[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 62, Issue 8

sherwin jerome sherwinjerome at gmail.com
Fri Feb 29 14:19:43 EST 2008


biblia hebraica transripta

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:54 PM,  <b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
>        b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Lemche and Thompson (Bill Rea)
>   2. Hello (Weizman Abby)
>   3. Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
>   4. Biblia Hebraica transcripta (David Steinberg)
>   5. Hello (JimStinehart at aol.com)
>   6. Joseph's Egyptian Name (JimStinehart at aol.com)
>   7. Re: Hello (Yigal Levin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:34:45 +1300 (NZDT)
> From: Bill Rea <bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Lemche and Thompson
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
>        <Pine.SOL.4.58.0802291018430.17994 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Jim wrote:-
>
> >Rather than claiming that I alone can interpret the evidence properly, I
> >am specifically asserting the exact opposite:  anyone who is willing to
> >look objectively at the evidence I am setting forth on the b-Hebrew list
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >should be able to see that the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives is
> >fully redolent of the mid-14th century BCE, and of no other era.
>
> The word I've underlined is important. Your claim now, as I understand
> it, is that the rest of the world remains unconvinced of your matching
> up of the Amarna letters with Genesis because we/they are not being
> objective. It amounts to the same thing in practice. You alone are
> being objective. This is like the arguments our philosophical
> presuppositioners make -- people can't evaluate the evidence because
> their philosophical presuppositions are wrong. Without the ``right''
> objectivity/philosophical presuppositions you can't interpret the
> evidence. Sorry, such arguments are without merit. If the evidence
> were as convincing as you say, then it would convince indepedent of
> whether a person had the right type of objectivity or not.
>
> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:40:51 +0200
> From: "Weizman Abby" <achweiz1 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Hello
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
>        <e91bf9bd0802281840m432a9b35yb947b1af8d2da665 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello,
>
> I am new in this group. Thanks a lot because I can study together with you
> and share also my ideas, research,etc.
> I have a question to Mr Stinehart:
> I read very carefully his commentaries about Genesis, the Torah in general
> and History.
> My question is a little meta-historical or perhaps" meta-group":
> Could be said or thought ,that Judaism or traditional Jewish Faith or
> "Emunah" has a more solid historical basis than other creeds, for example
> the Christianism ( I thought about the Historical Methods applied to the New
> Testament, etc.).
> Perhaps it is better to use another word than "solid historical basis":
> founded, more relevant...?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Shabat Shalom u-Meborakh le kulam,
>
> Avi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:56:24 +0000
> From: kenneth greifer <greifer at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Amarna letters
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY125-W52206C781306364ECC5AA5A7140 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I think the problem is that you let similarities between the Amarna letters and the patriarchal narratives prove your beliefs, but you don't let differences disprove your beliefs. If differences in the stories can't disprove what you say, then nothing can disprove what you say. You have a perfect situation for you, but it is not ok with people who disagree with your ideas because nothing can disprove your beliefs about the Amarna letters.
>
> Kenneth Greifer
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
> http://biggestloser.msn.com/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:11:17 -0500
> From: David Steinberg <david.l.steinberg at rogers.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Biblia Hebraica transcripta
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <47C81285.8000803 at rogers.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I have been working on ancient Hebrew poetry (see Biblical Hebrew Poetry
> and Word Play - Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual
> Experience <http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm>
> http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm ) and came across Wolfgang
> Richter's enormous /Biblia Hebraica transcripta/ series. The only
> problem I have had in understanding his reconstruction of the biblical
> texts is due to some of the various signs he has used and his handling
> of gemination.
>
> He wrote a series of books in German outlining his approach. However, at
> the beginning of his volume on Genesis he boiled it down into a few pages.
>
> My German is non-existent so I asked two native German speakers to
> translate the key points. One was a journalist and the other and
> academic librarian. They both said that they could not really understand
> his terminology.
>
> Does anyone know of an English guide to Richter's symbols and methods?
>
> David Steinberg
>
> Tel. 613-731-5964
>
> http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
>
> David.Steinberg at houseofdavid.ca <mailto:David.Steinberg at houseofdavid.ca>
>
> <mailto:David.Steinberg at houseofdavid.ca>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:48:01 EST
> From: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Hello
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <d14.1ce80a0a.34f97521 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Avi:
>
> You wrote:  ?I have a question to Mr. Stinehart:  I read very carefully his
> commentaries about Genesis, the Torah in general and History.  My question is a
> little meta-historical or perhaps" meta-group":  Could be said or thought,
> that Judaism or traditional Jewish Faith or "Emunah" has a more solid historical
> basis than other creeds?[?]?
>
> Since this is the b-Hebrew list, I will restrict my comments to Judaism.  In
> my controversial view, (i) the Patriarchal narratives are the foundation of
> Judaism, (ii) the Patriarchal narratives were composed in the mid-14th century
> BCE, and were never significantly edited thereafter (though spelling and
> grammar were updated, and a handful of editorial comments/phrases were added into
> the text later), and (iii) the Patriarchal narratives are very closely based on
> the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE.
>
> Since the main concerns of the b-Hebrew list are language issues involving
> Biblical Hebrew, let me set forth here, as partial proof of my controversial
> theory, 7 words which appear in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives.
> In my view, these 7 words are redolent of the mid-14th century BCE.
> Furthermore, in my view neither JEPD, nor any other southern Hebrew in the mid-1st
> millennium BCE, would have known any of these words, except by reading them in
> the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives.
>
> 1.  Horites
>
> The Patriarchal narratives are the only place in the Bible that mentions the
> Horites/Hurrians, a people who went extinct prior to the 1st millennium BCE.
>
> 2.  Ch?n?yk?m
>
> The word ch?n?yk?m at Genesis 14: 14, referring to Abraham's armed retainers,
> is not present in the secular record after the 15th century BCE, and is never
> used elsewhere in the Bible.
>
> 3.  Naharim
>
> Genesis 24: 10 uses this Egyptian word from the Amarna Letters for the
> Hurrian state on the upper Euphrates River that vanished in the late 14th century
> BCE.  (This ancient word is picked up from the ancient Patriarchal narratives
> and used in later books of the Bible.)
>
> 4.  Pa nTr
>
> This monotheistic phrase, which appears in Akhenaten?s Great Hymn to the
> Aten, is in Joseph?s Egyptian name at Genesis 41: 45.
>
> 5.  Paddan-Aram
>
> Though John Van Seters is usually considered something of a Biblical
> Minimalist, his book nicely sets forth the 14th century BCE nature of this odd phrase,
> which appears 10 times in the Patriarchal narratives but nowhere else in the
> Bible:  "[I]n the Ugaritic texts [appears] a reference in a fourteenth century
> cuneiform text to eqleti aramina, 'the fields of the Arameans.  ?Paddan-Aram?
> is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew?'field of Aram'?."  John Van Seters,
> Abraham in History and Tradition (1975), Yale University Press, New Haven, at
> pp. 30, 58.
>
> 6.  Amrapel
>
> ?Amrapel? at Genesis 14: 1 is the name of the most famous brother of Aziru,
> the iniquitous Amorite of Amurru (northern Lebanon).  Amrapel is the one who
> wrote Amarna Letter #170, claiming that there were 90,000 Hittite troops in the
> Bekka Valley, just north of Canaan proper.  ?Amrapel? makes an ideal
> nickname for Aziru, who in secular history was one of the four attacking rulers being
> referred to in chapter 14 of Genesis, because the first three letters of his
> name, aleph-mem-resh, mean both ?Amorite? and ?Amurru?.  Aziru was an
> Amorite who iniquitously sold out Amurru to the dreaded Hittites in the mid-14th
> century BCE, thereby threatening the future existence of the pre-Hebrews in
> northern Canaan proper
>
> 7.  Abimelek of Sur
>
> Both in the Patriarchal narratives and the Amarna Letters, Abimelek/Abimilki
> of Sur/Surru is constantly jousting over contested rights to valuable water
> wells, in a land that is otherwise wealthy, where a tent-dwelling farmer like
> Isaac can get rich growing crops and selling the produce to the wealthy island
> city-state of Sur (?Tyre? in English) in northern Canaan, which had to buy all
> of its food.
>
> Conclusions
>
> In the Bible, only the Patriarchal narratives are chock-full of vintage
> mid-14th century BCE vocabulary like this.  JEPD knew nothing about this.  In my
> controversial view of the case, the Patriarchal narratives were composed by the
> first historical Hebrew, who thereby succeeded in saving his people -- his
> fellow tent-dwelling pre-Hebrews in northern Canaan -- from being wiped out by
> the dreaded Hittites.  As I see it, the specific historical event that convinced
> the first Hebrews that God was on their side, and that Canaan was their
> Promised Land, was that on a near-miraculous basis, the dreaded Hittites, though at
> one point apparently having 90,000 troops in the Bekka Valley just north of
> Canaan proper, never in fact invaded Canaan proper.  For the next 500 years
> after that, the rivals of the early Hebrews in inland Canaan gradually faded
> away, as the non-Hebrew population of inland Canaan dramatically declined.
> Subject to an occasional Egyptian raid that was mainly for show, the first 500 years
> of the Hebrews? existence were remarkably peaceful, if modest.  No one could
> have foreseen at that point that from the 9th century BCE to the present, the
> Hebrews/Jews would never again have a peaceful life.
>
> It is my view that the mid-14th century BCE vocabulary of the Patriarchal
> narratives bespeaks a mid-14th century BCE composition date for the Patriarchal
> narratives.  No group of southern Hebrews in the mid-1st millennium BCE,
> whether JEPD or anyone else, could possibly have composed the Patriarchal
> narratives, with all that vintage mid-14th century BCE vocabulary.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
>
> **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
> 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:49:37 EST
> From: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Joseph's Egyptian Name
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <d38.218cf75f.34f97581 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> The language issue as to whether the Hebrew letter peh could represent the
> Egyptian word ?pa?/?the? in the Egyptian names in the Patriarchal narratives
> is very important.  The Egyptian phrases ?pa nTr? and ?pa Ra?, each of which
> could be roughly translated as ?The One and Only God?, are virtually
> inconceivable in Egypt in Biblical times except in the mid-14th century BCE, during
> Egypt?s very brief, unsuccessful experiment with monotheism.
>
> In this connection, the name of Joseph?s Egyptian priestly father-in-law from
> On, where the Egyptian sun-god Ra was worshiped, is of obvious importance.
> There will be no surprise at all to find ?Ra? in his name.  But the $64,000
> question is whether ?pa Ra? is in his name.  Every pharaoh honored Ra after a
> fashion, but Egyptian priests during only one pharaoh?s reign would use the
> stridently monotheistic Egyptian phrase ?pa Ra?, which implies ?The One and Only
> God?.  If ?pa Ra? is in the name of Joseph?s Egyptian priestly
> father-in-law, that would indicate one 17-year historical period of time in Egypt in the
> mid-14th century BCE:  not before then, and not after then.
>
> The innocuous Egyptian name ?pa-di-Ra? (meaning ?the gift of Ra?) would
> simply indicate a post-mid-14th century BCE time period.  The presence of the
> word ?pa? would rule out a pre-14th century BCE time period, but the mere
> reference to ?Ra? (not immediately preceded by the word ?pa?) in that phrase would
> have no hint of any kind of monotheism.
>
> By stark contrast, the Egyptian phrase ?pa-di pa-Ra? is only possible during
> Biblical times in the mid-14th century BCE.  In any other time period prior
> to the 3rd century BCE, no one in polytheistic Egypt could say ?pa-Ra? in
> reference to a god, which clearly implies the stridently monotheistic concept of ?
> The One and Only God?.
>
> [A boy born as a commoner in the mid-14th century BCE had the birth name ?
> Pa-Ra-mes-su?.  Upon later becoming pharaoh in his 50s, he dropped the now
> impolitic ?Pa? and ruled as Ramses I.  His grandson was the famous Ramses the
> Great, who tried for years to take back Qadesh from the Hittites.  ?Pa-Ra? fits
> the mid-14th century BCE time period in Egypt and no other time period.  (The
> word ?ra? in Egyptian also means ?sun?;  Ra was the sun-god.  In Roman
> Egyptian times, over a millennium later, ?pa ra? simply meant ?the sun?.)]
>
> In Hebrew, the name of Joseph?s Egyptian priestly father-in-law at Genesis
> 41: 45 is:
>
> peh-vav-tet-yod peh-resh-ayin
>
> Focusing on the second half of this Egyptian priestly name, which is
> peh-resh-ayin, the resh-ayin is obviously Ra (for an Egyptian priest from On, which
> was the center of the worship of the Egyptian sun-god Ra).  The question then is
> whether the Hebrew letter peh that immediately precedes Ra/resh-ayin means
> the Egyptian word ?pa?/?the?.
>
> If the Hebrew letter peh means the Egyptian word ?pa?/?the? here, then the
> name of Joseph?s Egyptian priestly father-in-law is blatantly monotheistic.
> Only in the mid-14th century BCE, in Biblical times, could an Egyptian
> reference like this to ?pa Ra?/?The One and Only God? be found.
>
> The Blue Letter Bible gives the following explanation of this Egyptian
> priestly name:  ?he whom the Ra gave?.  Note the key phrase ?the Ra? in that
> explanation.  A more literal translation, having the same substantive meaning,
> would be ?the gift of the Ra?, implying ?the gift of The Ra?, and hence ?the
> gift of The One and Only God?.  Gesenius opines that this name may simply mean ?
> who belongs to the sun?.  But for the name of an Egyptian priest from On,
> certainly the reference is not primarily, much less exclusively, to ?the sun?,
> but rather is primarily to ?the Ra?.  Please note that even Gesenius seems
> implicitly to agree that the Hebrew letter peh is being used here in this Egyptian
> priestly name to mean the Egyptian word ?pa?/?the?.  That is the single
> most critical issue here.  The name of an Egyptian priest from On surely would
> not primarily reference the sun, but rather would primarily reference the
> Egyptian sun-god who was worshiped at On:  Ra.
>
> JEPD, being southern Hebrews in the mid-1st millennium BCE, knew nothing, and
> cared less, about any of this.  The author of the Patriarchal narratives was,
> rather, the first historical Hebrew, who lived in the mid-14th century BCE.
> His use of ancient Egyptian nomenclature in chapter 41 of Genesis exhibits
> stunning, pinpoint historical accuracy for a mid-14th century BCE Patriarchal Age.
>
> The Hebrew letters used for Egyptian names in chapter 41 of Genesis are
> telling us the historical time period of the composition of the Patriarchal
> narratives.  No Hebrew in the mid-1st millennium BCE could have, or would have, made
> this stuff up.  No way.
>
> JEPD had nothing to do with the composition of the Patriarchal narratives.
> Rather, the Patriarchal narratives are a truly ancient composition coming
> directly from the mid-14th century BCE, at the time of the historical birth of
> Judaism.  The Hebrew letters in the Egyptian names at Genesis 41: 45 tell the tale.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
>
> **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
> 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:04:22 +0200
> From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hello
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <004301c87ae4$5e21ba60$9d9015ac at xp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
>        reply-type=original
>
> Hello Avi and welcome to the b-hebrew list.
>
> I just want to remind you that this is a list for the study of the biblical
> Hebrew language. We tend to interpret that field very liberally, since we
> realize that it is impossible to study a text without discussing its
> background, meaning, assumptions etc. However, this is NOT a forum for the
> study of either Judaism or Christianity per se, and certainly not for
> discussing which of the two "has a more solid historical basis than the
> other". Please do not raise such issues on this list.
>
> Also, one of the list rules is that every post be signed with the poster's
> first and last name. Geographic or academic position is optional.
>
> Shabbat Shalom
>
> Yigal Levin
> co-moderator
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Weizman Abby" <achweiz1 at gmail.com>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 4:40 AM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Hello
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am new in this group. Thanks a lot because I can study together with you
> > and share also my ideas, research,etc.
> > I have a question to Mr Stinehart:
> > I read very carefully his commentaries about Genesis, the Torah in general
> > and History.
> > My question is a little meta-historical or perhaps" meta-group":
> > Could be said or thought ,that Judaism or traditional Jewish Faith or
> > "Emunah" has a more solid historical basis than other creeds, for example
> > the Christianism ( I thought about the Historical Methods applied to the
> > New
> > Testament, etc.).
> > Perhaps it is better to use another word than "solid historical basis":
> > founded, more relevant...?
> >
> > Thanks a lot,
> > Shabat Shalom u-Meborakh le kulam,
> >
> > Avi
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date:
> > 28/02/2008 12:14
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 62, Issue 8
> ***************************************
>



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list