Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Shield-bearer 1 Samuel 17:41

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shield-bearer 1 Samuel 17:41
  • Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 19:14:57 -0500


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> > This is interesting. We know that later after David became king, his
> troops were
> > called "hoplites"
>
> C'mon, Karl, you know better than that. "Hoplite" is the English form of a
> Greek word, which various translators decided was close enough.
>
Yigal: we’ve sparred often enough that you should know me ;-)

Seriously, though, when I studied Classical Greek oh so many years ago, I ran
across the Greek term for hoplite, but other than that its consonants were
equivelant to English HPLT (incidently, almost exactly the same as Hebrew) I
don’t remember its exact form.

As to the history of the term, is it originally Greek, or from another
language? Is it attested to in Mycenean Greek? In other words, did the
Philistines get the term from the Myceneans, or did the Greeks get the term
from the Philistines through the Phoenecians? The lack of evidence leaves us
with lots of questions.

I noticed that its use in Hebrew is somewhat irregular, leading me to
question if the leading H is not a definite article, but part of the word
itself?

In a book called Hellenosemitica from about 1970, the claim was made that
much of the Greek civilization was from Semitic roots, a major source was
from a country called Dan, conquered in late bronze age, which was in present
day southern Turkey. Could refugees from Dan have brought the term to Greece?

> > which I opined is a Philistine loan word into Hebrew.
>
> If you're thinking of the "Kereyty and Pelety" ("Cheretites and Peletites")
> you may be right: they seem to have something to do with Creteans and
> Pelestu ("Philistines"). But I think we've already had that discussion (or
> was it on a different list?).
>
> > Apparently the Philistines were not only armed with steel while most of
> their foes still > had bronze, if anything, but that they also developed
> battle tactics that were so good > that the Greeks were still using them
> centuries later. A downside is that those tactics > required an almost
> full-time army, hence a Philistine need for vassel nations giving >tribute
> to maintain their armies.
>
> All of this is pure conjecture, based neither on textual nor on
> archaeological evidence.
>
Ah, but it is based on textual evidence. However, the accuracy of the textual
evidence is disputed: I think it is almost 100% accurate, you and many others
don’t.

The text shows that ancient Israel had a different concept of history than
did its neighbors: the past and accuracy in its transmission were important.
One of the biggest sources used to dispute its data are those from ancient
Egypt, where deliberate rewriting of history was often practiced. Naturally,
you can see which one I trust.

I take the text, which I assume is accurate, and ask what it means. One thing
that it shows is that in mid to late bronze age, the people of the lowlands,
including Philistia, were armed with superior, “iron” weapons. Iron is
plentiful, but inferior to bronze in almost all ways, except when it is
tempered into steel. Ergo, Philistia was armed with steel while its enemies
were armed with bronze. Yes, we’ve had this discussion here before.
>
> Yigal

Karl W. Randolph.
--
_______________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free!
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page