiah lived? A brief biography of Hezekiah's works
      > > was recorded in the Bible and the Assyrian archives found at Nineveh along
      > > the Tigris River as excavated by Layard. The two accounts about Hezekiah
      > > and the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib and a Hebrew writer were nearly
      > > parallel. Since there was a large library of clay tablets from Nineveh, a
      > > more extensive library extant than the Hebrew kings left as they wrote on
      > > payprus or vellum that quickly decayed, some have trusted the Assyrians
      > > were capable of simple administrative records to some degree of
      > > accuracy. You might have two books of the Bible, one considered false, part
      > > of another considered true.
      > >
      > > Stating Genesis as false when compared to the geological and astrophysical
      > > records does not mean it is true when compared to archaeological records
      > > either. It was stated in the text that Abraham had met a commander of the
      > > Abimelech from Gerar on the Philistines territory and concluded a treaty
      > > with him in the Negev at Beersheba during the time of his residence in the
      > > Land of the Philistines (Gen. 21). Some scholars counted generations and
      > > used Biblical statements to trace the setting of the Abraham to about 1800
      > > B.C. I did a counting of generations and statements about Exodus to place
      > > the setting closer to 1900 B.C. The Philistines were not inhabiting Gaza or
      > > Beersheba at that time. Why was Genesis written? That was a decision by the
      > > author. Why were Aesop's fables written? One might find lessons to be
      > > learned in books of fiction, but should not state the literary verse as
      > > factual without evidence. Abraham may be treated as a type of character
      > > whose parallel might be found in the society of ancient times. There is no
      > > archaeological evidence to prove Abraham was ever born as a real person with
      > > the geneology stated in Genesis ... people living to be hundreds of years of
      > > age in the Genesis story ... nonsense. The oldest woman in the world lived
      > > in Indiana and was 115 years old until she passed away in late November of
      > > this year.
      > >
      > > Many scientists have testified of a belief in a super intelligent
      > > spiritual being. Thomas Edison. a genius inventor, was not religious but
      > > thought there was a divine intelligence in the universe. People have come
      > > up with a plethora of descriptions and works attributed to such a being, not
      > > all of them are false.
      > >
      > > David Q. Hall
      > > dqhall59@... <dqhall59%40yahoo. com>
      > >
      > > --- On Mon, 12/1/08, Christian Bogh <packedmaniac@ ...<packedmaniac %40gmail. com>>
      > > wrote:
      > >
      > > From: Christian Bogh <packedmaniac@ ... <packedmaniac% 40gmail.com> >
      > > Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com <ANE-2%40yahoogroup s.com>
      > > Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 6:00 PM
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > > > I suppose the extreme minimist position would claim the Bible is 100%
      > > > false, and the extreme maximist would claim that it is 100% true, the
      > > > inspired word of God.
      > >
      > > I don't believe that's accurate at all. There is no such
      > > differantiation
      > > (true/false) . Either I have misunderstood the Copenhagen School and "its
      > > project" or you have (hence the differantiation) . If say Genesis 1 is
      > > claimed to be void of actual history it doesn't follow that its then 100%
      > > false. Why was it written? For what purpose then? etc. instead of "when
      > > was
      > > it written", "who wrote it?" etc.. Those questions I believe are
      > > what
      > > concern minimalists (among other things).
      > >
      > > best regards,
      > > Christian Bogh
      > > stud. teol
      > > Copenhagen, Uni. of
      > >
      > > 2008/12/1 David Hall <dqhall59@yahoo. com>
      > >
      > > > Of Contradictions and Extremes:
      > > >
      > > > With the various destruction scenarios of the book of Joshua, including
      > > > Arad ("the Great"?) that was not occupied between the EB and the
      > > beginning
      > > > of the Iron Age but was mentioned as a place Joshua had contact with;
      > > there
      > > > were complex models claiming to eliminate contradictions between the
      > > > archaeological record and the account of Joshua. There have been many
      > > > theories to try to prove Joshua. One theory was that there were two
      > > Ai's
      > > > and we do not know where the other one was (not Et Tell), or it might
      > > have
      > > > been Bethel and we do not know where Bethel was. There was also the
      > > theory
      > > > that Garstang and Kenyon did not know what they were doing. Sometimes
      > > such
      > > > objections were brought by people who could not instantly identify the
      > > > differences between an EB saucer lamp and a LB saucer lamp, nor had ever
      > > > seen a drawing of a Hyksos seal.
      > > >
      > > > If you read the works of David Rohl, fluent in the ancient
      > > > Egyptian language and capable of page layout with photos and
      > > > maps, eventually you might suspect the guy had trusted too much in the
      > > text
      > > > of the Biblical works if you do not recognize it immediately. At one
      > > point
      > > > he indicated that Joshua was Labayu of the Amarna tablets and that the
      > > > existing published chronologies were wrong. He moved dates at will to try
      > > > to fit his theories into his book. He was not able to eliminate the
      > > > contradictions between the destruction of Hazor and the destruction of
      > > > Jericho not to mention numerous other apparent contradictions.
      > > >
      > > > Some of the theories of archaeologists in the 1960's cannot be easily
      > > > negated. People have moved datelines to the left or right yet usually
      > > > within a hundred years, although sometimes wanting to move them further
      > > like
      > > > 150 years. Some new pottery classifications were described such
      > > > as Intermediate EB-MB based on a few unique finds.
      > > >
      > > > An archaeologist working on one site described a certain style of glass
      > > > perfume bottle such as was left in tombs after the anointing of the dead
      > > for
      > > > burial as 150-300 A.D. at Pella whereas someone working in Jerusalem
      > > > described the style of perfume bottle with the flared rim as first
      > > century
      > > > C.E. Neither one did fraud, yet there are limits to one's ability to
      > > > discern based on one's experience.
      > > >
      > > > I suppose the extreme minimist position would claim the Bible is 100%
      > > > false, and the extreme maximist would claim that it is 100% true, the
      > > > inspired word of God. It was also writted in the Bible that God desired
      > > > mercy and not sacrifice after the altars of Israel had been drenched with
      > > > the blood of sacrifices for a long time. Did God change or was it the
      > > > writters' words about God that differed?
      > > >
      > > > To be able to recognize a contradiction is useful. To find the truth of
      > > > the matter is wiser.
      > > >
      > > > Sincerely:
      > > >
      > > > David Q. Hall
      > > > dqhall59@yahoo. com <dqhall59%40yahoo. com>
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- On Sun, 11/30/08, Niels Peter Lemche <npl@... <npl%40teol. ku>.
      > > dk<npl%40teol. ku.dk>>
      > > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@... <npl%40teol. ku>. dk <npl%40teol.
      > > ku.dk>>
      > > > Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > > > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com <ANE-2%40yahoogroup s.com>
      > > > Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 1:08 PM
      > > >
      > > > Dear David,
      > > >
      > > > You should not be afraid of the extremes. I follow old Hegel here, that
      > > > thesis and antithesis produce a new synthesis, etc etc. So if we have
      > > > something from both sides, the synthesis might be somewhere between.
      > > >
      > > > To stay on safe ground means to move little or nothing (had a discussion
      > > > with Na'aman last Thuesday in Boston about this. We were absolutely in
      > > > agreement).
      > > >
      > > > Niels Peter Lemche
      > > >
      > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
      > > > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af
      > > > David Hall
      > > > Sendt: den 30 november 2008 15:41
      > > > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      > > > Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I think it fair to avoid the extremes. Scientific criticism may bring
      > > > healthy interpretation and the ability to divide fact from superstition.
      > > > Extremely complex models designed to try to eliminate contridictions
      > > found
      > > > in religious texts sometimes ignored the possibility that there may have
      > > > been an error in the text.
      > > >
      > > > David Q. Hall
      > > >
      > > > --- On Sat, 11/29/08, Niels Peter Lemche <npl@... <npl%40teol. ku><npl%40teol.
      > > ku>. dk>
      > > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@... <npl%40teol. ku> <npl%40teol. ku>.
      > > dk>
      > >
      > > > Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > > > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      > > > Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 4:07 PM
      > > >
      > > > Dear K.L.,
      > > >
      > > > Thank you for the comment. Only saw it now. Back from Boston I had 300
      > > > mails waiting. Mr. Pride's comment is of course extremely badly
      > > informed,
      > > > from a person who seems to appropriate what is religion from his own
      > > > observation. A hardly a comment that should have passed here (maybe I
      > > passed
      > > > it? I was back on the 28th and there were several mails for ANE waiting
      > > to
      > > > moderate.
      > > >
      > > > After all, "minimalism" is an ethic term placed on the
      > > minimalists by other
      > > > people. It only says what somebody else thinks. It is no reflection of
      > > what
      > > > the group itself represents but typical of the discourse within certain
      > > > circles of biblical scholarship.
      > > >
      > > > And now, I suppose we can get on to something more relevant than Mr.
      > > > Pride's misrepresentations (misprisions) .
      > > >
      > > > Niels Peter Lemche
      > > >
      > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
      > > > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af
      > > K
      > > > L Noll
      > > > Sendt: den 29 november 2008 19:17
      > > > Til: ANE-2
      > > > Emne: [ANE-2] Tardy response to a minor comment
      > > >
      > > > With the annual SBL meeting, as well as the marking of exams and term
      > > > papers, I have only just today begun to read a backlog of listserv
      > > digests.
      > > > I came across this very bizarre little comment and cannot resist
      > > responding
      > > > to it...
      > > >
      > > > Dan Pride wrote, in part: "Minimalism has been rooted far more in
      > > > antagonism to religion and its excesses than in the facts, which is why
      > > it
      > > > goes down so hard,... screaming and scratching at every turn."
      > > >
      > > > My guess is that Dan Pride has never actually held a conversation with a
      > > > so-called Minimalist. As I understand the term, it is a method of
      > > research
      > > > (defined quite succinctly by Axel Knauf back in the early 1990s, in an
      > > essay
      > > > on Solomon's Copper Mines). For me, the attractive aspect of
      > > Minimalism as a
      > > > research method is that it matches the method in which I was trained by a
      > > > medievalist when I was an undergraduate history major. The polemics that
      > > > emerged around the term Minimalism during the mid-1990s came as quite a
      > > > shock to me and, so far as I can tell, derived almost entirely from a
      > > > religiously motivated faction, so it seems bizarre to characterize the
      > > > Minimalists as antagonistic to religion (as though "religion"
      > > were one
      > > > undifferentiated phenomenon).
      > > >
      > > > Now, the central point I want to make is this: As a professor of
      > > Religious
      > > > Studies, I have grown weary of people who obviously know (and care)
      > > nothing
      > > > for our academic discipline constantly describing us as "antagonistic
      > > to
      > > > religion" (as Dan Pride does in this snip). We are no more
      > > antagonistic to
      > > > religion than a biologist is antagonistic to a frog. But the biologist
      > > kills
      > > > more than a few frogs so that he/she can cut them open and see how they
      > > > work. What appears to the religious participant as hostility is really
      > > > nothing more than the routine (and rather messy) activities of dissection
      > > > taking place in the lab. Sure it kills some of the magic of religious
      > > > experience, but it enhances our understanding of why humans are
      > > religious.
      > > > It seems to me that our research offends only those who harbor
      > > unrealistic
      > > > notions about the potential for "truth" within their own
      > > religious
      > > > traditions. My experience is that the fuss over so-called Minimalism
      > > never
      > > > occurs when
      > > > secular so-call!
      > > > ed Maximalists interact with the equally secular so-called Minimalists.
      > > >
      > > > Ok, back to marking term papers...
      > > >
      > > > Shalom,
      > > > K. L. Noll
      > > > Brandon University
      > > > Brandon, Manitoba
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. com
      > > > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1820 - Release Date:
      > > 2008-11-29
      > > > 18:52
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.