Talk:Ketef Hinnom

Question

As many know, YHWH has been associated with pagan gods in the vicinity of Jerusalem in the era these are dated. Can anyone verify that YHWH at this time was the God of Abraham? I ask this, because in Exodus 32:5 the golden calf is called YHWH. Is it possible these amulets containing YHWH are in fact not associated with the true God of Israel at all. And any alleged connection to Biblical text is just conjecture since these same words could have been used for other idol gods. In the case of the Moabite stone, YHWH is alleged here by Mesha to be the god of Omri (line 4) and Ahab, which we know was Baal and not the true God of Israel in Jerusalem. The god of Omri and Ahab was Baal. This being true, the Mesha stone and YHWH speaks to the false god Baal and not of the true God in Jerusalem. Does anyone have evidence YHWH is a pagan deity adopted by the Israelites?

Rewrite

Rewrote article as follows:

• For Funhistory: the history of the debate over the dating has been put in a narrative format, so that the reader can better understand the current scholarly consensus (which means I agree with a point you made in an earlier edit).
• New Interpretation section created: I'm rather a minimalist when it comes to interpretation, very careful not to go beyond what can safely be said; probably you guys will disagree with me on this one, but always open to suggestions.
• Text: It contains some interpretation, not from me. I'm not happy with it but don;'t want to change anything that's well sourced - but this isn't sourced. Can you tell us where it comes from?

Hope you like it. PiCo (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! I don't mind allowing Minimalists the last word as long as it's just a desperate speculation (i.e., that these scrolls could have existed prior to the establishment of a religious culture based on either a strong/reliable oral tradition, or far more ancient texts)--Funhistory (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Earliest" use of the Tetragrammaton

I have removed the following from the end of the introductory paragraph: "...and preserve the oldest so-far recovered example of the Tetragrammaton." Unless I am mistaken, the Mesha Stele dates to some two centuries before these amulets, and contains the Tetragrammaton. Please feel free to revert if you can find a reliable source saying that the amulets are older. Robin S (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

images

The are many images in HE:כתף הינום - why not add some here? Ori229 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I just attempted to add a link to an external site where interested readers can see the general locale of the excavation near the church. For reference (until admins un-blacklist it): --Funhistory (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• This specific link was whitelisted on 17 Jan 2011.--Funhistory (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

I am in the process of editing and re-writing this article for the purposes of bringing it up to Wikipedia's standards. As it stands, it does not describe or present the material in an encyclopedic manner. Em-jay-es 05:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the following statement, since it reflects the theories of one scholar and is not yet accepted by the academy (of which, I am a member). For the record, Prof. Waaler's theories have been published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal (MAARAV). They are speculative and (again) they are not widely accepted among scholars that work in the field. To be fair, the article just appeared a few months ago (late summer, 2011). Em-jay-es 05:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Erik Waaler tentatively identifies the bearer of this scroll as "Joahaz son of Johanan" in his 2011 reconstruction of the deteriorated first line. He also proposes some new readings of some of the lacunas:

1. [for Joahaz ??]
2. son of Johanan
3. bless him
4. by YHWH. The
5. God of strength keeps
6. the covenant and
7. his loving kindness towards those who love
8. him and keep his commandments
9. in thousand gen-
10. erations, eternally. Stronger
11. is a blessing than all
12. snare and evil,
13. for redemption is in him.
14. For YHWH
15. is our restorer [and]
16. Rock. Bless you by
17. YHWH and
18. keep you.
19. May YHWH make
20. his face shine upon you

• [Bottom line(s) broken.]

Compare lines 3-4a to

• Ruth 2:20 Bless him by YHWH, Naomi said to her daughter-in-law

Compare lines 4b-10a to

• Deuteronomy 7:9 The God who is faithfull keeps his covenant and his loving kindness of those who love him and keep his commands in thousand generations.

Compare lines 16-20 to

• Numbers 6:24-26 The LORD bless you and keep you, the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you, the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.
  • MJS: Comment on your lines 16-17 above: Instead of 'Bless you by YHWH', would it not be better to say 'YHWH should bless you' or 'May YHWH bless you', since the Y' prefix connotes the sense that the following verb should be performed by the noun immediately following it? That is, it is the same sense as you use in lines 19-20, which you translate as I indicate above. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Typos

In the section: "Indirect literary dependency"

The identification of an extended parallel between Deut. 7:9 and Amulet 1 suggests literary dependence between these two texts. Deut. 7:9 is commonly regarded as Decalogue interpretation (Exod. 20:9, Deut. 6:10). Granted a literary link between the amulet and Deut. 7:9, the direction of influence might be suggested as follows: 1) Exod. 20:9, 2) Deut. 6:10, 3) Deut. 7:9, 4) Ketef Hinnom amulet 1.[10]

It seems that Ex 20:9 should be Ex 20:6, and De 6:10 should be De 5:10. Also, I would suggest that the usage of "2)", "3)", etc... could be confused for verse numbers.

Later research & OR

The OR problem is the statement " the most conclusive reexamination of the scrolls".

There is later research challenging and arguing for the dates. "The Ketef Hinnom plaques are not only the earliest examples known verses appearing in the biblical text, but they are also important sources study of religious concepts held in Jerusalem in the early post-exilic amulets were probably engraved in the early Second Temple period, many years after the construction of the temple." "A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom" Author(s): Nadav Na ?aman Source: Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 61, No. 2 (2011), but this is challenged in A "Rejoinder to Nadav Na?aman's 'A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom'" Author(s): Shmuel A?ituvSource: Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2 (2012). Doug Weller talk 10:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ketef Hinnom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716095351/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2002_53_1_02_Waaler_KetefHinnomText.pdf to http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2002_53_1_02_Waaler_KetefHinnomText.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)