>> Nothing of the Old Testament has to be dismissed, only re-interpreted.
You have to read Salibi I think. Rather convincing IMO. --Marc
>There are two extremist schools on this matter 1. Thomas Thompson and
his co-workers dismiss just about everything prior to the Omride Dynasty of
Israel (during the divided monarchy period, when independent Assyrian
confirmation is available) as legendary reconstruction. ..... 2. Albright
and his school, who claim a historic basis to everything from Abraham
onwards, claiming a historical authenticity not just to the monarchic
traditions, the stories of David and Saul, but also of judges, exodus and
the patriarchs, which they date variously from 1,900 BCE and the Amorite
invasions of Southern Mesopotamia. .... Hope this helps. John
Thanks a lot, John. In Salibi's vision both Thompson & Albright are partly
correct: he says the bible is very accurate (even from Eden onwards), but
you have to situate everything before the exile in western Arabia, not in
Israel. I've never seen a thorough discussion of his book (not well-know?),
but the man, a Libanese geographer, speaks Arabian, had to make maps of west
Arabia, was familiar with the bible, unexpectely found regular resemblances
between biblical names & W-Arabian geographical names, and therefore now
situates the Old Testament before the exile in the region along the Red Sea
south of Mekka. Until I see a good critique, it sounds convinging to me. I
think you have to read it, but I don't know whether there is an English
translation?
Kamal Salibi1985 "Het ware land van Abraham" Elsevier (translated from
German 1985 Rowohlt Verlag).
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://www.infres.enst.fr/confs/evolang/actes/_actes74.html