was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Sun Mar 11 15:53:59 EST 2001


Reading Michael Banyai's hopeful paragraph:

>Since I just pointed you to at least one textual source of Deut. by far
older
>than the period of kings, (my mail called "was Michael") there is no burden
to
>last upon those asserting its quite early date.

I went back to read that post called "was Michael".

>I feel being forced to go a little more in detail for Deut. 33,1-29
>
>1. Benjamin (Deut. 33,12) appears in an uncanonical position, namely before
>Joseph.

The position of Benjamin in this passage is neither here nor there. What is
the canonical order and when was it instituted??

Birth order:
  Leah
Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
  Bilhah
Dan
Naphtali
  Zilpah
Gad
Asher
  Leah
Issachar
Zebulun
  Rachel
Josephus
Benjamin


Gen 49:3-27
Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Zebulun
Issachar
Dan
Gad
Asher
Naphtali
Joseph
Benjamin

Ex 1:2-5
Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Issachar
Zebulun
Benjamin
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher
(Joseph)

Num 1:20-43
Reuben
Simeon
Gad
Judah
Issachar
Zebulun
Joseph
Benjamin
Dan
Asher
Naphtali

Num10:14-27
Judah
Issachar
Zebulun
Reuben
Simeon
Gad
Ephraim
Manasseh
Benjamin
Dan
Asher
Naphtali

Num13:4-15
Reuben
Simeon
Judah
Issachar
Ephraim
Benjamin
Zebulun
Joseph, oops, Mannaseh
Dan
Asher
Naphtali
Gad

Num 34:19-28
Judah
Simeon
Benjamin
Dan
Joseph, umm, Mannaseh
Ephraim
Zebulun
Issachar
Asher
Naphtali

Judges 5:14-18
Ephraim
Benjamin
(Machir)
Zebulun
Reuben
(Gilead)
Dan
Asher
Zebulun (bis)
Naphtali

>2. The citation of "shoulders" (Deut. 33,12) in combination with a probable
>reading : "the High GOD surrounds him all day long - the Beloved (GOD)rests
>between his shoulders, reminds us of Genesis 48,22, where shoulder is an
allusion
>to Sichem-Schechem, place of the main Israelite temple in Ephraim.

Why not read the text in its context? The writer is personifying each of the
tribes as their patronyms, of which Benjamin was the youngest and here is
shown carried on fatherly shoulders. "the beloved of Yhwh dwells in the
safety of Elyon, Elyon shelters him (the beloved) all day long - he (the
beloved) rests on his (Elyon's) shoulders."

>3. From 1+2 we may assume that Deut. 33,12 concerned previously Joseph,
Benjamin
>is intrusive to the original text, and there was no citation of in the
whole
>blessing.

Naaa. The conclusion simply doesn't come from the meagre evidence provided
here.

>4. The same makes true of the southern Dan, by Jaffa, reference being made
only
>of the northern Dan "leaping forth from Bashan". (Same makes true for
Simeon)

This southern Dan is a memory of the Denyen (Danuna) who came down the coast
with the Philistines. (Note incidentally 2 Sam 24:6, a place called dnhy`n,
followed by the coastal cites Sidon and Tyre.) This provides *at least* a
terminus a quo of circa 1180 BCE and the Sea Peoples' arrival. Remember that
"Dan shall judge his people as (sic!) one of the tribes of Israel", ie Dan
was not really a tribe of Israel according to the text. And what the hell is
this story of Dan remaining (sic) in his ships!?

>5. We may now read in Deut. 33,7: " O LORD, give heed to Judah, and bring
him to
>his people". The case is clear Juda is separated from the rest of the
Amfictiony,
>because both Dan as Benjamin have left the former aliance.

The weight of the baggage is not made public here. Or one could say,
"amphictyony? what amphictyony?"

>6. We read in the Simson story about marriages between the southern Danites
and
>Philistine.

Not too strange if these southern Danites are still the Denyen, is it? How
much, though, is the Samson story Hebrew? Father a "southern Danite", name
means "like the sun", lives near or in Beth-Shemesh (where is the camp of
Dan anyway?) from which Timna was further down towards the coast. Isn't this
"southern Dan" country?

>The reverse occurs at the end of the story about the crime of the
>Benjaminites, as they are forced (from now on) to mary Israelite women.

This doesn't seem to represent the story as I read it. We have Israelites
not permited to give their daughters to the Benjaminites. This causes the
trick of the daughters of Jabesh-Gilead

>Similar
>stances in the Greek lore or Bible explain this custom to reflect the
closing of
>a political alliance. That would mean the Danites and Benjaminites have
left the
>Israelite amfictiony and closed alliance with the Philistine. The
Benjaminite
>story is generally placed after Abimelech, because of the change of the
main
>Temple (from formerly Schechem to Beth-El in the Benjamin story).

Naaa. Conjecture without good cause. (And not the "amphictyony" again!?)

>7. We read in Deut. 33,5 about a king arousing in Jeshurun: "There arose a
king
>in Jeshurun, when the leaders of the people assembled", and being
incoronated in
>the plains of Moab (Deut. 33,21):"For where the commander´s allotment was
>reserved, came the leaders of the people". This is the ground for the
obviously
>wrong attribution to Moses (Moses allotment in Gad).

Who attributes it to Moses? The text refers to Gad.

>8. We read in Judges 8,16-23 about a situation arousing at Sukkoth and
Penuel, as
>Gideon is offered there the crown of Israel by the Israelites, that is
exactly
>where the allotment of the commander (Moses) was.

About all I can see here is that in Gad, where these towns were, Gideon is
offered kingship. Your Moses stuff, doesn't seem relevant.

>9. Now the original reference to Schechem (destroyed by Abimelech, Gideons
son)
>offers a terminus ante quem.

No, it definitely doesn't. (And incidentally, how many times was Shechem
destroyed?)

>Deut. 33,16 is the exact description of the ointing
>ceremony, prerequisite to the incoronation: "...Let these come on the head
of
>Joseph, on the brow of the prince among his brothers". We read about the
same
>incoronation circumstances as of Gideon (being offered the crown in Gad),
but we
>have no alternative identification.

I think this is a little hopeful. Why don't we connect all these little stor
ies about people being offered the kingship and ascribe them to the same
person?

>10. The text wants originally to be an incoronation blessing for Gideon.
>If it is indeed the original one we may never exactly now.

Right. Case in no sense made.

>But it must be
>much much older than its attribution to Moses, as it was embodied to the
>Deuteronomy. Even the insertion of Benjamin to this text predates the
>creation of the Deuteronomy. It seems also to predate the period of the
>kings of Juda, since not the slightest reference is made of.

I haven't seen anything to justify any of these conjectures.

>If this should be a fake, than a too intricate one.

The intricacy seems to be in the mind of the one who conceived the twisted
logic!


Ian







More information about the b-hebrew mailing list