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

SV: [ANE-2] Re: methodological issues at qeiyafa

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Jul 20, 2013
      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 2 of 25 , Jul 20, 2013
        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 3 of 25 , Jul 20, 2013
          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 4 of 25 , Jul 21, 2013
            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 5 of 25 , Jul 21, 2013
              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 6 of 25 , Jul 21, 2013
                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 7 of 25 , Jul 22, 2013
                  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 8 of 25 , Jul 22, 2013
                    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 9 of 25 , Jul 22, 2013
                      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 10 of 25 , Jul 23, 2013
                        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 11 of 25 , Jul 24, 2013
                          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 12 of 25 , Jul 28, 2013
                            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.