Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Eric Inman" <eric-inman AT comcast.net>]

I agree that something similar to B-Greek would be great. -Eric Inman

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Mark Spitsbergen
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 3:33 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 77, Issue 35

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/BLSrjnsIpv5c3fbvZtKJx7IwuBDHz77E
BP2TCiji0sAukknwqUWgQ9Fkzjq/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/BLSrjnsIpv5c3fbvZtKJx7IwuBDHz77E
BP2TCiji0sAukknwqUWgQ9Fkzjq/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> ****************************************
> ***************
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew