b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd AT mac.com>
- To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 13:33:25 -0700
I too would be interested in a site that focused on Biblical Hebrew following more along the format of B-Greek.
Mark Spirsbergen
Sent from my iPhone
On May 24, 2009, at 10:20 AM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Origin of the Phillistines (Kevin Riley)
2. Re: Origin of the Phillistines (George Athas)
3. Re: Hebrew as a holy language (George Athas)
4. Re: Origin of the Phillistines (James Read)
5. Re: Origin of the Phillistines (Tory Thorpe)
6. Re: Origin of the Phillistines (James Read)
7. Scholarly list (Jeff Papier)
8. Re: Scholarly list (Eric Inman)
9. Re: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35 Holy days
(thebodyofjesusthenazoraion AT juno.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 21:26:34 +1000 (AUS Eastern Standard Time)
From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Origin of the Phillistines
To: "B Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <4A192ECD.000011.05488@YOUR-A9279112E3>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
James,
I thought I was aware of all the surviving Gaelic - Irish and Scottish -
groups, but I have not heard of any Gaelic speakers in Wales since the
middle ages. But it may be a connection (somewhat tenuous) to an analogy
with the Philistines. It is a matter of historical record that there was a
Norman invasion of Ireland in the C12th, the invaders speaking a Norman form
of French. That language disappeared rather quickly, due to the adoption of
Irish (Gaelic) as the language of the home (or castle :) ), with English
retained (often somewhat precariously) as the prestige spoken language, and
Latin for all official documents. If the Philistines also were from the
beginning a small section of the population occupying the top layer, then
there is no reason why their home language must survive beyond the first
couple of generations. We know the Normans spoke French because (apart from
the fact that the speaking of Norman-French is well attested in England
before the invasion) Norman-French words were adopted by the Irish. Gars?n
is still the word for 'boy' in parts of Ireland. Apart from their names and
a few words in Irish, there is very little to attest to the Normans in
Ireland being French speakers. Even royal decrees threatening severe
punishment did not stop them speaking Irish. Looking at things the other
way, there were Irish invasions of Wales and Cornwall, but you will not find
evidence of their existence in the language today. Their descendents very
quickly adopted Welsh, Cornish or English. Going back further, we have
tribes in Britain and in Ireland with what appear to be the same names, and
a known Belgic origin (if they are the same people) yet from our earliest
records they speak British or early Irish respectively.
Are you sure the Philistines that Abraham dealt with are the same
Philistines that David defeated? Or could this be another example of
Macedonians' where the name of a place remains, but the inhabitants change?
Just out of curiosity, if the Philistines were Hamitic and from Egypt, why
would they speak a Semitic language? Does this not require a language
change just as if they were Indo-European?
Kevin Riley
-------Original Message-------
From: James Read
Date: 24/05/2009 7:39:03 PM
It seems more likely that the Philistine language has always been of
Semitic origin and any traces of Indo-European loan words and
Mycenaean pottery can perhaps be better explained by the influence of
Later invaders. Indigenous peoples tend to cherish their language and
Culture and not all invasions are successful in supplanting the
Language (there are still communities in Wales that speak a Gaelic
Dialect to this day).
And so the above linguistic and archaeological observations perhaps
Best answer the question of where those who later invaded and
Influenced the philistines came from but not what the original
Language of the philistines was or where the philistines originally
Came from. The accounts in Genesis make it clear to us that the
Philistines are
a) of Hamitic origin (more precisely from Egypt)
B) spoke a Semitic language from their very conception as a nation
James Christian
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 21:42:07 +1000
From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Origin of the Phillistines
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <C63F6FAF.6185%george.athas AT moore.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
James,
I'm not sure if you realise, but there are very few people (if any) who seriously challenge the idea that the Philistines are the Pereset of Ramesses III's account of the invasion of the Sea Peoples in c.1176 BC. Not only is it a good linguistic match between Egyptian and Hebrew, but the archaeological record supports the identification (see the production of Mycenean IIIB ware in the Levant). This is a basic datum of the historical record. It actually provides a very firm external point of verification for the Philistines, making the hypothesis I described previously anything but circular reasoning. Only if you reject the Philistine=Pereset identification could you possibly see it as circular reasoning. And if you do reject the identification, you'd have to show good reason why - which would probably have to take the form of newly discovered evidence. The hypothesis stands on good solid ground - not a 'shaky foundation' at all. It's not 'my' theory - it's the basic wisdom of
the academy at the moment.
It seems you have a bit of history to brush up on, James. Before then, you might want to think again about lambasting some of the most basic ideas in the field.
Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 21:57:15 +1000
From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew as a holy language
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <C63F733B.618C%george.athas AT moore.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
James,
It seems that you're not entirely clear on what I mean by evidence that circumvents circular reasoning. When I say that there is practically no evidence for Hebrew in the EBA, I'm talking about evidence outside of the Bible that might act as a control or point of comparison for the Hebrew Bible. You can't then appeal to the Bible as evidence of EBA Hebrew (or whatever you want to call it). That's completely circular, and what we're trying to avoid.
You also seem to have missed the point about the 'world of the text'. In the world of the text, Moses speaks Hebrew. He doesn't speak Egyptian, and he doesn't write in Egyptian. He speaks and writes Hebrew. That much is certain. Now, what a real historical Moses who lived and breathed in our world did or didn't do is another issue entirely. I can see why you'd want to extrapolate from the biblical text about a real historical Moses. However, you have to justify the move from the world of the biblical text to the real world and show how they are 1-to-1 the same, because logically speaking it's not immediately apparent.
If I apply the standard you're using to all literature, I'll end up concluding that there once was a family of bears that lived in the woods somewhere, and they ate porridge and spoke English. In other words, there can be some silly conclusions as a result of bad logic.
Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 13:07:45 +0100
From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Origin of the Phillistines
To: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <20090524130745.l7azgde40skgg0o8 AT www.sms.ed.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"
You see,
the basic reason we are failing to understand each other is because
you are using the term Philistines to refer to the non-indigenous
invaders who had little effect other than bringing their pottery and
influencing the architecture of building projects.
I am talking about the original philistines, the ones that came from
Mizraim's offspring, the ones that are indigenous to the area. Not to
the invaders. The reason they spoke a Semitic language is quite simply
because that is all they ever spoke. The few loan words that the
Indo-European invaders managed to cause to enter the language is in no
way shape or form conclusive evidence that the Philistines (I am
talking about the indigenous *not* the invaders) ever spoke that
foreign tongue.
Even the foreign architecture has inscriptions which are Semitic in
origin. This only testifies how the invaders were completely
unsuccessful in supplanting the Philistines Semitic language. The
theory that the Philistines:
a) spoke Semitic
b) then spoke Indo-European for a few generations
c) then thought 'sod that! Let's magically relearn Semitic again'
is both unproven, unlikely and quite possibly even implausible.
I purposefully haven't commented on your identification of Pereset
with Philistines because even if these can be reliably matched the
only thing it goes to show is that is the name of the indigenous was
being used to describe the invaders. This is the exact same mistake as
you seem to be making.
It is contextually clear that this same mistake was not made in
Genesis and the references to the Philistines are to the indigenous
Hamitic offspring of Mizraim with a king with a Semitic name Abimelech.
I mean come on. Can you get much more Semitic than Abimelech? Having a
name like Abimelech is like having a verified stamp of being a 100%
lean mean Semitic reigning machine.
The genealogy of Genesis 10 is quite clearly talking about the
genealogical roots of the indigenous Philistines *not* the later
misnomer of the non-indigenous invaders. This is only goes to show
Genesis 10 has a more ancient origin than the adopted use of the
misnomer. This, ironically, is the exact opposite of the conclusion
drawn from the circular logic you applied in dating Genesis 10.
James Christian
James Christian
James Christian
Quoting George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:
James,
I'm not sure if you realise, but there are very few people (if any)
who seriously challenge the idea that the Philistines are the
Pereset of Ramesses III's account of the invasion of the Sea Peoples
in c.1176 BC. Not only is it a good linguistic match between
Egyptian and Hebrew, but the archaeological record supports the
identification (see the production of Mycenean IIIB ware in the
Levant). This is a basic datum of the historical record. It actually
provides a very firm external point of verification for the
Philistines, making the hypothesis I described previously anything
but circular reasoning. Only if you reject the Philistine=Pereset
identification could you possibly see it as circular reasoning. And
if you do reject the identification, you'd have to show good reason
why - which would probably have to take the form of newly discovered
evidence. The hypothesis stands on good solid ground - not a 'shaky
foundation' at all. It's not 'my' theory - it's the basic wisdom of
the academy at the moment.
It seems you have a bit of history to brush up on, James. Before
then, you might want to think again about lambasting some of the
most basic ideas in the field.
Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 05:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Origin of the Phillistines
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <657680.46550.qm AT web110216.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Identifying the biblical people called Philistim with Peleset might be sound linguistically, but their alleged orgin in the Aegean is not and the idea is coming under criticism. There is really no evidence at all that the Peleset mentioned in the Medinet-Habu texts of Ramesses III originated in the Aegean. The connection was an inference based on Aegean pottery forms, but it is now known that no monochrome pottery exists in any 20th dynasty context until the last days of Ramesses VI or later (Finkelstein, 1998). Myceneaen IIIC:1b pottery, the so-called hallmark of the Philistines, appeared significantly after the reign of Ramesses III, not before as was once thought (Killebrew, 2000). Hence the distinctive material culture which was thought to announce the arrival of the Peleset from the Aegean does not appear in the Levant until 40 or more years after they were beaten by Ramesses III (Aharoni, 1978). As far as we know, the Peleset were living in the
southern Levant long before they clashed with Ramesses III.
Tory Thorpe
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 13:38:02 +0100
From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Origin of the Phillistines
To: Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
Cc: B Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <20090524133802.h1ogd4wo0kogsgow AT www.sms.ed.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"
Hi Kevin,
Are you sure the Philistines that Abraham dealt with are the same
Philistines that David defeated?
Yes and no! They are the same in the sense that they live in the same
place and are of the same basic descent. They are not the same in the
sense that have been conquered by some offshore invaders and their
genes have likely mixed to some extent. Apart from pottery and
architecture their language and culture are pretty much the same as
before the invasion, though.
Or could this be another example of
Macedonians' where the name of a place remains, but the inhabitants change?
See above. Anyway, re Makedonia. There is still a region called
Makedonia in northern Greece (not to be confused with the country).
Thessaloniki is the main city of Makedonia. I know, because that's
where I live when I'm in Greece.
Just out of curiosity, if the Philistines were Hamitic and from Egypt, why
would they speak a Semitic language? Does this not require a language
change just as if they were Indo-European?
Ok. I'm sure you are aware that the language group 'Semitic' is a
misnomer. Just be a language is 'Semitic' does not mean that the
tribe that speaks it has to be a descendant of Shem.
James Christian
Kevin Riley
-------Original Message-------
From: James Read
Date: 24/05/2009 7:39:03 PM
It seems more likely that the Philistine language has always been of
Semitic origin and any traces of Indo-European loan words and
Mycenaean pottery can perhaps be better explained by the influence of
Later invaders. Indigenous peoples tend to cherish their language and
Culture and not all invasions are successful in supplanting the
Language (there are still communities in Wales that speak a Gaelic
Dialect to this day).
And so the above linguistic and archaeological observations perhaps
Best answer the question of where those who later invaded and
Influenced the philistines came from but not what the original
Language of the philistines was or where the philistines originally
Came from. The accounts in Genesis make it clear to us that the
Philistines are
a) of Hamitic origin (more precisely from Egypt)
B) spoke a Semitic language from their very conception as a nation
James Christian
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Papier <jeff_papier AT yahoo.com>
Subject: [b-hebrew] Scholarly list
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <653400.87127.qm AT web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Greetings,
While I often enjoy the conversations on this list, I was wondering if there might also be a more academic list, oriented towards Ancient Hebrew and Biblical Studies scholars.
Thanks,
Jeff
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 09:48:44 -0500
From: "Eric Inman" <eric-inman AT comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Scholarly list
To: "'Jeff Papier'" <jeff_papier AT yahoo.com>,
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <28E0802AC6B94F2FB8151378889FE850@EricsHPdv9700>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'd be interested in hearing about that as well. If there isn't one, I'd
curious about whether or not there would be enough interest to create one.
Eric Inman
-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Papier
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 9:42 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Scholarly list
Greetings,
While I often enjoy the conversations on this list, I was wondering if there
might also be a more academic list, oriented towards Ancient Hebrew and
Biblical Studies scholars.
Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 17:02:31 GMT
From: "thebodyofjesusthenazoraion AT juno.com"
<thebodyofjesusthenazoraion AT juno.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35 Holy days
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <20090524.120231.16592.0 AT webmail11.dca.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Yitzhak
How do I post? the format has changed/
In the book of Jubilees it says according to the solar calendar, that Sunday Sunday 'is the day to start almost all the Holy Days in Enoch it says Tuesdays Is there better understanding in Hebrew about the Holy Days in the O.T.? I have read it but my Hebrew is not yet understandable to me yet.
Eva Ritsema
____________________________________________________________
Learning Centers - Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsIpv5c3fbvZtKJx7IwuBDHz77EBP2TCiji0sAukknwqUWgQ9Fkzjq/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35
****************************************
a Ritsema
____________________________________________________________
Learning Centers - Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsIpv5c3fbvZtKJx7IwuBDHz77EBP2TCiji0sAukknwqUWgQ9Fkzjq/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35
****************************************
***************
-
Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35,
Mark Spitsbergen, 05/24/2009
- Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35, Eric Inman, 05/24/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.