Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:30:55 -0600 (CST) From: (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest@asmar.uchicago.edu Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #356 Sender: Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Sunday, December 19 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 356 RE: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials RE: ane Re: Birth of Abraham (fwd) RE: ane Dating Abraham Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials Re: ane horses in North Syria (spread of IE) ane horses in North Syria (spread of IE) Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials ane Tell es-Sweyhat Abraham and ane RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies, Yankee Doodle Dandy Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies ane Ch-Z-R FW: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies, Yankee Doodle Dandy ane Re:Fighting the Fringe Re: Abraham and ane ane ANE Personal Ads Section? RE: ane Validation Re: ane Re:Fighting the Fringe Re: ane Re: Birth of Abraham (fwd) Re: ane Afterlife in Mesopotamia RE: ane Validation Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials ane Hebrew - Apiru Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials Re: ane Re: Birth of Abraham (fwd) Re: ane Afterlife in Mesopotamia Re: ane Afterlife in Mesopotamia Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies ane Pottery Identification Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:15:45 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies Donald R. Vance > Has anyone posited the idea of a folk etymology for the Hebrew ibri as a > way of connecting that term to hapiru? That is, the ibriim heard > themselves being called habiru (regardless of whether the speakers were > actually saying hapiru--compare Beijing and Peking as English renditions > of what is, presumably, one Chinese name), they connected that term with > the term. > > On 12/18/99 9:09 PM, avigdor horovitz at victor@bgumail.bgu.ac.il did pen > the following: > > >Dear All, > >The linguistic equation ibri=hapi:ru is impossible. the problem is not > >the b-p but the long vowel. Long vowels dont' disappear. This > >impossibility has been pointed out by no less an authority than Rykle > >Borger and accepted fully by Anson Rainey. So any equation between Hapiru > >and ibri must be fully on functional basis, showing that the Hebrews as > >described in the Bible were similar sociologically, etc to hapiru. but > >without the supposed linguistic equation, which is erroneous, it is > >doubtful whether anyone would ever have equated them in the first place. > >Victor > > > [Niels Peter Lemche] Anything is possible, and if only the case was as clear as Avigdor Horowitz put it, but see the discussion in Oswald Loretz, Habiru-Hebräer from 1984 (BZAW series), and also Bottéro's article in RLA. Although Horowitz' argument is from a strictly philological point of view sound, it could a case of correcting people who did not know such rules. A hundred years ago my university had a then famous professor in Greek and Latin who was correcting Cicero's Latin--as if Cicero did not know his grammar. Loretz's should as a matter of fact be read before one venture into a serious discussion of the subject. Also to scorn any easy identification of Habiru and Hebrews on the historical level. NPL ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:24:14 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials George, they are primary sources, the question is, however, to what. If we for a split second leave the HB and turn to other matters, the Sargom legend is a primary source, probably not to the live of the king of Akkad, but the ideas about this king around at a later date. The biblical story about David is a primary source, however not to historical source but the ideas about David current when they were written down. NPL > -----Original Message----- > From: George Athas [SMTP:gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au] > Sent: Sunday, 19 December, 1999 06:25 > To: ANE > Subject: Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials > > > The passages in the Bible - Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, etc... - ARE > > historically relevent. > > > > They are the documentation of a people and can be considered prime > source > > material for the study of ancient history. Yes, there is certainly > bias. > > When isn't there? And there certainly are mythological elements and > > alterations and additions from oral folklore. Even the stories, myths > and > > folklore are fair game for historical analysis. Let's not discount one > of > > the most complete collections of documents of ancient history. > > They are documents - yes. They are sources - yes. They are primary sources > - no! As far as > sources go, the biblical texts are not primary historical sources. They > might be > historical sources that do have something to tell us about a particular > age, whether that > be the age of the author, or the age of the characters (if it can do so), > but primary > sources they are not. True, we can't just discount them in terms of any > historical > value -- they need to be assessed from many different angles. But we must > be aware that > they are not primary sources. They may well be primary theological > sources, but they are > not primary historical sources. > > Best regards, > George Athas > Dept of Semitic Studies, > University of Sydney > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > Tel Dan Inscription Website > http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:26:21 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane Re: Birth of Abraham (fwd) > -----Original Message----- > From: Gary Greenberg [SMTP:ggreenberg@email.msn.com] > Sent: Sunday, 19 December, 1999 04:40 > To: ANE list > Subject: Re: ane Re: Birth of Abraham (fwd) > > Re the posting below: > Isn't it the case that the Hebrews didn't use the term Hebrew to describe > themselves until well after the start of the post-exilic period, and that > all references in the bible that use the term Hebrew to describe the > Israelites before that time, appear only when non-Israelites describe the > Israelites? If so, doesn't that undermine the argument below? > > Gary Greenberg > [Niels Peter Lemche] That is the argument of Loretz, in his Habiru-Hebräer, 1984. As to how it is used in the HB, see article by me and Na'aman, I remember mine to have been published in 1979 in Studie Theologica, and Na'aman's was published in JNES arpund the same time. NPL ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:28:20 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane Dating Abraham > Note, Dr. Lemche, that I did not use the term "believe". I said I am > "convinced", a very different term. > > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature > Undergraduate Theology > Oral Roberts University > drvance@oru.edu > > Dr Vance, > > it is not very different whether you say believe or say I am convinced. > You cannot be an argument. You as a person do not carry any weight, > neither do I for that matter. The correct phrase is to say: Evidence > available has convinced me, or evience available has made me believe > that... > > NPL > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:20:10 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies Dear Donald and list-members, Shouldn't we first ask ourselves why any group of people would willingly connect themselves to such a pejorative term? That others may have disparagingly labeled the Hebrews as `api:ru (and may well have noticed the play on words as well) is certainly plausible, but are there any other cases in history where a group of people would call themselves such a name just because others did so? All the best, Chaim Cohen On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Donald R. Vance wrote: > Has anyone posited the idea of a folk etymology for the Hebrew ibri as a > way of connecting that term to hapiru? That is, the ibriim heard > themselves being called habiru (regardless of whether the speakers were > actually saying hapiru--compare Beijing and Peking as English renditions > of what is, presumably, one Chinese name), they connected that term with > the term. > > On 12/18/99 9:09 PM, avigdor horovitz at victor@bgumail.bgu.ac.il did pen > the following: > > >Dear All, > >The linguistic equation ibri=hapi:ru is impossible. the problem is not > >the b-p but the long vowel. Long vowels dont' disappear. This > >impossibility has been pointed out by no less an authority than Rykle > >Borger and accepted fully by Anson Rainey. So any equation between Hapiru > >and ibri must be fully on functional basis, showing that the Hebrews as > >described in the Bible were similar sociologically, etc to hapiru. but > >without the supposed linguistic equation, which is erroneous, it is > >doubtful whether anyone would ever have equated them in the first place. > >Victor > > > >On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, chris.cleutjens wrote: > > > >> Dear list, > >> Some years ago I read this in "The Hab/piru"by Moshe Greenberg, AOS, 1955. > >> on the assumption that Hab/piru and Hebrew are one. > >> It removed many doubts (for me personally) about the historicy of the figure > >> Abraham. > >> > >> "Those who favor a combination of 'Apiru and Hebrew find support in the > >> designation of Abraham as 'ibri'. "If Abraham had not been called a Hebrew, > >> we should be nevertheless justified in classing him with the Habiru" > >> (Speiser, op.cit.43.) > >> The migrant nature of the Terahide (in spite of his urban origin!), his > >> apparent lack of rights in the lands of his sojourn, and the congruity of > >> the Patriarchal age in time and place with the area and period of > >> concentrated 'Apiru activity (15-13th century Syria-Palestine) lend > >> plausible to this view. > >> Building on the assumption that Abraham an his family were 'Apiru it is > >> plausible to suggest a reason for the gentillic usage of 'ibri': since the > >> interest of the Biblical writers in Abraham centered in his role as the > >> ancestor of the later Israelite nation, an epithet which originally marked > >> his social status was transformed by them (perhaps unawares) into familial > >> designation, well adapted to set the proto-Israelites off from the > >> surrounding ethnic groups. > >> Such an hypothesis would explain, furthermore, why 'ibri' preserves no trace > >> of social implications; why, again, it refers so exclusively to Abraham and > >> his proto-Israelite descendants. hence the assumption that the Abrahamides > >> were an offshoot of the 'Apiru whose origins were later obscured by the > >> peculiar gentilic adaptation of the term in Biblical 'ibri appears > >> attractive as well as plausible." > >> > >> I think M. Greenberg was and still is very close with his "assumptions". > >> Since then I haven't read anything more plausible about the historicy of > >> Abraham. > >> Or did I missed so much? > >> > >> Asuming that I am qualified to have an opinion, I see Abraham > >> chronologically migrate more than a century earlier than the 15th century. > >> In and around the period of the Kassite occupation of the Harran area. Which > >> resulted in the forced southwards migration of many ethnic groups which > >> formed the "Hyksos-invasion" in Egypt. > >> But that's chronology. An uncomfortable stone in many ANE-historians' shoe. > >> Unfortunately. > >> > >> with kind regards, > >> Chris Cleutjens > >> ---------------------------- > >> > >> > >That's a far cry from absolute denial of the historicity of Biblical > >> > figures, and > >> > >it involves the idea of tradition history to which I subscribe. > >> > > >> > jim > >> > >> > > > > > > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature > Undergraduate Theology > Oral Roberts University > drvance@oru.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:02:20 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials Dear NPL, George and list members, If we can all agree that the Biblical stories concerning the Patriarchs, David etc. all contain POTENTIALLY the same amount of historical value concerning the figures being described in these stories (and do not have ONLY historical value for the time of the authors) as does the late (13th - - 8th century B.C.E.) Birth of Sargon legend for the third millennium historical figure, Sargon of Agade and that by the same token, the Moses birth legend would have equal POTENTIAL historical value concerning the figure of Moses, then I think we are basically in agreement with the Albright school. If on the other hand, some of us think that that is the case with respect to the Birth of Sargon legend vis a vis the historical figure of Sargon, but such is NOT the case with respect to the Biblical stories (including the Moses birth story), then the burden of proof is on them to explain the difference. All the best, Chaim Cohen PS If anyone needs bibliography with respect to the Birth of Sargon legend, let me mention the two standard editions of this text: B. Lewis, THE SARGON LEGEND, ASOR Dissertation Series #4 (Cambridge, 1980); J. G. Westenholz, LEGENDS OF THE KINGS OF AKKADE (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 1997), pp. 36-49. Let me also mention my own comparative article (comparing the Sargon Birth Legend with the Moses birth story in Ex. 2) in JANES 4/1 (1972), pp. 36-51 (esp. pp. 46-51). On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Niels Peter Lemche wrote: > George, > > they are primary sources, the question is, however, to what. If we for a > split second leave the HB and turn to other matters, the Sargom legend is a > primary source, probably not to the live of the king of Akkad, but the ideas > about this king around at a later date. The biblical story about David is a > primary source, however not to historical source but the ideas about David > current when they were written down. > NPL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Athas [SMTP:gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au] > > Sent: Sunday, 19 December, 1999 06:25 > > To: ANE > > Subject: Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials > > > > > The passages in the Bible - Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, etc... - ARE > > > historically relevent. > > > > > > They are the documentation of a people and can be considered prime > > source > > > material for the study of ancient history. Yes, there is certainly > > bias. > > > When isn't there? And there certainly are mythological elements and > > > alterations and additions from oral folklore. Even the stories, myths > > and > > > folklore are fair game for historical analysis. Let's not discount one > > of > > > the most complete collections of documents of ancient history. > > > > They are documents - yes. They are sources - yes. They are primary sources > > - no! As far as > > sources go, the biblical texts are not primary historical sources. They > > might be > > historical sources that do have something to tell us about a particular > > age, whether that > > be the age of the author, or the age of the characters (if it can do so), > > but primary > > sources they are not. True, we can't just discount them in terms of any > > historical > > value -- they need to be assessed from many different angles. But we must > > be aware that > > they are not primary sources. They may well be primary theological > > sources, but they are > > not primary historical sources. > > > > Best regards, > > George Athas > > Dept of Semitic Studies, > > University of Sydney > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > Tel Dan Inscription Website > > http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:29:39 +0200 From: Naccache Subject: Re: ane horses in North Syria (spread of IE) On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Giuseppe Del Monte wrote: >Dear Albert, >your etymology for an$e-kur-ra is really nice (napahu "shining", as the sun >or the moon, or "flaring", as a raging fire), but in my (traditional) >opinion the reference is rather to the provenience of horses, "from the >mountain(s)", kur-ra. Citations and bibliographical references in CAD S pp. >328-334 s.v. sisu. Dear Giuseppe, Of course you are right. The main point I was trying to make was that the horse was known in Old Akkadian times, i.e., second half of the IIIrd MBC. I was not trying to propose a new etymology for ANŠE.KUR.RA, though I have had problem with the traditional one for a long time, since in my admittedly meagre knowledge of animal husbandry, the "mountain donkey" would be the onager rather than the horse, but what do I know. I took my hint from the fact that ANŠE.KUR.RA= horse is abbreviated to KUR (ok, only in the Neo-Assyrian period, and "shadum" is also sometimes abbreviated to KUR, but still :). Now, since you are mentioning the CAD, may I interject a personal plea? Before leaving the USA I was lucky enough to be able to buy vols. A (1 & 2), B, D, E, G, H, I/J, K, S., and Z from a used bookstore in Berkeley. Ever since I have been hoping to buy, at second-hand prices, the remaining volumes. Does any list member know if that is possible? (even the AUB library does not have all the published volumes! and we have to rely on A.Hw. ;~{ Best, Albert Naccache anaccash@nidal.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:07:28 +0100 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane horses in North Syria (spread of IE) Dear listmembers, At long last I have succeeded in finding Bretschneider's illustrated (!) article about Tell Beydar. You should go to: http://ugarit.uni-muenster.de/beydar.htm At the following address you will see a photo of the fabulous chariot sealing from 2400 BC (Siegelabrollung aus dem Palast um 2400 v.Chr.): http://ugarit.uni-muenster.de/siegelab.htm As far as I can see, and as was to be expected, the wheels are not spoked. The sealing is very small, and Bretschneider's interpretations may be open to objections. But there seems to be no doubt about the dating. Best wishes, Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 08:26:21 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies chaim cohen wrote: > > Dear Donald and list-members, > Shouldn't we first ask ourselves why any group of people would willingly > connect themselves to such a pejorative term? That one's easy ... negative terms get "rehabilitated" all the time. Cf. in modern American "nigger," "queer," "crone," ... taken up by in-group members and perhaps leaking into general usage. > That others may have > disparagingly labeled the Hebrews as `api:ru (and may well have noticed > the play on words as well) is certainly plausible, but are there any other > cases in history where a group of people would call themselves such a name > just because others did so? What's the origin of "deutsch"? - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:08:27 +0100 From: Niels Peter Lemche Subject: RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials Dear Chaim, Potential means exactly that and no more. We know the figures of Sargon and Naram-Sin to be historical because we know these kings from other sources. We know nothing about Abraham, Moses, and David to mention this triad, except from the HB. So we are moving back and forth without getting anywhere. I cannot deny a person who believes in the histoicity of Abraham the right to believe so (it is a different discussion), but his or hers beliefs are immaterial to the discussion about biblical Abraham as long as we don't possess the tertium comparationis, and until that moment (if ever) the putative historical Abraham is immaterial to any analysis of the patriarchal narratives. Then the second question is: Why is it so important that Abraham ever existed? What is the agenda? Is it because people in modern times cannot accept what is written without having it as a historical fact? Are we really that naive? This is not limited to biblical scholars, but includes people in other fields as well. Think, e.g. of the sentiments that governed Schliemann when looking for a likely place of Homer's Troy. People used to love ancient stories, wrote operas based on them among other things, plenty of painters were obsessed by these heroes and heroines, but did they ever think about their historicity? Would they have understood the question? NPL > -----Original Message----- > From: chaim cohen [SMTP:chcohen@bgumail.bgu.ac.il] > Sent: Sunday, 19 December, 1999 13:02 > To: Niels Peter Lemche > Cc: 'ane@oi.uchicago.edu' > Subject: RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials > > Dear NPL, George and list members, > If we can all agree that the Biblical stories concerning the Patriarchs, > David etc. all contain POTENTIALLY the same amount of historical value > concerning the figures being described in these stories (and do not have > ONLY historical value for the time of the authors) as does the late (13th > - 8th century B.C.E.) Birth of Sargon legend for the third millennium > historical figure, Sargon of Agade and that by the same token, the Moses > birth legend would have equal POTENTIAL historical value concerning the > figure of Moses, then I think we are basically in agreement with the > Albright school. If on the other hand, some of us think that that is the > case with respect to the Birth of Sargon legend vis a vis the historical > figure of Sargon, but such is NOT the case with respect to the Biblical > stories (including the Moses birth story), then the burden of proof is on > them to explain the difference. > All the best, > Chaim Cohen > > PS If anyone needs bibliography with respect to the Birth of Sargon > legend, let me mention the two standard editions of this text: B. Lewis, > THE SARGON LEGEND, ASOR Dissertation Series #4 (Cambridge, > 1980); J. G. Westenholz, LEGENDS OF THE KINGS OF AKKADE > (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 1997), pp. 36-49. Let me also mention my own > comparative article (comparing the Sargon Birth Legend with the Moses > birth story in Ex. 2) in JANES 4/1 (1972), pp. 36-51 (esp. pp. 46-51). > > On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Niels Peter Lemche wrote: > > > George, > > > > they are primary sources, the question is, however, to what. If we for a > > split second leave the HB and turn to other matters, the Sargom legend > is a > > primary source, probably not to the live of the king of Akkad, but the > ideas > > about this king around at a later date. The biblical story about David > is a > > primary source, however not to historical source but the ideas about > David > > current when they were written down. > > NPL > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: George Athas [SMTP:gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au] > > > Sent: Sunday, 19 December, 1999 06:25 > > > To: ANE > > > Subject: Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials > > > > > > > The passages in the Bible - Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, etc... - ARE > > > > historically relevent. > > > > > > > > They are the documentation of a people and can be considered prime > > > source > > > > material for the study of ancient history. Yes, there is certainly > > > bias. > > > > When isn't there? And there certainly are mythological elements and > > > > alterations and additions from oral folklore. Even the stories, > myths > > > and > > > > folklore are fair game for historical analysis. Let's not discount > one > > > of > > > > the most complete collections of documents of ancient history. > > > > > > They are documents - yes. They are sources - yes. They are primary > sources > > > - no! As far as > > > sources go, the biblical texts are not primary historical sources. > They > > > might be > > > historical sources that do have something to tell us about a > particular > > > age, whether that > > > be the age of the author, or the age of the characters (if it can do > so), > > > but primary > > > sources they are not. True, we can't just discount them in terms of > any > > > historical > > > value -- they need to be assessed from many different angles. But we > must > > > be aware that > > > they are not primary sources. They may well be primary theological > > > sources, but they are > > > not primary historical sources. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > George Athas > > > Dept of Semitic Studies, > > > University of Sydney > > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > Tel Dan Inscription Website > > > http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm > > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > > < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:23:28 +0100 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane Tell es-Sweyhat Dear Albert and listmembers, The address to Tom Holland's article about the Sweyhat wall paintings from the third millennium is: http://asmar.uchicago.edu/OI/AR/93-94/93-94_Sweyhat.html I am sure you will find this illustrated report exciting! Best wishes, Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:45:25 +0100 From: Greg Doudna Subject: Abraham and ane I don't have any comment on the historicity of Abraham but I do have a comment on the possible originating context of the legend. Almost all discussions of Abraham are hijacked by accepting the Bible's periodization as a starting point or given. On this basis Abraham is considered Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, whatever (using "Abraham" as shorthand for the setting for the story), and it is assumed these stories were preserved through c. 500-1500 years and then written in accurate relative chronological sequence. But the periodization/ chronological structurings are the least trustworthy historical starting point and should be the last point considered, not the first point, if one is looking for historical echoes in these stories. The proper method is to date the context of the stories independently of where the biblical redactors group them into periods and stages of sequential history. The wrong method is to start with the biblical periodization and then think of all "later" elements in the stories as anachronisms or development of the story. It is far more likely that the chronological structuring and periodizations of patriarchs, judges, etc. are completely secondary and represent late-end redactional stitching or file-card linkings of the stories, than that these periodizations carry any relative chronological historical usefulness at all. With that background, I think there is potential interest in the Abraham stories in terms of ane history which have not yet been explored. In the hope that someone else will pick up these leads, I offer the following suggestions of a different approach or reading to these stories. Sodom and Gomorrah read well as legends of perhaps c. 8th century BCE Assyrian conquest, on the grounds that Isa 1:9, Amos 4:11, and elsewhere in the prophets suggest this dating for the destructions of Sodom and Gomorrah. "Yahweh" who destroys sinful Sodom and Gomorrah becomes a figure for an Assyrian (or else Babylonian) conqueror, with echoes of Assyrian language of destruction of rebellious cities. The figure "Yahweh" for the Assyrian conqueror reads well within a pattern in which Assyrian conquests were legitimized in the names of native gods.¨ "Abraham" who was removed by Yahweh to a new promised land is another version of deportees moved to new lands on analogy with the speech of the Rab-shekah of Isa 36 and the Assyrian promises of new land inheritances to transplanted peoples--it is the same theme, different version. In some stories the Assyrian/Babylonian transplanting of peoples is regarded as bad, and from other perspectives it is regarded as good. It all depends on point of view. The Abraham stories are from the perspective that being transplanted according to imperial/divine will, receiving new land, etc. is good. Therefore any notions of Middle, Late Bronze Age patriarchs, Amarna period echoes, 3rd millennium BCE echoes in these stories, etc. are completely without basis. The sooner such notions can be dispensed with and the era of the Assyrian and Babylonian waves of conquest/deportation of c. 8th-6th centuries BCE become focused upon as the true era of "Abraham" the more likely the still-remote possibility may become of identifying some point of contact between the legend and external history. Where did this idea come from that the chronological ordering of these patriarchal stories allegedly 1-2 millenia old have any claim to being in an accurate relative historical sequence, let alone accurately dated absolutely? Are those not very odd notions? Greg Doudna Gregory L. Doudna Reseach Associate U. of Copenhagen Dead Sea Scrolls Initiative Kobmagergade 44-46 tel: (45) 35 32 36 34 1150 Kobenhavn K fax: (45) 35 32 36 52 DENMARK email: gd@teol.ku.dk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 07:42:30 PST From: "paul bourgeois" Subject: RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials If the Hebrew peoples, or a certain portion to become, were nomadic tribal groups prior to uniting then doesn't it become difficult to find archeological evidence as there were few settlements, and sovalidation becomes difficult? Then don't the written histories (some of which are certainly transcriptions of oral histories) become extremely important. A. Malamat (History of the Jewish People, 1969) suggests that the Genesis myths and the stories of the Patriarchs may come from different pre-Judaic tribal groups which only later came together under one religion. He bases this on the indication that different names are from different languages or cultural groups. He also discusses 'Apiru and the linguistics to some degree. "Indirect support for the Isrealite sojourn in Egypt may be gleaned from the presence of groups there termed 'Apiru referred to in documents dating from the mid-fifteenth to mid-twelth centuries. There can be no doubt that the term 'Apiru in egyptian usage is the equivalent of Hapiru or Habiru, prevelent in Akkadian records..." pg 41) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:45:06 -0600 From: "Charles David Isbell" Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies Two points: [1] The term "Methodist" is a very good example of a designation that began as a completely pejorative way to refer to students at a famous university who actually studied, prayed, and observed strict moral codes according to a rigidly fixed schedule, all practices that stood out as unusual in college then as they would on most campuses now. The current Methodist Church ("United" or not) is a clear example of the sanctification of what was originally perceived and intended to be a purely negative description. [2] The term Hapiru was negative from the perspective of the ruling elite, not from the perspective of those to whom the term was applied by that elite. This makes it at least possible that the new sociological experiment that was Yahwism may have appropriated and sanctified a term that was negative in the minds of the political leaders and their systems who were being displaced. How do people perceived by the elite to be outsiders change their political fortunes? They create a new system in which they are the insiders. Charles ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:17:27 -0500 From: rmayr@lawrenceville.org Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies, Yankee Doodle Dandy Dear Chaim, and list-members, I believe the term "Yankee" was originally a pejorative. At the time the song was first composed, it was not at all nice to be called a "Yankee" or, for that matter, a "Doodle;" and there are (were?) even some pejorative aspects to "dandy." Nonetheless, the term "Yankee," and the song, was adopted with pride by those it was meant to ridicule. Best wishes, Rudi Mayr chaim cohen bgu.ac.il> cc: ANE Sent by: Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies owner-ane@oi.uchi cago.edu 12/19/1999 06:20 AM Please respond to chaim cohen Dear Donald and list-members, Shouldn't we first ask ourselves why any group of people would willingly connect themselves to such a pejorative term? That others may have disparagingly labeled the Hebrews as `api:ru (and may well have noticed the play on words as well) is certainly plausible, but are there any other cases in history where a group of people would call themselves such a name just because others did so? All the best, Chaim Cohen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:37:58 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >What's the origin of "deutsch"? Thiudisk- "of the people" (PIE *teut-isk^-). ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 12:50:23 -0500 From: Allan Adler Subject: ane Ch-Z-R I'm trying to understand the Semitic root Ch-Z-R. I'm told that it gives rise to the modern Hebrew word ChoZaR meaning "return", but in the book of Brown, Driver and Briggs, the only meaning attached to Ch-Z-R is "boar, swine". In a Sabaean dictionary, I found Ch-Z-R given as " prohibited, banned, exempt from" and a classical Arabic cognate as meaning "prohibited, forbidden". The meanings of "swine" and "forbidden" seem somewhat consistent in view of dietary laws, but that is speculation on my part. In a book on Thamudic inscriptions, if I haven't misread it, I found Ch-R as meaning "return", but I don't know whether that is "return from a place" or "return something to someone". I don't know if that might be related to this. That's all I can find in the books available to me. Can someone comment on the etymology of the modern meaning of Ch-Z-R or the earliest times and places where the meaning "return" is attested? Allan Adler ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu **************************************************************************** * * * Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT Artificial * * Intelligence Lab. My actions and comments do not reflect * * in any way on MIT. Morever, I am nowhere near the Boston * * metropolitan area. * * * **************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:15:08 -0500 From: "Bharani" Subject: FW: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies, Yankee Doodle Dandy Dear Chaim and List-members, Sure there are others. The name GREEK for instance! And HINDU. P. Bharani MD PhD - ---------- From: rmayr@lawrenceville.org To: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies, Yankee Doodle Dandy Date: Sun, Dec 19, 1999, 11:17 Dear Chaim, and list-members, I believe the term "Yankee" was originally a pejorative. At the time the song was first composed, it was not at all nice to be called a "Yankee" or, for that matter, a "Doodle;" and there are (were?) even some pejorative aspects to "dandy." Nonetheless, the term "Yankee," and the song, was adopted with pride by those it was meant to ridicule. Best wishes, Rudi Mayr chaim cohen bgu.ac.il> cc: ANE Sent by: Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies owner-ane@oi.uchi cago.edu 12/19/1999 06:20 AM Please respond to chaim cohen Dear Donald and list-members, Shouldn't we first ask ourselves why any group of people would willingly connect themselves to such a pejorative term? That others may have disparagingly labeled the Hebrews as `api:ru (and may well have noticed the play on words as well) is certainly plausible, but are there any other cases in history where a group of people would call themselves such a name just because others did so? All the best, Chaim Cohen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:44:47 -0500 From: Kurt and Tina Noll Subject: ane Re:Fighting the Fringe Gary Greenberg raised some profoundly disturbing questions. (At least, I consider them disturbing; I don't know whether others agree.) Gary Greenberg wrote: > At the risk of sounding heretical, who cares what the masses believe about > ancient history. They were ignorant before, and remain ignorant. All that > changes is what misunderstandings they have. My reply:I guess I care because "ignorant" people sometimes act on their ignorance. Not long ago, people killed themselves because they believed a UFO lurked behind a comet. Don't we have an ethical obligation to attack ignorance? Who would despise Jews and join some insane anti-Semitic movement if they only knew a little about the ancient and venerable tradition that is the Jewish tradition? I once had a student who was Christian and "Marcionite". He dismissed the Hebrew Bible as useless "Jewish history," and also tended to make statements about *contemporary* Jews that made me wince. A few months of study about the ancient world -- a non-dogmatic study that did not especially focus on Jews or the Bible -- raised this student's consciousness in ways that he then automatically related (without any prompting from me) to his own experience of the Bible. He gave voice to fewer anti-Semitic remarks in the last few weeks (and I don't know if there is cause and effect at work or not -- but I hope). I do not know what became of this fellow or whether he ever abandoned some of his uglier ideas. But I hope that I at least helped him shed some ignorance! A few weeks ago, I was speaking with a friend who teaches religious studies at a small, rural, liberal arts college. He says his goal is to teach *tolerance* because he lives in an area where "ignorant" (his word) people still tend to beat up people they meet who believe differently from them. He cited examples. They were "minor" incidents in the grand scheme of things -- but real incidents with real effects. I hate ignorance because ignorance is a disease that can kill us. Gary wrote: > While its nice that many people care about issues and ideas and events that > I care about, I am interested in knowing about them simply because they > happen to be interesting to me. My reply: Me too. No dispute here. Gary wrote: > Therefore I care what people knoweldgable > about such issues think. And those who devote their professional lives to > such study will continue to exchange their views with colleagues and arrive > at conclusions. > My reply: Again no argument. But an Epicurean lifestyle among the educated which focuses on an exchange with only the like-minded seems disturbingly insular in the face of what happens out there in the real world. Gary wrote: > Some will draw valid conclusions and some will draw invalid conclusions, but > the answers are interesting in and of themselves, not because the masses > have an opinion one way ot another. The masses usually believe nonsense, and > why should this small area of academic interest be any different? My reply: Often, I feel exactly this way. I try to fight that feeling. What the masses believe matters to the masses. Therefore it ought to matter to me. Right now, there is an ANE thread on the tired old issue of the "historical" Abraham. How wearisome! Why does it matter so, and to so many people? If we care about the people involved, then that which matters to them will automatically matter to us. In one of his songs, John Lennon sang, "You wanna save humanity, but it's people that ya just can't stand!" For me this is an ethical issue. I have no desire to "save" humanity, but people are important to me. Ergo, I care about ignorance. Ok, ANE, you can get back to on-topic items now. Sorry for the digression. Yours, Kurt L. Noll Penn State Mont Alto 1 Campus Drive Mont Alto, PA 17237-9703 USA kxn12@psu.edu ktnoll@blazenet.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:27:16 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: Abraham and ane The Sodom and Gomorra motif is only one element of many in the Abraham story cycle, and the Abraham story cycle is only one of two major story cycles in the Patriarchal Narratives, plus the two independent Isaac traditions. To say all this stems from neo-Assyrian expansion appears to me somewhat strained. What we see in the Patriarchal narratives are figures who emigrate from Upper Mesopotamia from areas occupied by Chaldeans and Arameans to Canaan, or flee there, or secure wives from there. They are pastoralists wandering around a land dotted by city-states without any strong centralized authority. The historical circumstances which fit best are the period of Assyrian decline and gradual Egyptian loss of control over Canaan, the period in which new settlements appear in the cis-Jordanian central hill country and in Transjordan, the period of Philistine settlement and expansion, the period just before the rise, and/or during the rise of the Israelite kingdom and the Transjordanian kingdoms. In other words, the Patriarchal Narratives are to be placed in what commonly is called the Settlement Period, that span of time extending between the time of the Merneptah Stele and the rise of the Israelite monarchy, whether United or Divided. What were formerly called the Periods of the Conquest and the Judges are to be placed in the same time span, with the Exodus slave fight, or flights, occurring either slightly before or during this time span. During this period various groups of peoples, some from Upper Mesopotamia, some from Southern Transjordan, some from Egypt, filter into the country, unite with local Canaanite elements (such as the Kenizzites) and eventually identify as one people. When the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah are finally mentioned in Assyrian, Aramean and Moabite sources starting from the midnight century BCE, they are the result of several hundred years of crystallization and development, and not something that has just appeared. It is when the various traditions of all these diverse ethnic elements are given "canonical" (I mean standardized) form and woven into "national" narratives, that the Pentateuch begins to take shape. When does all this happen? Wellhausen claimed from the time of the Divided Monarchy; Cassuto, from the time of the United Monarchy; Gunkel was willing to admit the presence of pre-monarchic traditions in Genesis; the Copenhagen School, from the Persian Period down to the Hellenistic. But the Covenant Code doesn't seem to be aware of kingship; "nasi'" is the kind of leader mentioned there. Deuteronomy is only too aware of the shortcomings of monarchy. The Holiness Code, being concerned mainly with cult, doesn't seem to care.. A very long period seems to be called for, one that began before the monarchy and ended.in early Second Temple times, when the division of cultic personnel into Priests and Levites was firmly established a la Ezekiel, but the meshorrerim, netinim and sho'arim of Second Temple Biblical historiography had not yet made their appearance, or, at least had not yet become part of the Temple establishment. Sincerely, - -- Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:40:38 +0200 From: Naccache Subject: ane ANE Personal Ads Section? Thought I would take advantage of the overall festive mood, and float this around before taking up Rudi Mayr's invitation to comment on C. D. Rivers' Challenge, and definitely and irrevocably alienating the ANE scholarly community ;-} Well, without further ado, let me bare it all. Andrew Sherratt recently (*) wrote: "The junction between northeast Africa and southwest Asia arguably became a focus of human development in the Late Pleistocene, saw the first transition to culture-driven change at the beginning of the Holocene, and remained central to human affairs until the 16th century AD." I have been exploring this idea for the last decade, and would love to give a one semester upper level/graduate seminar in which I could submit my results to the sharp criticism of bright young students (within the proximity of a good all-around research library). That could most conveniently happen during the Spring or Fall semesters 2001, when, as a tenured Professor, I will enjoy the benefit of a sabbatical. Please, answer off-list (and thanks again, Chuck Jones, for this wonderful forum, with apologies for thus abusing of it). Best, Albert Naccache anaccash@nidal.com (*) A. Sherratt, "Climatic cycles and behavioural revolutions: the emergence of modern humans and the beginning of farming," Antiquity, 71:2 (1997), 271-87. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:00:23 -0600 From: cognitive dissident Subject: RE: ane Validation Liz -- I can't speak from the realm of modern archeology nor any of the usual academic associations with ANE, however, as a research scientist at University of Illinois in the dept of Chemistry & avid lurker to this newsgroup), your point about negative evidence is invalid. It is evidence, but it cannot be used to support or disprove a hypothesis. It would take a virtually infinite number of negative experiments to prove something. With your coin-flipping example, statistically your conclusion seems valid. There is also the possibility that the coined is weighted. I do understand what you're saying pragmatically in regard to seeking some physical evidence & finding none. Eventually one (& one's grant-providing institutions) wants some results. blue skies, marg At 02:47 PM 12/17/1999 -0500, Liz Fried wrote: >Dear All, >I would like to point out that negative evidence is evidence too. >If I throw a coin and it consistently comes up heads, never >tails, then at some point I must reach the conclusion it >is a two-headed coin! >Similarly, if a hypothesis leads to the expectation of >certain material results, and those results never appear, >after diligent search in all the right places, then >one must at some point reach the conclusion the >hypothesis is wrong. > >Now, take the case of the existence of our father Abraham. >Let us hypothesize his existence. >What data would the truth of that hypothesis lead us to expect? >Unless we can determine what >evidence the truth (or falsity) of the hypothesis implies, >we cannot test it. > >Liz > >Lisbeth S. Fried >Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies >New York University >51 Washington Sq. S. >New York, NY 10012 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 15:06:51 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: Re: ane Re:Fighting the Fringe At 01:44 PM 12/19/99 -0500, you wrote: >Gary Greenberg raised some profoundly disturbing questions. (At least, I >consider them disturbing; I don't know whether others agree.) > >Gary Greenberg wrote: > >> At the risk of sounding heretical, who cares what the masses believe about >> ancient history. They were ignorant before, and remain ignorant. All that >> changes is what misunderstandings they have. > >My reply:I guess I care because "ignorant" people sometimes act on their >ignorance. Not long ago, people killed themselves because they believed a UFO >lurked behind a comet. > >Don't we have an ethical obligation to attack ignorance? Ignorant folk arent interested in changing their minds. They cant be convinced by reason. I deal with ignorance every day and the one thig i have learned is that ignorance is invincible. Purely and simply invincible. Further, and more depressing, is that fact that the ignorant masses like it that way. Ignorance is bliss to them and they are perfectly happy being blissfully unaware of any facts other than those they already believe. I think a wise man once said- do not cast your pearls before the swine- they will merely turn and attack you. > Who would despise >Jews and join some insane anti-Semitic movement if they only knew a little >about the ancient and venerable tradition that is the Jewish tradition? I once >had a student who was Christian and "Marcionite". He dismissed the Hebrew >Bible as useless "Jewish history," and also tended to make statements about >*contemporary* Jews that made me wince. A few months of study about the >ancient world -- a non-dogmatic study that did not especially focus on Jews >or the Bible -- raised this student's consciousness in ways that he then >automatically related (without any prompting from me) to his own experience of >the Bible. He gave voice to fewer anti-Semitic remarks in the last few weeks >(and I don't know if there is cause and effect at work or not -- but I >hope). I do not know what became of this fellow or whether he ever abandoned >some of his uglier ideas. But I hope that I at least helped him shed some >ignorance! > perhaps- but dont count on it. >A few weeks ago, I was speaking with a friend who teaches religious studies at >a small, rural, liberal arts college. He says his goal is to teach *tolerance* >because he lives in an area where "ignorant" (his word) people still tend to >beat up people they meet who believe differently from them. He cited >examples. They were "minor" incidents in the grand scheme of things -- but >real incidents with real effects. I hate ignorance because ignorance is a >disease that can kill us. > It can and it does. Your problem is convincing the ignorant to open their eyes. They wont because they live in the cave and think the reflections they see on the wall are reality. >Gary wrote: > >> While its nice that many people care about issues and ideas and events that >> I care about, I am interested in knowing about them simply because they >> happen to be interesting to me. > >My reply: Me too. No dispute here. > They are not interesting, however, to the massa perditionis. Any more than the hockey score interests me. >Gary wrote: > >> Therefore I care what people knoweldgable >> about such issues think. And those who devote their professional lives to >> such study will continue to exchange their views with colleagues and arrive >> at conclusions. >> And such conclusions will remain utterly opaque to the masses. > >My reply: Again no argument. But an Epicurean lifestyle among the educated >which focuses on an exchange with only the like-minded seems disturbingly >insular in the face of what happens out there in the real world. > It is insular because thats the way the masses want it. Why do you think they dont grouse about tax dollars for higher education. Leave the scholastics in their ivory towers where they belong- they dont know about the real world. The near contempt of the herd some have is exactly mirrored by the real contempt the masses have for the educated. I live in an area where its better to be a prison guard than a professor. ANd the prison guards are better paid to prove it. Which one of you makes as much as a basketball player? That should tell you what society thinks of things academic.... >Gary wrote: > >> Some will draw valid conclusions and some will draw invalid conclusions, but >> the answers are interesting in and of themselves, not because the masses >> have an opinion one way ot another. The masses usually believe nonsense, and >> why should this small area of academic interest be any different? > It isnt any different at all. >My reply: Often, I feel exactly this way. I try to fight that feeling. What >the masses believe matters to the masses. Therefore it ought to matter to me. >Right now, there is an ANE thread on the tired old issue of the "historical" >Abraham. How wearisome! Why does it matter so, and to so many people? If we >care about the people involved, then that which matters to them will >automatically matter to us. In one of his songs, John Lennon sang, "You wanna >save humanity, but it's people that ya just can't stand!" For me this is an >ethical issue. I have no desire to "save" humanity, but people are important >to me. Ergo, I care about ignorance. > but Kurt- the ignorant dont WANT your concern. they want to be left in their hovels of stupidity where they can root for the truffels of escape they find so delightful. >Ok, ANE, you can get back to on-topic items now. Sorry for the digression. A fine digression- because it reminds us that our audience is limited and our purpose is insignificant to those outside the pale. Wish it were otherwise all you want- it has always and will always be just this way. Jim (yes- a parish minister who sees the underbelly of society all the time.... and its as real as reality gets). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD jwest@highland.net http://web.infoave.net/~jwest "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:14:12 +0200 (IST) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane Re: Birth of Abraham (fwd) there IS NO linguistic connection ibri=hapiru. YOu misunderstood. Victor On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, chris.cleutjens wrote: > Dear Victor and list, > I was merely tracing the historical existence of Abraham. > I would not dare to doubt your linguistic comparison hapiru/ibri. > Nevertheless as M. Greenberg wrote: "Building on the assumption that Abraham > an his family were 'Apiru it is plausible to suggest a reason for the > gentillic usage of 'ibri'". > > you wrote: > > The linguistic equation ibri=hapi:ru is impossible. the problem is not > > the b-p but the long vowel. Long vowels dont' disappear. > > Could not something have happened like in todays use of (for example) > "Debora" > "debra" instead of "de-bo-ra"? > > Anyway, the purpose of my posting was to remember those (materialistic > naturalists [a.k.a. scientific naturalists, evolutionary naturalists,] > etc.), amongst us that there is more than NO historical evidence for the > traditional (biblical) figure called Abraham. > And most of all... answering the question: > > Can anyone help me with the approximate birth > > year of the Jewish Prophet Abraham? > > Is there any evidence (beside the "old testament") of his existence. > > Short questions usely bear long answers and it usely works the other way > around too. > > Kind regards, > Chris Cleutjens > ---------------------------- > > Avigdor Horovitz wrote: > > Dear All, > > The linguistic equation ibri=hapi:ru is impossible. the problem is not > > the b-p but the long vowel. Long vowels dont' disappear. This > > impossibility has been pointed out by no less an authority than Rykle > > Borger and accepted fully by Anson Rainey. So any equation between Hapiru > > and ibri must be fully on functional basis, showing that the Hebrews as > > described in the Bible were similar sociologically, etc to hapiru. but > > without the supposed linguistic equation, which is erroneous, it is > > doubtful whether anyone would ever have equated them in the first place. > > Victor > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:37:23 +1100 From: Joseph John Azize Subject: Re: ane Afterlife in Mesopotamia Just a few references: B Alster, "Early Patterns in Mesopotamian Litereature" Cuneiform Studies Noel Kramer (Kramer FS) 13-24; A Heidel "Gilgamesh Epic and OT Parallels"; K Van Der Toorn "Family Religion in Babylonia etc.", noting the importance of the "ancestor cult" and with references to what he calls "Syria". Simo Parpola's introduction to his "Assyrian Prophecies" SAA IX has a different perspective. There's also the Kramer article the "Death of Urnammu" - I can't find the reference in a jiffy, but I think it's in JCS. If my memory is correct, Michael Fishbane was one of the editors of a book titled something like "Beatific Vision and the Afterlife" which had an article by T Abusch. Regards Joseph Azize (University of Sydney) Martin A. Shields wrote: > I'm curious to know if anyone is aware of any indications of belief in an > afterlife in Mesopotamia or around Canaan. The obvious reference that comes > to mind are Siduri's words to Gilgamesh (more or less proving the opposite). > > Thanks, > > Martin Shields, > Sydney, > Australia. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:15:42 -0500 From: "Liz Fried" Subject: RE: ane Validation Dear Marg, I beg to differ with you [that my point about negative evidence is invalid]. According to Bayes' Theorem, the probability of the hypotheses (that a coin is fair) given the datum (say 10 heads in a row) = the probability of the datum given the hypothesis times the prior probability of the hypothesis, divided by the probability of the datum. The probability of the datum is the probability of the datum given the hypothesis times the prior probability of that hypothesis plus the probability of the datum given the alternative of that hypothesis times the prior probability of the alternative. p(H|D) = p(D|H) p(H) /(p(D|H)p(H) + p(D|~H)p(~H)) (I hope that notation comes out.) My prior probability of any coin being fair (heads-tails) is, let's say, .95. I'm virtually positive it is a fair coin. My probability of it being a two-headed coin is .025, and my probability of it being a two-tailed coin is .025. Now after one head, the probability of it being a two-tiled coin goes to zero, and the probability of it being a two-headed coin and a fair coin go up to absorb the .025. After one toss, the probability of it being a fair coin is unchanged (say) and the probability of a two-headed coin is .05. Let's say, I have thrown it now ten more times, and received ten heads. The probability of that event is , um, .00098 given it is a fair coin. The probability is 1.0 given it is a two-headed coin. Now, my posterior probability it is a fair coin = (.00098) .95 / ((.00098)(.95) + 1(.05)) = .000931/.000931 + .05 =.000931/.050931= .018. After ten tosses and ten heads my probability it is a fair coin has gone from .95 to .018. Correspondingly, my probability of it being a two-headed coin has gone from .025 to .982. My probability of it being a two-tailed coin has gone .025 to zero. (Assuming I did the math right. But you get the idea.) The amount of (negative) evidence necessary to convince is a function of the prior probability of the hypothesis. If your prior probability is 1.0 or zero, then no amount of data can change your opinion. I interpret Niels Peter when he says prior opinions don't matter to mean everyone has different prior beliefs. As historians we can only present the data. I suggest when we present data we consider as many possible hypotheses as we can which may have given rise to the data, and the probability of the data under each. What is the probability of the biblical story of Abraham given he is an historical figure? What is the probability of the biblical story given he is not an historical figure? It seems to me, with no other information, or no other hypotheses available, the probability of the biblical story given Abraham did exist has to be higher than if he did not exist, let's say by 2 to 1. In this way prior opinions do matter. We multiply the ratio 2/1 by the ratio of our prior opinions. Let's say our prior opinion of the historicity of Abraham relative to his non-historicity is 1 to 5. We mulitply 1/5 by 2/1 and we get 2 to five. Our posterior probability of the historicity of Abraham has gone from .2 to .4 given the existence of the biblical story, and no other data. To change someone's beliefs one must provide other plausible hypotheses for the generation of the story -- hypotheses which can garner some prior probability, and other data in support of those hypotheses. This is the way the study of history progresses. Liz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:28:20 +0100 From: Banyai@t-online.de (Banyai) Subject: Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials Niels Peter Lemche wrote: > The biblical story about David is a > primary source, however not to historical source but the ideas about David > current when they were written down. > NPL Of course so. But your sentence presupposes you know when they were written down. And what is meant by written? Do we know the process by which the story (in fact stories) were created? So are the stories a primary source for the ideas about David for the definitive version, as collected by HB, or for some preliminary pre-HB works? How can we make sure? If some pre-HB source may be shown as having a very remote date, could some story be also a primary historical source? Your own works quote from so various sources as the HB or else. They are no primary source, as you say, for the time they deal with, but for the late 20-th century. However parts ,so your quotes, may lay testimony for the thoughts of the very 10-th century BC or else. Best regards, Banyai Michael Leonberg Banyai@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:36:05 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials > > If the Hebrew peoples, or a certain portion to become, were nomadic tribal > groups prior to uniting then doesn't it become difficult to find > archeological evidence as there were few settlements, and sovalidation > becomes difficult? Then don't the written histories (some of which are > certainly transcriptions of oral histories) become extremely important. They can be. But you need to prove a connection between the two, first - between the biblical materials and a wondering nomadic group. If there is no evidence for a wondering nomadic group outside the written materials, then you can't really make much of a concrete conclusion. You need to identify the existence of a nomadic group without recourse to the written sources and then you can compare what the written sources say. Otherwise, you're implying that the written sources necessarily provide sound historical evidence. That's another equation you need to prove. > A. Malamat (History of the Jewish People, 1969) suggests that the Genesis > myths and the stories of the Patriarchs may come from different pre-Judaic > tribal groups which only later came together under one religion. He bases > this on the indication that different > names are from different languages or cultural groups. So, this must put the biblical materials in the Persian Era at the earliest. This means they are very far removed from their contexts. This means the biblical materials, which used other sources, cannot possibly be primary sources. They might be sources which do preserve memory (in whatever form) of some historical events, but they are not *primary* sources. In this case, they are secondary at very best, and removed from the events by a very long time. > He also discusses > 'Apiru and the linguistics to some degree. > > "Indirect support for the Isrealite sojourn in Egypt may be gleaned from the > presence of groups there termed 'Apiru referred to in documents dating from > the mid-fifteenth to mid-twelth centuries. There can be no doubt that the > term 'Apiru in egyptian usage is the equivalent of Hapiru or Habiru, > prevelent in Akkadian records..." pg 41) I don't think anyone doubts that some gypsies known colloquially as "Apiru" were in Egypt, or even that they were in Palestine. Some Apiru might even have become the Israelites. But that's not the whole picture. We can't mistake a brick for an entire building. Best regards, George Athas Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tel Dan Inscription Website http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:48:34 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: ane Hebrew - Apiru > > Re the posting below: [Chris Cleutjens' posting] > > Isn't it the case that the Hebrews didn't use the term Hebrew to describe > > themselves until well after the start of the post-exilic period, and that > > all references in the bible that use the term Hebrew to describe the > > Israelites before that time, appear only when non-Israelites describe the > > Israelites? If so, doesn't that undermine the argument below? Since only non-Hebrews call them "Hebrews," does that mean the Israelites and Judahites were not really "Hebrews" because they saw it appropriate to write it themselves? George Athas Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tel Dan Inscription Website http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:52:20 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: Re: ane Validation of Biblical matterials - ----- Original Message ----- From: Niels Peter Lemche To: Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 9:24 PM Subject: RE: ane Validation of Biblical matterials > George, > > they are primary sources, the question is, however, to what. That's precisely my point. They might be primary theological sources, but they are not primary historical sources. My last sentence was: >> They may well be primary theological > > sources, but they are > > not primary historical sources. We're in agreement. Best regards, George Athas Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tel Dan Inscription Website http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:56:29 -0500 From: "Paul Sodtke" Subject: Re: ane Re: Birth of Abraham (fwd) Gentle listfolk, It seems to me that a recent post by Chris Cleutjens illustrated particularly well the methodological problem here. Near the beginning of his post, he wrote: > Some years ago I read this in "The Hab/piru"by Moshe Greenberg, AOS, 1955. > on the assumption that Hab/piru and Hebrew are one. > It removed many doubts (for me personally) about the historicy of the figure > Abraham. And near the end of the same message: > I think M. Greenberg was and still is very close with his "assumptions". > Since then I haven't read anything more plausible about the historicy of > Abraham. A great many scenarios can be said to be *plausible*. But that's not the same as *historical*. [As I tell my students, verisimilitude does not equal historicity.] Mr. Cleutjens appears to make precisely that error above. In fact, this connects to another thread about "fringe" theories, doesn't it? (I am NOT saying Mr. Cleutjens is a crackpot! - just that the methodological question is important.) Almost invariably such theories show some possible connection, then jump to the conclusion that this is established fact. Pile up several such vaguely plausible links, pull in data from all over the chronological and geographical spectrum, ignore contrary evidence, and - wow! - a full-blown crackpot theory. I suspect this is why the reaction to the initial question was so vehement. The question about dating Abram *assumes* his historicality can be investigated in a matter of fact way, and that, of course, is nonsense. The vehemence of the reaction probably gave the impression that Jim West and others were claiming that Abe never existed; Jim has since corrected that misunderstanding but, meanwhile -- folks reacted to that wrong impression, and away we go again on another round of fruitless argument. In the process, some of the more thoughtful contributions (such as, most recently, Greg Doudna's, but there have been others) get lost in the heat of the debate. So this is a plea for a bit more careful reading of the posts with which one disagrees, but also for more clarity on the plausible/historical fallacy. Paul Sodtke London, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:01:54 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: Re: ane Afterlife in Mesopotamia > Martin A. Shields wrote: > > > I'm curious to know if anyone is aware of any indications of belief in an > > afterlife in Mesopotamia or around Canaan. The obvious reference that comes > > to mind are Siduri's words to Gilgamesh (more or less proving the opposite). > > > > Thanks, > > > > Martin Shields, > > Sydney, > > Australia. Martin, I don't know if this qualifies within the bracket you set, but the Sam'alian inscription from Zenjirli known as the Hadad Inscription or the Panammu I inscription makes mention of praying for Panammu that he enjoy dining with Hadad now that he's dead. Best regards, George Athas Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tel Dan Inscription Website http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: < gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au > - --Is this an exclusively "Sydney" thread? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 01:15:15 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Afterlife in Mesopotamia Dear Joseph, Martin and list members, a) S. N. Kramer, "The Death of Ur-Nammu and his Descent to the Netherworld," JCS 21 (1969), pp. 104-122. b) B. B. Schmidt, ISRAEL'S BENEFICENT DEAD, 2nd ed. (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 1996). c) Various articles in the M. H. Pope FS, LOVE AND DEATH IN THE ANE (Four Quarters Publishing Co.: Guilford, 1987). d) T. Lewis, CULTS OF THE DEAD IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND UGARIT (Atlanta, 1989). All the best, Chaim Cohen On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Joseph John Azize wrote: > Just a few references: B Alster, "Early Patterns in Mesopotamian Litereature" > Cuneiform Studies Noel Kramer (Kramer FS) 13-24; A Heidel "Gilgamesh Epic and OT > Parallels"; K Van Der Toorn "Family Religion in Babylonia etc.", noting the > importance of the "ancestor cult" and with references to what he calls "Syria". > > Simo Parpola's introduction to his "Assyrian Prophecies" SAA IX has a different > perspective. > > There's also the Kramer article the "Death of Urnammu" - I can't find the > reference in a jiffy, but I think it's in JCS. If my memory is correct, Michael > Fishbane was one of the editors of a book titled something like "Beatific Vision > and the Afterlife" which had an article by T Abusch. > > Regards > Joseph Azize (University of Sydney) > Martin A. Shields wrote: > > > I'm curious to know if anyone is aware of any indications of belief in an > > afterlife in Mesopotamia or around Canaan. The obvious reference that comes > > to mind are Siduri's words to Gilgamesh (more or less proving the opposite). > > > > Thanks, > > > > Martin Shields, > > Sydney, > > Australia. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:13:58 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: > > >What's the origin of "deutsch"? > > Thiudisk- "of the people" (PIE *teut-isk^-). Via Latin (not Germanic). - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:05:04 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Rostien Subject: ane Pottery Identification I'm hoping I can solicit help in identifying a piece of pottery I was given. It came from an estate auction with no info on its background. I am mostly familiar with the pottery of ancient Palestine and do not recognize this, nor did I find a similar form in Amiran. This "ewer" stands about 9 1/2" tall and appears to have had a red-burnished slip. It is very finely made as you can see if you check out the link below. I thought perhaps the "horned" handle may give someone a clue. Someone has suggested that it may be Iron Age Persian/Amlash. http://www.voicenet.com/~marcusr/ewers.htm Any input would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. MJR ===== - -- Mark Rostien Drexel Hill, PA USA mjrost@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:27:18 -0600 From: "Donald R. Vance" Subject: Re: ane Hapiru/Hebrew & Folk etymologies But would they have understood the term as pejorativeetymologie kicks in, there is no pejorative. On the other hand, they may be well aware that they are being called brigands, but since that is what everyone calls them, that the term they use when conversing with outsiders. But even so, there are examples of pejoratives being used by the victim group when addressing the oppressing group. The infamous "N" word in the period of slavery in the USA would be an example. Black slaves would use the word to describe themselves when addressing whites. What is even more intriguing is the use of the term today by some blacks as a normal term of designation. For example, one black student may address another black student by the term and no pejorative is heard. However, a white student may not use the term without a pejorative being conveyed. Pejoratives develop over time, as well. "Cracker" was a pejorative, but became the name of the Atlanta baseball team. And, if I am not mistaken, was not the term "Christian" a pejorative at first? The term "holy roller" was certainly a pejorative applied by outsiders, but is now embraced by some in the Pentecostal community as a self-designation. Perhaps a similar process was involved in the hapiru/ibri connection. When I studied with Anson, I thought his problem was not the long vowel, but with the root. He connected it with Dear Donald and list-members, >Shouldn't we first ask ourselves why any group of people would willingly >connect themselves to such a pejorative term? That others may have >disparagingly labeled the Hebrews as `api:ru (and may well have noticed >the play on words as well) is certainly plausible, but are there any other >cases in history where a group of people would call themselves such a name >just because others did so? >All the best, >Chaim Cohen > >On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Donald R. Vance wrote: > >> Has anyone posited the idea of a folk etymology for the Hebrew ibri as a >> way of connecting that term to hapiru? That is, the ibriim heard >> themselves being called habiru (regardless of whether the speakers were >> actually saying hapiru--compare Beijing and Peking as English renditions >> of what is, presumably, one Chinese name), they connected that term with >> > the term. >> >> On 12/18/99 9:09 PM, avigdor horovitz at victor@bgumail.bgu.ac.il did pen >> the following: >> >> >Dear All, >> >The linguistic equation ibri=hapi:ru is impossible. the problem is not >> >the b-p but the long vowel. Long vowels dont' disappear. This >> >impossibility has been pointed out by no less an authority than Rykle >> >Borger and accepted fully by Anson Rainey. So any equation between Hapiru >> >and ibri must be fully on functional basis, showing that the Hebrews as >> >described in the Bible were similar sociologically, etc to hapiru. but >> >without the supposed linguistic equation, which is erroneous, it is >> >doubtful whether anyone would ever have equated them in the first place. >> >Victor >> > >> >On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, chris.cleutjens wrote: >> > >> >> Dear list, >> >> Some years ago I read this in "The Hab/piru"by Moshe Greenberg, AOS, 1955. >> >> on the assumption that Hab/piru and Hebrew are one. >> >> It removed many doubts (for me personally) about the historicy of the >figure >> >> Abraham. >> >> >> >> "Those who favor a combination of 'Apiru and Hebrew find support in the >> >> designation of Abraham as 'ibri'. "If Abraham had not been called a >Hebrew, >> >> we should be nevertheless justified in classing him with the Habiru" >> >> (Speiser, op.cit.43.) >> >> The migrant nature of the Terahide (in spite of his urban origin!), his >> >> apparent lack of rights in the lands of his sojourn, and the congruity of >> >> the Patriarchal age in time and place with the area and period of >> >> concentrated 'Apiru activity (15-13th century Syria-Palestine) lend >> >> plausible to this view. >> >> Building on the assumption that Abraham an his family were 'Apiru it is >> >> plausible to suggest a reason for the gentillic usage of 'ibri': since the >> >> interest of the Biblical writers in Abraham centered in his role as the >> >> ancestor of the later Israelite nation, an epithet which originally marked >> >> his social status was transformed by them (perhaps unawares) into familial >> >> designation, well adapted to set the proto-Israelites off from the >> >> surrounding ethnic groups. >> >> Such an hypothesis would explain, furthermore, why 'ibri' preserves no >trace >> >> of social implications; why, again, it refers so exclusively to Abraham >and >> >> his proto-Israelite descendants. hence the assumption that the Abrahamides >> >> were an offshoot of the 'Apiru whose origins were later obscured by the >> >> peculiar gentilic adaptation of the term in Biblical 'ibri appears >> >> attractive as well as plausible." >> >> >> >> I think M. Greenberg was and still is very close with his "assumptions". >> >> Since then I haven't read anything more plausible about the historicy of >> >> Abraham. >> >> Or did I missed so much? >> >> >> >> Asuming that I am qualified to have an opinion, I see Abraham >> >> chronologically migrate more than a century earlier than the 15th century. >> >> In and around the period of the Kassite occupation of the Harran area. >Which >> >> resulted in the forced southwards migration of many ethnic groups which >> >> formed the "Hyksos-invasion" in Egypt. >> >> But that's chronology. An uncomfortable stone in many ANE-historians' >shoe. >> >> Unfortunately. >> >> >> >> with kind regards, >> >> Chris Cleutjens >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> >> >> > >That's a far cry from absolute denial of the historicity of Biblical >> >> > figures, and >> >> > >it involves the idea of tradition history to which I subscribe. >> >> > >> >> > jim >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature >> Undergraduate Theology >> Oral Roberts University >> drvance@oru.edu >> > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature Undergraduate Theology Oral Roberts University drvance@oru.edu ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #356 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html