The Carthage Conspiracy: Who Really Killed Joseph Smith?

 

The Carthage Conspiracy: Who Really Killed Joseph Smith?

Excerpts from Søren Wichmann, “A Conservative Look at Diffusion Involving Mixe-Zoquean Languages" (1998)

  

(18) MAIZE. MZ form: None

 

Comment: This set deals with forms in Tarascan, Xinca, Lenca, Cacaopera, Matagalpa, Sumu, and Proto-Mixtecan which look like Proto-Mayan *ʔeʔm. A form pMZ *mo:k is mentioned, but it is stated that ‘terms for maize . . . are borrowed throughout Meso-America, though probably not from MZ’ (C/K: 85).

Conclusion: It seems likely that this is a case of diffusion from Mayan that does not involve Mixe-Zoquean.

 

. . .

 

(21) DOG. MZ form: pM *ʔuku ‘dog’ (Justeson et al. 1985: 23 write *uka)

 

Diffused to: Yucatec *ʔuk, as a calendrical day name.

Comment: C/K cite Huastec ok ‘fox’ and Kanjobalan ʔoʔq, ʔoq ‘coyote’ as possible cognates for the Yucatec word but state that they nevertheless believe the Yucatec form to be a borrowing. Justeson et al. (1985: 24) add the observation that <oc> is also the tenth day name in the ritual calendar;³ they argue, more cautiously than C/K, that this must be a late borrowing happening after the *k > *č shift in pre-Cholan-Tzeltalan and possibly even later.

Conclusion: Probably entered Yucatecan and Cholan from early Mixean.

 

(22) AXE. MZ form: pM *puš ‘to cut with a machete’, pM *puš-an ‘axe’ (vs C/K pMZ *pus ‘to cut with a knife or axe’, *pusan ‘metal (axe?)’)

 

Diffused to: Nahua pus-tekì ‘to cut’, te-pos-(tli) ‘axe, metal’, Pokom pos ‘stone war axe’, ax pos ‘wonder worker’, pus ‘witch’, Cakchiquel pos ‘polished stone’; Quiché pos, pus ‘to sacrifice men by removing their hearts, to cut, polished stone, magic power’, Huave apš ‘to chop with axe’, Proto-Central Otomian *bes-na ‘metal, lead’, Proto-Popolocan *pos ‘hard stone’.

Comment: Since the form is limited to pMixean I take it that it diffused from Oto-Manguean languages. If the item had diffused in Olmec times it is strange that there should be no trace of it in Zoquean. Cakchiquel and Quiché have pus-nawal ‘magic power, witch’. The second compound member is a Nahua form. This points to the possibility of Nahua having been a stage in the diffusion of the item.

 

Conclusion: The item pos ‘hard stone’ probably spread from Proto-Popolocan into pM, Mayan, Otomian, and Nahua. From Nahua it diffused further into Mayan languages as a result of Toltec influence.

 

. . .

 

(27) BEE, WASP, WASP’S NEST. MZ form: Sierra Popoluca ʔokwoŋ (vs C/K pMZ *ʔa:kaw)

 

Diffused to: Huastec ʔokow, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal ʔáko (with unexpected first syllable stress).

Comment: C/K posit a pMZ form where in fact the form is just attested in a single Zoquean language. Huastec is just as likely a donor as Sierra Popoluca.

 

Conclusion: A late diffusion from Huastec. (Søren Wichmann, “A Conservative Look at Diffusion Involving Mixe-Zoquean Languages,” in Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, ed. Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs [One World Archaeology 29; London: Routledge, 1998], 306-7, 308)

 

 

Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus Imperfectum) (5th century) on Matthew 6:12

  

¹²“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

 

With what hope does someone pray who harbors enmity against another person by whom perhaps he was harmed? For just as he is lying when he prays (for he says, “I forgive” and does not forgive), so he seeks forgiveness from God and yet it is not granted to him. Thus, if he who has been injured prays to God without hope unless he forgives him who has wronged him, how do you think that a person prays who has not been hurt by another but hurts and burdens others by his wickedness? But many people who do not wish to grant forgiveness to those who sin against themselves flee to pray this prayer. What fools! First, because he does not pray as Christ taught, nor is he Christ’s disciple. Second, because the Father does not gladly hear a prayer that the Son has not composed. For the Father acknowledges the intentions and words of his own Son but does not accept whatever human arrogance has thought up but only those things that the wisdom of Christ has taught. Therefore you can indeed say a prayer, but you cannot circumvent and deceive God, nor do you receive forgiveness unless you yourself have first forgiven. (Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus Imperfectum), 2 vols. [trans. James A. Kellerman; Ancient Christian Texts 1; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2010), 1:125)

 

Trude Dothan (1982) on the Origin of the Philistines

  

ORIGINS OF THE PHILISTINES

 

The problem of determining the origin and homeland of the Philistines has been studied by scholars from the standpoint of three different disciplines: philology, archaeology, and literature (mainly the Greek myths). Because of the fundamental differences between the three approaches, it is hardly surprising that the conclusions they reached are mutually exclusive. Scholars from various disciplines have suggested homelands ranging from Crete to Asia Minor, but no consensus has ever been reached.

 

The biblical identification of Caphtor with Kriti (Crete) is one of the keys to the puzzle of Philistine origins. If this identity could be verified philologically, there would be no choice but to conclude that Crete and her nearby islands were indeed the Philistines' homeland, or at least the final stop on their great migration to Canaan. Although most scholars tend to agree that Caphtor and Kephtiu are Crete, some interpret the Septuagint's translation of Caphtor as Cilicia to indicate that Caphtor and Kephtiu are the names of a country in southeast Asia Minor, specifically, Cappadocia. This translation, however, may reflect a distortion influenced by Cappadocia' s position of importance in the Mediterranean world at the time of the composition of the Septuagint. The Caphtor-Kriti equation, which is borne out by biblical evidence, finds additional support in the written records of three different lands. The Akkadian inscriptions describe Caphtor as a distant land and, in one account, as a land beyond the sea. In the Ugaritic documents, Caphtor designates a country that is almost certainly Crete. Finally the Egyptian word for Crete, kephtiu, is very similar linguistically to Caphtor, and its identification with Crete is well supported by archaeological evidence.

 

The limited but important onomasticon of Philistine words and names presents another area rich in philological and ethnological possibilities. Some of the Sea Peoples' names are known from the el-Amarna tablets and from the annals of Ramesses II, but the most important source is the list of Ramesses III. As mentioned above, Ramesses' list groups the Philistines with the Tjekker and the Denyen. It is logical to assume, therefore, that some bond or relationship existed between them. The Egyptians, at the beginning of the twelfth century, had some knowledge of this connection and may in fact have known the last stop-off of the Sea Peoples prior to their invasion of Palestine, if not their land of origin. There are, however, divergent opinions on this question, and the ethno-geographic and linguistic aspects allow an almost unlimited field of speculation.

 

Some of the main theories regarding the meaning and origin of the names of the Sea Peoples are as follows. The Denyen (dnyn; Assyrian, Danuna) are associated by some authorities with Cilicia on the basis of the bilingual Phoenician and hieroglyphic Hittite inscription from Karatepe (ninth century B.C.). Others suggest a connection with Cyprus, noting that the island's Assyrian name (mat) Ia-da-na-na can be interpreted as "the island of the Danuna (Denyen)."

 

The Tjekker (tkr) are considered by some scholars to be the Homeric Sikeloi who occupied the island of Sicily. Others see them as the Homeric τευχροι of Cilicia, who, according to Greek mythology, founded the city of Salamis on Cyprus. The two depictions of Sea People warriors-probably Tjekker-discovered in Enkomi (chapter 5, figs. 13 and 14) near Salamis, assume a special significance in this theory and emphasize the crucial role of Cyprus in the wanderings and settlement of the Sea Peoples.

 

The Philistines (plst = Peleset) are the most controversial of the three groups. The theory that seeks their origin in the Aegean world finds support in the ideogram of the head of a man wearing a "feathered" headdress, which appears on the Phaestos Disk from southern Crete (pl. 3). A more specific proposal identifies the Philistines with the Pelasgians. This is supported by a somewhat doubtful etymology and the Homeric tradition that the Pelasgians were one of the five nations that inhabited Crete. Another theory seeks to connect the Philistines with one of the Illyrian peoples whose name was derived from the place name Palaeste and who were called Palaestini in the Illyrian language.

 

Two basically conflicting schools of thought exist with regard to the question of Philistine origins and the geographic, historical, and ethnological problems involved. On the one hand Crete, or the Aegean area in general, is held to be the Philistine homeland. The theory of an Illyrian origin agrees with this supposition, for its advocates contend that after migrating from their native Illyria, the Philistines took to the sea and reached the Aegean islands and Crete. The leading proponents of the Aegean theory, while differing on details, concur on the basic assumption that the Tjekker, the Denyen, and the Philistines are tribes of Indo-European origin (Illyrian, Pelasgian, ThracoPhrygian, etc.). The opposing school maintains an Anatolian origin, locating the Philistine homeland in western Cilicia, more specifically on the banks of the Calycadnus River, where the Philistines and the Tjekker probably dwelt together.

 

The Philistine words and personal names found in the Bible are another possible key to the enigma of Philistine origins through similarities to other languages, especially those of Asia Minor. The word seren, preserved only in the plural, has been the subject of much research and is thought to be a proto--Greek Illyrian or Lydian word that later entered the Greek language. The name Achish, ‘Αγχους; in the Septuagint and Homer, which closely resembles the name lkûsu, king of Ekron· in the Essarhadon annals, is sometimes compared with ‘Αγχισης; (Homer, Iliad, 2:819). ‘Αηχισης in Greek tradition, was related to the Dardanians, one of the Illyrian tribes that later migrated to Asia Minor and Greece. The three Hebrew words koba' ("helmet," "hat"), 'argaz ("box," "chest," "basket") and plleges ("concubine") are possibly of southwestern Anatolian, Cilician, or Illyrian origin. Opinion is divided on the names Pichol, Goliath, and Ziklag. Goliath is sometimes compared to the Lydian ‘Αλυαττης.

 

Written records and other evidence bearing on the question of Philistine origins are still undergoing intensive philological and historical examination. A new document could throw much light on the picture or even change it completely. The publication of documents recently discovered in the Ugaritic archives is sure to have a marked effect on the subject. So far only a summary of their contents has been published It is known that the documents include correspondence between the kings of Ugarit and Cyprus at the end of the thirteenth century-just prior to the fall of Cyprus and the Hittite empire, Ugarit, to the invading Sea Peoples. They mention, inter alia, the dispatch of warships to the land of the Luku (Lycians), a tribe of Sea Peoples known from the Merneptah inscriptions. The archives may also contain evidence of a treaty between Egypt and her former enemies and their attempt to unite in time to repel the encroaching Sea Peoples.

 

Continued progress in historical and philological research will certainly broaden the basis of our understanding of Philistine culture and may even hold the promise of a solution to the question of Philistine origins. (Trude Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982], 21-23)

 

Kenneth A. Kitchen (1973) on the Origin of the Philistines

  

b.  The Background, from Extra-Biblical Sources

 

1.  Origins. While ancient Near-Eastern sources enrich several aspects of our knowledge of the Philistines, nothing very positive or convincing can yet be offered on the Casluhim.3 However,

Caphtor can now be definitively identified with Crete, and so the Caphtorim as Cretans.

 

    The name ‘Caphtor’ recurs in cuneiform documents as Kaptara, and is identifiable with Egyptian Keftiu. People from Keftiu are represented in tomb-chapels at Thebes of the fifteenth century B.C.; those paintings that are demonstrably first-hand representations clearly depict the same people as feature in the frescoes at Knossos in Minoan Crete, and correspond to what is known of Minoans and Mycenaeans alike. A Theban topographical list of Amenophis III (c. 1400 B.C.) demonstrates textually just what the Egyptians understood by Keftiu. Two names on the right side—Keftiu and Tanayu—define the area(s) of the thirteen surviving names on the left side. Tanayu itself best corresponds to the Greek Danaoi, used of Greeks in the Argolid and soon more widely.

 

The correspondence between Crete plus the Argolid and Aegean and the twelve names legible out of thirteen can be tabulated as follows.

 

                Keftiu (Crete)                       Tanayu (Danaoi)

 

1.  Amnisos (i)                                   4.  Mycenae

2.  Phaistos (??)                                5.  Dqis = ?

3.  Cydonia                                        6.  Messenia

 

10. Knossos                                       7.  Nauplia

11. Amnisos (ii)                                  8.  Cythera

12. Lyktos                                        9.  Wilia (Ilios ??)

 

This table speaks for itself. Four names (one duplicated), perhaps five, clearly belong in Crete. Cythera leads one to the mainland, especially the Argolid, with three clearly identifiable names. Troy remains an alluring if doubtful possibility from further north.

 

Thus, if the Philistines reached Canaan from Caphtor, they did so from Crete—as did the Caphtorim of Deuteronomy 2: 23. In turn, the Cherethites (Kreti) can be ‘Cretans’ without qualms. Beyond Crete, the further origins of the Philistines are less clear. Ramesses III of Egypt (c. 1190 B.C.) includes them (Prst) among ‘the foreign countries making a conspiracy in their isles’, who came east and south through Syria to Egypt. The ‘isles’, again, are Crete and the Aegean basin. Hints in this general direction come from the limited evidence for ‘Philistine language’ having possible affinities with west-Anatolian languages (see below), and the often- suggested identification of Philistines and ‘Pelasgoi’, which latter are associated with western Asia Minor and Greece in some strands of the confused Greek traditions. Further one cannot go. (Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Philistines,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973], 54, 56)

 

The "Cherethites" of Zephaniah 2:5 Being a Reference to People from Crete

  

Zephaniah identified the Philistines as “Kerethites,” a term that may identify a clan of the Philistines or may be associated with the island of Crete, from which most assume the Philistines migrated. In Amos 9:7, Deut 2:13, and Jer 47:4, the Philistines are associated with Caphtor, which may have been Crete. David recruited part of his bodyguard from the Kerethites (2 Sam 8:18). In the present context Zephaniah referred to the whole nation by the name of Kerethites. (Kenneth L. Barker, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah [The New American Commentary 20; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999], 456)

 

 

Nation of Cherethites. Peoples of Crete, a designation for the Philistines. The Cherethites are elsewhere associated with the Philistines (Ezek 25:16 and cf. 1 Sam 30:14), since Philistine origins are in the Mediterranean islands. Ben Zvi finds a wordplay in krtym, “Cherethites,” and krt, “cut off” (cf. Ezek 25:16). Cf. also Zeph 2:6, nwt krt. (Adele Berlin, Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 25A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 104-5)

 

 

[2:5] The oracle begins with the direct, second-person address of the threatened party so characteristic of hôy-oracles. Zephaniah first gets their attention with the exclamation and a couple of designations for the Philistines. He addresses them as the inhabitants of the seacoast, because the main Philistine centers were located in the coastal plain, and he refers to them as the nation of the Kerethites, because the Kerethites, a subgroup of the Philistines that apparently traced their origins to the island of Crete, were a dominant element in the Philistine population (1 Sam. 30:14; 2 Sam. 8:18 and passim; Ezek. 25:16). He then informs them that the word of Yahweh is against them and addresses them with two more designations before quoting Yahweh’s direct words to them: “I will destroy you, leaving no inhabitant.” He addresses them as Canaan, the land of the Philistines, because the Philistines were early settlers in Canaan (K. A. Kitchen, “The Philistines,” in POTT, 53–78; Trude Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982]), and they remained the dominant non-Israelite population that still occupied a significant portion of ancient Canaan that impinged directly on Judean territory. Their territory is reckoned as Canaanite in Josh. 13:2–4. The prophet’s failure to mention the Phoenicians in his oracles against the foreign nations may suggest either that their relations to Judah at the time were friendly or that their remoteness from Judah made their relations relatively insignificant to Zephaniah. (J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991], 196-97)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Zephaniah 3:20

  

Radak on Zephaniah 3:20:1

בעת ההיא, ובעת קבצי אתכם.  ובעת ההיא יהיה קבצי אתכם יהיה חסר ומלת ההיא שזכר עומדת במקום שתים וכן תרגם יונתן ובעדנא ההיא: 

 

Radak on Zephaniah 3:20:2

שבותיכם. לשון רבים וכן ושבות שביתך כתוב הנה לשון רבים ושבותכם בוי"ו שור"ק ושביתך ביו"ד ובחירק: (source)

 

 

Radak on Zephaniah 3:20:1
“At that time, and at the time of My gathering you” — “at that time” refers to “My gathering you,” and the phrase is elliptical. The expression “at that time,” which he mentioned, stands in place of two words. Jonathan likewise translated: “and at that time” (u-ve‘idna hahi).

 

Radak on Zephaniah 3:20:2
“Your captivities” — this is a plural form, as in “and you shall take captive your captives” (ve-shavita shevitkha), which is written there in the plural. And “your captivity” is spelled with a vav and shuruk, whereas “your captives” is spelled with a yod and ḥiriq.