Re: [ANE-2] "his seed is not"
The Bible and Herodotus are very similar. Easy mistake to make.
On 02/03/2013, at 4:11 PM, Frank Polak <frankha@...> wrote:
> It was not. It was purely dependence on the Herodotean text, which has
> to be quoted in context.
> Frank Polak
> Tel Aviv University
> On Mar 2, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
>> Agree, but what I "deconstructed" was a probably dependence on
>> biblical information.
>> Niels Peter Lemche
>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>> Fra: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:ANEemail@example.com] På vegne
>> af Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
>> Sendt: den 2 mars 2013 12:46
>> Til: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org
>> Emne: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: "his seed is not"
>> 'Deconstruction', Niels, does not mean 'freely postulating an animus
>> in the work of distinguished experts'. Would you refuse to learn
>> from Salomon Reinach because he was a French Jew, the same way you
>> look askance at Stern and Asheri out of their Israeli citizenship
>> and presumed Zionism ? As for Meyer being old, it does not
>> necessarily impugn its authority, for he was as splendid a
>> classicist as well-informed a Semitic scholar and has been justly
>> praised by the likes of Momigliano and Jacoby and Walbank. In
>> Classics, age per se means nothing when the evidence has not vastly
>> R. Rollinger, 'The Terms "Assyria" and "Syria" Again', JNES 65,
>> 2006, pp. 283-287, proves, in my eyes convincingly, that the eight-
>> century Greeks encountered both Sura/i and Assura/i in their
>> dealings with the people of the coastal provinces of the former
>> Assyrian empire; these they rendered ??????? and ?????, bequeathing
>> to later generations an indistinction that was to endure for
>> centuries. The demonstrations of Nöldeke and Eduard Schwartz are
>> thus vindicated.
>> J.-F. Nardelli
>> Université de Provence
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- 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 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 ANEemail@example.com, 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.