Doug Weller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps you don't see a difference between
> "because of his interpretation of the evidence."
> and what I wrote, which was "because of his
> interpretation of the evidence?" but I certainly
> meant a difference.
Sorry, my mistake. I was assuming I wasn't meant to be fooled by the use of a question mark
> The bottom line is that Kitchen is considered an
> expert on a specific period of Egyptian history
> and on OT history. I haven't seen any evidence
> that he is an expert on the archaeology of the
> Iron Age in the area which became Israel.
I'm not surprised. Nothing's been said in this thread about Kitchen being "an expert on the archaeology of the Iron Age in the area which became Israel".
Having said that, most scholars are agreed that the archaeology of the Iron Age "in the area which became Israel" is intrinsically tied up with the study (and re-evaluation) of OT 'history'. After all, how else have these traces of early highland settlement been designated as being 'Israelite' in the first place?
Besides, it works both ways: Finkelstein writes with an authority about the composition and dating of biblical texts that isn't warranted. After all, he's an archaeologist, not an expert on textual analysis.
> It may be that the article in question doesn't
> suggest a link with the Bible and the names, but
> given Kitchen's other publications I'd be
> surprised. But if you are really interested, then
> you should try to find the article. There's no way
> you are going to convince me that Kitchen is a
> reliable source when it comes to links between
> Egypt and the Bible, sorry. Or that that article
> gives convincing evidence for Hebrew slaves in
> Egypt, since I don't think there is convincing
> evidence for 'Hebrews' at that time.
None of us have read the article, so none of us know whether or not Kitchen argues that the material he analyses in his article "gives convincing evidence for Hebrew slaves in Egypt".
Leaving that aside, I'd be interested to know what you think would constitute "convincing evidence for 'Hebrews' at that time"?
Damian