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

thousands Re: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Ancient Nationlism?

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    From McCarter s AB commentary on 1 Samuel, I learned that )LF here (and generally) is not thousand but company (of soldiers) , perhaps a few dozen. You
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      From McCarter's AB commentary on 1 Samuel, I learned that )LF here (and generally) is not 'thousand' but 'company (of soldiers)', perhaps a few dozen.

      You still seem to be relying on KJV rather than the Hebrew text (or modern translations).
      --
      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...



      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Andrew Fincke <finckean@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:10:02 PM
      Subject: RE: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Ancient Nationlism?

      And in the Hexapla the Hebrew was written - transcribed - backwards in uncial Greek letters. So ELF came out FULH. But NP, what is so simple about "thousands", and - in particular - "tribes and thousands". Are you saying that they were to divide themselves up into tribes, then from there into their thousands. But then the next verse says "And Samuel brought forth all the tribes of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin was selected. And he broke down the tribe of Benjamin into families." There aren't many families with a thousand siblings. You've lost me.
    • Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
      HALOT distinguishes three segholate nouns from the root lp: I an animal, typically rendered ox or perhaps cattle, from whence, it is usually claimed, that
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        HALOT distinguishes three segholate nouns from the root >lp:
        I an animal, typically rendered "ox" or perhaps "cattle," from
        whence, it is usually claimed, that the name of the first letter of
        the alphabet got its name
        II the number "thousand"
        III [quoting HALOT here] 1. "group of a thousand, military, part of a
        tribe, > 'clan'"; 2. "in the settlement > 'region'"; and 3. "later
        often 'tribe'"

        They do not elaborate beyond that. It is often argued that this 3rd
        meaning, when referring to a military group, represents an ideal and
        that rarely did an "eleph" actually have 1000 soldiers in it. Or that
        originally, the term represented a company of 1000 soldiers, but over
        time, any connection between the term for the unit and the actual
        number of soldiers in it was broken.



        Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
        Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
        Oral Roberts University
        dvance@...
        donaldrvance@...


        On Jan 2, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

        > From McCarter's AB commentary on 1 Samuel, I learned that )LF here
        > (and generally) is not 'thousand' but 'company (of soldiers)',
        > perhaps a few dozen.
        >
        > You still seem to be relying on KJV rather than the Hebrew text (or
        > modern translations).
        > --
        > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: Andrew Fincke <finckean@...>
        > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:10:02 PM
        > Subject: RE: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Ancient Nationlism?
        >
        > And in the Hexapla the Hebrew was written - transcribed - backwards
        > in uncial Greek letters. So ELF came out FULH. But NP, what is so
        > simple about "thousands", and - in particular - "tribes and
        > thousands". Are you saying that they were to divide themselves up
        > into tribes, then from there into their thousands. But then the
        > next verse says "And Samuel brought forth all the tribes of Israel,
        > and the tribe of Benjamin was selected. And he broke down the tribe
        > of Benjamin into families." There aren't many families with a
        > thousand siblings. You've lost me.
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • David Lorton
        Perhaps my memory ill serves me, but I seem to recollect that the protocols of the original ANE list stated something to the effect that the act of posting to
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Perhaps my memory ill serves me, but I seem to recollect that the
          protocols of the original ANE list stated something to the effect that
          the act of posting to the list presumes that one knows what one is
          talking about. Perhaps such a statement belongs in the protocols of the
          ANE-2 list? Since ANE-2 is a moderated list, we members might possibly
          hope to be forgiven for wanting to hold it to high standards.

          In any event . . . I want to take advantage of this occasion to wish
          everyone Happy New Year 2007, and Blessed Eid el-Adha to our Muslim
          colleagues.

          David Lorton
          Baltimore, MD

          Andrew Fincke wrote:
        • Andrew Fincke
          Dear Peter, Are we reading the same McCarter? I quote (page 190 of textual notes to Chapter 13: The Royal Lottery ) (1 Sam 10:)19. and your clans Reading
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Peter,
            Are we reading the same McCarter? I quote (page 190 of textual notes to Chapter 13: "The Royal Lottery")

            (1 Sam 10:)19. and your clans Reading wlmshphtykm on the basis of LXX-B, kai kata tas phylas hymon, as required by v. 21. MT, LXX-L have wl'lpykm, "and (by) your thousands."

            If you learned the bit about "company of soldiers" from McCarter, you must have been reading between the lines somewhere... Between you misquoting McCarter and Victor misquoting Scripture... Where is George when you need him?
            Andrew Fincke




            "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote: From McCarter's AB commentary on 1 Samuel, I learned that )LF here (and generally) is not 'thousand' but 'company (of soldiers)', perhaps a few dozen.

            You still seem to be relying on KJV rather than the Hebrew text (or modern translations).
            --
            Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...



            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Andrew Fincke
            To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:10:02 PM
            Subject: RE: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Ancient Nationlism?

            And in the Hexapla the Hebrew was written - transcribed - backwards in uncial Greek letters. So ELF came out FULH. But NP, what is so simple about "thousands", and - in particular - "tribes and thousands". Are you saying that they were to divide themselves up into tribes, then from there into their thousands. But then the next verse says "And Samuel brought forth all the tribes of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin was selected. And he broke down the tribe of Benjamin into families." There aren't many families with a thousand siblings. You've lost me.



            Yahoo! Groups Links





            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Peter T. Daniels
            Sorry, it s Boling & Wright s AB Joshua; the first occurrence, with the note, is 4:13 (cf. 7:3), with reference to Boling s AB Judges, p. 17, and Mendenhall,
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Sorry, it's Boling & Wright's AB Joshua; the first occurrence, with the note, is 4:13 (cf. 7:3), with reference to Boling's AB Judges, p. 17, and Mendenhall, JBL 77 (1958), the Census Lists in Numbers.

              --
              Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...



              ----- Original Message ----
              From: Andrew Fincke <finckean@...>
              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 9:01:44 PM
              Subject: Re: thousands Re: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Ancient Nationlism?

              Dear Peter,
              Are we reading the same McCarter? I quote (page 190 of textual notes to Chapter 13: "The Royal Lottery")

              (1 Sam 10:)19. and your clans Reading wlmshphtykm on the basis of LXX-B, kai kata tas phylas hymon, as required by v. 21. MT, LXX-L have wl'lpykm, "and (by) your thousands."

              If you learned the bit about "company of soldiers" from McCarter, you must have been reading between the lines somewhere... Between you misquoting McCarter and Victor misquoting Scripture... Where is George when you need him?
              Andrew Fincke



              "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon. net> wrote: From McCarter's AB commentary on 1 Samuel, I learned that )LF here (and generally) is not 'thousand' but 'company (of soldiers)', perhaps a few dozen.

              You still seem to be relying on KJV rather than the Hebrew text (or modern translations) .
              --
              Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon. net

              ----- Original Message ----
              From: Andrew Fincke
              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:10:02 PM
              Subject: RE: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Ancient Nationlism?

              And in the Hexapla the Hebrew was written - transcribed - backwards in uncial Greek letters. So ELF came out FULH. But NP, what is so simple about "thousands", and - in particular - "tribes and thousands". Are you saying that they were to divide themselves up into tribes, then from there into their thousands. But then the next verse says "And Samuel brought forth all the tribes of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin was selected. And he broke down the tribe of Benjamin into families." There aren't many families with a thousand siblings. You've lost me.

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail. yahoo.com

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




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.