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

collapsed conquest theories

Expand Messages
  • David Hall
    Since the 1960 s there have been numerous papers presented leading to a collapse of the Joshua conquest theory.  This movement gained momentum with the
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Since the 1960's there have been numerous papers presented leading to a collapse of the Joshua conquest theory.  This movement gained momentum with the excavations of Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Gibeon.

      Some of the archaeological evidence supporting a more minimalist doctrine are:

      Kadesh Barnea not occupied before the tenth century, mentioned as stopping point for the 600,000 + Israeli tribes in Exodus (IAA Reports 34/1, 34/2, 2007).

      Arad no LBA or IA I occupation.  (Josua 12 lists a king of Arad)

      Jericho, destroyed at the end of the MBA.  Slight rebuilding of some of the houses in the LBA, not a walled city at this time, no sign of occupation after 1325 B.C. (close to time of Hapiru raiding cf. Amarna tablets).

      Ai, destroyed centuries before 1325.

      Hazor destroyed c. 1200 or 1225 in a different generation than the other sites.

      Gibeon not occupied as a city until the IA. 

      Heshbon mentioned in Numbers and Deut. was not occupied until the IA II.

      Bethel was destroyed about the time Merneptah reported Israsel somewhere in the vicinity of the Jordan River valley.  Merneptah was doing destruction of Canaanite cities about this time.  Israel was a listed as a people destroyed, not as conquerers of Canaan.

      Israel may have made a conquest, yet the record in the Bible about early Israel is more drama and literature and not factual.  The abscense of evidence of Egyptian culture in the highlands supposed to have been occupied by Israel negates efforts to present the Bible as "true belief."

      I wondered if there were further references about this subject that might be of value.

      David Q. Hall


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Niels Peter Lemche
      You are beating a kind of dead horse. All of your cases are more or less correct per se, but recent archaeology has been timed at processes, area studies etc.
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        You are beating a kind of dead horse. All of your cases are more or less correct per se, but recent archaeology has been timed at processes, area studies etc. Obligatory reading is Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem 1988. The interesting development in the transition period LB/EI is the appearance of a village culture in the Palestinian highlands. From a material point of view it represents a kind of continuum with the previous LB culture.

        A few correction: Ai/et-Tell not occupied since the end of EB.

        AS to Habiru in the Amarna letters, Good Reading is Liverani, Farsi Habiru, from 1979 -- an article in Vicino Oriente. Also my article in ABD. Their relation (if any) to Hebrews much discussed. It is not about raiding, it is about refugees, and then it becomes a nickname used by one Hazanu against his fellow hazanu's. You cannot use the Bethel for anything. The archaeology of that site is, well, shameful.

        Another view is presented by Avraham Faust, but his use of anthropology sucks -- cf. my upcoming review in a volume edited by Emanuel Pfoh (Gorgias Press, 2010). Also Manu's own review (he is on the list, so he might tell you where).

        Niels Peter Lemche



        -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af David Hall
        Sendt: 5. november 2009 15:41
        Til: ANE-2
        Emne: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories

        Since the 1960's there have been numerous papers presented leading to a collapse of the Joshua conquest theory.  This movement gained momentum with the excavations of Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Gibeon.

        Some of the archaeological evidence supporting a more minimalist doctrine are:

        Kadesh Barnea not occupied before the tenth century, mentioned as stopping point for the 600,000 + Israeli tribes in Exodus (IAA Reports 34/1, 34/2, 2007).

        Arad no LBA or IA I occupation.  (Josua 12 lists a king of Arad)

        Jericho, destroyed at the end of the MBA.  Slight rebuilding of some of the houses in the LBA, not a walled city at this time, no sign of occupation after 1325 B.C. (close to time of Hapiru raiding cf. Amarna tablets).

        Ai, destroyed centuries before 1325.

        Hazor destroyed c. 1200 or 1225 in a different generation than the other sites.

        Gibeon not occupied as a city until the IA. 

        Heshbon mentioned in Numbers and Deut. was not occupied until the IA II.

        Bethel was destroyed about the time Merneptah reported Israsel somewhere in the vicinity of the Jordan River valley.  Merneptah was doing destruction of Canaanite cities about this time.  Israel was a listed as a people destroyed, not as conquerers of Canaan.

        Israel may have made a conquest, yet the record in the Bible about early Israel is more drama and literature and not factual.  The abscense of evidence of Egyptian culture in the highlands supposed to have been occupied by Israel negates efforts to present the Bible as "true belief."

        I wondered if there were further references about this subject that might be of value.

        David Q. Hall


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • David Hall
        The horse is dead, but the subject is yet valid. Finklestein has a more recent book, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          The horse is dead, but the subject is yet valid.

          Finklestein has a more recent book, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel
          Finkelstein, Israel and Amihai Mazar
          Schmidt, Brian B., editor
          Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007

          http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6147

          Should use a balanced approach as archaeology validated parts of the books of Kings and Chronicles while other parts became less probable in the light of excavation and exegisis.

          David Q. Hall




          ________________________________
          From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, November 6, 2009 1:41:51 PM
          Subject: SV: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories

           
          You are beating a kind of dead horse. All of your cases are more or less correct per se, but recent archaeology has been timed at processes, area studies etc. Obligatory reading is Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem 1988. The interesting development in the transition period LB/EI is the appearance of a village culture in the Palestinian highlands. From a material point of view it represents a kind of continuum with the previous LB culture.

          A few correction: Ai/et-Tell not occupied since the end of EB.

          AS to Habiru in the Amarna letters, Good Reading is Liverani, Farsi Habiru, from 1979 -- an article in Vicino Oriente. Also my article in ABD. Their relation (if any) to Hebrews much discussed. It is not about raiding, it is about refugees, and then it becomes a nickname used by one Hazanu against his fellow hazanu's. You cannot use the Bethel for anything. The archaeology of that site is, well, shameful.

          Another view is presented by Avraham Faust, but his use of anthropology sucks -- cf. my upcoming review in a volume edited by Emanuel Pfoh (Gorgias Press, 2010). Also Manu's own review (he is on the list, so he might tell you where).

          Niels Peter Lemche

          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af David Hall
          Sendt: 5. november 2009 15:41
          Til: ANE-2
          Emne: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories

          Since the 1960's there have been numerous papers presented leading to a collapse of the Joshua conquest theory.  This movement gained momentum with the excavations of Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Gibeon.

          Some of the archaeological evidence supporting a more minimalist doctrine are:

          Kadesh Barnea not occupied before the tenth century, mentioned as stopping point for the 600,000 + Israeli tribes in Exodus (IAA Reports 34/1, 34/2, 2007).

          Arad no LBA or IA I occupation.  (Josua 12 lists a king of Arad)

          Jericho, destroyed at the end of the MBA.  Slight rebuilding of some of the houses in the LBA, not a walled city at this time, no sign of occupation after 1325 B.C. (close to time of Hapiru raiding cf. Amarna tablets).

          Ai, destroyed centuries before 1325.

          Hazor destroyed c. 1200 or 1225 in a different generation than the other sites.

          Gibeon not occupied as a city until the IA. 

          Heshbon mentioned in Numbers and Deut. was not occupied until the IA II.

          Bethel was destroyed about the time Merneptah reported Israsel somewhere in the vicinity of the Jordan River valley.  Merneptah was doing destruction of Canaanite cities about this time.  Israel was a listed as a people destroyed, not as conquerers of Canaan.

          Israel may have made a conquest, yet the record in the Bible about early Israel is more drama and literature and not factual.  The abscense of evidence of Egyptian culture in the highlands supposed to have been occupied by Israel negates efforts to present the Bible as "true belief."

          I wondered if there were further references about this subject that might be of value.

          David Q. Hall

          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail. yahoo.com

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          ------------ --------- --------- ------

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Emanuel O. Pfoh
          You can find a review of A. Faust in my On Israel s Ethnogenesis and Historical Method , Holy Land Studies 7/2 (2008), p. 213-219, and in my The Emergence of
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            You can find a review of A. Faust in my "On Israel's Ethnogenesis and Historical Method", Holy Land Studies 7/2 (2008), p. 213-219, and in my The Emergence of Israel in Ancient Palestine: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives (CIS; London: Equinox, 2009), esp. Ch. 5.
            Emanuel Pfoh



            --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...> wrote:

            From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
            Subject: SV: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories
            To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 4:41 PM
















             









            You are beating a kind of dead horse. All of your cases are more or less correct per se, but recent archaeology has been timed at processes, area studies etc. Obligatory reading is Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem 1988. The interesting development in the transition period LB/EI is the appearance of a village culture in the Palestinian highlands. From a material point of view it represents a kind of continuum with the previous LB culture.



            A few correction: Ai/et-Tell not occupied since the end of EB.



            AS to Habiru in the Amarna letters, Good Reading is Liverani, Farsi Habiru, from 1979 -- an article in Vicino Oriente. Also my article in ABD. Their relation (if any) to Hebrews much discussed. It is not about raiding, it is about refugees, and then it becomes a nickname used by one Hazanu against his fellow hazanu's. You cannot use the Bethel for anything. The archaeology of that site is, well, shameful.



            Another view is presented by Avraham Faust, but his use of anthropology sucks -- cf. my upcoming review in a volume edited by Emanuel Pfoh (Gorgias Press, 2010). Also Manu's own review (he is on the list, so he might tell you where).



            Niels Peter Lemche



            -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---

            Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af David Hall

            Sendt: 5. november 2009 15:41

            Til: ANE-2

            Emne: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories



            Since the 1960's there have been numerous papers presented leading to a collapse of the Joshua conquest theory.  This movement gained momentum with the excavations of Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Gibeon.



            Some of the archaeological evidence supporting a more minimalist doctrine are:



            Kadesh Barnea not occupied before the tenth century, mentioned as stopping point for the 600,000 + Israeli tribes in Exodus (IAA Reports 34/1, 34/2, 2007).



            Arad no LBA or IA I occupation.  (Josua 12 lists a king of Arad)



            Jericho, destroyed at the end of the MBA.  Slight rebuilding of some of the houses in the LBA, not a walled city at this time, no sign of occupation after 1325 B.C. (close to time of Hapiru raiding cf. Amarna tablets).



            Ai, destroyed centuries before 1325.



            Hazor destroyed c. 1200 or 1225 in a different generation than the other sites.



            Gibeon not occupied as a city until the IA. 



            Heshbon mentioned in Numbers and Deut. was not occupied until the IA II.



            Bethel was destroyed about the time Merneptah reported Israsel somewhere in the vicinity of the Jordan River valley.  Merneptah was doing destruction of Canaanite cities about this time.  Israel was a listed as a people destroyed, not as conquerers of Canaan.



            Israel may have made a conquest, yet the record in the Bible about early Israel is more drama and literature and not factual.  The abscense of evidence of Egyptian culture in the highlands supposed to have been occupied by Israel negates efforts to present the Bible as "true belief."



            I wondered if there were further references about this subject that might be of value.



            David Q. Hall



            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

            Do You Yahoo!?

            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

            http://mail. yahoo.com



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            ------------ --------- --------- ------



            Yahoo! Groups Links






























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Niels Peter Lemche
            Shouldn t you stay on target: Conquest ? The moderators decided when this list opened not to indulge in discussions about biblical historicity. Please, keep
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Shouldn't you stay on target: "Conquest"? The moderators decided when this list opened not to indulge in discussions about biblical historicity. Please, keep on track. Besides, you asked for further references. You got it. And the book mentioned by Manu may give you some impressions of how a professional historian looks at the matter. I suggest that you get that when it appears -- hopefully very soon.

              I referred to scholarly literature. The one you mentioned is a popular book -- a discussion between two Israeli archaeologists. Besides, the title is incorrect: The Quest for the Historical Israel, and then as subtitle the one you mentioned.

              Niels Peter Lemche

              PS: I have no intention of giving a lecture here on the subject -- or in a kind of e-learning. If you want my view on these matters, I refer you to my The Old Testament between Theology and History (Louisville: WJK, 2008).



              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af David Hall
              Sendt: 6. november 2009 22:41
              Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories

              The horse is dead, but the subject is yet valid.

              Finklestein has a more recent book, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel
              Finkelstein, Israel and Amihai Mazar
              Schmidt, Brian B., editor
              Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007

              http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6147

              Should use a balanced approach as archaeology validated parts of the books of Kings and Chronicles while other parts became less probable in the light of excavation and exegisis.

              David Q. Hall




              ________________________________
              From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Fri, November 6, 2009 1:41:51 PM
              Subject: SV: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories

               
              You are beating a kind of dead horse. All of your cases are more or less correct per se, but recent archaeology has been timed at processes, area studies etc. Obligatory reading is Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem 1988. The interesting development in the transition period LB/EI is the appearance of a village culture in the Palestinian highlands. From a material point of view it represents a kind of continuum with the previous LB culture.

              A few correction: Ai/et-Tell not occupied since the end of EB.

              AS to Habiru in the Amarna letters, Good Reading is Liverani, Farsi Habiru, from 1979 -- an article in Vicino Oriente. Also my article in ABD. Their relation (if any) to Hebrews much discussed. It is not about raiding, it is about refugees, and then it becomes a nickname used by one Hazanu against his fellow hazanu's. You cannot use the Bethel for anything. The archaeology of that site is, well, shameful.

              Another view is presented by Avraham Faust, but his use of anthropology sucks -- cf. my upcoming review in a volume edited by Emanuel Pfoh (Gorgias Press, 2010). Also Manu's own review (he is on the list, so he might tell you where).

              Niels Peter Lemche

              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af David Hall
              Sendt: 5. november 2009 15:41
              Til: ANE-2
              Emne: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories

              Since the 1960's there have been numerous papers presented leading to a collapse of the Joshua conquest theory.  This movement gained momentum with the excavations of Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Gibeon.

              Some of the archaeological evidence supporting a more minimalist doctrine are:

              Kadesh Barnea not occupied before the tenth century, mentioned as stopping point for the 600,000 + Israeli tribes in Exodus (IAA Reports 34/1, 34/2, 2007).

              Arad no LBA or IA I occupation.  (Josua 12 lists a king of Arad)

              Jericho, destroyed at the end of the MBA.  Slight rebuilding of some of the houses in the LBA, not a walled city at this time, no sign of occupation after 1325 B.C. (close to time of Hapiru raiding cf. Amarna tablets).

              Ai, destroyed centuries before 1325.

              Hazor destroyed c. 1200 or 1225 in a different generation than the other sites.

              Gibeon not occupied as a city until the IA. 

              Heshbon mentioned in Numbers and Deut. was not occupied until the IA II.

              Bethel was destroyed about the time Merneptah reported Israsel somewhere in the vicinity of the Jordan River valley.  Merneptah was doing destruction of Canaanite cities about this time.  Israel was a listed as a people destroyed, not as conquerers of Canaan.

              Israel may have made a conquest, yet the record in the Bible about early Israel is more drama and literature and not factual.  The abscense of evidence of Egyptian culture in the highlands supposed to have been occupied by Israel negates efforts to present the Bible as "true belief."

              I wondered if there were further references about this subject that might be of value.

              David Q. Hall

              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail. yahoo.com

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              ------------ --------- --------- ------

              Yahoo! Groups Links








              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • zmbq
              ... I ve been meaning to ask about this for a while. As far as I understand, the literal meaning of the Merneptah reference to Israel is that Israel has no
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 7, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, David Hall <dqhall59@...> wrote:
                > Bethel was destroyed about the time Merneptah reported Israsel somewhere in the vicinity of the Jordan River valley.  Merneptah was doing destruction of Canaanite cities about this time.  Israel was a listed as a people destroyed, not as conquerers of Canaan.

                I've been meaning to ask about this for a while. As far as I understand, the literal meaning of the Merneptah reference to Israel is that Israel has no seed left. I can read all sorts of things into that, but I'm not an Egyptian scribe from the 13th century BC.

                In ancient Egyptian, was that a common way of saying a people was destroyed? Or just a way of saying their reserves are all gone (obviously due to Merneptah victory) and they can't plant anything?

                Is that a description of a dead people, or of an agricultural society that needs to renew its seed supply?

                Itay Zandbank
              • David Hall
                There were a few battle descriptions in ancient Egypt about the enemy s seed being destroyed.  Israel was not singled out for this description.  I
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 7, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  There were a few battle descriptions in ancient Egypt about the enemy's seed being destroyed.  Israel was not singled out for this description.  I understand Egypt claimed Israel lost the battle.  From what I have read this Egyptian word seed is the word for seed as in grain.  An allegorical interpretation in the context of the stele might infer Israel lost their sons.

                  David Q. Hall




                  ________________________________
                  From: zmbq <itay@...>
                  To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sat, November 7, 2009 4:12:00 AM
                  Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Merneptah's Seeds (was: collapsed conquest theories)

                   


                  --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, David Hall <dqhall59@.. .> wrote:
                  > Bethel was destroyed about the time Merneptah reported Israsel somewhere in the vicinity of the Jordan River valley.  Merneptah was doing destruction of Canaanite cities about this time.  Israel was a listed as a people destroyed, not as conquerers of Canaan.

                  I've been meaning to ask about this for a while. As far as I understand, the literal meaning of the Merneptah reference to Israel is that Israel has no seed left. I can read all sorts of things into that, but I'm not an Egyptian scribe from the 13th century BC.

                  In ancient Egyptian, was that a common way of saying a people was destroyed? Or just a way of saying their reserves are all gone (obviously due to Merneptah victory) and they can't plant anything?

                  Is that a description of a dead people, or of an agricultural society that needs to renew its seed supply?

                  Itay Zandbank







                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • driver40386
                  Dear Itay. Certainly, the negative term seed (pr.t) is not is used in a variety of ways, generally meaning much the same. Ramesses III uses this term with
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 7, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Itay.
                    Certainly, the negative term "seed (pr.t) is not" is used in a variety of ways, generally meaning much the same.
                    Ramesses III uses this term with reference to the "chief of Amor - "his seed is not". Again the defeated Libyans claim, "fire has penetrated us, our seed is not".
                    Ramesses again talks about the invaders (in his Asiatic wars), "those who reached my border are desolated, their seed is not". The context of which can hardly refer to the fields (grain) of the enemy.

                    One other point which is not often mentioned. The fact that the people determinative is used for Israel does 'not' mean that Israel is a nationless people. At best it will refer to a people who were not within their 'national borders' (using the term loosely) at the time of contact with Merneptah.

                    As an example, Ramesses III will refer to the Peleset using the 'land' determinative when he advances into their domain. However, when he is specifically referring to Peleset warriors he uses their name accompanied with the 'bowman' determinative.
                    Then again when showing the Peleset as prisoners he uses the 'people' (man & woman + plural) determinative, because he is specifically talking about the people and only the people, not the 'country' nor the 'military'. This is just what Merneptah does on the Victory Stela.

                    Therefore, all Merneptah is doing is referring to Israelite people. Contrary to popular opinion we cannot reasonably conclude that Israel is not yet a nation.
                    In this I am not at all suggesting Israel had a 'nation' in this period, just that the suggestion that the use of a 'people' determinative 'means' they were not yet settled is erroneous. The use of the 'people' determinative means Merneptah is 'only' referring to the 'people', whether they were nationless or not is a separate issue.

                    The correct determinative to use depends on the context of the phrase and in this context Merneptah may only be talking about the people, that the people have been decimated.

                    All the best, Jon Smyth
                    Toronto, CAN.

                    --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "zmbq" <itay@...> wrote:

                    >In ancient Egyptian, was that a common way of saying a people was >destroyed?
                  • aren
                    NPL, If I may quote you in one of your last posts: Another view is presented by Avraham Faust, but his use of anthropology sucks -- C mon - you can do better
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 7, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      NPL,

                      If I may quote you in one of your last posts:
                      "Another view is presented by Avraham Faust, but his use of anthropology sucks --"

                      C'mon - you can do better than that! This is not the way to voice your opinion, especially in a public forum, on another scholar's work - even if you don't agree with him!

                      Keep in mind that many don't accept your opinions as well, and you would not want to set a scatological standard for scholarly debates...

                      Aren Maeir
                    • Niels Peter Lemche
                      Dear Aren, Maybe harsh but true. Read our reviews. Niels Peter Lemche ... Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af aren Sendt: 8.
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 7, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Aren,

                        Maybe harsh but true. Read our reviews.

                        Niels Peter Lemche



                        -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af aren
                        Sendt: 8. november 2009 06:53
                        Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                        Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories

                        NPL,

                        If I may quote you in one of your last posts:
                        "Another view is presented by Avraham Faust, but his use of anthropology sucks --"

                        C'mon - you can do better than that! This is not the way to voice your opinion, especially in a public forum, on another scholar's work - even if you don't agree with him!

                        Keep in mind that many don't accept your opinions as well, and you would not want to set a scatological standard for scholarly debates...

                        Aren Maeir




                        ------------------------------------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • Niels Peter Lemche
                        PS: I should have added that what is really problematic is the way Faust uses anthropology, its discussion about ethnicity, to create an Israeli (I write this
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 7, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          PS:

                          I should have added that what is really problematic is the way Faust
                          uses anthropology, its discussion about ethnicity, to create an Israeli
                          (I write this by intention) nationality and push it back into the Iron
                          Age.

                          And then, if you read his concluding remarks about me and my
                          comrades-in-arms, you -- or somebody more neutral -- may say that I was
                          right.

                          Niels Peter Lemche
                        • aren
                          NPL, Still, there is an accepted language of discourse that should, in my humble opinion, be adhered to. It is what, in Yiddish, we call Menschlichkeit! Aren
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 8, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            NPL,
                            Still, there is an accepted language of discourse that should, in my humble opinion, be adhered to. It is what, in Yiddish, we call Menschlichkeit!

                            Aren Maeir
                          • Niels Peter Lemche
                            OK, it does not sucks, it is just totally unacceptable, as is his language about his opponents, and then I suggest that we spare this forum for more. Another
                            Message 13 of 15 , Nov 8, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              OK, it does not sucks, it is just totally unacceptable, as is his language about his opponents, and then I suggest that we spare this forum for more. Another example why we should not discuss biblical matters here -- or topics relating to historicity of biblical events.

                              Niels Peter Lemche

                              PS: Here we once had a journalist who was nominated as Danish champion in stupid questions. He went to court and won his case. After that he was always referred to as the former champion.



                              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af aren
                              Sendt: 8. november 2009 13:54
                              Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                              Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories-ps

                              NPL,
                              Still, there is an accepted language of discourse that should, in my humble opinion, be adhered to. It is what, in Yiddish, we call Menschlichkeit!

                              Aren Maeir
                            • Thomas L. Thompson
                              Dear Jean-Fabrice, As I patiently explained to Niels Peter: For many Americans, rudeness is of itself--regardless of cause--reprehensible. Even worse, rudeness
                              Message 14 of 15 , Nov 8, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Jean-Fabrice,
                                As I patiently explained to Niels Peter: For many Americans, rudeness is of itself--regardless of cause--reprehensible. Even worse, rudeness and accuracy for these same Americans is unforgivable! Faust has very politely and without grounds accused Lemche and like-minded scholars of being anti-Semitic. Lemche very rudely dismissed Faust's work as a form of pornography. Do you really wish to object to Niels Peter's outburst for the sake of some thin ideal of scholarly politeness? I will not hesitate to say that I find your letter shameful. Do you really wish to defend the kind of dishonest scholarship such as Faust's which we have accepted these past many decades is acceptable merely on the grounds of its politeness?
                                Thomas

                                P.S. I have been a colleague of Lemche's for 16 years and, at least speak from experience and knowledge. What is your reason for preferring Faust's slander?

                                Thomas L. Thompson
                                Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Thomas L. Thompson
                                Dear Jean Fabrice Red-necks is ever a title of shame--and indeed very rude. A language nuance. If you are for debate, you might answer my question! The
                                Message 15 of 15 , Nov 8, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Jean Fabrice
                                  "Red-necks" is ever a title of shame--and indeed very rude. A language nuance.

                                  If you are for debate, you might answer my question! The "debate" has not been friendly since 1974; nor has it been a mere war of words.The war in Palestine and Israel is both current and real.

                                  I visited France as a very young student--your description of the cloying politeness of the French escapes all memory.

                                  Are we to take it then that you wish to say no more than that you would prefer that this debate were nice? If so, we can ignore you........................................politely, of course.
                                  Thomas

                                  Thomas L. Thompson
                                  Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen

                                  ________________________________

                                  Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com på vegne af Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
                                  Sendt: sø 08-11-2009 20:27
                                  Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                  Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] collapsed conquest theories-ps




                                  Dear Prof. Thomson,

                                  I am all for debate, but when friendly disagreement becomes a war of words, something which has plagued Classical studies for long (in Greek we have had a long and very distinguished tradition of tearing fellow scholars apart ; just have a look at the pamphlets traded by Rhode and Wilamowitz around Nietzsche's Geburt der Tragödie, one of them being entitle Afterphilogie, with an anal wordplay), things get out of hand and the best interest of scholarship are no longer served. Issues of tact and cortesy in a printed text are no less important for a Frenchmen than they are to an American.

                                  Yours,
                                  Jean-Fabrice Nardelli






                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.