Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)]

Sorry Ian,

I noticed myself the ugly format in which my text displays. I am pasting the 
text into my mail software from the MS Word application. This is the result, 
and I have no idea about a remedy.

> Could you please not send non-plain text to this list?
> To be able to edit the text, I have to export it to Notepad
> to get rid of the formatting, because Outlook offers no
> simple way to get rid of it.

Now, I don´t intend to refute each of your refutals, which go in the manner 
of the salami tactics: it´s all but refusing sentence for sentence the 
argumentation by a quite stereotype nope as if my sentences were not causally 
interrelated. Context in the argumentation matters, Ian, and not only when it 
runs in your direction.  

> Ian: Again, you assume, as usual, what you cannot show,
> ie the temporal relationship between the texts.

I generally not assume, but demonstrate. This is a massive difference. Should 
you judge similarly your "old-chamel / new-chamel" arguments concerning the 
patriarchs there is still less worth a discussion. I suppose you understand 
the backgrounds of statistical probability, when comparing two texts, and the 
very low chance that such coincidences all runing into the same direction, as 
mentioned between both, might be purely accidental.

> Ian: This is creative history to say the least.
> By "Levante" here I gather you mean Syria, for the furthest
> south clearly recorded in the annals was Mount lebanon, where
> he marched without any notable resistence. The boat trips
> need to be seen in context. Arvad (modern Arad) is an island,
> so to get there one needs boats. T.P.1 received tribute from
> the island and went out to it. The sea is choppy (there is
> almost always a strong wind), so it was an effort worthy of
> remembering along with the extension to Samuru. While at sea,
> he killed a "sea-horse". Does this sound like an engagement
> with any enemy? For anyone interested here is the passage
> from A.K.Grayson, "Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: Part 2", p23:

Hardly to understand what you mean by that. I didn´t thought that the killing 
of a Nahiru, "sea horse", means a naval clash, so don´t assume this in my 
stead. But the minimal prerequisite for the coming to a naval clash is that 
at least the Assyrians embark any kind of ship on the Mediteranean. There are 
just two very short periods as the Assyrians ever embarked ships in the 
Levante: the period of Tiglat-Pileser I and is follower Ashur-Bel-Kala and 
later on the Neo-Assyrian age after Sargon II. So we are to seek a naval 
clash in either of the two historical periods. I don´t beleave that the 
Assyrians would preserve any memory of a serious military set-back.

A cavalcade presupposes the knowledge of horses at least. So does a naval 
clash. If sea-faring was indeed so rare for the Assyrians, than it makes 
sense to take under the lupe these particular periods.  

> It is this event that you would like anyone to believe is a
> clash with your Kittim. As I present the basic source text
> for your opinion, I think people can judge for themselves.

Don´t create your own arguments, Ian. Nobody has sofar assumed I ever stated 
that this would be the record of a clash with the Kittim. As a matter of 
fact, there is no such Assyrian record at all, as there exists no single 
Assyrian notice of a major Assyrian set-back.

> Obviously this Musri is smaller than Qumanu, reached
> via mountains, and when Qumanu came to help, TP1 fought
> them in the mountains. Plainly we are not dealing with
> Egypt: the topography here is mountainous and Musri is
> inferior in strength to Qumanu. TP1 conquered all the
> land of Musri.

Silly that Ashur-Bel-Kala had still to deal with it. 

> Musri is apparently given as Mehru, p21, in a similar
> context after dealing with the Ahlamu, as is the case
> of the passage cited above about Musri. Also, an
> inscription of Adad-Nirari II, p86, mentions both
> Qumanu and Mehru along with Uratru (the northern realm).

Oh Ian, let not begin the discussion anew. It was discussed and decided 
beyond doubt on the ANE-List. Ashur-Bel-Kala gets the gift of a "large female 
ape" from the same Musri (and else animals unfitting your northern location). 
If you wish to develop on this subject, than do it please alone.

Musri has nothing to with Mehru (even if we assume a south-Mediteranean 
menagerie - crocodiles et al- so far north) since there is a Musri documented 
at the southern border of Bit-Agusi. In a border reglementation act 
concerning TL´IM (probably biblical Telaim), to be identified by the rules 
known for the ANE with Sfire, it came to a contract between the coaltions of 
"whole Aram" and Musri. Arne (the by than destroyed chapital of Bit-Agusi) is 
10 miles appart of Sfire, thus 10 miles away of the border of contempt (in 
the 8th century) between Musri and "whole of Aram". Arinu was in the 11th 
century a main city of Musri (before the creation of Bit-agusi). The 
allegation of T-P I having conquered all of Musri is correct. He conquered 
all of Musri till to the desert fringe.

I don´t wish to further investigate the merits of the Mehru-Musri 
identification.

> (Ian: This seems mostly to be speculation without any
> evidence behind it. Helck's welcome to his opinion: as

> I gather he doesn't explain the *Ramses VI* statue
> base's presence any other way, the most logical
> conclusion was that it got there through normal means,
> ie the Egyptians put it there. There is nothing strange
> about the Egyptians having lost total control of the
> coast to the sea people, yet maintaining control over
> the inland areas. In the south tombs at Tell Farah
> feature scarabs from the reigns of Ramses III and IV.
> Timna` was worked at least until the reign of Ramses V.
> A Ramses VI statue is not in situ. It was probably
> buried on withdrawal, as they probably couldn't take it
> with them.)

I feel too, Helck might go too far with his assumptions. T-P I and 
Ashur-Bel-Kala however are much later even as Ramses VI.

> Ian: A population which called itself kty, you know,
> just like the Hebrew ktyym. The Hebrews wrote about
> ktyym at Arad, circa 600 BCE, and there is the
> presence of Cypriot and eastern Greek pottery in the
> zone at the time (A.Mazar, Archaeology..., p441).
> There is of course more evidence, but I would like
> to see just one piece that would make anyone want to
> consider the existence of Kittim before the tenth
> century. Just one, otherwise all of this stuff can
> be written off as wishful thinking.

The whole Kittim story contributes nothing to the problem. So much said. A 
dwelling hyatus in Jerusalem, Babylon, or Tyre, or even Kition don´t has any 
consequence concerning the name of these metropoles before their destruction. 
I would like to purge any reference to the Kition problematic since it is 
irrelevant.
 
> I really don't understand what has caused you to
> deal with the verse so creatively. It seems like
> you've made a hellovan effort for such poor results.

Dear Ian, it surely must have had a good reason. You would have otherwise not 
take so much time and care to answer me. 


All the best,

Banyai Michael