- It is to justify the toponym Palestine in an earlier time in the Holy Land. The Roman called it Palestine based on the Philistine people. Yechiel M. LehavyMessage 1 of 62 , Feb 27, 2013View SourceIt is to justify the toponym Palestine in an earlier time in the Holy Land. The Roman called it Palestine based on the Philistine people.
Yechiel M. Lehavy
Professor Anthropology/Sociology, Retired
Atlantic Cape Community College
From: aren <maeira@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Re: "his seed is not"
Re-read the article and still see no reason why Israel should be equated with Philistia.
Not to mention, you base some of your arguments on the biblical usage of the "Israel" as a geographical term. But if, according to what you have written elsewhere, the biblical texts are mostly Hellenistic - how can this in any way be used to explain the usage of a term in the late 13th cent. BCE?
Do note that Hasel (among others) has critically discussed many of your suggested IDs of the toponym "Israel" in the stele (see, e.g., Hasel in "Critical Issues in Early Israelite History" (Winona Lake 2008).
A Philistine from Philistia
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "Thomas L. Thompson" wrote:
> Dear Aren,
> Please read the article!
> Thomas L. Thompson
> Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen
> Fra: ANEemail@example.com [ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] På vegne af aren [maeira@...]
> Sendt: 26. februar 2013 22:41
> Til: ANEemail@example.com
> Emne: [ANE-2] Re: "his seed is not"
> How in the world can "Israel" in the Merneptah stele be equated with the region of Philistia? That is based on an sort of evidence and not pure speculation...
> Aren Maeir
> A Philistine
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Dear Yigal - I knew about Albright but I did not know about Rainey. Honestly, I do not find the Tell el-Hammah identification credible. The inscriptionMessage 62 of 62 , Mar 4 11:07 PMView SourceDear Yigal - I knew about Albright but I did not know about Rainey. Honestly, I do not find the Tell el-Hammah identification credible. The inscription indicates Hammath was the leader of the revolt which involved other cities - all of them larger and more important. It is Hammath that threatens the Egyptian garrison of Beth-Shean while it is Pehel who beseiges Tell Rehov. Also, if Hammath revolted against Rehob, then I would expect Rehob to attack Hammath - not the other way around. Also, if it were an inter-city squabble, why attack the Egyptian garrison? That is a revolt against Seti! Seti sent 3 arms of his troops to the cities which suggests more than a few soldiers to deal with these cities. Were it about a squabble between cities, then when Seti arrived at Beth-Shean I would expect these cities to appeal to him and there would be no need for troops to go to these cities.
You may be correct about Hammath but I find it difficult to believe that story.
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, Yigal Levin <yigal.levin@...> wrote:
> Hi again,
> Once more according to Rainey (Sacred Bridge p. 93, citing Albright from
> 1926), the Hamath involved was the small site of Tell el-Hammah, 16 km south
> of Beth-shean, which would make it about 10 km south of THAT Rehob. Rainey's
> reconstruction is that Hamath was a vassal of Rehob (which is a much larger
> site), and rebelled, encouraged by Pehel, Rehob's rival. Pehel and Hamath
> first neutralized the Egyptian "police post" (Raney's words) at Beth-shean
> and then attacked Rehob, at which point Seti intervened. We have no way of
> knowing what Yenoam's role in the story was, only that Seti sent a force
> there as well.
> It makes much more sense to read this as a minor squabble between rival
> cities, all within a 20 km radius of Beth-shean, than as a major war
> involving such far-away places as the north-Syrian Hamath. Remember that the
> victory stele was set up at Beth-shean, and no mention of this has been
> found in Egypt itself.