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

methodological issues at qeiyafa

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    Israel Finkelstein published an essay on various methodological problems at Qeiyafa some months back and given today s announced discovery it seems relevant
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Israel Finkelstein published an essay on various methodological problems
      at Qeiyafa some months back and given today's announced discovery it
      seems relevant once more-

      http://www.academia.edu/1954502/Khirbet_Qeiyafa_An_Unsensational_Archaeological_and_Historical_Interpretation

      --
      ++++

      Jim West, ThD
      Petros TN
    • Peter van der Veen
      Dear colleagues, Even though I would be thrilled to have a palace of king David at Khirbet Qeijafa, how can we jump so quickly to our conclusions as Yossi
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear colleagues,

        Even though I would be thrilled to have a palace of king David at Khirbet Qeijafa, how can we jump so quickly to our conclusions as Yossi Garfinkel does? For me there is no doubt that David existed and that he was a powerful founder of a new dynasty in the 10th century BC (who surely cannot be compared to a deity called "Osiris", me too I didn't understand the logic of that one).

        This however is a totally different thing than to say that:

        a large building used apparently for storage belonged to David.

        This could only work

        a) if indeed the Iron Age I-IIA transition is firmly dated to first decades of the 10th century BC, which it might but there are a number of important considerations involved, which at present at least do imply that the transition may have come later (between 950-900 according to Finkelstein et al; c. 920-875 BC according to Ayyelet Gilboa based on radiometric dating at Tel Dor, very similar to the views expressed by the British school of archaeology and very much liked the still lower chronology of P. J. James et al who date its transition to c. 875/50 B.C.),

        b) if Khirbet Qeijafa was indeed Israelite,

        Both assumptions may be justified but due to existing doubts, we cannot simply assume thingh and jump to our wishful conclusions. Naturally such conclusions sound exciting and will help donators to be happier to finance our projects on the field or "prove" that David's empire really existed.

        As I said we cannot possible speak of proof as nowhere on any of the stones found in the "palace" (if this is what it was?) scribes engraved the sentence "made by King David". If such inscriptions had been found, surely we would all know about it. It would be the 21st century sensation. But mute Syro-Palestine-Israelite archaeology hardly ever allows us to be that precise, even if me too I would be so so happy if indeed we could be more precise.

        Without such straightforward inscriptions found within the same level of occupation, which precisely tell us who was the builder king etc., we cannot possibly proof anything.

        This much can be said.

        Best wishes

        Peter van der Veen

        University of Mainz

        Am 18.07.2013 um 16:46 schrieb Jim West:

        > Israel Finkelstein published an essay on various methodological problems
        > at Qeiyafa some months back and given today's announced discovery it
        > seems relevant once more-
        >
        > http://www.academia.edu/1954502/Khirbet_Qeiyafa_An_Unsensational_Archaeological_and_Historical_Interpretation
        >
        > --
        > ++++
        >
        > Jim West, ThD
        > Petros TN
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ian Onvlee
        Peter, Yes, I would be thrilled too. However, the comparison with Osiris is quite perfect for the following reason: Legend has it that Osiris was a great and
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Peter,

          Yes, I would be thrilled too. However, the comparison with Osiris is quite perfect for the following reason:

          Legend has it that Osiris was a great and living founding king of Egypt, who reigned for 25 years. The biblical legend has a similar story to tell about a great and living founding king of Israel, David. For the Samaritans, however, not David but Joshua was this great and living founding king of Israel, which I personally find more believable.

          Yet, the Jerusalem of the 10th century BC was nothing but a poor cow town. So when was the last time Jerusalem was really a thriving city state controlling the surrounding country, archaeologically speaking? That was a millennium earlier, circa 1900-1750 BC, a period which could indeed have covered about 3-4 kings. This Jerusalem was also famous in 12th-13th Dynasty Egypt, which emphasizes its importance and power.

          So it is not only possible but even more than likely that we are misled to look in the wrong millennium, and that the biblical David was not an Iron Age king but a Middle Bronze Age king and likely a contemporary of Hammurabi, if not this great king himself, who conquered not only the whole of Mesopotamia but also great portions of the Levant, including Biblos, where he had pushed Egyptian control by Amenemhat III out. This scenario would also explain how it is possible that some Amarna letters of the 14th century spoke of Jerusalem as "Temple/House of Solomon", something which naturally flies in the face of a 10th century Solomon. There are more of such points to consider.

          Regards,
          Ian Onvlee,
          Neherlands.




          ________________________________
          From: Peter van der Veen <van_der_Veen@...>
          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 5:15 PM
          Subject: Re: [ANE-2] methodological issues at qeiyafa



           
          Dear colleagues,

          Even though I would be thrilled to have a palace of king David at Khirbet Qeijafa, how can we jump so quickly to our conclusions as Yossi Garfinkel does? For me there is no doubt that David existed and that he was a powerful founder of a new dynasty in the 10th century BC (who surely cannot be compared to a deity called "Osiris", me too I didn't understand the logic of that one).

          This however is a totally different thing than to say that:

          a large building used apparently for storage belonged to David.

          This could only work

          a) if indeed the Iron Age I-IIA transition is firmly dated to first decades of the 10th century BC, which it might but there are a number of important considerations involved, which at present at least do imply that the transition may have come later (between 950-900 according to Finkelstein et al; c. 920-875 BC according to Ayyelet Gilboa based on radiometric dating at Tel Dor, very similar to the views expressed by the British school of archaeology and very much liked the still lower chronology of P. J. James et al who date its transition to c. 875/50 B.C.),

          b) if Khirbet Qeijafa was indeed Israelite,

          Both assumptions may be justified but due to existing doubts, we cannot simply assume thingh and jump to our wishful conclusions. Naturally such conclusions sound exciting and will help donators to be happier to finance our projects on the field or "prove" that David's empire really existed.

          As I said we cannot possible speak of proof as nowhere on any of the stones found in the "palace" (if this is what it was?) scribes engraved the sentence "made by King David". If such inscriptions had been found, surely we would all know about it. It would be the 21st century sensation. But mute Syro-Palestine-Israelite archaeology hardly ever allows us to be that precise, even if me too I would be so so happy if indeed we could be more precise.

          Without such straightforward inscriptions found within the same level of occupation, which precisely tell us who was the builder king etc., we cannot possibly proof anything.

          This much can be said.

          Best wishes

          Peter van der Veen

          University of Mainz

          Am 18.07.2013 um 16:46 schrieb Jim West:

          > Israel Finkelstein published an essay on various methodological problems
          > at Qeiyafa some months back and given today's announced discovery it
          > seems relevant once more-
          >
          > http://www.academia.edu/1954502/Khirbet_Qeiyafa_An_Unsensational_Archaeological_and_Historical_Interpretation
          >
          > --
          > ++++
          >
          > Jim West, ThD
          > Petros TN
          >
          >

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




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jim
          Linkage to Osiris or attempts thereat remind me very much of parallelomania and calls to mind the sage warning of Sandmel. Jim West, ThD Sent from my iPad On
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 18, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Linkage to Osiris or attempts thereat remind me very much of parallelomania and calls to mind the sage warning of Sandmel.

            Jim West, ThD

            Sent from my iPad

            On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...> wrote:
          • Niels Peter Lemche
            somebody believe that like in maths, to times minus make a plus. This is not the case in humanities. WE cannot draw on the suggested history behind Osiris to
            Message 5 of 25 , Jul 18, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              somebody believe that like in maths, to times minus make a plus. This is not the case in humanities. WE cannot draw on the suggested history behind Osiris to the suggested history behind David. It does not work like this.

              But if people could make a distinction between an assertion and a thesis we may get somewhere.

              Niels Peter Lemche



              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Jim
              Sendt: den 18 juli 2013 20:46
              Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Emne: Re: [ANE-2] methodological issues at qeiyafa

              Linkage to Osiris or attempts thereat remind me very much of parallelomania and calls to mind the sage warning of Sandmel.

              Jim West, ThD

              Sent from my iPad

              On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Ian Onvlee <sambacats@...> wrote:


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

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • zmbq
              Peter, I don t understand why your first point (Iron I-IIa transition) is relevant. King David s time can be determined from the biblical text, and Qeyafa is
              Message 6 of 25 , Jul 19, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Peter,

                I don't understand why your first point (Iron I-IIa transition) is relevant. King David's time can be determined from the biblical text, and Qeyafa is dated with C14. If the transition to Iron IIa is set to a later date than the beginning of the 10th century, it makes King David king of an Iron I kingdom, but doesn't change much else.

                Your second point is, of course, very relevant.

                Itay Zandbank
                Israel

                --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Peter van der Veen <van_der_Veen@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear colleagues,
                >
                > Even though I would be thrilled to have a palace of king David at Khirbet Qeijafa, how can we jump so quickly to our conclusions as Yossi Garfinkel does? For me there is no doubt that David existed and that he was a powerful founder of a new dynasty in the 10th century BC (who surely cannot be compared to a deity called "Osiris", me too I didn't understand the logic of that one).
                >
                > This however is a totally different thing than to say that:
                >
                > a large building used apparently for storage belonged to David.
                >
                > This could only work
                >
                > a) if indeed the Iron Age I-IIA transition is firmly dated to first decades of the 10th century BC, which it might but there are a number of important considerations involved, which at present at least do imply that the transition may have come later (between 950-900 according to Finkelstein et al; c. 920-875 BC according to Ayyelet Gilboa based on radiometric dating at Tel Dor, very similar to the views expressed by the British school of archaeology and very much liked the still lower chronology of P. J. James et al who date its transition to c. 875/50 B.C.),
                >
                > b) if Khirbet Qeijafa was indeed Israelite,
                >
                > Both assumptions may be justified but due to existing doubts, we cannot simply assume thingh and jump to our wishful conclusions. Naturally such conclusions sound exciting and will help donators to be happier to finance our projects on the field or "prove" that David's empire really existed.
                >
                > As I said we cannot possible speak of proof as nowhere on any of the stones found in the "palace" (if this is what it was?) scribes engraved the sentence "made by King David". If such inscriptions had been found, surely we would all know about it. It would be the 21st century sensation. But mute Syro-Palestine-Israelite archaeology hardly ever allows us to be that precise, even if me too I would be so so happy if indeed we could be more precise.
                >
                > Without such straightforward inscriptions found within the same level of occupation, which precisely tell us who was the builder king etc., we cannot possibly proof anything.
                >
                > This much can be said.
                >
                > Best wishes
                >
                > Peter van der Veen
                >
                > University of Mainz
              • Niels Peter Lemche
                Dear Itay, I am not so sure it can from the biblical text. I believe you mean from a certain part of modern biblical scholarship somehow making a rationalistic
                Message 7 of 25 , Jul 19, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Itay,

                  I am not so sure it can from the biblical text. I believe you mean from a certain part of modern biblical scholarship somehow making a rationalistic reconstruction out of the biblical text.

                  Niels Peter Lemche



                  -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                  Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af zmbq
                  Sendt: den 19 juli 2013 13:56
                  Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  Emne: [ANE-2] Re: methodological issues at qeiyafa

                  Peter,

                  I don't understand why your first point (Iron I-IIa transition) is relevant. King David's time can be determined from the biblical text, and Qeyafa is dated with C14. If the transition to Iron IIa is set to a later date than the beginning of the 10th century, it makes King David king of an Iron I kingdom, but doesn't change much else.

                  Your second point is, of course, very relevant.

                  Itay Zandbank
                  Israel

                  --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Peter van der Veen <van_der_Veen@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear colleagues,
                  >
                  > Even though I would be thrilled to have a palace of king David at Khirbet Qeijafa, how can we jump so quickly to our conclusions as Yossi Garfinkel does? For me there is no doubt that David existed and that he was a powerful founder of a new dynasty in the 10th century BC (who surely cannot be compared to a deity called "Osiris", me too I didn't understand the logic of that one).
                  >
                  > This however is a totally different thing than to say that:
                  >
                  > a large building used apparently for storage belonged to David.
                  >
                  > This could only work
                  >
                  > a) if indeed the Iron Age I-IIA transition is firmly dated to first decades of the 10th century BC, which it might but there are a number of important considerations involved, which at present at least do imply that the transition may have come later (between 950-900 according to Finkelstein et al; c. 920-875 BC according to Ayyelet Gilboa based on radiometric dating at Tel Dor, very similar to the views expressed by the British school of archaeology and very much liked the still lower chronology of P. J. James et al who date its transition to c. 875/50 B.C.),
                  >
                  > b) if Khirbet Qeijafa was indeed Israelite,
                  >
                  > Both assumptions may be justified but due to existing doubts, we cannot simply assume thingh and jump to our wishful conclusions. Naturally such conclusions sound exciting and will help donators to be happier to finance our projects on the field or "prove" that David's empire really existed.
                  >
                  > As I said we cannot possible speak of proof as nowhere on any of the stones found in the "palace" (if this is what it was?) scribes engraved the sentence "made by King David". If such inscriptions had been found, surely we would all know about it. It would be the 21st century sensation. But mute Syro-Palestine-Israelite archaeology hardly ever allows us to be that precise, even if me too I would be so so happy if indeed we could be more precise.
                  >
                  > Without such straightforward inscriptions found within the same level of occupation, which precisely tell us who was the builder king etc., we cannot possibly proof anything.
                  >
                  > This much can be said.
                  >
                  > Best wishes
                  >
                  > Peter van der Veen
                  >
                  > University of Mainz




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

                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Michael Welch
                  Dear Dr. Lemche, Thank you for bringing rationalistic approaches to this subject and thanks to Dr. West for the link to Dr. Finkelstein s fine article. Dr.
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jul 19, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Dr. Lemche, Thank you for bringing rationalistic approaches to this subject and thanks to Dr. West for the link to Dr. Finkelstein's fine article. Dr. Philip Davies was the first one to point out that King Saul should be the ruler emphasized with Khirbet Qeiyafa, and Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Fantalkin do as well. With all of the 500 to 600 storage jar handles found at Khirbet Qeiyafa with the potters' thumbprint, and with the copper slag and prills from Khirbet en Nahas used to temper the Negebite ware(usually associated with King Saul) from the Negeb highland sites, which was discovered by Dr. Martin and mentioned on Dr. Aren Maeir's influential blog, archaeologically King Saul appears to be greater than King David and King Solomon. Would it be correct to say that the kingdom of David and Solomon was built upon the great work done already by King Saul, but the Biblical editors did not like King Saul that much, so King David got the credit instead. Thank you for your time and your efforts. I always appreciate your ideas.
                    With Much Gratitude and Admiration,
                    Sincerely Yours,
                    Michael Welch
                    Deltona, Florida


                    --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Dear Itay,
                    >
                    > I am not so sure it can from the biblical text. I believe you mean from a certain part of modern biblical scholarship somehow making a rationalistic reconstruction out of the biblical text.
                    >
                    > Niels Peter Lemche
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                    > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af zmbq
                    > Sendt: den 19 juli 2013 13:56
                    > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                    > Emne: [ANE-2] Re: methodological issues at qeiyafa
                    >
                    > Peter,
                    >
                    > I don't understand why your first point (Iron I-IIa transition) is relevant. King David's time can be determined from the biblical text, and Qeyafa is dated with C14. If the transition to Iron IIa is set to a later date than the beginning of the 10th century, it makes King David king of an Iron I kingdom, but doesn't change much else.
                    >
                    > Your second point is, of course, very relevant.
                    >
                    > Itay Zandbank
                    > Israel
                  • Peter van der Veen
                    ... Johannes Gutenberg University ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jul 19, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Dear Itay,
                      >
                      > It is relevant indeed. If the Iron Age I-IIA transition to which the one period occupation of Qeijafa belongs is 1000-950 BC then the finds at Qeijafa are at least contemporary with the reign of David. Now whether or not Qeijafa is Israelite or Philistine is a different matter. So far no stone says "made in Israel" or "made by David". Qeijafa has been dated by 14C but as I see it and as my colleague Professor Uwe Zerbst sees it, one needs to be very very careful with the 14C results and the Bayesian statistics (a most complicated discipline that very very few archaeologists - if any - actually grasp) which lead to a range of results, of which only those are accepted that seem to fit the bill. So the question remains, what these "chosen" (pick and choose) results really tell us. But that is a very complicated matter.
                      >
                      > If the transition is dated to c. 900 BC, then indeed David belongs to Iron Age I! This doesn't change anything for the historicity of King David, it does however for the question if the building Yossi Garfinkel excavated is truly "Davidic", as David must be chronologically before c. 900 (= c. 1000 BC). That is the question at stake. Hope this helps.
                      >
                      > Best wishes
                      > Peter van der Veen

                      Johannes Gutenberg University


                      >
                      >
                      > Am 19.07.2013 um 13:55 schrieb zmbq:
                      >
                      >> Peter,
                      >>
                      >> I don't understand why your first point (Iron I-IIa transition) is relevant. King David's time can be determined from the biblical text, and Qeyafa is dated with C14. If the transition to Iron IIa is set to a later date than the beginning of the 10th century, it makes King David king of an Iron I kingdom, but doesn't change much else.
                      >>
                      >> Your second point is, of course, very relevant.
                      >>
                      >> Itay Zandbank
                      >> Israel
                      >>
                      >> --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Peter van der Veen <van_der_Veen@...> wrote:
                      >> >
                      >> > Dear colleagues,
                      >> >
                      >> > Even though I would be thrilled to have a palace of king David at Khirbet Qeijafa, how can we jump so quickly to our conclusions as Yossi Garfinkel does? For me there is no doubt that David existed and that he was a powerful founder of a new dynasty in the 10th century BC (who surely cannot be compared to a deity called "Osiris", me too I didn't understand the logic of that one).
                      >> >
                      >> > This however is a totally different thing than to say that:
                      >> >
                      >> > a large building used apparently for storage belonged to David.
                      >> >
                      >> > This could only work
                      >> >
                      >> > a) if indeed the Iron Age I-IIA transition is firmly dated to first decades of the 10th century BC, which it might but there are a number of important considerations involved, which at present at least do imply that the transition may have come later (between 950-900 according to Finkelstein et al; c. 920-875 BC according to Ayyelet Gilboa based on radiometric dating at Tel Dor, very similar to the views expressed by the British school of archaeology and very much liked the still lower chronology of P. J. James et al who date its transition to c. 875/50 B.C.),
                      >> >
                      >> > b) if Khirbet Qeijafa was indeed Israelite,
                      >> >
                      >> > Both assumptions may be justified but due to existing doubts, we cannot simply assume thingh and jump to our wishful conclusions. Naturally such conclusions sound exciting and will help donators to be happier to finance our projects on the field or "prove" that David's empire really existed.
                      >> >
                      >> > As I said we cannot possible speak of proof as nowhere on any of the stones found in the "palace" (if this is what it was?) scribes engraved the sentence "made by King David". If such inscriptions had been found, surely we would all know about it. It would be the 21st century sensation. But mute Syro-Palestine-Israelite archaeology hardly ever allows us to be that precise, even if me too I would be so so happy if indeed we could be more precise.
                      >> >
                      >> > Without such straightforward inscriptions found within the same level of occupation, which precisely tell us who was the builder king etc., we cannot possibly proof anything.
                      >> >
                      >> > This much can be said.
                      >> >
                      >> > Best wishes
                      >> >
                      >> > Peter van der Veen
                      >> >
                      >> > University of Mainz
                      >>
                      >>
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Douglas Petrovich
                      Dear Peter, As always, I appreciated reading your contribution. I just want to comment in regard to part of what you said. Before I do, let me just state that
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jul 19, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Peter,

                        As always, I appreciated reading your contribution. I just want to comment in regard to part of what you said. Before I do, let me just state that I have no desire to enter into discussions of what is rationalistic and what is irrational. I will leave that for others.

                        “If the Iron Age I-IIA transition to which the one period occupation of Qeijafa belongs is 1000-950 BC then the finds at Qeijafa are at least contemporary with the reign of David. Now whether or not Qeijafa is Israelite or Philistine is a different matter. So far no stone says ‘made in Israel’ or ‘made by David’.”

                        First of all, for those interested in biblical chronology, the masterful work of E. Thiele in establishing synchronisms between Assyrian and biblical accounts and records, combined with the recent refinements of R. Young provide us with parameters for dating, if one puts any stock in this or not.

                        The first year of the building of the temple under Solomon would date to May of 967. With a complicated set of arguments, it can be shown that the year of David’s conquest of Jerusalem thus would have been 1002. I will not reproduce this argumentation unless requested.

                        Now to your statement about whether Qeiyafa is Israelite or Philistine. The stones do not say anything. True. However, the inscription says an enormous amount. The script used at Qeiyafa is exactly the same script as that used at Sarta, Walaydah, Tekke, Verdim, Gezer, Batash, Beth Shemesh, Fekheriyeh, and several other sites.

                        In addition, this same script is on the new Ophel inscription, which was found at Jerusalem, of course. Moreover, as Rollston perceptively and correctly pointed out, this also is the exact same script that we find with the inscriptions at Serabit (Sinai), which Albright dated to 1550-1450, though in advanced form. I can walk people through this if they need examples.

                        This script, by all accounts, is a Semitic script. It is not a Philistine script, which nobody (to my knowledge, at least) argues. Rollston has shown conclusively that the script is not Phoenician. I would like to say that (in a recent post) I showed conclusively that it is not a Canaanite script. I certainly saw no dissenters.

                        Bottom line: in all counts, this is a Hebrew script, with mostly Hebrew words. Sure, Millard argues that some Canaanite personal names are in the Qeiyafa inscription, and we can all acknowledge that sort of thing without trouble.

                        So, if we are going to wonder whether there were Philistines behind the Qeiyafa inscription, here is what we would have to suppose. First, we would have to suppose that the Philistines knew and wrote Hebrew effortlessly, a Semitic tongue, despite their Aegean origin. Second, we would have to assume that Philistines found their way to Jerusalem, seized control, then produced their own pottery.

                        All of this would fly in the face of archaeological and biblical history, neither of which shows any signs of Philistine occupation of the city. Of course, we could always assert that they came to invade, bringing with them their humungous amphorae with inscribed Hebrew letters on them, failed in their attempt to storm the city, then smashed their amphorae in disgust as they fled.

                        This is hypothetically plausible, but it is certainly not all that likely. Everything about the script and the language of the Ophel inscription, the Qeiyafa ostracon, et al. points to Hebrews who wrote in Hebrew. Goodness, I do not even think that Merneptah would have considered this scenario implausible if someone would have presented it to him prophetically after his stele was inscribed.

                        So if Hebrews were behind these Hebrew inscriptions, and they did not overtake Jerusalem until 1002, we would have an earliest date for at least the Qeiyafa ostracon. Yes, these are many if’s. None of this means that David’s existence can be proven circumstantially. However, let us not allow our over-evaluation of archaeology to cause us to underevaluate epigraphical evidence or to circumvent its role in the discussion.

                        Yours,

                        Douglas Petrovich
                        Toronto

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Raz Kletter
                        Dear Douglas, Many issues seem hopelessly mixed at the moment. 1. Biblical chronologies- there are some more recent than Thiele, with differences; none is
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jul 19, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Douglas,
                          Many issues seem hopelessly mixed at the moment.
                          1. Biblical chronologies- there are some more recent than Thiele, with
                          differences; none is proven; the Assyrian synchronisms start 200-300 years
                          later, they are of no help at all.
                          2. The Iron 1 and 2a archaeological terms were formed on the basis of
                          historical grasps (pre-monarchy, united-monarchy) and are not
                          "independent". Archaeological changes in pottery styles, etc. do not have
                          to suit political/historical changes.
                          3. Pottery and C14 dates are complex and not exact (c. plus minus 50
                          years); they also give end of strata, not their beginnings.
                          4. You claim it is a Hebrew script and so we'd get Hebrews in Sinai in
                          early LB? And at Tel Fekheria? I don't think serious scholars would follow
                          suit.
                          5. There are widely different readings of these early inscriptions. This
                          shows that they are little understood. One should not base any far-reaching
                          conclusions on little-understood inscriptions.
                          6. You seem to argue against Qeiyafa being Philistine. Very fine; but there
                          is no need, since this idea is no longer held by Finkelstein, who claims
                          now that Qeiyafa was part of a "Saulide polity". If we start arguing about
                          all the ideas Finkelstein invented on mondays and dropped overboard on
                          wedensdays, we'll waste our entire lives.
                          For example, guess who said in 1995, a year before the Low Chronology
                          became notorious and "scientific archaeology" proved that "biblical
                          archaeology" is passe:
                          "For me the faunal and botanical remains, the geomorphology of the
                          Middle Bronze glacis and the petrographic studies of the pottery all
                          contribute to an understanding of the world of the Bible... All this is
                          therefore no less Biblical Archaeology than the architecture of
                          tenth-century BCE Megiddo... There is one great challange still to be
                          accomplished. That is to uncover an archive in one of the main Biblical
                          sites... It will probably shed direct light on the social, economical and
                          political affairs of the Land of the Bible on the eve of the Biblical
                          period. When unearthed, this archive will be the most important, most
                          spectacular single find in the history of Biblical archaeology"...

                          :(
                          Raz Kletter
                          University of Helsinki


                          2013/7/19 Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>

                          > **
                          >
                          >
                          > Dear Peter,
                          >
                          > As always, I appreciated reading your contribution. I just want to comment
                          > in regard to part of what you said. Before I do, let me just state that I
                          > have no desire to enter into discussions of what is rationalistic and what
                          > is irrational. I will leave that for others.
                          >
                          > �If the Iron Age I-IIA transition to which the one period occupation of
                          > Qeijafa belongs is 1000-950 BC then the finds at Qeijafa are at least
                          > contemporary with the reign of David. Now whether or not Qeijafa is
                          > Israelite or Philistine is a different matter. So far no stone says �made
                          > in Israel� or �made by David�.�
                          >
                          > First of all, for those interested in biblical chronology, the masterful
                          > work of E. Thiele in establishing synchronisms between Assyrian and
                          > biblical accounts and records, combined with the recent refinements of R.
                          > Young provide us with parameters for dating, if one puts any stock in this
                          > or not.
                          >
                          > The first year of the building of the temple under Solomon would date to
                          > May of 967. With a complicated set of arguments, it can be shown that the
                          > year of David�s conquest of Jerusalem thus would have been 1002. I will not
                          > reproduce this argumentation unless requested.
                          >
                          > Now to your statement about whether Qeiyafa is Israelite or Philistine.
                          > The stones do not say anything. True. However, the inscription says an
                          > enormous amount. The script used at Qeiyafa is exactly the same script as
                          > that used at Sarta, Walaydah, Tekke, Verdim, Gezer, Batash, Beth Shemesh,
                          > Fekheriyeh, and several other sites.
                          >
                          > In addition, this same script is on the new Ophel inscription, which was
                          > found at Jerusalem, of course. Moreover, as Rollston perceptively and
                          > correctly pointed out, this also is the exact same script that we find with
                          > the inscriptions at Serabit (Sinai), which Albright dated to 1550-1450,
                          > though in advanced form. I can walk people through this if they need
                          > examples.
                          >
                          > This script, by all accounts, is a Semitic script. It is not a Philistine
                          > script, which nobody (to my knowledge, at least) argues. Rollston has shown
                          > conclusively that the script is not Phoenician. I would like to say that
                          > (in a recent post) I showed conclusively that it is not a Canaanite script.
                          > I certainly saw no dissenters.
                          >
                          > Bottom line: in all counts, this is a Hebrew script, with mostly Hebrew
                          > words. Sure, Millard argues that some Canaanite personal names are in the
                          > Qeiyafa inscription, and we can all acknowledge that sort of thing without
                          > trouble.
                          >
                          > So, if we are going to wonder whether there were Philistines behind the
                          > Qeiyafa inscription, here is what we would have to suppose. First, we would
                          > have to suppose that the Philistines knew and wrote Hebrew effortlessly, a
                          > Semitic tongue, despite their Aegean origin. Second, we would have to
                          > assume that Philistines found their way to Jerusalem, seized control, then
                          > produced their own pottery.
                          >
                          > All of this would fly in the face of archaeological and biblical history,
                          > neither of which shows any signs of Philistine occupation of the city. Of
                          > course, we could always assert that they came to invade, bringing with them
                          > their humungous amphorae with inscribed Hebrew letters on them, failed in
                          > their attempt to storm the city, then smashed their amphorae in disgust as
                          > they fled.
                          >
                          > This is hypothetically plausible, but it is certainly not all that likely.
                          > Everything about the script and the language of the Ophel inscription, the
                          > Qeiyafa ostracon, et al. points to Hebrews who wrote in Hebrew. Goodness, I
                          > do not even think that Merneptah would have considered this scenario
                          > implausible if someone would have presented it to him prophetically after
                          > his stele was inscribed.
                          >
                          > So if Hebrews were behind these Hebrew inscriptions, and they did not
                          > overtake Jerusalem until 1002, we would have an earliest date for at least
                          > the Qeiyafa ostracon. Yes, these are many if�s. None of this means that
                          > David�s existence can be proven circumstantially. However, let us not allow
                          > our over-evaluation of archaeology to cause us to underevaluate
                          > epigraphical evidence or to circumvent its role in the discussion.
                          >
                          > Yours,
                          >
                          > Douglas Petrovich
                          > Toronto
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Niels Peter Lemche
                          Dear Raz, Finkelstein s problem is not that different from the one of the evangelicals and the conservatives: They have never understood the meaning of source
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jul 20, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Raz,

                            Finkelstein's problem is not that different from the one of the evangelicals and the conservatives: They have never understood the meaning of source criticism and cannot see the difference between a historical and a literary source. This was Niebuhr's great achievement when he wrote his Roman History in many volumes based on a source critical analysis of Livy. (the sad thing is that Na'aman is only slightly better.)

                            Therefore we still have this hunting for history in basically non-historical documents.

                            The Saul idea is amusing. I have my problems being serious about it: Substituting one shadowy person with another even more shadowy one.

                            People in ANE studies must understand the problems of their colleagues in OT studies: we have a tsunami to fight consisting of people who believe in biblical truth, supported by the general mode of today, to see everything as historical (and if not it is a lie), and now also modern politics. Thus think of the evangelical Christian position: If no David, no Jesus, as he was from the family of David. In other parts of ANE studies we have little of this, although many people there came from biblical studies but left because of the heat, including also people like von Soden, whose father was a famous church historian. Kenneth Kitchen is of course an extreme case but he belongs to the evangelical school of Liverpool including also his teachers.

                            You will never get Doug Petrovitch to understand this.


                            Niels Peter Lemche








                            -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                            Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Raz Kletter
                            Sendt: den 19 juli 2013 22:30
                            Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                            Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Re: methodological issues at qeiyafa

                            Dear Douglas,
                            Many issues seem hopelessly mixed at the moment.
                            1. Biblical chronologies- there are some more recent than Thiele, with differences; none is proven; the Assyrian synchronisms start 200-300 years later, they are of no help at all.
                            2. The Iron 1 and 2a archaeological terms were formed on the basis of historical grasps (pre-monarchy, united-monarchy) and are not "independent". Archaeological changes in pottery styles, etc. do not have to suit political/historical changes.
                            3. Pottery and C14 dates are complex and not exact (c. plus minus 50 years); they also give end of strata, not their beginnings.
                            4. You claim it is a Hebrew script and so we'd get Hebrews in Sinai in early LB? And at Tel Fekheria? I don't think serious scholars would follow suit.
                            5. There are widely different readings of these early inscriptions. This shows that they are little understood. One should not base any far-reaching conclusions on little-understood inscriptions.
                            6. You seem to argue against Qeiyafa being Philistine. Very fine; but there is no need, since this idea is no longer held by Finkelstein, who claims now that Qeiyafa was part of a "Saulide polity". If we start arguing about all the ideas Finkelstein invented on mondays and dropped overboard on wedensdays, we'll waste our entire lives.
                            For example, guess who said in 1995, a year before the Low Chronology became notorious and "scientific archaeology" proved that "biblical archaeology" is passe:
                            "For me the faunal and botanical remains, the geomorphology of the Middle Bronze glacis and the petrographic studies of the pottery all contribute to an understanding of the world of the Bible... All this is therefore no less Biblical Archaeology than the architecture of tenth-century BCE Megiddo... There is one great challange still to be accomplished. That is to uncover an archive in one of the main Biblical sites... It will probably shed direct light on the social, economical and political affairs of the Land of the Bible on the eve of the Biblical period. When unearthed, this archive will be the most important, most spectacular single find in the history of Biblical archaeology"...

                            :(
                            Raz Kletter
                            University of Helsinki


                            2013/7/19 Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>

                            > **
                            >
                            >
                            > Dear Peter,
                            >
                            > As always, I appreciated reading your contribution. I just want to
                            > comment in regard to part of what you said. Before I do, let me just
                            > state that I have no desire to enter into discussions of what is
                            > rationalistic and what is irrational. I will leave that for others.
                            >
                            > "If the Iron Age I-IIA transition to which the one period occupation
                            > of Qeijafa belongs is 1000-950 BC then the finds at Qeijafa are at
                            > least contemporary with the reign of David. Now whether or not Qeijafa
                            > is Israelite or Philistine is a different matter. So far no stone says
                            > 'made in Israel' or 'made by David'."
                            >
                            > First of all, for those interested in biblical chronology, the
                            > masterful work of E. Thiele in establishing synchronisms between
                            > Assyrian and biblical accounts and records, combined with the recent refinements of R.
                            > Young provide us with parameters for dating, if one puts any stock in
                            > this or not.
                            >
                            > The first year of the building of the temple under Solomon would date
                            > to May of 967. With a complicated set of arguments, it can be shown
                            > that the year of David's conquest of Jerusalem thus would have been
                            > 1002. I will not reproduce this argumentation unless requested.
                            >
                            > Now to your statement about whether Qeiyafa is Israelite or Philistine.
                            > The stones do not say anything. True. However, the inscription says an
                            > enormous amount. The script used at Qeiyafa is exactly the same script
                            > as that used at Sarta, Walaydah, Tekke, Verdim, Gezer, Batash, Beth
                            > Shemesh, Fekheriyeh, and several other sites.
                            >
                            > In addition, this same script is on the new Ophel inscription, which
                            > was found at Jerusalem, of course. Moreover, as Rollston perceptively
                            > and correctly pointed out, this also is the exact same script that we
                            > find with the inscriptions at Serabit (Sinai), which Albright dated to
                            > 1550-1450, though in advanced form. I can walk people through this if
                            > they need examples.
                            >
                            > This script, by all accounts, is a Semitic script. It is not a
                            > Philistine script, which nobody (to my knowledge, at least) argues.
                            > Rollston has shown conclusively that the script is not Phoenician. I
                            > would like to say that (in a recent post) I showed conclusively that it is not a Canaanite script.
                            > I certainly saw no dissenters.
                            >
                            > Bottom line: in all counts, this is a Hebrew script, with mostly
                            > Hebrew words. Sure, Millard argues that some Canaanite personal names
                            > are in the Qeiyafa inscription, and we can all acknowledge that sort
                            > of thing without trouble.
                            >
                            > So, if we are going to wonder whether there were Philistines behind
                            > the Qeiyafa inscription, here is what we would have to suppose. First,
                            > we would have to suppose that the Philistines knew and wrote Hebrew
                            > effortlessly, a Semitic tongue, despite their Aegean origin. Second,
                            > we would have to assume that Philistines found their way to Jerusalem,
                            > seized control, then produced their own pottery.
                            >
                            > All of this would fly in the face of archaeological and biblical
                            > history, neither of which shows any signs of Philistine occupation of
                            > the city. Of course, we could always assert that they came to invade,
                            > bringing with them their humungous amphorae with inscribed Hebrew
                            > letters on them, failed in their attempt to storm the city, then
                            > smashed their amphorae in disgust as they fled.
                            >
                            > This is hypothetically plausible, but it is certainly not all that likely.
                            > Everything about the script and the language of the Ophel inscription,
                            > the Qeiyafa ostracon, et al. points to Hebrews who wrote in Hebrew.
                            > Goodness, I do not even think that Merneptah would have considered
                            > this scenario implausible if someone would have presented it to him
                            > prophetically after his stele was inscribed.
                            >
                            > So if Hebrews were behind these Hebrew inscriptions, and they did not
                            > overtake Jerusalem until 1002, we would have an earliest date for at
                            > least the Qeiyafa ostracon. Yes, these are many if's. None of this
                            > means that David's existence can be proven circumstantially. However,
                            > let us not allow our over-evaluation of archaeology to cause us to
                            > underevaluate epigraphical evidence or to circumvent its role in the discussion.
                            >
                            > Yours,
                            >
                            > Douglas Petrovich
                            > Toronto
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >


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



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

                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • Douglas Petrovich
                            Dear Raz, Thanks for the interaction. Please allow me to respond to your pertinent points. Hopefully this will remove the mixed from your mind. 1. As for
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jul 20, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Raz,

                              Thanks for the interaction. Please allow me to respond to your pertinent
                              points. Hopefully this will remove the 'mixed' from your mind.

                              1. As for biblical chronologies, I am fully aware of the more recent
                              chronologies. They are on my shelf. Recent does not equal better, however.
                              Conversely, the age of one's work has nothing to do with its inherent
                              quality. No chronologist has put in the time that Thiele has, nor has any
                              achieved the heights. Just the reality. Young's modifications have teased
                              out most of the few flaws in Thiele's work, and Young is very recent, which
                              you should have noticed before accusing me of grandfathering. Finally, your
                              statement is flawed when you said that no chronology is proven; not so: none
                              is universally accepted. This is the issue, in all frankness.

                              2. I do not have anything major to contend with in your second point, but
                              your point was redundant, as it contradicted nothing in my original post.
                              Perhaps the one change I would make is to remove this word 'grasps'. What is
                              a grasp? The archaeological periodization (your 'terms') to which you refer,
                              as virtually all dividers for all archaeological periods in ANE archaeology,
                              is based on major changes in architecture, material culture (in whatever
                              form, large or small), and ultimately occupational phasing.

                              3. I have no idea why your comments on 14C, as I said nothing of this topic
                              in my post. Yes, I am aware of the imprecision of 14C dating, so I never put
                              a full delivery of eggs into that basket. But if you think the 1st
                              millennium has problems with 14C, they are nothing in comparison to the 15th
                              century and before. THIS is where the true problems and anomalies come. I
                              will forgo examples.

                              4. OK, fine, we can drop Fekheriyeh from the list. No problem. Yet we still
                              face a grocery list of other sites, including Serabit (though I am not
                              assuming every inscription written there was written by a Hebrew) as an
                              earlier source. As for Hebrews in Sinai in the LB, you simply have not
                              studied the data to the depths that I have, and my research/writing (1 book
                              for now) will indeed force serious scholars to deal with the issue of
                              following suit or not. You can laugh all you want, but mark my words. The
                              issue, though, is not immediate responses, but lasting impact. I only will
                              be interested in how it shakes out 20-30 years down the road. Hopefully we
                              both will be around to see this, and we can have a jolly conversation about
                              it then.

                              5. "There are widely different readings of these early inscriptions. This
                              shows that they are little understood. One should not base any far-reaching
                              conclusions on little-understood inscriptions." With apologies, I must state
                              frankly that you simply do not know enough of all of the data to make this
                              assertion. Had you studied it to the level that I have, you would not make
                              it, to be sure. Plus, the greater issue here is evolution of a language, not
                              the comprehensive understanding of component parts of a corpus of texts that
                              includes many short and cryptic writings.

                              6. "You seem to argue against Qeiyafa being Philistine. Very fine; but there
                              is no need, since this idea is no longer held by Finkelstein." No, I am not
                              worried about Finkelstein. As one colleague aptly said to me, "If we start
                              arguing about all the ideas Finkelstein invented on Mondays and dropped
                              overboard on Wednesdays, we'll waste our entire lives." Instead, I merely
                              was addressing the possibility that Peter had 'put it out there' (regardless
                              of his view on it).

                              I have no comment on biblical archaeology to make on this forum, as it only
                              would lead to fruitless friction. However, I will close by saying something
                              in reference to NPL's comment that you will never get me to understand the
                              things he said above. Not true, I can understand these things perfectly
                              fine, as the back of my mind. I just cannot agree with it all, and for what
                              I deem as good reasons. Mostly I do not share his presuppositions and
                              agenda. If that makes me the enemy, so be it.

                              Yours,

                              Douglas Petrovich
                              Toronto
                            • Niels Peter Lemche
                              Doug, It does not make you an enemy, it only makes you a non-player (who may have found a niche at the internet). And your attack on Raz Kletter for not
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jul 20, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Doug,

                                It does not make you an enemy, it only makes you a non-player (who may have found a niche at the internet). And your attack on Raz Kletter for not knowing what his is talking about just confirms what I have said. It does not make you a better scholar if you read 200 books, and the other person only a hundred, if you have no clue to how to handle the information. That is a most important part of academic upbringing, but it is a problem if you don't have such an education. Then you remain an amateur.

                                I am sure that people on this list may understand how it is in biblical studies.

                                Niels Peter Lemche




                                -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Douglas Petrovich
                                Sendt: den 20 juli 2013 13:49
                                Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                Emne: [ANE-2] Re: methodological issues at qeiyafa

                                Dear Raz,

                                Thanks for the interaction. Please allow me to respond to your pertinent points. Hopefully this will remove the 'mixed' from your mind.

                                1. As for biblical chronologies, I am fully aware of the more recent chronologies. They are on my shelf. Recent does not equal better, however.
                                Conversely, the age of one's work has nothing to do with its inherent quality. No chronologist has put in the time that Thiele has, nor has any achieved the heights. Just the reality. Young's modifications have teased out most of the few flaws in Thiele's work, and Young is very recent, which you should have noticed before accusing me of grandfathering. Finally, your statement is flawed when you said that no chronology is proven; not so: none is universally accepted. This is the issue, in all frankness.

                                2. I do not have anything major to contend with in your second point, but your point was redundant, as it contradicted nothing in my original post.
                                Perhaps the one change I would make is to remove this word 'grasps'. What is a grasp? The archaeological periodization (your 'terms') to which you refer, as virtually all dividers for all archaeological periods in ANE archaeology, is based on major changes in architecture, material culture (in whatever form, large or small), and ultimately occupational phasing.

                                3. I have no idea why your comments on 14C, as I said nothing of this topic in my post. Yes, I am aware of the imprecision of 14C dating, so I never put a full delivery of eggs into that basket. But if you think the 1st millennium has problems with 14C, they are nothing in comparison to the 15th century and before. THIS is where the true problems and anomalies come. I will forgo examples.

                                4. OK, fine, we can drop Fekheriyeh from the list. No problem. Yet we still face a grocery list of other sites, including Serabit (though I am not assuming every inscription written there was written by a Hebrew) as an earlier source. As for Hebrews in Sinai in the LB, you simply have not studied the data to the depths that I have, and my research/writing (1 book for now) will indeed force serious scholars to deal with the issue of following suit or not. You can laugh all you want, but mark my words. The issue, though, is not immediate responses, but lasting impact. I only will be interested in how it shakes out 20-30 years down the road. Hopefully we both will be around to see this, and we can have a jolly conversation about it then.

                                5. "There are widely different readings of these early inscriptions. This shows that they are little understood. One should not base any far-reaching conclusions on little-understood inscriptions." With apologies, I must state frankly that you simply do not know enough of all of the data to make this assertion. Had you studied it to the level that I have, you would not make it, to be sure. Plus, the greater issue here is evolution of a language, not the comprehensive understanding of component parts of a corpus of texts that includes many short and cryptic writings.

                                6. "You seem to argue against Qeiyafa being Philistine. Very fine; but there is no need, since this idea is no longer held by Finkelstein." No, I am not worried about Finkelstein. As one colleague aptly said to me, "If we start arguing about all the ideas Finkelstein invented on Mondays and dropped overboard on Wednesdays, we'll waste our entire lives." Instead, I merely was addressing the possibility that Peter had 'put it out there' (regardless of his view on it).

                                I have no comment on biblical archaeology to make on this forum, as it only would lead to fruitless friction. However, I will close by saying something in reference to NPL's comment that you will never get me to understand the things he said above. Not true, I can understand these things perfectly fine, as the back of my mind. I just cannot agree with it all, and for what I deem as good reasons. Mostly I do not share his presuppositions and agenda. If that makes me the enemy, so be it.

                                Yours,

                                Douglas Petrovich
                                Toronto



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

                                Yahoo! Groups Links
                              • Raz Kletter
                                Dear Doug, Thank you for your last email. It convinced me that there is no point to go on conversing with you on such matters for the next 20-30 years. I
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jul 20, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Doug,
                                  Thank you for your last email.
                                  It convinced me that there is no point to go on conversing with you on such
                                  matters for the next 20-30 years. I gladly accept your 20-30 years' plan,
                                  so we can try to resume talking on 20.7.2033.
                                  (Will the conversation in 2033 be more fruitful than in 2013, I do not
                                  know. Only time will tell).
                                  Best Regads meantime,
                                  Raz Kletter


                                  2013/7/20 Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>

                                  > **
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Dear Raz,
                                  >
                                  > Thanks for the interaction. Please allow me to respond to your pertinent
                                  > points. Hopefully this will remove the 'mixed' from your mind.
                                  >
                                  > 1. As for biblical chronologies, I am fully aware of the more recent
                                  > chronologies. They are on my shelf. Recent does not equal better, however.
                                  > Conversely, the age of one's work has nothing to do with its inherent
                                  > quality. No chronologist has put in the time that Thiele has, nor has any
                                  > achieved the heights. Just the reality. Young's modifications have teased
                                  > out most of the few flaws in Thiele's work, and Young is very recent,
                                  > which
                                  > you should have noticed before accusing me of grandfathering. Finally,
                                  > your
                                  > statement is flawed when you said that no chronology is proven; not so:
                                  > none
                                  > is universally accepted. This is the issue, in all frankness.
                                  >
                                  > 2. I do not have anything major to contend with in your second point, but
                                  > your point was redundant, as it contradicted nothing in my original post.
                                  > Perhaps the one change I would make is to remove this word 'grasps'. What
                                  > is
                                  > a grasp? The archaeological periodization (your 'terms') to which you
                                  > refer,
                                  > as virtually all dividers for all archaeological periods in ANE
                                  > archaeology,
                                  > is based on major changes in architecture, material culture (in whatever
                                  > form, large or small), and ultimately occupational phasing.
                                  >
                                  > 3. I have no idea why your comments on 14C, as I said nothing of this
                                  > topic
                                  > in my post. Yes, I am aware of the imprecision of 14C dating, so I never
                                  > put
                                  > a full delivery of eggs into that basket. But if you think the 1st
                                  > millennium has problems with 14C, they are nothing in comparison to the
                                  > 15th
                                  > century and before. THIS is where the true problems and anomalies come. I
                                  > will forgo examples.
                                  >
                                  > 4. OK, fine, we can drop Fekheriyeh from the list. No problem. Yet we
                                  > still
                                  > face a grocery list of other sites, including Serabit (though I am not
                                  > assuming every inscription written there was written by a Hebrew) as an
                                  > earlier source. As for Hebrews in Sinai in the LB, you simply have not
                                  > studied the data to the depths that I have, and my research/writing (1
                                  > book
                                  > for now) will indeed force serious scholars to deal with the issue of
                                  > following suit or not. You can laugh all you want, but mark my words. The
                                  > issue, though, is not immediate responses, but lasting impact. I only will
                                  > be interested in how it shakes out 20-30 years down the road. Hopefully we
                                  > both will be around to see this, and we can have a jolly conversation
                                  > about
                                  > it then.
                                  >
                                  > 5. "There are widely different readings of these early inscriptions. This
                                  > shows that they are little understood. One should not base any
                                  > far-reaching
                                  > conclusions on little-understood inscriptions." With apologies, I must
                                  > state
                                  > frankly that you simply do not know enough of all of the data to make this
                                  > assertion. Had you studied it to the level that I have, you would not make
                                  > it, to be sure. Plus, the greater issue here is evolution of a language,
                                  > not
                                  > the comprehensive understanding of component parts of a corpus of texts
                                  > that
                                  > includes many short and cryptic writings.
                                  >
                                  > 6. "You seem to argue against Qeiyafa being Philistine. Very fine; but
                                  > there
                                  > is no need, since this idea is no longer held by Finkelstein." No, I am
                                  > not
                                  > worried about Finkelstein. As one colleague aptly said to me, "If we start
                                  > arguing about all the ideas Finkelstein invented on Mondays and dropped
                                  > overboard on Wednesdays, we'll waste our entire lives." Instead, I merely
                                  > was addressing the possibility that Peter had 'put it out there'
                                  > (regardless
                                  > of his view on it).
                                  >
                                  > I have no comment on biblical archaeology to make on this forum, as it
                                  > only
                                  > would lead to fruitless friction. However, I will close by saying
                                  > something
                                  > in reference to NPL's comment that you will never get me to understand the
                                  > things he said above. Not true, I can understand these things perfectly
                                  > fine, as the back of my mind. I just cannot agree with it all, and for
                                  > what
                                  > I deem as good reasons. Mostly I do not share his presuppositions and
                                  > agenda. If that makes me the enemy, so be it.
                                  >
                                  > Yours,
                                  >
                                  > Douglas Petrovich
                                  > Toronto
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Douglas Petrovich
                                  Dear Raz, You are quite welcome. OK, it is a deal, then. We will agree on 20.7.33. In fact, I will come to Helsinki, and you can host me. We will have ‘a tea
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jul 20, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Raz,

                                    You are quite welcome. OK, it is a deal, then. We will agree on 20.7.33. In fact, I will come to Helsinki, and you can host me. We will have ‘a tea drink’, which was one of my favorite parts of life in Russia, and maybe you can teach me some wonderful features of Finnish cultural and life. Я буду ждать этого. Just remember that sweets are an important part of a tea-drink, so I will expect that.

                                    And perhaps I can stop by to see NPL in Copenhagen, if he will take me in as a guess. Having a good face-to-face conversation with him is still a high priority on my bucket list. We all can bury any hatchets that may have accumulated, and we can have a delightful, fresh start. I will mark my calendar.

                                    With best regards to you,

                                    Douglas Petrovich
                                    Toronto

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Douglas Petrovich
                                    Dear List, The recent discussion has brought one thing to the surface that simply must be reinforced (or shouted from the rooftops?). Today, at least to my
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jul 21, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear List,

                                      The recent discussion has brought one thing to the surface that simply must be reinforced (or shouted from the rooftops?). Today, at least to my knowledge, there is a virtual dearth of epigraphers of Semitic languages and Hebrew (language) scholars doing work in morphology and linguistics who actually have a background in Egyptian language.

                                      Frankly, this is nothing short of a tragedy. Sure, there are exceptions. For example, the top living candidate on this list is probably James Hoch, who’s Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period is a masterful piece of work, as is his Middle Egyptian Grammar.

                                      His grasp on the interconnections between Hebrew, Egyptian, and other related languages is nothing short of astounding. If we are going to get anywhere in the future with Hebrew of the 2nd millennium BC, it is only going to come with scholars who take Egyptian language far more seriously as a requisite field of study.

                                      Yours,

                                      Douglas Petrovich, PhD Candidate
                                      University of Toronto, NMC Department
                                      http://utoronto.academia.edu/DouglasPetrovich

                                      From: Douglas Petrovich
                                      Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 2:19 PM
                                      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [ANE-2] Re: methodological issues at qeiyafa


                                      Dear Raz,

                                      You are quite welcome. OK, it is a deal, then. We will agree on 20.7.33. In fact, I will come to Helsinki, and you can host me. We will have ‘a tea drink’, which was one of my favorite parts of life in Russia, and maybe you can teach me some wonderful features of Finnish cultural and life. Я буду ждать этого. Just remember that sweets are an important part of a tea-drink, so I will expect that.

                                      And perhaps I can stop by to see NPL in Copenhagen, if he will take me in as a guess. Having a good face-to-face conversation with him is still a high priority on my bucket list. We all can bury any hatchets that may have accumulated, and we can have a delightful, fresh start. I will mark my calendar.

                                      With best regards to you,

                                      Douglas Petrovich
                                      Toronto

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





                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Niels Peter Lemche
                                      At least this time you provided a full signature. I just speculated about the Toronto address, the home of scholars like Donald Redford (now at Penstate) and
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jul 21, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At least this time you provided a full signature. I just speculated about the Toronto address, the home of scholars like Donald Redford (now at Penstate) and John Van Seters. If you are representing present studies at Toronto, a lot has changed, indeed.

                                        You have so far succeeded in telling the world that one or two of the moderators on this list do not know what they are talking about, and therefore are unqualified. The same includes a professional archaeologist. You have taking a position previous belonging of the most conservative part of biblical studies as represented by the Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen (why are you not in Liverpool?). Not bad for a ph.d.-student, but I cannot recommend that you go on along this line. Kitchen of course thinks that every critical biblical scholar is an unqualified fool, and therefore he is not part of the scholarly discussion. Your articles found when googling you say a lot. No modern critical voice allowed. The Hazor article is simply useless. The Sargon / Nimrud article is dominated by an obsession for history, and just as much out of tune with modern critical discussion.

                                        The politics of accusing critical scholars for being incompetent belongs to one of the favourite tactics of conservative scholarship trying by being erudite to gain respect for its own irrelevant positions. I can recommend subscribers to consult my article "Conservative Scholarship on the Move," Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 19 (2005), 203-252. A compressed version was published as "Conservative Scholarship—Critical Scholarship: Or How Did We Get Caught by This Bogus Discussion: On Behalf of the Dever-Davies Exchange," The Bible and Interpretation http://www.bibleinterp.com/index.htm, 2003.

                                        Raz has closed down his part of the discussion. I will do the same. If you want to pass by Copenhagen in 30 years, remember to bring flowers. I will be 98.

                                        Niels Peter Lemche



                                        -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Douglas Petrovich
                                        Sendt: den 21 juli 2013 17:07
                                        Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                        Emne: [ANE-2] Egyptian Background for Hebrew Scholars

                                        Dear List,

                                        The recent discussion has brought one thing to the surface that simply must be reinforced (or shouted from the rooftops?). Today, at least to my knowledge, there is a virtual dearth of epigraphers of Semitic languages and Hebrew (language) scholars doing work in morphology and linguistics who actually have a background in Egyptian language.

                                        Frankly, this is nothing short of a tragedy. Sure, there are exceptions. For example, the top living candidate on this list is probably James Hoch, who’s Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period is a masterful piece of work, as is his Middle Egyptian Grammar.

                                        His grasp on the interconnections between Hebrew, Egyptian, and other related languages is nothing short of astounding. If we are going to get anywhere in the future with Hebrew of the 2nd millennium BC, it is only going to come with scholars who take Egyptian language far more seriously as a requisite field of study.

                                        Yours,

                                        Douglas Petrovich, PhD Candidate
                                        University of Toronto, NMC Department
                                        http://utoronto.academia.edu/DouglasPetrovich

                                        From: Douglas Petrovich
                                        Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 2:19 PM
                                        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: [ANE-2] Re: methodological issues at qeiyafa


                                        Dear Raz,

                                        You are quite welcome. OK, it is a deal, then. We will agree on 20.7.33. In fact, I will come to Helsinki, and you can host me. We will have ‘a tea drink’, which was one of my favorite parts of life in Russia, and maybe you can teach me some wonderful features of Finnish cultural and life. Я буду ждать этого. Just remember that sweets are an important part of a tea-drink, so I will expect that.

                                        And perhaps I can stop by to see NPL in Copenhagen, if he will take me in as a guess. Having a good face-to-face conversation with him is still a high priority on my bucket list. We all can bury any hatchets that may have accumulated, and we can have a delightful, fresh start. I will mark my calendar.

                                        With best regards to you,

                                        Douglas Petrovich
                                        Toronto

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





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



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

                                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      • Douglas Petrovich
                                        Niels, Thanks for the fascinating reply. I only wish you had spent a bit of your time interacting with my actual post. It was one of the more important posts I
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jul 21, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Niels,

                                          Thanks for the fascinating reply. I only wish you had spent a bit of your time interacting with my actual post. It was one of the more important posts I have ever made, frankly.

                                          I am not one for associating individuals who pass through a given institution with all of the views of their faculty members, so I truly do not feel comfortable stating what is or is not representative of the Univ. of Toronto, even in the NMC Dept. You probably know where Redford stands on ancient Israel, of course.

                                          Thankfully, my advisor, the president of ASOR, is both tolerant and embracing of those with diverse backgrounds and divergent viewpoints. For my money, this is how scholarship should be: never marginalizing those of other persuasions or offering all of the perks to the ring-kissers.

                                          I am not sure that I would call ANE-2 ‘the world’, but I find your accusation that I told one or two of the list moderators that they do not know what they are talking about to be not only unfair but—above all—absolutely inaccurate. I would be happy to discuss this in greater depth, whether on- or offlist. It would have to begin with direct quotes.

                                          I have never treated any of the moderators with anything less than proper respect, even though I have not always been treated with the same. And certainly respect and disputation can co-exist peacefully.

                                          I am not so sure that Kitchen feels the kind of disdain for critical biblical scholars that you say he does. Are you certain about this, or speculating? I certainly can say for myself that I have said or even thought that every/any critical biblical scholar is an unqualified fool. For that reason alone I would never say or think that any of your writings is worthless. Never.

                                          Once a month, I sit in a room with a group of profs and students from U of T and York U who express exceedingly divergent views than mine on topics related to biblical history. This is a study group that focuses on ancient Israel. I rarely have the floor. Yet I listen to one critical biblical scholar’s opinion/perspective after another.

                                          I enjoy learning everything I can, although I might be just as qualified to take the floor myself at any moment and not give it back. I am an insatiable learner, Niels, but I was taught to be a critical learner. And thus I am. I just have so much to say in my articles and have so many people to quote that I cannot always quote every conceivable scholar, critical or conservative. You haven’t read enough of my articles, though, if you think I haven’t interacted with critical scholars at all.

                                          As for why I am not studying under Kitchen, well, he is a phenomenal Egyptologist, and my ability within the world of Egyptology—though perhaps not insignificant—probably never will even approach his. Even you should appreciate how amazing of an Egyptologist he is (that is, if you truly understand the field). I am applying for a post-doc under/with an Egyptologist, though.

                                          However, I do not take Kitchen to be anywhere near exemplary in his grasp of biblical exegesis, which—among other things—has led him to the entirely wrong era for the exodus. Because of this, he has lost lots of time and energy that would have been better if redirected elsewhere. Kitchen is not the interdisciplinarian that some others are, despite his many positive contributions to biblical studies (which are not few). With my strong background in biblical exegesis, I was not ready to settle for less than precision in this area. Kitchen is off of the radar in this area, unfortunately.

                                          While you may see me as ‘just a PhD student’, which is fine, I have 10 years experience teaching seminary students, a seminary that I founded in Siberia (serving as academic dean) and turned over to Russians whom we had trained. Because of a small faculty, I taught 25 different undergrad and grad courses in three programs. As a professor, you should appreciate the demands that such a teaching load would present . . . even more so in a vastly foreign culture and with a different language. So in truth, I am not your average PhD student, either in age or in background, for whatever it’s worth.

                                          I am not sure just what to say about your response to my published articles, except that I am honored you read them. Certainly it is disappointing to hear that you consider 1 or more to be worthless, but this is within your right. I meant what I said about how I will be dragging you into my discipline of expertise, though, whether you squawk at this now or not.

                                          The nature of my book simply will necessitate it, because it will be something you absolutely cannot ignore. Now, it would be all the easier for me if you were to ignore it, but the Tel Dan inscription will seem like child’s play to you when the book comes out. The importance of the latter will dwarf the importance of the former, both to me, to you, and many others.

                                          Well, if you will be 98 in 30 years, perhaps we are going to have to arrange an earlier time. Not many of us get to live that long. I most certainly will bring flowers when I come, along with whatever your favorite chocolate is. Of course, we will have to wait until the book comes out to see if you are still willing to set a date and have me come.

                                          And if you really want to live on the edge, you can always invite me to speak to your students (w/o remuneration, of course). I would even let them raz me in a Q & A session, just to bring a smile to your face. I will be disappointed if my visit does not bring a smile to your face, at least once. And besides, I would be like a free lab rat to you.

                                          Until then, I will continue to enjoy any dialogue that we get to experience, Niels, even if you have shut it down for this discussion. One thing is for sure: you made sure that I no longer have the opportunity to keep a low profile.

                                          Yours,

                                          Douglas Petrovich
                                          Toronto

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Peter van der Veen
                                          Dear Doug, I decided not to get involved in the discussion. You brought up many different points, which to my view a) were not directly related to the topic,
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jul 22, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Doug,

                                            I decided not to get involved in the discussion. You brought up many different points, which to my view a) were not directly related to the topic, b) were just scratching the surface (all these points demand serious study and cannot be dealt with just flimsely), c) the tone of the conversation was not appropriate for a scholarly exchange. Raz Kletter, whom I respect greatly as a scholar as he has written some very fine papers and books, did not deserve the way he was treated. But I shall leave it at that, as I agree with Raz and Niels-Peter that it is better not to continue the discussion.

                                            But as I am the person who called for reservation on the "Davidic palace at Qeijafa", I want to say the following. This will be the last response from my side to the discussion.

                                            The only point I wish to make is the one on the Philistines (here you mentioned my name again).

                                            Now naturally the Qeijafa ostracon - to which I did not refer at all - is not written in an Aegean dialect. On that I agree. It seems to clearly be a West Semitic inscription, still it has not been proved that it is Hebrew. Be this as it may, it may turn out to be Hebrew and yes there are interesting indications that it could be Hebrew. I liked Gershon Galil's translation with whom I discussed these points in detail at some stage.

                                            BUT: This still doesn't make Qeijafa Israelite. Again it may have been Israelite, but the pottery repertoire is surely one that belongs to the Shephelah region and whether or not the site was Israelite or Philistine, it surely was a border town with the coming and going of different people groups.

                                            I doubt honestly that Philistines at this stage would have spoken Aegean or even less likely would have written their documents in an Indo-European language. Likely (and this has been discussed by several scholars) the percentage of true Aegeans must have been small among the Philistines. The Philistines proper were presumably the leading lot, the seranim, the elite class. The population was probably mostly local Canaanite. The scribes may have been trained by Egyptians or by those who carried on the Egyptian scribal traditions when the "Philistines" came to represent the Egyptian in the coastal plain. As we know the Bronze Age scribes were fluent in different languages (including Akkadian) and the language of Canaan was surely West Semitic. So why shouldn't even the Philistines have used the West Semitic dialects for their local administration?

                                            Now I am not saying that the Qeijafa ostracon is Philistine/Canaanite. I much prefer that it is Israelite. But we do not know for sure! As long as we do not know for sure, this should make us humbler and more careful in dealing with views expressed by colleagues.

                                            By the way what in the world makes us think that David had a palace at Qeijafa? Starting with the Old Testament, I find no evidence that would encourage such speculations at all.

                                            To many uncertaintities there ....

                                            Best wishes
                                            Peter van der Veen

                                            Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz

                                            Am 20.07.2013 um 13:48 schrieb Douglas Petrovich:


                                            > Instead, I merely
                                            > was addressing the possibility that Peter had 'put it out there' (regardless
                                            > of his view on it).



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • R. Lehmann
                                            Dear Douglas Petrovich, normally I am not interested to tamper with too much onlist discussions, and Nils-Peter and Raz already had said (almost) the
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Jul 22, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear Douglas Petrovich,
                                              normally I am not interested to tamper with too much onlist
                                              discussions, and Nils-Peter and Raz already had said (almost) the
                                              necessary. Because bad scholarly manners deserve a rebuke, just a
                                              short additional note from my hand:
                                              As for the "virtual dearth" you arrogantly shout from the rooftops,
                                              take note that Hoch's work is nothing that really would do you any
                                              favour if taken seriously into scholarly discussion. You may freely
                                              download the most recent reception of Hoch by an epigrapher and
                                              Hebraist here:
                                              http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/Dateien/27_30_22_26.pdf
                                              (togehter with several other papers - if ever you read German).

                                              Reinhard G.Lehmann

                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨
                                              ¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
                                              Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann, Academic Director
                                              Research Unit on Ancient Hebrew & Epigraphy
                                              FB 01/ Faculty of Protestant Theology
                                              Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz
                                              D-55099 Mainz
                                              Germany
                                              lehmann@...
                                              http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/eng
                                              11th Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH) 2013:
                                              http://www.micah.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/204.php





                                              Am 21.07.2013 um 17:06 schrieb Douglas Petrovich:

                                              > Dear List,
                                              >
                                              > The recent discussion has brought one thing to the surface that
                                              > simply must be reinforced (or shouted from the rooftops?). Today, at
                                              > least to my knowledge, there is a virtual dearth of epigraphers of
                                              > Semitic languages and Hebrew (language) scholars doing work in
                                              > morphology and linguistics who actually have a background in
                                              > Egyptian language.
                                              >
                                              > Frankly, this is nothing short of a tragedy. Sure, there are
                                              > exceptions. For example, the top living candidate on this list is
                                              > probably James Hoch, who’s Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the
                                              > New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period is a masterful piece of
                                              > work, as is his Middle Egyptian Grammar.
                                              >
                                              > His grasp on the interconnections between Hebrew, Egyptian, and
                                              > other related languages is nothing short of astounding. If we are
                                              > going to get anywhere in the future with Hebrew of the 2nd
                                              > millennium BC, it is only going to come with scholars who take
                                              > Egyptian language far more seriously as a requisite field of study.
                                              >
                                              > Yours,
                                              >
                                              > Douglas Petrovich, PhD Candidate
                                              > University of Toronto, NMC Department
                                              > http://utoronto.academia.edu/DouglasPetrovich
                                              >
                                              > From: Douglas Petrovich
                                              > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 2:19 PM
                                              > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Subject: [ANE-2] Re: methodological issues at qeiyafa
                                              >
                                              > Dear Raz,
                                              >
                                              > You are quite welcome. OK, it is a deal, then. We will agree on
                                              > 20.7.33. In fact, I will come to Helsinki, and you can host me. We
                                              > will have ‘a tea drink’, which was one of my favorite parts of
                                              > life in Russia, and maybe you can teach me some wonderful features
                                              > of Finnish cultural and life. Я буду ждать этого. Just
                                              > remember that sweets are an important part of a tea-drink, so I will
                                              > expect that.
                                              >
                                              > And perhaps I can stop by to see NPL in Copenhagen, if he will take
                                              > me in as a guess. Having a good face-to-face conversation with him
                                              > is still a high priority on my bucket list. We all can bury any
                                              > hatchets that may have accumulated, and we can have a delightful,
                                              > fresh start. I will mark my calendar.
                                              >
                                              > With best regards to you,
                                              >
                                              > Douglas Petrovich
                                              > Toronto
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >



                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
                                              Dear Mr Petrovich, neither Rainey s ‘Egyptian Evidence for Semitic Linguistics’, Israel Oriental Studies 18, 1998, pp. 431-453, nor J. F. Quack s review,
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Jul 22, 2013
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dear Mr Petrovich,

                                                neither Rainey's ‘Egyptian Evidence for Semitic Linguistics’,
                                                Israel Oriental Studies 18, 1998, pp. 431-453, nor J. F. Quack's review,
                                                Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 146, 1996, pp.
                                                507–514, were overly enthusiastic about Hoch's monograph. Indeed it is
                                                definitively not as authoritative and reliable as its flashy (you will
                                                say: impressive) layout would have one believe. Just look at 'Semitic
                                                Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate
                                                Period', pp. 127 n°163, 170-171 n°227, or 185-186 n°249-250, for
                                                instances where suppression of inconvenient evidence and (much) too free
                                                a hand in etymological speculation have the discussion collapse. This is
                                                not to disparage a great scholar, but throwing off Hoch in the face of
                                                Prof. Kletter while lecturing the entire list is unbecoming.

                                                All the best,

                                                J.-F. Nardelli
                                                Université de Provence
                                              • Jim West
                                                how long are we going to have to endure this? can t we give this chap a red card and move on with the game? ... -- +++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Jul 23, 2013
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  how long are we going to have to endure this? can't we give this chap a
                                                  red card and move on with the game?


                                                  On 7/21/2013 5:05 PM, Douglas Petrovich wrote:
                                                  > Niels,
                                                  >
                                                  > Thanks for the fascinating reply. I only wish you had spent a bit of your time interacting with my actual post. It was one of the more important posts I have ever made, frankly.
                                                  >
                                                  > I am not one for associating individuals who pass through a given institution with all of the views of their faculty members, so I truly do not feel comfortable stating what is or is not representative of the Univ. of Toronto, even in the NMC Dept. You probably know where Redford stands on ancient Israel, of course.
                                                  >
                                                  > Thankfully, my advisor, the president of ASOR, is both tolerant and embracing of those with diverse backgrounds and divergent viewpoints. For my money, this is how scholarship should be: never marginalizing those of other persuasions or offering all of the perks to the ring-kissers.
                                                  >
                                                  > I am not sure that I would call ANE-2 ‘the world’, but I find your accusation that I told one or two of the list moderators that they do not know what they are talking about to be not only unfair but—above all—absolutely inaccurate. I would be happy to discuss this in greater depth, whether on- or offlist. It would have to begin with direct quotes.
                                                  >
                                                  > I have never treated any of the moderators with anything less than proper respect, even though I have not always been treated with the same. And certainly respect and disputation can co-exist peacefully.
                                                  >
                                                  > I am not so sure that Kitchen feels the kind of disdain for critical biblical scholars that you say he does. Are you certain about this, or speculating? I certainly can say for myself that I have said or even thought that every/any critical biblical scholar is an unqualified fool. For that reason alone I would never say or think that any of your writings is worthless. Never.
                                                  >
                                                  > Once a month, I sit in a room with a group of profs and students from U of T and York U who express exceedingly divergent views than mine on topics related to biblical history. This is a study group that focuses on ancient Israel. I rarely have the floor. Yet I listen to one critical biblical scholar’s opinion/perspective after another.
                                                  >
                                                  > I enjoy learning everything I can, although I might be just as qualified to take the floor myself at any moment and not give it back. I am an insatiable learner, Niels, but I was taught to be a critical learner. And thus I am. I just have so much to say in my articles and have so many people to quote that I cannot always quote every conceivable scholar, critical or conservative. You haven’t read enough of my articles, though, if you think I haven’t interacted with critical scholars at all.
                                                  >
                                                  > As for why I am not studying under Kitchen, well, he is a phenomenal Egyptologist, and my ability within the world of Egyptology—though perhaps not insignificant—probably never will even approach his. Even you should appreciate how amazing of an Egyptologist he is (that is, if you truly understand the field). I am applying for a post-doc under/with an Egyptologist, though.
                                                  >
                                                  > However, I do not take Kitchen to be anywhere near exemplary in his grasp of biblical exegesis, which—among other things—has led him to the entirely wrong era for the exodus. Because of this, he has lost lots of time and energy that would have been better if redirected elsewhere. Kitchen is not the interdisciplinarian that some others are, despite his many positive contributions to biblical studies (which are not few). With my strong background in biblical exegesis, I was not ready to settle for less than precision in this area. Kitchen is off of the radar in this area, unfortunately.
                                                  >
                                                  > While you may see me as ‘just a PhD student’, which is fine, I have 10 years experience teaching seminary students, a seminary that I founded in Siberia (serving as academic dean) and turned over to Russians whom we had trained. Because of a small faculty, I taught 25 different undergrad and grad courses in three programs. As a professor, you should appreciate the demands that such a teaching load would present . . . even more so in a vastly foreign culture and with a different language. So in truth, I am not your average PhD student, either in age or in background, for whatever it’s worth.
                                                  >
                                                  > I am not sure just what to say about your response to my published articles, except that I am honored you read them. Certainly it is disappointing to hear that you consider 1 or more to be worthless, but this is within your right. I meant what I said about how I will be dragging you into my discipline of expertise, though, whether you squawk at this now or not.
                                                  >
                                                  > The nature of my book simply will necessitate it, because it will be something you absolutely cannot ignore. Now, it would be all the easier for me if you were to ignore it, but the Tel Dan inscription will seem like child’s play to you when the book comes out. The importance of the latter will dwarf the importance of the former, both to me, to you, and many others.
                                                  >
                                                  > Well, if you will be 98 in 30 years, perhaps we are going to have to arrange an earlier time. Not many of us get to live that long. I most certainly will bring flowers when I come, along with whatever your favorite chocolate is. Of course, we will have to wait until the book comes out to see if you are still willing to set a date and have me come.
                                                  >
                                                  > And if you really want to live on the edge, you can always invite me to speak to your students (w/o remuneration, of course). I would even let them raz me in a Q & A session, just to bring a smile to your face. I will be disappointed if my visit does not bring a smile to your face, at least once. And besides, I would be like a free lab rat to you.
                                                  >
                                                  > Until then, I will continue to enjoy any dialogue that we get to experience, Niels, even if you have shut it down for this discussion. One thing is for sure: you made sure that I no longer have the opportunity to keep a low profile.
                                                  >
                                                  > Yours,
                                                  >
                                                  > Douglas Petrovich
                                                  > Toronto
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ------------------------------------
                                                  >
                                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >

                                                  --
                                                  +++++++
                                                  Jim West, ThD
                                                  Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
                                                  Adjunct Prof. of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology
                                                • Niels Peter Lemche
                                                  Dear Jim, Not for long, I hope. It is rather typical of conservative scholarship to claim an expertise for itself which it says is not shared by critical
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Jul 24, 2013
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Dear Jim,

                                                    Not for long, I hope.

                                                    It is rather typical of conservative scholarship to claim an expertise for itself which it says is not shared by critical scholars. James Barr has a chapter on this in his Fundamentalism from 1977.

                                                    Of course not all OT scholars are Egyptologists, neither are all of them Assyriologists or Hittitologist (or whatever it is called). There are help for that, as there are experts to ask. As my professor in Arabic said: You have to choose between Arabic and Akkadian, both huge subjects. It is impossible to master both.

                                                    Gone are the days of Eduard Meyer who regretted that he was too old to learn Hittite. Otherwise, he mastered every ancient Oriental and classical language known in his time. As far as OT studies go, he is reckoned a historical-critical scholar of the old German school.

                                                    Besides, quite a few OT scholars know Egyptian, and quite a few know Akkadian, so this mail is simply ridiculous and misinformed. It tries to open a bogus discussion. I should perhaps only mention one of the absolute leading critical scholars, John Van Seters whose first book was devoted to the Hyksos. In Egyptology he was probably a classmate of Redford.

                                                    Dixi

                                                    Niels Peter Lemche


                                                    PS: My copy of Gardiner's grammar has the accession date of May 1962. I was sixteen at that time. First year in the classical Gymnasium with Greek, Latin, English, German, and French.




                                                    -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                                    Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Jim West
                                                    Sendt: den 23 juli 2013 22:24
                                                    Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Egyptian Background for Hebrew Scholars

                                                    how long are we going to have to endure this? can't we give this chap a red card and move on with the game?


                                                    On 7/21/2013 5:05 PM, Douglas Petrovich wrote:
                                                    > Niels,
                                                    >
                                                    > Thanks for the fascinating reply. I only wish you had spent a bit of your time interacting with my actual post. It was one of the more important posts I have ever made, frankly.
                                                    >
                                                    > I am not one for associating individuals who pass through a given institution with all of the views of their faculty members, so I truly do not feel comfortable stating what is or is not representative of the Univ. of Toronto, even in the NMC Dept. You probably know where Redford stands on ancient Israel, of course.
                                                    >
                                                    > Thankfully, my advisor, the president of ASOR, is both tolerant and embracing of those with diverse backgrounds and divergent viewpoints. For my money, this is how scholarship should be: never marginalizing those of other persuasions or offering all of the perks to the ring-kissers.
                                                    >
                                                    > I am not sure that I would call ANE-2 ‘the world’, but I find your accusation that I told one or two of the list moderators that they do not know what they are talking about to be not only unfair but—above all—absolutely inaccurate. I would be happy to discuss this in greater depth, whether on- or offlist. It would have to begin with direct quotes.
                                                    >
                                                    > I have never treated any of the moderators with anything less than proper respect, even though I have not always been treated with the same. And certainly respect and disputation can co-exist peacefully.
                                                    >
                                                    > I am not so sure that Kitchen feels the kind of disdain for critical biblical scholars that you say he does. Are you certain about this, or speculating? I certainly can say for myself that I have said or even thought that every/any critical biblical scholar is an unqualified fool. For that reason alone I would never say or think that any of your writings is worthless. Never.
                                                    >
                                                    > Once a month, I sit in a room with a group of profs and students from U of T and York U who express exceedingly divergent views than mine on topics related to biblical history. This is a study group that focuses on ancient Israel. I rarely have the floor. Yet I listen to one critical biblical scholar’s opinion/perspective after another.
                                                    >
                                                    > I enjoy learning everything I can, although I might be just as qualified to take the floor myself at any moment and not give it back. I am an insatiable learner, Niels, but I was taught to be a critical learner. And thus I am. I just have so much to say in my articles and have so many people to quote that I cannot always quote every conceivable scholar, critical or conservative. You haven’t read enough of my articles, though, if you think I haven’t interacted with critical scholars at all.
                                                    >
                                                    > As for why I am not studying under Kitchen, well, he is a phenomenal Egyptologist, and my ability within the world of Egyptology—though perhaps not insignificant—probably never will even approach his. Even you should appreciate how amazing of an Egyptologist he is (that is, if you truly understand the field). I am applying for a post-doc under/with an Egyptologist, though.
                                                    >
                                                    > However, I do not take Kitchen to be anywhere near exemplary in his grasp of biblical exegesis, which—among other things—has led him to the entirely wrong era for the exodus. Because of this, he has lost lots of time and energy that would have been better if redirected elsewhere. Kitchen is not the interdisciplinarian that some others are, despite his many positive contributions to biblical studies (which are not few). With my strong background in biblical exegesis, I was not ready to settle for less than precision in this area. Kitchen is off of the radar in this area, unfortunately.
                                                    >
                                                    > While you may see me as ‘just a PhD student’, which is fine, I have 10 years experience teaching seminary students, a seminary that I founded in Siberia (serving as academic dean) and turned over to Russians whom we had trained. Because of a small faculty, I taught 25 different undergrad and grad courses in three programs. As a professor, you should appreciate the demands that such a teaching load would present . . . even more so in a vastly foreign culture and with a different language. So in truth, I am not your average PhD student, either in age or in background, for whatever it’s worth.
                                                    >
                                                    > I am not sure just what to say about your response to my published articles, except that I am honored you read them. Certainly it is disappointing to hear that you consider 1 or more to be worthless, but this is within your right. I meant what I said about how I will be dragging you into my discipline of expertise, though, whether you squawk at this now or not.
                                                    >
                                                    > The nature of my book simply will necessitate it, because it will be something you absolutely cannot ignore. Now, it would be all the easier for me if you were to ignore it, but the Tel Dan inscription will seem like child’s play to you when the book comes out. The importance of the latter will dwarf the importance of the former, both to me, to you, and many others.
                                                    >
                                                    > Well, if you will be 98 in 30 years, perhaps we are going to have to arrange an earlier time. Not many of us get to live that long. I most certainly will bring flowers when I come, along with whatever your favorite chocolate is. Of course, we will have to wait until the book comes out to see if you are still willing to set a date and have me come.
                                                    >
                                                    > And if you really want to live on the edge, you can always invite me to speak to your students (w/o remuneration, of course). I would even let them raz me in a Q & A session, just to bring a smile to your face. I will be disappointed if my visit does not bring a smile to your face, at least once. And besides, I would be like a free lab rat to you.
                                                    >
                                                    > Until then, I will continue to enjoy any dialogue that we get to experience, Niels, even if you have shut it down for this discussion. One thing is for sure: you made sure that I no longer have the opportunity to keep a low profile.
                                                    >
                                                    > Yours,
                                                    >
                                                    > Douglas Petrovich
                                                    > Toronto
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ------------------------------------
                                                    >
                                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >

                                                    --
                                                    +++++++
                                                    Jim West, ThD
                                                    Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
                                                    Adjunct Prof. of Biblical Studies, Quartz Hill School of Theology



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

                                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  • Michael F. Lane
                                                    Dear ANE-listers, I would be most grateful if someone could provide me with a list of works *detailing* 1) Senusret II s irrigation and flood-management
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Jul 28, 2013
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Dear ANE-listers,

                                                      I would be most grateful if someone could provide me with a list of works
                                                      *detailing*
                                                      1) Senusret II's irrigation and flood-management project in the Fayyum, and
                                                      2) Tudhaliya IV's presumably similar, although much later, project near
                                                      Alaca Höyük.

                                                      In particular, I am interested in expert engineering reconstructions,
                                                      including anything diagrammatic.

                                                      With best regards,

                                                      Michael F. Lane
                                                      University of Maryland Baltimore County

                                                      --
                                                      Prof.. Michael Franklin Lane
                                                      Co-Director, AROURA
                                                      Ancient Studies Department
                                                      University of Maryland, Baltimore County
                                                      Fine Arts Building, Room 452
                                                      1000 Hilltop Circle
                                                      Baltimore, MD 21250, USA
                                                      Tel. +1-410-455-2979 / Fax +1-410-455-1660
                                                      Skype: barrenador
                                                      http://www.umbc.edu/aroura
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.