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

Re: Final LBA Hazor's Destruction; (Was Sea Peoples)

Expand Messages
  • Trudy Kawami
    So now we are arguing about arguing? For the sanity of those of us who have no dog in this fight, either be specific and tangible or take it off-list. To lob
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      So now "we" are arguing about arguing? For the sanity of those of us who have no dog in this fight, either be specific and tangible or take it off-list. To lob the names of scholars from decades & ages past back and forth like hand-grenades looks a little silly. And the thread has certainly strayed from the original topic. So, gentlemen, can we at least provide clear headings? (And lay off the classical refs if at all possible? This is the ANE.)

      Trudy S. Kawami

      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
      Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 8:47 AM
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Final LBA Hazor's Destruction; Was Sea Peoples, a dubious term.



      Since Prof. Lemche is fond of using Greek references to confound his
      foes, let me reproduce a snippet of the great philologist Eduard
      Fraenkel : "for a moment, it may be possible by ingenious dialectical
      manoeuvres to concentrate the light on one possible interpretation of a
      passage and derken the opposite one, but the apparently defeated side
      will in course of time come to life again and take its revenge on those
      who have neglected it" (/Aeschylus Agamemnon /[Oxford, 1950], I, p.
      viii). The very notion of progress in 'soft' sciences is subject to so
      many accidents that it never resembles a straight line from darkness to
      clarity, but approximates closely a sinusoid, if not a full circle. One
      shall always be prepared to renounce deeply-held beliefs.

      Whereas Prof. Lemche and Prof. Thompson may seem to have the upper end
      on the Hazor-related questions, on which they indeed seem to
      pontificate, let us not forget how many contortions and denies of
      evidence they have been inflicting on the scholarly circles in the case
      of the 'Davidic state' or so as to hold their Hellenistic dating of most
      of the Hebrew Bible. Semitic epigraphers and philologists have been
      trying, in vain, to open their eyes on the authenticity of the Tel Dan
      and Mesha stelae, whereas Hellenists with a background in Biblical
      studies or the Semitic languages were never able to take seriously their
      claims as to the influence of Greek culture on the late compilers of the
      Bible (the traces of which are as insignificant as the influence on the
      Homeric epics on, say, the Gospels, though such a thesis has been put
      forward). When true, hardcore experts demur, a bit of modesty by
      intruders would not be amiss, isn't ?

      I am very sorry to add that, as the author of two books on the language
      and material civilisation of the orally-derived Homer, I cannot hold in
      great respect Prof. Lemche's command of orality applied to monumental
      compositions, of which he makes so much, and to which he just has made
      an appeal.

      Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
      Université de Provence

      Le 05/12/2011 13:39, itamar singer a écrit :
      >
      > Distinguished moderators of ANE-2,
      >
      > I find Mr. Lemche's responses to the posts of Michael Banyai, as well
      > as his repeated threat to ban him from the list, as excessively rude
      > and patronizing, unfit for this scholarly list.
      > Nothing is indefinitely "obsolete" in science and nothing replaces
      > serious arguments.
      > Eretz-Israel 30 (Amnon Ben-Tor Book) has just appeared and it
      > contains several articles that take up again the question of Hazor's
      > destruction (a.o. by N. Na'aman). This (and other recent publications)
      > show that this subject is not "caduque" after all, and there is no
      > reason to repeatedly insult a list member and to ban him from the list
      > on account of his "bla-bla"ing. If his views do not appeal to Mr.
      > Lemche's tastes, he should either try to refute them or simply ignore
      > them (as I do with countless posts on the list).
      >
      > Prof. (Emeritus) Itamar Singer
      > Tel Aviv University
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...<mailto:npl%40teol.ku.dk> <mailto:npl%40teol.ku.dk>>
      > To: "ANE-2@yahoogroups.com<mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>"
      > <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com<mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>>
      > Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 11:31 AM
      > Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Final LBA Hazor's Destruction; Was Sea
      > Peoples, a dubious term.
      >
      >
      > So what do we do? I understand that his last mail was approved, as it
      > was seemingly not offensive. However, it is extremely offensive as he
      > continues to ask us to discuss a theory that has not been part of the
      > international discussion for 30 years. Why should people waste their
      > time on his bla-bla? Is this OK seen in light of practice here?
      >
      > This morning in TV I got across a Viasat history program about the
      > deluge and the breaking through of the Mediterranean into the Black
      > Sea bassin. The last I heard about this theory is that it being
      > refuted by more recent research. There was also a show in this
      > connection of how children were brainwashed to believe it in American
      > Sunday Schools. Be it is what it is, but it is almost impossible to
      > rectify later. So the last stance for an eventual Bosperus catastrophe
      > will be in religious circles, because they believe it the historicity
      > of everything found in the Bible.
      >
      > NP
      >
      > [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.