Biblical Hebrew Forum

[LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>]

Got it, George.

 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 



>From l_barre AT yahoo.com  Tue Feb  3 15:04:40 2009
Return-Path: <l_barre AT yahoo.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 74C924C01D; Tue,  3 Feb 2009 15:04:40 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from n6.bullet.re3.yahoo.com (n6.bullet.re3.yahoo.com
        [68.142.237.91])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F1F874C015
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  3 Feb 2009 15:04:32 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [68.142.230.29] by n6.bullet.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        03 Feb 2009 20:04:32 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.83] by t2.bullet.re2.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        03 Feb 2009 20:04:32 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.111] by t3.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        03 Feb 2009 20:04:32 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
        03 Feb 2009 20:04:32 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 360856.59580.bm AT omp115.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 87537 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Feb 2009 20:04:32 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 
q56HKosVM1lRFYCW19tq6uPrGY7pdEwP4B_I9iVMYrNlu9FfVuOcJITxNl0AGs_d75muj8AzbM.VbumLqxl865IbEHZDdOax138HXS0wloqBXFChY5uo8o7nrH7l3A6_I7.B9f9nTIK1BWqYJ3LIDEgNU.bmRQn9PUMBIjdAcgG30aABZpbQODReVpW8zIcHa8mzzh.pBp.vkP11ik2r
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110006.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:04:31 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:04:31 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <205605.87526.qm AT web110006.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:38:19 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: [b-hebrew] Synchronic or diachronic?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: l_barre AT yahoo.com
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, 03 Feb 2009 20:04:40 -0000

Members of b-hebrew seemed to be convince the diachronic studies of the 
Hebrew Bible are impossible.  This is just biased and ignorant.  For example, 
we can approximately date Psalm 29 by the Ugaritic feature of the enclitic 
mem in v1 as I mentioned.
 
I have no problem with synchronic interpretations as such.  But to insist 
that it is the only one possible flies in the face of biblical references 
books for one.  Even Wikipedia is diachronic.
 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 



>From kwrandolph AT gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 17:58:07 2009
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.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 361254C011; Tue,  3 Feb 2009 17:58:07 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com 
[209.85.198.240])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5925F4C011
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  3 Feb 2009 17:58:04 -0500 
(EST)
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so2285443rvb.30
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:58:03 -0800 
(PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.157.6 with SMTP id f6mr2560668wfe.248.1233701883673; Tue,
        03 Feb 2009 14:58:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <c17.5432abfa.36ba0aa0 AT aol.com>
References: <c17.5432abfa.36ba0aa0 AT aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:58:03 -0800
Message-ID: <acd782170902031458m71f6e9a4pf030f60c15a9193e AT mail.gmail.com>
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Halhul, Jezreel and Timnah
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, 03 Feb 2009 22:58:07 -0000

Jim:

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:01 PM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Karl:
>
>
>
> 1.  You wrote:  "In Biblical Hebrew[, MDBR/midbar was] most likely 
> connected to the root concerning poking (with a sharp object), stinging or 
> even injuring, so a MDBR is a placewhere such plants and animals dwell. 
> Many of these places in the past were vast grasslands with cacti and spiny 
> trees interspersed among the grasses, today they are deserts. While a MDBR 
> could contain a rugged, hilly area, that was not a defining characteristic 
> of MDBR."
>
>
>
> MDBR in I Samuel primarily means a place where animals could live, but 
> where large numbers of human beings could not live, so there would be no 
> towns in MDBR.  Many parts of hill country north of Hebron fit that 
> description.  The land was not good enough for farming, and there were few 
> if any sizeable towns.  But sheep and goats could be grazed there for some 
> periods of time.
>
>
>
> North of Hebron, and well west of the Dead Sea, was not a desert, but 
> rather was MDBR.  I agree that in other locales, MDBR would not necessarily 
> be rugged, hilly pastureland, but that type of terrain north of Hebron is 
> characterized in the Bible as MDBR.  The typical English translation of 
> "wilderness" is misleading.  It's not a desert, and it might be semi-decent 
> pastureland in some seasons.
>
>
Jim: you gave a highly idiosyncratic definition for MDBR, where did you get
it from? Your paragraphs above are a snow job, a red herring argument, that
didn't answer my question. What about the other "definitions" you provided?

>
>
> 3.  You wrote:  "Where do you get this crazy idea that anyone claims this? 
> 1 Samuel mentions that the Philistines gathered together at )PQ, a town 
> mentioned in Joshua 19:30. This was in the area alloted to Asher, in 
> central to northern Canaan.  From there they marched to where Saul's army 
> was encamped."
>
>
>
> (a)  There is an Aphek located north of Mt. Carmel, in Asher.  But the 
> Philistines were never anywhere close to being that far north, for heaven's 
> sake.
>
>
And where do you get this idea? The text clearly states that Saul had his
army in the Jesreel valley, to the east and slightly to the north of )PQ. If
the Philistines wanted to get to Saul and his army, they had to go that far
north. Didn't you look at a map?


>
>
> (b)  Some scholars think that the Aphek northeast of Joppa is the northern 
> extent of the Philistines' dominions.
>
>
You claim the scholars are wrong elsewhere, why do you accept them here.
Some consistency please!

Secondly, you are inventing a fictional town with the same name as another
known one further north.

>
>
> That Aphek is only a few miles north of the northern Philistine border in 
> any event.  That is likely the Aphek that is being referenced at Samuel 29: 
> 1.  (That Aphek of the Philistines is nowhere near the famous Jezreel in 
> the Jezreel Valley, and the Philistines never went anywhere near the 
> Jezreel Valley.)
>
>
>
> Why do you make up a fictional town, to fit your theory? Can you do what
you condemn others for doing, and maintain your credibility?


> (c)  We know there was a Jezreel in Judah (not the Jezreel in the Jezreel 
> Valley far to the north in Issachar), because Joshua 15: 56 tells us that.  
> I Samuel 29: 1 further tells us:
>
>
>
> "Now the Philistines gathered together all their hosts to Aphek; and the 
> Israelites pitched by the fountain which is in Jezreel."
>
>
>
>  The real Timnah is Samson's Timnah, located just west of the foothills of 
> hill country in the eastern Sorek Valley.
>
>
Do you really believe that there was a man name Samson, who maintained his
superhuman strength and fighting ability only as long as his hair was long?
C'mon now!

Or are you arguing that the history of Joshua and the invasion, following
the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, is an accurate history, just as accurate as
his list of cities?


>   That's where historical Carmel is located, per the Amarna Letters.  
> Jezreel must likewise have been a border town, south of Aijalon, in or near 
> the foothills of hill country, northwest of the city of Hebron.  By taking 
> 2nd and 3rd wives from the border towns Jezreel and Carmel, northwest of 
> the city of Hebron, David was announcing to the world that David was not 
> content to continue hiding out south (not southeast) of the city of Hebron 
> indefinitely, but rather David was going to seek to gain influence north of 
> the city of Hebron, both in hill country and on the eastern edge of the 
> northeast Shephelah as well.
>
>
>
> Where do you get the idea that these were David's thoughts and intentions?


> The Philistines did not operate east of the foothills of hill country.  All 
> the clues lead to the same result.  Jezreel and Carmel and Timnah and the 
> Philistines' attack are at or near the foothills of hill country, on the 
> border between hill county and the Shephelah, northwest of the city of 
> Hebron.
>
>
>
> The point I keep making is that  a-l-l  of the southern Hebrews, including 
> all Biblical authors, knew the geography of southern Canaan like the back 
> of their hand.  There's no way that Joshua or I Samuel or Judges or the 
> Patriarchal narratives could utilize a fictional local geography of 
> southern Canaan.  No way.
>
>
>
> Yes, you keep making the same claim, but do modern scholars understand
Thutmosis III / Shisherka / $$Q? Are they placing his city lists in the
right places? Or are those lists misplaced by you to push your theory?


> The Aphek way up in Asher has nothing to do with anything.  We're talking 
> southern Canaan here.
>
>
>
> That's the only city listed with that name, so why not? Your theory? But if
it's southern Canaan now, it's south of Hebron, right?


>
> 4.  You wrote:  "Why dream up a second Timnah northwest of the city of 
> Hebron?"
>
>
>
> There's only one Timnah.  That's Samson's Timnah, northwest of Hebron, in 
> the east end of the Sorek Valley.  See Judges 13: 24-25;  14: 1.
>
>
>
> Also 2 Chronicles 28:18, i.e. south of Hebron near Philistia.


> There is no Timnah in the desolate wasteland southeast of the city of 
> Hebron, as Anson Rainey and other scholars hypothesize.  No way.  There's 
> no Timnah there, or any other town there.
>
>
>
> Who is Anson Rainey? Why even mention him? As a follower of the mainstream,
why do you attack one of your own? Why do you attack them when they have so
much more evidence on their side, than you on yours?


> 5.  You wrote:  "2 Chronicles 28:18 mentions that Timnah was either in 
> theShepalah, or to the south. Since it wasn't in the Shepalah, it was to 
> the south."
>
>
>
> Here is what II Chronicles 28: 18 says:
>
>
>
> "The Philistines also had invaded the cities of the Lowland 
> [SPLH/Shephelah], and of the South of Judah, and had taken Beth-shemesh, 
> and Aijalon, and Gederoth, and Soco with the towns thereof, and Timnah with 
> the towns thereof, Gimzo also and the towns thereof; and they dwelt there."
>
>
>
> Beth-shemesh, Aijalon, Gederoth, Socoh, Timnah and Gimzo were all located 
> in the Shephelah.
>
>
>
> That's not what the text says. Reread it, this time carefully. Where does
it say the towns were? Were they all necessarily in the shephelah? Or were
they distributed in both the shephelah and Negev? Well?


> Everyone agrees that the real Timnah was located in the Shephelah, just 
> west of the foothills of hill country, in the eastern Sorek Valley.
>
>
Do you expect me to be convinced by a logical fallacy, namely the bandwagon
fallacy?


>
> 6.  You wrote:  "When Solomon died, Pharaoh Thutmosis III / Shisherka / $$Q 
> maneuvered to get his puppet Jeroboam installed as king over the break away 
> Northern Kingdom.  Then he had an excuse to protect his investment (and 
> gain) in Jeroboam. Why would he mention an area that he got by guile 
> instead of force of arms?
>
> (a)  Thutmosis III and Shishak are two completely different pharaohs, in 
> completely different time periods.
>
>
Evidence? Linguistic evidence indicates they are the same. One prominent one
being that Thutmosis III had an alternate name, Shisherka, that was almost
identical to $$Q of the Bible.


>   Yet we know from their lists of conquered towns in Canaan that both of 
> them made a beeline for the relatively wealthy Aijalon Valley, in the 
> northeast Shephelah.  In southern Canaan, that's where the wealth was.  
> Neither pharaoh paid any attention to the desolate wasteland southeast of 
> the city of Hebron.  No one paid any attention to the desolate wasteland 
> southeast of the city of Hebron.
>
>
>
> "Southeast"! Why do you keep repeating that false, red herring argument?


> (b)  All of Thutmosis III's actual conquests of hostile towns in Canaan are 
> set forth prominently in the first two-thirds of the Thutmosis III list.
>
>
Are you sure? What if they were written sequentially? That also makes
perfect sense.


>   That makes perfect sense for propaganda purposes.  Then in the last 
> third, largely as padding, Thutmosis III threw in every single town in the 
> greater Aijalon Valley area, even though that was non-hostile territory.  
> But his scribes had written down all those 27 places, where the Egyptian 
> troops had assembled for the conquest of central Canaan.  So why not throw 
> those 27 places in near the very end of the list?  That's exactly what he 
> did.
>
>
>
> If you want to know what names places had in the greater Aijalon Valley as 
> of the mid-15th century BCE, they're all there, in 27 consecutive items at 
> #90 - #116 on the Thutmosis III list.  And all such 27 consecutive items 
> also appear in Joshua, showing that Joshua had fine, authentic Late Bronze 
> Age sources for his city lists.
>
>
>
> So you really think that the late 10th century Thutmosis III / Shisherka /
$$Q gave an accurate record of place names for five centuries earlier,
namely Joshua's lists? Why?

First of all, the linguistic and historical evidence points to Thutmosis III
being late tenth century BC, not earlier. So why couldn't his lists be for
the Judean highlands, just where Joshua, history and archaeology place them?


> All of those 27 consecutive items are in or near the Shephelah, and not a 
> one of such items is in or near the Jezreel Valley, or southeast of the 
> city of Hebron.  No one ever paid the slightest bit of attention to the 
> desolate wasteland southeast of the city of Hebron.  As I believe I may 
> have said, there's no there there.  In particular, there's no Jezreel, 
> Carmel, Timnah or Ziph or Maon, or any other town, southeast of the city of 
> Hebron.  There's nothing there.
>
>
>
> Why do you repeat yourself over and over and over again, when that argument
has already been shown from history, linguistics and archaeology to be
false? Do you think that by your many words you will convince people?
(That's what propagandists in the past have claimed.) Why do you keep
emphasizing "southeast", and a very narrow interpretation of that at that,
when there is no where in the text that claims that? But the south is
evidenced.


> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
You are getting a real record of not answering questions. You have yet to
indicate any professional qualifications, in this case knowledge of Hebrew
language (though the more you post, the more you show your total ignorance).
You dodged questions as I mentioned in this message.

And why do you keep repeating the same arguments, even after they have been
refuted? Does that make sense?

Karl W. Randolph.