was Michael -- deuteronomy, (very short)
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
> writer of one of the Arthurian legends aware of what came from Mesopotamian
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.
More information about the b-hebrew