fr:explorer:auteurs:kamal_salibi:preface_1988
Différences
Ci-dessous, les différences entre deux révisions de la page.
| Prochaine révision | Révision précédente | ||
| fr:explorer:auteurs:kamal_salibi:preface_1988 [2026/04/23 13:18] – créée mansour | fr:explorer:auteurs:kamal_salibi:preface_1988 [2026/04/23 13:56] (Version actuelle) – mansour | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ligne 9: | Ligne 9: | ||
| [[# | [[# | ||
| [[# | [[# | ||
| - | [[# | + | [[# |
| - | [[# | + | [[# |
| [[# | [[# | ||
| - | [[# | + | [[# |
| [[# | [[# | ||
| - | [[# | + | [[# |
| [[# | [[# | ||
| Ligne 40: | Ligne 40: | ||
| {{anchor: | {{anchor: | ||
| ===== §05 Mes arguments dans le livre précédent ===== | ===== §05 Mes arguments dans le livre précédent ===== | ||
| - | For readers who have not read my previous book, //The Bible Came from Arabia//, it would be useful to summarize its thesis here. While undertaking an etymological study of Arabian place names, I was struck by what seemed to be a high concentration of Biblical place names in the West Arabian territory of Asir bordering the Red Sea, between the city of Taif and northern Yemen. Upon closer scrutiny, I discovered that the coordinates of the towns and villages in the area bearing Biblical names conform to a stunning degree to the coordinates given to the places mentioned by the same names in the Bible — a far more telling fact than the actual existence of the names. When I went back to the massive body of scholarly literature on Biblical geography to check my findings against it, I found this literature more confusing than illuminating. First, after more than a century of research, scholars have only found a handful of Biblical place names which actually survive in a recognizable form in Palestine. Second, many of the Palestinian places which have come to be known by Biblical names have been given these names, either anciently or recently, by itinerant pilgrims, or by scholars or archaeologists who took them, on no conclusive evidence, to be [12] Biblical sites. Third, in nearly all cases, the coordinates of the places which actually carry Biblical names in Palestine do not conform to the coordinates given to the places by the same names in the Bible, although they do in Arabia. Fourth, Biblical scholars have doubted the historicity of many events related by the Bible because they cannot easily be fitted into the geography of Palestine. Fifth, no one has yet found the slightest trace of an ancient Hebrew or Israelite presence in Egypt, and scholars remain in disagreement as to when, and by what route, the Israelites made their exodus out of Egypt, ultimately to reach Palestine. There also exists a host of other problems of Biblical geography about which scholars continue to argue, pitting one awkward hypothesis against another, but refusing to accept any suggestions from outside their closed circle. The one factor that appears to have united these scholars, since 1985, has been my own suggestion that the Bible need not have come from Palestine at all, and that one might seriously entertain the possibility that its origin is West Arabian. So far most scholars who have publicly expressed opinions about this suggestion have haughtily dismissed it as ‘worthless rubbish and nonsense from beginning to end’, often without further comment. | + | For readers who have not read my previous book, //The Bible Came from Arabia//, it would be useful to summarize its thesis here. While undertaking an etymological study of Arabian place names, I was struck by what seemed to be a high concentration of Biblical place names in the West Arabian territory of Asir bordering the Red Sea, between the city of Taif and northern Yemen. Upon closer scrutiny, I discovered that the coordinates of the towns and villages in the area bearing Biblical names conform to a stunning degree to the coordinates given to the places mentioned by the same names in the Bible — a far more telling fact than the actual existence of the names. When I went back to the massive body of scholarly literature on Biblical geography to check my findings against it, I found this literature more confusing than illuminating. |
| + | * First, after more than a century of research, scholars have only found a handful of Biblical place names which actually survive in a recognizable form in Palestine. | ||
| + | * Second, many of the Palestinian places which have come to be known by Biblical names have been given these names, either anciently or recently, by itinerant pilgrims, or by scholars or archaeologists who took them, on no conclusive evidence, to be [12] Biblical sites. | ||
| + | * Third, in nearly all cases, the coordinates of the places which actually carry Biblical names in Palestine do not conform to the coordinates given to the places by the same names in the Bible, although they do in Arabia. | ||
| + | * Fourth, Biblical scholars have doubted the historicity of many events related by the Bible because they cannot easily be fitted into the geography of Palestine. | ||
| + | * Fifth, no one has yet found the slightest trace of an ancient Hebrew or Israelite presence in Egypt, and scholars remain in disagreement as to when, and by what route, the Israelites made their exodus out of Egypt, ultimately to reach Palestine. | ||
| + | There also exists a host of other problems of Biblical geography about which scholars continue to argue, pitting one awkward hypothesis against another, but refusing to accept any suggestions from outside their closed circle. The one factor that appears to have united these scholars, since 1985, has been my own suggestion that the Bible need not have come from Palestine at all, and that one might seriously entertain the possibility that its origin is West Arabian. So far most scholars who have publicly expressed opinions about this suggestion have haughtily dismissed it as ‘worthless rubbish and nonsense from beginning to end’, often without further comment. | ||
| {{anchor: | {{anchor: | ||
fr/explorer/auteurs/kamal_salibi/preface_1988.1776943089.txt.gz · Dernière modification : de mansour