From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2001 #62 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Wednesday, March 7 2001 Volume 2001 : Number 062 FW: ane Oath ane Book : Domestication of Metals ane Tomb ane P.B. Folk Club ane Book: Ancient Food Technology ane X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club Re: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism RE: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club Re: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club Fwd: Re: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club Re: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:28:44 -0500 From: Richard Stern Subject: FW: ane Oath From: Richard Stern Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:12 PM To: 'Helen Barrett & David Indenbaum'; Richard Stern; lizfried@umich.edu; ane list Subject: RE: ane Oath The question is the context in which one answers a question like that of HB. (Or: Define 'scholar'!) I do not think that the answer context is taking the vantage point of a late 20th or early 21st ce scholar. Rather, one tries to put oneself in the place of an appropriate kind of [ane] contemporary, preferably one whose outlook one feels one can internalize sufficiently to permit a sensible answer. In this case, I thought it was possible for purposes of answering the question to adopt the stance of a First or Second Temple official with a well-informed, scholarly, but not very skeptical viewpoint. Perhaps someone like Ben Sirach would be all right too. I think that you would get such an answer as I previously gave, from such a person. If you are going to get into issues like this, why not ask, instead, whether YHWH was/is circumcised. Much trickier question. But since those to whom such a question could be posed were aniconic, unlike the Greeks who had uncircumcised but genitally equipped images of their gods, how would they (the anti-iconists) know how to answer you? (This assumes that they would not be too enraged by the question as to have you stoned instead of attempting to find an answer.) It would have to be by some sort of exegesis. What is the meaning of circumcision? Is it to set one apart? (From what do you set YHWH apart? If you assume henotheism rather than monotheistic denial of existence of other gods, then the answer is - from other gods. Otherwise, no sensible answer. First Temple period is definitely henotheistic or monolatrous rather than monotheistic. Existence of Chemosh, Qos, and other abominations of other nations is not denied - just a matter for disapproval. Post-Exile is a different story.) If not to set one apart, then as a covenant? A covenant with what or whom, and what's the covenant in the case of YHWH? (This does not work well at all.) A sacrifice? (Yes, perhaps, but YHWH to YHWH? Like Odin to Odin 9 days on Yggdrasil? I don't think so.) Such considerations tend to suggest a negative answer. But that does seem to be a completely unacceptable result. (YHWH going the way of Paul, so to say, instead of that of James the Just? Seems quite unthinkable.) Perhaps you can provide a better analysis than I can. =========================== Best wishes Richard H. Stern rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com Kellogg Huber - Suite 400 1615 M Street NW Washington DC 20036 www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm =========================== - -----Original Message----- From: Helen Barrett & David Indenbaum [mailto:barrett@sover.net] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:41 PM To: Richard Stern; lizfried@umich.edu Subject: Re: ane Oath So, does this mean that scholars agree that G-d is human and has genitals? Helen - ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Stern To: 'Liz Fried' ; Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: RE: ane Oath > YHWH is not a feminist deity. He leaves that sort of thing to the >Shekinah or Asherah. > > Therefore, no problem. He uses his own equipment. > > =========================== > Best wishes > > Richard H. Stern > rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com > Kellogg Huber - Suite 400 > 1615 M Street NW > Washington DC 20036 > www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm > =========================== > > -----Original Message----- > From: Liz Fried [mailto:lizfried@umich.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 12:05 PM > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: RE: ane Oath > > > Um, when God swears by Himself, > what does He swear by??? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu > > [mailto:owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Stern > > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:58 AM > > To: 'BisnoCC@aol.com'; ane@oi.uchicago.edu > > Subject: RE: ane Oath > > > > > > Consider also the traditional etymology for testimony. (Showing Latin > > parallel.) > > > > =========================== > > Best wishes > > > > Richard H. Stern > > rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com > > Kellogg Huber - Suite 400 > > 1615 M Street NW > > Washington DC 20036 > > www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm > > =========================== > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BisnoCC@aol.com [mailto:BisnoCC@aol.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:55 PM > > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > > Subject: ane Oath > > > > > > In Genesis 24, we find the following: > > > > "And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who > > had charge of > > > > all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh," > > > > And in a tavern scenario in Mesopotamia, a barmaid asks a > > stranger to swear > > an oath that he is not a spy, saying, > > > > "Your right hand be placed on my private parts," > > > > What else do we know about this custom? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jay Bisno > > Culver City > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:20:58 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Book : Domestication of Metals From: Aslihan Yener The Domestication of Metals. The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia E.J. Brill (2000) K. Aslihan Yener Associate Professor, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Department The Oriental Institute 1155 East 58th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 Tel: 773 702-0568 a-yener@uchicago.edu Field: Archaeology, Turkey (ancient Anatolia), archaeometallurgy Over the decades, Anatolian metal artifacts have been the focus of extensive scientific analysis. Now fifteen years of field work, current surveys, excavations, and analytical programs regarding transformations in metallurgy in this highly metalliferous region have enabled Aslihan Yener in Domestication of Metals to focus for the first time on the organization of production within a broader social context. In so doing, the author introduces convincing evidence for a revision of existing models concerning the metal industry. The volume locates a core of technological innovation in the highland zones, where critical resources are in close proximity to the developing polities in the fertile, agricultural lowlands. The Early Bronze Age tin mine, Kestel, and the contemporary workshop and habitation site of nearby Goltepe, illustrate an industrial complex specializing in the production of tin metal. New metallurgical data explain the organization and management of a range of interactive technologies in prehistoric states in Anatolia from 8000-2000 B.C. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:52:50 -0800 (PST) From: ko stor ko Subject: ane Tomb I would like to get an web page whit materials about Ramses 2 tomb. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 07:25:10 +1300 From: Don Mills Subject: ane P.B. Folk Club Dear Julie & Murray, Thanks for sending me the invitation for last Thursday. There were two problems with it: 1) I was in Sydney ... 2) It went to my boss, not me. Best address for me is probably Dunno how often I'll get out to you (life's v. busy nowadays), but I appreciate the invitations. Regards, - -- Don ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:21:15 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Book: Ancient Food Technology A colleague sent this posting on a new book: =================================== Ancient Food Technology. By Robert I. Curtis. Cloth with dustjacket (xxx, 510 pp., 21,6 x 30 cm., 75 illus.) ISBN 90 04 09681 7 List price EUR 121.- / US$ 149.- / DGL 266.65 Price for subscribers to the series EUR 115.- / US$ 141.- / DGL 253.43 Technology and Change in History, 5. (Forthcoming from Brill). Employing a wide variety of sources, this book discusses innovations in food processing and preservation from the Palaeolithic period through the late Roman Empire. All through the ages, there has been the need to acquire and maintain a consistent food supply leading to the invention of tools and new technologies to process certain plant and animal foods into different and more usable forms. This handbook presents the results of the most recent investigations, identifies controversies, and points to areas needing further work. It is the first book to focus specifically on ancient food technology, and to discuss the integral role it played in the political, economic, and social fabric of ancient society. Fully documented and lavishly illustrated with numerous photographs and drawings, it will appeal to students and scholars of both the arts and the sciences. Readership: This handbook will appeal to students and scholars of both the arts and the sciences. It should interest all those concerned with the history of food and its role in ancient societies, including Old World archaeologists, classical and Near Eastern archaeologists, and historians of ancient history and technology Robert I. Curtis, Ph.D. (1978) in Ancient History, University of Maryland, is Professor of Classics at the University of Georgia. He has published on Roman social and economic history, including Garum and Salsamenta. Production and Commerce in Materia Medica (Brill, 1991). Publication date: 2001 In print Cloth with dustjacket (xxx, 510 pp., 21,6 x 30 cm., 75 illus.) ISBN 90 04 09681 7 List price EUR 121.- / US$ 149.- / DGL 266.65 Price for subscribers to the series EUR 115.- / US$ 141.- / DGL 253.43 Technology and Change in History, 5 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:58:14 +0100 (MET) From: Beate Henke Subject: ane X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Hallo, any idea where I can find a transliteration of "Ishtars descent into Hades" (akkadian version, Tablet K.162 and K.7600) on a web page? Thanks Beate Henke - -- Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:47:30 +1300 From: Don Mills Subject: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club Hello to the list, And apologies for the post below. I have checked my address-book entry for Julie & Murray, and it is correct, so how the ANE address got in there I don't know. Funny thing -- when I tried to reply by [Reply] rather than [Forward], the address automatically inserted in the [To] field was my own, not ANE's ... I just hope this apology goes through okay (and I don't have a virus or something that Symantec, updated last week, doesn't know about). With further apologies, - -- Don Mills, Wellington, New Zealand >Dear Julie & Murray, > >Thanks for sending me the invitation for last Thursday. There were two problems with it: > >1) I was in Sydney ... > >2) It went to my boss, not me. Best address for me is probably > >Dunno how often I'll get out to you (life's v. busy nowadays), but I appreciate the invitations. > >Regards, > >-- Don ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:54:53 -0800 (PST) From: Uri Hurwitz Subject: Re: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism - --0-455888036-983919293=:29437 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Richard Stern, In your last posting you wrote about pre-exilic Yahwism: If you assume henotheism rather than monotheistic denial of existence of other gods, then the answer is - from other gods. Otherwise, no sensible answer. First Temple period is definitely henotheistic or monolatrous rather than monotheistic. Existence of Chemosh, Qos, and other abominations of other nations is not denied - just a matter for disapproval. Post-Exile is a different story.) The opinion that pre-exilic Yahwism was monolatrous is of course widely held, and can be supported by various examples from the HB. However the situation is not so simple: T The vast majority among the ephigraphic Hebrew theophoric names in the last two centuries before the exile are Yahwistic. Now this happens to be hard evidence that cannot be disputed. One has to wonder if indeed people at the time accepted foreign deities for worship, why the latter would constitute only a very small portion of the onomasticon. Furthermore, in the ancient Hebrew poetryYahwe always appears alone (yes, I am aware of Deut 32:8!) and, you mentioned the convenants here again Yahwe is always alone. Of course the subject is too tricky to be discussed here even in a sketchy manner. It is possible that Yahwism took different forms not only diachronically but was worshiped differently even within a given period. =========================== Best wishes Uri Hurwitz uhurwitz@yahoo.com www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm =========================== - -----Original Message----- From: Helen Barrett & David Indenbaum [mailto:barrett@sover.net] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:41 PM To: Richard Stern; lizfried@umich.edu Subject: Re: ane Oath So, does this mean that scholars agree that G-d is human and has genitals? Helen - ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Stern To: 'Liz Fried' ; Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: RE: ane Oath > YHWH is not a feminist deity. He leaves that sort of thing to the >Shekinah or Asherah. > > Therefore, no problem. He uses his own equipment. > > =========================== > Best wishes > > Richard H. Stern > rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com > Kellogg Huber - Suite 400 > 1615 M Street NW > Washington DC 20036 > www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm > =========================== > > -----Original Message----- > From: Liz Fried [mailto:lizfried@umich.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 12:05 PM > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: RE: ane Oath > > > Um, when God swears by Himself, > what does He swear by??? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu > > [mailto:owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Stern > > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:58 AM > > To: 'BisnoCC@aol.com'; ane@oi.uchicago.edu > > Subject: RE: ane Oath > > > > > > Consider also the traditional etymology for testimony. (Showing Latin > > parallel.) > > > > =========================== > > Best wishes > > > > Richard H. Stern > > rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com > > Kellogg Huber - Suite 400 > > 1615 M Street NW > > Washington DC 20036 > > www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm > > =========================== > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BisnoCC@aol.com [mailto:BisnoCC@aol.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:55 PM > > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > > Subject: ane Oath > > > > > > In Genesis 24, we find the following: > > > > "And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who > > had charge of > > > > all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh," > > > > And in a tavern scenario in Mesopotamia, a barmaid asks a > > stranger to swear > > an oath that he is not a spy, saying, > > > > "Your right hand be placed on my private parts," > > > > What else do we know about this custom? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jay Bisno > > Culver City > > - --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. - --0-455888036-983919293=:29437 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii


  Dear Richard Stern,

     In your last posting you wrote about pre-exilic Yahwism:

 If you assume henotheism rather than monotheistic
denial of existence of other gods, then the answer is - from other gods.
Otherwise, no sensible answer. First Temple period is definitely
henotheistic or monolatrous rather than monotheistic. Existence of Chemosh,
Qos, and other abominations of other nations is not denied - just a matter
for disapproval. Post-Exile is a different story.)

     The opinion that pre-exilic Yahwism was monolatrous is of course widely held, and can be supported by various examples from the HB. However the situation is not so simple: T

    The vast majority among the ephigraphic Hebrew theophoric names in the last two centuries before the exile are Yahwistic. Now this happens to be hard evidence that cannot be disputed. One has to wonder if indeed people at the time accepted foreign deities for worship, why the latter would constitute only a very small portion of the onomasticon.

    Furthermore, in the ancient Hebrew poetryYahwe always appears alone (yes, I am aware of Deut 32:8!) and, you mentioned the convenants here again Yahwe is always alone.

     Of course the subject is too tricky to be discussed here even in a sketchy manner. It is possible that Yahwism took different forms not only diachronically but was worshiped differently even within a given period.

 

===========================
Best wishes

Uri Hurwitz
uhurwitz@yahoo.com


www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
===========================

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Barrett & David Indenbaum [mailto:barrett@sover.net]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:41 PM
To: Richard Stern; lizfried@umich.edu
Subject: Re: ane Oath


So, does this mean that scholars agree that G-d is human and has genitals?

Helen

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stern
To: 'Liz Fried' ;
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: ane Oath


> YHWH is not a feminist deity. He leaves that sort of thing to the
>Shekinah or Asherah.
>
> Therefore, no problem. He uses his own equipment.
>
> ===========================
> Best wishes
>
> Richard H. Stern
> rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com
> Kellogg Huber - Suite 400
> 1615 M Street NW
> Washington DC 20036
> www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
> ===========================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liz Fried [mailto:lizfried@umich.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 12:05 PM
> To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu
> Subject: RE: ane Oath
>
>
> Um, when God swears by Himself,
> what does He swear by???
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu
> > [mailto:owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Stern
> > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:58 AM
> > To: 'BisnoCC@aol.com'; ane@oi.uchicago.edu
> > Subject: RE: ane Oath
> >
> >
> > Consider also the traditional etymology for testimony. (Showing Latin
> > parallel.)
> >
> > ===========================
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Richard H. Stern
> > rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com
> > Kellogg Huber - Suite 400
> > 1615 M Street NW
> > Washington DC 20036
> > www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
> > ===========================
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BisnoCC@aol.com [mailto:BisnoCC@aol.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:55 PM
> > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu
> > Subject: ane Oath
> >
> >
> > In Genesis 24, we find the following:
> >
> > "And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who
> > had charge of
> >
> > all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh,"
> >
> > And in a tavern scenario in Mesopotamia, a barmaid asks a
> > stranger to swear
> > an oath that he is not a spy, saying,
> >
> > "Your right hand be placed on my private parts,"
> >
> > What else do we know about this custom?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jay Bisno
> > Culver City
> >


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. - --0-455888036-983919293=:29437-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:04:16 -0500 From: Richard Stern Subject: RE: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A6A2.87FA6260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You make many points that are very well taken. Especially: It is possible that Yahwism took different forms not only diachronically but was worshiped differently even within a given period. That is undoubtedly so. (For example, the 'YHWH only' party at the time of Jeremiah and the women of Jerusalem for whom all things went well so long as they baked cakes in the likeness of the Queen of Heaven, but for whom everything went to pot once the YHWH only party started destroying high places and folk piety. (Jer 44).) But I think it is clear that Chemosh and Qos were considered 'real' in most or all of First Temple period. (As contrasted with being dead logs of wood or stone that certain of the nations miguidedly thought were real.) If Chemosh and Qos are not real, to circumcise YHWH to distinguish him from nonexistent deities would be nonsense. That was all that the passage meant. =========================== Best wishes Richard H. Stern rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com Kellogg Huber - Suite 400 1615 M Street NW Washington DC 20036 www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm =========================== - -----Original Message----- From: Uri Hurwitz [mailto:uhurwitz@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:55 PM To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu Subject: Re: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism Dear Richard Stern, In your last posting you wrote about pre-exilic Yahwism: If you assume henotheism rather than monotheistic denial of existence of other gods, then the answer is - from other gods. Otherwise, no sensible answer. First Temple period is definitely henotheistic or monolatrous rather than monotheistic. Existence of Chemosh, Qos, and other abominations of other nations is not denied - just a matter for disapproval. Post-Exile is a different story.) The opinion that pre-exilic Yahwism was monolatrous is of course widely held, and can be supported by various examples from the HB. However the situation is not so simple: T The vast majority among the ephigraphic Hebrew theophoric names in the last two centuries before the exile are Yahwistic. Now this happens to be hard evidence that cannot be disputed. One has to wonder if indeed people at the time accepted foreign deities for worship, why the latter would constitute only a very small portion of the onomasticon. Furthermore, in the ancient Hebrew poetryYahwe always appears alone (yes, I am aware of Deut 32:8!) and, you mentioned the convenants here again Yahwe is always alone. Of course the subject is too tricky to be discussed here even in a sketchy manner. It is possible that Yahwism took different forms not only diachronically but was worshiped differently even within a given period. =========================== Best wishes Uri Hurwitz uhurwitz@yahoo.com www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm =========================== - -----Original Message----- From: Helen Barrett & David Indenbaum [mailto:barrett@sover.net] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:41 PM To: Richard Stern; lizfried@umich.edu Subject: Re: ane Oath So, does this mean that scholars agree that G-d is human and has genitals? Helen - ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Stern To: 'Liz Fried' ; Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: RE: ane Oath > YHWH is not a feminist deity. He leaves that sort of thing to the >Shekinah or Asherah. > > Therefore, no problem. He uses his own equipment. > > =========================== > Best wishes > >! ; Richard H. Stern > rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com > Kellogg Huber - Suite 400 > 1615 M Street NW > Washington DC 20036 > www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm > =========================== > > -----Original Message----- > From: Liz Fried [mailto:lizfried@umich.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 12:05 PM > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > Subject: RE: ane Oath > > > Um, when God swears by Himself, > what does He swear by??? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu > > [mailto:owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Stern > > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:58 AM > > To: 'BisnoCC@aol.com'; ane@oi.uchicago.edu > > Subject: RE: ane Oath > > > > > > Consider also the traditional etymology for testimony. (Showing Latin > > parallel.) > > >! ; > =========================== > > Best wishes > > > > Richard H. Stern > > rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com > > Kellogg Huber - Suite 400 > > 1615 M Street NW > > Washington DC 20036 > > www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm > > =========================== > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BisnoCC@aol.com [mailto:BisnoCC@aol.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:55 PM > > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu > > Subject: ane Oath > > > > > > In Genesis 24, we find the following: > > > > "And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who > > had charge of > > > > all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh," > > > > And in a tavern scenario in Mesopotamia, a barmaid asks a > > stranger to swear > > an oath that he is! not a spy, saying, > > > > "Your right hand be placed on my private parts," > > > > What else do we know about this custom? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jay Bisno > > Culver City > > _____ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A6A2.87FA6260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
You make many points that are very well taken.  Especially: It is possible that Yahwism took different forms not only diachronically but was worshiped differently even within a given period.  That is undoubtedly so.  (For example, the 'YHWH only' party at the time of Jeremiah and the women of Jerusalem for whom all things went well so long as they baked cakes in the likeness of the Queen of Heaven, but for whom everything went to pot once the YHWH only party started destroying high places and folk piety.  (Jer 44).)

But I think it is clear that Chemosh and Qos were considered 'real' in most or all of First Temple period.  (As contrasted with being dead logs of wood or stone that certain of the nations miguidedly thought were real.)  If Chemosh and Qos are not real, to circumcise YHWH to distinguish him from nonexistent deities would be nonsense.  That was all that the passage meant.


===========================
Best wishes

Richard H. Stern
rstern@computer.org   rstern@khhte.com
Kellogg Huber - Suite 400
1615 M Street NW
Washington DC 20036
www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
===========================

-----Original Message-----
From: Uri Hurwitz [mailto:uhurwitz@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:55 PM
To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism


  Dear Richard Stern,

     In your last posting you wrote about pre-exilic Yahwism:

 If you assume henotheism rather than monotheistic
denial of existence of other gods, then the answer is - from other gods.
Otherwise, no sensible answer. First Temple period is definitely
henotheistic or monolatrous rather than monotheistic. Existence of Chemosh,
Qos, and other abominations of other nations is not denied - just a matter
for disapproval. Post-Exile is a different story.)

     The opinion that pre-exilic Yahwism was monolatrous is of course widely held, and can be supported by various examples from the HB. However the situation is not so simple: T

    The vast majority among the ephigraphic Hebrew theophoric names in the last two centuries before the exile are Yahwistic. Now this happens to be hard evidence that cannot be disputed. One has to wonder if indeed people at the time accepted foreign deities for worship, why the latter would constitute only a very small portion of the onomasticon.

    Furthermore, in the ancient Hebrew poetryYahwe always appears alone (yes, I am aware of Deut 32:8!) and, you mentioned the convenants here again Yahwe is always alone.

     Of course the subject is too tricky to be discussed here even in a sketchy manner. It is possible that Yahwism took different forms not only diachronically but was worshiped differently even within a given period.



===========================
Best wishes

Uri Hurwitz
uhurwitz@yahoo.com


www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
===========================

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Barrett & David Indenbaum [mailto:barrett@sover.net]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:41 PM
To: Richard Stern; lizfried@umich.edu
Subject: Re: ane Oath


So, does this mean that scholars agree that G-d is human and has genitals?

Helen

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stern
To: 'Liz Fried' ;
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: ane Oath


> YHWH is not a feminist deity. He leaves that sort of thing to the
>Shekinah or Asherah.
>
> Therefore, no problem. He uses his own equipment.
>
> ===========================
> Best wishes
>
>! ; Richard H. Stern
> rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com
> Kellogg Huber - Suite 400
> 1615 M Street NW
> Washington DC 20036
> www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
> ===========================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liz Fried [mailto:lizfried@umich.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 12:05 PM
> To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu
> Subject: RE: ane Oath
>
>
> Um, when God swears by Himself,
> what does He swear by???
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu
> > [mailto:owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Stern
> > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:58 AM
> > To: 'BisnoCC@aol.com'; ane@oi.uchicago.edu
> > Subject: RE: ane Oath
> >
> >
> > Consider also the traditional etymology for testimony. (Showing Latin
> > parallel.)
> >
>! ; > ===========================
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Richard H. Stern
> > rstern@computer.org rstern@khhte.com
> > Kellogg Huber - Suite 400
> > 1615 M Street NW
> > Washington DC 20036
> > www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/rhs1.htm
> > ===========================
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BisnoCC@aol.com [mailto:BisnoCC@aol.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:55 PM
> > To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu
> > Subject: ane Oath
> >
> >
> > In Genesis 24, we find the following:
> >
> > "And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who
> > had charge of
> >
> > all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh,"
> >
> > And in a tavern scenario in Mesopotamia, a barmaid asks a
> > stranger to swear
> > an oath that he is! not a spy, saying,
> >
> > "Your right hand be placed on my private parts,"
> >
> > What else do we know about this custom?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jay Bisno
> > Culver City
> >


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0A6A2.87FA6260-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 11:55:41 +1300 From: Don Mills Subject: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club Thought you might be amused by the full saga of an email I tried to send you (it appears at the bottom). ANE is the "Ancient Near East" archaeology/history mailing list. - -- Don >Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:47:30 +1300 >To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu >From: Don Mills >Subject: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club >Sender: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu >Reply-To: Don Mills >X-MDRcpt-To: donm@softed.com >X-MDRemoteIP: 128.135.244.37 >X-Return-Path: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu >X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: donm@softed.com > >Hello to the list, > >And apologies for the post below. I have checked my address-book entry for Julie & Murray, and it is correct, so how the ANE address got in there I don't know. Funny thing -- when I tried to reply by [Reply] rather than [Forward], the address automatically inserted in the [To] field was my own, not ANE's ... I just hope this apology goes through okay (and I don't have a virus or something that Symantec, updated last week, doesn't know about). > >With further apologies, > >-- Don Mills, Wellington, New Zealand > > > >>Dear Julie & Murray, >> >>Thanks for sending me the invitation for last Thursday. There were two problems with it: >> >>1) I was in Sydney ... >> >>2) It went to my boss, not me. Best address for me is probably >> >>Dunno how often I'll get out to you (life's v. busy nowadays), but I appreciate the invitations. >> >>Regards, >> >>-- Don ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:55:45 +1300 From: Don Mills Subject: Re: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club Sorry, everyone -- it wasn't a once-off. Only Julie's and Murray's address seems to have been affected, so I've deleted and re-created it. They're nice folks, and I'm sure you'd love to meet 'em, but probably not on this list (you'll have to come to warm, sunny New Zealand ...) Wish me luck with one more try! - -- Don Mills Wellington New Zealand At 11:55 AM 7/3/2001 +1300, I wrote: >Thought you might be amused by the full saga of an email I tried to send you (it appears at the bottom). ANE is the "Ancient Near East" archaeology/history mailing list. > >-- Don > >>Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:47:30 +1300 >>To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu >>From: Don Mills >>Subject: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club >>Sender: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu >>Reply-To: Don Mills >>X-MDRcpt-To: donm@softed.com >>X-MDRemoteIP: 128.135.244.37 >>X-Return-Path: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu >>X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: donm@softed.com >> >>Hello to the list, >> >>And apologies for the post below. I have checked my address-book entry for Julie & Murray, and it is correct, so how the ANE address got in there I don't know. Funny thing -- when I tried to reply by [Reply] rather than [Forward], the address automatically inserted in the [To] field was my own, not ANE's ... I just hope this apology goes through okay (and I don't have a virus or something that Symantec, updated last week, doesn't know about). >> >>With further apologies, >> >>-- Don Mills, Wellington, New Zealand >> >> >> >>>Dear Julie & Murray, >>> >>>Thanks for sending me the invitation for last Thursday. There were two problems with it: >>> >>>1) I was in Sydney ... >>> >>>2) It went to my boss, not me. Best address for me is probably >>> >>>Dunno how often I'll get out to you (life's v. busy nowadays), but I appreciate the invitations. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>-- Don ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:00:11 +1300 From: Don Mills Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club Hi guys -- has this email got a history! Follow the story below (perhaps from the bottom up). (And PROFUSE apologies to the ANE list members if this one comes through to you as well!!!!!!!!!! I *have* rebooted as well as recreating the address-book entry ...) - -- Don >Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:55:45 +1300 >To: ANE_List >From: Don Mills >Subject: Re: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club > >Sorry, everyone -- it wasn't a once-off. Only Julie's and Murray's address seems to have been affected, so I've deleted and re-created it. They're nice folks, and I'm sure you'd love to meet 'em, but probably not on this list (you'll have to come to warm, sunny New Zealand ...) > >Wish me luck with one more try! > >-- Don Mills >Wellington >New Zealand > >At 11:55 AM 7/3/2001 +1300, I wrote: >>Thought you might be amused by the full saga of an email I tried to send you (it appears at the bottom). ANE is the "Ancient Near East" archaeology/history mailing list. >> >>-- Don >> >>>Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:47:30 +1300 >>>To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu >>>From: Don Mills >>>Subject: Fwd: ane P.B. Folk Club >>>Sender: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu >>>Reply-To: Don Mills >>>X-MDRcpt-To: donm@softed.com >>>X-MDRemoteIP: 128.135.244.37 >>>X-Return-Path: owner-ane@asmar.uchicago.edu >>>X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: donm@softed.com >>> >>>Hello to the list, >>> >>>And apologies for the post below. I have checked my address-book entry for Julie & Murray, and it is correct, so how the ANE address got in there I don't know. Funny thing -- when I tried to reply by [Reply] rather than [Forward], the address automatically inserted in the [To] field was my own, not ANE's ... I just hope this apology goes through okay (and I don't have a virus or something that Symantec, updated last week, doesn't know about). >>> >>>With further apologies, >>> >>>-- Don Mills, Wellington, New Zealand >>> >>> >>> >>>>Dear Julie & Murray, >>>> >>>>Thanks for sending me the invitation for last Thursday. There were two problems with it: >>>> >>>>1) I was in Sydney ... >>>> >>>>2) It went to my boss, not me. Best address for me is probably >>>> >>>>Dunno how often I'll get out to you (life's v. busy nowadays), but I appreciate the invitations. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>-- Don ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:32:27 +0200 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C0A6E1.2470D280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Uri Hurwitz=20 To: ane@oi.uchicago.edu=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:54 AM Subject: Re: FW: ane Oath and Yahwism Furthermore, in the ancient Hebrew poetryYahwe always appears = alone (yes, I am aware of Deut 32:8!) and, you mentioned the convenants = here again Yahwe is always alone.Not entirely true. See Ps. 29 and = various psalms between 91-100, where the existence of other gods is = admitted, only they are "little gods", Sincerely Jonathan D. Safren Chairman Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College 44905 Israel=20 =20 =20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C0A6E1.2470D280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Uri = Hurwitz=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 = 12:54=20 AM
Subject: Re: FW: ane Oath and=20 Yahwism

    Furthermore, in the ancient Hebrew poetryYahwe = always=20 appears alone (yes, I am aware of Deut 32:8!) and, you mentioned the=20 convenants here again Yahwe is always alone.Not entirely true. See Ps. = 29 and=20 various psalms between 91-100, where the existence of other gods is = admitted,=20 only they are "little gods",

Sincerely
Jonathan D. = Safren
Chairman
Dept. of=20 Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Israel=20
 
  
- ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C0A6E1.2470D280-- ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2001 #62 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html