Revisi per 15 Maret 2012 06.44 sunting JohnThorne (bicara \| kontrib) Pengecualian blokir IP 151.852 suntingan ←Membuat halaman berisi 'thumb\|200px\|[[Gustave Doré, ''Yosua membakar kota Ai'', 1866.]] '''Ai''' ({{lang-he\|העי}}; "tumpukan puing-puing"; ''A...'		Revisi per 15 Maret 2012 07.00 sunting balikkan JohnThorne (bicara \| kontrib) Pengecualian blokir IP 151.852 suntingan →Lokasi penggalian arkeologi Revisi selanjutnya →
Baris 50: Dari penelitian ini muncul anggapan bahwa perang Ai tidak pernah terjadi, dan kisah itu hanyalah "memelihara suatu gaung perang yang pernah terjadi di awal Zaman Besi I." <ref>{{cite book\|last=Naʼaman\|first=Nadav\|title=Canaan in the 2nd millennium B.C.E.\|year=2005\|publisher=Eisenbrauns\|isbn=978-1575061139\|page=378}}</ref> Some archeologists and biblical scholars have suggested that the Biblical account of the conquest of Ai derives from an etiological myth <ref>{{cite book\|last=Gomes\|first=Jules\|title=The sanctuary of Bethel and the configuration of Israelite identity\|year=2006\|publisher=Walter de Gruyter & Co\|isbn=978-3110189933\|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nj09AWrgpnkC&pg=PA102&dq=%22King+of+Ai%22+historical&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RZRcT_vbC-bB0QXew5iuDg&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22King%20of%20Ai%22%20historical&f=false\|page=103}}</ref> - suatu jenis dongeng yang "menjelaskan asal mula suatu kebiasaan, urusan negara, atau sifat alamiah dalam manusia dan alam dewata."<ref>"''myth.''" (=mitos) Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/400920/myth>.</ref> ~~<!--~~ Nampaknya reruntuhan yang ditemukan di et-Tell berasal dari tahun ~2400 SM, saat Kanaan di bawah kekuasaan kerajaan [[Mesir kuno]], and it remained uninhabited until about 1000 B.C. when the Israelites are thought to have settled there, this means that Ai would have been in ruins for over a thousand years before the biblical account of its destruction. There are three main hyptotheses about how to explain the biblical story surrounding Ai in light of archaeological evidence. The first is that the story was created later on to explain it; Israelites related it to Joshua because of the fame of his great conquest. The second is that there were people of Bethel inhabiting Ai during the time of the biblical story and they were the ones who were invaded. Albright combined these two theories to present a hypotheses that the story of the Conquest of Bethel, which was only a mile and a half away from Ai, was later transferred to Ai in order to explain the city and why it was in ruins. Support for this can be found in the Bible, which does not mention the actual capture of Bethel, but does speak of it in memory in Judges 1:22-26.<ref>Wright, Ernest G. Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974. p. 80-82.</ref> Nampaknya reruntuhan yang ditemukan di et-Tell berasal dari tahun ~2400 SM, saat Kanaan di bawah kekuasaan kerajaan [[Mesir kuno]]. Kemudian lokasi itu tidak dihuni sampai ~1000 SM, ketika orang Israel mulai menetap di tanah Kanaan. Ada 3 hipotesa utama untuk menjelaskan kisah Alkitab mengenai Ai berdasarkan hasil penggalian di et-Tell: [[Joseph Callaway\|Callaway]] has proposed that the city somehow angered the Egyptians (perhaps by rebelling, and attempting to gain independence), and so they destroyed it as punishment.<ref>Callaway, Joseph. "Ai." In David Noel Freedman (ed.), ''The Anchor Bible Dictionary'', vol.1, p. 125-130. Doubleday, 1992.</ref> Although the vast majority of archaeologists support the identification of Ai with Et-Tell, a few opponents, prominently including [[Bryant G. Wood\|Bryant Wood]], object to this identification. The alternative proposal is that the Bible's chronology of events is accurate, and the Biblical Ai is not to be located at et-Tell, but a different site entirely. Dr. [[Bryant Wood]] has proposed that Ai should instead be located at the site of [http://www.bibleplaces.com/maqatir.htm Kirbet el-Maqatir] arguing that the evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell. #Kisah itu dikarang kemudian untuk menjelaskan daerah itu; orang Israel menghubungkan dengan Yosua, karena kemashuran penaklukannya. #Ada orang [[Betel]] menghuni Ai pada zaman Yosua, dan merekalah yang sebenarnya diserang. #Albright menggabungkan kedua teori ini untuk mengajukan hipotesa Penaklukan Betel, yang hanya satu setengah mil (2.5 km) di sebelah barat Ai, yang kemudian dipindahkan ceritanya ke Ai untuk menjelaskan puing-puing yang ada di kota itu. Hal ini nampaknya didukung di Alkitab, yaitu tidak adanya catatan bahwa Betel direbut, tetapi disinggung mengenainya di [[Kitab Hakim-hakim]] 1:22-26.<ref>Wright, Ernest G. Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974. p. 80-82.</ref> [[:en:Joseph Callaway\|Callaway]] mengajukan dugaan bahwa kota ini pernah membuat kerajaan Mesir marah (mungkin karena memberontak dan mencoba memperoleh kemerdekaan), sehingga sebagai hukumannya, dihancurkan total.<ref>Callaway, Joseph. "Ai." In David Noel Freedman (ed.), ''The Anchor Bible Dictionary'', vol.1, p. 125-130. Doubleday, 1992.</ref> ===Kirbet el-Maqatir=== Ada sejumlah pakar yang menentang identifikasi Ai dengan Et-Tell, antara lain yang terkemuka adalah [[:en:Bryant G. Wood\|Bryant Wood]]. Ia mengusulkan bahwa kronologi di Alkitab itu akurat, tetapi kota Ai tidak terletak di et-Tell. Dr. Bryant Wood mengemukakan dugaan bahwa Ai sebenarnya terletak di lokasi [http://www.bibleplaces.com/maqatir.htm Kirbet el-Maqatir], karena bukti-bukti dari penggalian di sana lebih kuat daripada yang di et-Tell: #Kota Ai pada zaman Yosua, lebih kecil daripada Yerikho dan Gibeon. [[Et-Tell]] tidak tepat, karena berukuran 2 kali lipat kota-kota itu, sedangkan Kirbet el-Maqatir lebih kecil daripada Yerikho maupun Gibeon. #Lokasi ini dihuni dan dihancurkan pada zaman Perunggu I akhir, yaitu pada zaman Yosua. Kemungkinan Kirbet el-Maqatir tidak ditemukan sebelumnya karena lokasi sebenarnya kota Betel (al Birah) belum disepakati. [[Et-Tell]] is unsuitable as the Ai of the time of Joshua, since Joshua indicates that Ai was smaller than Jericho and Gibeon, whereas et Tell is double their size (Kirbet el-Maqatir is indeed smaller than Jericho and Gibeon, and was occupied and destroyed in Late Bronze I). Probably the main reason Kirbet el-Maqatir has been overlooked is that the correct site for Bethel (al Birah) has not been accepted. ~~-->~~ ==Referensi== {{reflist\|2}}

Ai (tempat): Perbedaan antara revisi