Biblical Hebrew Forum

["sherwin jerome" <sherwinjerome AT gmail.com>]

biblia hebraica transripta

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:54 PM,  <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. Re: Lemche and Thompson (Bill Rea)
>   2. Hello (Weizman Abby)
>   3. Amarna letters (kenneth greifer)
>   4. Biblia Hebraica transcripta (David Steinberg)
>   5. Hello (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
>   6. Joseph's Egyptian Name (JimStinehart AT aol.com)
>   7. Re: Hello (Yigal Levin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:34:45 +1300 (NZDT)
> From: Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Lemche and Thompson
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
>        <Pine.SOL.4.58.0802291018430.17994 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Jim wrote:-
>
> >Rather than claiming that I alone can interpret the evidence properly, I
> >am specifically asserting the exact opposite:  anyone who is willing to
> >look objectively at the evidence I am setting forth on the b-Hebrew list
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >should be able to see that the entirety of the Patriarchal narratives is
> >fully redolent of the mid-14th century BCE, and of no other era.
>
> The word I've underlined is important. Your claim now, as I understand
> it, is that the rest of the world remains unconvinced of your matching
> up of the Amarna letters with Genesis because we/they are not being
> objective. It amounts to the same thing in practice. You alone are
> being objective. This is like the arguments our philosophical
> presuppositioners make -- people can't evaluate the evidence because
> their philosophical presuppositions are wrong. Without the ``right''
> objectivity/philosophical presuppositions you can't interpret the
> evidence. Sorry, such arguments are without merit. If the evidence
> were as convincing as you say, then it would convince indepedent of
> whether a person had the right type of objectivity or not.
>
> 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: 2
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:40:51 +0200
> From: "Weizman Abby" <achweiz1 AT gmail.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Hello
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
>        <e91bf9bd0802281840m432a9b35yb947b1af8d2da665 AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello,
>
> I am new in this group. Thanks a lot because I can study together with you
> and share also my ideas, research,etc.
> I have a question to Mr Stinehart:
> I read very carefully his commentaries about Genesis, the Torah in general
> and History.
> My question is a little meta-historical or perhaps" meta-group":
> Could be said or thought ,that Judaism or traditional Jewish Faith or
> "Emunah" has a more solid historical basis than other creeds, for example
> the Christianism ( I thought about the Historical Methods applied to the New
> Testament, etc.).
> Perhaps it is better to use another word than "solid historical basis":
> founded, more relevant...?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Shabat Shalom u-Meborakh le kulam,
>
> Avi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:56:24 +0000
> From: kenneth greifer <greifer AT hotmail.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Amarna letters
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY125-W52206C781306364ECC5AA5A7140 AT phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I think the problem is that you let similarities between the Amarna letters 
> and the patriarchal narratives prove your beliefs, but you don't let 
> differences disprove your beliefs. If differences in the stories can't 
> disprove what you say, then nothing can disprove what you say. You have a 
> perfect situation for you, but it is not ok with people who disagree with 
> your ideas because nothing can disprove your beliefs about the Amarna 
> letters.
>
> Kenneth Greifer
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
> http://biggestloser.msn.com/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:11:17 -0500
> From: David Steinberg <david.l.steinberg AT rogers.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Biblia Hebraica transcripta
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <47C81285.8000803 AT rogers.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I have been working on ancient Hebrew poetry (see Biblical Hebrew Poetry
> and Word Play - Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual
> Experience <http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm>
> http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm ) and came across Wolfgang
> Richter's enormous /Biblia Hebraica transcripta/ series. The only
> problem I have had in understanding his reconstruction of the biblical
> texts is due to some of the various signs he has used and his handling
> of gemination.
>
> He wrote a series of books in German outlining his approach. However, at
> the beginning of his volume on Genesis he boiled it down into a few pages.
>
> My German is non-existent so I asked two native German speakers to
> translate the key points. One was a journalist and the other and
> academic librarian. They both said that they could not really understand
> his terminology.
>
> Does anyone know of an English guide to Richter's symbols and methods?
>
> David Steinberg
>
> Tel. 613-731-5964
>
> http://www.houseofdavid.ca/
>
> David.Steinberg AT houseofdavid.ca <mailto:David.Steinberg AT houseofdavid.ca>
>
> <mailto:David.Steinberg AT houseofdavid.ca>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:48:01 EST
> From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Hello
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <d14.1ce80a0a.34f97521 AT aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Avi:
>
> You wrote:  ?I have a question to Mr. Stinehart:  I read very carefully his
> commentaries about Genesis, the Torah in general and History.  My question 
> is a
> little meta-historical or perhaps" meta-group":  Could be said or thought,
> that Judaism or traditional Jewish Faith or "Emunah" has a more solid 
> historical
> basis than other creeds?[?]?
>
> Since this is the b-Hebrew list, I will restrict my comments to Judaism.  In
> my controversial view, (i) the Patriarchal narratives are the foundation of
> Judaism, (ii) the Patriarchal narratives were composed in the mid-14th 
> century
> BCE, and were never significantly edited thereafter (though spelling and
> grammar were updated, and a handful of editorial comments/phrases were 
> added into
> the text later), and (iii) the Patriarchal narratives are very closely 
> based on
> the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th century BCE.
>
> Since the main concerns of the b-Hebrew list are language issues involving
> Biblical Hebrew, let me set forth here, as partial proof of my controversial
> theory, 7 words which appear in the received text of the Patriarchal 
> narratives.
> In my view, these 7 words are redolent of the mid-14th century BCE.
> Furthermore, in my view neither JEPD, nor any other southern Hebrew in the 
> mid-1st
> millennium BCE, would have known any of these words, except by reading them 
> in
> the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives.
>
> 1.  Horites
>
> The Patriarchal narratives are the only place in the Bible that mentions the
> Horites/Hurrians, a people who went extinct prior to the 1st millennium BCE.
>
> 2.  Ch?n?yk?m
>
> The word ch?n?yk?m at Genesis 14: 14, referring to Abraham's armed 
> retainers,
> is not present in the secular record after the 15th century BCE, and is 
> never
> used elsewhere in the Bible.
>
> 3.  Naharim
>
> Genesis 24: 10 uses this Egyptian word from the Amarna Letters for the
> Hurrian state on the upper Euphrates River that vanished in the late 14th 
> century
> BCE.  (This ancient word is picked up from the ancient Patriarchal 
> narratives
> and used in later books of the Bible.)
>
> 4.  Pa nTr
>
> This monotheistic phrase, which appears in Akhenaten?s Great Hymn to the
> Aten, is in Joseph?s Egyptian name at Genesis 41: 45.
>
> 5.  Paddan-Aram
>
> Though John Van Seters is usually considered something of a Biblical
> Minimalist, his book nicely sets forth the 14th century BCE nature of this 
> odd phrase,
> which appears 10 times in the Patriarchal narratives but nowhere else in the
> Bible:  "[I]n the Ugaritic texts [appears] a reference in a fourteenth 
> century
> cuneiform text to eqleti aramina, 'the fields of the Arameans.  
> ?Paddan-Aram?
> is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew?'field of Aram'?."  John Van Seters,
> Abraham in History and Tradition (1975), Yale University Press, New Haven, 
> at
> pp. 30, 58.
>
> 6.  Amrapel
>
> ?Amrapel? at Genesis 14: 1 is the name of the most famous brother of Aziru,
> the iniquitous Amorite of Amurru (northern Lebanon).  Amrapel is the one who
> wrote Amarna Letter #170, claiming that there were 90,000 Hittite troops in 
> the
> Bekka Valley, just north of Canaan proper.  ?Amrapel? makes an ideal
> nickname for Aziru, who in secular history was one of the four attacking 
> rulers being
> referred to in chapter 14 of Genesis, because the first three letters of his
> name, aleph-mem-resh, mean both ?Amorite? and ?Amurru?.  Aziru was an
> Amorite who iniquitously sold out Amurru to the dreaded Hittites in the 
> mid-14th
> century BCE, thereby threatening the future existence of the pre-Hebrews in
> northern Canaan proper
>
> 7.  Abimelek of Sur
>
> Both in the Patriarchal narratives and the Amarna Letters, Abimelek/Abimilki
> of Sur/Surru is constantly jousting over contested rights to valuable water
> wells, in a land that is otherwise wealthy, where a tent-dwelling farmer 
> like
> Isaac can get rich growing crops and selling the produce to the wealthy 
> island
> city-state of Sur (?Tyre? in English) in northern Canaan, which had to buy 
> all
> of its food.
>
> Conclusions
>
> In the Bible, only the Patriarchal narratives are chock-full of vintage
> mid-14th century BCE vocabulary like this.  JEPD knew nothing about this.  
> In my
> controversial view of the case, the Patriarchal narratives were composed by 
> the
> first historical Hebrew, who thereby succeeded in saving his people -- his
> fellow tent-dwelling pre-Hebrews in northern Canaan -- from being wiped out 
> by
> the dreaded Hittites.  As I see it, the specific historical event that 
> convinced
> the first Hebrews that God was on their side, and that Canaan was their
> Promised Land, was that on a near-miraculous basis, the dreaded Hittites, 
> though at
> one point apparently having 90,000 troops in the Bekka Valley just north of
> Canaan proper, never in fact invaded Canaan proper.  For the next 500 years
> after that, the rivals of the early Hebrews in inland Canaan gradually faded
> away, as the non-Hebrew population of inland Canaan dramatically declined.
> Subject to an occasional Egyptian raid that was mainly for show, the first 
> 500 years
> of the Hebrews? existence were remarkably peaceful, if modest.  No one could
> have foreseen at that point that from the 9th century BCE to the present, 
> the
> Hebrews/Jews would never again have a peaceful life.
>
> It is my view that the mid-14th century BCE vocabulary of the Patriarchal
> narratives bespeaks a mid-14th century BCE composition date for the 
> Patriarchal
> narratives.  No group of southern Hebrews in the mid-1st millennium BCE,
> whether JEPD or anyone else, could possibly have composed the Patriarchal
> narratives, with all that vintage mid-14th century BCE vocabulary.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
>
> **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
> 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:49:37 EST
> From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Joseph's Egyptian Name
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <d38.218cf75f.34f97581 AT aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> The language issue as to whether the Hebrew letter peh could represent the
> Egyptian word ?pa?/?the? in the Egyptian names in the Patriarchal narratives
> is very important.  The Egyptian phrases ?pa nTr? and ?pa Ra?, each of which
> could be roughly translated as ?The One and Only God?, are virtually
> inconceivable in Egypt in Biblical times except in the mid-14th century 
> BCE, during
> Egypt?s very brief, unsuccessful experiment with monotheism.
>
> In this connection, the name of Joseph?s Egyptian priestly father-in-law 
> from
> On, where the Egyptian sun-god Ra was worshiped, is of obvious importance.
> There will be no surprise at all to find ?Ra? in his name.  But the $64,000
> question is whether ?pa Ra? is in his name.  Every pharaoh honored Ra after 
> a
> fashion, but Egyptian priests during only one pharaoh?s reign would use the
> stridently monotheistic Egyptian phrase ?pa Ra?, which implies ?The One and 
> Only
> God?.  If ?pa Ra? is in the name of Joseph?s Egyptian priestly
> father-in-law, that would indicate one 17-year historical period of time in 
> Egypt in the
> mid-14th century BCE:  not before then, and not after then.
>
> The innocuous Egyptian name ?pa-di-Ra? (meaning ?the gift of Ra?) would
> simply indicate a post-mid-14th century BCE time period.  The presence of 
> the
> word ?pa? would rule out a pre-14th century BCE time period, but the mere
> reference to ?Ra? (not immediately preceded by the word ?pa?) in that 
> phrase would
> have no hint of any kind of monotheism.
>
> By stark contrast, the Egyptian phrase ?pa-di pa-Ra? is only possible during
> Biblical times in the mid-14th century BCE.  In any other time period prior
> to the 3rd century BCE, no one in polytheistic Egypt could say ?pa-Ra? in
> reference to a god, which clearly implies the stridently monotheistic 
> concept of ?
> The One and Only God?.
>
> [A boy born as a commoner in the mid-14th century BCE had the birth name ?
> Pa-Ra-mes-su?.  Upon later becoming pharaoh in his 50s, he dropped the now
> impolitic ?Pa? and ruled as Ramses I.  His grandson was the famous Ramses 
> the
> Great, who tried for years to take back Qadesh from the Hittites.  ?Pa-Ra? 
> fits
> the mid-14th century BCE time period in Egypt and no other time period.  
> (The
> word ?ra? in Egyptian also means ?sun?;  Ra was the sun-god.  In Roman
> Egyptian times, over a millennium later, ?pa ra? simply meant ?the sun?.)]
>
> In Hebrew, the name of Joseph?s Egyptian priestly father-in-law at Genesis
> 41: 45 is:
>
> peh-vav-tet-yod peh-resh-ayin
>
> Focusing on the second half of this Egyptian priestly name, which is
> peh-resh-ayin, the resh-ayin is obviously Ra (for an Egyptian priest from 
> On, which
> was the center of the worship of the Egyptian sun-god Ra).  The question 
> then is
> whether the Hebrew letter peh that immediately precedes Ra/resh-ayin means
> the Egyptian word ?pa?/?the?.
>
> If the Hebrew letter peh means the Egyptian word ?pa?/?the? here, then the
> name of Joseph?s Egyptian priestly father-in-law is blatantly monotheistic.
> Only in the mid-14th century BCE, in Biblical times, could an Egyptian
> reference like this to ?pa Ra?/?The One and Only God? be found.
>
> The Blue Letter Bible gives the following explanation of this Egyptian
> priestly name:  ?he whom the Ra gave?.  Note the key phrase ?the Ra? in that
> explanation.  A more literal translation, having the same substantive 
> meaning,
> would be ?the gift of the Ra?, implying ?the gift of The Ra?, and hence ?the
> gift of The One and Only God?.  Gesenius opines that this name may simply 
> mean ?
> who belongs to the sun?.  But for the name of an Egyptian priest from On,
> certainly the reference is not primarily, much less exclusively, to ?the 
> sun?,
> but rather is primarily to ?the Ra?.  Please note that even Gesenius seems
> implicitly to agree that the Hebrew letter peh is being used here in this 
> Egyptian
> priestly name to mean the Egyptian word ?pa?/?the?.  That is the single
> most critical issue here.  The name of an Egyptian priest from On surely 
> would
> not primarily reference the sun, but rather would primarily reference the
> Egyptian sun-god who was worshiped at On:  Ra.
>
> JEPD, being southern Hebrews in the mid-1st millennium BCE, knew nothing, 
> and
> cared less, about any of this.  The author of the Patriarchal narratives 
> was,
> rather, the first historical Hebrew, who lived in the mid-14th century BCE.
> His use of ancient Egyptian nomenclature in chapter 41 of Genesis exhibits
> stunning, pinpoint historical accuracy for a mid-14th century BCE 
> Patriarchal Age.
>
> The Hebrew letters used for Egyptian names in chapter 41 of Genesis are
> telling us the historical time period of the composition of the Patriarchal
> narratives.  No Hebrew in the mid-1st millennium BCE could have, or would 
> have, made
> this stuff up.  No way.
>
> JEPD had nothing to do with the composition of the Patriarchal narratives.
> Rather, the Patriarchal narratives are a truly ancient composition coming
> directly from the mid-14th century BCE, at the time of the historical birth 
> of
> Judaism.  The Hebrew letters in the Egyptian names at Genesis 41: 45 tell 
> the tale.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
>
> **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
> 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:04:22 +0200
> From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hello
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <004301c87ae4$5e21ba60$9d9015ac@xp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
>        reply-type=original
>
> Hello Avi and welcome to the b-hebrew list.
>
> I just want to remind you that this is a list for the study of the biblical
> Hebrew language. We tend to interpret that field very liberally, since we
> realize that it is impossible to study a text without discussing its
> background, meaning, assumptions etc. However, this is NOT a forum for the
> study of either Judaism or Christianity per se, and certainly not for
> discussing which of the two "has a more solid historical basis than the
> other". Please do not raise such issues on this list.
>
> Also, one of the list rules is that every post be signed with the poster's
> first and last name. Geographic or academic position is optional.
>
> Shabbat Shalom
>
> Yigal Levin
> co-moderator
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Weizman Abby" <achweiz1 AT gmail.com>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 4:40 AM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Hello
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am new in this group. Thanks a lot because I can study together with you
> > and share also my ideas, research,etc.
> > I have a question to Mr Stinehart:
> > I read very carefully his commentaries about Genesis, the Torah in general
> > and History.
> > My question is a little meta-historical or perhaps" meta-group":
> > Could be said or thought ,that Judaism or traditional Jewish Faith or
> > "Emunah" has a more solid historical basis than other creeds, for example
> > the Christianism ( I thought about the Historical Methods applied to the
> > New
> > Testament, etc.).
> > Perhaps it is better to use another word than "solid historical basis":
> > founded, more relevant...?
> >
> > Thanks a lot,
> > Shabat Shalom u-Meborakh le kulam,
> >
> > Avi
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date:
> > 28/02/2008 12:14
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 62, Issue 8
> ***************************************
>