Your search within this document for 'albright' OR '1924' resulted in 28 matching pages.

You can restrict your results by searching for albright AND 1924.
 
1 Page vi

“...THE PALESTINE ORIENTAL SOCIETY JERUSALEM Patrons: H. E. Field Marshal the Viscount Allenby G.C.B., G.C.M.Gr. H. E. the Right Honourable Sir Herbert Samuel Gr.B.E. Board of Directors: Mr. W. J. Phythian-Adams President Mr. David Yellin Vice-President Le Rev. Pere Gaudens Orfali Vice-President The Rev. Dr. Herbert Danby Secretary Dr. W. F. Albright Treasurer The Rev. Pere Dhorme Director Sir Ronald Storrs Director Prof. J. Garstang Director Editor of the Journal: The Rev. Dr. Herbert Danby Editorial Advisory Board: Dr. W. F. Albright Dr. T. Canaan Le Rev. Pere Dhorme Dr. Leo Mayer Mr. David Yellin...”
2 Page vii

“...THE JOURNAL OF THE PALESTINE ORIENTAL SOCIETY LlSR t؛؛٤A٥١c١؛r٧ VOLUME IV 1924 JERUSALEM PUBLISHED BY THE PALESTINE ORIENTAL SOCIETY 1924...”
3 Page ix

“...TABLE OF CONTENTS Abel, F.-M. Le Sud Palestinien d’apres la carte mosa'ique de Madaba . 107 Albright, W. F. Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb..........131 El-Barghuthi, Omar. Rules of Hospitality (Qdnun yd-Diyafeh) . . . . 175 Canaan, T. Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine.......... 1 Dhorme, Rev. Pere. Les Habiru et les Hebreux . . ٠٠; ٠٠٠٠; . ٩. . . . 162 Sukenik, E. L. Notes of the Jewish Graffiti of Beth-ph٩ge?٠;’.....171 Tolkowsky, S. The Measuring of the Moabites with the Line.........118 Yellin, Abinoam. Cairo Genizah Fragments in the Jerusalem National Library.....................................٠ ٦ 122 Yellin, David. The Hippa'٠Nif'al Conjugation in ilebrew and Aramaic, and the Assimilation of Fl in the Hitpa'el Conjugation.....85 Notes and Comment.............................................169 Book Reviews..................................................204 Members of the Palestine Oriental Society......................................215...”
4 Page 100

“...100 Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society POSTSCRIPT Before bringing this article to press my attention was drawn to the articles of Mr. Distenfeld in the issue of January 1923 of tlie JQR. and of Dr. Albright in the April issue, both having some connection with the theories here proposed. Mr. Distenfeld tries to show that there is a possibility of the assimilation of the ام of the hitpa 1 to the first radical, no matter what letter it is, and of a n in general to the following letter. All the examples given by him for the assimilation of the لم of the hitpa 1 in Hebrew and Aramaic, I have already dealt with in these pages and, I think, I have sufficiently proved that in all these cases we have not a hitpa'el but a hippa 1 or hippa'-(el formed on the basis of the qal or the pi'el conjugations, whether they are perfects, as: ٥٩«, p١٥ ,»?١٥5«, etc., or participles as: «,١٠ ٦٠» ,هؤه٦», etc. But it is, however, curious that after all his researches in the different Semitic languages regarding...”
5 Page 101

“...with sheva, according to the rule of a short vowel in an open propretonic syllable. But when, according to my theory, we have here (in ب5ي٦ and ١■ (د ؟٩٦ nothing to do with nifal but with an originally hippa٤-l form which / suffered the change of ،٦ into د (like in د٦لهوب—٦ا٦لهوب) — there can be no question of discarding an original syllable with dages forte (—دي—٦،ج) and changing it to —دي. We have here the following development: دؤوب—٦،جوب — ؤوب ٦§3—٦§3،ب5ي٦—٦ So far as the article of Dr. Albright is concerned, I find in it in connection with my theory only the alleged assimilation of krkr in kkr (بب٦—ة٦د٦) and Mr in SSr (عئحئ٦—حه۶٦ئ٦). I am glad to see again that here also only the liquids ٦ and ب which share many characteristics with the nasal د are involved. We must also recall that in the case of other letters we do not find assimilation in Hebrew or Aramaic, but rather lengthening of the syllable where a letter was discarded, e. g., ٩٥١٥—٩٥٥٥ ,دادد—دددد....”
6 Page 122

“...refusal of either of these Karaites to give up to the other a woman whom they both loved. She appears to have been the daughter of an important member of the Karaite community. The letter enables us to get an insight into the relations then existing between the two Jewish communities, the Karaite and the Rabbinite.3 As it seems the two sections lived in peace with each 1 The substance of this article has already been published in Hebrew by the present writer in Kiryath Sefer, pp. 55 if. (Jerusalem 1924). 2 On the interference of the Arab local population in Jewish matters, see Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs Vol. I١ 154 ff. 3 On this subject see op. cit. I, 59 ff....”
7 Page 131

“...EGYPT AND THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE NEGEB ٦V. F. ALBRIGHT (JERUSALEM) NE of the most interesting sections of Palestine is the extreme southern part, called Negeb (i. e., ،،dry country”) by the early Jews and Daroma, a translation of Negeb in the sense of ،،south,” by the Aramaeans of the Christian era. In general these designations seem to have applied to the whole district south of Judah proper, as far as the frontiers of Egypt, but we are here interested only in the portion north of the Nahal Misrayim, now called the Wadi el- ،Ari§. Although much of it is desert, the northern edges, in the limestone country, are، fertile and produce good crops when there is sufficient rain, which is, however, not the case every year. All along this fertile strip are mounds, many of considerable size and height, like Tell Arad, Tell el٠Milh, Tell el٠Me£a§ (es٠Seba٦), Tell el٠Huweilfeh, Tell es٠Sericah, Tell el-Fari،, Tell Jemmeh, etc., indicating that the northern Negeb once enjoyed a considerable degree...”
8 Page 133

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 133 left in Palestine to commemorate their campaigns there would naturally be placed in the citadels of the principal conquered towns, just as at Beth-shan half a millennium later. The only reason none have yet been found is that not a single citadel of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine has yet been excavated. At local centers of importance, like Gezer, numerous Egyptian monument and smaller objects were found even in the lower city of this period, a fact proving clearly enough that Egyptian influence was very strong in the Middle Empire.* 1 It has been shown recently by Junker that there were garrisons of Nubian mercenaries in Palestine, especially at Gezer, during the Middle Empire.2 Though it is possible that these garrisons belong to the Hyksos period rathei٠ than to the Twelfth Dynasty, it is very unlikely. The Hyksos only controlled Nubia at the beginning of their domination in Egypt; during the latter part of their rule they were...”
9 Page 135

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 135 Huweilfeh east of Dahiriyeh, as will be shown below, resisted the Egyptian arms.؛ ’After it fell, about 1570 B. c., Amosis probably conquered all of Palestine. The strategic value of Sharuhen perha.ps lay in the fact that it commanded the approaches to Hebron from the southwest, if our identification with Tell el-Huweilfeh be correct. Hebron was, in any case, one of the Hyksos centers, to judge from Num. 13 22, which represents it as having been built seven years before Tanis in Egypt, one of the foci of Hyksos power there.2 Its Hittite population—or aristocracy—was evidently planted there by the Hyksos in order to ensure its loyalty. At all events, it seems to have proved loyal, though it is quite possible that the Hyksos fixed their capital at Hebron after the loss of Avaris. When Southern Palestine fell into the hands of the Egyptians, the Hyksos retired into Syria. باً Shishak list, as Srhm. In the Old Testament the name occurs...”
10 Page 137

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 137 Philistine invasion and occupation at the end of Rameses Ill’s reign or shortly after his death. In David’s time the Negeb south of Philistia is called ،،Negeb of the Cretans (٥١/٦١٦٥)” as mentioned I Sam. 30 14.1 It may be that we have some traces preserved of the old Aegean religion brought ٦vith them into the Negeb by the Cretan settlers. As is well-known, the Cretan cult resembled the later Hellenic worship of Dionysus and and Kore very closely; in fact Dionysus and Zeus Cretagenes are the principal heirs of Cretan religion in later Greece. While Zeus Cretagenes was worshiped under the name Marnas, probably of Philistine origin,2 at Gaza, Dionysus was worshiped at Raphia under the name Eiraphiotes (Etpa٧)td؛T١7؟), while his sacred animal was the kid (ep،o٠(؟ Whether the by-name, found sporadically in Greek literature, but certainly not Greek, has any connection with the by-name Eriphios, given to Dionysus because of his association...”
11 Page 139

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 139 word د؛, "all,” which came automatically into the scribe’s mind when he had to write 5 and د together. But Pilok, ¿٠ e. Pilokk, is the only way that Eg. Pi-Pkiv = Pi-Lukke, “The Lycian,” can be written in :Hebrew. The name is found in an Egyptian text of the Nineteenth Dynasty,؛ and the people, called Rkw in the Egyptian inscriptions, and Lukki in the Amarna Tablets, were well-known as sea-goers and pirates. Names of this type were given commonly by the Egyptians to foreign slaves and mercenaries. There can, therefore, be little doubt that the sar has-sabd was the head of the Egyptian garrison in Gerar, just as there was a chief of the Egyptian garrison, usually consisting of Sardinians, Tyrsenians, or Nubians, in the larger Phoenician cities, beside the local awilu, or “prince.” The story of Isaac and Abimelech perhaps belongs to the period of friction between the Habiru (Hebrews) 2 and the sedentary population, but its exact date...”
12 Page 141

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and tbe Ealy History of the Negeb 141 participated in the uprising. It was formerly thought that Sethos I was obliged to reconquer all of Palestine from Gaza nortli, but the new Beth-shan stela shows that the trouble took place in Northern Palestine and Transjordania alone, and Southern Palestine appears to have been relatively peaceful. It must be admitted that the- Egyptian idea of a stable provincial government was not very exacting, as long as the taxes were not too irregularly received. It was probably not long after the time of Sethos I that the Israelite invasion of Palestine took place,؛ consolidating and extending the Habiru occupation, which had gradually developed during the centuries following the seventeenth. At about the same time, perhaps shortly afterwards, the soutliern clans, Calebites, Kenites, and Jerahmeelites, etc., moved northward and seized the fortified cities of the Negeb, especially Arad (Tell 'Arad) and Hormah (probably Tell eSer Tah; see below)...”
13 Page 143

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Ealy History of the Negeb 143 over Ammon, Moab, and Edom, besides conquering Zobah and subjugating Damascus. Moreover, as is clear from the records of Solomon’s reign, he also conquered the coastal plain north of Philistia, ineluding Joppa and Dor, though content ٠with imposing tribute on the Philistines, after dispossessing them of their territory in the Shephelah. But if the Egyptian king really captured Gezer, he must have been in control of Philistia also, since his road to Gezer would otherwise be through country under Jewish control. Of late the difficulty has generally been solved by denying the truth of the reports of David’s conquests and the extent of Solomon’s kingdom. Some interpreters even deny that Israel was autonomous at this time, holding that it was tributary to Egypt or Tyre, or both in succession. Yet -the improbability of such violent modifications of the biblical narrative sliould be evident, in view of the surprising objectivity with which...”
14 Page 145

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 145 therefore, not Siamon (cir. 976—958) or Psusennes II (cir. 958—945), but a prince of the Tanite line, unknown to us by name. ،،So” or Sewe, the Egyptian Sby1 and Assyrian Sib’e, was also only a Delta prince, though he doubtless claimed the title of Pharaoh and received it from foreigners. Like Sewe, our unknown Tanite evidently wished to strengthen his position abroad. In order to successfully attack Gerar, Raphia must have been already in his hands. For over a century the Libyan mercenaries of Egypt had been strengthening their position, until their chief, Sosenk, whom the Hebrews called Süsaq, corrupted to Shishak, seized the throne and founded the Twenty-second Dynasty in Bubastis. His settled policy in Asiatic affairs seems to have been the creation of dissension among the Palestinian princes and the support of rebels against their authority. Yet while Solomon was alive he seems to have feared to intervene with armed force, because...”
15 Page 147

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 147 who could be counted upon to remain more or less loyal to their Egyptian masters. The Nubians were not, it would appear, long in justifying their mission of making trouble for Judah2 ؛ Chr. 14 9—15 contains the garbled account of their invasion of Judah in the reign of Asa. Scholars formerly supposed that “Zerah the Ethiopian,” i. e., Zerah hak-Kusi, the Cusliite, was Osorkon I of Egypt. This idea has long been recognized as impossible, but since then the whole story lias been rejected by the majority of scholars as apocryphal, a tendency which is quite as erroneous as slavish acceptance of the account in Chronicles.؛ If we quietly discard the number of a million men, assigned by the Chronicler to Zerah, but so strangely out of harmony with the not unreasonable number of’ three hundred chariots, and reduce it to a few thousand, and pass over the pious sentiments asci’ibed to Asa, the narrative becomes eminently simple and natural. The...”
16 Page 149

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 149 The western Negeb appears to have passed early under Hellenic influence, evidently because of the splendid opportunities for trading provided by Raphia, Gaza and Rhinocorura. There is a very interesting series of Hellenizing coins of the Persian period, probably from this section. But these problems fall outside the scope of this paper, which we may, accordingly, bring to a close. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SIMEON. The writer has recently subjected the topography of Judah to a thorough study, in connection with a tour of Southern Palestine and minor trips in Judaea. The results of this investigation proved unexpectedly successful, and will be given in more elaborate form in the Annual of the American School. Meanwhile, it may be well to present more concisely the results in so far as they concern the tribe of Simeon. As is well-known, the topography of this tribe has been extremely obscure and a good deal of hard joint work will be necessary...”
17 Page 151

“...Hebron.' I Tell el-HesT در٠حا!١آ Tell en-NejTleh^؛ دحد?٦ت ?) ’ Huj ،،17* ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb Teil ez-Zîf <٢T) Ya|tah ٠ 'Tell Beit Mlrsi ز?٠٦’^0ه٠٦) Tell Ma،k ره”*؛?> ٠ es-Semu،ah (yinrmJN ) H. el-Qaryatei ر؛'«!- ٦١ع٦اآ ) Tell ‘Arad-' ز،؛ا"٦) ١٠ Tell AbU^ilä٥ * Teil e!-Mulei١١ah لا. Zuheiliqah حع?ةت)ك Tell Mfijadil؟؛ ١١١٠٠ . Zubalah .ج كا ةيأف-ثثي ::٠ لهةئح) ه // ٢Te٦l١el-Huweilfeh،'¿{n٠٦w-٦) ال،،بث1ا،أم١ك٧رىإما”ئ؛علمملآ٠ .H. e Ramamein ر<٢-٦لج١آ) را٦7د SIMEON Ifteis .لا دع،اً»ه) ٠ :٦٦٦ ١١٦ ٠٠٠٠■ ell ej-Jemmeh ' ١١ *Tell es-Sa‘*T ول،،درلا.اا،١الا) H. Quseifeh اوبخ Tell el-Milh." د؟ حءك رل٣ئا-٠;لإذ?) ،Tell el-Fari؟؟•؛ Abu SGsein ،TT٠io-؛٦٥n١ Scale of miles ٦٨§eih NUran ٦ئ١بر<؛) ا ‘Ar rah واد٦ار7٣٠١?، ah؟gala ٠بكىهد£ح...”
18 Page 153

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 153 is precluded by the clear statement of the Onomasticon; it cannot be Mampsis because the Byzantine remains are too insignificant; Mampsis is almost certainly Qurnub, with Hartmann.! The probable identification is indicated by Neb. 11 26, where we have the order Jeshua, Moladah, Beth-phelet (د١١ماهلاه), followed by Hazar-shual and Beersheba. We must !’emember that the order of towns within tlieir groups in this passage of Nehemiah is remarkably exact; cf. V. 31: Geba, Michmas, Aija (= Ai), Bethel; V. 32: Anathoth, Nob, Ananiah (== Bethany), etc. We are thus practically forced to identify Beth, phelet with Tell el-Milh and Hazar-shual with Hirbet el-MeSas, west of it; the identification of the latter with Mampsis is impossible, because Arab. meSas is an appellative meaning simply “water-hole," and tlie Byzantine remains there are altogether too insignificant to admit of sucli a combination (see above). Archaeologically, tlie identifications...”
19 Page 155

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 155 ٠ it with Seih Nuran, which is actually twelve miles from Raphia, agreeing with what is stated by Theodosius. The obvious combination with Bethuel (or Bethul, Bethel) of Simeon has apparently not been made. The objection may be raised that Seih Nuran is actually slightly to the southwest of Tell Jemmeh (Gerar), and therefore not likely to be Jewish. But since Seih Nuran is ten miles from the sea, while Tell Jemmeh is only seven, and the Gentile settlements along the coast were all near the sea, this difficulty is not serious. In the absence of a thorough archaeological examination, we must also reckon with the possibility that Betilium was situated at Tell el-Fari٦ which is sufficiently to the east to be well inside Simeonite territory. The third town, Hormah, is probably to be identified with Tell es٠Sericah, a fine mound in northern Simeon. Hormah was one of the Canaanite royal cities, originally called Zephath, if we may accept the...”
20 Page 157

“...ALBRIGHT: Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb 157 in the vicinity, is exactly equivalent to Gerar-GeraraA Gen. 10 19 can only be explained as meaning that Gerar lay near the coast, south of Gaza, a localization that fits Tell Jemmeh, but never Tell es٠Sericah. Archaeologically, Tell Jemmeh is eminently satisfactory. It is a very large mound, much larger than Tell e§-Seri،ah, and containing remains of all periods from the Early Bronze to the Hellenistic, especially Late Bronze and Early Iron, which were clearly in evidence during Phythian-Adams’ brief sounding of the mound. The suggestion has been made that Tell Jemmeh represents the Gemmaruris of Ptolemy, but since the latter is otherwise wholly unknown, the combination of it with so exceptionally large a mound as Tell Jemmeh seems in the highest degree precarious, entirely aside from the philological difficulty. On the other hand, Tell e§- Seri'ah is archaeologically unsuited to be identified with Gerar, since there are apparently...”