was Michael -- deuteronomy, (amphictyonies)
Banyai at t-online.de
Thu Mar 15 03:34:48 EST 2001
Ian, precedent answer escaped me while still in draft, and went only to you, not
to the list.
there are issues one can not definitively pro or con out of themselves. This
experience we made with the discussion concerning the "canonincal" position of
Benjamin after Joseph.
My objections against your 2 examples (besides Deut. 33) were following:
1. Numbers 34:19-28 is a geographical list and is to be avoided when discussing
canonical lists. Up to a certain point we can verify this pretention, but our
knowledge of historical geography are limited, since the geopolitical might have
slightly changed from time to time
2. Since I admitted that the canonical ORDERS were derived from the birth
legends, it is no wonder to me that Manasseh, coming by birthright after Benjamin
, might be quoted at a later place.
However Joseph was born before Benjamin so Joseph has usually to be considered
before Benjamin, what in all cases except the litigious ones happens. Judges
5:14-18 seems to me a piece following a different order than the canonical one:
beligerant nonbeligerant beligerant
south of Tabor north of Tabor
Efraim Ruben Sebulon (bis)
Benjamin Gilead Naftali
Apparently Debora is bringing from the south the first part of the troops. In
Judges 4:6 we read Barak should bring with him 10000 from Naftali and Sebulon,
that is from the north of Tabor. Their forces should join at Tabor.
Please confirm this reading.
There is not even a rest of canonical order or intention at there but some kind
of geopolitical + subjective order. So were is the evidence?
However I invite to caution, the canon belongs indeed to the issues we can on its
own means not definitively settle. So I don´t reclaim more probability for the
canonical order than an initial reasonable fifty-fifty. I have the hope you could
in the mean time agree, that the necessary rest 50% evidence comes from the
> >Well, that´s true. But there is nothing arbitrary in the insertion
> >of Benjamin.
> No, your presuppositions have imposed this on your analysis.
I hope you will make next a short pause and think the whole thing over.
Best regards my friend,
More information about the b-hebrew