On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:13:38 -0400 (EDT), JimStinehart wrote
dear jim,
first point:
> You wrote: “where did you get the strange idea that solomon exported horses?
> certainly not from 1 kings 10. all it says is 1) solomon accrued horses; 2)
> the origin of
> the horse IMPORT (not EXPORT, mind you!) was so-ans-so; 3) horses and
> chariots
> were very expensive. the rest is deduction which is not in the text.”
>
> I got that from I Kings 10: 29. The prior verse, I Kings 10: 28, tells where
> King Solomon got horses. Then I Kings 10:29 says that King Solomon YC(
> horses to Hurrian [XTY : H-XT-YM] rulers and other rulers in Syria. YC(
> means “to exit, go forth, or go out”, and hence can mean “export”, but could
> not mean “import”. Most translations use the word “exported” here, including
> New International Version, English Standard Version, and the Jewish
> Publication Society (1985). As one typical translation, here is the English
> Standard Version translation of I Kings 10: 28-29:
> “28 And Solomon's import of horses was from Egypt and Kue, and the king's
> traders received them from Kue at a price. 29 A chariot could be imported
> from Egypt for 600 shekels of silver and a horse for 150, and so through the
> king's traders they were exported to all the kings of the Hittites and the
> kings of Syria.”
not all the translators understand it this way. in mekhon mamre i find the more
correct
כט וַתַּעֲלֶה וַתֵּצֵא מֶרְכָּבָה מִמִּצְרַיִם, בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת כֶּסֶף,
וְסוּס, בַּחֲמִשִּׁים וּמֵאָה; וְכֵן לְכָל-מַלְכֵי הַחִתִּים, וּלְמַלְכֵי
אֲרָם--בְּיָדָם יֹצִאוּ. {פ} 29 And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt
for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty; and so
for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Aram, did they bring
them out by their means. {P}
where the word EXPORT is not mentioned. again: understanding YC) as export is
an interpretation, it is nowhere in the text.
2. the word YC) in the sense of "export" is modern - as far as i know, it has
never been used in this sense in the bible, except for your
claim that it is used here. in fact, it is always used as "go out, leave", and
your assumption that "leave" means "leave canaan" is a mere
assumption which is not in the text.
it is my understanding of the text only that "the same traders who sold to
solomon also sold to these other kings". this is the meaning of WKN in 1kgs
10:29.
------------------------------------
SECOND POINT:
> You at least agree that I Kings 10 is talking about “overspending and
> luxury”. So then why in the world mention small-time, oh-so-modest Que/Kue
> in southeast Anatolia?
pls look at the following site and map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Hittite
please look at the region map at the time. there is abs. no sense to import
horses and chariots from turkey to israel and then sell them bask to syria. no,
solomon
did not buy horses from turkey and sell them to syria.
if we locate solomon at the 10th century (there is some well known uncertainty
here), QWH in turkey at least makes temporal sense. and, while i may agree with
you that the bible designs HTY to the hurrians in the patriarchs time, i
disagree about solomon's time, where the bible was probably referring to the
neo-hittites, see the same map and site.
still, economically and geographically it would make much more sense if the
horses came from egypt with which solomon had excellent political relations.
----------------------------------------------------------
THIRD POINT
i did not even bother read your evidence in favor of china. if you look at the
very same map you will immediately see the absurdity of taking a horse
through deserts and pirates to canaan, and then selling it to syria, which is
on the silk route anyway. one more item in a long list of brilliant
maverick ideas which simply make no sense.
>>>> If one is talking about “overspending and luxury” in almost mythical
>>>> proportions here, then to me, in that context, it’s more likely that QW-H
>>>> is referring to the semi-legendary place where domesticated horses may
>>>> have originated: Qijia in truly ancient China. Que is way too prosaic
>>>> for this passage. Moreover, I don’t think Que was ever associated with
>>>> horses anyway. If you’re going to brag that King Solomon was so great
>>>> that he was in position to export horses to “Hurrians”, that is, to the
>>>> successors to the ancient Hurrians who had been world-famous in their
>>>> bygone day (the Late Bronze Age) for being the finest horsemen in the
>>>> world, with the finest horses for their state-of-the-art horse-drawn
>>>> chariots, then you wouldn’t say that Solomon got those excellent horses
>>>> from small-time, oh-so-modest Que, would you?
>
-------------------------------
> I understand that Que was in historical existence in the 10th century BCE,
> whereas the Qijia culture, which is sometimes credited with bringing the
> domesticated horse to the Eurasian steppe (Hurrian country), was many
> centuries in the past by then. But a Biblical author who is using XTY :
> H-XT-YM as a colorful reference to the modern-day successors to the Hurrians,
> who were already 400 years in the past by the time of King Solomon, could
> also refer to the semi-legendary reputed home of domesticated horses, in
> far-off China, as allegedly being the place where Solomon got the world’s
> finest horses. To me, that fits this passage’s theme of “overspending and
> luxury” better than does a prosaic reference to historical Que.
i think you answer your own questions correctly: biblical QWH is not in china.
and HTY in solomon's time is not hurrian but neo-hittite.
>
> Last but not least, consider linguistics. At the Late Bronze Age Hurrian
> province of Nuzi, the Hurrian personal name Qa-we-enni is attested; -enni is
> a standard Hurrian suffix, and the root Qa-we is not a Hurrian common word or
> otherwise known in Hurrian. Is Qa-we in Hurrian coming from the same place
> as QW-H in Hebrew [where -H may likely be a Hebrew ending]? Qa-we in
> Hurrian, and the Biblical Hebrew letters QW/qof-vav, are a perfect linguistic
> match, but what are they referencing? Are they possibly referencing the
> long-gone, semi-legendary place of origin of all domesticated horses, namely
> the Qijia culture in truly ancient China? To me, that meaning would make
> perfect sense, in context, (i) for a Hurrian name, with the Hurrians being
> the premier horsemen of their day, and (ii) for I Kings 10: 28-29, where an
> integral part of the “overspending and luxury” for which King Solomon was
> duly famous/infamous was that Solomon allegedly got the world’s finest ho
rses from the very place where horses had first been domesticated, and then
Solomon exported those fine horses to the modern-day successors in Syria of the
people who formerly had been the finest horsemen in the world: the Hurrians.
>
> Who cares about small-time historical Que and the small-time historical
> Neo-Hittite kingdoms [which the academic community says are the intended
> references here]? In my opinion, King Solomon is being portrayed here at I
> Kings 10: 28-29 as being much bigger and grander than that. Forget Que.
> Think big. After all, it’s King Solomon we’re talking about here.
nir cohen
--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
