Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

[b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:21:09 -0800 (PST)








 
   As others have already pointed out, schematic division of meaning
 between the stems, or Binyanim, cannot be done, except, to
some extent, in the case of the passive ones. The Binyanim must have
 had a clear function originally, but this was no longer  valid when
 the biblical books were written down.
 
  Think of a very common verb in the Piel such as  "dibber", what intensive
 meaning is there to the act of speaking?
 
  There is no need to mention modern Heb. in this context.( I wonder if
other Heb. speakers on this list have noticed "letakbek" - computer-
language for 'to talk back'?)
 
 As for the various forms you mention Polel etc., I did refer to them in my
previous post on the subject.
 
  Cheers,
 
  Uri   Hurwitz                                                          
Great Neck, NY



>From l_barre AT yahoo.com Thu Feb 5 18:27:17 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 2F7824C017; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:27:17 -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 n78.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n78.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
[98.136.44.42])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 400E24C01A
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:27:07 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [69.147.84.145] by n78.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:11:28 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.81] by t8.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:27:06 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.104] by t1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:27:06 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:27:06 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 453317.93293.bm AT omp108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 78409 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Feb 2009 23:27:03 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
to19oV8VM1n8l6ovIQdKrK_G1k9IxTpZA2UTDZlrKAesWCEOYHTgbRYYt9L6Sqt_O_FqAWH5UyOaESX57M8OW96rBQ783eHofhB2vfHKESPSyeHdvaasm9QSTfkueAtDs_sj39uM0M5xixNX4okvPT.KFlWSRyJsOM8q6.QJpALZuWkw3i5j0avGr6THEgl8azxc.pVcLshq5P01hF3l
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110006.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:27:03 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:27:03 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: Ancient Bible History <AncientBibleHistory AT yahoogroups.com>,
b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <302775.78314.qm AT web110006.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:57 -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] Hebrew considerations
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: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:27:17 -0000

The interest in a consistent transliteration system for Hebrew leads me to
think that this list, called "b-Hebrew," has an interest in the language. 
Perhaps I could offer some help on this topic with a brief discussion of the
verbal system:
 
There are seven basic stems in pairs of active and passive:
 
Qal -Niphal
Piel-Paul
Hiphil-Hophal
Hithpael is middle voice
 
There is an active and passive participle
qatol and qatul
 
Also the infinitive construct.

The stems are determined by reading the infix patterns.
 
There is also the perfect and imperfect aspects.  This is not tense but
archionsart or type of action.  The action is conceived as either complete or
incomplete and may be applied to any tense.
 
There is also waw consecutive with the first verb in a sequence determines
the aspect of all verbs connected by the conjuction waw.
 
The issue that might be open to discussion is whether or not we are right to
see the qtl and yqtl forms as communication aspect rather that time of action.
 
Also, in Genesis 1, the first preposition, b, should be translated as
temporal rather than locative as is so commonly done.  Thus, I would
interpret, "as a beginning, elohim created . . , not "in the beginning . . ."
 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 



>From l_barre AT yahoo.com Thu Feb 5 18:49:43 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 1A9434C01A; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:49:43 -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 n59.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n59.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
[98.136.44.43])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2614D4C017
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:49:33 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [216.252.122.217] by n59.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:49:32 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.83] by t2.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:49:32 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.97] by t3.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:49:32 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:49:32 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 321650.5546.bm AT omp101.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 34201 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Feb 2009 23:49:32 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
p15aGTUVM1nn8sdt3GW5lEiXwhsBgAYJoIH787cPl8pHrXzGMozZJXjE0Sj_Zyoq3_mRxSNzTT.qdU0LBJaOyvvL_ISuZ6jjz.AoWn4mgGAqwgj0OO1PxnylnDK_hkcNVLkh3XRnipwO.pApCYaIdHkh_Er.CFW9IiX9d5fCwZTvlPEWz_9HSH53n_7B0qqOHbuH5.mdIP1.cHORXU2j
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110016.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:49:31 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:49:31 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <c73.477273f9.36bb81f5 AT aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <46527.32930.qm AT web110016.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:57 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
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: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:49:43 -0000

We do not live in a magic universe with supernatural evens occurring as in
biblical times.  Or as Bultmann said of NT cosmology, we do not live in a
three story universe.  We need to demythologize.

 
Lloyd Barré
 
 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, TedBro AT aol.com <TedBro AT aol.com> wrote:

From: TedBro AT aol.com <TedBro AT aol.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
To: l_barre AT yahoo.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 11:42 PM



Hi, All:
 
To supplement Lloyd's comments... It seems clear to me that everyone accepts
the idea that certain Biblical books contains multiple sources and were
edited / redacted. Who would doubt multiple sources for Kings, Chronicles or
Psalms? Logically, no one could have been eyewitness to all the events of
Genesis. Even excluding chapters 1-11, Genesis covers three generations and
must have either oral tradition or written sources, even if set down word for
word by Moses.
 
On the other hand, I suppose one could contend that God inspired Moses with
supernatural knowledge of the doings of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph that
he otherwise would have known nothing about, but then could not God have
inspired Ezra to that same end? Since Ezra is viewed, even by the most
conservative minded, as an inspired author, how is faith threatened by
viewing Ezra putting final touches on the Pentateuch?
 
Cheers,
Ted Brownstein

In a message dated 2/4/2009 5:56:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
l_barre AT yahoo.com writes:
I agree.  There is no reason why someone can accept the documentary
hypothesis and yet be religiously conservative.  Cannot God inspire a
critically understood Bible?

 
Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
 



Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to stocks and so much
more.



>From l_barre AT yahoo.com Thu Feb 5 18:57:21 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 1E4EE4C01A; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:57:21 -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 n8.bullet.re3.yahoo.com (n8.bullet.re3.yahoo.com
[68.142.237.93])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92B294C017
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:57:11 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [68.142.237.88] by n8.bullet.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:57:11 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.81] by t4.bullet.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:57:11 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.100] by t1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:57:10 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:57:10 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 920368.45243.bm AT omp104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 48341 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Feb 2009 23:57:10 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
YmyBmFAVM1m.tk3o2Qhp5ip1_eY2ADMEY482gtx0JIWVy45TbmeI8wUY4F3.cNpMUTGRiwu6xpL_JBX3JGgI3APLRCKXWH2rzp6wL1gMuy8P.oRa3l3OGkF_fRdb46lXdPkEzJlSlRC5iN5q6gk.eZBiVbXLvPYUkkQU.rTh_jUU054AebzFLZiAtky7_Ao-
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110011.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:57:10 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:57:10 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>, b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <498AD62D.1000600 AT neo.rr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <653546.48080.qm AT web110011.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:58 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion
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: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:57:21 -0000

Your stems are wrong.  There are basically 7 stems in active, passive pairs:
 
qal niphal
piel pual
hiphil hopal
 
hithpael is middle verse.  There are some other odd stems like pilpal and
polpal but they are rare and are the same as the piel pual.
 
Lloyd Barré
 
 

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com> wrote:

From: Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 12:06 PM

Hello all,

Still waiting for an answer to how to translate the following forms, and
if any are the same as the "big 7":
qal passive, pilel, tifil, polpal, hotpaal, hishtafel, and nitpael

Thanks in advance.

B"H
John Steven

"He who makes a mistake is still our friend; he who adds to or shortens
a melody is still our friend; but he who violates a rhythm unawares can
no longer be our friend."
-Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim 767-850 CE.

"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you
behave."
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

"The difference between the intelligent man and the simpleton is not the
correctness of their decisions, but rather the cunning sinner can more
skillfully defend and justify his iniquity."
- Rabbi Tovia Singer
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




>From l_barre AT yahoo.com Thu Feb 5 18:59:13 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 990AF4C01A; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:59:13 -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 n3.bullet.mail.re3.yahoo.com (n3.bullet.mail.re3.yahoo.com
[68.142.237.110])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75E0F4C01C
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:59:03 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [68.142.230.28] by n3.bullet.mail.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:59:03 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.83] by t1.bullet.re2.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:59:02 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.106] by t3.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:59:02 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
05 Feb 2009 23:59:02 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 536633.82625.bm AT omp110.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 19414 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Feb 2009 23:59:02 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
fAUKAY8VM1n6syyBUF2uXk2ndKH6mKPfJexV8B4qQUoOyscf31VoEhlU9R_Llrz02qrd0ajFpRsOnCMg7N.bbLPOWEWA9y9yBFDeT2gXNZKJ6g8aHDJ4DbthjhAjpp1w2g26H1ElKUoQCGYqhyXqW5oxpdyLV3YGZZZMnYW0jzFkTvlIBUAbFf9pTugvb_UxJuvC59Eix8XcsKhKRxTLHZ6VfpV5W6m9
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110012.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:59:01 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:59:01 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>,
b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <bfe5ca6f0902050502n7bdb4130v41314fa0a0c8fb27 AT mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <333683.18287.qm AT web110012.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:58 -0500
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] Verb Stems Confusion
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: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:59:13 -0000

You cannot translate the hiphil form into English.
It doesn't *mean* anything.
 
This is wrong.  qatil (hiphil) means "to cause to kill."
 
Lloyd Barré
 
 

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 1:02 PM

John,

I have a feeling you're going to continue to be disappointed in your
wait. What you're asking is how to translate FORMS, but forms do not
have translations. You cannot translate the hiphil form into English.
It doesn't *mean* anything. You need to ask a question about a
specific word that's found in the form in the Tanakh. That's a much
better question.

We can translate words based on (1) form, (2) context and (3) other
uses of the same word in different contexts. We cannot translate a
form itself into English. I don't understand the problem. Perhaps it's
one of exposure. You need to start exposing yourself to actual WORDS
in Hebrew as they fall into these various forms. Once you read these
forms (binyanim) with actual roots and context, it will make sense to
you.

I believe that all serious grammars of ivrit mikra'it (Biblical
Hebrew) treat these minor binyanim at some point. I'm sure they give
examples and context for each one. I don't have a biblical Hebrew
grammar with me at the moment, but if you look through whichever one
you have, I'm sure you can find references. Maybe someone here can
provide a reference for you.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that you should not ask how to
translate a binyan, since that doesn't even make sense. נכנס /nichnas/
NKNS is a niphal form meaning "he entered," which translates nothing
like נאכל /ne'echal/ N'KL "it was eaten." There is no
standard
translation for a binyan. It depends on the root and the meaning in a
given context. I hope this makes sense to you.

Regards,
Jason Hare
Rehovot, Israel

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Still waiting for an answer to how to translate the following forms, and
> if any are the same as the "big 7":
> qal passive, pilel, tifil, polpal, hotpaal, hishtafel, and nitpael
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> B"H
> John Steven
>
> "He who makes a mistake is still our friend; he who adds to or
shortens
> a melody is still our friend; but he who violates a rhythm unawares can
> no longer be our friend."
> -Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim 767-850 CE.
>
> "If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as
you
> behave."
> -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
>
> "The difference between the intelligent man and the simpleton is not
the
> correctness of their decisions, but rather the cunning sinner can more
> skillfully defend and justify his iniquity."
> - Rabbi Tovia Singer
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




>From l_barre AT yahoo.com Thu Feb 5 19:01:33 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 16D154C01D; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:01:33 -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 n5.bullet.mail.re4.yahoo.com (n5.bullet.mail.re4.yahoo.com
[206.190.56.24])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 151EB4C017
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:01:23 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [68.142.237.88] by n5.bullet.re4.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:01:22 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.83] by t4.bullet.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:01:22 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.99] by t3.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:01:22 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:01:22 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 63493.1695.bm AT omp103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 76380 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Feb 2009 00:01:22 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
EHFxZlcVM1mO56DWfHLpRVpV5CIxb6MprGvhENsytmI9ve6uEUzsKd0EVVXrqthIiZBciT8dDk.kjcwxI7BbK6pSDouS5ZsHcn6BP3.AlPG9abaxp4IL06SUDVTewMplz.wNCialjVZivd5akZ9LCIQXHwz.80bnWxu3KwKwiSwGHobEnlGHhifBTjWWPR4-
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110003.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:01:21 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:01:21 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: Olivier Randrianjaka <rev_oli AT hotmail.com>,
b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <BAY102-W7FFDD81781AA3A1E699E69BC00 AT phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <963661.76076.qm AT web110003.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:58 -0500
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] Verb Stems Confusion
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: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:01:33 -0000

What do you mean by "word pairs?"  Do you mean words that are used in
parallelism?  There are many, many word pairs if that is what you mean.. 
You will not find a book on that I fear.

 
Lloyd Barré
 
 

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Olivier Randrianjaka <rev_oli AT hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Olivier Randrianjaka <rev_oli AT hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion
To: jaihare AT gmail.com, "b-hebrew Forum" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 1:25 PM

Hi all of you!!
I am looking for the most recent works concerning Word pairs studies in
Biblical as well as in ancient Semitic literatures, CAN ANYONE HELP?
Thanks a lot.

Olivier Randrianjaka
PhD Student at
Mission School and TheologyStavanger, Norway
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:02:42 +0200> From: jaihare AT gmail.com> To:
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion>
> John,> > I have a feeling you're going to continue to be
disappointed in your> wait. What you're asking is how to translate FORMS,
but forms do not> have translations. You cannot translate the hiphil form
into English.> It doesn't *mean* anything. You need to ask a question
about a> specific word that's found in the form in the Tanakh. That's
a much> better question.> > We can translate words based on (1) form,
(2) context and (3) other> uses of the same word in different contexts. We
cannot translate a> form itself into English. I don't understand the
problem. Perhaps it's> one of exposure. You need to start exposing
yourself to actual WORDS> in Hebrew as they fall into these various forms.
Once you read these> forms (binyanim) with actual roots and context, it will
make sense to> you.> > I believe that all serious grammars of ivrit
mikra'it (Biblical> Hebrew) treat these minor binyanim at some point.
I'm sure they give> examples and context for each one. I don't have a
biblical Hebrew> grammar with me at the moment, but if you look through
whichever one> you have, I'm sure you can find references. Maybe someone
here can> provide a reference for you.> > Essentially, what I'm
saying is that you should not ask how to> translate a binyan, since that
doesn't even make sense. נכנס /nichnas/> NKNS is a niphal form
meaning "he entered," which translates nothing> like נאכל
/ne'echal/ N'KL "it was eaten." There is no standard>
translation for a binyan. It depends on the root and the meaning in a> given
context. I hope this makes sense to you.> > Regards,> Jason Hare>
Rehovot, Israel> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Brak
<Brak AT neo.rr.com> wrote:> > Hello all,> >> > Still
waiting for an answer to how to translate the following forms, and> > if
any are the same as the "big 7":> > qal passive, pilel, tifil,
polpal, hotpaal, hishtafel, and nitpael> >> > Thanks in advance.>
>> > B"H> > John Steven> >> > "He who makes
a mistake is still our friend; he who adds to or shortens> > a melody is
still our friend; but he who violates a rhythm unawares can> > no longer
be our friend."> > -Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim 767-850 CE.> >> >
"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as
you> > behave."> > -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen> >>
> "The difference between the intelligent man and the simpleton is not
the> > correctness of their decisions, but rather the cunning sinner can
more> > skillfully defend and justify his iniquity."> > - Rabbi
Tovia Singer> _______________________________________________> b-hebrew
mailing list> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_________________________________________________________________
Découvrez toutes les possibilités de communication avec vos proches
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




>From l_barre AT yahoo.com Thu Feb 5 19:30:14 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 390DF4C01A; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:30:14 -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 n7.bullet.re3.yahoo.com (n7.bullet.re3.yahoo.com
[68.142.237.92])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B12F94C017
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:30:02 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [68.142.230.28] by n7.bullet.re3.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:30:02 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.81] by t1.bullet.re2.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:30:01 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.110] by t1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:30:01 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:30:01 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 581498.9216.bm AT omp114.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 84516 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Feb 2009 00:30:01 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
H.7ouz4VM1ni9F1Gj1T48klfmqXAHEdMn195.X7XgNSZky9BBGLlCU9ZshYQPCwlW8XqdbYs2.aQDz40whyBBh9XYsZnMS12NPoyHsY6haA7e67mZtMd65EGxlMlnRL8wHj2g9Y7SYLVUutO83q_y9tBxicrMOy9S3xXlGrmgazFTdV1Ock2Ow.QTKetKPnoYgUhGwo-
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:30:01 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:30:01 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>,
b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <498A21DF.90203 AT cascadeaccess.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <326152.84061.qm AT web110002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:58 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
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: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:30:14 -0000

"Pentateuch itself claims to have been written by Moses."
 
Where?
 
Lloyd Barré
 
 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com> wrote:

From: Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
To: l_barre AT yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 11:16 PM

You're agreeing with me, right? Are you saying that Karl is a solipsist? Or
what?

LM Barre wrote:
> The question about the dating of the Pentateuch is not simply a matter
> of "interpretations built on pre-chosen ideologies/religious
> beliefs".
>
> This is solipcism, locked into one's subjectivity where objectivity is
denied. This is patently false. We touch the objective world, especially
through science.
> Lloyd Barré
> http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 2/4/09, Gabe Eisenstein /<gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>/*
wrote:
>
> From: Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 5:43 PM
>
> Karl knows a lot more Hebrew than I do, but I know a lot more about
evidence, logic and interpretation. Karl supports his idiosyncratic views
of the latter by links to kooky Christian websites. I suggest that a
clearer
view of the role of interpretation in science can be found by studying
books
like the following:
>
> Truth and Method -- Hans-Georg Gadamer
> Fact, Fiction and Forecast -- Nelson Goodman
> The Structure of Scientific Revolutions -- Thomas Kuhn
> Conjectures and Refutations -- Karl Popper
> The Structure of Scientific Inference -- Mary Hesse
>
> Karl will say that authors like these represent some kind of
> "bandwagon" -- which is the whole mainstream and
university world of science. It is a matter of pride for him that only
religious fundamentalists share his views. And yet his whole rhetorical
style is based on constantly using the words "evidence",
"logic", etc. in order to falsely
> suggest that he has something in common with real scientists and
philosophers of science.
>
> The question about the dating of the Pentateuch is not simply a matter
of "interpretations built on pre-chosen ideologies/religious
> beliefs". Remember that Karl also thinks that theories about
the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, or the different structures
of
rocks and minerals (let alone the development of current life forms on
earth), are also a matter of religious belief. Because the events they
refer
to HAPPENED IN THE PAST! But just like theories in astronomy and geology,

theories about the Pentateuch are possible because different accounts of
the past have different consequences for the present (e.g. what we find in
existing documents). Some are plausible, some are possible and some are
impossible. Some fit nicely with other plausible theories, while others do
not.
>
> To put things very simply: there are degrees of evidence and
plausibility. It's not just a binary world of "evidence" versus
"interpretation" and "religious belief". Rather,
> interpretation is absolutely necessary to scientific practice, as
we try to refine theories and sort the wheat from the chaff. This is what
George Athas was getting at by saying that Karl's talk of interpretation
raised a straw man. (And again, see the authors mentioned above.)
>
> Karl wrote:
> One example, do the different words for God refer to different sources
of
> documents, or did even the earliest documents indicate that the
people
> recognized one God, but that he had a few titles besides his name? The
> answers to that question shows how the different ideologies interpret
the
> same data. And the different ideologies / faiths predetermine the
answers to
> those questions.
>
> This paragraph utterly misrepresents the arguments of
source-criticism, as others have mentioned. It isn't a matter of
"different names for God", but of sets of texts in which, for no
apparent reason, God has one name or the other, AND the fact that these
texts correlate with geographical, ideological AND stylistic features that
also distinguish the texts. The most succinct and cogent arguments I know
of
here are contained in Friedman's The Hidden Book in the Bible
(appendix). None of his arguments are based on premises that are accepted
on
faith. In contrast, the explanation that "[God] had a few titles
besides his
> name" is no explanation at all.
> (Does this mean I "believe in" Friedman? No, I disagree with
several
> of his conclusions, and I think that the whole theory is subject
to revision or disconfirmation. I am also neither a maximalist nor
minimalist; my current guesses put the authorship of the bulk of the
Pentateuch in the 9th-6th centuries.)
>
> I would also like to challenge Karl's assertion that the text of
the Pentateuch itself claims to have been written by Moses. I don't know
if this has been discussed on the list before, but the evidence of verses

referring to "this book" or "this teaching" (torah) are
> extremely ambiguous. They could refer to various subtexts like
Deuteronomy or the Holiness Code, or they could refer to the entire Bible
(the book you are holding in your hands which talks of "this
book"). What, you
> don't think that Moses' death counts against the latter
hypothesis, do you? After all, Talmudists believed that everything in the
"oral Torah" was
> already stated on Mt. Sinai (including the words of rabbis from
the first century and later). As for me, I don't accept supernatural
accounts (including statements showing knowledge of the future) in the
absence of very compelling evidence. On the other hand, I do accept as
evidence against Mosaic authorship even details such as the claim that
Moses
was the most humble man (a claim that the most humble man could not make

about himself). This is indeed a matter of interpretation, but also of
plausibility.
>
>
> Gabe Eisenstein
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>




>From l_barre AT yahoo.com Thu Feb 5 19:40:48 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 C5DFD4C01C; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:40:48 -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 n70.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n70.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
[98.136.44.38])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17A154C017
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:40:35 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [69.147.84.144] by n70.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:27:20 -0000
Received: from [68.142.230.28] by t6.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:40:33 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.81] by t1.bullet.re2.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:40:33 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.109] by t1.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:40:33 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:40:33 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 212272.56950.bm AT omp113.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 40513 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Feb 2009 00:40:32 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
d3bJBS0VM1miluNAKrep_pPWYgMjxlCQ.m.6bukx8C52n7lf5Z1hKTPXmgEogmMLr2Fb1M4T8bp1CCACfXRPILS4l7tEoLBQ9WA2qcWJFMyEujDCugeP_wKIL6Rg5KkLH.z4YO_DuanFTPZkBKo84PLqnT7RzgX46RPa5tgmLKjfneFb5DDxLBTTdgwX4J7CDnIIig--
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110014.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:40:32 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:40:32 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com>,
b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <D1293485A4B44B868EACE2C1A4CC2BD0@ConniePC>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <912149.39378.qm AT web110014.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:58 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
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: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:40:48 -0000

However, the conservative scholar looks for reasonable and logical answers
that still maintain the integrity of God's Word.
 
This bias is unacceptable to mainstream scholarship.  One must be objective
without importing foreign theological notions.
 
Lloyd Barré
 
 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com> wrote:

From: Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
To: l_barre AT yahoo.com, "b-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 11:56 PM





Kevin:
 
Knowledge of what, implications, inferences and circumstantial evidence that
really is nothing more than an overactive imagination.
 
You write: Among Christians it seems to be mainly among conservative
evangelicals who hold to the concept of an inerrant Bible that any form of
documentary sources are unacceptable.  They do not make up the totality, or
even the majority, of conservative Christians and Jews who would consider
themselves to be biblical scholars. 
 
Ed: This is the exact thing I am talking about. The majority of nothing
equals being in the right. If we were to apply that status, more Christians
and Jews in the last 2,000 have accepted inerrancy and Moses as the writer of
the Torah. Evidence is what makes the case, not winsome words. If one looks
at both side, the conservative scholar offers the better case. When
discrepancies come up, it is all to easy for the liberal progressive to go
into some spin about JEDP authors and a Redactor. However, the conservative
scholar looks for reasonable and logical answers that still maintain the
integrity of God's Word.
 
Conservative scholarship took their eye off the ball in the 19th century,
seeing liberal scholarship as no serious problem; viewing them as a small
nuisance at best. They gave no consideration until the 1970's forward, by
that time universities were overrun with liberal scholarship. True enough,
they have taken the lead, but it hasn't been for the betterment of anything.
What is church attendance today? What is the conversion rate of evangelism
today? How many are moving to atheism? Was this the case when conservative
scholarship was in the driver's seat?
 
Conservatives have rebounded, but they will not likely recover because of two
reasons. 1.) Liberal scholarship refuses to make the same mistake as the
conservatives; they are not taking their eye off the ball. 2.) Tabloid sales!
If someone writes an article that Jesus was a bastard son and and married a
prostitute to father 12 boys that all formed a new Israel based on some new
gospel; the sales would be off the charts. But if an article is written on
the validity of the resurrection; it will have no such success in sales. The
world we live in is tabloid hungry. The liberal progressive scholarship feeds
that world and does nothing more than plant atheists and agnostics. Liberal
scholarship only gives fuel to the atheist and diminishes the validity and
trustworthiness of God's Word all in the name of scholarship and wishful
thinking.
 
Edward Andrews
Liberty University



----- Original Message -----
From: LM Barre
To: b-Hebrew
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources

What is your point? Knowledge is impossible?


Lloyd Barré
http://freewebs.com/lmbarre


--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com> wrote:

From: Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
To: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>, "b-Hebrew"
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 9:11 AM

You wrote: "that depends on how you define. . . ." This is the second
time this idea has been said in the last two posts.

This is a part of the problem. Everyone has their own definition of this or
that. This independent spirit has caused 28,000 varieties of Christianity. But
then again, I guess that depends on how you define Christianity.

I guess that depends on how you define Christianity
I guess that depends on how you define Conservative
I guess that depends on how you define inerrancy
I guess that depends on how you define inspired
I guess that depends on how you define evidence

Edward Andrews
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Kevin Riley
  To: b-Hebrew
  Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources


  I suspect that depends on how you define "conservative".  I think
you will
  find that there are many who would define themselves as conservative in
  religious terms who would either accept the idea of documentary sources
  [even if not in the classical EDJP form] or have an open mind on the subject
   Among Christians iIt seems to be mainly among conservative evangelicals who
  hold to the concept of an inerrant Bible that any form of documentary
  sources are unacceptable.  They do not make up the totality, or even the
  majority, of conservative Christians and Jews who would consider themselves
  to be biblical scholars. 

  Kevin Riley
  
  -------Original Message-------
  
  From: Bryant J. Williams III
  Date: 4/02/2009 5:54:49 PM
  
  Dear Lloyd,
  
  Amongst "mainstream" scholars "so-called" it is accepted.
Amongst
  conservative
  Scholars it is NOT accepted.
  
  Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
  
  _______________________________________________
  b-hebrew mailing list
  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



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



>From l_barre AT yahoo.com Thu Feb 5 19:55:53 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 A3BEB4C01A; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:55:53 -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 n60.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n60.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
[98.136.44.40])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C3E54C017
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:55:43 -0500
(EST)
Received: from [216.252.122.217] by n60.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:55:42 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.82] by t2.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:55:42 -0000
Received: from [67.195.9.100] by t2.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:55:42 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
06 Feb 2009 00:55:42 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 305544.81364.bm AT omp104.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 89239 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Feb 2009 00:55:42 -0000
X-YMail-OSG:
MnE03bsVM1mfiq7cCsRF.qPvlORKVml24XffpSNe5W24chgxthS.WlanILxq6Eoczk3Dj1_1b0y1p3skY7rDAXkeD2ZgucFq8Bg6lRUXsqoaHkng6iJhtXPG1XiQ5A78A.IDfACOPU8XTUS9k_yLlkey14LyA3n7GrPoVEFPgn6LL0KQY3ph6NgSVOLX_Ih26UU_Gw--
Received: from [98.173.36.135] by web110011.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:55:41 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:55:41 -0800 (PST)
From: LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>,
b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <acd782170902041702i6070bdfdufb8488d79ea26808 AT mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <845270.88316.qm AT web110011.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:57:58 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
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: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:55:53 -0000

In this case, the absence of evidence, may be evidence that something is
screwed up.
 
Evidence is created from data.  Sometimes that evidence will continue to
support a thesis, sometimes not.  There is no reason to throw up one's hands
in the air and become jaded to research.  On must take in new evidence or new
data and form a better hypothesis.  Research is ongoing and revisionistic by
nature.  Many here seem to be jaded skeptics for no valid reason whatsover. 
Probably because there does not seem to be much contact with mainstream
biblical research but rather an ingrown skepticism.  Just today I was looking
at a credible research book called, The Oxford Companion to the Bible.  I
must say, it does not seem that anyone here reads these main scholarly works. 
I don't think anyone has much to say unless they have read Frank Cross'
extremely important, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.  This is just of of the
classic books that one reads for doctoral studies for a credible university. 
Oh my, such skepticism in this corner of the
conceptual universe.
 
Lloyd Barré
 
 

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 1:02 AM

Bill:
I mentioned before the history of the Documentary Hypothesis: in that
history, it was fully formed, even to the basic outline of the sources,
before a single archaeological survey was made of the Sinai. Its founders
openly admitted that their guiding principles were philosophical / religious
in nature.

As for its continuance, those founding principles are still operative. Now
archaeological data have been added. But are they accurate? Some field
archaeologists seem to disagree.

For example, you mention, "…such large number of people occupying the
Sinai
region at that time." What time do you mean? I read from a field
archaeologist that he considers from the evidence in Egypt that the Exodus
occurred at the end of the 13th dynasty. Did you mean that surveys indicate
that no such large group of people from that time period wandered in the
wilderness? Or wasn't that time period checked? If not, why not?

I have nothing against outside evidence. But an honest evaluation will have
to admit that in many cases that outside evidence is not trustworthy. E.g.
Dame Kenyon asserted that there was no large city at Jericho when Joshua
brought down the walls. She based her claim on a dating scheme that over a
half century ago people were pointing out as seriously flawed. But the
academic mainstream circled the wagons and is still defending the
indefensible to this day. If we allow that Joshua destroyed a large city at
Jericho, then the data fits also that only two other cities in Canaan were
burned at that time, and those cities are the same as those listed in
Joshua.

In this case, the absence of evidence, may be evidence that something is
screwed up.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Bill Rea <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz>
wrote:

> Karl wrote:
>
> >I think Moses wrote Exodus about 1440 BC telling the true story of the
> >exodus. This is what is indicated when cross referencing other
> >verses in the Bible. But a Naturalist will come along and say that it
> is
> >impossible for the story to be true, because of all the claims of the
> >supernatural acting into history.
>
> I expect you know better but this isn't why people think the account
is
> not historically accurate. A principle often quoted on this list is
> ``absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'', but the
reality is,
> in many cases, exactly that. I give you an example. Not far from where I
> work is a large playing field, the ground is always soft there. Either
> it rains or it is irrigated. Suppose someone says that a herd of
> elephants ran through the fields last night. Laying to one side whether
> this is reasonable thing to claim, if I go to the playing fields and
> there are no elephant footprints then this is evidence of absence, i.e.
> that no elephants ran through there last night. It is this problem which
> plagues the Exodus account and has prompted a few discussions of the
> meaning of eleph, usually translated thousand, in these accounts.
> According to the accounts there were 600,000+ men not counting women or
> children who lived for 40 years in the Sinai region. Even if we grant
> supernatural feeding and so on so that there is no question about what
> did they eat or drink, there is still no evidence of such large number
> of people occupying the Sinai region at that time. So even allowing
> supernatural intervention does not solve the problem. Its not a case of
> supernaturalist against naturalists, it's a case of whether you allow
> outside evidence to inform your understanding of the texts. I see
> nothing in either the Christian or Jewish religious traditions which
> bars adherents from examining the evidence and allowing that evidence to
> influence their understanding of the texts.
>
>
> Bill Rea, Ph.D. 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 (/'
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




>From dbelot AT bigpond.net.au Thu Feb 5 20:59:00 2009
Return-Path: <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>
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 A403A4C01C; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:59:00 -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=STOX_REPLY_TYPE
autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from nskntmtas04p.mx.bigpond.com (nskntmtas04p.mx.bigpond.com
[61.9.168.146])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903C64C01A
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:58:58 -0500
(EST)
Received: from nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com ([124.185.43.132])
by nskntmtas04p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id

<20090206015856.LDS1877.nskntmtas04p.mx.bigpond.com AT nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com>;
Fri, 6 Feb 2009 01:58:56 +0000
Received: from homeiavnpau67c ([124.185.43.132])
by nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com with SMTP id
<20090206015855.XGOQ12531.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@homeiavnpau67c>;
Fri, 6 Feb 2009 01:58:55 +0000
Message-ID: <002301c987fe$711d5340$0201010a@homeiavnpau67c>
From: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>
To: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>, <JimStinehart AT aol.com>,
<gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <c62.416d7af0.36bcab73 AT aol.com>
<00ac01c987f8$7f8b6210$0201010a@homeiavnpau67c>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:58:44 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-RPD-ScanID: Class unknown; VirusThreatLevel unknown, RefID
str01.0A150205.498B9960.007B,ss=1,fgs=0
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?
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: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:59:00 -0000



> You cannot use the word Palestine for Canaan or Israel and be correct , if
> you wish to refer to the land the Phillistines "raped and plundered" you
> should put Canaan , before Moses and Israel after , God wont like you
> calling his land Palestine .
>
> doug belot
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JimStinehart AT aol.com>
> To: <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Can absence of evidence be evidence of absence?
>
>
>>
>> Gabe Eisenstein:
>>
>> You wrote: “Everything I've read about the Philistines says they arrived
>> in
>> Palestine in the 12th century. But Abraham visited them in Gen.21 &
>> 26….So if
>> historians are right about the Philistines, the Biblical texts are
>> anachronistic.”
>>
>> Abraham’s interaction with the “Philistines” is not anachronistic.
>>
>> You are talking about the classic Philistines, who after the 12th century
>> BCE
>> are prominent on the southwest coast of Canaan. Abraham is never on the
>> southwest coast of Canaan. And Abraham has nothing to do with the 12th
>> century
>> BCE or any later time period.
>>
>> John Van Seters, at pp. 53-54 of “Abraham in History and Tradition”,
>> though
>> trying to de-bunk the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, in fact
>> nicely explains the situation regarding Abraham and the Philistines.
>> Note
>> how Van
>> Seters deftly points out that the “Philistines” with whom Abraham deals
>> have
>> n-o-t-h-i-n-g whatsoever to do with the classic Philistines you are
>> talking
>> about:
>>
>> “Genesis…does not use the term seren, the oldest term for the ruler of
>> a
>> Philistine city…. Genesis also speaks about a Philistine king of Gerar,
>> but this
>> is not one of the five royal cities [of the historical classic
>> Philistines],
>> and there is no other historical record of a Philistine monarchy at Gerar
>> or
>> at any other city apart from the pentapolis. Furthermore, when Abraham
>> and
>> Isaac enter into treaties with the Philistines no other ruler except
>> Abimelech
>> (with a Semitic name!) is mentioned. Yet in the book of Judges and in
>> the
>> stories from the time of Saul and David, the five rulers of the
>> Philistines always
>> act in concert.”
>>
>> Consider now the following pertinent facts.
>>
>> 1. We Cannot Rely on the Name “Philistines”
>>
>> In Hebrew, the name “Philistines” sounds like “Invaders”. If the
>> Patriarchal narratives are an ancient text from the mid-14th century BCE
>> (my view), the
>> pre-Hebrew author could have used the name “Philistines” to describe
>> the
>> foreign mercenaries that appeared in Canaan in that period. So we cannot
>> rely
>> exclusively on the name “Philistines”, out of context. Rather, what
>> counts is
>> whether the people in Abimelek’s land match the description of the
>> classic
>> Philistines in the rest of the Bible and in secular history. They don’t.
>>
>> 2. Stopping Up Wells
>>
>> The classic Philistines would never stop up their own wells. That would
>> be
>> idiotic. Consider now the following key lines of text:
>>
>> “Now all the wells which his [Isaac's] father's servants had digged in
>> the
>> days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled
>> them
>> with earth. …And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had
>> digged
>> in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them
>> after
>> the death of Abraham”. Genesis 26: 15, 18
>>
>> Certainly the classic Philistines would not sabotage their own wells!
>> The
>> “
>> Philistines” who stopped up Abimelek’s wells here must, rather, be
>> foreign
>> mercenaries, or “Invaders”, who were hired by rival princelings to put
>> pressure
>> on Abimelek by sabotaging Abimelek’s invaluable water wells. These “
>> Philistines”/foreign mercenaries/"Invaders" cannot be the classic
>> Philistines, who
>> would certainly not have sabotaged their own wells.
>>
>> 3. No Philistine Names
>>
>> The name “Phicol” comes from Anatolia, and is not a Philistine name.
>> Phicol
>> is the head of princeling Abimelek’s tiny militia, which is fully
>> consistent
>> with Phicol being a foreign mercenary/"Invader" whom Abimelek has hired
>> to
>> maintain Abimelek in power. Only this tiny ethnic militia is composed of
>> foreign
>> mercenaries/“Invaders”/“Philistines”. Abimelek himself is a
>> Canaanite.
>> The classic Philistines were not mercenaries and are never portrayed in
>> the rest
>> of the Bible as being mercenaries. “Abimelek” and “Ahuzzath” are
>> west
>> Semitic names, not classic Philistine names. Based on these names and
>> the
>> foregoing factors, Abimelek and Ahuzzath must be local Canaanites, who
>> are
>> using a
>> tiny number of foreign mercenaries/"Invaders"/"Philistines" to keep
>> Abimelek in
>> power, and who have to contend with the fact that rival Canaanites are
>> now
>> hiring their own foreign mercenaries/"Invaders"/"Philistines" to put
>> pressure on
>> Abimelek. None of this makes any sense at all for the classic
>> Philistines.
>>
>> This situation is entirely redolent of the mid-14th century BCE and the
>> Amarna Letters, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the 12th century
>> BCE
>> or any
>> later time period.
>>
>> 4. Abimelek Is Way Too Gallant
>>
>> Abimelek is portrayed as being the most gracious Gentile in the entirety
>> of
>> the Patriarchal narratives. No mid-1st millennium BCE Hebrew or Jewish
>> scribe
>> would portray their long-time rivals, the classic Philistines, in such a
>> flattering manner.
>>
>> Here are some of the gallant words that the author of the Patriarchal
>> narratives puts into Abimelek’s mouth, words that no mid-1st millennium
>> BCE Hebrew
>> would ever put into the mouth of a despised rival classic Philistine
>> leader:
>>
>> “And Abimelech said [to Abraham and Sarah]: 'Behold, my land is before
>> thee:
>> dwell where it pleaseth thee.'” Genesis 20: 15
>>
>> “And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain
>> of
>> his host spoke unto Abraham, saying: 'God is with thee in all that thou
>> doest.
>> ’” Genesis 21: 22
>>
>> “And Abimelech charged all the people, saying: 'He that toucheth this
>> man
>> [Isaac] or his wife [Rebekah] shall surely be put to death.'” Genesis
>> 26: 11
>>
>> “And they [Abimelech, Phicol and Ahuzzath] said: 'We saw plainly that the
>> LORD [YHWH] was with thee [Isaac]; and we said: Let there now be an
>> oath
>> betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with
>> thee”.
>> Genesis 26: 28
>>
>> Conclusion: The “Philistines” in Genesis Are Not the Classic
>> Philistines
>>
>> The geography of Abimelek's people in chapters 20, 21 and 26 of Genesis
>> never
>> touches any land dominated by the classic Philistines, much less
>> mentioning
>> any of the classic Philistines' five grand cities. "Abimelek" and
>> "Ahuzzath"
>> are west Semitic names, not Philistine names. “Phicol” is not a
>> Philistine
>> name either. “Phicol” is an Anatolian name, and Phicol, the leader of
>> a
>> tiny
>> ethnic militia, is the only named person in the Patriarchal narratives
>> who
>> is a
>> foreign mercenary/“Invader”/“Philistine”. Abimelek, with that
>> classic
>> west
>> Semitic name, is a local Canaanite, not a member of the classic
>> Philistines,
>> and not a “Philistine” in the Patriarchal narratives either.
>>
>> N-o-t-h-i-n-g that is said about the "Philistines" in the Patriarchal
>> narratives matches anything we know about the classic Philistines, nor
>> does it match
>> in any way the Hebrews' negatively biased view of their rival neighbors
>> on
>> the coast of southern Canaan in the rest of the Bible.
>>
>> In a word, the "Philistines" in the Patriarchal narratives simply cannot
>> be
>> the classic Philistines. Nothing matches! The 1st millennium BCE
>> Hebrews
>> and
>> Jews knew the classic Philistines well, and would never have described
>> the
>> classic Philistines in such a manner as is done in the Patriarchal
>> narratives.
>> Though the n-a-m-e "Philistines" is the same in the Patriarchal
>> narratives
>> and in the rest of the Bible, with the rest of the Bible clearly
>> referring
>> to
>> the classic Philistines on the southwest coast of Canaan in the post-13th
>> century BCE time period, nothing but that name "Philistines" matches in
>> any way,
>> shape or form to either Abimelek's people, or to the "Philistines”, in
>> the
>> Patriarchal narratives.
>>
>> Despite their n-a-m-e, the "Philistines" described in the Patriarchal
>> narratives simply are not the classic Philistines. Abimelek and his
>> people are
>> Canaanites, not the classic Philistines, who have hired a small number of
>> foreign
>> mercenaries/"Philistines", with rival Canaanite princelings likewise
>> having
>> started to hire a small number of foreign mercenaries/"Philistines".
>>
>> Gabe, in order to substantiate your claim that the Philistines in the
>> Patriarchal narratives are anachronistic, you would need to show
>> something
>> about the
>> Philistines in the Patriarchal narratives, beyond merely the name
>> “Philistines”
>> , that matches the classic Philistines from the 12th century BCE and
>> later.
>> In fact, there is n-o-t-h-i-n-g that matches. You will not be able to
>> point
>> to anything in the Patriarchal narratives regarding the “Philistines”
>> that
>> evidences any knowledge of anything from the post-13th century BCE
>> period.
>> The
>> author of the Patriarchal narratives knew absolutely nothing about the
>> classic Philistines, who had not yet come into existence. Instead of
>> just
>> repeating
>> the name “Philistines”, you would need to point to something in the
>> text
>> that shows knowledge of the classic Philistines. Van Seters’ quote above
>> cuts
>> the opposite way he wants it to. It shows that the author of the
>> Patriarchal
>> narratives knew nothing whatsoever about the classic Philistines.
>>
>> Jim Stinehart
>> Evanston, Illinois
>>
>> **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
>> stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.18/1935 - Release Date:
> 4/02/2009
> 4:35 PM
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.18/1936 - Release Date: 5/02/2009
11:34 AM



  • [b-hebrew] Verb Stems Confusion, Uri Hurwitz, 02/05/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page