[b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
Bryant J. Williams III
bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Mon Jan 7 11:45:17 EST 2008
Regarding Ishmael vs Isaac.
The text of 22:2, 12, 16 contradict what you say about Isaac. In each of the
verses God says of Isaac to Abraham,
22:2 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad 'asher-'ahabtat; LXX, TON AGAPHTON
22:12 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU
22:16 ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU
Furthermore, the text in 17:17-22 clearly indicates that Sarah will give birth
to a son well passed the age of childbearing, that the child's name will be
Isaac (Yitzhak) and that Ishmael will still be blessed, but not as the firstborn
is normally blessed. In fact, Isaac is the focal point from this point on.
Remember that Ishmael was born of Hagar, an Egyptian slave woman, per cultural
standards at that time. In fact, the indcidents involved with each of the
Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will find a counterpart in later Mosaic
legislation to prevent the mistakes that these same patriarchs committed.
Now, regarding the 14th Century BCE dating, I find that Akhenaten does not fit
the context of the Patriarchal narratives nor the Mosaic legislation especially
the dating to ca. 1446-1407 BCE in which the dating set by the I Kings 6:1,
Judges 11:14-27 (especially 11:26 ("For three hundred years Israel occupied
Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the
Arnon...."). Since Jephthah was a judge ca. 1100 BCE according to most scholars,
then to ignore both times listed (Solomon building the Temple and Jephthah's
remarks) is based not on facts but on a priori assumptions that cannot be proved
especially with regards to JEDP.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: <JimStinehart at aol.com>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 5:38 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph": Patriarchal Successions
> Based in part on our analysis of the name “Joseph”, we can now go back and
> determine what specific rules govern all three Patriarchal successions. (The
> secondary literature on the Patriarchal narratives does not discuss this
> critically important issue.)
> In all three Patriarchal successions, the winning candidate always meets the
> following three key requirements, and the main contender who fails to be named
> the leader of the next generation of the new monotheists always fails to meet
> one or more of these requirements:
> 1. The winning son cannot be his father’s firstborn son.
> 2. The winning son cannot be his father’s favorite son.
> 3. The birth mother of the winning son must be his father’s original main
> wife #1.
> Now let’s see how these three simple, odd rules govern all three Patriarchal
> I. Ishmael vs. Isaac
> Ishmael fails all three of the above tests. Ishmael is his father’s
> firstborn son (or is at least his father’s firstborn son of importance).
> his father Abraham’s favorite son. We see this when Abraham pleads Ishmael’s
> case with YHWH (Genesis 17: 18), and Abraham is stated to be grieved when
> Ishmael must be exiled (Genesis 21: 11). By contrast, Abraham never pleads
> s case to YHWH, particularly during the binding incident, and Abraham is not
> stated in the text to be grieved when Abraham almost kills Isaac in the
> incident. Most importantly, however, in this first Patriarchal succession is
> the obvious fact that Ishmael’s birth mother is Hagar, who is not Abraham’s
> main wife #1. Ishmael was borne on Sarah’s behalf, but Sarah is not Ishmael’
> s birth mother.
> Isaac, who is the winning son, meets all three tests. Isaac is not his father
> ’s firstborn son, Isaac is not his father’s favorite son (Ishmael is), and
> Isaac’s birth mother, Sarah, is Abraham’s original main wife #1.
> II. Esau vs. Jacob
> Esau fails the first two requirements. Esau is his father Isaac’s firstborn
> son. And Esau is obviously his father’s favorite son, as Isaac likes Esau
> much better than Isaac likes Jacob. (Jacob never forgave his older twin
> Esau for so obviously being their father’s favorite son.) The focus in this
> second Patriarchal succession is on birth order. Esau is repeatedly stated to
> be Isaac’s older son (even though Esau and Jacob are twins). Their mother
> Rebekah’s famous dream about the twin sons struggling in her womb is
> but one thing is clear: that dream clearly relates to birth order. Esau’s
> fatal flaw is to be his father’s firstborn son.
> By contrast, winning son Jacob meets all three tests. Jacob is not his father
> ’s firstborn son, and clearly is not his father’s favorite son. The third
> factor is neutral here between the two sons, as the twins obviously have the
> same birth mother, who is their father’s original main wife #1.
> III. Judah vs. Joseph
> Joseph fails the second and third requirements. Joseph is probably O.K. on
> the first requirement, in that Joseph is not his father’s firstborn son
> Joseph is the firstborn son of Jacob’s favorite wife). But Joseph is his
> father’s favorite son, being the only son to receive the “coat of many colors”
> And most critically, Joseph’s birth mother is Rachel, who although a fine
> mother with high standing, nevertheless is not Jacob’s original main wife #1.
> Jacob married Leah 7 days before Jacob married Rachel, so it is Leah who has
> honor of being Jacob’s original main wife #1.
> Judah meets all three tests. Judah is not his father’s firstborn son, Judah
> is not his father’s favorite son (Joseph is), and Judah’s birth mother is
> Jacob’s original main wife #1: Leah. (Note that Leah, but not Rachel, is
> in Hebron with the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Each Matriarch buried in
> Hebron is, unlike Rachel, her husband’s original main wife #1.)
> In the end, it was impossible for Joseph to avoid Ishmael’s sad fate. Since
> the birth mother of neither Ishmael nor Joseph was the father’s original main
> wife #1, neither Ishmael nor Joseph had a chance. Rachel tried to avoid that
> by calling her son “Joseph”, meaning “gathered, added”, to position Joseph
> as being just “another son”, who is “added” to the already large “gathering”
> of Jacob’s sons by his collective main wife #1, Leah-Rachel. But that daring
> gambit failed.
> * * *
> We can now go on to ask how the above Patriarchal succession requirements
> relate to secular history. (Such question is never addressed, in any way
> whatsoever, by the secondary literature on the Patriarchal narratives.)
> Who is the target audience for the Patriarchal narratives? Is there a ruler,
> who historically was important to the early Hebrews, who would have been
> greatly pleased to see the foregoing odd rules of succession apply to the
> leadership of the new monotheists?
> Consider what type of man would like those odd rules.
> 1. He must be a younger son. In the Patriarchal narratives, the firstborn
> son always gets the shaft, and properly so. So the target audience must be a
> younger son.
> 2. He must not have been his father’s favorite son. In all three
> Patriarchal successions, the father’s favorite son fails to win the grand
> target audience must be a younger son who resented his father’s favoritism of
> the father’s firstborn son.
> 3. And finally, he must have had half-brothers, whom he perceived to be a
> bona fide threat. Relations between half-brothers are not good in the
> Patriarchal narratives. Isaac never sees his half-brother Ishmael after Isaac
> weaned, except for the occasion of their father Abraham’s funeral. Jacob’s
> sons famously try to kill their young half-brother Joseph. The target
> audience must have been a son of his father’s original main wife #1, who
> his father might choose as the father’s successor a manly son by a minor wife.
> In my next post, we will examine what ruler in secular history was important
> to the early Hebrews, who meets all the above three odd factors in spades.
> Rather than being mid-1st millennium BCE fiction, as university scholars have
> been trying to tell us (unsuccessfully) for 100 years now, the Patriarchal
> narratives instead are very closely tracking the well-documented secular
> the mid-14th century BCE, which in my controversial view is the historical
> Patriarchal Age. It is impossible that J, E, P or D could be making this
> up, over a period of several centuries in the mid-1st millennium BCE, because
> JEPD knew nothing, and cared less, about the secular history of the mid-14th
> century BCE.
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 01/07/08 9:14
For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
More information about the b-hebrew