Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

Barre forgets that also Gezer is mentioned a number of times. Lab'aya
himself--who seems to nothing about a second name of his--mentions himself
to be at Gezer. Hinnatunna in Galilee is also mentioned. Furthermore the
ruler of Gitti Padalla also mentions Lab'aya. The only safe thing to say is
that his sun Mut-Ba'lu ruled Pella east of the Jordan. Did Lab'aya also
belong to that part of the area? We cannot know as Lab'aya is never put into
any safe and undisputed connection with any city of the time. And as to the
internal logic of the Amarna letters, it is hardly as easy as envisaged by
Barre. As to archaeology, I indicated that the results so far published are
likely to need a severe revision by new excavations at tell balata, but I
will leave that part to some archaeologists of the future. 

Barre has mailed a longish answer to my position, but privately. I have
asked him to come out in the open.


NPL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: barre AT access1.com [SMTP:barre AT access1.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 08 February, 2000 17:07
> To:   Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:      Evidence
> 
> The two identifiable cities from the El Amarna letter that speak of
> Lab'aya are Megiddo, 
> located about 30 miles north of Shechem and Jerusalem, located about 30
> miles south.  How 
> could Lab'aya relinquish the land of Shechem if he was not in fact its
> vassal king?  No, we 
> can go with Tooms and everybody else that Lab'aya was indeed at home in
> Shechem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------
> L.M. Barre
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael
> Point Loma, California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.