Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jane Peters <janepeters13041939 AT yahoo.co.nz>]

Dear Yitzhak,
   
  Yes - I did set up this as a joke. But, I realise what you say is true. I 
should have asked permission from this list first. As a result, I have 
removed the site. It was primarily for humorous effect, and certainly wasn't 
expecting to sell more than the miscellaneous one or two. The whole thing 
just resulted from a silly conversation with my friends, in which it was 
suggested.
   
  Sorry if I have offended you or any others, that was not my intention.
   
  Jane
   
  
Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
  List members may want to know that Ms Jane Peters has plagiarized the
work of members on
this list to create the following:

http://www.cafepress.com/jehovahshalibut

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


 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
>From JimStinehart AT aol.com  Tue Jan 29 10:58:00 2008
Return-Path: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 5154B4C023; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:58:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, 
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from imo-m22.mail.aol.com (imo-m22.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94704C030
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:57:56 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from JimStinehart AT aol.com
        by imo-m22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id 3.bf3.22d3df3e (30739)
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:57:52 -0500 
(EST)
From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
Message-ID: <bf3.22d3df3e.34d0a700 AT aol.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:57:52 EST
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5044
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Chedorlaomer" in Hebrew and Ugaritic
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:58:00 -0000


Kevin P. Edgecomb:
=20
1.  You wrote:  =E2=80=9CMr Stinehart, it is shockingly apparent that you ar=
e=20
interested only in your own linguistic gymnastics=E2=80=A6.=E2=80=9D
=20
So far, my own "linguistic gymnastics" have consisted of a Hebrew analysis o=
f=20
"Chedorlaomer"/KDR+L+AoMR, as follows.  I match KDR in "Chedorlaomer" to the=
=20
Hebrew word KDR.  I match L in "Chedorlaomer" to the Hebrew word L.  And I=20
match AoMR in "Chedorlaomer" to the Hebrew word AoMR.  So where are the=20
"linguistic gymnastics" that you are complaining about?  Each of those three=
 matches=20
match letter for Hebrew letter.
=20
But now let's take a look at your own "linguistic gymnastics".  You compare=20
Kutir-Nahhunte to "Chedorlaomer".  That seems like "linguistic gymnastics" t=
o=20
me.
=20
Kudur-Nahhunte ruled for only 5 years, 1155 =E2=80=93 1150 BCE.  He successf=
ully=20
attacked Babylonia, but he never came anywhere close to greater Canaan.  Why=
 would=20
chapter 14 of Genesis recall the 5-year reign of a king of far-off hatamtu,=20
east of the lower Euphrates River, who never had anything to do with the=20
Hebrews?  Your =E2=80=9Clinguistics gymnastics=E2=80=9D are vaulting you int=
o never-never land, as=20
far as I can see.
=20
And continuing with the subject of your =E2=80=9Clinguistics gymnastics=E2=
=80=9D, you insist=20
that ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM is "Elam", meaning historical hatamtu, the=20
predecessor of Persia.  How do you get ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM from "hatamtu=
"? =20
Isn't that a super-gigantic linguistic leap of faith?=20
=20
2.  You wrote:  =E2=80=9C=E2=80=A6likewise [you] elicit no competency in act=
ual=20
inter-cultural contact in the Ancient Near East.=E2=80=9D
=20
Speaking of "inter-cultural contact in the Ancient Near East", what=20
historical contacts did the Hebrews have with far-off hatamtu, located 
east=20=
of=20
Babylonia, on the far side of the lower Euphrates River?  If the Hebrews nev=
er=20
interacted with hatamtu (as opposed to Persia), why would the Hebrew Bible b=
e studded=20
with reference after negative reference to hatamtu?  Doesn't that make you=20
want to reconsider your view that ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM in the Bible alway=
s=20
means far-off hatamtu?
=20
By sharp contrast, the Hebrews had ongoing "inter-cultural contact in the=20
Ancient Near East" with Syria, who is Canaan's immediate neighbor to the nor=
th. =20
On your view, the Bible is always referencing far-off hatamtu, east of the=20
lower Euphrates River, while almost never mentioning neighboring Syria.  
Is=20=
that=20
a credible theory of the case?  However, if ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM usually=20
means Syria, not hatamtu, in the Bible, which is my view of the case, then t=
he=20
Hebrew Bible frequently mentions neighboring Syria, while not mentioning=20
far-off hatamtu until the very late Book of Daniel.  Isn't that a much 
more=20=
sensible=20
view of what the Hebrew Bible is saying?
=20
3.  On your view, the author of Genesis 10: 22 oddly states that far-off=20
non-Semitic hatamtu and Semitic Assyria are the first two named sons of Shem=
.  But=20
if ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM does not mean far-off non-Semitic hatamtu, but=20
instead means neighboring Semitic Syria, then Genesis 10: 22 sensibly states=
 that=20
Semitic Syria and Semitic Assyria are the first two named sons of Shem.
=20
4.  On your view, the author of chapter 14 of Genesis in the Patriarchal=20
narratives oddly portrays a fictional king of far-off hatamtu, located 
east=20=
of the=20
far-off lower Euphrates River, as fictionally having five rebellious=20
princeling subjects in greater Canaan, and as fictionally coming all the lon=
g way to=20
Canaan to discipline them.  This fictional king of hatamtu oddly fictionally=
=20
allies with a king who has a bona fide Hittite kingly name, Tidal/Tudhaliya.=
 =20
During the long history of the Hebrews, no king of hatamtu ever came to grea=
ter=20
Canaan to discipline wayward Canaanite princelings, and no king of hatamtu=20
ever allied with the Hittites.  But if ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM means Syria h=
ere,=20
and in this context is referring to Ugarit on the west coast of Syria in=20
particular, then chapter 14 of Genesis is quite accurate historically.  The=20
princeling ruler of Ugarit did in fact ally with a Hittite king, and with 
a=20=
Hurrian=20
princeling, and with an Amorite princeling, just as portrayed in chapter 
14=20=
of=20
Genesis, and that unusual ethnic grouping of four attacking rulers did in fa=
ct=20
totally destroy a league of five rebellious princelings, quite similar to=20
what is portrayed in chapter 14 of Genesis:  =E2=80=9Cfour kings against the=
 five=E2=80=9D.
=20
Why prohibit any Hebrew and Ugaritic linguistic analysis of first =E2=80=9C
Chedorlaomer=E2=80=9D, and then ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM?  How else are we go=
ing to determine if=20
chapter 14 of Genesis is reporting fairly accurate historical facts, as=20
opposed to your view that chapter 14 is nonsensically claiming that a fictio=
nal king=20
of far-off hatamtu east of the lower Euphrates River fictionally came to=20
greater Canaan to fictionally deal with 5 rebellious princelings, fictionall=
y=20
picking up a Hittite king as an ally along the way?
=20
5.  Your concluding remark basically says it all:
=20
=E2=80=9CI suggest you simply drop it.=E2=80=9D
=20
All I have done so far is to show that the name =E2=80=9CChedorlaomer=E2=80=
=9D makes perfect=20
sense as being composed of three Hebrew words.  All 7 Hebrew letters match=20
letter for letter.
=20
Aren=E2=80=99t you interested in finding out whether the name =E2=80=9CChedo=
rlaomer=E2=80=9D=20
likewise makes sense as being three Ugaritic words?
=20
If it turns out that the name =E2=80=9CChedorlaomer=E2=80=9D makes perfect s=
ense in both=20
Hebrew and Ugaritic, then wouldn=E2=80=99t you be interested in seeing a Heb=
rew and=20
Ugaritic analysis of ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM?
=20
On what basis do you insist that no Hebrew or Ugaritic linguistic analysis o=
f=20
either =E2=80=9CChedorlaomer=E2=80=9D or ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM should be d=
one?  Your view=20
of ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM makes both Genesis 10: 22 and chapter 14 of Genes=
is=20
nonsensical.  Doesn=E2=80=99t that make you wonder if perhaps you may have b=
een=20
misinterpreting what ayin-yod-lamed-mem/(YLM means at Genesis 10: 22 and 
in=20=
chapter=20
14 of Genesis?
=20
Why preclude, in advance, any Hebrew or Ugaritic analysis of these two=20
fascinating words?  These words appear in the Hebrew Bible, after all.  
Why=20=
should=20
we be forbidden from taking a close look at what these two words may mean in=
=20
Hebrew?  Why should that be forbidden?  Isn=E2=80=99t that exactly the 
type=20=
of thing=20
that the b-Hebrew list is designed to foster?  Why should it be forbidden to=
=20
state that the name =E2=80=9CChedorlaomer=E2=80=9D can be viewed as being co=
mposed of three=20
Hebrew words?  Even if that does not fit with your hatamtu theory of the cas=
e,=20
nevertheless all 7 Hebrew letters match, letter for letter, in my Hebrew ana=
lysis=20
of the name =E2=80=9CChedorlaomer=E2=80=9D.  That Hebrew linguistic analysis=
 of the name =E2=80=9C
Chedorlaomer=E2=80=9D backs up my view that Chedorlaomer is portrayed in cha=
pter 14 of=20
Genesis as being an historical west Semitic-speaking Amorite princeling rule=
r of=20
Ugarit on the west coast of Syria, rather than as being a fictional king of=20
far-off non-Semitic hatamtu, from east of the far-off lower Euphrates River.=
 =20
Why should such a Hebrew linguistic analysis of the name =E2=80=9CChedorlaom=
er=E2=80=9D be=20
verboten?  Why should I =E2=80=9Csimply drop it=E2=80=9D?
=20
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.    =20
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=3Daolcmp00300000002489