From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2000 #53 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Tuesday, February 22 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 053 SV: ane Tel Dan and Fighting the Fringe ane IE ruling class in Babylon? ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? ane Re: Gen: 14 a Hasomonean addition? ane Pinhas Artzi to be awarded the `William Bacher Medallion' ane "dilettanting"... ane ANE Rules - quarterly posting Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? ane ANE palaeography (Ahiram & Elibaal) Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? Reply to Athas and Griffiths. ane Re: Gen: 14 a Hasmonean addition? ane The Hidden City PreExilic Jerusalem Located ane RE: Winged Sun disk in Egypt Re: ane chronology Re: ane Tel Dan and Fighting the Fringe Re: ane Bat Creek Stone Re: ane Bat Creek Stone Re: ane Re: Gen: 14 a Hasmonean addition? Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? RE: ane Bat Creek Stone Re: ane Bat Creek Stone Re: ane Bat Creek Stone Re: ane 3 Questions: Elibaal & Abibaal, Dnn and Qarqar Re: ane Re: Gen: 14 a Hasmonean addition? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:11:41 +0100 From: "Thomas L. Thompson" Subject: SV: ane Tel Dan and Fighting the Fringe Dear Don Mills and Graham Hagens. Dever's article in NEA is fundamentally wrong. Neither Davies nor I have argued that the inscription is a fraud. I have rather argued that their are two genuine inscriptions involved. Dever's hysteria is related perhaps to a statement I made at a meeting of the SBL that Cryer's and Garbini's cautious suggestions and arguments that the inscription was a fake are quite serious arguments and should be followed up. Thomas > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Graham Hagens [SMTP:hagens@netinc.ca] > Sendt: 20. februar 2000 21:24 > Til: Don Mills; ANE List > Emne: Re: ane Tel Dan and Fighting the Fringe > > On references to the Tel Dan inscription being a fraud, see Dever (BAR > July/August 1996: 36; and NEA 61:1 (1998): 43, with references) in which > he > reacts strongly to the suggestion by Davies and Thompson that this > inscription was "a forgery, a hoax planted on an unsuspecting dig > director". > Dever considers this suggestion to be libelous. > > From: Don Mills > To: ANE List > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 2:56 AM > Subject: Re: ane Tel Dan and Fighting the Fringe > > > > Dear Albert, > > > > You wrote: > > > > | There has been a literal flood of articles on the Tel Dan inscription, > > but, > > | to the best of my knowledge, only two suspecting fraud, one by Garbini > and > > | the other by F. Cryer. > > | Do you know of any other? If so, I would be very interested in the > > | references. > > > > In my position, unfortunately, all I can do here is feed off the work of > > others, either on the lists, or by web searches and the like; so the > answer > > is no, I'm not aware of any others. And of course, I wasn't intending > to > > imply that "cries of fraud" are widespread, only that they occur. > Perhaps > > George Athas can better answer your question. > > > > | By the way, how do you define the "fringe" in ANE-studies? Is > Albright, > > or > > | for that matter, "Biblical Archaeology", "fringe" or mainstream? > Doesn't > > | it seem strange that the supposed "mainstream" believes in "skyhooks" > (or > > | divine intervention)? > > > > You mean you don't? :-) > > > > | What criteria do you use to separate fringe from mainstream among ANE > > | historians? > > > > Well, good question, and best I can say is that I didn't introduce the > word > > "fringe". Perhaps our subject (ancient history) is sufficiently > amorphous > > that the fringe circumscribes it as a circle with its centre everywhere > and > > its periphery nowhere ... Is David Rohl "fringe"? Or Peter James? Or, > at > > the other end of some sort of spectrum, Thomas Thompson and Niels Peter > > Lemche? The fact is that, while we might agree on some people who > belong > in > > the "fringe" (I'm probably one of them), the real reason some people > (not > > me) use the word is to denigrate and marginalise those whom they > disagree > > with. > > > > | p.s.: there is no problem in imagining a Roman (or even a > > | "Phoenician/Punic") ship carried from the Iberian peninsula by a storm > and > > | making it to the Caribbean Islands. It is however quite another > matter > to > > | imagine a regular two-way traffic between Portugal/Morocco and the > > Americas > > | before Colombo and Vespucci. > > > > Welcome to the fringe, Albert ... > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Don Mills > > Wellington, > > New Zealand > > (this week in Brisbane, Australia) > > ==================================== > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:44:06 +0100 From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" Subject: ane IE ruling class in Babylon? Ian Hutchesson wrote: >"Nuzi texts supply a number of of Indo-Iranian terms, such as "a$$u$$anni", horse raiser, "a$uwaninni", auriga, "maryannu", chariot combatants (though your link with Urartu is noted); horse colour words, "babrunnu", brown, "barittannu", grey, "pinkarannu", red; "aika-wartanna", one lap, "tera-wartanna", three laps, "panza-wartanna", five laps, "$attawartanna", seven laps. Most of these words are Hurrianized. Only the first elements (a$$u-, a$$uwan-, marya-, babru-, baritta-, pinkara-) may be Indo-Iranian (although they are more or less "garbled"). If these words were used by an Indo-Iranian ruling class, why were they Hurrianized by means of Hurrian suffixes? The technical terms for horsetraining that you mention (the four last words) are not from Nuzi. They belong in a Hittite manual written by a Hurrian. Such words indicate that Hurrians and Hittites were acquainted with Indo-Iranian horsetraining techniqes, not much more. The warfaring technique of the twowheeled chariot was developed in Mesopotamia; it was not brought there by an invading Indo-Iranian ruling class (G. Wilhelm, W. Nagel, C. Zaccagnini). >"What about $attiwaza, Artatama, Artashumara, Artamanya, Shuttarna, and Yuni (Tu$ratta's wife)? Are these low class names?" As I said, Mittanian kings traditionally took Indo-Arian throne names. (This might be compared with English kings having Greek names like George; it does not mean that King George was a Greek.) $attiwaza was Kilite$$ub's throne name, not his real name. Regarding the other names, some of them look strange if interpreted as Indo-Iranian (Ardadama = Rta-dhaman? Ardashumara = Rtasmara-?). They might be names of priests rather than kings. The element Arda- is also used in Hurrian names. The name Yuni is unknown to me. Was her name really (Sanscrit) Yoni = Vulva? Regards, Bjarte Kaldhol ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 06:17:31 -0600 From: Katherine Griffis Subject: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? On Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 , "Randall Larsen" wrote: Subject: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? > > Othmar Keel and Chistoph Uehlingers recent book touted at: > > http://www.stolaf > .edu/people/kchanson/godsexcerpt3.html. > > presents evidence that in 7th Century BCE worship Yahweh was typified as a > powerful Solar diety.: > > quote********** > Impressions of seals, which can be regarded as the successors to the royal > stamp from the late eighth century and the rosette stamp from the seventh > century, seem to associate Yahweh with the powerful, aggressive image of the > lion (illuss. 380-381), supplementing that picture occasionally with a sun > disk to express the traditional understanding of Yahweh as a solar god > (illus. 382). /1 > unquote******* > > Can this be taken as suggestive evidence of a common origin of iconography > or borrowing of iconography between Egypt and Israel? No, feline iconography is a bit different for Re, and is separate from that of the lion, as a protector of Re. > > I note that the Egyptian God Re was also typified as a solar diety. In > Egypt the sun was also represented by a Lion God. The tribulations of the > Sun during a solar eclipse were represented according to Derchain by the > tribulations of the King on the Lion couch at the Sed festival. Lions, according to Malek's work on the subject of cats and their representation in ancient Egyptian culture, are not the equivalent of the sun god Re, but are "associated with the concept of guardianship, and so representations of these animals or of sphinxes (hybrid forms which combine a lion's body with a human head) are often found in the vicinity of doorways and entrances to temples and palaces." The most vivid examples of the protector qualities of lions, for example, are the Akhet lions, who protect the god Re as symbols of yesterday and tomorrow, and of course, Sekhmet, the lioness deity form of the goddess Hathor. The smaller cat, OTOH, IS associated with Re, primarily as the "Great Tomcat" (PT 335) who destroys the "foes of the Lord of All." Also in the Pyramid Texts, the goddess Mafdet, a panther- or cheetah-like creature, is known for destroying the serpent who threatens the passage of the king through the afterlife. There are other references to the snake-destroying qualities of the cat in the Coffin Texts and the Book of Amduat, among other textual references. SEE: _The Cat in Ancient Egypt_, Jaromir Malek (Univ of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1993). pp. 73-111. Lions are associated through the ANE with fierce power and royalty, so I don't see the connection between the Y-h as lion and use of lion imagery in Egypt as being specifically connected, or significant. Regards -- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg University of Alabama at Birmingham UAB Options/Special Studies http://www.griffis-consulting.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:29:44 +1100 From: "George Athas" Subject: Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? > Can this be taken as suggestive evidence of a common origin of iconography > or borrowing of iconography > between Egypt and Israel? Certainly. However, don't neglect the common iconography with Mesopotamia either. I think you'll find the winged sun-disk image on some of the seals has more in common with Assyrian iconography. The winged sun-disk is associated with Justice and Healing. A good reference to follow this up is: Herbert NIEHR, 'The Rise of YHWH in Judahote and Israelite Religion. Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects,' in D.V. Edelman (Ed), _The Triumph of Elohim. From Yahwisms to Judaisms_, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. 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, 21 Feb 2000 10:37:58 EST From: RGmyrken@aol.com Subject: ane Re: Gen: 14 a Hasomonean addition? Randall Larsen asks for comments about Ian Hutchesson's theory that "The Melchizedek passage in Genesis 14 was added under the rule of the Hasmonean priest kings," quoting Ian in part as follows: > 1) The Melchizedek passage in Gen 14 is not attested to until the dss, > having mysteriously been neglected by Jubilees. When it appears it is in a > non-biblical work. This dates the Melchizedek passage to the time of the > dss, though after the writing of Jubilees. Without having visited Ian's web-site, I would say that Ian appears to overlook the evidence of Pseudo-Eupolemus (see e.g. Charlesworth's _Old Testament Pseudepigrapha_ 2.873-881), who does refer to the Melchizedek incident in conjunction with the rescue of Lot from the four kings. Quoting in part, "Victorious, the Armenians took captive the nephew of Abraham. Abraham and his servants came to the rescue... Abraham was treated as a guest by the city in the temple Argarizin [Mount Garizim], which means, 'mountain of the Most High.' He received gifts from Melchizedek, its ruler and priest of God." Here the Samaritan Pseudo-Eupolemus interprets the city of "Salem" in Gen. 14 as Mount Garizim. Pseudo-Eupolemus is usually dated to around 200 BCE, although I would put him closer to 250 BCE. Pseudo-Eupolemus appears to predate Jubilees, since Jub. 10:26 refers to a "great wind" that blows down the tower of Babel, a detail which comes from Pseudo-Eupolemus (this same detail appears in the Sibylline Oracles 3.98-103, a passage which derives from Pseudo-Eupolemus). (Other anti-Samaritan polemics in Jubilees also display an awareness of Pseudo-Eupolemus, but the argument is too involved to get into here.) So Pseudo-Eupolemus, predating Jubilees (which in turn predates the Hasmoneans in virtually all recent discussions) documents the Melchizedek incident in c. 250-200 BCE. Pseudo-Eupolemus uses the LXX, which also contains the Melchizedek incident. LXX Genesis dates probably from 270 BCE, and certainly by the time of Ptolemy IV (c. 221-204 BCE) when it was used by Demetrius the Chronographer (see e.g. Charlesworth's _Old Testament Pseudepigrapha_ 2.843-854). Best regards, Russell Gmirkin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:20:20 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Pinhas Artzi to be awarded the `William Bacher Medallion' Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From Jacob Klein Pinhas Artzi, Emeritus Professor, Bar-Ilan University, will be awarded the `William Bacher Medallion' for the year 2000. The Medallion is awarded by the Center of Jewish Studies at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (the Center's founder and present Chairman is Geza Komoroczy). The presentation is scheduled to take place on March 2, 2000. During the presentation, Artzi will deliver a lecture on "Epochs and International Relations in the Ancient Near East." William Bacher (1850-1913) was one of the pioneers of the scientific study of Rabbinical Aggadah and Midrash; he helped to lay the foundation of the study of Hebrew grammar from the talmudic period to the end of the Middle Ages, and he was an expert on Judeo-Iranian literature. He also served as the Head of the Budapest Rabbinical Seminary for 7 years. The Bacher Medallion was awarded in the past, among others, to renown Israeli scholars of Hungarian origin, such as Joshua Blau, Meir Weiss and Yaakov Katz" Jacob Klein Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic Languages Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:27:41 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane "dilettanting"... Referring to some recent traffic on ANE: With all due respect to dilettants, it is useful, even essential, to consider _before_ posting to a list, whether a communication should be public or private. The first paragraph of the ANE rules say that it is ..."a medium for discussion among scholars and students actively engaged in research and study..." of the ancient Near East. And this reminds me of my negligence in not posting the ANE rules as frequently as I should. They follow immediately. - -Chuck Jones- ce-jones@uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:27:48 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane ANE Rules - quarterly posting ane ANE Rules - quarterly posting This is the quarterly posting of the ANE rules: ANE: A DISCUSSION LIST FOR THE STUDY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST A joint project of The Computer Laboratory and The Research Archives of the Oriental Institute, Chicago STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ANE is a mailing list on topics and issues of interest in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, from the Indus to the Nile, and from the beginnings of human habitation to the rise of Islam. It is intended to provide a medium for discussion among scholars and students actively engaged in research and study of this broad field. Subscription is open and unmoderated. Information on how to subscribe follows at the end of this message. Active (on-list) participation in ANE assumes an informed knowledge of the ancient Near East and knowledge of the following rules. The act of subscribing to the list signifies the agreement of the subscriber to follow the rules and to accept the adjudication of the moderator. ANE exists as a courtesy of the Research Archives and the Computer Laboratory of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, a private academic institution. RULES - SCOPE ANE covers Ancient Near Eastern Studies, from the Indus to the Nile, and from the beginnings of human habitation to the rise of Islam. Recognize that there are many lists on which discussions of particular languages, regions, periods, disciplines, and so on, might be more appropriate. Active (on-list) participation in ANE assumes an informed knowledge of the ancient Near East. ANE is international in scope. List members should expect to be able to read postings in English, French and German. Participants are free to post in any of these languages, and, upon occasion, in other languages used in the study of the Ancient Near East. RULES - TECHNICAL Active participation in ANE is limited to those whose e-mail addresses are subscribed to the list. All list members will receive a copy of these rules in their subscription confirmation message. This document will be publicly posted to the list quarterly. The act of posting to the ANE list indicates the subscriber's agreement to abide by the rules set forth in this document. The rules set forth in this document cover very broad areas. They will be interpreted by the moderator. The act of posting to the ANE list indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudication of the moderator. VIOLATIONS CAN AND WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL FROM THE LIST. RULES - BEHAVIOR Respect your fellow list members. On-list "flaming" is unwelcome. Likewise, do not "flame" or otherwise harass list members off-list. Differing viewpoints and even heated argumentation are acceptable and welcome, but refrain from name-calling and commenting unfavorably on the intellectual abilities, morals, training, parentage, bathing habits, etc., of your fellow list members. Stick to the issues and to arguments that contribute to the debate. Pay close attention to what you post on ANE: - - - - - - Think carefully about what you post. - - - - - - Proofread your messages. - - - - - - Add or change the subject line to reflect the content of your posting. - - - - - - ANE is archived. The archive is publicly accessible. The archive is indexed by large and small search engines. What you post to ANE will be around for a long time. Do not post copyrighted material to ANE without permission. Do not repost material from ANE to other places without permission. ANE is archived. If you cite material posted on ANE in print or in other electronic media, use the URL of the appropriate digest in the archive (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html). Pay attention to whether a posting should be public or private. Do not post private mail to the list. Do not repost private mail without the explicit permission of the writer. When publicly responding to a posting on ANE pay close attention to what you quote or copy from earlier messages. Quote only enough to make your point. Do not repost the entire message. Public postings to ANE must include the name of the contributor at the end of each contribution. Pseudonyms are not an acceptable substitute on ANE. Names and addresses as they appear in headers are not sufficient identification. If you read your mail from ANE in a single periodic session, please read all the ANE traffic you have accumulated before you respond to any of it. If you receive ANE in digest form, read the entire digest before you respond. If you feel the need to respond to several messages in a single session, bundle them together. If you find yourself sending more than three messages in a single day, consider the possibility that you are sending too much. Virtually any sort of question is welcome on ANE as long as the question indicates thoughtfulness and demonstrates that locally available resources have been exhausted. Non-specific answers to specific questions are not welcome on-list. Posting of information from authors of new publications and other quasi-commercial traffic is normally welcome. Explicitly commercial postings are not welcome. If in doubt, contact the moderator before posting to the list. (ce-jones@uchicago.edu). Do not post essays to the list without the explicit permission of the moderator (ce-jones@uchicago.edu). Do not post messages with enclosures. Do post short notices offering to send such things to interested parties. Scholarship depends upon the written and published results of research. While short synopses of current unpublished research are welcome and encouraged, ANE is not the place to argue ideas which your fellow list members cannot follow up on in a library. Ufology and modern occult readings of the texts are not appropriate for discussion on ANE. Other topics that are generally not appropriate for discussion include personal visionary and revelatory experiences and modern sectarian or political agendas. While the discussion of eccentric ideas (even assuming such a thing can be defined) is not forbidden, participants expounding such ideas should recognize that the burden of proof is their responsibility. Not all ideas are equal. If you need clarification of any of these rules, consult the moderator: ce-jones@uchicago.edu CONFIGURATION AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Traffic on ANE will be delivered in two forms: The ANE list [ANE]. This version of the list is open. Participants are subject to the foregoing rules and to the adjudication of the moderator. Send communications intended for distribution on the list to ane@oi.uchicago.edu To subscribe send the message "subscribe ane" or "subscribe ane-digest" in the body of an e-mail message to majordomo@oi.uchicago.edu ANE News and Information [ANENews]. This version of the list is strictly moderated. Items of news and information (job announcements, conference announcements, publication [on-line or print] notices) and other pertinent items which are sent to the open ANE list will be forwarded to ANENews. Each item posted to ANENews will also be posted to ANE. There is no need to subscribe to both lists at the same time. Send communications intended for distribution on the list to ane@oi.uchicago.edu To subscribe send the message "subscribe anenews" or "subscribe anenews-digest" in the body of an e-mail message to majordomo@oi.uchicago.edu As indicated above, both ANE and ANENews are available with broadcast and digest options. Digests appear daily. NOTE: If you wish to remove your address from any of the ANE mailing lists for any period of time, you must unsubscribe from the list. To do so, send one of the following single-line messages: unsubscribe ane unsubscribe ane-digest unsubscribe anenews unsubscribe anenews-digest in the body of e-mail to: majordomo@oi.uchicago.edu It is the obligation of each subscriber to include or remove his or her address from these lists. ANE and ANENews are permanently archived in digest form on the Oriental Institute WWW server: ANE - http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE-DIGEST.html ANENews - http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANENEWS-DIGEST.html This document is permanently archived at - http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html Charles E. Jones - list-owner ce-jones@uchicago.edu John C. Sanders - majordomo-owner jc-sanders@uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:56:31 -0800 (PST) From: Brett Mackellar Subject: Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? I think that these quotes: "...and a goddess who is just as warlike and aggressive as her male partner. But, like the "Canaanite" Asherah from the Bronze Age, she appears to have been a goddess of blessing and fertility at the same time (illuss. 375-377)." "The situation in Judah is quite different. ...[royal stamps] seem to associate Yahweh with the powerful, aggressive image of the lion (illuss. 380-381), supplementing that picture occasionally with a sun disk to express the traditional understanding of Yahweh as a solar god (illus. 382)." and "...the foreign cult is personified by a woman and is dispatched to Babylon, the motherland of idol worship (Zech 5:5-11). From now on, there would be no room in Judah for a goddess alongside Yahweh." beg a specific question that I am unable to answer. Does the feline image or deity (though Keel and Uehlinger consider it a trait of Yahweh rather than a seperate entity) disappear at the same time as the female one? If the answer is "yes," it would almost seem logical to consider the association of the female with the feline (consider Yaweh as a linking factor between the two), rather than the feline with the male (Yaweh). This would be more appropriate in an Egyptian framework, as it would reenforce Egyptian associations of the cat with the goddess and would provide an explanation as to the ferocity (Sekhmet as protector of Re/Yahweh) and benevolence (Bastet as fertility goddess) she possesses. If the answer is "no," forget everything I just mentioned. Just playing "Devil's advocate." - -Brett ===== Brett MacKellar Anthropology Major (BA) Grand Valley State University email: mackellb@river.it.gvsu.edu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:07:39 -0500 From: Ronald Wallenfels Subject: ane ANE palaeography (Ahiram & Elibaal) In response to P. James' request for more information regarding Gabrini's dating of the Ahiram inscription Ian Hutchesson wrote: "Garbini provides various arguments to support the dating of the 13th century BCE. He mentions: 1) the archaeological evidence pointing directly to the 13th century, 2) the iconographic representation indicates that the inscription is contemporary with the sarcophagus, 3) the palaeography points to latest 11th century, 4) the language indicates some centuries before the 10th century, and 5) the text is reminiscent of Ugaritic literature." As a recent subscriber to the ANE list I am unsure how much of the following has been treated previously, so I will apologize in advance for any repetitiousness. Nonetheless, without ever having read Gabrini (Italian is sadly beyond my ken), I can respond most emphatically to each of the points offered, except for the last which I would need to see a translation of firsthand before commenting upon. 1) The archaeology of Ahiram's tomb supports a terminus a quo of c. 850-700 BCE as determined by the distribution of Cypriot pottery sherds within the shaft fill. The presence of the Rameside and "Mycenaean" fragments within the tomb chamber may be attributed to either of the other two uninscribed sarcophagi in Tomb V or were dropped there by tomb robbers burrowing through from nearby Tomb VI (see E. Porada, "Notes on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram," JANES 5, 1973 and my "Redating the Byblian Inscriptions," JANES 15, 1983). (New Chronologists should approach these fragments with due caution!) 2) Whether or not the inscription and reliefs are contemporary is open to serious question. a- The sarcophagus iconography, as per Porada, is entirely within the mainstream of 9th-7th c. North Syria. b- The linear Phoenician inscription, much like KAI 3, is a palimpsest, written over a Pseudo-hieroglyphic inscription that is only partly erased (M. Martin, "A Preliminary Report after Re-Examination of the Byblian Inscriptions," Orientalia 30, 1961), suggesting that the Linear Phoenician postdates the sarcophagus relief. 3) As per my palaeographic discussion in JANES 15, the Ahiram inscription, and for that matter, all of the so-called early Byblian inscriptions including Elibaal, Abibaal, Yehimilk and Shipitbaal, are datable to within the range of 900-700 BCE. The scripts are not entirely unlike the Byblian inscriptions from the 2nd half of the 1st millennium, formally drawn, with varying cursive tendencies throughout, and not that substantially different from other well-dated Aramaic and Phoenician inscriptions from the 1st half of the 1st mill., esp. KAI 31 (Cyprus). 4) Again, as per my discussion in JANES 15, specific isoglosses (3rd m. and f. sing. and m.pl. pron. suff.; gender-distinct demonst. pron; divergent use of the def. article) within the Byblian corpus indicate that Byblian was throughout its history, a separate and distinct dialect within Phoenician; Its archaizing tendencies throughout preclude simplistic approaches to its dating. Although the arguments summarized here and presented in full detail in JANES 15 have been used to bolster the New Chronologies of James , Rohl, et al., arguments to which admittedly I am not immune, nonetheless, they were formulated within the context of the Standard chronology and are intended to be interpreted within it. Sincerely, Ronald Wallenfels wallenfels@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:59:13 -1000 From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? Reply to Athas and Griffiths. Dr Athas, Dr. Griffiths, and Listmembers. Dr. Athas comment that the Solar motif in Israel is more likely taken over from Sumerian is well-taken. However, the winged sun disk does appear in late Egyptian monuments as well. Notably on the ceilings and cornice of the temple of Philae. /1 Does anyone know if the winged sun disk appears in earlier Egyptian incriptions? I speculate that the winged sun disk represents the Sun in a solar eclipse. Jane Sellers in her electronic edition of _Death of the Gods_ has a picture of a solar eclipse where a bar of light surmounts an annular eclipse of the sun. Professor Griffiths studied comments dispute the connection I suggest between the Solar diety and its protective genii in Egypt. However, in Israel/Sumeria's winged solar disk we see the protective genii (the winged "cherubim" if you will) combined with the sun itself. Could this be the case in Egypt as well? I don't think its too big a stretch to see the Sun represented by its protective genii "the Akhet lions, who protect the god Re as symbols of yesterday and tomorrow (Katherine Griffiths)" in Egypt. For example, when the Double Lion in Coffin Text 312 guards the House of the Double Lion it appears that the Double Lions are identified closely with the Sun itself. May I suggest that "Yesterday and Tommorow" are manifestations of the Sun. We also see the Sun identified with twin cobras (this is taken by Sellers as a kenning for the sun in eclipse). I speculate that House of the Double Lion in Coffin text 312 is the throne chamber that Derchain claims was "consecrated to rites related to the cycles of the moon and the sun (Le Papyrus Salt, I,88)." This the chamber that the False Messenger of Horus is wont to enter but cannot because he has the form of Horus but lacks the royal wig cover." /2 1/ Byron E. Shafer, Temples of Ancient Egypt, New York, 1997. 211 fig. 103. 2/ de Buck, "The Earliest Version of Book of the Dead" in JEA 35,87. See also the articles of Driotin and Brunner on the dramatic nature of this text as previously cited by me on this list. kind regards, Randall Larsen University of Hawaii, at Manoa George 334 larsenr@hawaii.edu - ----- Original Message ----- From: George Athas To: Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 3:29 AM Subject: Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? > > Can this be taken as suggestive evidence of a common origin of iconography > > or borrowing of iconography > > between Egypt and Israel? > > Certainly. However, don't neglect the common iconography with Mesopotamia either. I think > you'll find the winged sun-disk image on some of the seals has more in common with > Assyrian iconography. The winged sun-disk is associated with Justice and Healing. A good > reference to follow this up is: > > Herbert NIEHR, 'The Rise of YHWH in Judahote and Israelite Religion. Methodological and > Religio-Historical Aspects,' in D.V. Edelman (Ed), _The Triumph of Elohim. From Yahwisms > to Judaisms_, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. > > 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, 21 Feb 2000 21:51:20 +0100 From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: ane Re: Gen: 14 a Hasmonean addition? At 10.37 21/02/00 -0500, RGmyrken@aol.com wrote: >> 1) The Melchizedek passage in Gen 14 is not attested to until the dss, >> having mysteriously been neglected by Jubilees. When it appears it is in a >> non-biblical work. This dates the Melchizedek passage to the time of the >> dss, though after the writing of Jubilees. > > Without having visited Ian's web-site, I would say that Ian appears to >overlook the evidence of Pseudo-Eupolemus (see e.g. Charlesworth's _Old >Testament Pseudepigrapha_ 2.873-881), who does refer to the Melchizedek >incident in conjunction with the rescue of Lot from the four kings. Pseudo-Eupolemus -- and I refer specifically to the long fragment -- is actually very hard to date. Our evidence is a citation found in Eusebius's Pr.Ev. Although the forms of the names are similar to the LXX, we neither know when Gen was translated, nor which direction the names traveled in (ie did they originate in LXX or in PsEup. Perceived priorities given to texts are very hard to sustain when it is clear we lack a lot of the sources in circulation at the time of the writing of these texts. One of the sources that PsEup may have had was the Genesis Apocryphon!? Did PsEup get the Belos tradition from Diodorus Siculus or Pausanius? This seems more like a quagmire than firm ground which Russell is treading on. > Here the Samaritan Pseudo-Eupolemus interprets the city of "Salem" in Gen. >14 as Mount Garizim. Pseudo-Eupolemus is usually dated to around 200 BCE, >although I would put him closer to 250 BCE. Yet the most hopeful R. Doran can be in his Charlesworth introduction is "Prior to the first century BC" and that does seem hopeful to me. >Pseudo-Eupolemus appears to >predate Jubilees, since Jub. 10:26 refers to a "great wind" that blows down >the tower of Babel, a detail which comes from Pseudo-Eupolemus (this same >detail appears in the Sibylline Oracles 3.98-103, a passage which derives >from Pseudo-Eupolemus). As Pseudo-Eupolemus draws from numerous sources, to claim that Jubilees got the "great wind" from PsEup is at best an argument from silence. As parts of Sibylline Oracle 3 presuppose Augustean times and 97-103 is in itself undatable, I can't see that it is particularly useful here. >(Other anti-Samaritan polemics in Jubilees also >display an awareness of Pseudo-Eupolemus, but the argument is too involved to >get into here.) So Pseudo-Eupolemus, predating Jubilees (which in turn >predates the Hasmoneans in virtually all recent discussions) (I don't think that they're going to get very far eating their stomachs on this until a few more facts are injected into the discussions.) >documents the >Melchizedek incident in c. 250-200 BCE. Pseudo-Eupolemus uses the LXX, which >also contains the Melchizedek incident. LXX Genesis dates probably from 270 >BCE, This is unfortunately unsustainable, based on the tendentious desire (not on RG's part) to see LXX Genesis written early. Sadly one cannot go on the style of Demetrius's text to suggest LXX -- described in the Charlesworth volume as "tedious and restricted in vocabulary", though it is this vocabulary that the editor claims shows the text's relationship with LXX! By its content Pseudo-Eupolemus is drawing on texts that are plainly not biblical and some of the editor's biblical attributions seem fanciful to me. (The reference to [h]Ar-Garizin, ie Mount Gerizim, the Samaritan cultic centre, as the home of Melchizedek here is quite provocative. Though there are other theories, I understand the split between the Jerusalemites and the Samaritans, which seems to have been in partial process back in Ben Sira's day, didn't come to fruition -- if we can trust Josephus's passing story -- until the destruction of the centre by John Hyrcanus, which would seem to put Melchizedek at Argarizin after about 110 BCE and possibly a lot later.) >and certainly by the time of Ptolemy IV (c. 221-204 BCE) when it was >used by Demetrius the Chronographer (see e.g. Charlesworth's _Old Testament >Pseudepigrapha_ 2.843-854). There are grave doubts as to the integrity of Genesis, given its rather poor showing -- especially in the earlier sections -- at Qumran, though there were numerous copies of that text. Despite the desire to read LXX into Greek texts dealing with "early" Jewish traditions, there is no reason to suspect that Genesis was either whole or that it had been translated into Greek at the time given to Demetrius. Pseudo-Aristeas doesn't help us date LXX Genesis. Cheers, Ian Ian Hutchesson mc2499@mclink.it http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:35:37 PST From: "Dana Brown" Subject: ane The Hidden City PreExilic Jerusalem Located The Hidden City PreExilic Jerusalem Located The PreBabylonian Jerusalem has remained hidden for thousands of years; prominent archaeologists admit they haven’t found it. Yet, Scripture and logic explain where it lays hidden. It’s the ancient Jebus, an early Canaanite City, with an historic castle that subsequently became the majestic royal palace for the world’s most famous kings: Saul, David, Solomon, and the many that followed them. It’s also the ancient site of the early Levitical City wherein the preserved Holy of Holies and other preserved inner recesses of the glorious Solomonic Temple await reentry. A colossal find! Even the abundant ancient records stored therein and the wealth of Temple treasures described in the intriguing Copper Scroll await recovery. But GOD’S Holy Ark is not there as the Prophet Jeremiah hid it before King Nebuchadnezzar attacked the City (Jeremiah 43:8-10; II Maccabees 2:4-8). The PreExilic City is also the coveted site raided by marauding armies of ancient Egypt, Assyria, Persia, and Babylon. And the new Jerusalem created when Jewry returned from Babylon is not atop this ancient City. Note again: People will soon unearth the remnants of Jebus, the great castle (fortress) of David, the Solomonic and other Temples. Findings therein should provide substantial treasures and historical records concerning the Middle East, Egypt, Mesopotamia, ancient India, perhaps China, the Phoenicians, etc. This discovery should also confirm the skeletal history of the ancient world and much more. For details see: “The Hidden City: The PreBabylonian Jerusalem”: http://www.angelfire.com/fl/BriansHouse/hiddencity.html Or http://Brians_Annex_II.tripod.com/hiddencity.html Help reopen Solomon's Temple. Feel free to link to this site and/or forward this email to your mailing lists and interested parties. Geo. & Dana brianshouse@yahoo.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:03:22 -1000 From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: ane RE: Winged Sun disk in Egypt Listmembers, I asked earlier about occurences of the winged sun disk in Egypt. I recall an example at Edfu a winged disk with the two uraeus's (built 237BCE to 57 BCE) Finnestad explains that "Ancient symbols could still be used in Ptolemaic and Roman times /1 so I suspect that the winged disk was an ancient symbol in Egypt as well as Mesopotamia. I am still looking for earlier occurences. 1/ Ragnhil Finnestad in Shafer ed., Temples in Ancient Egypt, New York, 1997. 201 fig 97, 202 (text). 188 (dated). Randall Larsen University of Hawaii, at Manoa larsenr@hawaii.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:47:21 +1300 From: "Don Mills" Subject: Re: ane chronology On Monday, February 21, 2000 at 7:13 PM, Bruce Rabe wrote: | The "New Scientist" article (at least as it appears on the Web) makes it | seem like the deacceleration of the Earth's rotation is a new discovery. | It's been known and incorporated into astronomical calculations for years, | at least since the 1890s. Not just the web article, but also the printed form, gave it the appearance of "new knowledge". I had been aware for many years that the slowing of the earth's rotation was a well-known phenomenon (caused, I believe, by the tidal effects of the moon); I mistakenly believed that it was the precision (and periodicity) that the astronomers quoted had arrived at. Since I do not run astronomical software, I trusted the article (silly me) when it said that modern retrocalculations gave an incorrect result. What it should have said was, "modern retrocalculations *would* give an incorrect result *if* they failed to incorporate this *known* retardation ..." I apologise to the list for having raised unnecessary alarm in some minds. Regards to all (and thanks to those who have corrected my misunderstanding), Don Mills Wellington, New Zealand ==================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:59:26 +1300 From: "Don Mills" Subject: Re: ane Tel Dan and Fighting the Fringe Thanks to Thomas L. Thompson , who on Monday, February 21, 2000 at 10:11 PM (New Zealand time) sent clarification of his position re the Tel Dan inscription. Whether or not it is a fake does of course need to be settled (so far as possible) rather than ignored. Don Mills Wellington, New Zealand ==================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:49:16 -0500 From: Hu McCulloch Subject: Re: ane Bat Creek Stone Charles David Isbell wrote, concerning the Smithsonian's Bat Creek stone from Tennessee, >If the inscription reads RQ LYHWD[M], its obvious meaning would be: "only >for Jews." Does this fit into the context of the finding of the >inscription? >Charles David Isbell The Bat Creek inscription is probably no more than the intellectual equivalent of a bumper sticker or t-shirt slogan. This person didn't have either a bumper or a t-shirt, so he simply scratched his favorite motto on a stone and hung it on a thong around his neck. "Only for the Jews was my first guess as to the meaning, just looking up RQ ("only") in a Hebrew dictionary, and taking Gordon's reading of LYHWD[M] as "for the Jews." Possible interpretations would be [The Promised Land is] only for the Jews [The Favor of God is] only for the Jews [The right to build a temple to YHWH is] only for the Jews [This land (Eastern Tennessee) is] only for the Jews ... or all of the above. However, Cyrus Gordon tells me that RQ does not mean "only" in the sense of "solely", but rather in the sense of "but" or "were it not", and doesn't see how this could make sense. It seems to me that if the writer were a Samaritan rather than a Jew, the inscription might conceivably be saying something _negative_ about the Jews, rather than positive. In Central Ohio, for example, half the bumper stickers say something positive like "Go Bucks", but the other half have something negative like "Beat Michigan." If so, the meaning might be something like But for the Jews [the Samaritan Temple to YHWH would still be standing] Were it not for the Jews [I wouldn't be stranded in the Godforsaken place] etc. A Samaritan author would help account for the Paleo-Hebrew script, though it is not a requisite. I don't know if the above makes sense gramatically: "but for" works in English, but would does it in Hebrew? Perhaps David or someone else on the group could comment. Gordon inclines toward Robert Stieglitz's proposal that these letters are ZQ, ziq, or spark, or comet, rather than RQ. ZQ LYHWD[M] could then mean "A comet for the Jews", a title of a quasi-messianic leader believed to be a fulfillment of the Star Prophesy, presumably the person buried with the stone (along with 8 other persons neatly laid out). But if you look at the history of the development of zayin in Naveh's book on the history of the alphabet, the zayin form Stieglitz has in mind simply does not fit the letter in question. Rather it is, at least in my admittedly "dilletantish" view, just a resh made backwards. See my webpage at www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html and/or my article in the July/August 1993 issue of BAR, for photographs of the inscription, and further references. - -- Hu McCulloch www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html J. Huston McCulloch mcculloch.2@osu.edu Economics Dept. voice (614) 292-0382 Ohio State Univ. FAX (614) 292-3906, attn. J.H. McCulloch 1945 N. High St. Columbus, OH 43210 New URL: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/jhm.html (Old one still works, but this is a little shorter.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:53:26 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Bat Creek Stone Hu McCulloch wrote: > > Charles David Isbell wrote, concerning the Smithsonian's > Bat Creek stone from Tennessee, > > >If the inscription reads RQ LYHWD[M], its obvious meaning would be: "only > >for Jews." Does this fit into the context of the finding of the > >inscription? > >Charles David Isbell > > The Bat Creek inscription is probably no more than > the intellectual equivalent of a bumper sticker or > t-shirt slogan. This person didn't have either a bumper or > a t-shirt, so he simply scratched his favorite motto on a > stone and hung it on a thong around his neck. You're *still* missing the point. He *didn't* scratch his favorite motto on a stone; he copied some letters from a coin. And how heavy is this thing? Any parallels for hanging "a stone" around a neck on a thong? > "Only for the Jews was my first guess as to the meaning, just looking up > RQ ("only") in a Hebrew dictionary, and taking Gordon's reading of > LYHWD[M] as "for the Jews." Possible interpretations would > be Given the (if indeed it can be given), shouldn't there be a in the plural suffix? > [The Promised Land is] only for the Jews > [The Favor of God is] only for the Jews > [The right to build a temple to YHWH is] only for the Jews > [This land (Eastern Tennessee) is] only for the Jews > ... or all of the above. Where is there room on the stone for two to four more "words"? - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 02:31:38 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piquer_Otero?=" Subject: Re: ane Re: Gen: 14 a Hasmonean addition? > >> 1) The Melchizedek passage in Gen 14 is not attested to until the dss, > >> having mysteriously been neglected by Jubilees. When it appears it is in a > >> non-biblical work. This dates the Melchizedek passage to the time of the > >> dss, though after the writing of Jubilees. Dear ANErs, on this topic, listmembers have pointed the presence of Malki-zedek name in Ps. 110. I would like to ask if there is any evidence to any connection between the character in Gn.14 (the subject of this thread) and the name in Ps. 110, beyond later exegesis and the Masoretic vocalization (which offers, by the way, some problems in Ps. 110, 4). In any of those contexts, or in both of them, they could be taken as a common syntagm, not a person name. I would them like to throw the question if the element Zedek (as a substantive, not as the adjective Zadik) may be found in other onomastical elements in a similar way or if it is an unicum. Perhaps the keypoint of the issue lays not in determining the age of the passage inasmuch in determining the possibility of a late coining of a personal character (suitable to religious and political issues of 2nd Temple Judaism) out of a passage just offering a common name. Andrés Piquer Otero Departamento de Estudios Hebreos y Arameos Facultad de Filología Universidad Complutense de Madrid ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:36:22 -0500 From: "Gary Greenberg" Subject: Re: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? On the other hand, Re-Herakhte is depicted as a man with a lion's head. The lion's mane is a solar symbol, corresponding to the rays of the sun. Herakles, the Greek God who wore a lion skin over his head, had solar connections, possibly from Phoenician sources, and in the Twelve Labors he sails across the sky from east to west in a golden cup. Herodotus describes an Egyptian god named Herakles (whom I believe to have been Re-Herakhte) pulling down a temple, the same image as Samson, whose name means something like "sun-man". Re-Herakhte was also the deity actually worshipped by the monotheistic Akhenaten. Gary Greenberg - ----- Original Message ----- From: Katherine Griffis To: ANE List Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 7:17 AM Subject: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and Israel? > On Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 , "Randall Larsen" wrote: > > Subject: ane Re: Y-h as a Solar God. Common Iconography between Egypt and > Israel? > > > > > Othmar Keel and Chistoph Uehlingers recent book touted at: > > > > http://www.stolaf > > .edu/people/kchanson/godsexcerpt3.html. > > > > presents evidence that in 7th Century BCE worship Yahweh was typified as a > > powerful Solar diety.: > > > > quote********** > > Impressions of seals, which can be regarded as the successors to the royal > > stamp from the late eighth century and the rosette stamp from the seventh > > century, seem to associate Yahweh with the powerful, aggressive image of > the > > lion (illuss. 380-381), supplementing that picture occasionally with a sun > > disk to express the traditional understanding of Yahweh as a solar god > > (illus. 382). /1 > > unquote******* > > > > Can this be taken as suggestive evidence of a common origin of iconography > > or borrowing of iconography between Egypt and Israel? > > > No, feline iconography is a bit different for Re, and is separate from that of > the lion, as a protector of Re. > > > > > I note that the Egyptian God Re was also typified as a solar diety. In > > Egypt the sun was also represented by a Lion God. The tribulations of the > > Sun during a solar eclipse were represented according to Derchain by the > > tribulations of the King on the Lion couch at the Sed festival. > > > Lions, according to Malek's work on the subject of cats and their > representation in ancient Egyptian culture, are not the equivalent of the sun > god Re, but are "associated with the concept of guardianship, and so > representations of these animals or of sphinxes (hybrid forms which combine a > lion's body with a human head) are often found in the vicinity of doorways and > entrances to temples and palaces." The most vivid examples of the protector > qualities of lions, for example, are the Akhet lions, who protect the god > Re as > symbols of yesterday and tomorrow, and of course, Sekhmet, the lioness deity > form of the goddess Hathor. > > The smaller cat, OTOH, IS associated with Re, primarily as the "Great Tomcat" > (PT 335) who destroys the "foes of the Lord of All." Also in the Pyramid > Texts, the goddess Mafdet, a panther- or cheetah-like creature, is known for > destroying the serpent who threatens the passage of the king through the > afterlife. There are other references to the snake-destroying qualities of > the > cat in the Coffin Texts and the Book of Amduat, among other textual > references. > > SEE: _The Cat in Ancient Egypt_, Jaromir Malek (Univ of Pennsylvania Press: > Philadelphia, 1993). pp. 73-111. > > Lions are associated through the ANE with fierce power and royalty, so I don't > see the connection between the Y-h as lion and use of lion imagery in > Egypt as > being specifically connected, or significant. > > Regards -- > > Katherine Griffis-Greenberg > > University of Alabama at Birmingham > UAB Options/Special Studies > > http://www.griffis-consulting.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:54:46 -0500 From: "Liz Fried" Subject: RE: ane Bat Creek Stone Could it be ZY LYHWD ".... who is over Yehud"? This would make it Aramaic. Liz > > > Charles David Isbell wrote, concerning the Smithsonian's > > Bat Creek stone from Tennessee, > > > > >If the inscription reads RQ LYHWD[M], its obvious meaning > would be: "only > > >for Jews." Does this fit into the context of the finding of the > > >inscription? > > >Charles David Isbell ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:10:33 -0600 From: "Charles David Isbell" Subject: Re: ane Bat Creek Stone Thanks for the additional information. Stieglitz and I were students under Gordon together at Brandeis, and I would tend to trust his work because I know him to be a terrific linguist and scholar. Whether he is adequately qualified here to analyze the chirographic peculiarities of this dialect may be the question. I have spoken with Dr. Gordon recently, and we exchange letters fairly frequently. [He writes longhand; typewriters were unknown at Ugarit!] But I have not asked him about this issue. I would defer to him on the matter of the meaning of RQ, if such are the letters. But of course, such a short inscription can hardly be assigned inordinate significance even if all the letters are easily read. So again, thanks for the clarification. Charles David Isbell - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hu McCulloch" To: Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 5:49 PM Subject: Re: ane Bat Creek Stone > Charles David Isbell wrote, concerning the Smithsonian's > Bat Creek stone from Tennessee, > > >If the inscription reads RQ LYHWD[M], its obvious meaning would be: "only > >for Jews." Does this fit into the context of the finding of the > >inscription? > >Charles David Isbell > > The Bat Creek inscription is probably no more than > the intellectual equivalent of a bumper sticker or > t-shirt slogan. This person didn't have either a bumper or > a t-shirt, so he simply scratched his favorite motto on a > stone and hung it on a thong around his neck. > > "Only for the Jews was my first guess as to the meaning, just looking up > RQ ("only") in a Hebrew dictionary, and taking Gordon's reading of > LYHWD[M] as "for the Jews." Possible interpretations would > be > [The Promised Land is] only for the Jews > [The Favor of God is] only for the Jews > [The right to build a temple to YHWH is] only for the Jews > [This land (Eastern Tennessee) is] only for the Jews > ... or all of the above. > > However, Cyrus Gordon tells me that RQ does not mean "only" > in the sense of "solely", but rather in the sense of "but" or > "were it not", and doesn't see how this could make sense. > > It seems to me that if the writer were a Samaritan rather than a > Jew, the inscription might conceivably be saying something _negative_ > about the Jews, rather than positive. In Central Ohio, for example, > half the bumper stickers say something positive like "Go Bucks", but the > other half have something negative like "Beat Michigan." If so, > the meaning might be something like > But for the Jews [the Samaritan Temple to YHWH would still be standing] > Were it not for the Jews [I wouldn't be stranded in the Godforsaken place] > etc. > A Samaritan author would help account for the Paleo-Hebrew script, > though it is not a requisite. > > I don't know if the above makes sense gramatically: "but for" > works in English, but would does it in Hebrew? Perhaps David > or someone else on the group could comment. > > Gordon inclines toward Robert Stieglitz's proposal that these letters > are ZQ, ziq, or spark, or comet, rather than RQ. ZQ LYHWD[M] could > then mean "A comet for the Jews", a title of a quasi-messianic leader > believed to be a fulfillment of the Star Prophesy, presumably the > person buried with the stone (along with 8 other persons neatly > laid out). But if you look at the history of the development of > zayin in Naveh's book on the history of the alphabet, the zayin > form Stieglitz has in mind simply does not fit the letter in question. > Rather it is, at least in my admittedly "dilletantish" view, just > a resh made backwards. > > See my webpage at > www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html > and/or my article in the July/August 1993 issue of BAR, for > photographs of the inscription, and further references. > > -- Hu McCulloch > www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html > J. Huston McCulloch mcculloch.2@osu.edu > Economics Dept. voice (614) 292-0382 > Ohio State Univ. FAX (614) 292-3906, attn. J.H. McCulloch > 1945 N. High St. > Columbus, OH 43210 > > New URL: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/jhm.html > (Old one still works, but this is a little shorter.) > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:18:50 -0600 From: "Charles David Isbell" Subject: Re: ane Bat Creek Stone Charles David Isbell wrote, concerning the Smithsonian's Bat Creek stone from Tennessee, If the inscription reads RQ LYHWD[M], its obvious meaning would be: "only for Jews." Does this fit into the context of the finding of the inscription? Charles David Isbell *************** Hu answered: The Bat Creek inscription is probably no more than the intellectual equivalent of a bumper sticker or t-shirt slogan. This person didn't have either a bumper or a t-shirt, so he simply scratched his favorite motto on a stone and hung it on a thong around his neck. ****************** Peter Daniels adds: You're *still* missing the point. He *didn't* scratch his favorite motto on a stone; he copied some letters from a coin. And how heavy is this thing? Any parallels for hanging "a stone" around a neck on a thong? Given the (if indeed it can be given), shouldn't there be a in the plural suffix? ****************** Isbell comments: I think the answer would be yes to the expectation of a Y. But the final M itself is a guess for a blank space, is it not? [M] So we may not have either a full or a defective writing for a plural at all. ************ Peter again: Where is there room on the stone for two to four more "words"? **************** Isbell again: I defer to those who know the stone from personal inspection. I have not, and am thus dependent upon the proposed reading of others. If there is inadequate room, then the proposed [M] may be extraneous as well. Charles David Isbell ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:13:51 +0800 From: JOE.J.BAKER@centrelink.gov.au Subject: Re: ane 3 Questions: Elibaal & Abibaal, Dnn and Qarqar Recently Don Mills in answer to a query about Osorkon sending forces to Qarqar referred to his posting of 18 Mar 1999 where he says that the 1000 troops of Musri came from a small C8 BCE kingdom of that name in the vicinity of Arpad. Well I was not a member of this list at that time but I had just joined another list on which Don cross-posted the same message. I responded that there was only two countries called Musri one was north on Ninua (and I should add here, east of the Tigris with its southern border reached to the Jebel Bashiqah). The second was Egypt. There was no other - all references to Musri can be assigned to one or the other. I am particularly interested in this question because it was one of the first common errors I found in text books. I remember my first days at university where I discovered their entire ancient Assyrian collection - Luckenbill's two books and the first edition of CAH. I devoured these books. I photocopied Luckenbill, cut these up, pasted the inscriptions and campaigns into loose leaf files arranged in chronological order - year by year. My parents had National Geographic maps from the 40's and 50's (not your scant wimpish later versions) which I photocopied and on these traced the course of each campaign. The location of the two Musri's was self evident but CAH (and later editions) kept placing the eastern Musri anywhere from east of Arrapha to Harran, while the western Musri (when not Egypt) was placed anywhere from Cappadocia to Sinai. This western Musri is supposed to be mentioned by Assur-bel-kala (c1070BC), Sulmanu-asared (853BC), 1K.10:28-29 (c960BC), 2K.7:6 (c805BC)and the Sefire treaties (c760BC). I pointed out in my reply to Don that if what these sources said was true than this Musri would have to be a large state with considerable economic and political clout yet it fails to show up in any other Assyrian records. Records which contain a great deal of information about Syrian political states, Assyrian campaign itineraries, tribute collection, annexation and the creation of provinces. I could debate the merits of each reference but will confine my comments to two, Firstly the reason Don's references places it near Arpad is due to the mention of Msr in the Sefire treaty yet in this treaty Msr is a person of some importance in Arpad and he and his (future) sons are called on as witness's to the treaty. Secondly is the reference in 1K.10:28-29 which seemingly links Msrym and Que and for this reason it has been argued that Msrym is Cappadocia. I translate these verses as Solomon obtained exported horses from Msrym and Qwh [under the following trade conditions] 1. From Qwh [horses] were acquired by the king's merchants at a negotiated price. 2. From Msrym [fixed priced] exports into [Israel] 600 silver [shekels per] chariot 150 [shekels per] horse and through their enterprise they [re-]exported them to all the kings of the Ht-ites and the kings of Aram. To me this implies that only the (fixed contract priced) horses and chariots from Msrym were re-exported from Israel. This makes sense if Msrym was Egypt for the Israelites would then be intermediaries along established trade routes. Meanwhile the horses obtained from Que (by price negotiation) would have been shipped into Israel for domestic use as it would make more commercial sense for Que to exported direct to the neighbouring Neo-Hittite and Aramean states. Now let us assume that Don is right and that Msrym was somewhere near Arpad. It would make no economic sense in having Solomon bring horses and chariots down to Israel via inland trade routes which ran southwards through the Hittite and Aramean states only to turn them around and send them back north along these same inland trade routes to sell them to these same states. Regards Joe Baker ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:57:52 EST From: RGmyrken@aol.com Subject: Re: ane Re: Gen: 14 a Hasmonean addition? Ian Hutchesson writes: > Pseudo-Eupolemus -- and I refer specifically to the long fragment -- is > actually very hard to date. > > Perceived priorities given to texts are very hard to sustain when it is > clear we lack a lot of the sources in circulation at the time of the > writing of these texts. One of the sources that PsEup may have had was the > Genesis Apocryphon!? Did PsEup get the Belos tradition from Diodorus > Siculus or Pausanius? This seems more like a quagmire than firm ground > which Russell is treading on. Actually, I have a first draft of a book (provisionally titled "Pseudo-Eupolemus and the Psedepigrapha") that wades through the entire quagmire, which unfortunately I've had to set aside for more pressing projects. I find clear evidence of dependence on or polemics against Pseudo-Eupolemus in the (Enochian) Book of Watchers, the Testament of Levi, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the book of Jubilees; the only older pseudipigraphical text is the Astronomical Book of Enoch. Hence my dating to c. 250 BCE. However, as I say, the argument fills a book. On the specific question of Pseudo-Eupolemus' sources on Belos, I think it can be demonstrated that he depends largely on Berossus. > Sadly one cannot go on the > style of Demetrius's text to suggest LXX -- described in the Charlesworth > volume as "tedious and restricted in vocabulary", though it is this > vocabulary that the editor claims shows the text's relationship with LXX! The argument for Demetrius' use of the LXX is not exclusively on vocabulary, though his use of LXX names is striking (e.g. "Iezan" compared with LXX "Iexan" and HB "Jokshan", etc.). As Hanson notes (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2.844 n. 6), "That Demetrius does not use the Heb. text is most clearly seen in his choice of vocabulary, which exhibits a vast and detailed overlap with that of the LXX. Use of the LXX is also shown by the differences between the chronographical system of Demetrius/LXX and that of the Heb. or the Samaritan version..." Hanson's last comment refers to the fact that the LXX has different "numbers" (ages of individual patriarchs, notably those before the flood) than the MT or Samaritan versions, and Demetrius follows the figures used in the LXX (thereby arriving as in the LXX with the flood as 2264 years after Adam, and Abraham 3334 years). There is an excellent discussion of these issues in the literature by Wacholder cited at The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2.847, notably Wacholder's book _Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature_. Given the striking agreement between the LXX and Demetrius (arguably writing in Alexandria, where the LXX was produced), his use of the LXX is about as close to a demonstrated fact as I can imagine, and I don't convince easily. So I would still date the LXX to the time of Demetrius and Ptolemy IV (c. 221-204 BCE). By the way, Ian, congratulations on your recent article in Qumran Chronicles. Best regards, Russell Gmirkin ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2000 #53 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html