was Michael -- deuteronomy, (amphictyonies)

Banyai 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.

To summarise:

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
Machir				Dan
Sebulon				Ascher

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,

Michael Bányai

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list