Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 61, Issue 4

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd AT mac.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 61, Issue 4
  • Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 03:52:53 -0800

Yigal, I did not mean to imply that Aramaic was any less Semitic than Hebrew only that there are differences in the spelling of the same words between the two. Also, would you consider Arpachshad to be a Semitic name?

Thanks

Mark Spitsbergen



In any case, there is nothing more "truly Semitic" in the Gen. spellings or
"more Aramaic" in the Chr. spellings, besides which of course Aramaic is
just as "Semitic" a language as Hebrew.


Hope that helps,

Yigal Levin




On Jan 7, 2008, at 11:11 AM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. (no subject) (Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann)
2. Re: Wellhausen -Edom (Yitzhak Sapir)
3. Spelling changes in the BHS (Mark Spitsbergen)
4. Re: Spelling changes in the BHS (Yigal Levin)
5. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (Yitzhak Sapir)
6. Re: The root SLH (Isaac Fried)
7. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (K Randolph)
8. Re: The root SLH (Isaac Fried)
9. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (Yitzhak Sapir)
10. Re: Wellhausen (Bill Rea)
11. Re: Wellhausen (was Cladistics) (Bill Rea)
12. Wellhausen vs. Single Author (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
13. Re: Wellhausen (was Cladistics) (belaga AT math.u-strasbg.fr)
14. Re: Wellhausen (K Randolph)
15. The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
16. Re: The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
(Bryant J. Williams III)
17. Re: Wellhausen (Yitzhak Sapir)
18. The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions (JimStinehart AT aol.com)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:43:19 +0100
From: "Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann" <lehmann AT uni-mainz.de>
Subject: [b-hebrew] (no subject)
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<E66885AFAEE95C4A8AA69F2F820C33900C652D7196 AT EXCHANGE-01.zdv.uni- mainz.de>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

As for ANI YHWH and related clauses,
it is indispensable to have a close reading of the important book by
Anja Angela Diesel, "Ich bin Jahwe". Der Aufstieg der Ich-bin-Jahwe- Aussage zum Schl?sselwort des alttestmentlichen Monotheismus, Neukirchen 2006, ISBN 3-7887-2138-3, (425 pages),
and also, by the same author,
Anja Angela Diesel, Jahwe (allein) ist Gott. ?berlegungen zu einer Gruppe der sog. dreiteiligen Nominals?tze, in: KUSATU 5 (2004) 1-35 (which does not dispense from reading the 2006 book!).

Besides that, there is no discussion possible any longer that claims to be abreast recent scholarship!
Best,

Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann
Akademischer Direktor
Research Unit on Ancient Hebrew & Epigraphy
Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz
Germany


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:09:05 -0700
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen -Edom
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<e6ea6c000801050909n1d46ee57l238c488c72063518 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Dec 31, 2007 11:00 PM, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
Karl,

You wrote, in part:

" As for your claim that Edom was not a political entity, all you have is a
lack of evidence, which many people, including Uri, claim is not necessarily
evidence of lack."

Anybody who makes the claim about Edom mentioned in your quote is
simply ignorant of the work that goes on there in recent years, especially
in Khirbet en-Nahas, but not only there, and its possible ramifications for
the dating of centralized authority in that region -- considerably earlier
than previously assumed. See, for instance the following:


Publications

Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New Excavations and 14C
Dates from Khirbat en Nahas (Jordan). Antiquity 78: 863-876. ..

Since then other work has been going on in the region.

The Antiquity article may be viewed in PDF form along with further responses
and discussion at:
http://www.wadiarabahproject.man.ac.uk/titlepage/news/Antiquity/WAP% 20review.htm

The Antiquity article's Abstract (p. 865) states: "An international team
of researchers show how high-precision radiocarbon dating is liberating us
from chronological assumptions based on Biblical research. Surface and
topographic mapping at the large copper-working site of Khirbat en- Nahas was
followed by stratigraphic excavations at an ancient fortress and two metal
processing facilities located on the site surface. The results were
spectacular. Occupation begins here in the eleventh century BC and the
monumental fortress is built in the tenth. If this site can be equated with
the rise of the Biblical kingdom of Edom it can now be seen to: have its
roots in local Iron Age societies; is considerably earlier than previous
scholars assumed; and proves that complex societies existed in Edom long
before the influence of Assyrian imperialism was felt in the region from the
eighth - sixth centuries BC."

The Antiquity article concludes with a Discussion paragraph (pp.
876-77): "The excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas, the largest Iron Age copper
production centre in the southern Levant, have provided the first stratified
radiocarbon dates from the Biblical region of Edom. As can be seen in Figure
7 in conjunction with the late Iron I small finds described above, there are
two main phases of metal production: in the twelfth - eleventh centuries BC
and during the tenth - ninth centuries BC. These new data necessitate a
re-examination of the role of the lowlands in the control of metal
production during the rise of the Edomite kingdom. The new dates and the
range of artefacts recently found at the site, such as architecture,
ceramics, scarabs, and arrowheads indicate that Iron Age secondary state
formation in Edom was much earlier than previously assumed. The key to
understanding the rise of the Biblical kingdom of Edom may lie in the copper
ore-rich lowlands, rather than the highland plateau where most excavations
have been conducted to date. The emergence of the Edomite kingdom was not
contingent on the region having been dominated by the neo-Assyrian empire
during the eighth and seventh BC. State formation more likely began several
centuries earlier, rooted in local processes of social evolution and
interaction amongst the smaller Iron Age 'statelets' of the southern Levant
(Edom, Moab, Ammon, Israel, Judah, Philistia, etc.)."

For a little comparison, here is one paragraph from one of the later responses:
"Further, Levy et al. state that, so far, the dating of Edomite pottery and
consequently the main highland sites is based solely on the find of
the Qos Gabr
seal. The possibility of earlier dates for this pottery must therefore
not be excluded
(Levy et al. p. 3). However, this is being highly economical with the truth. In
assessing the chronology of 'Edomite' pottery, the final publication of the
excavations at Busayra by Piotr Bienkowski (2002) took into account:

"o C14 dates from the Faynan area
"o ceramic parallels from Transjordan and Palestine
"o well dated imported Attic pottery
"o well dated inscriptional material (NOT just the seal impression of Qos Gabr).

"This analysis indicated that pottery assemblages from the Faynan area
C14-dated
to the ninth century BC were quite different from Busayra and other
'Edomite' sites,
indicating a date later than the ninth century BC for the latter
material. ALL the other
evidence pointed to a date no earlier than the late eighth century BC,
with this pottery
tradition continuing to the end of the Persian period at the earliest,
and possibly into
the Early Hellenistic period."

To sum up, Karl stated that Edom was established as a polity hundreds of years
before Moses. Given Karl's dating of Moses based on personal
criteria, that would
place the establishment of Edom in the Middle Bronze. However,
surprisingly, this
is exactly when the paper originally referenced by Uri notes that the
Faynan's district
copper-production industry stopped. The question debated by the authors of the
paper and others is when it began anew, and whether this signifies the
beginning of
a new state. It is generally agreed that the collapse of the industry
had ramifications
for a political entity in that area as well -- namely, that the
political entity collapsed.
While the discussion is interesting, it shows unanimous agreement that Edom or
whatever polity existed there in the Early Bronze Age did not
constitute a state again
until that period -- in the 12th century BCE at the earliest, and
probably later. I
remain curious as to why Uri said the author of the comment (me) is ignorant
of current research, especially when the message to which he responded contained
a direct quote of me. Uri only quoted Karl's summary statement which
dropped the
"hundreds of years before Moses" part. For Karl, the above dating
indicates Edom
was not established as a state until "hundreds of years after Moses." For some
other scholars like Kitchen, it is only a few decades after Moses (the
dating of Moses
being placed in the 13th century, with the entry into Israel in the
later part of that
century). Archaeologically, Israel is clearly placed in Israel
already in the 13th century
(1209 BCE Merneptah stele, according to Kitchen), so either way, Edom
was established
as a state, according to all archaeologists, after Israel's entry to
Canaan, with some
placing it at a few decades afterwards, others centuries afterwards.
Because of this
issue of contention, and the relatively close periods indicated for
the later datings of
Moses vs earliest datings of Edom, I originally left Edom out of the
archaeological
evidence that is inconsistent or incompatible with the Exodus account.
However, it
borders as such, and it still takes some forcing of the archaeological
facts to make it
fit with such claims as in Num 20:14.

Yitzhak Sapir


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:30:12 -0800
From: Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd AT mac.com>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <37943A81-B15E-473B-806A-B70E41BC0E37 AT mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes;
format=flowed

I have a question regarding spelling changes of: Mash to Meshech,
Shalach to Salah, Obal to Ebal in Genesis 10:23-28 and 1 Chronicles
1:17-22. When we consider that Arpachshad is not Semitic and
potentially more Assyrian to begin with (Knoppers 2004; Gunkel 1926;
Westermann 1984; Blenkinshopp 1992:90) would this be a clue to an
adaptation of the truly Semitic spellings to more of an Aramaic one
in the time of Ezra?

Thanks

Mark Spitsbergen

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:16:58 +0200
From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <002201c84fe0$4e2ba190$9d9015ac@xp>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original

Dear Mark,

Shelah/Shalah of Gen. 10:24 and 1 Chr. 1:18 is spelled exactly the same in
Hebrew of both books, including the shift from segol (e) to qamatz (a). The
other two names are clearly cases of simple scibal error: I would guess that
the spelling "Meshech" in 1 Chr. 1:17 in stead of "Mash" in Gen. 10:23 was
influenced by the better-known Meshech that appears in verse 2/5 of the same
chapter (in both books). The change from "Obal" to "Ebal" is simply because
the Waw in Gen. was written as a graphically similar Yod in 1 Chr. (or maybe
in the source used by 1 Chr.).



----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Spitsbergen" <awakesd AT mac.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:30 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS


I have a question regarding spelling changes of: Mash to Meshech,
Shalach to Salah, Obal to Ebal in Genesis 10:23-28 and 1 Chronicles
1:17-22. When we consider that Arpachshad is not Semitic and
potentially more Assyrian to begin with (Knoppers 2004; Gunkel 1926;
Westermann 1984; Blenkinshopp 1992:90) would this be a clue to an
adaptation of the truly Semitic spellings to more of an Aramaic one
in the time of Ezra?

Thanks

Mark Spitsbergen
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1208 - Release Date:
03/01/2008 15:52





------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:15:03 +0000
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<e6ea6c000801051715k5a0973deyca936799c7d0c8b5 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252

On Jan 3, 2008 10:47 PM, K Randolph wrote:

Then how do you account for that many Canaanites did survive?

Where does it say in the book of Joshua that Canaanites from Lachish
survived?

You have just described medieval feudalism, but was this the case of ancient
Near East as well? From what I read, that was only partially true. Those who
had something to fear from the invader, yes, would take refuge in the
fortified stronghold, but what about the rest? The most clear example is
Jeremiah 37:12?14 where Jeremiah attempted to wait out the siege of
Jerusalem "among the people" outside of Jerusalem. While it is true that
Jeremiah was centuries later, did his example show a change in
circumstances? I think it is unlikely, from what history I have read.

Jer 37 may be applicable, except it describes what Jeremiah did after the
invaders retreated. In any case, I did not discuss medieval feudalism. If it
happens that in medieval times, the same situation took place, then that
would only indicate that across these different times, people acted much the
same way.

Yet there is a literary standard for when the repetition is used. Follow
that when evaluating a text. Does this text follow that literary formula?

Who says there is a literary standard. No one says there is a formula that
must be followed in order to use repetition. Besides, formula is just the
same as no repetition -- it eliminates the possibility for literary creativity.

You are adding to the text. The fulfillment came in 1 Kings 16:34, during a
time of idolatry, the foundations were laid with human sacrifice, namely the
oldest son of the builder, the gates blessed with another human sacrifice,
namely the builder's youngest son. This was apparently a building formula
among certain idolatrous societies. There is nothing in the text about all
the other details you added above.

As you can see, your view that human sacrifice is implied by these verses
is your own addition to the text. I am not sure what details I mentioned are
not in the text, but it is pretty clear that Josh 6:17 is talking
about a continuous
state rather than a singular action in the past (hence the use of the
imperfect), and
the 6:26 is a curse that relates to whoever builds the city.
Evidently it talks
about the death of the builder's children, but nowhere does it say he would
be idolatrous or sacrifice them. As a curse, it just means that his children
will die if he tries to build the city. 1 Ki 16:34 doesn't mention any child
sacrifice either.

And are you sure that your "knowledge" is not modern mythology concocted to
push an ideology? For example, what about the use of human sacrifice? How
widespread was it? How was it expressed in the language? Do you deny that
Joshua 6:26 and 1 Kings 16:34 linguistically refer to that practice? Why?

Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology." Modern linguistics
is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
to the discussion
to call it that. I don't have to explain why Josh 6:26 and 1 Ki 16:34
do not refer
to the practice of child sacrifice, much like I don't have to explain
why they do not
relate to blue suns. First, you have to show that they do refer to
child sacrifice.
In general, Josh 6:26 reads as a curse. This makes it unlikely that
the deaths of
the children of the builder of Jericho are his own personal intention,
as would be
if he sacrificed them. The curse says -- if you want to build
Jericho, then something
you do not want will happen, that is, your children will die.
Otherwise, it wouldn't
be a curse.

Yet on another level, the personal level, do you claim that people were
different then than they are today? In other words, they don't share the
same loves, desires, sense of right and wrong, and so forth that modern
individuals have?

People are not different, but they have different cultural values, and
our cultural sense
of right or wrong is different from the values during Biblical times.

On a technical level, what do you know about agriculture, weaving, ceramics,
cooking, metalsmithing, etc.? Can you tell me why the locksmiths were
specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 24:14, 16? What tools do these trades use?

Locksmiths are not mentioned in those verses.

Which is the best preparation for a lexicographer? Is it good and
concentrated study on languages and linguistics? Or is a person of wide
interests, insatiable curiosity of many subjects, experiences in many
fields, better prepared to recognize how words are used in their contexts?

There is no question that if the two are placed as two options, then
it is clear that
concentrated linguistic study is best for the lexicographer.
Generally, in a specific
topic or area of expertise, then it helps a lot to also have expertise
in that area. But
that does not mean that an expert in this area does not need to have a
good solid
foundation in linguistics. For example, if we are discussing the word
masger, then
it is clear that someone who has expertise in archaeometallurgy as opposed to
someone with just a general background in linguistics would be better
prepared to
comment on such terms. On the other hand, without knowing that Arabic has a
cognate verb of the root sajara meaning "to heat up in a furnace," (so
HALOT) one
might not be prepared to understand the word correctly.

Yitzhak Sapir


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:19 +0200
From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
To: <pporta AT oham.net>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <000601c8501e$ce43a600$a6fbb44f@home>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response

Pere,

I am really sorry to hear that you failed to understand what I am saying.
Don?t despair. Understanding may require time. Things silently simmer in the
mind and then suddenly everything falls into place and all becomes bright
and clear. It happens to me all the time.

You are saying: ?I wonder if anyone on this list does understand it... since
nobody, nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...?. I think you
should not worry about others. I would not look for comfort in CAR-AT
HA-RABIM. The ?others? are also greatly preoccupied now with other fun
things as evident by the profusion of recent interesting postings.

You are also saying: ?I think you have a hard work to do if you want people
understand what you mean?. I think it is either easy or neigh impossible
depending on the audience. Hard set notions, ideology, pride and bad
thinking habits makes it difficult; an open mind and the WILL to understand
makes it very easy.

I suggest you keep thinking of what XALAH and GALAH ?really? mean without
recourse to translation or negation. Does GALAH really means ?to uncover?,
or is this but an implication for something more basic and concrete? Are we
really ?uncovering? something? Is it possible that a Hebrew root could mean
?uncover = un-cover?? See also my posting from September 6, 2007 on the
equivalence of GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL.

Looking from time to time at relevant entries in my etymological dictionary
at www.hebrewetymology.com could be highly beneficial.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

----- Original Message -----
From: <pporta AT oham.net>
To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH


Isaac,

thank you for your explanation.
Unfortunately, my level is not high enough to understand what you mean.
(And I wonder if anyone on this list does understand it... since nobody,
nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...)
I think you have a hard work to do if you want people understand what you
mean.

So, I'd say:

1. It will be better we leave this issue as it is...
2. And finally: try, if possible, to explain what is the equivalence of
XALAH, be sick, and GALAH, uncover.

Pere Porta
Barcelona



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:11:57 -0800
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<acd782170801052111q4aedc370pd909e22c1e317583 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Yitzhak:

On Jan 5, 2008 5:15 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 3, 2008 10:47 PM, K Randolph wrote:

Then how do you account for that many Canaanites did survive?

Where does it say in the book of Joshua that Canaanites from Lachish
survived?


What misreading of the data makes you think that anyone thinks that any
Canaanites who were *in* Lachish survived?


You have just described medieval feudalism, but was this the case of
ancient
Near East as well? From what I read, that was only partially true. Those
who
had something to fear from the invader, yes, would take refuge in the
fortified stronghold, but what about the rest? The most clear example is
Jeremiah 37:12?14 where Jeremiah attempted to wait out the siege of
Jerusalem "among the people" outside of Jerusalem. While it is true that
Jeremiah was centuries later, did his example show a change in
circumstances? I think it is unlikely, from what history I have read.

Jer 37 may be applicable, except it describes what Jeremiah did after the
invaders retreated. In any case, I did not discuss medieval feudalism.
If it
happens that in medieval times, the same situation took place, then that
would only indicate that across these different times, people acted much
the
same way.


Jeremiah attempted to live outside of the city when he knew that the
Chaldeans retreat was only temporary, that they would be back to finish the
siege that they had started. That shows his expectation that the siege of
Jerusalem would not mean the deaths of those who lived in the villages
outside the fortified cities.

If his story is indicative of ancient warfare, would that not also apply to
Joshua's blitzkrieg?


Yet there is a literary standard for when the repetition is used. Follow
that when evaluating a text. Does this text follow that literary
formula?

Who says there is a literary standard. No one says there is a formula
that
must be followed in order to use repetition. Besides, formula is just the
same as no repetition -- it eliminates the possibility for literary
creativity.


How so? It sounds as if your expectations do more to eliminate the
possibility of literary creativity than anything I said.


You are adding to the text. The fulfillment came in 1 Kings 16:34,
during a
time of idolatry, the foundations were laid with human sacrifice, namely
the
oldest son of the builder, the gates blessed with another human
sacrifice,
namely the builder's youngest son. This was apparently a building
formula
among certain idolatrous societies. There is nothing in the text about
all
the other details you added above.

As you can see, your view that human sacrifice is implied by these verses
is your own addition to the text. I am not sure what details I mentioned
are
not in the text, but it is pretty clear that Josh 6:17 is talking
about a continuous
state rather than a singular action in the past (hence the use of the
imperfect), and
the 6:26 is a curse that relates to whoever builds the city.
Evidently it talks
about the death of the builder's children, but nowhere does it say he
would
be idolatrous or sacrifice them. As a curse, it just means that his
children
will die if he tries to build the city. 1 Ki 16:34 doesn't mention any
child
sacrifice either.


How does this relate to the capture of Lachish?


And are you sure that your "knowledge" is not modern mythology concocted
to
push an ideology? For example, what about the use of human sacrifice?
How
widespread was it? How was it expressed in the language? Do you deny
that
Joshua 6:26 and 1 Kings 16:34 linguistically refer to that practice?
Why?

Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology." Modern
linguistics
is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
to the discussion
to call it that.?


Here you have just done a classic red herring logical fallacy: linguistics
had nothing to do about mythology, history is the subject of the mythology
question.


Yet on another level, the personal level, do you claim that people were
different then than they are today? In other words, they don't share the
same loves, desires, sense of right and wrong, and so forth that modern
individuals have?

People are not different, but they have different cultural values, and
our cultural sense
of right or wrong is different from the values during Biblical times.


Oh? How are they different? Can you give any specific examples?


On a technical level, what do you know about agriculture, weaving,
ceramics,
cooking, metalsmithing, etc.? Can you tell me why the locksmiths were
specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 24:14, 16? What tools do these trades
use?

Locksmiths are not mentioned in those verses.


Then what do you call them? And why were they specifically mentioned?


Which is the best preparation for a lexicographer? Is it good and
concentrated study on languages and linguistics? Or is a person of wide
interests, insatiable curiosity of many subjects, experiences in many
fields, better prepared to recognize how words are used in their
contexts?

There is no question that if the two are placed as two options, then
it is clear that
concentrated linguistic study is best for the lexicographer.
Generally, in a specific
topic or area of expertise, then it helps a lot to also have expertise
in that area. But
that does not mean that an expert in this area does not need to have a
good solid
foundation in linguistics. For example, if we are discussing the word
masger, then
it is clear that someone who has expertise in archaeometallurgy as opposed
to
someone with just a general background in linguistics would be better
prepared to
comment on such terms. On the other hand, without knowing that Arabic has
a

cognate verb of the root sajara meaning "to heat up in a furnace," (so
HALOT) one
might not be prepared to understand the word correctly.


That's exactly where a reliance on linguistics and cognate languages leads
astray when one does not know history and technology. The locksmiths were
the top technicians of that time, dealing with the most intricate of
mechanisms that their technology allowed. This is connected with the idea of
shutting up, precisely what a lock does.


Yitzhak Sapir


Karl W. Randolph.

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:23:03 +0200
From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
To: <pporta AT oham.net>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <005a01c85080$6c11f010$a6fbb44f@home>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=original

On line 15 below neigh should be nigh.
Isaac Fried, Boston University

----- Original Message -----
From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
To: <pporta AT oham.net>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH


Pere,

I am really sorry to hear that you failed to understand what I am saying.
Don?t despair. Understanding may require time. Things silently simmer in
the
mind and then suddenly everything falls into place and all becomes bright
and clear. It happens to me all the time.

You are saying: ?I wonder if anyone on this list does understand it...
since
nobody, nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...?. I think you
should not worry about others. I would not look for comfort in CAR-AT
HA-RABIM. The ?others? are also greatly preoccupied now with other fun
things as evident by the profusion of recent interesting postings.

You are also saying: ?I think you have a hard work to do if you want
people
understand what you mean?. I think it is either easy or neigh impossible
depending on the audience. Hard set notions, ideology, pride and bad
thinking habits makes it difficult; an open mind and the WILL to
understand
makes it very easy.

I suggest you keep thinking of what XALAH and GALAH ?really? mean without
recourse to translation or negation. Does GALAH really means ?to uncover?,
or is this but an implication for something more basic and concrete? Are
we
really ?uncovering? something? Is it possible that a Hebrew root could
mean
?uncover = un-cover?? See also my posting from September 6, 2007 on the
equivalence of GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL.

Looking from time to time at relevant entries in my etymological
dictionary
at www.hebrewetymology.com could be highly beneficial.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

----- Original Message -----
From: <pporta AT oham.net>
To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH


Isaac,

thank you for your explanation.
Unfortunately, my level is not high enough to understand what you mean.
(And I wonder if anyone on this list does understand it... since nobody,
nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...)
I think you have a hard work to do if you want people understand what you
mean.

So, I'd say:

1. It will be better we leave this issue as it is...
2. And finally: try, if possible, to explain what is the equivalence of
XALAH, be sick, and GALAH, uncover.

Pere Porta
Barcelona

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


__________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com





------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:54:00 +0200
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<e6ea6c000801060854l23676c33r944e9fb1a6516978 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252

On Jan 6, 2008 7:11 AM, K Randolph wrote:

Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology." Modern
linguistics
is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
to the discussion
to call it that.?

Here you have just done a classic red herring logical fallacy: linguistics
had nothing to do about mythology, history is the subject of the mythology
question.

This was not a point of discussion. It was a sensible request to keep the
discussion at appropriate levels. Seeing as how you refuse to do that, I see
no reason to continue the discussion of your problematic reading of the
Hebrew.

Yitzhak Sapir


------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:53:25 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.4.58.0801070928560.23350 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Karl wrote:-

You mentioned cladistic analysis, but you mentioned neither for nor
against if it could be used for DH.

I thought my statement that it didn't deal with authorship was clear
enough. But I guess not.

DH's parsimony? I thought the opposition was for the opposite reason.

Yes, parsimony. I expect your confusion is because you have your own
private meaning for the word which does not agree with standard usage
much in the same way you have unique, highly idiosyncratic definitions
for words like ``science'', ``observation'' and ``evidence''.

Parimony is about getting maximum explantory power from a minimum number
number of variables. It requires *balancing* explantory power against
number of variables. In many situations parsimony can be measured
with information criteria and an optimal number of explantory variables
chosen. In the DH vs single-author hypothesis, there are a large number
of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these problems
you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in most
English translations. Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e. more
parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining several
earlier closely related traditions. Whether those traditions were
oral or written or a bit of both is not hugely important.

The fact is that if people examine the evidence most people are convinced
the that DH is on the right track. I'm not a professional Hebrew scholar
but when I was learning Hebrew and doing some related Biblical study I
came into contact with the DH. The evidence was persuasive and so I
switched away from believing in a single author who composed the whole
five books of Moses from scratch. Most people do.

One of the main reasons I heard over the years for opposing the
methodology of DH is that it can be applied to only one document, that it
cannot accurately describe any other document. If it cannot be applied to
any other document, why should we trust it when applied to Bible? It
doesn't matter if the method has been computerized, if it can't
accurately describe other documents where the authorship is known, then
it is useless in supporting DH as well.

This is a red-herring. There is no problem developing unique methods to
deal with unique problems. However, I believe other list members have
addressed this issue, so I will leave it.

Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'



------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:06:46 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen (was Cladistics)
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.4.58.0801070958530.23350 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Edward wrote:-

Remaining personally uncommitted to Wellhausen's linguistic program
(the cladistics of his ideological appeal I have already discribed the
other day on this list),

I read the earlier posts on Wellhausen's ideology, which I do not
doubt. However, ultimately the DH stands or falls on evidence.
While Wellhausen appears to have had an ulterior motive, nevertheless
the basic hypothesis and its refinements have stood the test of time
and is accepted by scholars and others from all over the religious
spectrum. Many who accept it and/or have made refinements to the DH
can not be accused of having ulterior motives. Its an idea which now stands
independently of its origins. If you are holding back because of
Wellhausen's private ideology, that's not a valid reason.

Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'



------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 19:24:55 EST
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Subject: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen vs. Single Author
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <c40.27b9c4cb.34b2cb57 AT aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


Bill Rea:
You wrote: ?In the DH vs single-author hypothesis, there are a large number
of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these problems
you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in most
English translations. Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e. more
parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining several
earlier closely related traditions.?
What you say may apply to the Hebrew Bible as a whole, or to the first five
books of the Bible. But does it apply to the Patriarchal narratives?
1. As to the Patriarchal narratives, what are the ?large number
of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these problems
you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in most
English translations.?
I know of no such items in the Patriarchal narratives (except for a tiny
handful of glosses).
1. Moreover, virtually nothing in the Patriarchal narratives is similar
to what is in the rest of the Bible, and vice versa. If the DH is right
and the same 4 people who wrote the Book of Exodus also wrote the Patriarchal
narratives, why is the point of view so dramatically different? As the tip of
the iceberg, the Book of Exodus hates Egypt, whereas the Patriarchal
narratives love Egypt.
1. When I assert that the Patriarchal narratives were composed by a
single author in the mid-14th century BCE, what sort of ?special pleading? am I
resorting to?
1. No university scholar ever discusses the Patriarchal narratives in
the context of the mid-14th century BCE. How then can we be sure that there
is no such connection, if no university scholar will discuss the matter? Isn?
t that a form of academic ?special pleading?? I can match every foreign
policy event in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives to what
happened in Year 14 of Akhenaten?s 17-year reign. Where is the ? special pleading??
1. No one on the b-Hebrew list has yet come up with a single story in
the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives that is out of place in a mid-14th
century BCE secular historical context. Academic scholars never discuss
that subject. If my theory of the case is wrong, why then isn?t there at least
one story in the text that does not fit the mid-14th century BCE?
Please specify where I am engaging in ?special pleading?. In particular,
please identify at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives that does not
fit a mid-14th century BCE context, absent ?special pleading?. As
previously discussed on the b-Hebrew list, there were camels in existence in the
mid-14th century BCE, and nothing about the ?Philistines? in the Patriarchal
narratives is redolent in any way, shape or form of the classic Philistines who
lived in five grand cities on the southwest coast of Canaan beginning in the
early 12th century BCE. Am I engaging in ?special pleading? to point that
out? Certainly the ?Philistines? in the Patriarchal narratives are not the
later classic Philistines.
Please identify at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives that does
not fit a mid-14th century BCE context. Please specify where I am engaging in
?special pleading?.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois



**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 03:04:09 +0100
From: belaga AT math.u-strasbg.fr
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen (was Cladistics)
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <20080107030409.eskylaz6sggwgk0k AT www-irma.u-strasbg.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"

Edward wrote:-

Remaining personally uncommitted to Wellhausen's linguistic program
(the cladistics of his ideological appeal I have already discribed the
other day on this list),

I read the earlier posts on Wellhausen's ideology, which I do not
doubt. However, ultimately the DH stands or falls on evidence.
While Wellhausen appears to have had an ulterior motive, nevertheless
the basic hypothesis and its refinements have stood the test of time
and is accepted by scholars and others from all over the religious
spectrum. Many who accept it and/or have made refinements to the DH
can not be accused of having ulterior motives. Its an idea which now stands
independently of its origins. If you are holding back because of
Wellhausen's private ideology, that's not a valid reason.

Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_

Dear Bill,

You are raising a valid point and, to my taste, you are doing it in a
morally sensitive and scientifically balanced way, for which I am
sincerely grateful to you.

Since I am working at present on the article touching on this topic,
too, let me answer you in the most scientific, parsimonious,
minimalist way which has emerged from the minimalist tradition having
something to do with Wellhausen's contempt for the Bible as a valid
source of an immensely rich, broad, and otherwise unavailable
inspiration, historical and factual including.

(1) A young German mathematician, Paul Julius Oswald Teichmueller
(1913 - 1943), became an active member of the Nazi party and played a
major role in getting the students at Goettingen to dismiss the most
prominent Jew there, Professor Edmund Landau, the world star in Number
Theory.

This story has greatly impressed me, a young scientist as I was, but
did not prevent me from studying Teichmueller's mathematical papers
and even translating a book which deals with the generalizations of
his work.

(2) Yes, I do understand that Wellhausen's DH theory is well respected
by many scientists today, and this fact does not provoke my indignation.

(3) And I am not committed to this theory for reasons of absolutely
scientific nature, which have nothing to do with Wellhausen?s
ideological cladistics.

(4) On a more personal note, my experience as a scientist has taught
me that scientific theories appear, disappear or settle on something
much more modest than their creators expected, even after an
enthusiastic lull of a century -- as it happened for example with
Laplace's universal mechanical philosophy.

Thank you for this occasion to made the above points without
infringing on somebody's convictions.

Edward G. Belaga
******************************************************
Institut de Recherche en Math?matique Avanc?e
Universite Louis Pasteur
7, rue Ren? Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, FRANCE
tel.: 333 90 24 02 35, FAX: 333 90 24 03 28
e-mail : edward.belaga AT math.u-strasbg.fr
******************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.



------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 05:30:24 -0800
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<acd782170801070530n171dfc98ga6337ee8b8cee0dd AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Bill:

On Jan 6, 2008 12:53 PM, Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

Karl wrote:-

You mentioned cladistic analysis, but you mentioned neither for nor
against if it could be used for DH.

I thought my statement that it didn't deal with authorship was clear
enough. But I guess not.


My understanding (and I just checked your message again) was just that it
had not been applied.


DH's parsimony? I thought the opposition was for the opposite reason.

Yes, parsimony. I expect your confusion is because you have your own
private meaning for the word which does not agree with standard usage
much in the same way you have unique, highly idiosyncratic definitions
for words like ``science'', ``observation'' and ``evidence''.


When you wrote "parsimony", my first reaction was to check the dictionary
that comes with MacOS 10.4, because I didn't see how it applied to the
question. The definition given there is:

parsimony |?p?rs??m?n?|noun extreme unwillingness to spend money or use
resources : a great tradition of public design has been shattered by
government parsimony.
PHRASES principle (or law) of parsimony the scientific principle that things
are usually connected or behave in the simplest or most economical way, esp.
with reference to alternative evolutionary pathways. Compare withOccam's
razor .
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
from parcere 'be sparing.'

After checking the dictionary, I see the multiple authorship theory as more
complex than the single authorship picture given in the text. Hence, I don't
see how parsimony fits this theory.

As for the other definitions, I got them from reading Dr.s George Gaylord
Simpson and William S. Beck and many other scientists. Look on Amazon.com,
how many books authored by them are still being sold: how many books on
science by you should I find there?


Parimony is about getting maximum explantory power from a minimum number
number of variables. It requires *balancing* explantory power against
number of variables. In many situations parsimony can be measured
with information criteria and an optimal number of explantory variables
chosen. In the DH vs single-author hypothesis, there are a large number
of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these problems
you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in most
English translations. Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e. more
parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining several
earlier closely related traditions. Whether those traditions were
oral or written or a bit of both is not hugely important.

The fact is that if people examine the evidence most people are convinced
the that DH is on the right track. I'm not a professional Hebrew scholar
but when I was learning Hebrew and doing some related Biblical study I
came into contact with the DH. The evidence was persuasive and so I
switched away from believing in a single author who composed the whole
five books of Moses from scratch. Most people do.


I had a professor many years ago try to convince us in class that DH was the
way to go, but then he included in his lectures what sounded like
contradictory statements which made me wonder if the only reason for DH was
philosophical (religious) and not based on objective standards. Then I read
a PhD dissertation showing the history and philosophy of DH that verified my
initial impression of the theory.


One of the main reasons I heard over the years for opposing the
methodology of DH is that it can be applied to only one document, that it
cannot accurately describe any other document. If it cannot be applied to
any other document, why should we trust it when applied to Bible? It
doesn't matter if the method has been computerized, if it can't
accurately describe other documents where the authorship is known, then
it is useless in supporting DH as well.

This is a red-herring. There is no problem developing unique methods to
deal with unique problems. However, I believe other list members have
addressed this issue, so I will leave it.


This is akin to saying that the reasons we have for heliocentrism apply only
to the sun and our planets, but we should not expect those reasons to apply
to other planets and stars. If DH cannot be applied to Tolstoy or other
modern authors or literary works and give accurate results, then why should
I trust it concerning Bible?


Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'


Karl W. Randolph.

------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:38:14 EST
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <d61.1b67a95b.34b38546 AT aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


Based in part on our analysis of the name ?Joseph?, we can now go back and
determine what specific rules govern all three Patriarchal successions. (The
secondary literature on the Patriarchal narratives does not discuss this
critically important issue.)

In all three Patriarchal successions, the winning candidate always meets the
following three key requirements, and the main contender who fails to be named
the leader of the next generation of the new monotheists always fails to meet
one or more of these requirements:

1. The winning son cannot be his father?s firstborn son.

2. The winning son cannot be his father?s favorite son.

3. The birth mother of the winning son must be his father?s original main
wife #1.

Now let?s see how these three simple, odd rules govern all three Patriarchal
successions.

I. Ishmael vs. Isaac

Ishmael fails all three of the above tests. Ishmael is his father?s
firstborn son (or is at least his father?s firstborn son of importance). Ishmael is
his father Abraham?s favorite son. We see this when Abraham pleads Ishmael?s
case with YHWH (Genesis 17: 18), and Abraham is stated to be grieved when
Ishmael must be exiled (Genesis 21: 11). By contrast, Abraham never pleads Isaac?
s case to YHWH, particularly during the binding incident, and Abraham is not
stated in the text to be grieved when Abraham almost kills Isaac in the binding
incident. Most importantly, however, in this first Patriarchal succession is
the obvious fact that Ishmael?s birth mother is Hagar, who is not Abraham?s
main wife #1. Ishmael was borne on Sarah?s behalf, but Sarah is not Ishmael?
s birth mother.

Isaac, who is the winning son, meets all three tests. Isaac is not his father
?s firstborn son, Isaac is not his father?s favorite son (Ishmael is), and
Isaac?s birth mother, Sarah, is Abraham?s original main wife #1.

II. Esau vs. Jacob

Esau fails the first two requirements. Esau is his father Isaac?s firstborn
son. And Esau is obviously his father?s favorite son, as Isaac likes Esau
much better than Isaac likes Jacob. (Jacob never forgave his older twin brother
Esau for so obviously being their father?s favorite son.) The focus in this
second Patriarchal succession is on birth order. Esau is repeatedly stated to
be Isaac?s older son (even though Esau and Jacob are twins). Their mother
Rebekah?s famous dream about the twin sons struggling in her womb is ambiguous,
but one thing is clear: that dream clearly relates to birth order. Esau?s
fatal flaw is to be his father?s firstborn son.

By contrast, winning son Jacob meets all three tests. Jacob is not his father
?s firstborn son, and clearly is not his father?s favorite son. The third
factor is neutral here between the two sons, as the twins obviously have the
same birth mother, who is their father?s original main wife #1.

III. Judah vs. Joseph

Joseph fails the second and third requirements. Joseph is probably O.K. on
the first requirement, in that Joseph is not his father?s firstborn son (though
Joseph is the firstborn son of Jacob?s favorite wife). But Joseph is his
father?s favorite son, being the only son to receive the ?coat of many colors?.
And most critically, Joseph?s birth mother is Rachel, who although a fine
mother with high standing, nevertheless is not Jacob?s original main wife #1.
Jacob married Leah 7 days before Jacob married Rachel, so it is Leah who has the
honor of being Jacob?s original main wife #1.

Judah meets all three tests. Judah is not his father?s firstborn son, Judah
is not his father?s favorite son (Joseph is), and Judah?s birth mother is
Jacob?s original main wife #1: Leah. (Note that Leah, but not Rachel, is buried
in Hebron with the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Each Matriarch buried in
Hebron is, unlike Rachel, her husband?s original main wife #1.)

In the end, it was impossible for Joseph to avoid Ishmael?s sad fate. Since
the birth mother of neither Ishmael nor Joseph was the father?s original main
wife #1, neither Ishmael nor Joseph had a chance. Rachel tried to avoid that
by calling her son ?Joseph?, meaning ?gathered, added?, to position Joseph
as being just ?another son?, who is ?added? to the already large ? gathering?
of Jacob?s sons by his collective main wife #1, Leah-Rachel. But that daring
gambit failed.

* * *

We can now go on to ask how the above Patriarchal succession requirements
relate to secular history. (Such question is never addressed, in any way
whatsoever, by the secondary literature on the Patriarchal narratives.)

Who is the target audience for the Patriarchal narratives? Is there a ruler,
who historically was important to the early Hebrews, who would have been
greatly pleased to see the foregoing odd rules of succession apply to the
leadership of the new monotheists?

Consider what type of man would like those odd rules.

1. He must be a younger son. In the Patriarchal narratives, the firstborn
son always gets the shaft, and properly so. So the target audience must be a
younger son.

2. He must not have been his father?s favorite son. In all three
Patriarchal successions, the father?s favorite son fails to win the grand prize. The
target audience must be a younger son who resented his father?s favoritism of
the father?s firstborn son.

3. And finally, he must have had half-brothers, whom he perceived to be a
bona fide threat. Relations between half-brothers are not good in the
Patriarchal narratives. Isaac never sees his half-brother Ishmael after Isaac is
weaned, except for the occasion of their father Abraham?s funeral. Jacob?s older
sons famously try to kill their young half-brother Joseph. The target
audience must have been a son of his father?s original main wife #1, who feared that
his father might choose as the father?s successor a manly son by a minor wife.

In my next post, we will examine what ruler in secular history was important
to the early Hebrews, who meets all the above three odd factors in spades.
Rather than being mid-1st millennium BCE fiction, as university scholars have
been trying to tell us (unsuccessfully) for 100 years now, the Patriarchal
narratives instead are very closely tracking the well-documented secular history of
the mid-14th century BCE, which in my controversial view is the historical
Patriarchal Age. It is impossible that J, E, P or D could be making this stuff
up, over a period of several centuries in the mid-1st millennium BCE, because
JEPD knew nothing, and cared less, about the secular history of the mid-14th
century BCE.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:45:17 -0800
From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
To: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <005701c8514c$b519f240$84345142@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Jim,

Regarding Ishmael vs Isaac.

The text of 22:2, 12, 16 contradict what you say about Isaac. In each of the
verses God says of Isaac to Abraham,
22:2 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad 'asher-'ahabtat; LXX, TON AGAPHTON
hON HGAPHSAS
22:12 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU
22:16 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU

Furthermore, the text in 17:17-22 clearly indicates that Sarah will give birth
to a son well passed the age of childbearing, that the child's name will be
Isaac (Yitzhak) and that Ishmael will still be blessed, but not as the firstborn
is normally blessed. In fact, Isaac is the focal point from this point on.

Remember that Ishmael was born of Hagar, an Egyptian slave woman, per cultural
standards at that time. In fact, the indcidents involved with each of the
Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will find a counterpart in later Mosaic
legislation to prevent the mistakes that these same patriarchs committed.

Now, regarding the 14th Century BCE dating, I find that Akhenaten does not fit
the context of the Patriarchal narratives nor the Mosaic legislation especially
the dating to ca. 1446-1407 BCE in which the dating set by the I Kings 6:1,
Judges 11:14-27 (especially 11:26 ("For three hundred years Israel occupied
Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the
Arnon...."). Since Jephthah was a judge ca. 1100 BCE according to most scholars,
then to ignore both times listed (Solomon building the Temple and Jephthah's
remarks) is based not on facts but on a priori assumptions that cannot be proved
especially with regards to JEDP.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 5:38 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions



Based in part on our analysis of the name ?Joseph?, we can now go back and
determine what specific rules govern all three Patriarchal successions. (The
secondary literature on the Patriarchal narratives does not discuss this
critically important issue.)

In all three Patriarchal successions, the winning candidate always meets the
following three key requirements, and the main contender who fails to be named
the leader of the next generation of the new monotheists always fails to meet
one or more of these requirements:

1. The winning son cannot be his father?s firstborn son.

2. The winning son cannot be his father?s favorite son.

3. The birth mother of the winning son must be his father?s original main
wife #1.

Now let?s see how these three simple, odd rules govern all three Patriarchal
successions.

I. Ishmael vs. Isaac

Ishmael fails all three of the above tests. Ishmael is his father?s
firstborn son (or is at least his father?s firstborn son of importance).
Ishmael is
his father Abraham?s favorite son. We see this when Abraham pleads Ishmael?s
case with YHWH (Genesis 17: 18), and Abraham is stated to be grieved when
Ishmael must be exiled (Genesis 21: 11). By contrast, Abraham never pleads
Isaac?
s case to YHWH, particularly during the binding incident, and Abraham is not
stated in the text to be grieved when Abraham almost kills Isaac in the
binding
incident. Most importantly, however, in this first Patriarchal succession is
the obvious fact that Ishmael?s birth mother is Hagar, who is not Abraham?s
main wife #1. Ishmael was borne on Sarah?s behalf, but Sarah is not Ishmael?
s birth mother.

Isaac, who is the winning son, meets all three tests. Isaac is not his father
?s firstborn son, Isaac is not his father?s favorite son (Ishmael is), and
Isaac?s birth mother, Sarah, is Abraham?s original main wife #1.

II. Esau vs. Jacob

Esau fails the first two requirements. Esau is his father Isaac?s firstborn
son. And Esau is obviously his father?s favorite son, as Isaac likes Esau
much better than Isaac likes Jacob. (Jacob never forgave his older twin
brother
Esau for so obviously being their father?s favorite son.) The focus in this
second Patriarchal succession is on birth order. Esau is repeatedly stated to
be Isaac?s older son (even though Esau and Jacob are twins). Their mother
Rebekah?s famous dream about the twin sons struggling in her womb is
ambiguous,
but one thing is clear: that dream clearly relates to birth order. Esau?s
fatal flaw is to be his father?s firstborn son.

By contrast, winning son Jacob meets all three tests. Jacob is not his father
?s firstborn son, and clearly is not his father?s favorite son. The third
factor is neutral here between the two sons, as the twins obviously have the
same birth mother, who is their father?s original main wife #1.

III. Judah vs. Joseph

Joseph fails the second and third requirements. Joseph is probably O.K. on
the first requirement, in that Joseph is not his father?s firstborn son
(though
Joseph is the firstborn son of Jacob?s favorite wife). But Joseph is his
father?s favorite son, being the only son to receive the ?coat of many colors?
.
And most critically, Joseph?s birth mother is Rachel, who although a fine
mother with high standing, nevertheless is not Jacob?s original main wife #1.
Jacob married Leah 7 days before Jacob married Rachel, so it is Leah who has
the
honor of being Jacob?s original main wife #1.

Judah meets all three tests. Judah is not his father?s firstborn son, Judah
is not his father?s favorite son (Joseph is), and Judah?s birth mother is
Jacob?s original main wife #1: Leah. (Note that Leah, but not Rachel, is
buried
in Hebron with the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Each Matriarch buried in
Hebron is, unlike Rachel, her husband?s original main wife #1.)

In the end, it was impossible for Joseph to avoid Ishmael?s sad fate. Since
the birth mother of neither Ishmael nor Joseph was the father?s original main
wife #1, neither Ishmael nor Joseph had a chance. Rachel tried to avoid that
by calling her son ?Joseph?, meaning ?gathered, added?, to position Joseph
as being just ?another son?, who is ?added? to the already large ? gathering?
of Jacob?s sons by his collective main wife #1, Leah-Rachel. But that daring
gambit failed.

* * *

We can now go on to ask how the above Patriarchal succession requirements
relate to secular history. (Such question is never addressed, in any way
whatsoever, by the secondary literature on the Patriarchal narratives.)

Who is the target audience for the Patriarchal narratives? Is there a ruler,
who historically was important to the early Hebrews, who would have been
greatly pleased to see the foregoing odd rules of succession apply to the
leadership of the new monotheists?

Consider what type of man would like those odd rules.

1. He must be a younger son. In the Patriarchal narratives, the firstborn
son always gets the shaft, and properly so. So the target audience must be a
younger son.

2. He must not have been his father?s favorite son. In all three
Patriarchal successions, the father?s favorite son fails to win the grand
prize. The
target audience must be a younger son who resented his father?s favoritism of
the father?s firstborn son.

3. And finally, he must have had half-brothers, whom he perceived to be a
bona fide threat. Relations between half-brothers are not good in the
Patriarchal narratives. Isaac never sees his half-brother Ishmael after Isaac
is
weaned, except for the occasion of their father Abraham?s funeral. Jacob?s
older
sons famously try to kill their young half-brother Joseph. The target
audience must have been a son of his father?s original main wife #1, who
feared that
his father might choose as the father?s successor a manly son by a minor wife.

In my next post, we will examine what ruler in secular history was important
to the early Hebrews, who meets all the above three odd factors in spades.
Rather than being mid-1st millennium BCE fiction, as university scholars have
been trying to tell us (unsuccessfully) for 100 years now, the Patriarchal
narratives instead are very closely tracking the well-documented secular
history of
the mid-14th century BCE, which in my controversial view is the historical
Patriarchal Age. It is impossible that J, E, P or D could be making this
stuff
up, over a period of several centuries in the mid-1st millennium BCE, because
JEPD knew nothing, and cared less, about the secular history of the mid-14th
century BCE.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 01/07/08 9:14
AM


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!



------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:09:25 +0200
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
<e6ea6c000801071009r32451fdajf32ad2f44c68cfd6 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

List readers may be interested in the following article, which I placed online:
Tatian's Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch
by Prof. George F. Moore (Read in December 1889)
Journal of Biblical Literature 9 (1890) 201-15
http://yitzhaksapir.googlepages.com/tatian%27sdiatessaron

I found it amazing how an article from over a century ago, is still so timely.
It is as if all the critics against the Documentary Hypothesis are simply
repeating, for a century now, the same arguments, with no care to the fact
that long ago, responses have been published to those same questions.

Using the Diatessaron, it is possible to place the Documentary Hypothesis
on more solid ground. Accordingly, the Diatessaron would serve as a basis
by which editorial and redactional methods may be analyzed in the
Pentateuch. If it is possible to show that there exist a number of documents
to which when some methods of redaction, the same as in the Diatessaron,
are applied provides us with the text of the Pentateuch, that would stand as
an argument for their original independent existence. The basic hypothesis
would be, then, that if a unified text was composed from scratch, without
previous source documents of which it is a composite, there would be no group
of source documents of comparable length to which an arbitrary series of
redactional methods similar to those applied to the Diatessaron could be
applied, and which would provide us with that unified original text.
This should
be fairly easy to disprove -- for one can take any text produced, such as
Tolstoy's War and Peace (to use one author whose name has come up),
and simply produce for us those source documents. But so long as the
hypothesis stands, despite the large amounts of compositions which could
be utilized to disprove it, it must show that the Pentateuch is indeed a
composite work, and the only reason we find those source documents in
the Pentateuch, is because they are really there.

Yitzhak Sapir


------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:10:42 EST
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <bc3.1ecbe694.34b3d332 AT aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


Rev. Bryant J. Williams III :

1. You wrote: ?Regarding Ishmael vs Isaac. The text of 22:2, 12, 16
contradict what you say about Isaac. In each of the verses God says of Isaac to
Abraham,
22:2 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad 'asher-'ahabtat; LXX, TON
AGAPHTON
hON HGAPHSAS
22:12 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU
22:16 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU?

Yes, but that is after Sarah forced Abraham, with YHWH?s explicit approval,
to exile Ishmael in chapter 21 of Genesis. So with Ishmael seemingly out of
the picture at this point (having been exiled 12 long regular years ago), Abraham
?s only remaining son, who was born either by Abraham?s main wife #1 or on
her behalf, is Isaac.

Yet note that Abraham is not stated in the text to be grieved or upset at the
imminent prospect of having to kill his ?only son?, Isaac. And note that
Abraham had never thanked YHWH for Isaac?s birth. Abraham bargains with YHWH
for Ishmael in the text, but Abraham never bargains with YHWH for Isaac in the
text, even in the harrowing binding incident.

Abraham makes the right decisions, for the right reasons, in selecting Isaac
over Ishmael. Abraham does that based on YHWH?s clear commands, and thus
Abraham is righteous. The very point of the binding incident, indeed, is to
confirm that Abraham is selecting Isaac over Ishmael for the right reasons, namely
because YHWH has divinely told Abraham to do so, rather than Abraham selecting
Isaac over Ishmael because Isaac is Abraham?s favorite son.

2. You wrote: ?Furthermore, the text in 17:17-22 clearly indicates that
Sarah will give birth to a son well past the age of childbearing, that the
child's name will be
Isaac (Yitzhak) and that Ishmael will still be blessed, but not as the
firstborn
is normally blessed. In fact, Isaac is the focal point from this point on.?

Yes, I agree with that entirely. That in no way means that Isaac was Abraham?
s favorite son, however. The son who gets the ultimate blessing is always
the right choice, and is fully approved of by YHWH, but is never the Patriarch?s
favorite son. Certainly you would agree that Esau was Isaac?s favorite son,
yet Isaac gives the great blessing to Jacob, not Esau, and Isaac does not
attempt to rescind that blessing of Jacob after the trickery of Rebekah and Jacob
is revealed. And likewise, you would certainly agree that Joseph is Jacob?s
favorite son. Yet Jacob names Judah, not Joseph, to be the leader of the next
generation of the new monotheists.

This is precisely the very point that I am driving at. It is quite unusual
for a leader to give the greatest honor, and sole leadership, to a non-favorite
son, especially a non-favorite son who is not the leader?s firstborn son.
Yet that is exactly what happens in all three Patriarchal successions. The
author of the Patriarchal narratives is trying to tell us something important
here, if we will only pay close attention to what the received text actually says.

3. You wrote: ?Now, regarding the 14th Century BCE dating, I find that
Akhenaten does not fit the context of the Patriarchal narratives nor the Mosaic
legislation especially the dating to ca. 1446-1407 BCE in which the dating set
by the I Kings 6:1,
Judges 11:14-27 (especially 11:26 ("For three hundred years Israel occupied
Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the
Arnon...."). Since Jephthah was a judge ca. 1100 BCE according to most
scholars,
then to ignore both times listed (Solomon building the Temple and Jephthah's
remarks) is based not on facts but on a priori assumptions that cannot be
proved
especially with regards to JEDP.?

I may agree with most of your facts, but I entirely disagree with your
conclusion. True, the mid-14th century BCE may not fit any part of the Bible except
the Patriarchal narratives, including not fitting well as a starting point
for computing the dates of the Exodus and Solomon. But that is not because the
Patriarchal narratives are historically inaccurate. No, that is because both
the mid-1st millennium BCE Hebrews (including JEPD), and modern analysts of
the Bible as well, misunderstand the Patriarchal narratives, and the mid-14th
century BCE historical time period of the Patriarchal narratives.

Everything in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives matches
perfectly to the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE.
Archaeology may not have proven an historical Exodus or an historical Solomon?s
Empire, but the archaeological facts do establish the historical beginnings of
Judaism, in the mid-14th century BCE historical Patriarchal Age.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 61, Issue 4
***************************************





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page