was Michael -- deuteronomy, (very short)

Banyai Banyai at t-online.de
Wed Mar 14 03:40:26 EST 2001

Ian Hutchesson wrote,

> 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.

I thought you were so free to accept the arbitrage of an unbiased, independent 
translation of the Bible. You are contesting contents of the text, which are 
evident. For example the reference in the blessing of Gad to an assembly of the 
heads of the people, adressed at the beginning of the text as being a crowning 
assembly. Well, I have the imporession you try to influence the material into 
your direction, without reflection about context or else.

> 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.

Thanks a lot, we share our opinions.

> 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.

You are not able to produce not a single example, which may pass as an abstract 
order, say canonic order, not leaning on geography or else, except our 
incriminated Deut. 33 were Joseph is preceded by Benjamin. Your fuzz about else 
clans is just to divert the attention from the subject.

> 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

Were is even a single example contradicting my asertion, Joseph is always before 

> 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

Numbers 34:19-28 is no canonical list but a geographical list from south to the 
north, because it concerns the partition of Canaan among these clan 
representants. I pointed you in my first post to you already on this, but you 
subtly continue to ignore my objection, because this is your sole and only 
document naming Benjamin before Joseph. 

So much to say to your fairness.

> 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.

Your peculiar insistence about the other names on the lists is because you lack 
any evidence to combat my asertion "Benjamin follows always Joseph". We may talk 
about the details of the lists, but the discussion would remain irrelevant to 
first statement. The Egyptian nine bow lists corresponded also to an over the 
time varying canon. There are however things, which remain constant to these 
lists over the millenia.
It is useless to run against the canonical list assumption, since it grounds only 
a hypothesis one may later on check against the rest of the text.

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

I have the feeling you are reading only every tenth line in the postings of the 
others. He was entirely lacking, so as Simeon also does, on the simple ground, 
these tribes have turned their backs to the amphyctiony. They therefore can not 
appear in a blessing.

You should gain the habitude to judge an argument on its whole without running 
wild against single details. 

Admittedly the originar lack of Benjamin in the text is for the first only a
50% hypothesis (and I didn´t call this at any place else than hypothesis) 
nurtured by my Schechem and my canonical argument. 

But we have multiple independent lines of inference in the text, which confirm 
the initial supposition. 
There is the reference to the encapsulation of Judah. 

There is the reference to a crowning in Gad, to which we may infer from two 
independent parts of the text. If by this crowning should be understood, the one 
of Gideon (and so far I didn´t hear from you another suggestion), than is a 
reference to Schechem as main temple most normal, and the whole reading made a 
coherent explanation of the text.

Were is your coherent explanation?

Apart from that I see you react against any attempts to analyse a biblical text 
on historical pretence, I haven´t heared from you any coherent explanation of the 

Once you explain the lack of southern Dan as caused by the "memory" of some 
"Sea-Peoples" invasion. Than you reject as next the possibility that the text is 
a reflection of the period of Gideon, much the same time as you just assumed.
I quote your own question:

> 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?

Apparently yes. At least someone called Ian Hutchenson. The Biblical writer had 
apparently memories about the "Sea-Peoples" (we see no reflection thereof in the 
Bible) but none of the roughly contemporary period of Gideon (we see a plenty 
about it in the Bible). Wow.

> >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, I must suppose that even if I would produce the kind of evidence, you 
request from me (and I will do it soon), you won´t read a line from it. You will 
stay by your opinions for the next 40 years unaware of any change of paradigm.

Best regards,

Bányai Michael

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list