|
|
|
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...”
|
|
|