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

SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

Expand Messages
  • Thomas L. Thompson
    Dear George, What you know about minimalists views seems a bit limited. I suspect you mean your ideas about what Niels Peter means on the basis of a few
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear George,
      What you know about minimalists views seems a bit limited. I suspect you mean your ideas about what Niels Peter means on the basis of a few letters to this forum. Howeverm I do not intend to get into a discussion about "Canaanites" just now.
      You assert that Mendenhall's thesis has some relevance "regarding who the Israelites were and came to be." Of course, what you refer to as what the Israelites "came to be" perhaps has much to do with the Bible, but little to do with what existed in the 9th and 8th centuries when they were. You don't give any hint as to why you think Mendenhall's "thesis" (Had he a thesis?) relevant now?
      Furthermore, you are also quite unclear about why you think that the existence of biblical stories implies "some foundation in history". What is the "foundation in history for Cain's story? Adam's? Josiah's? I wonder on one hand whether you are just guessing and have nothing reasonable at all to contribute to the discussion and on the other hand you are offering a closet-fundamentalist position. Why do you think stories of the type that we actually find in the Bible have "foundations in history"? You assert that "David was indeed a ruler in Jerusalem, etc." But you don't say when he ruled Jerusalem, or what Jerusalem was like at the time; not even whether he was known as "David" or whether you would prefer to call the "historical" foundation of David and his stories as "Omri" or "Ahab" as Finkelstein would have it.
      I agree with you as to Hammurapi! I think he did not get those laws from Shamas at all, but they were already known by the scribes that wrote his stela for him.

      I do not think one could correctly claim that it is the "program" of "minimalists"
      to "relegate the biblical accounts to legends", but I do think that it is one of the conclusions we have drawn from the evidence available.

      Your disclaimer of being a fundamentalist seems odd in the context of this discussion. Could you clarify how the term doesn't fit?
      Thomas

      Thomas L. Thompson
      University of Copenhagen

      ________________________________

      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com på vegne af George F Somsel
      Sendt: lø 08-11-2008 18:42
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages



      Firstly, I "forgot" nothing. I simply failed to mention every instance which might have been cited for the sake of space.

      Secondly, whether or not the "Canaanites" would have designated themselves as such, it is apparent that other contemporaries did so. I do not say, nor did I say, that the "Canaanites" were "the other" and distinct from the Israelites. If I am not totally mistaken, although Mendenhall's thesis has not met with total acceptance, it does still have some relevance to the question regarding precisely who the Israelites were and came to be such. Nor is it a question of "having somebody to kill." It is simply a geographical designation whose precise limits may not be totally clear today. It would seem that your opposition to the term "Canaanites" is due to your desire to preserve a minimalist view. While I do not follow Fundamentalism in positing an absolute historicity to the biblical accounts, I hardly think that they would not have been set down had there not been some foundation in history. Thus, I would say that David was indeed a
      ruler in Jerusalem who exercised considerable influence even over northern regions although his court may have been less magnificent than portrayed (Is this not also true of other rulers such as Hammurabi?). Sometimes I get the feeling that it is in the program of the minimalists to excise the biblical accounts entirely and relegate them to the realm of legend. That they have legendary aspects is clear; that they are no more than legend is less clear.
      george
      gfsomsel


      ... search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.


      - Jan Hus
      _________




      ________________________________
      From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 12:15:08 PM
      Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages


      You are mixing up everything by introducing an irrelevant analogy. You are right, however, that there is no German and Germans but Deutschland and Deutsch. Germany is an etc designation. Your problem is again that you don't know or understand the discussion. Nobody said that there were nobody living in Palestine. I only said that we know of no instance where these people called themselves for "Canaanites" . Whatever they called themselves, is a question. Egyptians, Syrians (Idrimi -- you forgot his inscription) talks about Canaan. Then the short cut was made from the Bible (and this has nothing with legitimation of any kind to do) that people living before Israel in Palestine were Canaanites and the name of the country Canaan, thereby creating an ethnic unit, the "Canaanites, " as distinct from the Israelites, who, however according to modern historical and archaeological investigation were "Canaanites. " Here the idea of introducing the Canaanites in
      the story has to do with the need of introducing "the other" in the narrative: The people of God is in need of somebody to kill. That is worth thinking about -- maybe the topic of my next book.

      EA 151 is rather crucial in this discussion, as the poor Abimilu of Tyre when asked about news "from Canaan" (another text you forgot), begins his survey of Canaan in Cilicia (Danuna) and moved from here to Ugarit and further on to Kadesh, and Amurru. Did he have problems understanding the question? (the sentence is also found in EA 147, however this time about "News from Egypt").

      Niels Peter Lemche

      PS: Germany will in the Roman usage be an excellent analogy. When Tacitus writes about Germania, does he write about a nation, a conglomeration of tribes, or what, and why does the French have Allemands, if German was used by the Germans themselves in their early confrontations with the French. The Allemands were only one among many German tribes. The situation changed after 1800, when the concept of nationality became of paramount importance. Theen it became important for Germans to be Germans, which did not prevent the Austrians -- definitely Germans -- to stay Austrian, not because of nationality but because of their emperor.

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af George F Somsel
      Sendt: den 8 november 2008 15:18
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

      Then it follows that we should never speak of the Germans as "Germans" nor as Allemand or Alemánd since this is not their self-designation. N'est-ce pas? It rather seems to me that any designation of a group or territory used in a time contemporary with that being discussed it legitimate since it reveals the usage of at least one group. You may argue that the usage of "Canaanite" in the TANAK to describe the territory or the language(s) of their habitation is late and therefore not legitimate, but it would seem that it may reflect the usage of other groups. I am not familiar with Egyptian texts in the original nor do I have ready access to the Amarna tablets to see precisely what word is used that is translated as "Canaan", but I tend to think that opposition to its usage is rather tendentious.

      BTW: Are we getting a bit snippy? Jan Hus doesn't happen to be my "spiritual mentor." I would rather cede that place to John Calvin.
      george
      gfsomsel

      ... search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus
      _________

      ____________ _________ _________ __
      From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@.... dk>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 8:35:39 AM
      Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

      Dear George,

      You do not quite live up to your spiritual mentor, Jan Hus, who would risk (and did) his life for the truth, since you are just reproducing conventional ideas and meanings:

      <SNIP>

      The funny thing, when you believe that Canaan was well-defined, and that the Canaanites knew about themselves as "Canaanites" that we have no emic reference to Canaan and the Canaanites from the 2nd millennium. All references are etic.

      Na'aman of cause objected calling my reading "twisted". I just call his reading "naïve" (cf. also: NPL: "Where Should We Look for Canaan? A Reply to Nadav Na'aman," Ugarit-Forschungen 28 (1997), 767-772. Rainey tried to cheat discussing EA 151, claiming a translation of Akkadian ishtu which can be found nowhere else than in this letter. It was quite easy to take his reading apart, as the criminal sentence is found in another EA letter by the same writer (See also: NPL, "Greater Canaan: The Implications of a Correct Reading of EA 151:49-51," Bulletin of The American Schools of Oriental Research 310 (1998), 19-24).

      As to minimalism, you probably are of the conviction that this is a passing decease: Well the agenda of Old Testament has really changed over the last 25 years, partly because of minimalism. If you want to know anything but misprisions of this direction, I can recommend my The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey (Louisville: WJK, 2008).

      Niels Peter Lemche

      PS: Other places where I have discussed Mernephtah: The Israelites in History and Tradition (Louisville: WJK, 1998), pp. 35-38; The Old Testament between Theology and History, p. 131.

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af George F Somsel
      Sendt: den 8 november 2008 12:37
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

      It seems to me, with all due respect, that Niels is guided by his interest in protecting the minimalist position. "Canaanite" is used as a designation for something belonging to the geographical area of Canaan. To say that "Canaan" was not in use is patently false. The Mernephtah Stele has


      The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
      Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
      Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
      Canaanis captive with all woe.
      Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
      Yanoam made nonexistent;
      Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
      Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
      All who roamed have been subdued
      By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
      Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat,
      Given life like Re every day.
      Lichtheim, M. (1973-[80). Ancient Egyptian literature : Volume II: The new kingdom (77). Berkeley: University of California Press.

      Here the term is obviously used of a geographical area.

      The campaigns of Seti I detail

      Year 1 of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Men-maat-Re. The desolation which the mighty arm of Pharaoh-life, prosperity, health!-made among the foe belonging to the Shasu from the fortress of Sile to the Canaan. His majesty [pre]vailed over them like a fierce lion. They were made into corpses throughout their valleys, stretched out in their (own) blood, like that which has never been.

      The ancient Near East an anthology of texts and pictures. 1958 (J. B. Pritchard, Ed.) (254). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

      Again, it is used as a geographical term.

      El Amarna #137 has


      I am now with Hamuniri-since there is left but one city, namely, Buruzilim. The sons of 'Abdu-Ashirta were hostile, and I was afraid. When I went to Hamuniri (70) because of the sons of 'Abdu-Ashirta when they were powerful against me and there was no breath of the mouth of the king to me, then I said to my lord: "Behold our city Byblos! There is much wealth of the king in it, the property (75) of our forefathers. If the king does not intervene for the city, all the cities of the land of Canaanwill (no longer) be his. Let the king not ignore this deed!"

      The ancient Near East an anthology of texts and pictures. 1958 (J. B. Pritchard, Ed.) (484). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

      Once more used in a geographical sense. I have quite a number of other instances as well.

      george
      gfsomsel

      ... search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus
      _________

      ____________ _________ _________ __
      From: lmlkes <lmlkes@yahoo. com>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Friday, November 7, 2008 7:43:58 PM
      Subject: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

      Dear Mr. Kilmon, Hi!!! It is always a pleasure to hear from You. You
      did a Great job, by the way, on the James Ossuary. You can add me to
      the list of those who think that it is authentic. Concerning your
      question about Canaan in the Bible, the term is there, and it is very
      old. This is not however what we have been talking about. Dr. Daniels
      has been lecturing us about the names for scripts and languages that
      have been around for "centuries" or "for hundreds of years." This is
      just not the case. He cannot provide me with a hundred or two hundred
      or three hundred year old reference to Canaanite Scripts, because
      these inscriptions were not found until the 20th Century. When these
      inscriptions were named, they were named Early Canaanite "for
      convenience, " even though the epigraphers knew that this was "highly
      speculative. " Dr. Lemche and myself do not much like the term
      Canaanite because it really does not mean anything. I prefer proto-
      Hebrew, like Dr. Lemche has suggested, or even proto-Phoenician. This
      of course is my opinion. I Thank You for your time.
      With Much Gratitude,
      Sincerely Yours,
      Michael Welch
      Deltona, Florida
      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@. ..>
      wrote:
      > Under his earlier argument, we ought to call the West Indies
      something entirely different, and the continents of America should be
      called Columbia. The names for scripts and for languages are what
      they are and have been for hundreds of years -- and the only reason
      most of us have stopped using "Hamitic" is that it has been shown
      that the non-Semitic Afroasiatic languages do not historically group
      together as against Semit Peter T. Daniels grammatim@.. .
      .





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


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

      Yahoo! Groups Links







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • George F Somsel
      In regard to Mendenhall, it is well known that he posited the origin of Israel in a uprising of indigenous peasants perhaps joined by some escaped slaves. 
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        In regard to Mendenhall, it is well known that he posited the origin of Israel in a uprising of indigenous peasants perhaps joined by some escaped slaves.� Whether this is precisely the case or not, there must be some accounting for the origin of Israel as distinct from other groups in the area.� Since there is no evidence for a mass exodus from Egypt of the type described in the biblical accounts, it seems reasonable to seek the origin of Israel within the land itself.

        Adam and Cain are�from the stories of the origin of mankind and his culture thus partaking of the nature of mythology and legend.� Josiah and David are quite different in this regard and would appear to have a grounding in historical fact even though not historically occuring as described.

        As to your accusations of my being a "closet�Fundamentalist", I will remind you that the Fundamentalists were insistent upon the absolute historical veracity (and even scientific veracity) of the biblical accounts.� I rather take the view that what is of significant in these texts is the message and not the historical or scientific detail though I do not totally divorce the texts from history and science.� One must�be aware that the peoples of the time had a certain view of history and science which would not be accepted as such today and which is reflected in the text.� I suppose it would be reasonably close to the truth to simply state that I do not feel that what the authors of the biblical texts wrote was not simply a collection of�fairy tales even though they do not pass muster according today's standards of history.� That you could accuse me of "closet Fundamentalism" because I maintain a tie to events which actually happened�and persons
        who actually lived seems to imply that you view them simply as fairy tales since you fail to allow any middle position between the two extremes.

        george
        gfsomsel


        � search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.


        - Jan Hus
        _________




        ________________________________
        From: Thomas L. Thompson <tlt@...>
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 2:19:01 PM
        Subject: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages


        Dear George,
        What you know about minimalists views seems a bit limited. I suspect you mean your ideas about what Niels Peter means on the basis of a few letters to this forum. Howeverm I do not intend to get into a discussion about "Canaanites" just now.
        You assert that Mendenhall's thesis has some relevance "regarding who the Israelites were and came to be." Of course, what you refer to as what the Israelites "came to be" perhaps has much to do with the Bible, but little to do with what existed in the 9th and 8th centuries when they were. You don't give any hint as to why you think Mendenhall's "thesis" (Had he a thesis?) relevant now?
        Furthermore, you are also quite unclear about why you think that the existence of biblical stories implies "some foundation in history". What is the "foundation in history for Cain's story? Adam's? Josiah's? I wonder on one hand whether you are just guessing and have nothing reasonable at all to contribute to the discussion and on the other hand you are offering a closet-fundamentali st position. Why do you think stories of the type that we actually find in the Bible have "foundations in history"? You assert that "David was indeed a ruler in Jerusalem, etc." But you don't say when he ruled Jerusalem, or what Jerusalem was like at the time; not even whether he was known as "David" or whether you would prefer to call the "historical" foundation of David and his stories as "Omri" or "Ahab" as Finkelstein would have it.
        I agree with you as to Hammurapi! I think he did not get those laws from Shamas at all, but they were already known by the scribes that wrote his stela for him.

        I do not think one could correctly claim that it is the "program" of "minimalists"
        to "relegate the biblical accounts to legends", but I do think that it is one of the conclusions we have drawn from the evidence available.

        Your disclaimer of being a fundamentalist seems odd in the context of this discussion. Could you clarify how the term doesn't fit?
        Thomas

        Thomas L. Thompson
        University of Copenhagen

        ____________ _________ _________ __

        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com p� vegne af George F Somsel
        Sendt: l� 08-11-2008 18:42
        Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
        Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

        Firstly, I "forgot" nothing. I simply failed to mention every instance which might have been cited for the sake of space.

        Secondly, whether or not the "Canaanites" would have designated themselves as such, it is apparent that other contemporaries did so. I do not say, nor did I say, that the "Canaanites" were "the other" and distinct from the Israelites. If I am not totally mistaken, although Mendenhall's thesis has not met with total acceptance, it does still have some relevance to the question regarding precisely who the Israelites were and came to be such. Nor is it a question of "having somebody to kill." It is simply a geographical designation whose precise limits may not be totally clear today. It would seem that your opposition to the term "Canaanites" is due to your desire to preserve a minimalist view. While I do not follow Fundamentalism in positing an absolute historicity to the biblical accounts, I hardly think that they would not have been set down had there not been some foundation in history. Thus, I would say that David was indeed a
        ruler in Jerusalem who exercised considerable influence even over northern regions although his court may have been less magnificent than portrayed (Is this not also true of other rulers such as Hammurabi?). Sometimes I get the feeling that it is in the program of the minimalists to excise the biblical accounts entirely and relegate them to the realm of legend. That they have legendary aspects is clear; that they are no more than legend is less clear.
        george
        gfsomsel

        ... search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@.... dk>
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 12:15:08 PM
        Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

        You are mixing up everything by introducing an irrelevant analogy. You are right, however, that there is no German and Germans but Deutschland and Deutsch. Germany is an etc designation. Your problem is again that you don't know or understand the discussion. Nobody said that there were nobody living in Palestine. I only said that we know of no instance where these people called themselves for "Canaanites" . Whatever they called themselves, is a question. Egyptians, Syrians (Idrimi -- you forgot his inscription) talks about Canaan. Then the short cut was made from the Bible (and this has nothing with legitimation of any kind to do) that people living before Israel in Palestine were Canaanites and the name of the country Canaan, thereby creating an ethnic unit, the "Canaanites, " as distinct from the Israelites, who, however according to modern historical and archaeological investigation were "Canaanites. " Here the idea of introducing the Canaanites in
        the story has to do with the need of introducing "the other" in the narrative: The people of God is in need of somebody to kill. That is worth thinking about -- maybe the topic of my next book.

        EA 151 is rather crucial in this discussion, as the poor Abimilu of Tyre when asked about news "from Canaan" (another text you forgot), begins his survey of Canaan in Cilicia (Danuna) and moved from here to Ugarit and further on to Kadesh, and Amurru. Did he have problems understanding the question? (the sentence is also found in EA 147, however this time about "News from Egypt").

        Niels Peter Lemche

        PS: Germany will in the Roman usage be an excellent analogy. When Tacitus writes about Germania, does he write about a nation, a conglomeration of tribes, or what, and why does the French have Allemands, if German was used by the Germans themselves in their early confrontations with the French. The Allemands were only one among many German tribes. The situation changed after 1800, when the concept of nationality became of paramount importance. Theen it became important for Germans to be Germans, which did not prevent the Austrians -- definitely Germans -- to stay Austrian, not because of nationality but because of their emperor.

        -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. com] P� vegne af George F Somsel
        Sendt: den 8 november 2008 15:18
        Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
        Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

        Then it follows that we should never speak of the Germans as "Germans" nor as Allemand or Alem�nd since this is not their self-designation. N'est-ce pas? It rather seems to me that any designation of a group or territory used in a time contemporary with that being discussed it legitimate since it reveals the usage of at least one group. You may argue that the usage of "Canaanite" in the TANAK to describe the territory or the language(s) of their habitation is late and therefore not legitimate, but it would seem that it may reflect the usage of other groups. I am not familiar with Egyptian texts in the original nor do I have ready access to the Amarna tablets to see precisely what word is used that is translated as "Canaan", but I tend to think that opposition to its usage is rather tendentious.

        BTW: Are we getting a bit snippy? Jan Hus doesn't happen to be my "spiritual mentor." I would rather cede that place to John Calvin.
        george
        gfsomsel

        ... search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@.... dk>
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 8:35:39 AM
        Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

        Dear George,

        You do not quite live up to your spiritual mentor, Jan Hus, who would risk (and did) his life for the truth, since you are just reproducing conventional ideas and meanings:

        <SNIP>

        The funny thing, when you believe that Canaan was well-defined, and that the Canaanites knew about themselves as "Canaanites" that we have no emic reference to Canaan and the Canaanites from the 2nd millennium. All references are etic.

        Na'aman of cause objected calling my reading "twisted". I just call his reading "na�ve" (cf. also: NPL: "Where Should We Look for Canaan? A Reply to Nadav Na'aman," Ugarit-Forschungen 28 (1997), 767-772. Rainey tried to cheat discussing EA 151, claiming a translation of Akkadian ishtu which can be found nowhere else than in this letter. It was quite easy to take his reading apart, as the criminal sentence is found in another EA letter by the same writer (See also: NPL, "Greater Canaan: The Implications of a Correct Reading of EA 151:49-51," Bulletin of The American Schools of Oriental Research 310 (1998), 19-24).

        As to minimalism, you probably are of the conviction that this is a passing decease: Well the agenda of Old Testament has really changed over the last 25 years, partly because of minimalism. If you want to know anything but misprisions of this direction, I can recommend my The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey (Louisville: WJK, 2008).

        Niels Peter Lemche

        PS: Other places where I have discussed Mernephtah: The Israelites in History and Tradition (Louisville: WJK, 1998), pp. 35-38; The Old Testament between Theology and History, p. 131.

        -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. com] P� vegne af George F Somsel
        Sendt: den 8 november 2008 12:37
        Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
        Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

        It seems to me, with all due respect, that Niels is guided by his interest in protecting the minimalist position. "Canaanite" is used as a designation for something belonging to the geographical area of Canaan. To say that "Canaan" was not in use is patently false. The Mernephtah Stele has

        The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
        Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
        Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
        Canaanis captive with all woe.
        Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
        Yanoam made nonexistent;
        Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
        Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
        All who roamed have been subdued
        By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
        Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat,
        Given life like Re every day.
        Lichtheim, M. (1973-[80). Ancient Egyptian literature : Volume II: The new kingdom (77). Berkeley: University of California Press.

        Here the term is obviously used of a geographical area.

        The campaigns of Seti I detail

        Year 1 of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Men-maat-Re. The desolation which the mighty arm of Pharaoh-life, prosperity, health!-made among the foe belonging to the Shasu from the fortress of Sile to the Canaan. His majesty [pre]vailed over them like a fierce lion. They were made into corpses throughout their valleys, stretched out in their (own) blood, like that which has never been.

        The ancient Near East an anthology of texts and pictures. 1958 (J. B. Pritchard, Ed.) (254). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

        Again, it is used as a geographical term.

        El Amarna #137 has

        I am now with Hamuniri-since there is left but one city, namely, Buruzilim. The sons of 'Abdu-Ashirta were hostile, and I was afraid. When I went to Hamuniri (70) because of the sons of 'Abdu-Ashirta when they were powerful against me and there was no breath of the mouth of the king to me, then I said to my lord: "Behold our city Byblos! There is much wealth of the king in it, the property (75) of our forefathers. If the king does not intervene for the city, all the cities of the land of Canaanwill (no longer) be his. Let the king not ignore this deed!"

        The ancient Near East an anthology of texts and pictures. 1958 (J. B. Pritchard, Ed.) (484). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

        Once more used in a geographical sense. I have quite a number of other instances as well.

        george
        gfsomsel

        ... search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________

        ____________ _________ _________ __
        From: lmlkes <lmlkes@yahoo. com>
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Friday, November 7, 2008 7:43:58 PM
        Subject: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

        Dear Mr. Kilmon, Hi!!! It is always a pleasure to hear from You. You
        did a Great job, by the way, on the James Ossuary. You can add me to
        the list of those who think that it is authentic. Concerning your
        question about Canaan in the Bible, the term is there, and it is very
        old. This is not however what we have been talking about. Dr. Daniels
        has been lecturing us about the names for scripts and languages that
        have been around for "centuries" or "for hundreds of years." This is
        just not the case. He cannot provide me with a hundred or two hundred
        or three hundred year old reference to Canaanite Scripts, because
        these inscriptions were not found until the 20th Century. When these
        inscriptions were named, they were named Early Canaanite "for
        convenience, " even though the epigraphers knew that this was "highly
        speculative. " Dr. Lemche and myself do not much like the term
        Canaanite because it really does not mean anything. I prefer proto-
        Hebrew, like Dr. Lemche has suggested, or even proto-Phoenician. This
        of course is my opinion. I Thank You for your time.
        With Much Gratitude,
        Sincerely Yours,
        Michael Welch
        Deltona, Florida
        --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@. ..>
        wrote:
        > Under his earlier argument, we ought to call the West Indies
        something entirely different, and the continents of America should be
        called Columbia. The names for scripts and for languages are what
        they are and have been for hundreds of years -- and the only reason
        most of us have stopped using "Hamitic" is that it has been shown
        that the non-Semitic Afroasiatic languages do not historically group
        together as against Semit Peter T. Daniels grammatim@.. .
        .

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

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

        Yahoo! Groups Links

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






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Niels Peter Lemche
        First, I believe that I speak for all the moderators when I recommend that mails are cropped. So this is. Second: How do you know, George, that the case of
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 8, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          First, I believe that I speak for all the moderators when I recommend that mails are cropped. So this is.

          Second: How do you know, George, that the case of David and Josiah is different? Because you think it is?

          Very little in the biblical history is different from the historical" content of, say Saxo's medieval chronicle of Rexs Gestae Danorum, however, no serious Danish historian will write history on the Pre-Gorm period, i.e., about our history before 900 CE on the basis of Saxo. We even may have more archaeological evidence about this period, about the period of Rolf Kraka, Ragner Lodbrog, Frode the peacemaker, etc. etc., than is the case about David or for that matter Josiah. Still, we do not reconsider Sax's chronicle o to be history, and we do not rely on Saxo to write history, and we do not need to. In my new book -- mentioned several times today -- I end with a sketch of the history of Palestine over the last 10.000 years without help from the Old Testament. It works perfectly. The Old Testament only creates a lot of unnecessary problems because it distorts every possible perspective.

          Three: Tom is right in calling your position closet-fundamentalism, as it is in your case perhaps not evangelicalism. You accord biblical narrative a position you will probably not accord any other written documents -- although I do not know your position on the issue of the historicity of the siege of Troy.

          Emanuel's advice is good, and will be productive for this discussion: there is excellent literature around about ethnicity and nation. Read some!

          As to Mendenhall, yes, this was exactly his thesis: His article was "The Hebrew Conquest", but the only element from outside of Palestine was the belief in the deity from Sinai named Yahweh, and a few supporters -- or so Mendenhall saw it. I was back in the early 1980's invited by Benjamin Mazar in his home for tea: What we discussed: Was/is Mendenhall a fundamentalist? Although he sacrificed history to save religion? I and Mazar agreed that this was/is the case. Mendenhall's reaction to Gottwald's Tribes of Yahweh from 1979 also shows what was at stake for Mendenhall, although Norm never understood that.

          Your tale of the origins of the bene Jisreel really needs confirmation from modern discussions about ethnicity. It is biblically inspired, no more, no less, and sadly totally out of tune with modern definitions of ethnicity and the nation. The biblical ideas are close to the ones found in Herodotus. More about this in My The Israelites in History and Tradition (WJK 1998).

          Niels Peter Lemche

          PS: We plan on Biblical Origins to have a discussion about history and the Bible, it will probably not be before the spring as the fall is totally booked up. But we need one. Jim West will probably say more, so if you are interested, join up.


          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af George F Somsel
          Sendt: den 8 november 2008 21:02
          Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Emne: Re: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages

          In regard to Mendenhall, it is well known that he posited the origin of Israel in a uprising of indigenous peasants perhaps joined by some escaped slaves.  Whether this is precisely the case or not, there must be some accounting for the origin of Israel as distinct from other groups in the area.  Since there is no evidence for a mass exodus from Egypt of the type described in the biblical accounts, it seems reasonable to seek the origin of Israel within the land itself.

          Adam and Cain are from the stories of the origin of mankind and his culture thus partaking of the nature of mythology and legend.  Josiah and David are quite different in this regard and would appear to have a grounding in historical fact even though not historically occuring as described.

          As to your accusations of my being a "closet Fundamentalist", I will remind you that the Fundamentalists were insistent upon the absolute historical veracity (and even scientific veracity) of the biblical accounts.  I rather take the view that what is of significant in these texts is the message and not the historical or scientific detail though I do not totally divorce the texts from history and science.  One must be aware that the peoples of the time had a certain view of history and science which would not be accepted as such today and which is reflected in the text.  I suppose it would be reasonably close to the truth to simply state that I do not feel that what the authors of the biblical texts wrote was not simply a collection of fairy tales even though they do not pass muster according today's standards of history.  That you could accuse me of "closet Fundamentalism" because I maintain a tie to events which actually happened and persons
          who actually lived seems to imply that you view them simply as fairy tales since you fail to allow any middle position between the two extremes.

          george
          gfsomsel
        • Jim West
          We are in fact in the planning stages of a colloquium regarding historical research, historicity, and the biblical text- on the biblical studies list. More
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 8, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            We are in fact in the planning stages of a colloquium regarding
            historical research, historicity, and the biblical text- on the biblical
            studies list. More when plans are finalized but at this point our
            procedure will be:
            stage 1- invited guests will offer substantive introductions to the way
            'history' in relation to the biblical text ought to be done.
            stage 2- those invited guests will then interact with and respond to
            those introductions
            stage 3- list participants will then have opportunity to interact, pose
            questions, and offer suggestions.

            Jim

            Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
            >
            > PS: We plan on Biblical Origins to have a discussion about history and
            > the Bible, it will probably not be before the spring as the fall is
            > totally booked up. But we need one. Jim West will probably say more,
            > so if you are interested, join up.
            >






            ++++++

            Jim West, ThD

            http://jwest.wordpress.com - Blog
            http://sites.google.com/site/biblicalstudiesresources/ - Biblical Studies Resources
          • George F Somsel
            Since you are choosing to be picky IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I hope the croping here meets with your approval. ... In the case of Josiah there is an
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 8, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Since you are choosing to be picky IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I hope the croping here meets with your approval.
              ----------------------------------------------------------------

              In the case of Josiah there is an ostracon which most likely references Josiah

              As ʾAshyahu the king (has) commanded you to give in the hand of Zakaryahu silver of Tarshish  for the house of Yahweh : three shekels.
               
              Hallo, W. W., & Younger, K. L. (2000). Context of Scripture (174). Leiden; Boston: Brill.
               
              A seal apparently belonging to the wife of the High Priest during the reign of Josiah
               
              (Belonging) to Abigail wife of Asayahu
              2.70N.     The seal of Hanan son of Hilqiyahu, the priest. As a Hilqiah was High Priest in the time of Josiah(2 Kgs 22:4etc.), this seal could have belonged to his son.
               
              Hallo, W. W., & Younger, K. L. (2000). Context of Scripture (200). Leiden; Boston: Brill.

              And a seal of a "servant of the King"

               
              (Belonging) to ʿAśayāhū
              “servant” (minister) of the king
              It is most probable that this ʿAśayāhūof the seal is identical with “Aśayā, servant of the king,” mentioned in 2 Kings 22:12, 14and 2 Chronicles 34:20. He appears as one of the team, sent by king Josiah(Yošiyāhū) in the year 622 to the temple in connection with the finding of the book, which is by most scholars identified with Deuteronomy.
               
              Hallo, W. W., & Younger, K. L. (2000). Context of Scripture (204). Leiden; Boston: Brill.
               
              This hardly seems like some fictitious character.
               
              In regard to David, there is the Tell Dan inscription.  Taking Beth Dauid as a place name still requires an explanation as to the reason for its naming. 
               
              Why should I be considered a "closet Fundamentalist" for ascribing some connection with history to the biblical texts.  It seems that you would ascribe more veracity to texts outside the biblical corpus than to that within it.  I think that the biblical texts should be placed on a more equal footing.

               george
              gfsomsel


              … search for truth, hear truth,
              learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
              defend the truth till death.


              - Jan Hus
              _________




              ________________________________
              From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...>
              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 4:48:39 PM
              Subject: SV: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages


              First, I believe that I speak for all the moderators when I recommend that mails are cropped. So this is.

              Second: How do you know, George, that the case of David and Josiah is different? Because you think it is?

              Very little in the biblical history is different from the historical" content of, say Saxo's medieval chronicle of Rexs Gestae Danorum, however, no serious Danish historian will write history on the Pre-Gorm period, i.e., about our history before 900 CE on the basis of Saxo. We even may have more archaeological evidence about this period, about the period of Rolf Kraka, Ragner Lodbrog, Frode the peacemaker, etc. etc., than is the case about David or for that matter Josiah. Still, we do not reconsider Sax's chronicle o to be history, and we do not rely on Saxo to write history, and we do not need to. In my new book -- mentioned several times today -- I end with a sketch of the history of Palestine over the last 10.000 years without help from the Old Testament. It works perfectly. The Old Testament only creates a lot of unnecessary problems because it distorts every possible perspective.

              Three: Tom is right in calling your position closet-fundamentali sm, as it is in your case perhaps not evangelicalism. You accord biblical narrative a position you will probably not accord any other written documents -- although I do not know your position on the issue of the historicity of the siege of Troy.

              Emanuel's advice is good, and will be productive for this discussion: there is excellent literature around about ethnicity and nation. Read some!

              As to Mendenhall, yes, this was exactly his thesis: His article was "The Hebrew Conquest", but the only element from outside of Palestine was the belief in the deity from Sinai named Yahweh, and a few supporters -- or so Mendenhall saw it. I was back in the early 1980's invited by Benjamin Mazar in his home for tea: What we discussed: Was/is Mendenhall a fundamentalist? Although he sacrificed history to save religion? I and Mazar agreed that this was/is the case. Mendenhall's reaction to Gottwald's Tribes of Yahweh from 1979 also shows what was at stake for Mendenhall, although Norm never understood that.

              Your tale of the origins of the bene Jisreel really needs confirmation from modern discussions about ethnicity. It is biblically inspired, no more, no less, and sadly totally out of tune with modern definitions of ethnicity and the nation. The biblical ideas are close to the ones found in Herodotus. More about this in My The Israelites in History and Tradition (WJK 1998).

              Niels Peter Lemche

              PS: We plan on Biblical Origins to have a discussion about history and the Bible, it will probably not be before the spring as the fall is totally booked up. But we need one. Jim West will probably say more, so if you are interested, join up.
              .





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Niels Peter Lemche
              The literature you mention will be by specialists reckoned conservative . So, so far you qualify. A seal with a name and the name appears elsewhere, and hokus
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 8, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                The literature you mention will be by specialists reckoned
                "conservative".

                So, so far you qualify. A seal with a name and the name appears
                elsewhere, and hokus pokus philiogus, we have a link, and a historicity
                confirmed. That kind of cheap linking has been a benchmark of
                conservative scholarship for more than a hundred years.

                Niels Peter Lemche

                PS: last mail from me on this: 1) the header is by now totally
                misleading, 2) we are moving into details on the historicity of biblical
                personalities which is not the subject of this list, and 3) continuation
                foreseen in the spring on biblical origins. Some people here will
                continue the discussion in Boston in two weeks' time. At the SBL
                meeting.
              • Jack Kilmon
                That s awesome, Jim. Any hints on the guests yet? Dr. Ehrman? Jack Jack Kilmon San Antonio,,TX ... From: Jim West To:
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 8, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  That's awesome, Jim. Any hints on the guests yet? Dr. Ehrman?

                  Jack


                  Jack Kilmon
                  San Antonio,,TX


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Jim West" <jwest@...>
                  To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 4:08 PM
                  Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: naming languages


                  > We are in fact in the planning stages of a colloquium regarding
                  > historical research, historicity, and the biblical text- on the biblical
                  > studies list. More when plans are finalized but at this point our
                  > procedure will be:
                  > stage 1- invited guests will offer substantive introductions to the way
                  > 'history' in relation to the biblical text ought to be done.
                  > stage 2- those invited guests will then interact with and respond to
                  > those introductions
                  > stage 3- list participants will then have opportunity to interact, pose
                  > questions, and offer suggestions.
                  >
                  > Jim
                  >
                  > Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
                  >>
                  >> PS: We plan on Biblical Origins to have a discussion about history and
                  >> the Bible, it will probably not be before the spring as the fall is
                  >> totally booked up. But we need one. Jim West will probably say more,
                  >> so if you are interested, join up.
                  >>
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.