was Michael -- deuteronomy, (very short)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Tue Mar 13 21:26:38 EST 2001



Michael, I don't really care about your German translation. If you have to rely on
one particular translation then I'm afraid you're lost.

Your views about the position of Benjamin in Deut 33 as reflective of the general
incoherence inthe materials you have so often placed on this list.

I know it's hard to let go of a pet theory, but please look at all these nine lists
again. They are all different, and, in all being different, they nullify any idea of
there being a "canonical order" of the names. Then you prospose some notion of there
being at least a canonical order regarding Joseph and Benjamin, saying let's forget
about the others in the list.

Birth order Gen49:3-27  Ex 1:2-5  Num1:20-43 Num10:14-27 Num13:4-15
Reuben      Reuben      Reuben    Reuben     Judah       Reuben
Simeon      Simeon      Simeon    Simeon     Issachar    Simeon
Levi        Levi        Levi      Gad        Zebulun     Judah
Judah       Judah       Judah     Judah      Reuben      Issachar
Dan         Zebulun     Issachar  Issachar   Simeon      Ephraim
Naphtali    Issachar    Zebulun   Zebulun    Gad         Benjamin
Gad         Dan         (Joseph)  Joseph     Ephraim     Zebulun
Asher       Gad         Benjamin  Benjamin   Manasseh    Joseph (Manasseh)
Issachar    Asher       Dan       Dan        Benjamin    Dan
Zebulun     Naphtali    Naphtali  Asher      Dan         Asher
Joseph      Joseph      Gad       Naphtali   Asher       Naphtali
Benjamin    Benjamin    Asher                Naphtali    Gad

Num34:19-28        Deut33:6-25  Judges 5:14-18
Judah              Reuben       Ephraim
Simeon             Judah        Benjamin
Benjamin           Levi         (Machir)
Dan                Benjamin     Zebulun
Joseph (Mannaseh)  Joseph       Reuben
Ephraim            Zebulun      (Gilead)
Zebulun            Issachar     Dan
Issachar           Gad          Asher
Asher              Dan          Zebulun (bis)
Naphtali           Naphtali     Naphtali
                   Asher

However, your same argument could be used to nullify all the individual differences
in the list and by manipulating them reduce them to your Platonic ideal list. You
could argue for example that as Issachar nearly always appears before Zebulun, then
the Gen49 list has clearly been manipulated (and let's forget about Deut33 because
it has already proven itself to be untrustworthy regarding Joseph and Benjamin). Or
you could say that as Gad almost always comes somewhere before Naphtali the Num13
list has been screwed up and we should reinstate Gad above Naphtali. Etc.

By not considering the other elements in the list, you miss out on the fact that,
though there may be many common features in each list, there is no way to claim that
there was such a notion as a "canonical list" in the Pentateuchal books.

Without your special pleading about the order of Benjamin in Deut 33 you have no
first foundation for your musings on the the ad quem dating of Deuteronomy.

(Incidentally, where was Benjamin in Deut 33 according to those musings if not where
he stands in v12?)

Here is a perfect example of the sort of incoherence I mentioned earlier:

>You are selfcontradicting as always Ian, if you posit the southern Dan
>to be a result of the Sea-Peoples invasion. On your own time-scale you
>would have this text (Deut 33) much later as this (imaginary) Sea-People
>invasion, so you should expect a reference to the southern Dan on your
>schem too unaware of this Sea-peoples interpolation.

Can a writer not be aware of the origins of the traditions he passes on? Was the
writer of one of the Arthurian legends aware of what came from Mesopotamian
traditions?

>Or do you suppose, the text is earlier than Ramses III?
>Welcome in the club.

Impressive logic.

>BTW you can not make out of the northern Dan a result of same "invasion"
>too: it is mentioned in the Mari archives a coté de Hazor. One argument
>more for the high dating of the Exodus.
>
>Same makes true for Lus in the country of the Hettites (that is
>Luhuzati - Lawazantia) called by the earlier name of Beth-El called
>in the Karum documents.
>
>Same makes true with the presence of the Kaftorites on the Levante
>coast (both archaeologically palpable but also in "Ipuwer" as well
>as in the Mari documents present in the Levante - see Malamat).

I think you'd have to attempt to justify this stuff in some detail rather than
surreptitiously trying to float it all past anyone. Good luck! If you post like you
have so far, I don't think you'll convince many.

>All this speaks for a very high date, like mine, for the Exodus.

Interesting, though it's a shame you've got nothing substantive whatsoever for this
exodus of yours.


Ian









More information about the b-hebrew mailing list