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

Fwd: The Qeiyafa Ostracon

Expand Messages
  • Brian Colless
    Recently I suggested Socoh for Qeifaya (because it was a good lookout ); yesterday it was Gob (Nadav Na`aman); today the bidding ceases. Yosef Garfinkel has
    Message 1 of 69 , Nov 18, 2008
      Recently I suggested Socoh for Qeifaya (because it was a good
      'lookout'); yesterday it was Gob (Nadav Na`aman); today the bidding
      ceases. Yosef Garfinkel has just demonstrated that it is Sha`arayim
      (Dual gates) by producing the second gate. It is mentioned as the
      starting point of the chasing of the Philistines back to Gath and
      Ekron, after David slew Goliath (1 Samuel 17:52; cp. Joshua 15:36).

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/17/MNS314468L.DTL

      Incidentally, and intriguingly, and interestingly, Aren Maeir is
      allowed the last word, from Gath: David and Solomon are not figments.

      We now learn from San Francisco that 10 of the 50 letters on the
      ostracon have faded away, and it is going to be put into Cedars Sinai
      hospital in Los Angeles, to make it better. But we still have the
      words for servant, judge, and king, which is very fitting for a time
      of supposed change from rulers called ShPTM to MLKM (from the Book of
      Judges to the 4 books of Kings).

      And the king would be Saul, who ruled from Gib`ah a few miles north of
      Jerusalem?
      (Still Albright's Tell el-Fûl?)
      Or David, who moved from there to Jerusalem?
      (I note that little David is said to have taken Goliath's head to
      Jerusalem, though the city was not the capital at that time; 1 Sam
      17:54)

      Am I a minimalist? You will never pin that rap on me.
      I am a radical conservative, or vice versa.


      Brian Colless
      Massey U, NZ

      Begin forwarded message:

      > From: Brian Colless <briancolless@...>
      > Date: 19 November 2008 1:20:36 AM
      > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: The Qeiyafa Ostracon: A Chronicle
      >
      > On 18/11/2008, at 1:51 PM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
      >> While guesses abound about the nature of the discovered ostracon, the
      >> Qeiyafa excavation team has posted the chronicle. It appears from the
      >> chronicle that there is some rivalry between this site and nearby
      >> Gath.
      >> http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ostracon.asp
      >
      > Thanks for alerting us to this, Yitzhak.
      >
      > I was the one who hounded Aren Maeir for more information about his
      > 11/9 explosion (what some silly people confusingly call 9/11) on "11
      > September 2008" (though it was 14/9/08 when I butted in).
      >
      > More recently have said on Khirbet Qeiyafa:
      >
      > A name for the place in the Bible? Could it be ´Socoh ["Lookout?"
      > Root s´k h, look, watch] , "belonging to Judah", near the Elah valley
      > (I Sam 17:1-2)? . The Philistines gathered there for battle, pitching
      > their camp between Socoh and Azekah; Saul and the Israelites camped
      > by the valley of Elah (b`emeq ha-'elah).
      >
      >
      > Now Gob (2 Sam 21:19) has been suggested, and Socoh is said to be
      > Khirbet 'Abbad.
      >
      > Brian Colless, Massey University, NZ
      >
      > Nadav Na'aman, In Search of the Ancient Name of Khirbet Qeiyafa
      >
      > Khirbet Qeiyafa is located on the north side of the Valley of Elah,
      > east of
      > Tell Zakariyeh (biblical Azekah) and north of Khirbet ‘Abbad
      > (biblical So-
      > coh).
      > Abstract
      >
      > This article discusses the identity of the recently excavated
      > stronghold
      > of Khirbet Qeiyafa, a tenth century BCE site located near the Valley
      > of
      > Elah, in the area where the story of the battle between David and
      > Goliath takes place. There is also the story of a battle between
      > Elhanan
      > the Bethlehemite and Goliath of Gath that takes place at Gob (2 Sam
      > 21:19). In light of a comparison of the two episodes I suggest
      > identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa with biblical Gob. A close reading of the
      > four anecdotes related in 2 Sam 21:15-22 clarifies the message of the
      > early biblical tradition of four battles fought between Israelite and
      > Philistine elite warriors that culminated in the advance of the
      > Israelite troops to the gates of Philistine Gath.
      >
      > http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_98.pdf



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ariel L. Szczupak
      ... That would be me, and I use the ad-hoc term (Levant Semitic) for the 2nd & early 1st mbc when the linguistic situation is somewhat messy. I m much less
      Message 69 of 69 , Dec 2, 2008
        At 02:31 PM 12/2/2008, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

        >It should have a colophon, no? or at least a date?
        > --
        >Peter T. Daniels <mailto:grammatim%40verizon.net>grammatim@...
        >________________________________
        >From: Yitzhak Sapir <<mailto:yitzhaksapir%40gmail.com>yitzhaksapir@...>
        >To: <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        >Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 8:53:04 PM
        >Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Paleo-Hebrew
        >
        >On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
        > > Which means that (even if the tablet is genuine, and even if the ?Hebrew
        > > docket on it is genuine) there's no hope of knowing where it came from.
        > >
        > > At which "LS" (as you call it)-speaking sites were cuneiform economic
        > > documents in use in the NB period? --
        > > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon. net
        > >
        > > I know Laurie Pearce as a specialist in mathematical tablets. Is that
        > > irrelevant? Why would a mathematical tablet bear a ?Hebrew docket?
        >
        >Dear Peter,
        >
        >I don't call anything "LS."

        That would be me, and I use the ad-hoc term (Levant Semitic) for the
        2nd & early 1st mbc when the linguistic situation is somewhat messy.

        I'm much less familiar with the evidence from the NB period. My
        impression is that by that time all we have is Aramaic & Hebrew, with
        a hypothetical Phoenician, assumed to be different from Punic.
        Nabatean & Syriac come only later in the 1st mbc. Is that correct? Is
        there really no evidence of mid-1st mbc Phoenician? And what is the
        current body of evidence and "common wisdom" about Samaritan?


        Ariel.

        [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

        ---
        Ariel L. Szczupak
        AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
        POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
        Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
        ane.als@...
        ---
        http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
        http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.