tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post2377311449392049230..comments2023-04-05T08:04:07.514-04:00Comments on Bryn Mawr Classical Review: 2017.11.03Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-74787427527238940562017-11-02T14:53:33.830-04:002017-11-02T14:53:33.830-04:00I genuinely do not understand what the reviewer me...I genuinely do not understand what the reviewer means in writing this, and I apologize if I am just missing something: <br /><br />"Such a unbalanced outline cannot be justified by lack of evidence, so one wonders what else but personal biases lie behind the decision to feature the Hebrews so prominently, especially compared to the Philistines and, more still, the Phoenicians."<br /><br />Does this mean that we have equally abundant evidence for Philistine, Phoenician, and Hebrew history? Surely that cannot be an arguable point, can it? Even if you grant the Bible is pure fiction, at least it is a relic of Hebrew civilization, and a big one. What comparable relics of those other civilizations can we possible point to?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com