From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #38 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Monday, February 8 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 038 ane To our Jordanian friends ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets ane Truth and Fiction Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets ane FWD: Manual of Sumerian Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets Re: ane Truth and Fiction ane another curious connection Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 08:13:08 -0500 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: ane To our Jordanian friends My condolences on your loss. May King Abdullah prove to be as wise and long-lived a ruler as his father. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 12:21:40 -0500 From: Judith Weingarten Subject: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets I am astonished not to have a had a single reply to this posting on ANE (repeated below). I know that everyone who is devoted to crank subjects (pro and contra) was busy with the Exodus and volcano's, whereas Etruscan only comes third or fourth in crankiness, but my posting was serious. The Etruscan Foundation is a respectable academic organization, and its Newsletter would not knowingly publish nonsense. As it's not my field, I can't judge, which is why I'd be grateful if someone would comment, on list or off. Kind regards, Judith >I have just received the Etruscan Foundation's Newsletter 18 (1998) which contains an article on a semantic analysis of the Pyrgi Tablets by Giovanni Semerano. He does not attempt to determine the linguistic structure of Etruscan, but rather the origins of its vocbulary. He finds that the *majority of parallels for the vocabulary* come from ancient Semitic languages, such as Assyrian.... in addition to a smattering from Indo-European local languages, such as Oscan. Even though the tablets were accompanied by a quasi-bilingual Phoenician text, this seems a surprising conclusion, which would have remarkable cultural consequences if correct. I wonder if anyone on the list has an opinion on the author's method and/or conclusions.< ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:52:55 +1300 From: "Don Mills" Subject: ane Truth and Fiction This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BE52F4.FB4EDCE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robin Lane Fox, according to a brief biography, is or was a Fellow of = New College, Oxford, and a University Reader in Ancient History. He is = also the author of *The Unauthorised Version*, subtitled, *Truth and = Fiction in the Bible*. According to Fox's "Introduction", it is "a = historian's view of the Bible. It is a book about evidence and = historical truth, not about faith. ... I write," he says, "as an = atheist, ... but there are times when atheists are loyal friends of the = truth." =20 Nonetheless, while Fox's book may not be about religious faith, it *is* = about belief. "I have written [about] Israelite piety in the age of = Solomon," he says, "an unnamed Jewish author in the mid sixth century BC = (the Deuteronomist), and Jesus' 'beloved disciple'. Others *believe* = [my emphasis, not his] we know next to nothing about the first of them, = nothing about the second, let alone his work or its revisions, and that = the third is not the author of a gospel. I have weighed the contrary = arguments and I disagree. ... =20 "When I had just about finished," the Introduction concludes, "a friend = reminded me that I had once remarked to him that I believed [ahah!] in = the Bible but not in God. I had long forgotten this remark, but it must = have remained latent in me. Twenty-five years later, this book has = turned out to be an explanation of what I meant." =20 Why have I quoted this? There have been frequent threads on this and = other lists in which some writers uphold the historical nature of some = part or other of the Biblical account, while others vigorously dispute = that position. Fair enough too. Such is the nature of scholarship, and = by such debate scholarship advances, and understanding and agreement are = arrived at (though not always). Robin Lane Fox happens to 'believe" = {his own word), on the basis of his "interpretations" (ipsissimum = verbum, again) of the evidence, that the Gospels "relate significant = events and sayings from the single life of a historical Jesus". As a = professional historian, he also "find[s] it hard to believe [again, his = own word] that no Israelites ever came out of Egypt under the guidance = of their special god, Yahweh." =20 Mr Fox has given us a lead with the "B" word of historical = interpretation. Let's turn now to Peter Daniels and the "F" word. = Peter wrote, "It always strikes me as strange that it's Biblical = Fundamentalists who are most eager to discount the tales of miracles by = offering naturalistic explanations. Once one has accepted the literal = truth of events described in the Bible, why should one feel obliged to = deny divine intervention in mundane affairs to account for them?" =20 A Biblical Fundamentalist, to be strictly accurate, is someone who = subscribes to the full twelve Fundamental Principles issued by the = American Bible League in 1902. It is not clear to me that the = initiators of the threads I have referred to subscribe to even one of = those twelve principles, although a supposition that some part of the = Biblical narrative may be historical may resemble the Fundamental = Principle of "Biblical inerrancy". =20 If Peter had thought about what he was writing, he'd have realised that = contributors who are prepared to countenance some part of a Biblical = account, while quite obviously rejecting some other part, by definition = cannot be Biblical Fundamentalists. What *is* clear to me is that Peter = intended to use the word "Fundamentalist" pejoratively, and used it = specifically to put down Stuart Nettleton, whose comments about the = Exodus narrative he quotes in their entirety. (Isn't there a list = regulation against doing that, by the way?) =20 Reading Stuart's contribution, I simply cannot see on what basis Peter = concludes that he (Stuart) would put his signature to "the completely = literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the scriptures, the = imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, = the Resurrection, and the Atonement" (quoting from a Britannica article = on Fundamentalism). And does Peter further presume to judge that Robin = Lane Fox, who upholds the historical truth of some parts of the Bible, = also subscribes to these beliefs? =20 I believe, Peter (but that's only my interpretation of the evidence = ), that you have been guilty of an ad hominen attack, and that = apologies are due to all who, like myself, believe that there may be = historical basis to the "historical" narratives of the Bible, without = believing that every word is literally true -- any more than we would = believe the literal truth of every word of a Livy or a Ramesses II. But = I leave the matter in your hands. =20 Best wishes, and with genuine thanks for your many *useful* = contributions, =20 Don Mills Wellington New Zealand - ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BE52F4.FB4EDCE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Robin Lane Fox, according to a brief = biography, is=20 or was a Fellow of New College, Oxford, and a University Reader in = Ancient=20 History.  He is also the author of *The Unauthorised Version*, = subtitled,=20 *Truth and Fiction in the Bible*.  According to Fox's=20 "Introduction", it is "a historian's view of the = Bible.  It=20 is a book about evidence and historical truth, not about faith. = ...  I=20 write," he says, "as an atheist, ... but there are times when = atheists=20 are loyal friends of the truth."
 
Nonetheless, while Fox's book may not = be about=20 religious faith, it *is* about belief.  "I have written = [about]=20 Israelite piety in the age of Solomon," he says, "an unnamed = Jewish=20 author in the mid sixth century BC (the Deuteronomist), and Jesus' = 'beloved=20 disciple'.  Others *believe* [my emphasis, not his] we know next to = nothing=20 about the first of them, nothing about the second, let alone his work or = its=20 revisions, and that the third is not the author of a gospel.  I = have=20 weighed the contrary arguments and I disagree. ...
 
"When I had just about = finished," the=20 Introduction concludes, "a friend reminded me that I had once = remarked to=20 him that I believed [ahah!] in the Bible but not in God.  I had = long=20 forgotten this remark, but it must have remained latent in me.  = Twenty-five=20 years later, this book has turned out to be an explanation of what I=20 meant."
 
Why have I quoted this?  There = have been=20 frequent threads on this and other lists in which some writers uphold = the=20 historical nature of some part or other of the  Biblical account, = while=20 others vigorously dispute that position.  Fair enough too.  = Such is=20 the nature of scholarship, and by such debate scholarship advances, and=20 understanding and agreement are arrived at (though not always).  = Robin Lane=20 Fox happens to 'believe" {his own word), on the basis of his=20 "interpretations" (ipsissimum verbum, again) of the evidence, = that the=20 Gospels "relate significant events and sayings from the single life = of a=20 historical Jesus".  As a professional historian, he also = "find[s]=20 it hard to believe [again, his own word] that no Israelites ever came = out of=20 Egypt under the guidance of their special god, = Yahweh."
 
Mr Fox has given us a lead with the = "B"=20 word of historical interpretation.  Let's turn now to Peter Daniels = and the=20 "F" word.  Peter wrote, "It always strikes me as = strange=20 that it's Biblical Fundamentalists who are most eager to discount the = tales of=20 miracles by offering naturalistic explanations. Once one has accepted = the=20 literal truth of events described in the Bible, why should one feel = obliged to=20 deny divine intervention in mundane affairs to account for=20 them?"
 
A Biblical Fundamentalist, to be = strictly accurate,=20 is someone who subscribes to the full twelve Fundamental Principles = issued by=20 the American Bible League in 1902.  It is not clear to me that the=20 initiators of the threads I have referred to subscribe to even one of = those=20 twelve principles, although a supposition that some part of the Biblical = narrative may be historical may resemble the Fundamental Principle of=20 "Biblical inerrancy".
 
If Peter had thought about what he was = writing,=20 he'd have realised that contributors who are prepared to countenance = some part=20 of a Biblical account, while quite obviously rejecting some other part, = by=20 definition cannot be Biblical Fundamentalists.  What *is* = clear to=20 me is that Peter intended to use the word "Fundamentalist"=20 pejoratively, and used it specifically to put down Stuart Nettleton, = whose=20 comments about the Exodus narrative he quotes in their entirety. (Isn't = there a=20 list regulation against doing that, by the way?)
 
Reading Stuart's contribution, I simply = cannot see=20 on what basis Peter concludes that he (Stuart) would put his signature = to=20 "the completely literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of = the=20 scriptures, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the = Virgin=20 Birth, the Resurrection, and the Atonement" (quoting from a = Britannica=20 article on Fundamentalism).   And does Peter further presume = to judge=20 that Robin Lane Fox, who upholds the historical truth of some parts of = the=20 Bible, also subscribes to these beliefs?
 
I believe, Peter (but that's only my = interpretation=20 of the evidence <g>), that you have been guilty of an ad hominen = attack,=20 and that apologies are due to all who, like myself, believe that there = may be=20 historical basis to the "historical" narratives of the Bible, = without=20 believing that every word is literally true -- any more than we would = believe=20 the literal truth of every word of a Livy or a Ramesses II.  But I = leave=20 the matter in your hands.
 
Best wishes, and with genuine thanks = for your many=20 *useful* contributions,
 
Don Mills
Wellington
New Zealand
- ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BE52F4.FB4EDCE0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 12:51:45 -0500 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets But what sort of opinion could any *non*-crank have, without any indication of what his methods and/or results are? I imagine the Etruscan Foundation Newsletter isn't one of the more widely available publications in the scholarly world! (And, if the University of Chicago Libraries received it, they wouldn't keep it; items called "Newsletter" are treated as ephemera and not stored/archived. I don't know how widespread that practice is.) Judith Weingarten wrote: > > I am astonished not to have a had a single reply to this posting on > ANE (repeated below). I know that everyone who is devoted to crank > subjects (pro and contra) was busy with the Exodus and volcano's, whereas > Etruscan only comes third or fourth in crankiness, but my posting was > serious. The Etruscan Foundation is a respectable academic organization, > and its Newsletter would not knowingly publish nonsense. As it's not my > field, I can't judge, which is why I'd be grateful if someone would > comment, on list or off. > > Kind regards, > Judith > > >I have just received the Etruscan Foundation's Newsletter 18 (1998) which > contains an article on a semantic analysis of the Pyrgi Tablets by > Giovanni Semerano. He does not attempt to determine the linguistic > structure of Etruscan, but rather the origins of its vocbulary. He finds > that the *majority of parallels for the vocabulary* come from ancient > Semitic languages, such as Assyrian.... in addition to a smattering from > Indo-European local languages, such as Oscan. Even though the tablets were > accompanied by a quasi-bilingual Phoenician text, this seems a surprising > conclusion, which would have remarkable cultural consequences if correct. > I wonder if anyone on the list has an opinion on the author's method > and/or conclusions.< - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 12:57:20 -0500 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > But what sort of opinion could any *non*-crank have, without any > indication of what his methods and/or results are? I imagine the > Etruscan Foundation Newsletter isn't one of the more widely available > publications in the scholarly world! > > (And, if the University of Chicago Libraries received it, they wouldn't > keep it; items called "Newsletter" are treated as ephemera and not > stored/archived. I don't know how widespread that practice is.) The New York Public Library has *Etruscan Studies: Journal of the Etruscan Foundation* (Wayne State Univ., Detroit), starting with vol. 1 (1994), but not its Newsletter. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 13:49:40 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets At 12:51 PM 2/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >But what sort of opinion could any *non*-crank have, without any >indication of what his methods and/or results are? I imagine the >Etruscan Foundation Newsletter isn't one of the more widely available >publications in the scholarly world! > >(And, if the University of Chicago Libraries received it, they wouldn't >keep it; items called "Newsletter" are treated as ephemera and not >stored/archived. I don't know how widespread that practice is.) I have to agree with peter here. I have never heard of this newsletter much less had opportunity to read it. That is why I made no comments---- having not read it I have no idea if the fellow is on the mark or not. Perhaps you would be willing to summarize his arguments for us???? Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net http://web.infoave.net/~jwest ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:13:54 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane FWD: Manual of Sumerian In response to the recent discussion on the list the following is forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. (John Hays is not currently subscribed to ANE) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: jlhayes@uclink4.berkeley.edu (John Hayes) For those of you who have enquired, the second edition of my Manual of Sumerian should appear towards the end of 1999, published by Undena Publications (805) 946-2726. It has been thoroughly revised, and some Ur III letters, legal texts, and economic texts have been added. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 21:45:04 +0200 From: "Rex H. McTyeire" Subject: Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets Judith Weingarten wrote: > > I am astonished not to have a had a single reply to this posting on > ANE (repeated below). I know that everyone who is devoted to crank > subjects (pro and contra) was busy with the Exodus and volcano's, whereas > Etruscan only comes third or fourth in crankiness, but my posting was > serious. The Etruscan Foundation is a respectable academic organization, > and its Newsletter would not knowingly publish nonsense. As it's not my > field, I can't judge, which is why I'd be grateful if someone would > comment, on list or off. > > Kind regards, > Judith > > >I have just received the Etruscan Foundation's Newsletter 18 (1998) which > contains an article on a semantic analysis of the Pyrgi Tablets by > Giovanni Semerano. He does not attempt to determine the linguistic > structure of Etruscan, but rather the origins of its vocbulary. He finds > that the *majority of parallels for the vocabulary* come from ancient > Semitic languages, such as Assyrian.... in addition to a smattering from > Indo-European local languages, such as Oscan. Even though the tablets were > accompanied by a quasi-bilingual Phoenician text, this seems a surprising > conclusion, which would have remarkable cultural consequences if correct. > I wonder if anyone on the list has an opinion on the author's method > and/or conclusions.< Chill Judith..your problem is compuserve..not the list. I responded twice with an extremely verbose, extended and only slightly cranky opinion in support of Semerano..off line..and compuserve sent it back twice..apparently there is an address or reception problem. (I think your first copy did not have the underline between Judith/weingarten?) As a third shot..I posted a request for a different address to Ancien-l,in response to your cross-post. I have the letter saved, so send me (and us) a corrected address. La Revedere: Rex H. McTyeire Bucharest, Romania rexbo@customers.digiro.net Reason is a metaphor of the flat earth. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 19:37:51 -0500 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Truth and Fiction Don Mills wrote (albeit in html, in a condensed, sans serif font, making his message rather difficult to read): [I remove everything concerning Robin Lane Fox, who and whose works are unknown to me and irrelevant to the discussion] > Mr Fox has given us a lead with the "B" word of historical > interpretation [scil. "belief"].  Let's turn now to Peter Daniels and the "F" word.  > Peter wrote, "It always strikes me as strange that it's Biblical > Fundamentalists who are most eager to discount the tales of miracles > by offering naturalistic explanations. Once one has accepted the > literal truth of events described in the Bible, why should one feel > obliged to deny divine intervention in mundane affairs to account for > them?" >   > A Biblical Fundamentalist, to be strictly accurate, is someone who > subscribes to the full twelve Fundamental Principles issued by the > American Bible League in 1902.  It is not clear to me that the > initiators of the threads I have referred to subscribe to even one of > those twelve principles, although a supposition that some part of the > Biblical narrative may be historical may resemble the Fundamental > Principle of "Biblical inerrancy". I am aware of the historical background of the term "Fundamentalism." I am, however, using it in its commonly understood sense (mng. 1a in the Merriam-Webster 10th Collegiate) of "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching." I am concerned with "literal" more than "inerrant." > If Peter had thought about what he was writing, he'd have realised > that contributors who are prepared to countenance some part of a > Biblical account, while quite obviously rejecting some other part, by > definition cannot be Biblical Fundamentalists.  What *is* clear to me > is that Peter intended to use the word "Fundamentalist" pejoratively, > and used it specifically to put down Stuart Nettleton, whose comments > about the Exodus narrative he quotes in their entirety. (Isn't there a > list regulation against doing that, by the way?) I crafted my paragraph very carefully to avoid any pejoration. Mr. Mills stops his quotation above before the sentence that connects it specifically to Mr. Nettleton's message: "Why didn't the parting of the Red Sea take place exactly as described in Exodus?" (I have certainly never heard of a regulation prohibiting quoting a posting in its entirety, if the entirely is what is being commented on!) I do not see how Mr. Nettleton "quite obviously reject[s] some other part," unless Mr. Mills claims that Mr. Nettleton is in fact denying divine intervention at the Red Sea? > Reading Stuart's contribution, I simply cannot see on what basis Peter > concludes that he (Stuart) would put his signature to "the completely > literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the scriptures, the > imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, > the Resurrection, and the Atonement" (quoting from a Britannica > article on Fundamentalism).   And does Peter further presume to judge > that Robin Lane Fox, who upholds the historical truth of some parts of > the Bible, also subscribes to these beliefs? I do not see that use of the ordinary (American) English use of the word implies acquiescence to the entire belief system packed into the phrase from the otherwise unidentified Britannica characterization. (One would expect that such an article would have been written by Martin Marty, but Prof. Marty does not restrict the term to a particular sort of Christianity; his "Fundamentalisms Project" is a multivolume survey of numerous world religions, encompassing (at least) Judaism and Islam as well as a variety of Christian fundamentalisms.) And again, Mr. Fox is irrelevant. Unlike Mr. Mills, I reproduce Mr. Nettleton's paragraph below. I don't see how it can be interpreted other than as an attempt to find naturalistic causes for what are presented in the biblical narrative as miraculous events; and I don't see why anyone who didn't believe in their literal occurrence would be concerned to find explanations for them (beyond the etiological ones that are found in many other biblical narratives); and I find it paradoxical that anyone seeking explanations for them would seek those explanations in the mundane, the non-miraculous, rather than in the divine. > I believe, Peter (but that's only my interpretation of the evidence > ), that you have been guilty of an ad hominen attack, and that > apologies are due to all who, like myself, believe that there may be > historical basis to the "historical" narratives of the Bible, without > believing that every word is literally true -- any more than we would > believe the literal truth of every word of a Livy or a Ramesses II.  > But I leave the matter in your hands. Only Mr. Nettleton can say whether he interpreted my comment as an ad hominem attack. (I suspect that that's not actually what Mr. Mills wishes to accuse me of, though; making an ad hominem attack, I suggest that he look up the term.) > Best wishes, and with genuine thanks for your many *useful* > contributions, ***** the original posting: ***** I note that your theory places Exodus in the reign of Sethnakht, c1186BC to 1184BC. If the Israelites were expelled at this time and wandered for 40 years in the wilderness, as an itinerant tribe in fear of Ramses III, it would coincide precisely with the violent third eruption of the Icelandic volcano Hekla III in 1159BC. Hekla III erupted in 1628BC and again in 1159BC, during the rule of Ramses III, causing major global events and climate changes. The 1159BC eruption virtually depopulated northwest Britain causing many extraordinary phenomena recorded by the Chinese. These included double suns, pale suns, dry mists and frosts in summer. In Egypt and Palestine the effects could have well included a tidal wave, which has been related to us as the parting of the Red Sea, and a pillar of fire by night and cloud by day. The Exodus and the eruption of Hekla III would have been closely associated in the minds of the scribes who may have recorded the story of Exodus in about 966BC. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 21:23:25 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane another curious connection On Sat. Feb 6, Tom Simms wrote: >Now, the Exodus itself needs looking at briefly. Suppose Ra >Meses, Moses, Si Osire, Osarsiph, Arsu, Bai or whoever he was, took >his followers quickly out of Egypt. He would be out of active >control by the forces of the King. He would head for Midian, the >place of his reputed first exile beyond the Gulf of Aqaba. The >secure way there is through southern Sinai. The whole idea that Moses fled to a Midian outside of Africa is debateable. The idea that Midian was in the Eastern desert has been around a long time. In the late 2nd c BC the Hellenistic Jewish writer Ezekiel the Poet wrote a Greek tragedy called Exagoge, Exodus. I think I am quoting here from the Encyclopedia Judaica (1971, under Moses? Zipporah?) but if not, then from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1905): "After a soliloquoy by Moses on his early life the action begins with Moses watching the seven fair daughters of Raguel and with Zipporah telling him that he is in the land of Libya, which 'is held by the Ethiopians' but ruled by her father." We also have the legend in the Sefer ha Yashar acc to which Jethro took Moses for an Ethiopian fugitive and intended to deliver him to the Ethiopians. [quoted in JE q.v. "Moses"]. Which implies an assumption of some geographical proximity... The idea that the Medjaiu whose leaders became involved at the Egyptian court in the 13th dynasty, etc. were possibly the Biblical Midianites, and that they were a nation who roamed between NW Arabia and the Eastern desert has been thrown around in the archaeological literature about the identity of the pan-Graves mercenaries. [Acc to the Talmud? refs in JE article, when Moses was a child in Pharaoh's court, "Balaam and Jethro were at that time among the king's councillors." ]. I just happened to notice Barry Kemp in Trigger et al, 1983 [Eg A Soc Hist] p 122 speaking of inscriptions found in the Wadi el Hudi, one of which belongs to Khaneferre Sebekhetep, the Pharoah another Hellenistic Jewish writer Artapanus had identified as Moses' foster father Chenephres. Apparently one of the inscriptions in this curiously coincidental Wadi el Hudi appears to place this particular region in Medjaiu territory... Is it possible that this is where Moses hid out? Or perhaps his mission to Ethiopia as crown prince, viceroy of Kush, took him up this Nubian valley, " a source of amethyst and possibly of gold?" and he left inscriptions in his father's name?. [Artapanus, preserved in Eusebius? : "Jealousy of Moses' excellent qualities induced Chenephres to send him with unskilled troops on a military expedition to Ethiopia, where he won great victories"]. Or maybe when he later ran away his contrite dad came looking for him in the Wadi Hudi and decided to leave an inscription? [Come back! I'm dying of elephantiasis![JE]. (Just kidding, but it's no more off the wall than all the rest of what's been flying around on this topic.) It is interesting that a headless statue of this otherwise obscure Pharoah was also found in the heartland of Kush, on the island of Sai. Josephus also speaks of a great invasion by the Ethiopians which happened in the time of Moses in which 3/4 of the "cities" of Mizraim were wiped out [i.e. the "sons" #2-8 in Gen. 10, which even in his day were long extinct][Did this happen after the Exodus?? when Egypt lay wasted and vulnerable? e.g. King Nehesi in the E Delta?]. Perhaps at this time the Kushites captured a statue of Sobekhotep IV from the Wadi Hudi and brought it home and beheaded it! A statue of Kha-nefer-re was also schlepped to Syria. Do you suppose he was famous outside of Egypt for something? We can be pretty sure the ancients remembered more than we will ever know! That's why we need God, who remembers every jot and every tittle on every text ever written! To paraphrase Bob Marley, 4000 years of history cannot be wiped so easily! If not in this world, there's always the next... E. Adams ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 05:10:43 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane Reposting: Etruscan Pyrgi Tablets Judith Weingarten wrote: >>I have just received the Etruscan Foundation's Newsletter 18 (1998) which >contains an article on a semantic analysis of the Pyrgi Tablets by >Giovanni Semerano. He does not attempt to determine the linguistic >structure of Etruscan, but rather the origins of its vocbulary. He finds >that the *majority of parallels for the vocabulary* come from ancient >Semitic languages, such as Assyrian.... in addition to a smattering from >Indo-European local languages, such as Oscan. Even though the tablets were >accompanied by a quasi-bilingual Phoenician text, this seems a surprising >conclusion, which would have remarkable cultural consequences if correct. > I wonder if anyone on the list has an opinion on the author's method >and/or conclusions.< I wonder how one can make a semantic analysis without considering the "linguistic structure" of Etruscan (whatever that may mean). Perhaps a summary of the arguments is in order, as requested by Jim West. To make things easier, here's an alphabetical list of the Etruscan words on the Pyrgi tablets: acna$vers al$ase amu-ce (verb, "to be"?) atranes avil, avil-chval ("year") ci ("three") cleva, cluvenia-s ("offering"?) churvar eniaca etanal heramve, herama$va ("statue") ica-c ("and that") ilacve ita, itanim ("this", "thus"?) masan (a month?) mech munistas nac ("because"?) pulum-chva ("stars") sal seleitala snuiaph $ela-ce (verb) tameresca tmia, tmia-l ("temple") tiur ("month") te$iameitale tulerase turu-ce ("he gave") thamu-ce (verb) Thefarie, Thefariei ("Tiberius") themiasa thuta thuvas vacal vatie-che (passive verb, "it was built[?]") Velianas, Veliiunas ("Velianas") uni-as, uni-al-astre-s ("Juno", "Juno-Astarte") zilac-al ("zilac" [magistrate]) ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #38 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html