Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[3]: Evidence

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[3]: Evidence
  • Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 15:02:35 -0500


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>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page