[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 61, Issue 4
Mark Spitsbergen
awakesd at mac.com
Mon Jan 7 06:52:53 EST 2008
> Yigal, I did not mean to imply that Aramaic was any less Semitic
> than Hebrew only that there are differences in the spelling of the
> same words between the two. Also, would you consider Arpachshad to
> be a Semitic name?
Thanks
Mark Spitsbergen
> In any case, there is nothing more "truly Semitic" in the Gen.
> spellings or
> "more Aramaic" in the Chr. spellings, besides which of course
> Aramaic is
> just as "Semitic" a language as Hebrew.
>
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Yigal Levin
On Jan 7, 2008, at 11:11 AM, 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. (no subject) (Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann)
> 2. Re: Wellhausen -Edom (Yitzhak Sapir)
> 3. Spelling changes in the BHS (Mark Spitsbergen)
> 4. Re: Spelling changes in the BHS (Yigal Levin)
> 5. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (Yitzhak Sapir)
> 6. Re: The root SLH (Isaac Fried)
> 7. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (K Randolph)
> 8. Re: The root SLH (Isaac Fried)
> 9. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (Yitzhak Sapir)
> 10. Re: Wellhausen (Bill Rea)
> 11. Re: Wellhausen (was Cladistics) (Bill Rea)
> 12. Wellhausen vs. Single Author (JimStinehart at aol.com)
> 13. Re: Wellhausen (was Cladistics) (belaga at math.u-strasbg.fr)
> 14. Re: Wellhausen (K Randolph)
> 15. The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
> (JimStinehart at aol.com)
> 16. Re: The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
> (Bryant J. Williams III)
> 17. Re: Wellhausen (Yitzhak Sapir)
> 18. The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
> (JimStinehart at aol.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:43:19 +0100
> From: "Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann" <lehmann at uni-mainz.de>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] (no subject)
> To: "b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> <E66885AFAEE95C4A8AA69F2F820C33900C652D7196 at EXCHANGE-01.zdv.uni-
> mainz.de>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> As for ANI YHWH and related clauses,
> it is indispensable to have a close reading of the important book by
> Anja Angela Diesel, "Ich bin Jahwe". Der Aufstieg der Ich-bin-Jahwe-
> Aussage zum Schl?sselwort des alttestmentlichen Monotheismus,
> Neukirchen 2006, ISBN 3-7887-2138-3, (425 pages),
> and also, by the same author,
> Anja Angela Diesel, Jahwe (allein) ist Gott. ?berlegungen zu einer
> Gruppe der sog. dreiteiligen Nominals?tze, in: KUSATU 5 (2004) 1-35
> (which does not dispense from reading the 2006 book!).
>
> Besides that, there is no discussion possible any longer that
> claims to be abreast recent scholarship!
> Best,
>
> Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann
> Akademischer Direktor
> Research Unit on Ancient Hebrew & Epigraphy
> Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz
> Germany
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:09:05 -0700
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen -Edom
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <e6ea6c000801050909n1d46ee57l238c488c72063518 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Dec 31, 2007 11:00 PM, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
>> Karl,
>>
>> You wrote, in part:
>>
>> " As for your claim that Edom was not a political entity, all
>> you have is a
>> lack of evidence, which many people, including Uri, claim is not
>> necessarily
>> evidence of lack."
>>
>> Anybody who makes the claim about Edom mentioned in your quote is
>> simply ignorant of the work that goes on there in recent years,
>> especially
>> in Khirbet en-Nahas, but not only there, and its possible
>> ramifications for
>> the dating of centralized authority in that region --
>> considerably earlier
>> than previously assumed. See, for instance the following:
>>
>>
>> Publications
>>
>> Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New
>> Excavations and 14C
>> Dates from Khirbat en Nahas (Jordan). Antiquity 78: 863-876. ..
>>
>> Since then other work has been going on in the region.
>
> The Antiquity article may be viewed in PDF form along with further
> responses
> and discussion at:
> http://www.wadiarabahproject.man.ac.uk/titlepage/news/Antiquity/WAP%
> 20review.htm
>
> The Antiquity article's Abstract (p. 865) states: "An
> international team
> of researchers show how high-precision radiocarbon dating is
> liberating us
> from chronological assumptions based on Biblical research. Surface and
> topographic mapping at the large copper-working site of Khirbat en-
> Nahas was
> followed by stratigraphic excavations at an ancient fortress and
> two metal
> processing facilities located on the site surface. The results were
> spectacular. Occupation begins here in the eleventh century BC and the
> monumental fortress is built in the tenth. If this site can be
> equated with
> the rise of the Biblical kingdom of Edom it can now be seen to:
> have its
> roots in local Iron Age societies; is considerably earlier than
> previous
> scholars assumed; and proves that complex societies existed in Edom
> long
> before the influence of Assyrian imperialism was felt in the region
> from the
> eighth - sixth centuries BC."
>
> The Antiquity article concludes with a Discussion paragraph (pp.
> 876-77): "The excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas, the largest Iron Age
> copper
> production centre in the southern Levant, have provided the first
> stratified
> radiocarbon dates from the Biblical region of Edom. As can be seen
> in Figure
> 7 in conjunction with the late Iron I small finds described above,
> there are
> two main phases of metal production: in the twelfth - eleventh
> centuries BC
> and during the tenth - ninth centuries BC. These new data
> necessitate a
> re-examination of the role of the lowlands in the control of metal
> production during the rise of the Edomite kingdom. The new dates
> and the
> range of artefacts recently found at the site, such as architecture,
> ceramics, scarabs, and arrowheads indicate that Iron Age secondary
> state
> formation in Edom was much earlier than previously assumed. The key to
> understanding the rise of the Biblical kingdom of Edom may lie in
> the copper
> ore-rich lowlands, rather than the highland plateau where most
> excavations
> have been conducted to date. The emergence of the Edomite kingdom
> was not
> contingent on the region having been dominated by the neo-Assyrian
> empire
> during the eighth and seventh BC. State formation more likely began
> several
> centuries earlier, rooted in local processes of social evolution and
> interaction amongst the smaller Iron Age 'statelets' of the
> southern Levant
> (Edom, Moab, Ammon, Israel, Judah, Philistia, etc.)."
>
> For a little comparison, here is one paragraph from one of the
> later responses:
> "Further, Levy et al. state that, so far, the dating of Edomite
> pottery and
> consequently the main highland sites is based solely on the find of
> the Qos Gabr
> seal. The possibility of earlier dates for this pottery must therefore
> not be excluded
> (Levy et al. p. 3). However, this is being highly economical with
> the truth. In
> assessing the chronology of 'Edomite' pottery, the final
> publication of the
> excavations at Busayra by Piotr Bienkowski (2002) took into account:
>
> "o C14 dates from the Faynan area
> "o ceramic parallels from Transjordan and Palestine
> "o well dated imported Attic pottery
> "o well dated inscriptional material (NOT just the seal impression
> of Qos Gabr).
>
> "This analysis indicated that pottery assemblages from the Faynan area
> C14-dated
> to the ninth century BC were quite different from Busayra and other
> 'Edomite' sites,
> indicating a date later than the ninth century BC for the latter
> material. ALL the other
> evidence pointed to a date no earlier than the late eighth century BC,
> with this pottery
> tradition continuing to the end of the Persian period at the earliest,
> and possibly into
> the Early Hellenistic period."
>
> To sum up, Karl stated that Edom was established as a polity
> hundreds of years
> before Moses. Given Karl's dating of Moses based on personal
> criteria, that would
> place the establishment of Edom in the Middle Bronze. However,
> surprisingly, this
> is exactly when the paper originally referenced by Uri notes that the
> Faynan's district
> copper-production industry stopped. The question debated by the
> authors of the
> paper and others is when it began anew, and whether this signifies the
> beginning of
> a new state. It is generally agreed that the collapse of the industry
> had ramifications
> for a political entity in that area as well -- namely, that the
> political entity collapsed.
> While the discussion is interesting, it shows unanimous agreement
> that Edom or
> whatever polity existed there in the Early Bronze Age did not
> constitute a state again
> until that period -- in the 12th century BCE at the earliest, and
> probably later. I
> remain curious as to why Uri said the author of the comment (me) is
> ignorant
> of current research, especially when the message to which he
> responded contained
> a direct quote of me. Uri only quoted Karl's summary statement which
> dropped the
> "hundreds of years before Moses" part. For Karl, the above dating
> indicates Edom
> was not established as a state until "hundreds of years after
> Moses." For some
> other scholars like Kitchen, it is only a few decades after Moses (the
> dating of Moses
> being placed in the 13th century, with the entry into Israel in the
> later part of that
> century). Archaeologically, Israel is clearly placed in Israel
> already in the 13th century
> (1209 BCE Merneptah stele, according to Kitchen), so either way, Edom
> was established
> as a state, according to all archaeologists, after Israel's entry to
> Canaan, with some
> placing it at a few decades afterwards, others centuries afterwards.
> Because of this
> issue of contention, and the relatively close periods indicated for
> the later datings of
> Moses vs earliest datings of Edom, I originally left Edom out of the
> archaeological
> evidence that is inconsistent or incompatible with the Exodus account.
> However, it
> borders as such, and it still takes some forcing of the archaeological
> facts to make it
> fit with such claims as in Num 20:14.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:30:12 -0800
> From: Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd at mac.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <37943A81-B15E-473B-806A-B70E41BC0E37 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> I have a question regarding spelling changes of: Mash to Meshech,
> Shalach to Salah, Obal to Ebal in Genesis 10:23-28 and 1 Chronicles
> 1:17-22. When we consider that Arpachshad is not Semitic and
> potentially more Assyrian to begin with (Knoppers 2004; Gunkel 1926;
> Westermann 1984; Blenkinshopp 1992:90) would this be a clue to an
> adaptation of the truly Semitic spellings to more of an Aramaic one
> in the time of Ezra?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark Spitsbergen
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:16:58 +0200
> From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002201c84fe0$4e2ba190$9d9015ac at xp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> reply-type=original
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Shelah/Shalah of Gen. 10:24 and 1 Chr. 1:18 is spelled exactly the
> same in
> Hebrew of both books, including the shift from segol (e) to qamatz
> (a). The
> other two names are clearly cases of simple scibal error: I would
> guess that
> the spelling "Meshech" in 1 Chr. 1:17 in stead of "Mash" in Gen.
> 10:23 was
> influenced by the better-known Meshech that appears in verse 2/5 of
> the same
> chapter (in both books). The change from "Obal" to "Ebal" is simply
> because
> the Waw in Gen. was written as a graphically similar Yod in 1 Chr.
> (or maybe
> in the source used by 1 Chr.).
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Spitsbergen" <awakesd at mac.com>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:30 PM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS
>
>
>> I have a question regarding spelling changes of: Mash to Meshech,
>> Shalach to Salah, Obal to Ebal in Genesis 10:23-28 and 1 Chronicles
>> 1:17-22. When we consider that Arpachshad is not Semitic and
>> potentially more Assyrian to begin with (Knoppers 2004; Gunkel 1926;
>> Westermann 1984; Blenkinshopp 1992:90) would this be a clue to an
>> adaptation of the truly Semitic spellings to more of an Aramaic one
>> in the time of Ezra?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Mark Spitsbergen
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 269.17.13/1208 - Release Date:
>> 03/01/2008 15:52
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:15:03 +0000
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> <e6ea6c000801051715k5a0973deyca936799c7d0c8b5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 10:47 PM, K Randolph wrote:
>
>> Then how do you account for that many Canaanites did survive?
>
> Where does it say in the book of Joshua that Canaanites from Lachish
> survived?
>
>> You have just described medieval feudalism, but was this the case
>> of ancient
>> Near East as well? From what I read, that was only partially true.
>> Those who
>> had something to fear from the invader, yes, would take refuge in the
>> fortified stronghold, but what about the rest? The most clear
>> example is
>> Jeremiah 37:12?14 where Jeremiah attempted to wait out the siege of
>> Jerusalem "among the people" outside of Jerusalem. While it is
>> true that
>> Jeremiah was centuries later, did his example show a change in
>> circumstances? I think it is unlikely, from what history I have read.
>
> Jer 37 may be applicable, except it describes what Jeremiah did
> after the
> invaders retreated. In any case, I did not discuss medieval
> feudalism. If it
> happens that in medieval times, the same situation took place, then
> that
> would only indicate that across these different times, people acted
> much the
> same way.
>
>> Yet there is a literary standard for when the repetition is used.
>> Follow
>> that when evaluating a text. Does this text follow that literary
>> formula?
>
> Who says there is a literary standard. No one says there is a
> formula that
> must be followed in order to use repetition. Besides, formula is
> just the
> same as no repetition -- it eliminates the possibility for literary
> creativity.
>
>> You are adding to the text. The fulfillment came in 1 Kings 16:34,
>> during a
>> time of idolatry, the foundations were laid with human sacrifice,
>> namely the
>> oldest son of the builder, the gates blessed with another human
>> sacrifice,
>> namely the builder's youngest son. This was apparently a building
>> formula
>> among certain idolatrous societies. There is nothing in the text
>> about all
>> the other details you added above.
>
> As you can see, your view that human sacrifice is implied by these
> verses
> is your own addition to the text. I am not sure what details I
> mentioned are
> not in the text, but it is pretty clear that Josh 6:17 is talking
> about a continuous
> state rather than a singular action in the past (hence the use of the
> imperfect), and
> the 6:26 is a curse that relates to whoever builds the city.
> Evidently it talks
> about the death of the builder's children, but nowhere does it say
> he would
> be idolatrous or sacrifice them. As a curse, it just means that
> his children
> will die if he tries to build the city. 1 Ki 16:34 doesn't mention
> any child
> sacrifice either.
>
>> And are you sure that your "knowledge" is not modern mythology
>> concocted to
>> push an ideology? For example, what about the use of human
>> sacrifice? How
>> widespread was it? How was it expressed in the language? Do you
>> deny that
>> Joshua 6:26 and 1 Kings 16:34 linguistically refer to that
>> practice? Why?
>
> Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology." Modern
> linguistics
> is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
> to the discussion
> to call it that. I don't have to explain why Josh 6:26 and 1 Ki 16:34
> do not refer
> to the practice of child sacrifice, much like I don't have to explain
> why they do not
> relate to blue suns. First, you have to show that they do refer to
> child sacrifice.
> In general, Josh 6:26 reads as a curse. This makes it unlikely that
> the deaths of
> the children of the builder of Jericho are his own personal intention,
> as would be
> if he sacrificed them. The curse says -- if you want to build
> Jericho, then something
> you do not want will happen, that is, your children will die.
> Otherwise, it wouldn't
> be a curse.
>
>> Yet on another level, the personal level, do you claim that people
>> were
>> different then than they are today? In other words, they don't
>> share the
>> same loves, desires, sense of right and wrong, and so forth that
>> modern
>> individuals have?
>
> People are not different, but they have different cultural values, and
> our cultural sense
> of right or wrong is different from the values during Biblical times.
>
>> On a technical level, what do you know about agriculture, weaving,
>> ceramics,
>> cooking, metalsmithing, etc.? Can you tell me why the locksmiths were
>> specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 24:14, 16? What tools do these
>> trades use?
>
> Locksmiths are not mentioned in those verses.
>
>> Which is the best preparation for a lexicographer? Is it good and
>> concentrated study on languages and linguistics? Or is a person of
>> wide
>> interests, insatiable curiosity of many subjects, experiences in many
>> fields, better prepared to recognize how words are used in their
>> contexts?
>
> There is no question that if the two are placed as two options, then
> it is clear that
> concentrated linguistic study is best for the lexicographer.
> Generally, in a specific
> topic or area of expertise, then it helps a lot to also have expertise
> in that area. But
> that does not mean that an expert in this area does not need to have a
> good solid
> foundation in linguistics. For example, if we are discussing the word
> masger, then
> it is clear that someone who has expertise in archaeometallurgy as
> opposed to
> someone with just a general background in linguistics would be better
> prepared to
> comment on such terms. On the other hand, without knowing that
> Arabic has a
> cognate verb of the root sajara meaning "to heat up in a furnace," (so
> HALOT) one
> might not be prepared to understand the word correctly.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:19 +0200
> From: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
> To: <pporta at oham.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <000601c8501e$ce43a600$a6fbb44f at home>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
> reply-type=response
>
> Pere,
>
> I am really sorry to hear that you failed to understand what I am
> saying.
> Don?t despair. Understanding may require time. Things silently
> simmer in the
> mind and then suddenly everything falls into place and all becomes
> bright
> and clear. It happens to me all the time.
>
> You are saying: ?I wonder if anyone on this list does understand
> it... since
> nobody, nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...?. I
> think you
> should not worry about others. I would not look for comfort in CAR-AT
> HA-RABIM. The ?others? are also greatly preoccupied now with other fun
> things as evident by the profusion of recent interesting postings.
>
> You are also saying: ?I think you have a hard work to do if you
> want people
> understand what you mean?. I think it is either easy or neigh
> impossible
> depending on the audience. Hard set notions, ideology, pride and bad
> thinking habits makes it difficult; an open mind and the WILL to
> understand
> makes it very easy.
>
> I suggest you keep thinking of what XALAH and GALAH ?really? mean
> without
> recourse to translation or negation. Does GALAH really means ?to
> uncover?,
> or is this but an implication for something more basic and
> concrete? Are we
> really ?uncovering? something? Is it possible that a Hebrew root
> could mean
> ?uncover = un-cover?? See also my posting from September 6, 2007 on
> the
> equivalence of GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL.
>
> Looking from time to time at relevant entries in my etymological
> dictionary
> at www.hebrewetymology.com could be highly beneficial.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <pporta at oham.net>
> To: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
> Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
>
>
>> Isaac,
>>
>> thank you for your explanation.
>> Unfortunately, my level is not high enough to understand what you
>> mean.
>> (And I wonder if anyone on this list does understand it... since
>> nobody,
>> nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...)
>> I think you have a hard work to do if you want people understand
>> what you
>> mean.
>>
>> So, I'd say:
>>
>> 1. It will be better we leave this issue as it is...
>> 2. And finally: try, if possible, to explain what is the
>> equivalence of
>> XALAH, be sick, and GALAH, uncover.
>>
>> Pere Porta
>> Barcelona
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:11:57 -0800
> From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> <acd782170801052111q4aedc370pd909e22c1e317583 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Yitzhak:
>
> On Jan 5, 2008 5:15 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 3, 2008 10:47 PM, K Randolph wrote:
>>
>>> Then how do you account for that many Canaanites did survive?
>>
>> Where does it say in the book of Joshua that Canaanites from Lachish
>> survived?
>>
>
> What misreading of the data makes you think that anyone thinks that
> any
> Canaanites who were *in* Lachish survived?
>
>>
>>> You have just described medieval feudalism, but was this the case of
>> ancient
>>> Near East as well? From what I read, that was only partially
>>> true. Those
>> who
>>> had something to fear from the invader, yes, would take refuge in
>>> the
>>> fortified stronghold, but what about the rest? The most clear
>>> example is
>>> Jeremiah 37:12?14 where Jeremiah attempted to wait out the siege of
>>> Jerusalem "among the people" outside of Jerusalem. While it is
>>> true that
>>> Jeremiah was centuries later, did his example show a change in
>>> circumstances? I think it is unlikely, from what history I have
>>> read.
>>
>> Jer 37 may be applicable, except it describes what Jeremiah did
>> after the
>> invaders retreated. In any case, I did not discuss medieval
>> feudalism.
>> If it
>> happens that in medieval times, the same situation took place,
>> then that
>> would only indicate that across these different times, people
>> acted much
>> the
>> same way.
>>
>
> Jeremiah attempted to live outside of the city when he knew that the
> Chaldeans retreat was only temporary, that they would be back to
> finish the
> siege that they had started. That shows his expectation that the
> siege of
> Jerusalem would not mean the deaths of those who lived in the villages
> outside the fortified cities.
>
> If his story is indicative of ancient warfare, would that not also
> apply to
> Joshua's blitzkrieg?
>
>>
>>> Yet there is a literary standard for when the repetition is used.
>>> Follow
>>> that when evaluating a text. Does this text follow that literary
>> formula?
>>
>> Who says there is a literary standard. No one says there is a
>> formula
>> that
>> must be followed in order to use repetition. Besides, formula is
>> just the
>> same as no repetition -- it eliminates the possibility for literary
>> creativity.
>>
>
> How so? It sounds as if your expectations do more to eliminate the
> possibility of literary creativity than anything I said.
>
>>
>>> You are adding to the text. The fulfillment came in 1 Kings 16:34,
>> during a
>>> time of idolatry, the foundations were laid with human sacrifice,
>>> namely
>> the
>>> oldest son of the builder, the gates blessed with another human
>> sacrifice,
>>> namely the builder's youngest son. This was apparently a building
>> formula
>>> among certain idolatrous societies. There is nothing in the text
>>> about
>> all
>>> the other details you added above.
>>
>> As you can see, your view that human sacrifice is implied by these
>> verses
>> is your own addition to the text. I am not sure what details I
>> mentioned
>> are
>> not in the text, but it is pretty clear that Josh 6:17 is talking
>> about a continuous
>> state rather than a singular action in the past (hence the use of the
>> imperfect), and
>> the 6:26 is a curse that relates to whoever builds the city.
>> Evidently it talks
>> about the death of the builder's children, but nowhere does it say he
>> would
>> be idolatrous or sacrifice them. As a curse, it just means that his
>> children
>> will die if he tries to build the city. 1 Ki 16:34 doesn't
>> mention any
>> child
>> sacrifice either.
>>
>
> How does this relate to the capture of Lachish?
>
>>
>>> And are you sure that your "knowledge" is not modern mythology
>>> concocted
>> to
>>> push an ideology? For example, what about the use of human
>>> sacrifice?
>> How
>>> widespread was it? How was it expressed in the language? Do you deny
>> that
>>> Joshua 6:26 and 1 Kings 16:34 linguistically refer to that practice?
>> Why?
>>
>> Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology." Modern
>> linguistics
>> is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
>> to the discussion
>> to call it that.?
>
>
> Here you have just done a classic red herring logical fallacy:
> linguistics
> had nothing to do about mythology, history is the subject of the
> mythology
> question.
>
>
>>> Yet on another level, the personal level, do you claim that
>>> people were
>>> different then than they are today? In other words, they don't
>>> share the
>>> same loves, desires, sense of right and wrong, and so forth that
>>> modern
>>> individuals have?
>>
>> People are not different, but they have different cultural values,
>> and
>> our cultural sense
>> of right or wrong is different from the values during Biblical times.
>>
>
> Oh? How are they different? Can you give any specific examples?
>
>>
>>> On a technical level, what do you know about agriculture, weaving,
>> ceramics,
>>> cooking, metalsmithing, etc.? Can you tell me why the locksmiths
>>> were
>>> specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 24:14, 16? What tools do these
>>> trades
>> use?
>>
>> Locksmiths are not mentioned in those verses.
>>
>
> Then what do you call them? And why were they specifically mentioned?
>
>>
>>> Which is the best preparation for a lexicographer? Is it good and
>>> concentrated study on languages and linguistics? Or is a person
>>> of wide
>>> interests, insatiable curiosity of many subjects, experiences in
>>> many
>>> fields, better prepared to recognize how words are used in their
>> contexts?
>>
>> There is no question that if the two are placed as two options, then
>> it is clear that
>> concentrated linguistic study is best for the lexicographer.
>> Generally, in a specific
>> topic or area of expertise, then it helps a lot to also have
>> expertise
>> in that area. But
>> that does not mean that an expert in this area does not need to
>> have a
>> good solid
>> foundation in linguistics. For example, if we are discussing the
>> word
>> masger, then
>> it is clear that someone who has expertise in archaeometallurgy as
>> opposed
>> to
>> someone with just a general background in linguistics would be better
>> prepared to
>> comment on such terms. On the other hand, without knowing that
>> Arabic has
>> a
>
> cognate verb of the root sajara meaning "to heat up in a furnace," (so
>> HALOT) one
>> might not be prepared to understand the word correctly.
>>
>
> That's exactly where a reliance on linguistics and cognate
> languages leads
> astray when one does not know history and technology. The
> locksmiths were
> the top technicians of that time, dealing with the most intricate of
> mechanisms that their technology allowed. This is connected with
> the idea of
> shutting up, precisely what a lock does.
>
>
>> Yitzhak Sapir
>>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:23:03 +0200
> From: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
> To: <pporta at oham.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <005a01c85080$6c11f010$a6fbb44f at home>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
> reply-type=original
>
> On line 15 below neigh should be nigh.
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
> To: <pporta at oham.net>
> Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
>
>
>> Pere,
>>
>> I am really sorry to hear that you failed to understand what I am
>> saying.
>> Don?t despair. Understanding may require time. Things silently
>> simmer in
>> the
>> mind and then suddenly everything falls into place and all becomes
>> bright
>> and clear. It happens to me all the time.
>>
>> You are saying: ?I wonder if anyone on this list does understand
>> it...
>> since
>> nobody, nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...?. I
>> think you
>> should not worry about others. I would not look for comfort in CAR-AT
>> HA-RABIM. The ?others? are also greatly preoccupied now with other
>> fun
>> things as evident by the profusion of recent interesting postings.
>>
>> You are also saying: ?I think you have a hard work to do if you want
>> people
>> understand what you mean?. I think it is either easy or neigh
>> impossible
>> depending on the audience. Hard set notions, ideology, pride and bad
>> thinking habits makes it difficult; an open mind and the WILL to
>> understand
>> makes it very easy.
>>
>> I suggest you keep thinking of what XALAH and GALAH ?really? mean
>> without
>> recourse to translation or negation. Does GALAH really means ?to
>> uncover?,
>> or is this but an implication for something more basic and
>> concrete? Are
>> we
>> really ?uncovering? something? Is it possible that a Hebrew root
>> could
>> mean
>> ?uncover = un-cover?? See also my posting from September 6, 2007
>> on the
>> equivalence of GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL.
>>
>> Looking from time to time at relevant entries in my etymological
>> dictionary
>> at www.hebrewetymology.com could be highly beneficial.
>>
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <pporta at oham.net>
>> To: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
>> Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
>>
>>
>>> Isaac,
>>>
>>> thank you for your explanation.
>>> Unfortunately, my level is not high enough to understand what you
>>> mean.
>>> (And I wonder if anyone on this list does understand it... since
>>> nobody,
>>> nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...)
>>> I think you have a hard work to do if you want people understand
>>> what you
>>> mean.
>>>
>>> So, I'd say:
>>>
>>> 1. It will be better we leave this issue as it is...
>>> 2. And finally: try, if possible, to explain what is the
>>> equivalence of
>>> XALAH, be sick, and GALAH, uncover.
>>>
>>> Pere Porta
>>> Barcelona
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>>
>> __________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:54:00 +0200
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> <e6ea6c000801060854l23676c33r944e9fb1a6516978 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
>
> On Jan 6, 2008 7:11 AM, K Randolph wrote:
>
>>> Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology." Modern
>>> linguistics
>>> is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
>>> to the discussion
>>> to call it that.?
>>
>> Here you have just done a classic red herring logical fallacy:
>> linguistics
>> had nothing to do about mythology, history is the subject of the
>> mythology
>> question.
>
> This was not a point of discussion. It was a sensible request to
> keep the
> discussion at appropriate levels. Seeing as how you refuse to do
> that, I see
> no reason to continue the discussion of your problematic reading of
> the
> Hebrew.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:53:25 +1300 (NZDT)
> From: Bill Rea <bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.SOL.4.58.0801070928560.23350 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Karl wrote:-
>
>> You mentioned cladistic analysis, but you mentioned neither for nor
>> against if it could be used for DH.
>
> I thought my statement that it didn't deal with authorship was clear
> enough. But I guess not.
>
>> DH's parsimony? I thought the opposition was for the opposite reason.
>
> Yes, parsimony. I expect your confusion is because you have your own
> private meaning for the word which does not agree with standard usage
> much in the same way you have unique, highly idiosyncratic definitions
> for words like ``science'', ``observation'' and ``evidence''.
>
> Parimony is about getting maximum explantory power from a minimum
> number
> number of variables. It requires *balancing* explantory power against
> number of variables. In many situations parsimony can be measured
> with information criteria and an optimal number of explantory
> variables
> chosen. In the DH vs single-author hypothesis, there are a large
> number
> of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
> engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these
> problems
> you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in
> most
> English translations. Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e. more
> parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining
> several
> earlier closely related traditions. Whether those traditions were
> oral or written or a bit of both is not hugely important.
>
> The fact is that if people examine the evidence most people are
> convinced
> the that DH is on the right track. I'm not a professional Hebrew
> scholar
> but when I was learning Hebrew and doing some related Biblical study I
> came into contact with the DH. The evidence was persuasive and so I
> switched away from believing in a single author who composed the whole
> five books of Moses from scratch. Most people do.
>
>> One of the main reasons I heard over the years for opposing the
>> methodology of DH is that it can be applied to only one document,
>> that it
>> cannot accurately describe any other document. If it cannot be
>> applied to
>> any other document, why should we trust it when applied to Bible? It
>> doesn't matter if the method has been computerized, if it can't
>> accurately describe other documents where the authorship is known,
>> then
>> it is useless in supporting DH as well.
>
> This is a red-herring. There is no problem developing unique
> methods to
> deal with unique problems. However, I believe other list members have
> addressed this issue, so I will leave it.
>
> 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: 11
> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:06:46 +1300 (NZDT)
> From: Bill Rea <bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen (was Cladistics)
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.SOL.4.58.0801070958530.23350 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Edward wrote:-
>
>> Remaining personally uncommitted to Wellhausen's linguistic program
>> (the cladistics of his ideological appeal I have already discribed
>> the
>> other day on this list),
>
> I read the earlier posts on Wellhausen's ideology, which I do not
> doubt. However, ultimately the DH stands or falls on evidence.
> While Wellhausen appears to have had an ulterior motive, nevertheless
> the basic hypothesis and its refinements have stood the test of time
> and is accepted by scholars and others from all over the religious
> spectrum. Many who accept it and/or have made refinements to the DH
> can not be accused of having ulterior motives. Its an idea which
> now stands
> independently of its origins. If you are holding back because of
> Wellhausen's private ideology, that's not a valid reason.
>
> 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: 12
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 19:24:55 EST
> From: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen vs. Single Author
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <c40.27b9c4cb.34b2cb57 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Bill Rea:
> You wrote: ?In the DH vs single-author hypothesis, there are a
> large number
> of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
> engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these
> problems
> you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in
> most
> English translations. Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e. more
> parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining
> several
> earlier closely related traditions.?
> What you say may apply to the Hebrew Bible as a whole, or to the
> first five
> books of the Bible. But does it apply to the Patriarchal narratives?
> 1. As to the Patriarchal narratives, what are the ?large number
> of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
> engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these
> problems
> you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in
> most
> English translations.?
> I know of no such items in the Patriarchal narratives (except for
> a tiny
> handful of glosses).
> 1. Moreover, virtually nothing in the Patriarchal narratives
> is similar
> to what is in the rest of the Bible, and vice versa. If the DH is
> right
> and the same 4 people who wrote the Book of Exodus also wrote the
> Patriarchal
> narratives, why is the point of view so dramatically different? As
> the tip of
> the iceberg, the Book of Exodus hates Egypt, whereas the Patriarchal
> narratives love Egypt.
> 1. When I assert that the Patriarchal narratives were
> composed by a
> single author in the mid-14th century BCE, what sort of ?special
> pleading? am I
> resorting to?
> 1. No university scholar ever discusses the Patriarchal
> narratives in
> the context of the mid-14th century BCE. How then can we be sure
> that there
> is no such connection, if no university scholar will discuss the
> matter? Isn?
> t that a form of academic ?special pleading?? I can match every
> foreign
> policy event in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives to
> what
> happened in Year 14 of Akhenaten?s 17-year reign. Where is the ?
> special pleading??
> 1. No one on the b-Hebrew list has yet come up with a single
> story in
> the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives that is out of place in
> a mid-14th
> century BCE secular historical context. Academic scholars never
> discuss
> that subject. If my theory of the case is wrong, why then isn?t
> there at least
> one story in the text that does not fit the mid-14th century BCE?
> Please specify where I am engaging in ?special pleading?. In
> particular,
> please identify at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives
> that does not
> fit a mid-14th century BCE context, absent ?special pleading?. As
> previously discussed on the b-Hebrew list, there were camels in
> existence in the
> mid-14th century BCE, and nothing about the ?Philistines? in the
> Patriarchal
> narratives is redolent in any way, shape or form of the classic
> Philistines who
> lived in five grand cities on the southwest coast of Canaan
> beginning in the
> early 12th century BCE. Am I engaging in ?special pleading? to
> point that
> out? Certainly the ?Philistines? in the Patriarchal narratives are
> not the
> later classic Philistines.
> Please identify at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives
> that does
> not fit a mid-14th century BCE context. Please specify where I am
> engaging in
> ?special pleading?.
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 03:04:09 +0100
> From: belaga at math.u-strasbg.fr
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen (was Cladistics)
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20080107030409.eskylaz6sggwgk0k at www-irma.u-strasbg.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
> format="flowed"
>
>> Edward wrote:-
>>
>>> Remaining personally uncommitted to Wellhausen's linguistic program
>>> (the cladistics of his ideological appeal I have already
>>> discribed the
>>> other day on this list),
>>
>> I read the earlier posts on Wellhausen's ideology, which I do not
>> doubt. However, ultimately the DH stands or falls on evidence.
>> While Wellhausen appears to have had an ulterior motive, nevertheless
>> the basic hypothesis and its refinements have stood the test of time
>> and is accepted by scholars and others from all over the religious
>> spectrum. Many who accept it and/or have made refinements to the DH
>> can not be accused of having ulterior motives. Its an idea which
>> now stands
>> independently of its origins. If you are holding back because of
>> Wellhausen's private ideology, that's not a valid reason.
>>
>> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> You are raising a valid point and, to my taste, you are doing it in a
> morally sensitive and scientifically balanced way, for which I am
> sincerely grateful to you.
>
> Since I am working at present on the article touching on this topic,
> too, let me answer you in the most scientific, parsimonious,
> minimalist way which has emerged from the minimalist tradition having
> something to do with Wellhausen's contempt for the Bible as a valid
> source of an immensely rich, broad, and otherwise unavailable
> inspiration, historical and factual including.
>
> (1) A young German mathematician, Paul Julius Oswald Teichmueller
> (1913 - 1943), became an active member of the Nazi party and played a
> major role in getting the students at Goettingen to dismiss the most
> prominent Jew there, Professor Edmund Landau, the world star in Number
> Theory.
>
> This story has greatly impressed me, a young scientist as I was, but
> did not prevent me from studying Teichmueller's mathematical papers
> and even translating a book which deals with the generalizations of
> his work.
>
> (2) Yes, I do understand that Wellhausen's DH theory is well respected
> by many scientists today, and this fact does not provoke my
> indignation.
>
> (3) And I am not committed to this theory for reasons of absolutely
> scientific nature, which have nothing to do with Wellhausen?s
> ideological cladistics.
>
> (4) On a more personal note, my experience as a scientist has taught
> me that scientific theories appear, disappear or settle on something
> much more modest than their creators expected, even after an
> enthusiastic lull of a century -- as it happened for example with
> Laplace's universal mechanical philosophy.
>
> Thank you for this occasion to made the above points without
> infringing on somebody's convictions.
>
> Edward G. Belaga
> ******************************************************
> Institut de Recherche en Math?matique Avanc?e
> Universite Louis Pasteur
> 7, rue Ren? Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, FRANCE
> tel.: 333 90 24 02 35, FAX: 333 90 24 03 28
> e-mail : edward.belaga at math.u-strasbg.fr
> ******************************************************
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 05:30:24 -0800
> From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <acd782170801070530n171dfc98ga6337ee8b8cee0dd at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Bill:
>
> On Jan 6, 2008 12:53 PM, Bill Rea
> <bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>> Karl wrote:-
>>
>>> You mentioned cladistic analysis, but you mentioned neither for nor
>>> against if it could be used for DH.
>>
>> I thought my statement that it didn't deal with authorship was clear
>> enough. But I guess not.
>>
>
> My understanding (and I just checked your message again) was just
> that it
> had not been applied.
>
>>
>>> DH's parsimony? I thought the opposition was for the opposite
>>> reason.
>>
>> Yes, parsimony. I expect your confusion is because you have your own
>> private meaning for the word which does not agree with standard usage
>> much in the same way you have unique, highly idiosyncratic
>> definitions
>> for words like ``science'', ``observation'' and ``evidence''.
>
>
> When you wrote "parsimony", my first reaction was to check the
> dictionary
> that comes with MacOS 10.4, because I didn't see how it applied to the
> question. The definition given there is:
>
> parsimony |?p?rs??m?n?|noun extreme unwillingness to spend money or
> use
> resources : a great tradition of public design has been shattered by
> government parsimony.
> PHRASES principle (or law) of parsimony the scientific principle
> that things
> are usually connected or behave in the simplest or most economical
> way, esp.
> with reference to alternative evolutionary pathways. Compare
> withOccam's
> razor .
> ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
> from parcere 'be sparing.'
>
> After checking the dictionary, I see the multiple authorship theory
> as more
> complex than the single authorship picture given in the text.
> Hence, I don't
> see how parsimony fits this theory.
>
> As for the other definitions, I got them from reading Dr.s George
> Gaylord
> Simpson and William S. Beck and many other scientists. Look on
> Amazon.com,
> how many books authored by them are still being sold: how many
> books on
> science by you should I find there?
>
>>
>> Parimony is about getting maximum explantory power from a minimum
>> number
>> number of variables. It requires *balancing* explantory power against
>> number of variables. In many situations parsimony can be measured
>> with information criteria and an optimal number of explantory
>> variables
>> chosen. In the DH vs single-author hypothesis, there are a large
>> number
>> of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
>> engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these
>> problems
>> you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in
>> most
>> English translations. Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e. more
>> parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining
>> several
>> earlier closely related traditions. Whether those traditions were
>> oral or written or a bit of both is not hugely important.
>>
>> The fact is that if people examine the evidence most people are
>> convinced
>> the that DH is on the right track. I'm not a professional Hebrew
>> scholar
>> but when I was learning Hebrew and doing some related Biblical
>> study I
>> came into contact with the DH. The evidence was persuasive and so I
>> switched away from believing in a single author who composed the
>> whole
>> five books of Moses from scratch. Most people do.
>>
>
> I had a professor many years ago try to convince us in class that
> DH was the
> way to go, but then he included in his lectures what sounded like
> contradictory statements which made me wonder if the only reason
> for DH was
> philosophical (religious) and not based on objective standards.
> Then I read
> a PhD dissertation showing the history and philosophy of DH that
> verified my
> initial impression of the theory.
>
>>
>>> One of the main reasons I heard over the years for opposing the
>>> methodology of DH is that it can be applied to only one document,
>>> that it
>>> cannot accurately describe any other document. If it cannot be
>>> applied to
>>> any other document, why should we trust it when applied to Bible? It
>>> doesn't matter if the method has been computerized, if it can't
>>> accurately describe other documents where the authorship is
>>> known, then
>>> it is useless in supporting DH as well.
>>
>> This is a red-herring. There is no problem developing unique
>> methods to
>> deal with unique problems. However, I believe other list members have
>> addressed this issue, so I will leave it.
>>
>
> This is akin to saying that the reasons we have for heliocentrism
> apply only
> to the sun and our planets, but we should not expect those reasons
> to apply
> to other planets and stars. If DH cannot be applied to Tolstoy or
> other
> modern authors or literary works and give accurate results, then
> why should
> I trust it concerning Bible?
>
>>
>> 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 (/'
>>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:38:14 EST
> From: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <d61.1b67a95b.34b38546 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Based in part on our analysis of the name ?Joseph?, we can now go
> back and
> determine what specific rules govern all three Patriarchal
> successions. (The
> secondary literature on the Patriarchal narratives does not discuss
> this
> critically important issue.)
>
> In all three Patriarchal successions, the winning candidate always
> meets the
> following three key requirements, and the main contender who fails
> to be named
> the leader of the next generation of the new monotheists always
> fails to meet
> one or more of these requirements:
>
> 1. The winning son cannot be his father?s firstborn son.
>
> 2. The winning son cannot be his father?s favorite son.
>
> 3. The birth mother of the winning son must be his father?s
> original main
> wife #1.
>
> Now let?s see how these three simple, odd rules govern all three
> Patriarchal
> successions.
>
> I. Ishmael vs. Isaac
>
> Ishmael fails all three of the above tests. Ishmael is his father?s
> firstborn son (or is at least his father?s firstborn son of
> importance). Ishmael is
> his father Abraham?s favorite son. We see this when Abraham pleads
> Ishmael?s
> case with YHWH (Genesis 17: 18), and Abraham is stated to be
> grieved when
> Ishmael must be exiled (Genesis 21: 11). By contrast, Abraham
> never pleads Isaac?
> s case to YHWH, particularly during the binding incident, and
> Abraham is not
> stated in the text to be grieved when Abraham almost kills Isaac in
> the binding
> incident. Most importantly, however, in this first Patriarchal
> succession is
> the obvious fact that Ishmael?s birth mother is Hagar, who is not
> Abraham?s
> main wife #1. Ishmael was borne on Sarah?s behalf, but Sarah is
> not Ishmael?
> s birth mother.
>
> Isaac, who is the winning son, meets all three tests. Isaac is not
> his father
> ?s firstborn son, Isaac is not his father?s favorite son (Ishmael
> is), and
> Isaac?s birth mother, Sarah, is Abraham?s original main wife #1.
>
> II. Esau vs. Jacob
>
> Esau fails the first two requirements. Esau is his father Isaac?s
> firstborn
> son. And Esau is obviously his father?s favorite son, as Isaac
> likes Esau
> much better than Isaac likes Jacob. (Jacob never forgave his older
> twin brother
> Esau for so obviously being their father?s favorite son.) The
> focus in this
> second Patriarchal succession is on birth order. Esau is
> repeatedly stated to
> be Isaac?s older son (even though Esau and Jacob are twins). Their
> mother
> Rebekah?s famous dream about the twin sons struggling in her womb
> is ambiguous,
> but one thing is clear: that dream clearly relates to birth
> order. Esau?s
> fatal flaw is to be his father?s firstborn son.
>
> By contrast, winning son Jacob meets all three tests. Jacob is not
> his father
> ?s firstborn son, and clearly is not his father?s favorite son.
> The third
> factor is neutral here between the two sons, as the twins obviously
> have the
> same birth mother, who is their father?s original main wife #1.
>
> III. Judah vs. Joseph
>
> Joseph fails the second and third requirements. Joseph is probably
> O.K. on
> the first requirement, in that Joseph is not his father?s firstborn
> son (though
> Joseph is the firstborn son of Jacob?s favorite wife). But Joseph
> is his
> father?s favorite son, being the only son to receive the ?coat of
> many colors?.
> And most critically, Joseph?s birth mother is Rachel, who although
> a fine
> mother with high standing, nevertheless is not Jacob?s original
> main wife #1.
> Jacob married Leah 7 days before Jacob married Rachel, so it is
> Leah who has the
> honor of being Jacob?s original main wife #1.
>
> Judah meets all three tests. Judah is not his father?s firstborn
> son, Judah
> is not his father?s favorite son (Joseph is), and Judah?s birth
> mother is
> Jacob?s original main wife #1: Leah. (Note that Leah, but not
> Rachel, is buried
> in Hebron with the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Each Matriarch
> buried in
> Hebron is, unlike Rachel, her husband?s original main wife #1.)
>
> In the end, it was impossible for Joseph to avoid Ishmael?s sad
> fate. Since
> the birth mother of neither Ishmael nor Joseph was the father?s
> original main
> wife #1, neither Ishmael nor Joseph had a chance. Rachel tried to
> avoid that
> by calling her son ?Joseph?, meaning ?gathered, added?, to position
> Joseph
> as being just ?another son?, who is ?added? to the already large ?
> gathering?
> of Jacob?s sons by his collective main wife #1, Leah-Rachel. But
> that daring
> gambit failed.
>
> * * *
>
> We can now go on to ask how the above Patriarchal succession
> requirements
> relate to secular history. (Such question is never addressed, in
> any way
> whatsoever, by the secondary literature on the Patriarchal
> narratives.)
>
> Who is the target audience for the Patriarchal narratives? Is
> there a ruler,
> who historically was important to the early Hebrews, who would have
> been
> greatly pleased to see the foregoing odd rules of succession apply
> to the
> leadership of the new monotheists?
>
> Consider what type of man would like those odd rules.
>
> 1. He must be a younger son. In the Patriarchal narratives, the
> firstborn
> son always gets the shaft, and properly so. So the target audience
> must be a
> younger son.
>
> 2. He must not have been his father?s favorite son. In all three
> Patriarchal successions, the father?s favorite son fails to win the
> grand prize. The
> target audience must be a younger son who resented his father?s
> favoritism of
> the father?s firstborn son.
>
> 3. And finally, he must have had half-brothers, whom he perceived
> to be a
> bona fide threat. Relations between half-brothers are not good in the
> Patriarchal narratives. Isaac never sees his half-brother Ishmael
> after Isaac is
> weaned, except for the occasion of their father Abraham?s funeral.
> Jacob?s older
> sons famously try to kill their young half-brother Joseph. The target
> audience must have been a son of his father?s original main wife
> #1, who feared that
> his father might choose as the father?s successor a manly son by a
> minor wife.
>
> In my next post, we will examine what ruler in secular history was
> important
> to the early Hebrews, who meets all the above three odd factors in
> spades.
> Rather than being mid-1st millennium BCE fiction, as university
> scholars have
> been trying to tell us (unsuccessfully) for 100 years now, the
> Patriarchal
> narratives instead are very closely tracking the well-documented
> secular history of
> the mid-14th century BCE, which in my controversial view is the
> historical
> Patriarchal Age. It is impossible that J, E, P or D could be
> making this stuff
> up, over a period of several centuries in the mid-1st millennium
> BCE, because
> JEPD knew nothing, and cared less, about the secular history of the
> mid-14th
> century BCE.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
>
> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:45:17 -0800
> From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw at com-pair.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
> To: <JimStinehart at aol.com>, <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <005701c8514c$b519f240$84345142 at oemcomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> Regarding Ishmael vs Isaac.
>
> The text of 22:2, 12, 16 contradict what you say about Isaac. In
> each of the
> verses God says of Isaac to Abraham,
> 22:2 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad 'asher-'ahabtat; LXX,
> TON AGAPHTON
> hON HGAPHSAS
> 22:12 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU
> 22:16 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU
>
> Furthermore, the text in 17:17-22 clearly indicates that Sarah will
> give birth
> to a son well passed the age of childbearing, that the child's name
> will be
> Isaac (Yitzhak) and that Ishmael will still be blessed, but not as
> the firstborn
> is normally blessed. In fact, Isaac is the focal point from this
> point on.
>
> Remember that Ishmael was born of Hagar, an Egyptian slave woman,
> per cultural
> standards at that time. In fact, the indcidents involved with each
> of the
> Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will find a counterpart in
> later Mosaic
> legislation to prevent the mistakes that these same patriarchs
> committed.
>
> Now, regarding the 14th Century BCE dating, I find that Akhenaten
> does not fit
> the context of the Patriarchal narratives nor the Mosaic
> legislation especially
> the dating to ca. 1446-1407 BCE in which the dating set by the I
> Kings 6:1,
> Judges 11:14-27 (especially 11:26 ("For three hundred years Israel
> occupied
> Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along
> the
> Arnon...."). Since Jephthah was a judge ca. 1100 BCE according to
> most scholars,
> then to ignore both times listed (Solomon building the Temple and
> Jephthah's
> remarks) is based not on facts but on a priori assumptions that
> cannot be proved
> especially with regards to JEDP.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JimStinehart at aol.com>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 5:38 AM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
>
>
>>
>> Based in part on our analysis of the name ?Joseph?, we can now go
>> back and
>> determine what specific rules govern all three Patriarchal
>> successions. (The
>> secondary literature on the Patriarchal narratives does not
>> discuss this
>> critically important issue.)
>>
>> In all three Patriarchal successions, the winning candidate always
>> meets the
>> following three key requirements, and the main contender who fails
>> to be named
>> the leader of the next generation of the new monotheists always
>> fails to meet
>> one or more of these requirements:
>>
>> 1. The winning son cannot be his father?s firstborn son.
>>
>> 2. The winning son cannot be his father?s favorite son.
>>
>> 3. The birth mother of the winning son must be his father?s
>> original main
>> wife #1.
>>
>> Now let?s see how these three simple, odd rules govern all three
>> Patriarchal
>> successions.
>>
>> I. Ishmael vs. Isaac
>>
>> Ishmael fails all three of the above tests. Ishmael is his father?s
>> firstborn son (or is at least his father?s firstborn son of
>> importance).
> Ishmael is
>> his father Abraham?s favorite son. We see this when Abraham
>> pleads Ishmael?s
>> case with YHWH (Genesis 17: 18), and Abraham is stated to be
>> grieved when
>> Ishmael must be exiled (Genesis 21: 11). By contrast, Abraham
>> never pleads
> Isaac?
>> s case to YHWH, particularly during the binding incident, and
>> Abraham is not
>> stated in the text to be grieved when Abraham almost kills Isaac
>> in the
> binding
>> incident. Most importantly, however, in this first Patriarchal
>> succession is
>> the obvious fact that Ishmael?s birth mother is Hagar, who is not
>> Abraham?s
>> main wife #1. Ishmael was borne on Sarah?s behalf, but Sarah is
>> not Ishmael?
>> s birth mother.
>>
>> Isaac, who is the winning son, meets all three tests. Isaac is
>> not his father
>> ?s firstborn son, Isaac is not his father?s favorite son (Ishmael
>> is), and
>> Isaac?s birth mother, Sarah, is Abraham?s original main wife #1.
>>
>> II. Esau vs. Jacob
>>
>> Esau fails the first two requirements. Esau is his father Isaac?s
>> firstborn
>> son. And Esau is obviously his father?s favorite son, as Isaac
>> likes Esau
>> much better than Isaac likes Jacob. (Jacob never forgave his
>> older twin
> brother
>> Esau for so obviously being their father?s favorite son.) The
>> focus in this
>> second Patriarchal succession is on birth order. Esau is
>> repeatedly stated to
>> be Isaac?s older son (even though Esau and Jacob are twins).
>> Their mother
>> Rebekah?s famous dream about the twin sons struggling in her womb is
> ambiguous,
>> but one thing is clear: that dream clearly relates to birth
>> order. Esau?s
>> fatal flaw is to be his father?s firstborn son.
>>
>> By contrast, winning son Jacob meets all three tests. Jacob is
>> not his father
>> ?s firstborn son, and clearly is not his father?s favorite son.
>> The third
>> factor is neutral here between the two sons, as the twins
>> obviously have the
>> same birth mother, who is their father?s original main wife #1.
>>
>> III. Judah vs. Joseph
>>
>> Joseph fails the second and third requirements. Joseph is
>> probably O.K. on
>> the first requirement, in that Joseph is not his father?s
>> firstborn son
> (though
>> Joseph is the firstborn son of Jacob?s favorite wife). But Joseph
>> is his
>> father?s favorite son, being the only son to receive the ?coat of
>> many colors?
> .
>> And most critically, Joseph?s birth mother is Rachel, who although
>> a fine
>> mother with high standing, nevertheless is not Jacob?s original
>> main wife #1.
>> Jacob married Leah 7 days before Jacob married Rachel, so it is
>> Leah who has
> the
>> honor of being Jacob?s original main wife #1.
>>
>> Judah meets all three tests. Judah is not his father?s firstborn
>> son, Judah
>> is not his father?s favorite son (Joseph is), and Judah?s birth
>> mother is
>> Jacob?s original main wife #1: Leah. (Note that Leah, but not
>> Rachel, is
> buried
>> in Hebron with the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Each
>> Matriarch buried in
>> Hebron is, unlike Rachel, her husband?s original main wife #1.)
>>
>> In the end, it was impossible for Joseph to avoid Ishmael?s sad
>> fate. Since
>> the birth mother of neither Ishmael nor Joseph was the father?s
>> original main
>> wife #1, neither Ishmael nor Joseph had a chance. Rachel tried to
>> avoid that
>> by calling her son ?Joseph?, meaning ?gathered, added?, to
>> position Joseph
>> as being just ?another son?, who is ?added? to the already large ?
>> gathering?
>> of Jacob?s sons by his collective main wife #1, Leah-Rachel. But
>> that daring
>> gambit failed.
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> We can now go on to ask how the above Patriarchal succession
>> requirements
>> relate to secular history. (Such question is never addressed, in
>> any way
>> whatsoever, by the secondary literature on the Patriarchal
>> narratives.)
>>
>> Who is the target audience for the Patriarchal narratives? Is
>> there a ruler,
>> who historically was important to the early Hebrews, who would
>> have been
>> greatly pleased to see the foregoing odd rules of succession apply
>> to the
>> leadership of the new monotheists?
>>
>> Consider what type of man would like those odd rules.
>>
>> 1. He must be a younger son. In the Patriarchal narratives, the
>> firstborn
>> son always gets the shaft, and properly so. So the target
>> audience must be a
>> younger son.
>>
>> 2. He must not have been his father?s favorite son. In all three
>> Patriarchal successions, the father?s favorite son fails to win
>> the grand
> prize. The
>> target audience must be a younger son who resented his father?s
>> favoritism of
>> the father?s firstborn son.
>>
>> 3. And finally, he must have had half-brothers, whom he perceived
>> to be a
>> bona fide threat. Relations between half-brothers are not good in
>> the
>> Patriarchal narratives. Isaac never sees his half-brother Ishmael
>> after Isaac
> is
>> weaned, except for the occasion of their father Abraham?s
>> funeral. Jacob?s
> older
>> sons famously try to kill their young half-brother Joseph. The
>> target
>> audience must have been a son of his father?s original main wife
>> #1, who
> feared that
>> his father might choose as the father?s successor a manly son by a
>> minor wife.
>>
>> In my next post, we will examine what ruler in secular history was
>> important
>> to the early Hebrews, who meets all the above three odd factors in
>> spades.
>> Rather than being mid-1st millennium BCE fiction, as university
>> scholars have
>> been trying to tell us (unsuccessfully) for 100 years now, the
>> Patriarchal
>> narratives instead are very closely tracking the well-documented
>> secular
> history of
>> the mid-14th century BCE, which in my controversial view is the
>> historical
>> Patriarchal Age. It is impossible that J, E, P or D could be
>> making this
> stuff
>> up, over a period of several centuries in the mid-1st millennium
>> BCE, because
>> JEPD knew nothing, and cared less, about the secular history of
>> the mid-14th
>> century BCE.
>>
>> Jim Stinehart
>> Evanston, Illinois
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
>> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date:
> 01/07/08 9:14
> AM
>
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a
> courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:09:25 +0200
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> <e6ea6c000801071009r32451fdajf32ad2f44c68cfd6 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> List readers may be interested in the following article, which I
> placed online:
> Tatian's Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch
> by Prof. George F. Moore (Read in December 1889)
> Journal of Biblical Literature 9 (1890) 201-15
> http://yitzhaksapir.googlepages.com/tatian%27sdiatessaron
>
> I found it amazing how an article from over a century ago, is still
> so timely.
> It is as if all the critics against the Documentary Hypothesis are
> simply
> repeating, for a century now, the same arguments, with no care to
> the fact
> that long ago, responses have been published to those same questions.
>
> Using the Diatessaron, it is possible to place the Documentary
> Hypothesis
> on more solid ground. Accordingly, the Diatessaron would serve as
> a basis
> by which editorial and redactional methods may be analyzed in the
> Pentateuch. If it is possible to show that there exist a number of
> documents
> to which when some methods of redaction, the same as in the
> Diatessaron,
> are applied provides us with the text of the Pentateuch, that would
> stand as
> an argument for their original independent existence. The basic
> hypothesis
> would be, then, that if a unified text was composed from scratch,
> without
> previous source documents of which it is a composite, there would
> be no group
> of source documents of comparable length to which an arbitrary
> series of
> redactional methods similar to those applied to the Diatessaron
> could be
> applied, and which would provide us with that unified original text.
> This should
> be fairly easy to disprove -- for one can take any text produced,
> such as
> Tolstoy's War and Peace (to use one author whose name has come up),
> and simply produce for us those source documents. But so long as the
> hypothesis stands, despite the large amounts of compositions which
> could
> be utilized to disprove it, it must show that the Pentateuch is
> indeed a
> composite work, and the only reason we find those source documents in
> the Pentateuch, is because they are really there.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:10:42 EST
> From: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <bc3.1ecbe694.34b3d332 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III :
>
> 1. You wrote: ?Regarding Ishmael vs Isaac. The text of 22:2, 12, 16
> contradict what you say about Isaac. In each of the verses God says
> of Isaac to
> Abraham,
> 22:2 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad 'asher-'ahabtat; LXX,
> TON
> AGAPHTON
> hON HGAPHSAS
> 22:12 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU
> 22:16 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU?
>
> Yes, but that is after Sarah forced Abraham, with YHWH?s explicit
> approval,
> to exile Ishmael in chapter 21 of Genesis. So with Ishmael
> seemingly out of
> the picture at this point (having been exiled 12 long regular years
> ago), Abraham
> ?s only remaining son, who was born either by Abraham?s main wife
> #1 or on
> her behalf, is Isaac.
>
> Yet note that Abraham is not stated in the text to be grieved or
> upset at the
> imminent prospect of having to kill his ?only son?, Isaac. And
> note that
> Abraham had never thanked YHWH for Isaac?s birth. Abraham bargains
> with YHWH
> for Ishmael in the text, but Abraham never bargains with YHWH for
> Isaac in the
> text, even in the harrowing binding incident.
>
> Abraham makes the right decisions, for the right reasons, in
> selecting Isaac
> over Ishmael. Abraham does that based on YHWH?s clear commands,
> and thus
> Abraham is righteous. The very point of the binding incident,
> indeed, is to
> confirm that Abraham is selecting Isaac over Ishmael for the right
> reasons, namely
> because YHWH has divinely told Abraham to do so, rather than
> Abraham selecting
> Isaac over Ishmael because Isaac is Abraham?s favorite son.
>
> 2. You wrote: ?Furthermore, the text in 17:17-22 clearly
> indicates that
> Sarah will give birth to a son well past the age of childbearing,
> that the
> child's name will be
> Isaac (Yitzhak) and that Ishmael will still be blessed, but not as
> the
> firstborn
> is normally blessed. In fact, Isaac is the focal point from this
> point on.?
>
> Yes, I agree with that entirely. That in no way means that Isaac
> was Abraham?
> s favorite son, however. The son who gets the ultimate blessing is
> always
> the right choice, and is fully approved of by YHWH, but is never
> the Patriarch?s
> favorite son. Certainly you would agree that Esau was Isaac?s
> favorite son,
> yet Isaac gives the great blessing to Jacob, not Esau, and Isaac
> does not
> attempt to rescind that blessing of Jacob after the trickery of
> Rebekah and Jacob
> is revealed. And likewise, you would certainly agree that Joseph
> is Jacob?s
> favorite son. Yet Jacob names Judah, not Joseph, to be the leader
> of the next
> generation of the new monotheists.
>
> This is precisely the very point that I am driving at. It is quite
> unusual
> for a leader to give the greatest honor, and sole leadership, to a
> non-favorite
> son, especially a non-favorite son who is not the leader?s
> firstborn son.
> Yet that is exactly what happens in all three Patriarchal
> successions. The
> author of the Patriarchal narratives is trying to tell us something
> important
> here, if we will only pay close attention to what the received text
> actually says.
>
> 3. You wrote: ?Now, regarding the 14th Century BCE dating, I find
> that
> Akhenaten does not fit the context of the Patriarchal narratives
> nor the Mosaic
> legislation especially the dating to ca. 1446-1407 BCE in which the
> dating set
> by the I Kings 6:1,
> Judges 11:14-27 (especially 11:26 ("For three hundred years Israel
> occupied
> Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns
> along the
> Arnon...."). Since Jephthah was a judge ca. 1100 BCE according to
> most
> scholars,
> then to ignore both times listed (Solomon building the Temple and
> Jephthah's
> remarks) is based not on facts but on a priori assumptions that
> cannot be
> proved
> especially with regards to JEDP.?
>
> I may agree with most of your facts, but I entirely disagree with your
> conclusion. True, the mid-14th century BCE may not fit any part of
> the Bible except
> the Patriarchal narratives, including not fitting well as a
> starting point
> for computing the dates of the Exodus and Solomon. But that is not
> because the
> Patriarchal narratives are historically inaccurate. No, that is
> because both
> the mid-1st millennium BCE Hebrews (including JEPD), and modern
> analysts of
> the Bible as well, misunderstand the Patriarchal narratives, and
> the mid-14th
> century BCE historical time period of the Patriarchal narratives.
>
> Everything in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives matches
> perfectly to the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th
> century BCE.
> Archaeology may not have proven an historical Exodus or an
> historical Solomon?s
> Empire, but the archaeological facts do establish the historical
> beginnings of
> Judaism, in the mid-14th century BCE historical Patriarchal Age.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
>
> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 61, Issue 4
> ***************************************
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list