From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #36 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Saturday, February 5 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 036 Re: ane Peleset: pro Bimson ... (Long, sorry!) Re: ane mammon Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? Re: ane mammon Re: ane Exodus, Hyksos & Pelest, contra Bimson & Drews Re: ane mammon Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? RE: ane mammon Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? Trinity College Dublin - Fellowships in Mediterranean & Near Eastern Studies ane Hyksos & Exodus Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? ane Philistines, peleset ane Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible? Re: ane Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible? ane Exodus Dates, (Baker) Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? ane Midwest SBL/AOS/ASOR meeting program ane Taharqa statue rediscovered... ane RE: Dr. McHugh I presume {found in the Utah Desert] Re: ane Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible? ane Re: Black Sea Flood Theory. National Geographic Website. ane GLEN MAGID of Harvard - e-mail address ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 11:47:22 +0100 From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: ane Peleset: pro Bimson ... (Long, sorry!) At 21.59 03/02/00 -0500, Peter James wrote: >I don't believe that Ramesses III's annals make it clear that the "Sea >Peoples" began their odyssey in Anatolia and swept down the coast to Egypt >by land and by sea. Perhaps Ramses III's account doesn't make it clear that the various peoples began their oddyssey in Anatolia. What it says is that "the northern countries which were in their isles were quivering their bodies ... they had made a conspiracy in their isles. Removed and scattered in the fray were the lands at one time. No land could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Kode, Arzawa and Alashiya on, but were cut off at one time. A camp was set up in Amor: they desolated its people, its land was like that which had never come into being ... Their confederacy consisted of Peleset, Tjekker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh." Then again, that seems pretty clear to me. (We could add a few sites of destruction that archaeology has uncovered, Ugarit and Karkemish.) >I think an increasing number of scholars these days >accept that there may have been a fair bit of hyperbole in R III' s >description This is true. One cannot simply take one's sources at face value. Obviously Ramses III has simplified, or synthesized, and made more favourable the events. Two facts seem certain though: these sea peoples who came knocking at Egypt's door were repulsed by Ramses III; at the same time he didn't annihilate them as the typical Egyptian rhetoric goes, for they had wrested the south of Palestine from Egypt. (A hundred years earlier Ramses II was trampling through on his way to the north, now Egypt finds the door shut.) The hyperbole is well-known and nothing new, but would you doubt the basic events? >of the so-called Sea Peoples (a totally misleading modern term). I don't think that "sea peoples" is such a misleading modern term. The isles referred to in the Ramses III account were known to the Egyptians as the isles of the sea. Here we have the various peoples from the isles of the sea (along with some from the Anatolian Aegean coast -- the Sherden and the Weshesh are specifically referred to as being "of the sea"). Theirs was not simply a land movement: many came in boats as is depicted at Madinat Habu. This confederacy of Aegean peoples was strongly linked to the sea. What is so strange about the term "sea peoples" for you? Can you think of a better generic term to refer to all the peoples referred to by Ramses II, Merneptah and Ramses III? >while it is agreed on any chronology that when Shoshenq >I and Taharqa campaigned in Palestine that it was largely divided into two >kingdoms, Judah and Israel, This seems to be uncritical following of sources that are -- as we have them -- not contemporary by hundreds of years. If you didn't have such late sources you couldn't make the conjecture you are proceeding with. At the same time you are treating the texts as though you know what sort of information they are supply. Highly risky business. So while there is a theoretical basis for what you go on to say, one could just as easily fabricate the same results with some fictitious information. Now of course you could make this a bit more substantial if you could show evidence that there was a Judean *kingdom* more than a generation or so before Hezekiah's time. While there may have been such a kingdom, I see no point in simply assuming one. >neither of these terms is used in their >inscriptions. Instead we get the usual terms like Retenu. Using arguments >from silence one could equally demonstrate that "Israel" only existed in >Palestine during the time of Merenptah (19th Dynasty), which would be >ridiculous. (You also might consider reading Philip Davies' "In Search of 'Ancient Israel'", JSOT.) >Again, where are the Egyptian texts referring to the Assyrians >and Persians as rulers of the land? Do we deny the reality of the >Assyrian and Persian conquests on these grounds? The good thing is that we do have contemporary sources from elsewhere. If we didn't, we'd probably have to shelve the stuff as too hard to handle. >4. Finally, we need to consider what is in a name? It is generally >accepted (though it needs to be modified) that Shoshenq I campaigned from >the Negev to the Jezreel Valley (late 10th century conventional chronology, >late 9th on the Centuries of Darkness model). The peoples living in those >areas would have described themselves as Edomites, people of Judah, people >of Israel, Hebrews or Israelites, Maybe, but have you got any contemporary evidence to make your conjectures about Hebrews or Edomites? >plus all manner of local tribal terms >(e.g. Simeonites). It seems that Shoshenq didn't care what the local >people called themselves, or, more to the point, what we think they should >have called themselves. I suppose that the dreary minimalists might use I have never heard of "dreary minimalists." What do you mean? >such an argument against the formation of the states of Judah and Israel by >the 10th century BC, but they would have the same problem with the texts of >Taharqa (7th century) referring to Palestine, which again use the >traditional terms. >By the 8th century we know as a FACT that the kingdoms of Judah and Israel >existed - from Assyrian records. > > Before the time of Ramesses III there is no problem with the idea that >the Egyptians referred to the citizens of Gaza, Ashkelon, etc as people of >Canaan, Djahi, Retenu or whatever. For the simple reason that we do not >know what the Philistines called themselves. Why do you doubt the fact that Ramses clearly links the Peleset with the movement from the Aegean and that the material culture that arrived on the coast of southern Palestine in the twelfth century has several non-Palestinian traits? Old forms of Aegean pottery, a script that appears similar to the Cretan Linear A, non Canaanite burial traditions, Dor features contemporary Aegean-style harbour works, the new town of Ekron cropped up around the time of Ramses III's battle with the sea peoples... The depictions of these sea peoples at Madinat Habu show people of an Indo-European material culture. >We only have it that the >Philistines were called the Philistines from the Hebrew traditions of the >Old Testament. Those Hebrew traditions support the notion that the Philistines came from Crete, given that Kaphtor is the same as the Egyptian Keftiu which is certainly Crete. >Outside the Hebrew perception (valid in itself), For what century? >there is >not a shred of evidence - to the best of my knowledge - that "Philistines" >was ever the name of a people or tribe, in the same way for example, that >the English call themselves the English. What about Ramses III account? Is there anything wrong with the notion that the Tjekker, Shekelesh, et al were some sort of ethnic denominations? If they were, it would follow that so was "Peleset". [..] > >2. Why did the Egyptians "suddenly" (if that were the case) begin to use >the term Plst in the reign of Ramesses III? It is possible that is a >reflex to Hebrew usage. Drews argues that it is basically a geographical >term rather than an ethnic one, which may well be its value as it as >adopted by the Egyptians. Again, why did they "suddenly" stop using the >term? (There are only a very few occurrences after the time of Ramesses >III.) Ramses II mentions the Sherden, Lukka, Qarqisha and Labu. Merneptah talks of Lukka, Sherden, Eqwesh, Teresh, Shekelesh, Labu and Meshwesh. In Ramses III's 5th year he deals with Qayqisha, Labu, Meshwesh and others. There is nothing to suggest that any of these are geographical terms, though one can do what Drews does and claim, seeing as we only hear of the Teresh once from the Egyptians, that must be a geographical term. We have waves of peoples. We cannot be sure that each group present is reported, but there is nothing contemporary to suggest any notion of geography from any of the terms including Peleset. In fact it would be incoherent to deal with numerous peoples and throw in the odd geographical term. Besides, we must remember that those people indicated as Peleset evince a non-Semitic material culture in the inscriptions at Madinat Habu. And we should remember the Onomasticon of Amenemope which specifically mentions the [Sh]erden, the Tjekker and the Peleset in relation to the Levantine coast, seemingly non-geographical terms related to peoples right where the biblical accounts want Philistines to be. We know from the Journey of Wenamun that the Tjekker were known to be in the Dor area. Why doesn't the bible mention them? They did arrive at the same time as the Peleset. The fact that the bible doesn't mention any other group specifically should indicate that the writing is from a much later period when the other names have become unimportant. [..] >The view that the references to the Philistines in Genesis, Exodus, etc are >"anachronisms" is of course a matter of opinion, not fact. No substantial case has been made to separate the Philistines from the Peleset of Aegean origin. The argument that "Philistine" is in some sense geographical doesn't deal with the archaeology or the epigraphy. The fact seems to me to be that the Philistines are the Aegean people mentioned by Ramses III. This being the case, of course one can talk of anachronisms. We know basically when the Philistines arrived. Their pottery is a rather good temporal indication -- a form that changed in the Aegean was being manufactured in Palestine using *local* fabric. >Plenty of times >"anachronisms" in the Old Testament have turned out not to be. In this >case, Ramesses III himself refers numerous times to the lands, towns and >orchards of the Plst - which he raided. As a number of people have been >pointing out over the years (inlcuding John Bimson and myself, but others >too, now Drews) this shows fairly clearly that the Plst were already in >Palestine by the time he fought them. It is interesting that you become literal here after making it clear that Ramses III's account has certain questionable qualities about it. One of the odd things about the Philistines as depicted is that their are women and children in carts, quite an ambulent society. Nevertheless, how long did it take for the various peoples involved in the movement from the Aegean to get from one devastated place to the next? What did they survive on in the mean time? Walter wrote: >>If the Philistines are NW Semitic as asserted by Drews why is there the >>suspicion that "seranim" is Anatolian Hittite rather than NW Semitic ? and Peter responded: >Well, it's only a suspicion, and hardly strong against massive evidence >like the Philistine onomasticon. This is not very convincing. The onomasticon to which you are referring doesn't reflect the period when the Philistines seem to have arrived, but a couple of centuries later, so it is not strange for new arrivals to start using names found amongst the surrounding peoples. (We see this again and again in history.) Yet amongst the names found in the epigraphy there are a few names that have survived which are clearly not Semitic, for example LHR$, WNNT, RKH, (Tell Jemme Ostrac.#1) and Muwanannas. As I've written far too much now, I'll jump the rest. Cheers, Ian Ian Hutchesson mc2499@mclink.it http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 13:44:27 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane mammon Dear Peter and List Members, According to the method which will be presented in my forthcoming book CONTEXTUAL PRIORITY IN BIBLICAL HEBREW PHILOLOGY (in the series Supplements to Vetus Testamentum), the appropriate way to deal with such a suggested etymology is to ask the following two questions: 1. Does the root hmy meaning "to be noisy, excited" (or even in the pi''el where the suggested meaning is "to covet") ever occur together in the same context with mamon (which would provide TEXTUAL not so-called "logical" evidence for a semantic connection)? 2. Is there any precedent for the semantic development required here - namely a word meaning "wealth" being derived from a verb meaning "to be noisy, excited"? 3. Since the answer is negative to both of these questions, the etymology should be rejected. 4. For semantic developments from verbs meaning respectively "to hide" and "to be strong" developing to nouns meaning "treasure, wealth", cf. e.g. BH maTmon and xayil (for the present, see my article "treasure" in the Encyclopaedia Judaica; this example will also be dealt with extensively in my new book). All the best, Chaim Cohen On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > Mata Kimasitayo wrote: > > > > arndt-gingrich have, p 491, col 1: > > > > ho mamOnas (aramaic mAmOn) WEALTH, PROPERTY, lk 16.9,11. > > personified, 'mammon' mt 6.24, lk 16.13, 2 cl 6.1; eb nestle, > > _encyclopaedia biblica_ 2912ff (etymological discussion > > at 2914ff) ... > > > > jastrow, p 794, col 2 has mAmOn = ACCUMULATION, WEALTH, > > VALUE ... jastrow thinks the word derives from hAmAh = to be > > noisy, excited, from the pi'el of this verb (p 355, col 1) [= to > > covet] > > Jastrow's etymologies are to be taken with a considerable portion of > salt -- he had a penchant for ascribing the most transparent Greek > loanwords to Semitic roots. > -- > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:14:14 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? Dear Joe, Walter and List Members, Let me pass on here what I have learned from the writings of Prof. A. Malamat of the Hebrew University regarding the figure of 480 years in I Kings 6:1. If we assume (for argument's sake) that the fourth year of Solomon's reign is approx. 958 B.C.E., then indeed going back 480 years brings us to a 15th century (BTW not 16th century) date for the Exodus. But 480 years might well be simply an indication of 12 generations just as forty years is the generation of the wanderings in the desert and often refers to a generation inbetween the periods of the various Judges in the Book of Judges (note esp. the one case of 80 years = two generations in Jud. 3:30). Malamat's TEXTUAL evidence for a tradition of 12 generations having elapsed from the time of the Exodus until the construction of the First Temple is I Chron 6:35-38 which lists all the High Priests from Aaron (at the time of the Exodus) until 'Axima`ac (at the time of the Construction of the First Temple) - namely 12 High Priests = 12 generations. If this is correct, then one might well take the 480 years as implying the same 12 generations. At approx. 25 years per generation we get 12 X 25 = 300 years or a date in the middle of the 13th century for the Exodus. Since this is still the generally accepted date by both Biblical scholars and archaeologists, Malamat's attempt to reconcile the date of 480 years seems to be quite likely. All the best, Chaim Cohen On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 JOE.J.BAKER@centrelink.gov.au wrote: > I have been following this discussion and have made a contribution to it. Since > then I have seen several postings where the sender appears to be unaware of my > contribution so I am resending it. (I checked the ANE archives - it's there as > the last post of 1 Feb). I have corrected one typing error (Judges 11:15b-27 for > Judges 11:15b-17). > -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > Walter Mattfeld in a post of 30 Jan stated > > "480 years. as the interval of time between the Exodus and Solomon's 4th year > .. is actually exceeded by a more careful compilation of the chronologies in > the book of Judges and Samuel" > > This is not surprising, if you adopt the theory of multiple authors, for the 480 > years is a figure of the P school deliberately placed in 1 Kings 6:1 (one of the > few P additions to this book) while the numbers in Judges and Samuel derive from > chronicle sources with deutronomic additions. > > Another (and better) way of explaining the 480 year period in 1 Kings 6:1 is by > symmetry. That is the time period from the Exodus to the start on the temple has > been set to the same length as the period from the start of the temple to the > 'exodus/return' from Babylon. A P writer, living in Babylon, in mid-Persian > times, could calculate the later period from access to the deuteronomic Book of > Kings, the Babylonian king list and a document similar to that of Ezra 1-6 (the > edict in the first year of Cyrus would be viewed as the year the exiles > returned). Starting with the original temple chronicle entry at 1 Kings 6:1 > (which has the typical annal formulae "in the fourth year ... of King Solomon) > he would calculate the years as > > 37 remaining to Solomon ( inclusive = 40- (4-1)), > 394 of his successors (17,3,41,25,8,1,7,40,29,52,16,16,29,55,2,31,11,11), > 25 remaining to Nabukudurriusur (inclusive = 43-(19-1)), > 23 of his successors (2,4,17), > 1 to Cyrus. > > He then inserted his chronological notice of 480 years in to 1 Kings 6:1 to > complete the priestly chronological structure found in Genesis and Exodus (note > 480 is written in typical P manner as "eighty years and four hundred years" - > whereas a chronicle source or deuteronomic addition would have written "eight > hundred and forty years") > > Furthermore Mattfeld says > > "Redford's investigations led him to conclude there was ... a "Historical > kernal" behind the Exodus and that was the Hyksos expulsion under Pharaoh > Ahmoses I"" > > >From Egyptian sources Manetho knew of two expulsions of the Hyksos (whom he > links with Jerusalem), the first under Ahmose and the second under Sethnakht > (when they aided the lepers). He also knew, from the Jewish population in > Egypt, that their ancestors were said to have escaped from Egypt under the son > of the pharaoh who had built R'mss. This was a clear link to Ramesses 2, who > built PrR'mssw, and so his son Merenptah would have to be the pharaoh of the > exodus. However, as with his attempt to satisfy the Greek legends, Manetho found > it difficult to reconcile his sources and as a result he ended up duplicating > some of the kings of the 19th and 20th dynasties. Thus we have the pairing > Merenptah/Sethnakht as Amenophis/Ammenephthis (son of Ramesses/Rampses and the > father of Sethos Ramesses). > > An approximate date for the Exodus (which IMO only involved a relatively small > group of people but their exploit and renown grew in the years to become the > official foundation legend) is preserved in Judges 11:15b-27. This is part of a > letter (taken from some source and reapplied to another story) which Jehoram of > Israel sent to Mesha of Moab in 851 B.C. In it Jehoram puts forward his claim > to Israelite territory recently conquered by Mesha. His claim is based on the > recently completed "Origin of Israel" (for want of a better name) by JE (I see > JE as a single author who successfully welded all the conflicting accounts of > the people of Israel into a single unified story). Jehoram claims this land by > right of conquest, for 300 years earlier, the Israelites while marching north > had deliberately circled Moab to attack and capture much of the land now in > dispute. (Mesha in his inscription rejected this claim saying the Gadites > (Israelites) had occupied this land for as long as anyone could remember). > > Using this source and date the Exodus is placed at (851+300+40= ) 1191 B.C. > which given the roundness of the numbers is pretty close to Merenptah, 1213-1204 > B.C. > -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Regards > Joe Baker > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:18:27 +0200 (IST) From: avigdor horovitz Subject: Re: ane mammon Dear all, I agree with chayim's comment on methodology, but this still leaves the etymology of mamon open. I've never givenmuch thought to the question, but if I were to offer a wild guess, an irresponsible shot in the dark, I would start with a look at Akkadian mimma, nominalized mimmu, meaning "something" and "property". It's a very well attested word and a semantic development from a word for property to a word for wealth (a lot of property) would be quite natural. The -on ending is no problem. How the word would get into greek is a question to itself which I am even less qualified to speculate about, but if we permit Semitic loan words in Greek, why not this one too. Victor On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, chaim cohen wrote: > Dear Peter and List Members, > According to the method which will be presented in my forthcoming book > CONTEXTUAL PRIORITY IN BIBLICAL HEBREW PHILOLOGY (in the series > Supplements to Vetus Testamentum), the appropriate way to deal with such a > suggested etymology is to ask the following two questions: > 1. Does the root hmy meaning "to be noisy, excited" (or even in the pi''el > where the suggested meaning is "to covet") ever occur together in the same > context with mamon (which would provide TEXTUAL not so-called > "logical" evidence for a semantic connection)? > > 2. Is there any precedent for the semantic development required here - > namely a word meaning "wealth" being derived from a verb meaning "to be > noisy, excited"? > > 3. Since the answer is negative to both of these questions, the etymology > should be rejected. > > 4. For semantic developments from verbs meaning respectively "to hide" and > "to be strong" developing to nouns meaning "treasure, wealth", cf. e.g. BH > maTmon and xayil (for the present, see my article "treasure" in the > Encyclopaedia Judaica; this example will also be dealt with extensively > in my new book). > > All the best, > Chaim Cohen > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > Mata Kimasitayo wrote: > > > > > > arndt-gingrich have, p 491, col 1: > > > > > > ho mamOnas (aramaic mAmOn) WEALTH, PROPERTY, lk 16.9,11. > > > personified, 'mammon' mt 6.24, lk 16.13, 2 cl 6.1; eb nestle, > > > _encyclopaedia biblica_ 2912ff (etymological discussion > > > at 2914ff) ... > > > > > > jastrow, p 794, col 2 has mAmOn = ACCUMULATION, WEALTH, > > > VALUE ... jastrow thinks the word derives from hAmAh = to be > > > noisy, excited, from the pi'el of this verb (p 355, col 1) [= to > > > covet] > > > > Jastrow's etymologies are to be taken with a considerable portion of > > salt -- he had a penchant for ascribing the most transparent Greek > > loanwords to Semitic roots. > > -- > > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 16:49:41 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: ane Exodus, Hyksos & Pelest, contra Bimson & Drews Don Mills wrote: > What, I wonder, does excavation of the Philistine cities show? Sitting in > my workaday office, the only reference I have to hand is Ian Wilson's recent > "The Bible Is History", which says (page 97) "... Their town planning was > excellent, contradicting any notion that they arrived as disorganised > refugee-squatters. They laid out "new towns" with straight, parallel > streets evocative of the modern-day United States. Architecturally, their > buildings, such as those at Tel Miqne, featured round hearths, an element > previously unknown at Canaanite sites. The round hearth is, in fact, Aegean > in its roots, as evident from excavations at Pylos and Mycenae [as though > no-one else could invent round hearths!], as well as from the pages of > Homer." > > The first couple of sentences don't seem to square with the picture of a > defeated people repulsed from the borders of Egypt. But I'm interested in > the opinions of other list members. > > I fail to see the logical connection between the statements you quoted and your doubts. What should prevent the defeated Palushta from building orderly settlements in Canaan? Yours, - -- Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 16:57:39 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: ane mammon George Athas wrote: > Suggestion: could _mammon_ be related to the word _hamon_, meaning 'abundance' or > 'wealth'? Don't think so. The root of hamon is hamah, "make noise", which is what a crowd of people, or high waves, will do. - -- Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:10:45 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? Why does the figure of 480 years (from the Exodus to the completion of Solomon's Temple) have to be that of a "P writer"? Didn't other Israelites know how to count? Don't other biblical narrative traditions, including, inter alia, the books of Judges and Samuel,. use typological numbers, including multiples of 40 and 12? Or are you going to perhaps claim that these too are "Priestly", because only the Priestly code, which "must" be late, is able to do such things? Come on now, when are you all going to get off this Wellhausian thing of ascribing dates, numbers, details, and lists to the Priestly School and claiming they're late? Do you mean to claim that the SKL, OB itineraries, and Mari administrative documents were written by the P source? Or that the "late" Priestly scribes devekloped bureaucracy, accounts, dates and numbers all by themselves? Maybe Wellhausen could ignore the evidence of the ANE when he wrote his Prolegomena (though he shouldn't have). We can't today. - -- Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:18:26 -0500 From: "Graham Hagens" Subject: Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? I thought there was a ban on discussing Exodus. Its easy to see why. Everyone has an opinion, and none of them can be proven. So before the ban is imposed let me slip in my unprovable 2 cents worth Joe Baker wrote: > Another (and better) way of explaining the 480 year period in 1 Kings 6:1 is by symmetry. That is the time period from the Exodus to the start on the temple has been set to the same length as the period from the start of the temple to the 'exodus/return' from Babylon There is an excellent book on this subject by Hughes called "Secrets of the Times" (1990 ish) which discusses the symbolic use of numbers in the Pentateuch & Chronicles. It was apparently important that everything add up to a magical 480 years. Great caution should be exercised when using these numbers for chronological purposes. > Using this source and date the Exodus is placed at (851+300+40= ) 1191 B.C. > which given the roundness of the numbers is pretty close to Merenptah, 1213-1204 > B.C. Until recently Merneptah was often considered to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus: his reign reasonably fits a literalal interpretation of Ex 2:23 - i.e. a new Pharoah taking over from a long-lived one (Ram II) who built the cities of Ramesses. Merneptah had reason to be xenophobic having been subjected to various attacks from Libyans & others during his short 10 year incumbancy, and may have wanted to expel his asiatic guest workers. Attributing the Exodus to Merneptah fell into disfavour after discovery of the famous stele in which Merneptah boasts of having destroyed the seed of Israel. The context suggests that this was an unsettled group of people (located somewhere in Canaan (the literature on this stele is vast. For a review see Hasel BASOR 1994: 45-61). The problem with this reference is that the Merneptah stele pre-dated the 300 Iron I settlements in central highlands by at least a generation, perhaps two. It is these settlements which are now considered essential for the understanding of the rise of the United Monarchy in Iron II (once again the literature is vast, but a recent review article with good references is that of Bloch-Smith & Nakhai: Near Eastern Archaeology 62:2 (1999) 62-127.) More significantly the Merneptah stele most definitely does not refer to Yahwists - and it was the Yahwists not the Elohist (Isra-El ites) who gave us the Bible (as various authors have pointed out the Yahwists probably appropriated the name Isra-El much later in their history after missionaires such as Eli-Ja managed to convince everyone that it was time for Yahweh to take over from the venerable El). Thus although the Mernpetah stele probably reveals the presence of El worshippers in Canaan during the LBA, its is unlikely that they were the "Proto-Yahwists" (or "Proto-Israelites") who participated in the dramatic increase of settlement of the Canaanite highlands during Iron I. My two cents says that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:31:55 -0500 From: "Liz Fried" Subject: RE: ane mammon According to Liddell and Scott Mammwnos is a Syrian deity of wealth and prosperity Has anyone heard of such a deity? Liz > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:30:19 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? chaim cohen wrote: > Let me pass on here what I have learned from the writings of > Prof. A. Malamat of the Hebrew University regarding the figure of 480 > years in I Kings 6:1. If we assume (for argument's sake) that the fourth > year of Solomon's reign is approx. 958 B.C.E., then indeed going back 480 > years brings us to a 15th century (BTW not 16th century) date for the > Exodus. But 480 years might well be simply an indication of 12 > generations just as forty years is the generation of the wanderings in the > desert and often refers to a generation inbetween the periods of the > various Judges in the Book of Judges (note esp. the one case of 80 years = > two generations in Jud. 3:30). Malamat's TEXTUAL evidence for a > tradition of 12 generations having elapsed from the time of the Exodus > until the construction of the First Temple is I Chron 6:35-38 which lists > all the High Priests from Aaron (at the time of the Exodus) until > 'Axima`ac (at the time of the Construction of the First Temple) -- Dear Chaim, Malamat didn't invent this theory. I remember reading it, perhaps in Bright, Albright, or elsewhere, many years ago. But it just doesn't hold water, in my opinion. The number 12 is also typological, like 40, and you can't place much confidence in Chronicles (I know Malamat does). After all, he had both the Torah and the Book of Kings at his disposal, and was trying to justify both. So he made up the 12 generations of Aaronide priests, just as he made p the priestly genealogy of Samuel and many other things. Yours, Jonathan - -- Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:02:07 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: Trinity College Dublin - Fellowships in Mediterranean & Near Eastern Studies Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: Brian McGing UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN TRINITY COLLEGE Mediterranean & Near Eastern Studies Postdoctoral Fellowship (1) Postgraduate Studentships (4) Following the Higher Education Authority's award of research funding to Trinity College, Dublin, the new Joint Committee for Mediterranean and Near Eastern Studies, which includes Classical and Biblical scholars, now invites applications for the above appointments. The successful applicants will be expected to conduct research in one of the four areas targeted by the Joint Committee: the Platonic Tradition; the encounter between Greco-Roman and Near Eastern cultures; biography of the Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions; the social function of law in ancient societies. The Postdoctoral Fellowship is available immediately. In addition to research, the successful candidate will carry some light teaching and administrative duties. The appointment will be made initially for one year, and may be renewed. Commencing salary will be £15,000 per annum. Candidates should submit a full curriculum vitae, to include the names of three referees, to: Establishment Officer Staff Office Trinity College Dublin 2 Tel: 608-1678 / Fax: 677-2169 / email: recruit@tcd.ie The closing date for receipt of applications for this post will be Friday, 18th February, 2000. The Postgraduate Studentships will commence in October, 2000. The value of the Studentships will be £6,000 per annum, plus fees, for two years. Application forms may be obtained from: Graduate Studies Office Trinity College Dublin 2 Tel: 608-1166; email: evansD@tcd.ie Completed applications must be submitted to the Graduate Studies Office on or before 10th March, 2000. Further particulars may be obtained at Website: http//www.tcd.ie/Staff Office or from Professor Brian McGing (Tel: 608-1092/email: bmcging@tcd.ie) or Professor Sean Freyne (Tel: 608-1368/email: sfreyne@tcd.ie) TRINITY COLLEGE IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER Professor Brian McGing Chairman, School of Classics Trinity College, Dublin 2. + 353 1 608 1092 email: bmcging@tcd.ie Professor Brian McGing Chairman, School of Classics Trinity College, Dublin 2. + 353 1 608 1092 email: bmcging@tcd.ie ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:41:55 -0000 From: "John Bimson" Subject: ane Hyksos & Exodus A brief reply to Walter Mattfeld's latest two (both 03/02/00). As Peter James has taken up the matter of the so-called 'Sea Peoples', I'll confine myself to a few points concerning the Hyksos. 1. We cannot rely on Manetho for the numbers involved in the Hyksos expulsion. As I pointed out before, Manetho has already confused that event with at least one other story (Thut III's siege of Megiddo) before writing his account. 2. To ask 'Why would the Egyptians leave large numbers of Hyksos in Egypt?' is to confuse the issue by an imprecise use of terms. The term 'Hyksos' referred to those who held power, not to the 'Asiatic' population as a whole. This is widely accepted, but too often overlooked. 3. Yes, there was some abandonment of Avaris (Tell ed-Dab'a) at the start of the 18th Dynasty (though not as thorough as was originally thought) - as we might expect at the main centre of Hyksos rule. But our knowledge of much of the E Delta is still poor (though slowly improving). Sweeping generalizations should be avoided. 4. I wonder how Walter can argue that the Exodus tradition is 'make-believe fantasy' while also believing that 'chronological traditions' recorded no earlier than the 1st century are accurate to within a few years. (Actually I don't think they were, because I don't accept the conventional date for the end of the Hyksos era.) Finally, I apologise for a typo that slipped into the date of Drews' paper in JSOT 81: as Christopher Robbins pointed out, it should have been 1998, not 1989. John Bimson. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 19:54:30 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? Graham Hagens wrote: > > The problem with this reference is that the > Merneptah stele pre-dated the 300 Iron I settlements in central highlands by > at least a generation, perhaps two. It is these settlements which are now > considered essential for the understanding of the rise of the United > Monarchy in Iron II (once again the literature is vast, but a recent review > article with good references is that of Bloch-Smith & Nakhai: Near Eastern > Archaeology 62:2 (1999) 62-127.) The problem exists only if you accept the biblical claim that the Israelites who left Egypt and the people who settled the highlands are identical. Mendenhall and Gottwald claim that these settlements were founded by Canaanites who fled the city-states of the lowlands. But one doesn't have to accept this. Instead, one can simply claim that what later became the people of Israel (and this didn't happen before the United Monarchy, assuming that such existed), was composed of diverse elements: 1) clans immigrating from Upper Mesopotamia (Ur of the Chaldees, Harran, the City of Nahor) 2) tribes or clans entering Canaan from Transjordan (if these are not identical with 1) 3) tribes or clans coming from Egypt 4) native Canaanite elements, such as the Shechemites (Josh. 24) and other city-states that fell under the Israelite yoke, the Calebites (Josh. 16), the Kenizzites (cf. Jud. 1-2 and Gen. 15) - unless they belong to 5) 5) other tribal elements, such as the Kenites. In summary, my thesis is that what eventually became the biblical Israelites were pf doverse progoms. - -- Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Beit Berl Post Office Israel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:59:02 +0100 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane Philistines, peleset Dear listmembers, Peter James wrote: "Outside the Hebrew perception (valid in itself), there is not a shred of evidence - to the best of my knowledge - that "Philistines" was ever the name of a people or tribe, in the same way for example, that the English call themselves the English." Not a shred? There are, in fact, some words in Linear B texts that can be read as Philista:s, Philista:, Philista:wo:n, and Philistoio (genitive of Philistos). See F. Aura Jorro, DICCIONARIO MICENICO, vol. 2, p. 125f. Of these, at least the female name pi-ri-ta (Philista:) in the Pylos tablet Vn 1191 looks rather convincing and should not be ignored. The use of these names at Pylos would imply a tribe, people or geographical region anywhere outside the Peloponnese (and perhaps outside Crete, if pi-ri-to-jo is read as Philistoio). It would also imply that the personal names of these people were too "foreign" for the Greeks to pronounce, so their language could not have been Greek or in any way similar to Greek. A parallel case is the man's name 'Aigyptios' at Knossos. Regards, Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 13:17:03 -0500 From: Sarah Melcher Subject: ane Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible? Dear ANE listers, If this question has been raised before, I apologize, but a colleague and I were wondering today, "Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible?" I would appreciate any light you could shed on this question. Cordially, Sarah Melcher Assistant Professor of Hebrew Scriptures Department of Theology Xavier University Cincinnati, Ohio ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 14:09:53 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon Subject: Re: ane Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible? Sarah Melcher wrote: > Dear ANE listers, > If this question has been raised before, I apologize, but a colleague > and I were wondering today, "Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible?" I > would appreciate any light you could shed on this question. Obviously there were no leghorns or Rhode Island Reds in bronze-age Middle East but there were gallinacious birds that were eaten. What degree of domestication had taken place by that time, I am not sure since I do not recall many archaeological reports of the bones of gallinaceous birds. If I were to take a shot I would look closely at the fowl *of the air* as in Psalm 8:8 (tsippor) versus the "fattened" (and possibly flightless) fowl of 1Kings 4:2 (Barbur). Jack - -- ______________________________________________ taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net sharing a meal for free. http://www.thehungersite.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 21:29:52 +0100 From: "Walter Mattfeld" Subject: ane Exodus Dates, (Baker) Joe Baker: "Using this source and date the Exodus is placed at (851+300+40= ) 1191 B.C. which given the roundness of the numbers is pretty close to Merenptah, 1213-1204 B.C." Dear Mr. Baker, Sorry to have overlooked your observations. Your ideas about using "generations" to reckon the Exodus date has been proposed by others but in a somewhat different manner. Frank J. Yurco, posited 240 to 300 years between the Exodus and Solomon's Temple calculating 12 biblical generations with each generation being 20-25 yrs, coming up with an Exodus date falling between 1258-1198 BCE, rather close to your proposal, which is from a different approach (cf. p.48, Frank J. Yurco, "Merneptah's Canaanite Campaign and Israel's Origins," in Ernest S. Frerichs & Leonard H. Lesko, eds., Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 1997) While I have argued for the Hyksos expulsion as the historical kernel behind the fictious Exodus narratives, it seems very plausible that other later events may have been combined; the city of Rameses probably reflects the days of Rameses II. The notion of Hebrews being slaves in Egypt could have been drawn from Canaanite Apiru slaves laboring on Egypt's monuments any time from the 18th through the 20th dynasties, torn out of their historical contexts, and garbled together with the dim memory of the Hyksos expulsion. The notion of Joshua's Hebrew/Israelites attacking Canaanite cities, could be drawn from the events of the Amarna Age when Canaanite princes complained to Pharaoh of the attacks of Habiru (this historical kernel, being torn out of its original historical context, may have been garbled and combined with the Hyksos Expulsion of the 16th century BCE). As James Weinstein has pointed out (p.98, "Exodus and Archaeological Reality," Frerichs & Lesko) the accumulating archaeological evidence is that Israelite society emerges in the course of the 13th-11th centuries BCE, eventually flowering into the Monarchy period. This may be true, but the Pentateuchal portrayal suggests minimally an Exodus at 1446 BCE (1 Kings 6:1) while Acts 13:18-20 suggests 1540 BCE. It has often been said by critics that the Exodus event is unnoticed in the annals of Egyptian history and that the Pentateuchal account is an embellished overblown statement about the birth of a Nation. I don't share this pessimissim. In advocating the Hyksos Expulsion as the historical kernal, I find an event of great moment, the birth of a new Egypt, the so-called "New Kingdom Period." It was also a traumatic moment for Canaan, she lost her independence, becoming a vassal, and her peoples were enslaved to build Egypt's monuments. Surely the memory of this great event, the Expulsion of the Hyksos in 1540 BCE and the enslavement of Canaan, is what must lie behind Acts 13:18-21 chronology (matching Kitchen's "alternate" 1540 BCE Hyksos expulsion date). Ramses II transformed his defeat/stalemate with the Hittites at Kadesh in to a great victory. Perhaps the Canaanites in later ages, transformed their expulsion into God's defeating their enemies and delivering them, rather like Ramses reworking of historical events ? Maybe Moses the "Prince of Egypt," who lead his people to Canaan, is a transformation of another "Prince of Egypt," Ahmoses I, who drove the Asiatics back to Canaan with a stong arm ? Maybe Yam Suph, "the sea of reeds," alludes to the Nile as a sea (Bahr Nil in Arabic) when it floods the delta, and all one sees is reeds ? When Bahr-Nile dries up, men walk on dry land. The eyewitness Egyptian accounts speak of Avaris that "lies between the rivers." Egyptian naval vessels as well as land troops surrounded the city. Perhaps the river(s) about Avaris acted as "a wall" to protect the Hyksos. These kernels being transformed into the Red Sea crossing and "a wall of water" on either side of the Israelites ? Egyptian war annals frequently use bombastic and poetical language. Perhaps "the pillar of fire and cloud" that led Israel in the wilderness is being drawn from the poetical motif of "fire" proceeding an army's advance, Israel being portrayed as 600,000 armed men (i.e. the army will sweep away everything in its path like fire) ? Ramses III on the Sea Peoples advance : A camp was set up in one place in Amor, and they desolated its people and its land as though they had never come into being. They came, THE FLAME PREPARED BEFORE THEM, onwards to Egypt...As for those who reached my boundary, their seed is not. Their hearts and their souls are finished unto all eternity. Those who came forward upon the sea, THE FULL FLAME WAS IN FRONT OF THEM at the river-mouths, and a stockade of lances surrounded them on the shore." (p.284-5, Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford, 1961) "And in the morning watch the Lord IN THE PILLAR OF FIRE AND OF CLOUD looked down upon the host of the Egyptians, and discomfitted the host of the Egyptians..." (Ex. 14:24) All the best, Walter Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld Walldorf by Heidelberg Baden-Wurttemburg Germany ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 21:24:53 +0000 From: Mikey Subject: Re: ane Re: Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? All through this discussion I have seen proposed what really amounts to theory. Different ideas have been suggested based on chronological dating but none of them have attempted to ground themselves in hard archaeological data from Israel. In a discussion I had with a south African Biblical archaeologist, Dr Garth Gilmour, three and a half years ago (excavation at Tel Miqne-Ekron) he informed me that there is currently no archaeological evidence in Israel to support the Exodus hypothesis and in fact that Biblical archaeologists had discarded that idea in the 1950s. Michael Brass Archaeology BA (Hons): University of Cape Town History (BA): U.C.T. Member: The Egyptian Society of South Africa The Archaeological Society of South Africa A+ Certified Technician ICQ: 44563988 - ------------------------ CO-AUTHOR OF: "ANCIENT EGYPT AND WORLD PREHISTORY" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:11:09 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Midwest SBL/AOS/ASOR meeting program With the permission of the organizers, I post the schedule of the Midwest SBL/AOS/ASOR meeting, to be held in Chicago, February 13-15, 2000. [Some formatting etc, may be lost in transit] I invite any of those attending to stop in and visit the newly renovated (in part) Research Archives of the Oriental Institute. - -CJ- - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 2000 PROGRAM FOR THE JOINT MEETING OF THE MIDWEST REGION OF THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE THE MIDDLE WEST BRANCH OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH -- MIDWEST February 13-15, 2000 Oriental Institute--University of Chicago and Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago 1100 E. 55th Street Chicago, Illinois SUNDAY AFTERNOON, FEBRUARY 13 6:00-7:15 PM Special Showing Egyptian Gallery Oriental Institute--University of Chicago 1155 E. 58th Street Chicago, IL 7:30-8:30 PM Plenary Session, The Oriental Institute Chair: Michael Fox, University of Wisconsin--Madison William Hallo, Yale University The Bible and the Monuments MONDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 14 8:00 --10:00AM Registration, Entrance area at LSTC 8:00 AM -- 5:15 PM Publisher Displays, Main Lounge Session 1: Plenary Session, Auditorium Chair: Eleanor Guralnick 9:00-12:30 The Context of Scripture 9:00-9:30 K. Lawson Younger Trinity International University 9:30-10:00 Harry A. Hoffner Oriental Institute--University of Chicago 10:00-10:30 Break 10:30-11:00 David B. Weisberg Hebrew Union College 11:00-11:30 James Hoffmeier, Wheaton College Session 2A: Luke-Acts, Room 203 Chair: Russell Sisson, Union College 9:00-9:30 J. Albert Harrill, DePaul University The Dramatic Function of the Running Slave Rhoda (Acts 12:13-16): A Piece of Greco-Roman Comedy 9:30-10:00 Stephen R. Wiest, Marquette University A Propaedeutic From the Bacchae of Euripides for Interpreting Luke's Stephen-Section (Acts 6:1-8:4) 10:00-10:30 Coffee Break 10:30-11:00 Karl Kuhn, Lakeland College Luke's Gospel Characters: Far from Speechless 11:00-11:30 Lynn Allan Kauppi, Valparaiso University St. Luke Plays the Lottery: The kleros Motif in Acts 1:15-26 Session 2B: Christian Origins, Room 207 Chair: Christine Shea, Ball State University 9:00-9:30 Bastiaan Van Elderen, The Scriptorium An Unpublished Baptismal Prayer in a 9th Century Minuscule Manuscript of the Gospels 9:30-10:00 Ritva H. Williams, Augustana College Charisma and Church Leadership: Ignatius of Antioch and His Contemporaries 10:00-10:30James Kelhoffer, Lutheran School of Theology The Apology of Marcianus Aristides of Athens: Some Initial Probings 10:30-11:00 Coffee Break 11:00-11:30 Susan Myers, University of Notre Dame The Authorship, Provenance and Dating of the Acts of Thomas, revisited 11:30-12:00 Leslie Baynes, University of Notre Dame Lady Virtue, Lady Vice: Personification in Prodicus' Heracles and Its Nachleben 11:30AM-1:00 PM Lunch Break 12:30-3:00 PM Registration, Entrance area LSTC Session 3A: Plenary Session, Auditorium Chair: Robert Jewett, Garret-Evangelical Theological Seminary 1:00-2:30 Adele Reinhartz, McMaster University Scripture on the Silver Screen 2:30-2:45 Coffee Break 2:45-3:15 Robert Jewett, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary The Pilgrimage of Brotherhood: The Straight Story in Light of Romans 12:9-13 3:15-3:45 Carol Stockhausen, Marquette University An Experiment Using Film in Teaching Biblical Text and Theology: Mr. Holland's Opus Revisited Session 3B: Student Paper Award Winners New Testament/Christian Origins, Room 206 Chair: Troy Martin, Saint Xavier University 1:00-2:00 Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll, University of Chicago "'Who are my mother and my brothers?' Family Relations and Family Language in the Gospel of Mark Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, Room 305 Chair: Robert D. Haak, Augustana College 1:00-2:00 Robert D. Holmstedt University of Wisconsin--Madison Dislocation and Topicalization in Biblical Hebrew: A Generative Syntactic-Pragmatic Analysis 2:00-2:45 PM Coffee Break Session 4A: AOS-Northwest Semitic, Room 305 Chair: Bastiaan Van Elderen, The Scriptorium 2:45-3:15 Wayne Pitard, University of Illinois-Urbana Old Photos, New Readings: Examining the Original Photos of the Ugaritic Tablets 3:15-3:45 Anson Rainey, Tel Aviv University Mesha and Syntax: Language and Style from the 9th Century BCE 3:45-4:15 Lawrence Mykytiuk, Purdue University A Taxonomy of Identifications of Biblical Persons Named in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions Session 4B: New Testament/Gospels, Room 202 Chair: James Kelhoffer, Lutheran School of Theology 2:45-3:15 Richard Thompson, Olivet Nazarene University When Does Salt Lose Its Saltiness? A Reading of Matthew 5:13 in Light of Its Literary and Historical Contexts 3:15-3:45 Russell Sisson, Union College The Social Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in Q 3:45-4:15 Christine Shea, Ball State University Mark 2:17: Some Doctoring 4:15-4:45 Mark Whitters, Catholic University of America Why Did the Bystanders Think Jesus Called Upon Elijah Before He Died (Mark 15:34-36)? The Markan Position 4:45-5:15 Stephen Hatton, Homewood, IL Markan Comedy in the Family/Beelzebul Intercalation Session 4C: Old Testament, Room 309 Chair: Stuart Lasine, Wichita State University 2:45-3:15 Sun Myung Lyu, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Internalization and Codification: Two Paradigms of Sapiential Pursuit of Righteousness 3:15-3:45 Sungho Lee, Kaneville, IL Rhetoric of the Priestly Writings in the Plague Narrative Exodus 7:8--11:10 3:45-4:15 Angela Kim, University of Notre Dame The Golden Calf and the Theology of the Deuteronomistic Source: Source Criticism of Exodus 32:1-6 4:15-4:45 J. Todd Hibbard, University of Notre Dame New Prophecy Through Old: Isaiah 24:16b-20 and the Re-Use of Earlier Biblical Texts 5:00-6:00 Lutheran School of Theology Reception 6:00-7:10 Presidential Banquet, Dining Room 7:15-8:15 Presidential Address, Dining Room Chair: Robert D. Haak, Augustana College Michael V. Fox University of Wisconsin--Madison The Meanings of the Book of Job 8:30-9:30 Board Meeting, President's Dining Room TUESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 15 9:00 --10:00AM Registration, Entrance area LSTC 8:00 AM -- 1:00 PM Publisher Displays, Main Lounge 8:15-9:00 Joint SBL/AOS Annual Business Meeting, President's Dining Room Chair: K. Lawson Younger, Trinity International University Session 5A: AOS/ASOR Archaeology, Room 207 Chair: Lisbeth S. Fried, New York University 9:00-9:30 Jeffrey Blakely, Archaeological Assessments Not Ziklag, Lachish, Gath or Eglon: What was Biblical Tell el-Hesi? 9:30-10:00 Graham Hagens The Historicity of Samuel in Light of Recent Archaeological Research 10:00-10:30 Peter Feinman, Columbia University William Foxwell Albright and the Founding of Biblical Archaeology Session 5B: Manuscripts, Room 302A Chair: Lowell Handy, Loyola University of Chicago 9:00-9:30 Michael Anderson, University of Notre Dame The 'Biblical' Nature of the Non-Masoretic Psalms in 11QPs 9:30-10:00 James E. Miller Pseudepigraphy in the Genesis Apocryphon 10:00-10:30 Brian Webster, Cornerstone University A No Longer Missing Genesis Scroll from Kaifeng China: A Preliminary Report on VK ms 875 Session 5C: New Testament, Faculty Lounge Chair: Lynn Allen Kauppi, Valparaiso University 9:00-9:30 Troy W. Martin, Saint Xavier University The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Peter 3:6 9:30-10:00 Stan A. Lindsay, Loyola University of Chicago Woman and Serpent: The Entelechial Germ of Revelation 10:00-10:30 Barbara Rossing, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago "Fallen is Babylon:" The City-Lament Genre in Revelation 18 Session 5D: Biblical Languages, Room 203 Chair: Roy Gane, Andrews University 9:00-9:30 Daniel P. Bailey, Milwaukee, WI Biblical and Mainstream Uses of hilasterion as Homonyms 9:30-10:00 Brian Ashland, Univ. of Wisconsin--Madison The Dot and the Glottal Stop 10:00-10:30 Tarsee Li, Hebrew Union College Stative Wayyiqtol in Biblical Hebrew: A Preliminary Study 10:30-10:45 Coffee Break Session 6A: New Testament/Paul, Faculty Lounge Chair: Ritva Williams, Augustana College 10:45-11:15 Frederick Long, Bethel College The Apologetic Nature and Unity of 2 Corinthians Based on Forensic Oratorical Analogies 11:15-11:45 Peter W. Dunn, Faculte de Theolgie Evangelique de Bangui Testing Pauline Pseudonymity: 3 Corinthians and Pastoral Epistles 11:45-12:15 Jeffrey R. Asher, Chicago, IL Military Metaphor, Martial Values, and the Classical Battle Experience in Eph. 6:10-20 12:15-12:45 Jeffrey B. Gibson, Loyola University 'Christ Died for Us/Our Sins': The Political and Polemical Nature of a Pauline Topos Session 6B: AOS/Mesopotamia, Room 207 Chair: Mark Chavalas, University of Wisconsin--LaCrosse 10:45-11:10 Steven W. Holloway, American Theological Library Association Honors Equal to Those Paid the Gods: Sacrifice to Neo-Assyrian Kings 11:10-11:35 Lisbeth S. Fried, New York University Cyrus and the Priests of Marduk 11:35-12:00 Douglas Frayne, University of Toronto On the Locaction of the Ancient City of Agade 12:00-12:25 Eleanor Guralnick A 'Newķ Near Eastern Bronze from Olympia 12:25-12:50 C. MusĖs Tuvan and Buryatian Shamanism Session 6C: Old Testament, Room 302A Chair: Robert D. Haak, Augustana College 10:45-11:15 Joseph Michael Henderson, Indianapolis, IN Who Weeps in Jeremiah 9:1? 11:15-11:45 Lowell K. Handy, Loyola University Chicago The Busy Scribes of Josiah's Court 11:45-12:15 Stuart Lasine, Wichita State University Divine Narcissism and Yahweh's Parenting Style 12:15-12:45 John Schmitt, Marquette University Two Peculiarities of Zephaniah 3:14 The Officers of the Societies would like to thank the publishers and institutions who have been kind enough to display their books and other products at this meeting. These include: American Theological Library Association Augsburg/Fortress Publishers Eisenbrauns Ex Libris Books Hendrickson Publishers Westminster/John Knox Press Wisdom Publications The Societies also wish to express their gratitude to Barbara Rossing and Ralph Klein of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago and Gene Gragg of the Oriental Institute, who served as local arrangements coordinators this year. We would also like to express our gratitude to the staff and administration of the Lutheran School of Theology for their gracious cooperation in making the meeting a success. Special thanks go to President James Kenneth Echols and Dean Kathleen Billman of LSTC. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:55:37 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Taharqa statue rediscovered... ...and reported on the the BBC news site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_630000/630747.stm [Thanks to Alex O'Brien for the alert] - -Chuck Jones- ce-jones@uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:26:36 -1000 From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: ane RE: Dr. McHugh I presume {found in the Utah Desert] Listmembers, Regarding the story at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/MichaelGuillen/Michael_Guillen.html Thanks to information provided by John Tvedtnes, I tracked down the mysterious John McHugh at his Utah home. We spoke about an hour by telephone. McHugh is indeed a working archaeologist, a Catholic with a Masters degree from LDS Brigham Young University. McHugh's theories were first presented to the academic world sometime back at an SBL conference held at Creighton University. His work is based on his translation of cuneiform texts--star catalogs. A principal source is the mul apin along with the enuma elish and other texts. McHugh points out the the contellation names in the texts are preceded with a Determinative that means god. The Magur boat figures prominently as Argo. McHugh is solely responsible for his theory and evidence --there was no team of researchers as implied by the ABC story. The astronomical analysis to determine where the constellation Argo was 5600BCE was done by McHugh using PC compatible ephemeris programs. [Sky---]. Mchugh also was heard on an NPR radio program where he was guested opposite Dr. Krupp from the Griffith observatory. Here's a brief statement from McHugh about his theory. quote***************************************************** The Theory My hypothesis is fairly simple. I belive that archaic cultures, that is, cultures that do not use science or religion to explain their origins, explained and verified primordial events through pictographic stories depicted in the constellations. The constellations in these picture stories function as "astral artifacts" for the stories they depict. Nowhere is this more evident than in the modern night sky, where we can witness 46 of the 1st century Roman constellations (and planets) engaged in primordial acts depicted in picture stories. It is my belief that the flood was merely one of these pictographic stories that confirmed a cosmological event. ]unquote************************************************** I have asked McHugh to join us on the list and to respond to the "review" posted by Richard Flavin Framingham, MA Flavin's Corner: http://www.stormloader.com/flavin kind regards, Randall Larsen University of Hawaii at Manoa George 334 larsenr@hawaii.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 22:09:12 EST From: SheMichael@aol.com Subject: Re: ane Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible? melcher@xavier.xu.edu writes:<< a colleague and I were wondering today, "Where are the chickens in the Hebrew Bible?" >> I think they were still in India. (Why did the chicken cross the Hindu Kush? Well, they can't swim, you know.) If you live near a really big Chinese enclave, you may see a fairly close relative of the original in the "live-chicken" places. They're not the grand beauties of Chinese & Japanese art. They're scrawny little things you'd never think would be the base of great soup. According to Page Smith & Charles Daniel, _The Chicken Book_, (Little, Brown & C, 1975; reissued North Point Press, 1982) --writing before big-time DNA analyses-- the _gallus domesticus_ the Red Jungle Fowl might have been crossed with grouse, other wild birds & relatives of the now-extinct Dodo, to get it dumbed-down to the point where a rooster would wreak eternal vengeance against me for once hanging out laundry in its yard. There is some evidence that they were royal birds in Egypt at the times of Ikhnaton & Thutmose III, but then they disappeared entirely until 50 BCE, although Egyptians were skilled at large-scale incubation & brooding. There's an apocryphal story about Alexander witnessing the marvel of "a bird that lays eggs every day." But, Smith & Daniel _do_ say that when Persia conquered India in the 4th century BCE, chickens might have been brought imported: more for cockfighting, than for eggs & meat. So, they _could_ have been in the Bible, what with the post-exilic Persian connection, but they weren't. Domesticated chickens really did not appear in the West until Roman times, which is why the Rabbis mention them, but the Bible does not (minimalist dating, aside). (*o~) You might also look into the chicken chapter in Margaret Visser, _Much Depends on Dinner_, Grove Press, 1982. Sheila Shiki y Michaels ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:38:45 -1000 From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: ane Re: Black Sea Flood Theory. National Geographic Website. Listmembers, William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University formulated the theory of a Black sea flood of "biblical porportions" circa 5600BCE previously discussed on the list. John McHugh theorizes that Ancient peoples named three contellations in remembrance of this "great flood" prior to invention of writing. He bases his theory on texts from about 3300BCE the Summerian Mul_apin and Enuma_Elish. For general information on the evidence supporting the Black Sea flood see: "Ballard's 1999 Black Sea Expedition Test Results" http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea "Bob Ballard finds Proof of Noah-like Flood": http://www.ngnews.com/news/1999/11/111899/ballardflood_7432.asp I would be interested in listmembers comments on claims made on the above site as well as in academic publications on the subject. kind regards, Randall Larsen University of Hawaii at Manoa George 334 larsenr@hawaii.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:44:51 -0800 From: gw mallory harrison Subject: ane GLEN MAGID of Harvard - e-mail address Dear List members, I wonder whether any of you would have the e-mail address of Glen R. Magid of Harvard, whom I have been trying to contact. Whenever I try grmagid@fas.harvard.edu, the message is returned. Thanks much, George W.M. Harrison Harrison@ivy.nenu.edu.cn ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #36 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html