was Michael -- deuteronomy, (amphictyonies)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Wed Mar 14 17:37:42 EST 2001


>> Michael, I don't really care about your German translation...
>
>I thought you were so free to accept the arbitrage of an unbiased, independent
>translation of the Bible.

If you have to rely on some particular transaltion that appeals to your argument, it
canonly be seen as tendentious.


>You are contesting contents of the text, which are evident.

What is evident should be independent of one's uncontrolled subjectivity.

>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,

Obviously I don't think there is such an abstract order. This you should have
realised. I think the idea is your unjustified shaping of data.

>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.

In fact I only produced most of the lists in the books of the Pentateuch. If we are
dealing with lists, and canonical lists to be precise according to your waffle,
there should be a substantial representation of this hypothesized canonical list.
And the result of the investigation is that the notion of a canonical list of tribes
that one might find in the Pentateuch is non-existent. What you have done is simply
thrown out all the rest because that didn't suit your tendentiousness.

>> 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
Benjamin?

*Two* of these below. But you insist on disregarding the evidence in all the lists
to cook your goose.

>> Num34:19-28        Deut33:6-25  Judges 5:14-18
>> Judah              Reuben       Ephraim
>> Simeon             Judah        Benjamin
>> Benjamin           Levi         (Machir)
>> Dan                Benjamin     Zebulun
>> Joseph (Manasseh)  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,

If you say so. What geography, Palestinian? If think so you've got very contorted
vision. Where's Reuben? Well, he's had his land apportioned. But so's Manasseh. Why
is Issachar north of Zebulun? Why is Manasseh south of Ephraim?

>because it concerns the partition of Canaan among these clan
>representants.

I think you have nothing better to say than this.

>I pointed you in my first post to you already on this,

You didn't make it then you haven't made it now. You have just as fanciful a view of
the geography as you do of the text.

>but you subtly continue to ignore my objection,

Your objection is: "it doesn't suit my presuppositions." The ignoring comes when we
look at the lists and find each one different from the next, yet you persist in
saying that Joseph must be before Benjamin (otherwise your argument doesn't get to
base one).

>because this is your sole and only document naming Benjamin before Joseph.

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

>So much to say to your fairness.

What could you know about fairness, when you simply wanna forget the inconvenient
data and think about only the arbitrary data that interests you? Well done, Michael.

>> 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".


Your assertion is wrong given two of the lists and a third which doesn't allow you
to make the claim because Benjamin is between the two sons of Josephus.

You are still repeating the same baseless stuff: "Benjamin follows always Joseph".
Look again:

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

Do you note in these three that Joseph is above Benjamin?? Obviously you can't. But
Ephraim comes before Benjamin in Judges, but Machir is after Benjamin. And you were
talking about Joseph. So you then attempt to manipulate the geography.

Out of nine lists Benjamin comes before Joseph twice.

>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.

Yes, you're right: because you'll believe it no matter the lack of evidence where it
counts.

>> (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.

What amphictyony!? This is quite a runaround. You've mentioned it before and never
justified doing so. I guess I can't expect you to do so now. But the consistent
repetition should by now have rendered it axiomatic.

[At this point I had originally inserted a discussion about the sea peoples which I
have decided to post separately.]

>They therefore can not appear in a blessing.

Says who? If people can arbitrarily insert Benjamin into the text, then people can
do other arbitrary things as well.

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

Remove a leg of a three legged chair and it cannot stand. I have already criticised
the other points of your diatribe, but if you can't even get to first base, why did
I first bother about the other materials?

>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.

It would be nice if you could muster 50%. But the only argument for the necessity of
Joseph coming before Benjamin is your opinion.

>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.

This last sentence hasn't reached me yet. What exactly does "encapsulation of Judah"
mean?

>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.

Now we're on to another of those conjectures of yours -- this time about the Shechem
temple, which you intrude into a passage ostensibly about someone (the text says is
Benjamin) being carried on someone else's the shoulders. Here's Deut 33:16 --

lbnymn 'mr ydyd yhwh '$kn lbtx `lyw xpp `lyw kl-hywm wkyn ktypyw $kn

>Were is your coherent explanation?

>Apart from that I see you react against any attempts to analyse a biblical text
>on historical pretence,

I prefer historical evidence myself.

>I haven´t heared from you any coherent explanation of the text.

If you want to post this stuff it would be better to attempt a histocial analysis.
The onus is clearly on you to do something, not on me.

>Once you explain the lack of southern Dan as caused by the "memory" of some
>"Sea-Peoples" invasion.

Got a better explanation than your contorted pelligrination of these Danites up and
down the Levantine coast? This "southern Dan" seems to be north of the southern
Philistine enclosure and south of what was attributed to the Tjekker (you remember
Dor of the voyage of Wenamun).

>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.

This just shows Michael Bunyai not connecting synapses. Let me restate it so it's
easier for you:

1) Arthurian legends were written which included materials they inherited,
   some through numerous of passes back to Sumerian literature;

2) This should mean that a writer can be unaware of the ultimate origins
   of the materials that writer is using;

3) If it is possible with for example the Arthurian literature, it is also
   possible with the bibilical literature.

Is that clear?

>The Biblical writer had
>apparently memories about the "Sea-Peoples"

Just as the writers of the Arthurian legends apparently had memories of the Sumerian
legends. We are misusing the word "memories". The writers obviously didn't have
memories of their prospective ultimate sources.

>(we see no reflection thereof in the Bible)

Just as we see no reflection of the dying gods in the grail legends.

>but none of the roughly contemporary period of Gideon (we see a
>plenty about it in the Bible). Wow.

I suppose you first have to assume a "period of Gideon".

> >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.

Evidence like that which you have provided for a canonical list of tribes in from
the Pentateuch!? The paradigm you are trying to shift to is called "creativity",
which is against the grain of the movement of contemporary scholarship in ancient
history toward a far more stringent use of materials.


Ian









More information about the b-hebrew mailing list