Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

No-one has said that the land of Shechem was not part of Lab'aya's 
territory, and so his to give up. On the other hand, having given it 
up he still seems to have been a ruler, so the land of Shechem cannot 
have been his whole territory, and he must have had a home and capital 
other than Shechem AFTER he had given up Shechem. His activities do 
not seem to have been restricted to the immediate vicinity of Shechem, 
so he was not just the ruler of a single city state. Rulers do not 
usually give up their capitals to others except in utter defeat, which 
does not seem to be envisaged here. Conclusion: Very probably, though 
not certainly, Lab'aya's home and capital was somewhere other than 
Shechem, both before and after the time when he gave up Shechem.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Evidence
Author:  <barre AT access1.com> at Internet
Date:    08/02/2000 10:22


How could Lab'aya give up the land of Shechem if he did not reside there?  
How d
id he get
the cooperation of it alleged ruler?  No, the direct conclusion is that he 
gave 
it up because it
was his to give.  Why are you predisposed against this conclusion held by 
many i
f not all?
What's wrong with the identification?  Lab'aya clearly threatened Megiddo, 
his n
eighbor to
the north.  Do you have any reason whatsoever to think that he came from 
elsewhe
re?  He
gave up the land of Shechem.  Why conclude that it was not his home to give?  
Wh
y
postulate possession from afar?  Are you not being obscurant?

LMB

<snip>