Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SV: SV: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism or YHWHism

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    It is all based on the Old Testament. Noth has a long introductory chapter on the names of the tribes of Israel. He -- like de Vaux -- reckons Judah to have
    Message 1 of 27 , Dec 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      It is all based on the Old Testament. Noth has a long introductory chapter on the names of the tribes of Israel. He -- like de Vaux -- reckons Judah to have been originally a place name. And because of his authority, it has been generally accepted, although no longer discussed.

      Niels Peter Lemche

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af William D. Tallman
      Sendt: den 31 december 2009 08:06
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism or YHWHism

      On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 02:42:37PM +0100, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
      > It is an anachronism, before the Hellenistic Age. It is a left-over
      > from the days when the biblical history of Israel's past as the twelve
      > tribes migrating the desert, storming the land of Canaan, and settling
      > there as a nation of twelve tribes was still au courant.
      >
      > When Sennacherib refers to Hezekiah, it is a the "Judean", often
      > translated the "Jew", but hardly meaning more than "the man from (the
      > landscape/state) of Judah.
      >
      > Niels Peter Lemche

      In D.B. Redford: "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times", Princeton
      University Press, 1992, p 295, is this sentence:

      "Kenites, Yerahmeelites, Calebites, Othnielites, and others constituted
      the population of the rugged country called _Har Yehuda_, "the mountain
      (district) of the gorge(s)."

      The citations are M. Noth, _The History of Israel_ (London, 1959),
      56-58; E. Lipinsky _VT 23_ (1973), 380-381; R. de Vaux, _The Early
      History of Israel_ (Philadelphia, 1978), 547.

      I don't have these citations available to check, so I can only suppose
      that they make the same assertion. Anyone clarify this for me?

      The term _Har Yehuda_ is apparently a proper noun. _Har_ is (loosely?)
      translated as "mountain" or "mountain range/region/district(?)"; is
      _Yehuda_ then the Hebrew(?) word for "gorge(s)"? If not, then is there
      an etymological connection?

      If so, then the _Yehuda(i?)_ could be construed as "(the people from)
      the gorges", one might suppose. I'm well aware that there is a hugely
      powerful tacit assumption that the proper noun is a "Biblical term", and
      therefore is exempt from legitimate question. That said, might there be
      some support for this conjecture?

      Thanks for reading.

      William D. Tallman
      343 Fleming Drive
      Sequim, WA 98382
      (360) 681-0247



      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Graham Hagens
      ... That Oppenheimer may well have been. As the bomb went off he famously quoted the line from the Bhagavad Gita in which Krishna tells Arjuna that he is
      Message 2 of 27 , Jan 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- On Wed, 12/30/09, victor avigdor hurowitz <victor@...> wrote:

        > Oppenheimer? I didn't know he was
        > interested in ANE. Didn't he help invent
        > the bomb?

        That Oppenheimer may well have been. As the bomb went off he famously quoted the line from the Bhagavad Gita in which Krishna tells Arjuna that he is death the destroyer of worlds. Since that poem was purportedly first recited in Persian (or Hellenistic) Taxila, it would be fall within the boundaries of the ANE as defined by this list.
        It is probably of absolutely no significance at all that Pakistan's nuclear warheads are said to be stored very close to the ruins of Taxila.

        Graham Hagens
        Hamilton, Ontario
      • Brian Roberts
        Liz, Wow. I m happy to see you so passionate about it. Is there a compelling reason why the word should be translated differently due entirely to different
        Message 3 of 27 , Jan 4, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Liz,

          Wow. I'm happy to see you so passionate about it.

          Is there a compelling reason why the word should be translated differently due entirely to different historical/cultural contexts? Or could this be something along the lines of nephesh? Which can be translated about a couple dozen different ways. I don't mean to suggest that nephesh and yehudim are easily parallelled. Nephesh was just the first instance I know of a Hebrew word that can, sometimes purely by translator's preference, be rendered "soul" in one passage, but "life" in another, and "beast" in yet another.

          best,

          R. Brian Roberts
          Charlotte, North Carolina

          --- On Wed, 12/30/09, Lisbeth S. Fried <lizfried@...> wrote:

          From: Lisbeth S. Fried <lizfried@...>
          Subject: RE: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism or YHWHism
          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 1:14 PM







           









          What is an anachronism? ??



          I really don’t get this. Jew is an English word. Let’s forget it, banish it,

          it’s not worth discussing, it’s meaningless in the context of the ANE.



          Now, the Hebrew Bible has Yehudim. This word appears in Kings and in

          Ezra-Nehemiah (and elsewhere).



          Whenever it’s in a pre-exilic context it’s always translated as Judeans,

          but when in a post-exilic context it’s always translated as Jews! The same

          word!



          That is what is anachronistic, translating the same word in two different

          ways, imposing 20th century ideology on ancient texts.



          Liz Fried



          _____



          From: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of

          Niels Peter Lemche

          Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:43 AM

          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com

          Subject: SV: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism or YHWHism



          It is an anachronism, before the Hellenistic Age. It is a left-over from the

          days when the biblical history of Israel's past as the twelve tribes

          migrating the desert, storming the land of Canaan, and settling there as a

          nation of twelve tribes was still au courant.



          When Sennacherib refers to Hezekiah, it is a the "Judean", often translated

          the "Jew", but hardly meaning more than "the man from (the landscape/state)

          of Judah.



          Niels Peter Lemche



          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---

          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE- 2%40yahoogroups. com> com

          [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE- 2%40yahoogroups. com> com] På vegne af

          Henrik Rasmussen

          Sendt: den 30 december 2009 14:26

          Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE- 2%40yahoogroups. com> com

          Emne: Re: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism or YHWHism



          Is it correct to refer to the Israelites as Jews, prior to the Babylonian

          exile?



          Rik Rasmussen



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Niels Peter Lemche Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:37 AM To: Subject: SV: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism
          Message 4 of 27 , Jan 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --------------------------------------------------
            From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
            Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:37 AM
            To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: SV: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism or YHWHism


            >
            > His mail was in answer of Jack Kilmon's previous one:
            >
            > First paragraph:
            >
            > 1: The Hebrew Bible says that a kind of centralization took place in the
            > days of the Judean king Hezekiah. Although he did not -- according to 2
            > Kings -- go far enough. Josiah did better than him (but cf. the
            > corrections in Chronicles). This is an old assumption not really
            > supported by extra-biblical evidence. But somehow people should read
            > their Bible more carefully, as it also states that Josiah's reform was a
            > failure, and that his successors took up the evil habits of their
            > forefathers. Ezra is a totally obscure person, except in tradition (the
            > genealogy presented would have made him a very old chap when he arrived
            > in Jerusalem, and he at least had nothing to do with rebuilding
            > activities). The building of Haggai's temple may have happened, although
            > now severely disputed by modern scholars like Diana Edelman who places
            > it much later, in the 5th century. The missing indications of a
            > resettlement of Jerusalem before the late 5th or even early 4th century
            > BCE also speaks again the assertion made by the Bible that it happened
            > in 516 BCE. So to place Ezra in tghe line of centralization is
            > speculation.
            >
            > 2: The idea of the Exodus story and its relations to Jerusalem is
            > another example of pure speculation. Jack should not be blamed too much,
            > as this was no more than many people were asserting when he was young.
            > The members of that generation of scholars -- including the venerable
            > names of Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth -- have by later colleagues been
            > termed "die grossen Hypothesenmacher".
            >
            > Then in the second paragraph we find a number of old ideas -- or
            > assertions.
            >
            > 1: Canaan as a term for Palestine in the 1st millennium. When we in this
            > millennium find extra-biblical references, they say "Phoenicia". Jack's
            > introducing biblical geography as if it was historical geography.
            >
            > 2: the Dating of the Exodus narrative to the 8th century BCE: Au courant
            > with the opinion of critical scholars 40 to 50 years ago. It is
            > generally not accepted anymore, and for many reasons. Pentateucal
            > studies has made many steps forward since those days, since the Toronto
            > lectures of Winnett, the teacher of Van Seters. So if people want to
            > understand what has happened, a brush up would be recommendable. A
            > rather traditional -- in the modern sense -- survey which nevertheless
            > includes much of interest as to these changes was published a couple of
            > years ago by Ska. We have witnessed from morately conservative Israeli
            > scholars an endeavour to defend old dates, especially of the Priestly
            > writer and based on language. This discussion hasd entered a new phase
            > with the publication of a number of studies tearing away this
            > foundation, by Knauf, Rezetko, Young and more.
            >
            > When this list opened, it was a demand that the discussion should be
            > based on facts. Readers may want to ask for facts embedded in this new
            > discussion, and when the moderators sometimes are very reluctant to
            > accept mails about biblical topics, they may understand that it was
            > normal in biblical studies to exchange (non-existing) facts with
            > assertions.
            >
            > They may also understand that some of the so-called left wing biblical
            > scholars (normally a term found in American studies -- traditionally
            > European scholarship has been called so, such as the aforementioned Alt
            > and Noth by members of the [William Foxwell] Albright guild, who
            > considered them to be "nihilists" and worse) are not really interested
            > in this discussion about historicity. We prefer today to discuss
            > authors' intents and the memories embedded in their writings. There are
            > also theological reasons for this but this definitely does not belong
            > here. I have done my part of this (so far) in my recent book, The Old
            > Testament between Theology and History from 2008.
            >
            > Niels Peter Lemche
            >

            Niels, I appreciate your viewpoint. Always have. Why? Even though I do
            not agree with some of your positions, I agree with the process. If
            consensus is not challenged, the process stops. One thing that cannot be
            charged is that you do not challenge. BUT in my 70th year I will never
            apologize for having been a student of Professor Albright and good ideas do
            not have expiration dates.

            Hope you have a great New Year,

            Jack

            Jack Kilmon
            San Antonio, TX
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.