[b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 61, Issue 4

Mark Spitsbergen awakesd at mac.com
Mon Jan 7 06:52:53 EST 2008


> Yigal, I did not mean to imply that Aramaic was any less Semitic  
> than Hebrew only that there are differences in the spelling of the  
> same words between the two. Also, would you consider Arpachshad to  
> be a Semitic name?

Thanks

Mark Spitsbergen



> In any case, there is nothing more "truly Semitic" in the Gen.  
> spellings or
> "more Aramaic" in the Chr. spellings, besides which of course  
> Aramaic is
> just as "Semitic" a language as Hebrew.
>
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Yigal Levin




On Jan 7, 2008, at 11:11 AM, b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
> 	b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. (no subject) (Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann)
>    2. Re: Wellhausen -Edom (Yitzhak Sapir)
>    3. Spelling changes in the BHS (Mark Spitsbergen)
>    4. Re: Spelling changes in the BHS (Yigal Levin)
>    5. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (Yitzhak Sapir)
>    6. Re: The root SLH (Isaac Fried)
>    7. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (K Randolph)
>    8. Re: The root SLH (Isaac Fried)
>    9. Re: xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment (Yitzhak Sapir)
>   10. Re: Wellhausen (Bill Rea)
>   11. Re: Wellhausen (was  Cladistics) (Bill Rea)
>   12. Wellhausen vs. Single Author (JimStinehart at aol.com)
>   13. Re: Wellhausen (was  Cladistics) (belaga at math.u-strasbg.fr)
>   14. Re: Wellhausen (K Randolph)
>   15. The Name "Joseph":  Patriarchal Successions  
> (JimStinehart at aol.com)
>   16. Re: The Name "Joseph":  Patriarchal Successions
>       (Bryant J. Williams III)
>   17. Re: Wellhausen (Yitzhak Sapir)
>   18. The Name "Joseph":  Patriarchal Successions  
> (JimStinehart at aol.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:43:19 +0100
> From: "Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann" <lehmann at uni-mainz.de>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] (no subject)
> To: "b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<E66885AFAEE95C4A8AA69F2F820C33900C652D7196 at EXCHANGE-01.zdv.uni- 
> mainz.de>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> As for ANI YHWH and related clauses,
> it is indispensable to have a close reading of the important book by
> Anja Angela Diesel, "Ich bin Jahwe". Der Aufstieg der Ich-bin-Jahwe- 
> Aussage zum Schl?sselwort des alttestmentlichen Monotheismus,  
> Neukirchen 2006, ISBN 3-7887-2138-3, (425 pages),
> and also, by the same author,
> Anja Angela Diesel, Jahwe (allein) ist Gott. ?berlegungen zu einer  
> Gruppe der sog. dreiteiligen Nominals?tze, in: KUSATU 5 (2004) 1-35  
> (which does not dispense from reading the 2006 book!).
>
> Besides that, there is no discussion possible any longer that  
> claims to be abreast recent scholarship!
> Best,
>
> Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann
> Akademischer Direktor
> Research Unit on Ancient Hebrew & Epigraphy
> Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz
> Germany
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:09:05 -0700
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen -Edom
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<e6ea6c000801050909n1d46ee57l238c488c72063518 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Dec 31, 2007 11:00 PM, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
>>   Karl,
>>
>>     You wrote, in part:
>>
>>   " As for your claim that Edom was not a political entity, all  
>> you have is a
>> lack of evidence, which many people, including Uri, claim is not  
>> necessarily
>> evidence of lack."
>>
>>     Anybody who makes the claim about Edom mentioned in your quote is
>>   simply ignorant of the work that goes on there in recent years,  
>> especially
>>   in Khirbet en-Nahas, but not only there, and its possible  
>> ramifications for
>>   the dating of centralized authority in that region --  
>> considerably earlier
>>    than previously assumed.  See, for instance the  following:
>>
>>
>>                Publications
>>
>>             Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New  
>> Excavations and 14C
>>    Dates from Khirbat en Nahas (Jordan). Antiquity 78: 863-876. ..
>>
>>      Since then other work  has been going on in the region.
>
> The Antiquity article may be viewed in PDF form along with further  
> responses
> and discussion at:
> http://www.wadiarabahproject.man.ac.uk/titlepage/news/Antiquity/WAP% 
> 20review.htm
>
>  The Antiquity article's Abstract (p. 865) states: "An  
> international team
> of researchers show how high-precision radiocarbon dating is  
> liberating us
> from chronological assumptions based on Biblical research. Surface and
> topographic mapping at the large copper-working site of Khirbat en- 
> Nahas was
> followed by stratigraphic excavations at an ancient fortress and  
> two metal
> processing facilities located on the site surface. The results were
> spectacular. Occupation begins here in the eleventh century BC and the
> monumental fortress is built in the tenth. If this site can be  
> equated with
> the rise of the Biblical kingdom of Edom it can now be seen to:  
> have its
> roots in local Iron Age societies; is considerably earlier than  
> previous
> scholars assumed; and proves that complex societies existed in Edom  
> long
> before the influence of Assyrian imperialism was felt in the region  
> from the
> eighth - sixth centuries BC."
>
> The Antiquity article concludes with a Discussion paragraph (pp.
> 876-77): "The excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas, the largest Iron Age  
> copper
> production centre in the southern Levant, have provided the first  
> stratified
> radiocarbon dates from the Biblical region of Edom. As can be seen  
> in Figure
> 7 in conjunction with the late Iron I small finds described above,  
> there are
> two main phases of metal production: in the twelfth - eleventh  
> centuries BC
> and during the tenth - ninth centuries BC. These new data  
> necessitate a
> re-examination of the role of the lowlands in the control of metal
> production during the rise of the Edomite kingdom. The new dates  
> and the
> range of artefacts recently found at the site, such as architecture,
> ceramics, scarabs, and arrowheads indicate that Iron Age secondary  
> state
> formation in Edom was much earlier than previously assumed. The key to
> understanding the rise of the Biblical kingdom of Edom may lie in  
> the copper
> ore-rich lowlands, rather than the highland plateau where most  
> excavations
> have been conducted to date. The emergence of the Edomite kingdom  
> was not
> contingent on the region having been dominated by the neo-Assyrian  
> empire
> during the eighth and seventh BC. State formation more likely began  
> several
> centuries earlier, rooted in local processes of social evolution and
> interaction amongst the smaller Iron Age 'statelets' of the  
> southern Levant
> (Edom, Moab, Ammon, Israel, Judah, Philistia, etc.)."
>
> For a little comparison, here is one paragraph from one of the  
> later responses:
> "Further, Levy et al. state that, so far, the dating of Edomite  
> pottery and
> consequently the main highland sites is based solely on the find of
> the Qos Gabr
> seal. The possibility of earlier dates for this pottery must therefore
> not be excluded
> (Levy et al. p. 3). However, this is being highly economical with  
> the truth. In
> assessing the chronology of 'Edomite' pottery, the final  
> publication of the
> excavations at Busayra by Piotr Bienkowski (2002) took into account:
>
> "o C14 dates from the Faynan area
> "o ceramic parallels from Transjordan and Palestine
> "o well dated imported Attic pottery
> "o well dated inscriptional material (NOT just the seal impression  
> of Qos Gabr).
>
> "This analysis indicated that pottery assemblages from the Faynan area
> C14-dated
> to the ninth century BC were quite different from Busayra and other
> 'Edomite' sites,
> indicating a date later than the ninth century BC for the latter
> material. ALL the other
> evidence pointed to a date no earlier than the late eighth century BC,
> with this pottery
> tradition continuing to the end of the Persian period at the earliest,
> and possibly into
> the Early Hellenistic period."
>
> To sum up, Karl stated that Edom was established as a polity  
> hundreds of years
> before Moses.  Given Karl's dating of Moses based on personal
> criteria, that would
> place the establishment of Edom in the Middle Bronze.  However,
> surprisingly, this
> is exactly when the paper originally referenced by Uri notes that the
> Faynan's district
> copper-production industry stopped.  The question debated by the  
> authors of the
> paper and others is when it began anew, and whether this signifies the
> beginning of
> a new state.  It is generally agreed that the collapse of the industry
> had ramifications
> for a political entity in that area as well -- namely, that the
> political entity collapsed.
> While the discussion is interesting, it shows unanimous agreement  
> that Edom or
> whatever polity existed there in the Early Bronze Age did not
> constitute a state again
> until that period -- in the 12th century BCE at the earliest, and
> probably  later.  I
> remain curious as to why Uri said the author of the comment (me) is  
> ignorant
> of current research, especially when the message to which he  
> responded contained
> a direct quote of me.  Uri only quoted Karl's summary statement which
> dropped the
> "hundreds of years before Moses" part.  For Karl, the above dating
> indicates Edom
> was not established as a state until "hundreds of years after  
> Moses."  For some
> other scholars like Kitchen, it is only a few decades after Moses (the
> dating of Moses
> being placed in the 13th century, with the entry into Israel in the
> later part of that
> century).  Archaeologically, Israel is clearly placed in Israel
> already in the 13th century
> (1209 BCE Merneptah stele, according to Kitchen), so either way, Edom
> was established
> as a state, according to all archaeologists, after Israel's entry to
> Canaan, with some
> placing it at a few decades afterwards, others centuries afterwards.
> Because of this
> issue of contention, and the relatively close periods indicated for
> the later datings of
> Moses vs earliest datings of Edom, I originally left Edom out of the
> archaeological
> evidence that is inconsistent or incompatible with the Exodus account.
>  However, it
> borders as such, and it still takes some forcing of the archaeological
> facts to make it
> fit with such claims as in Num 20:14.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:30:12 -0800
> From: Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd at mac.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <37943A81-B15E-473B-806A-B70E41BC0E37 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=US-ASCII;	delsp=yes;	format=flowed
>
> I have a question regarding spelling changes of: Mash to Meshech,
> Shalach to Salah, Obal to Ebal in Genesis 10:23-28 and 1 Chronicles
> 1:17-22. When we consider that Arpachshad is not Semitic and
> potentially more Assyrian to begin with (Knoppers 2004; Gunkel 1926;
> Westermann 1984;  Blenkinshopp 1992:90) would  this be a clue to an
> adaptation of the truly Semitic spellings to more of an Aramaic one
> in the time of Ezra?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark Spitsbergen
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:16:58 +0200
> From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002201c84fe0$4e2ba190$9d9015ac at xp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> 	reply-type=original
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Shelah/Shalah of Gen. 10:24 and 1 Chr. 1:18 is spelled exactly the  
> same in
> Hebrew of both books, including the shift from segol (e) to qamatz  
> (a). The
> other two names are clearly cases of simple scibal error: I would  
> guess that
> the spelling "Meshech" in 1 Chr. 1:17 in stead of "Mash" in Gen.  
> 10:23 was
> influenced by the better-known Meshech that appears in verse 2/5 of  
> the same
> chapter (in both books). The change from "Obal" to "Ebal" is simply  
> because
> the Waw in Gen. was written as a graphically similar Yod in 1 Chr.  
> (or maybe
> in the source used by 1 Chr.).
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Spitsbergen" <awakesd at mac.com>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:30 PM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Spelling changes in the BHS
>
>
>> I have a question regarding spelling changes of: Mash to Meshech,
>> Shalach to Salah, Obal to Ebal in Genesis 10:23-28 and 1 Chronicles
>> 1:17-22. When we consider that Arpachshad is not Semitic and
>> potentially more Assyrian to begin with (Knoppers 2004; Gunkel 1926;
>> Westermann 1984;  Blenkinshopp 1992:90) would  this be a clue to an
>> adaptation of the truly Semitic spellings to more of an Aramaic one
>> in the time of Ezra?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Mark Spitsbergen
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1208 - Release Date:
>> 03/01/2008 15:52
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:15:03 +0000
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<e6ea6c000801051715k5a0973deyca936799c7d0c8b5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 10:47 PM, K Randolph wrote:
>
>> Then how do you account for that many Canaanites did survive?
>
> Where does it say in the book of Joshua that Canaanites from Lachish
> survived?
>
>> You have just described medieval feudalism, but was this the case  
>> of ancient
>> Near East as well? From what I read, that was only partially true.  
>> Those who
>> had something to fear from the invader, yes, would take refuge in the
>> fortified stronghold, but what about the rest? The most clear  
>> example is
>> Jeremiah 37:12?14 where Jeremiah attempted to wait out the siege of
>> Jerusalem "among the people" outside of Jerusalem. While it is  
>> true that
>> Jeremiah was centuries later, did his example show a change in
>> circumstances? I think it is unlikely, from what history I have read.
>
> Jer 37 may be applicable, except it describes what Jeremiah did  
> after the
> invaders retreated.  In any case, I did not discuss medieval  
> feudalism.  If it
> happens that in medieval times, the same situation took place, then  
> that
> would only indicate that across these different times, people acted  
> much the
> same way.
>
>> Yet there is a literary standard for when the repetition is used.  
>> Follow
>> that when evaluating a text. Does this text follow that literary  
>> formula?
>
> Who says there is a literary standard.  No one says there is a  
> formula that
> must be followed in order to use repetition.  Besides, formula is  
> just the
> same as no repetition -- it eliminates the possibility for literary  
> creativity.
>
>> You are adding to the text. The fulfillment came in 1 Kings 16:34,  
>> during a
>> time of idolatry, the foundations were laid with human sacrifice,  
>> namely the
>> oldest son of the builder, the gates blessed with another human  
>> sacrifice,
>> namely the builder's youngest son. This was apparently a building  
>> formula
>> among certain idolatrous societies. There is nothing in the text  
>> about all
>> the other details you added above.
>
> As you can see, your view that human sacrifice is implied by these  
> verses
> is your own addition to the text.  I am not sure what details I  
> mentioned are
> not in the text, but it is pretty clear that Josh 6:17 is talking
> about a continuous
> state rather than a singular action in the past (hence the use of the
> imperfect), and
> the 6:26 is a curse that relates to whoever builds the city.
> Evidently it talks
> about the death of the builder's children, but nowhere does it say  
> he would
> be idolatrous or sacrifice them.  As a curse, it just means that  
> his children
> will die if he tries to build the city.  1 Ki 16:34 doesn't mention  
> any child
> sacrifice either.
>
>> And are you sure that your "knowledge" is not modern mythology  
>> concocted to
>> push an ideology? For example, what about the use of human  
>> sacrifice? How
>> widespread was it? How was it expressed in the language? Do you  
>> deny that
>> Joshua 6:26 and 1 Kings 16:34 linguistically refer to that  
>> practice? Why?
>
> Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology."  Modern  
> linguistics
> is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
> to the discussion
> to call it that.  I don't have to explain why Josh 6:26 and 1 Ki 16:34
> do not refer
> to the practice of child sacrifice, much like I don't have to explain
> why they do not
> relate to blue suns.  First, you have to show that they do refer to
> child sacrifice.
> In general, Josh 6:26 reads as a curse.  This makes it unlikely that
> the deaths of
> the children of the builder of Jericho are his own personal intention,
> as would be
> if he sacrificed them.  The curse says -- if you want to build
> Jericho, then something
> you do not want will happen, that is, your children will die.
> Otherwise, it wouldn't
> be a curse.
>
>> Yet on another level, the personal level, do you claim that people  
>> were
>> different then than they are today? In other words, they don't  
>> share the
>> same loves, desires, sense of right and wrong, and so forth that  
>> modern
>> individuals have?
>
> People are not different, but they have different cultural values, and
> our cultural sense
> of right or wrong is different from the values during Biblical times.
>
>> On a technical level, what do you know about agriculture, weaving,  
>> ceramics,
>> cooking, metalsmithing, etc.? Can you tell me why the locksmiths were
>> specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 24:14, 16? What tools do these  
>> trades use?
>
> Locksmiths are not mentioned in those verses.
>
>> Which is the best preparation for a lexicographer? Is it good and
>> concentrated study on languages and linguistics? Or is a person of  
>> wide
>> interests, insatiable curiosity of many subjects, experiences in many
>> fields, better prepared to recognize how words are used in their  
>> contexts?
>
> There is no question that if the two are placed as two options, then
> it is clear that
> concentrated linguistic study is best for the lexicographer.
> Generally, in a specific
> topic or area of expertise, then it helps a lot to also have expertise
> in that area.  But
> that does not mean that an expert in this area does not need to have a
> good solid
> foundation in linguistics.  For example, if we are discussing the word
> masger, then
> it is clear that someone who has expertise in archaeometallurgy as  
> opposed to
> someone with just a general background in linguistics would be better
> prepared to
> comment on such terms.  On the other hand, without knowing that  
> Arabic has a
> cognate verb of the root sajara meaning "to heat up in a furnace," (so
> HALOT) one
> might not be prepared to understand the word correctly.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:19 +0200
> From: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
> To: <pporta at oham.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <000601c8501e$ce43a600$a6fbb44f at home>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
> 	reply-type=response
>
> Pere,
>
> I am really sorry to hear that you failed to understand what I am  
> saying.
> Don?t despair. Understanding may require time. Things silently  
> simmer in the
> mind and then suddenly everything falls into place and all becomes  
> bright
> and clear. It happens to me all the time.
>
> You are saying: ?I wonder if anyone on this list does understand  
> it... since
> nobody, nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...?. I  
> think you
> should not worry about others. I would not look for comfort in CAR-AT
> HA-RABIM. The ?others? are also greatly preoccupied now with other fun
> things as evident by the profusion of recent interesting postings.
>
> You are also saying: ?I think you have a hard work to do if you  
> want people
> understand what you mean?. I think it is either easy or neigh  
> impossible
> depending on the audience. Hard set notions, ideology, pride and bad
> thinking habits makes it difficult; an open mind and the WILL to  
> understand
> makes it very easy.
>
> I suggest you keep thinking of what XALAH and GALAH ?really? mean  
> without
> recourse to translation or negation. Does GALAH really means ?to  
> uncover?,
> or is this but an implication for something more basic and  
> concrete? Are we
> really ?uncovering? something? Is it possible that a Hebrew root  
> could mean
> ?uncover = un-cover?? See also my posting from September 6, 2007 on  
> the
> equivalence of GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL.
>
> Looking from time to time at relevant entries in my etymological  
> dictionary
> at www.hebrewetymology.com could be highly beneficial.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <pporta at oham.net>
> To: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
> Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
>
>
>> Isaac,
>>
>> thank you for your explanation.
>> Unfortunately, my level is not high enough to understand what you  
>> mean.
>> (And I wonder if anyone on this list does understand it... since  
>> nobody,
>> nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...)
>> I think you have a hard work to do if you want people understand  
>> what you
>> mean.
>>
>> So, I'd say:
>>
>> 1. It will be better we leave this issue as it is...
>> 2. And finally: try, if possible, to explain what is the  
>> equivalence of
>> XALAH, be sick, and GALAH, uncover.
>>
>> Pere Porta
>> Barcelona
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:11:57 -0800
> From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<acd782170801052111q4aedc370pd909e22c1e317583 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Yitzhak:
>
> On Jan 5, 2008 5:15 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 3, 2008 10:47 PM, K Randolph wrote:
>>
>>> Then how do you account for that many Canaanites did survive?
>>
>> Where does it say in the book of Joshua that Canaanites from Lachish
>> survived?
>>
>
> What misreading of the data makes you think that anyone thinks that  
> any
> Canaanites who were *in* Lachish survived?
>
>>
>>> You have just described medieval feudalism, but was this the case of
>> ancient
>>> Near East as well? From what I read, that was only partially  
>>> true. Those
>> who
>>> had something to fear from the invader, yes, would take refuge in  
>>> the
>>> fortified stronghold, but what about the rest? The most clear  
>>> example is
>>> Jeremiah 37:12?14 where Jeremiah attempted to wait out the siege of
>>> Jerusalem "among the people" outside of Jerusalem. While it is  
>>> true that
>>> Jeremiah was centuries later, did his example show a change in
>>> circumstances? I think it is unlikely, from what history I have  
>>> read.
>>
>> Jer 37 may be applicable, except it describes what Jeremiah did  
>> after the
>> invaders retreated.  In any case, I did not discuss medieval  
>> feudalism.
>>  If it
>> happens that in medieval times, the same situation took place,  
>> then that
>> would only indicate that across these different times, people  
>> acted much
>> the
>> same way.
>>
>
> Jeremiah attempted to live outside of the city when he knew that the
> Chaldeans retreat was only temporary, that they would be back to  
> finish the
> siege that they had started. That shows his expectation that the  
> siege of
> Jerusalem would not mean the deaths of those who lived in the villages
> outside the fortified cities.
>
> If his story is indicative of ancient warfare, would that not also  
> apply to
> Joshua's blitzkrieg?
>
>>
>>> Yet there is a literary standard for when the repetition is used.  
>>> Follow
>>> that when evaluating a text. Does this text follow that literary
>> formula?
>>
>> Who says there is a literary standard.  No one says there is a  
>> formula
>> that
>> must be followed in order to use repetition.  Besides, formula is  
>> just the
>> same as no repetition -- it eliminates the possibility for literary
>> creativity.
>>
>
> How so? It sounds as if your expectations do more to eliminate the
> possibility of literary creativity than anything I said.
>
>>
>>> You are adding to the text. The fulfillment came in 1 Kings 16:34,
>> during a
>>> time of idolatry, the foundations were laid with human sacrifice,  
>>> namely
>> the
>>> oldest son of the builder, the gates blessed with another human
>> sacrifice,
>>> namely the builder's youngest son. This was apparently a building
>> formula
>>> among certain idolatrous societies. There is nothing in the text  
>>> about
>> all
>>> the other details you added above.
>>
>> As you can see, your view that human sacrifice is implied by these  
>> verses
>> is your own addition to the text.  I am not sure what details I  
>> mentioned
>> are
>> not in the text, but it is pretty clear that Josh 6:17 is talking
>> about a continuous
>> state rather than a singular action in the past (hence the use of the
>> imperfect), and
>> the 6:26 is a curse that relates to whoever builds the city.
>> Evidently it talks
>> about the death of the builder's children, but nowhere does it say he
>> would
>> be idolatrous or sacrifice them.  As a curse, it just means that his
>> children
>> will die if he tries to build the city.  1 Ki 16:34 doesn't  
>> mention any
>> child
>> sacrifice either.
>>
>
> How does this relate to the capture of Lachish?
>
>>
>>> And are you sure that your "knowledge" is not modern mythology  
>>> concocted
>> to
>>> push an ideology? For example, what about the use of human  
>>> sacrifice?
>> How
>>> widespread was it? How was it expressed in the language? Do you deny
>> that
>>> Joshua 6:26 and 1 Kings 16:34 linguistically refer to that practice?
>> Why?
>>
>> Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology."  Modern
>> linguistics
>> is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
>> to the discussion
>> to call it that.?
>
>
> Here you have just done a classic red herring logical fallacy:  
> linguistics
> had nothing to do about mythology, history is the subject of the  
> mythology
> question.
>
>
>>> Yet on another level, the personal level, do you claim that  
>>> people were
>>> different then than they are today? In other words, they don't  
>>> share the
>>> same loves, desires, sense of right and wrong, and so forth that  
>>> modern
>>> individuals have?
>>
>> People are not different, but they have different cultural values,  
>> and
>> our cultural sense
>> of right or wrong is different from the values during Biblical times.
>>
>
> Oh? How are they different? Can you give any specific examples?
>
>>
>>> On a technical level, what do you know about agriculture, weaving,
>> ceramics,
>>> cooking, metalsmithing, etc.? Can you tell me why the locksmiths  
>>> were
>>> specifically mentioned in 2 Kings 24:14, 16? What tools do these  
>>> trades
>> use?
>>
>> Locksmiths are not mentioned in those verses.
>>
>
> Then what do you call them? And why were they specifically mentioned?
>
>>
>>> Which is the best preparation for a lexicographer? Is it good and
>>> concentrated study on languages and linguistics? Or is a person  
>>> of wide
>>> interests, insatiable curiosity of many subjects, experiences in  
>>> many
>>> fields, better prepared to recognize how words are used in their
>> contexts?
>>
>> There is no question that if the two are placed as two options, then
>> it is clear that
>> concentrated linguistic study is best for the lexicographer.
>> Generally, in a specific
>> topic or area of expertise, then it helps a lot to also have  
>> expertise
>> in that area.  But
>> that does not mean that an expert in this area does not need to  
>> have a
>> good solid
>> foundation in linguistics.  For example, if we are discussing the  
>> word
>> masger, then
>> it is clear that someone who has expertise in archaeometallurgy as  
>> opposed
>> to
>> someone with just a general background in linguistics would be better
>> prepared to
>> comment on such terms. On the other hand, without knowing that  
>> Arabic has
>> a
>
> cognate verb of the root sajara meaning "to heat up in a furnace," (so
>> HALOT) one
>> might not be prepared to understand the word correctly.
>>
>
> That's exactly where a reliance on linguistics and cognate  
> languages leads
> astray when one does not know history and technology. The  
> locksmiths were
> the top technicians of that time, dealing with the most intricate of
> mechanisms that their technology allowed. This is connected with  
> the idea of
> shutting up, precisely what a lock does.
>
>
>> Yitzhak Sapir
>>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:23:03 +0200
> From: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
> To: <pporta at oham.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <005a01c85080$6c11f010$a6fbb44f at home>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
> 	reply-type=original
>
> On line 15 below neigh should be nigh.
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
> To: <pporta at oham.net>
> Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
>
>
>> Pere,
>>
>> I am really sorry to hear that you failed to understand what I am  
>> saying.
>> Don?t despair. Understanding may require time. Things silently  
>> simmer in
>> the
>> mind and then suddenly everything falls into place and all becomes  
>> bright
>> and clear. It happens to me all the time.
>>
>> You are saying: ?I wonder if anyone on this list does understand  
>> it...
>> since
>> nobody, nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...?. I  
>> think you
>> should not worry about others. I would not look for comfort in CAR-AT
>> HA-RABIM. The ?others? are also greatly preoccupied now with other  
>> fun
>> things as evident by the profusion of recent interesting postings.
>>
>> You are also saying: ?I think you have a hard work to do if you want
>> people
>> understand what you mean?. I think it is either easy or neigh  
>> impossible
>> depending on the audience. Hard set notions, ideology, pride and bad
>> thinking habits makes it difficult; an open mind and the WILL to
>> understand
>> makes it very easy.
>>
>> I suggest you keep thinking of what XALAH and GALAH ?really? mean  
>> without
>> recourse to translation or negation. Does GALAH really means ?to  
>> uncover?,
>> or is this but an implication for something more basic and  
>> concrete? Are
>> we
>> really ?uncovering? something? Is it possible that a Hebrew root  
>> could
>> mean
>> ?uncover = un-cover?? See also my posting from September 6, 2007  
>> on the
>> equivalence of GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL.
>>
>> Looking from time to time at relevant entries in my etymological
>> dictionary
>> at www.hebrewetymology.com could be highly beneficial.
>>
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <pporta at oham.net>
>> To: "Isaac Fried" <if at math.bu.edu>
>> Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The root SLH
>>
>>
>>> Isaac,
>>>
>>> thank you for your explanation.
>>> Unfortunately, my level is not high enough to understand what you  
>>> mean.
>>> (And I wonder if anyone on this list does understand it... since  
>>> nobody,
>>> nobody mails to the list anything on this issue...)
>>> I think you have a hard work to do if you want people understand  
>>> what you
>>> mean.
>>>
>>> So, I'd say:
>>>
>>> 1. It will be better we leave this issue as it is...
>>> 2. And finally: try, if possible, to explain what is the  
>>> equivalence of
>>> XALAH, be sick, and GALAH, uncover.
>>>
>>> Pere Porta
>>> Barcelona
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>>
>> __________ NOD32 1.1365 (20060114) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:54:00 +0200
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] xrm and the Canaanites' VIP treatment
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<e6ea6c000801060854l23676c33r944e9fb1a6516978 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
>
> On Jan 6, 2008 7:11 AM, K Randolph wrote:
>
>>> Please refrain from using terms such as "modern mythology."  Modern
>>> linguistics
>>> is not mythology, even if you think it to be so, and it adds nothing
>>> to the discussion
>>> to call it that.?
>>
>> Here you have just done a classic red herring logical fallacy:  
>> linguistics
>> had nothing to do about mythology, history is the subject of the  
>> mythology
>> question.
>
> This was not a point of discussion.  It was a sensible request to  
> keep the
> discussion at appropriate levels.  Seeing as how you refuse to do  
> that, I see
> no reason to continue the discussion of your problematic reading of  
> the
> Hebrew.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:53:25 +1300 (NZDT)
> From: Bill Rea <bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<Pine.SOL.4.58.0801070928560.23350 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Karl wrote:-
>
>> You mentioned cladistic analysis, but you mentioned neither for nor
>> against if it could be used for DH.
>
> I thought my statement that it didn't deal with authorship was clear
> enough. But I guess not.
>
>> DH's parsimony? I thought the opposition was for the opposite reason.
>
> Yes, parsimony. I expect your confusion is because you have your own
> private meaning for the word which does not agree with standard usage
> much in the same way you have unique, highly idiosyncratic definitions
> for words like ``science'', ``observation'' and ``evidence''.
>
> Parimony is about getting maximum explantory power from a minimum  
> number
> number of variables. It requires *balancing* explantory power against
> number of variables. In many situations parsimony can be measured
> with information criteria and an optimal number of explantory  
> variables
> chosen. In the DH vs single-author hypothesis, there are a large  
> number
> of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
> engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these  
> problems
> you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in  
> most
> English translations. Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e. more
> parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining  
> several
> earlier closely related traditions. Whether those traditions were
> oral or written or a bit of both is not hugely important.
>
> The fact is that if people examine the evidence most people are  
> convinced
> the that DH is on the right track. I'm not a professional Hebrew  
> scholar
> but when I was learning Hebrew and doing some related Biblical study I
> came into contact with the DH. The evidence was persuasive and so I
> switched away from believing in a single author who composed the whole
> five books of Moses from scratch. Most people do.
>
>> One of the main reasons I heard over the years for opposing the
>> methodology of DH is that it can be applied to only one document,  
>> that it
>> cannot accurately describe any other document. If it cannot be  
>> applied to
>> any other document, why should we trust it when applied to Bible? It
>> doesn't matter if the method has been computerized, if it can't
>> accurately describe other documents where the authorship is known,  
>> then
>> it is useless in supporting DH as well.
>
> This is a red-herring. There is no problem developing unique  
> methods to
> deal with unique problems. However, I believe other list members have
> addressed this issue, so I will leave it.
>
> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:06:46 +1300 (NZDT)
> From: Bill Rea <bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen (was  Cladistics)
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<Pine.SOL.4.58.0801070958530.23350 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Edward wrote:-
>
>> Remaining personally uncommitted to Wellhausen's linguistic program
>> (the cladistics of his ideological appeal I have already discribed  
>> the
>> other day on this list),
>
> I read the earlier posts on Wellhausen's ideology, which I do not
> doubt. However, ultimately the DH stands or falls on evidence.
> While Wellhausen appears to have had an ulterior motive, nevertheless
> the basic hypothesis and its refinements have stood the test of time
> and is accepted by scholars and others from all over the religious
> spectrum. Many who accept it and/or have made refinements to the DH
> can not be accused of having ulterior motives. Its an idea which  
> now stands
> independently of its origins. If you are holding back because of
> Wellhausen's private ideology, that's not a valid reason.
>
> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 19:24:55 EST
> From: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen vs. Single Author
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <c40.27b9c4cb.34b2cb57 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Bill Rea:
> You wrote:  ?In the DH vs single-author  hypothesis, there are a  
> large number
> of problems with a single author  hypothesis for which the supporters
> engage in all sorts of special pleading.  For a number of these  
> problems
> you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew,  they can be seen in  
> most
> English translations.  Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e.  more
> parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining   
> several
> earlier closely related traditions.?
> What you say may apply to the Hebrew Bible  as a whole, or to the  
> first five
> books of the Bible.  But does it apply to the Patriarchal  narratives?
>     1.  As to the Patriarchal narratives, what are the  ?large number
> of problems with a single  author hypothesis for which the supporters
> engage in all sorts of special  pleading.  For a number  of these  
> problems
> you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can  be seen in  
> most
> English translations.?
> I know of no such items in the Patriarchal  narratives (except for  
> a tiny
> handful of  glosses).
>     1.  Moreover, virtually nothing in the  Patriarchal narratives  
> is similar
> to what is in the rest of the Bible, and  vice versa.  If the DH is  
> right
> and the same 4 people who wrote the Book of Exodus also wrote the  
> Patriarchal
> narratives, why is the point of view so dramatically different?  As  
> the tip of
> the iceberg, the Book of  Exodus hates Egypt, whereas the Patriarchal
> narratives love  Egypt.
>     1.  When I assert that the Patriarchal  narratives were  
> composed by a
> single author in the mid-14th century  BCE, what sort of ?special  
> pleading? am I
> resorting  to?
>     1.  No  university scholar ever discusses the Patriarchal  
> narratives in
> the context of  the mid-14th century BCE.   How then can we be sure  
> that there
> is no such connection, if no  university scholar will discuss the  
> matter?  Isn?
> t that a form of academic ?special  pleading??  I can match every   
> foreign
> policy event in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives to   
> what
> happened in Year 14 of Akhenaten?s 17-year reign.  Where is the ? 
> special  pleading??
>     1.  No  one on the b-Hebrew list has yet come up with a single  
> story in
> the entirety  of the Patriarchal narratives that is out of place in  
> a mid-14th
> century BCE secular historical context.   Academic scholars never  
> discuss
> that subject.  If my theory of the case is wrong, why  then isn?t  
> there at least
> one story in the text that does not fit the  mid-14th century BCE?
> Please specify where I am engaging in  ?special pleading?.  In  
> particular,
> please identify at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives  
> that does not
>  fit a mid-14th century BCE context, absent ?special pleading?.  As
> previously discussed on the b-Hebrew  list, there were camels in  
> existence in the
> mid-14th century BCE, and  nothing about the ?Philistines? in the  
> Patriarchal
> narratives is redolent in any  way, shape or form of the classic  
> Philistines who
> lived in five grand cities on  the southwest coast of Canaan  
> beginning in the
> early 12th century  BCE.  Am I engaging in ?special  pleading? to  
> point that
> out?  Certainly the ?Philistines? in the Patriarchal narratives are  
> not the
> later classic Philistines.
> Please  identify at least one story in the Patriarchal narratives  
> that does
> not fit a  mid-14th century BCE context.  Please specify where I am  
> engaging in
> ?special pleading?.
> Jim  Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
> **************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon,  7 Jan 2008 03:04:09 +0100
> From: belaga at math.u-strasbg.fr
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen (was  Cladistics)
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20080107030409.eskylaz6sggwgk0k at www-irma.u-strasbg.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=ISO-8859-1;	DelSp="Yes";
> 	format="flowed"
>
>> Edward wrote:-
>>
>>> Remaining personally uncommitted to Wellhausen's linguistic program
>>> (the cladistics of his ideological appeal I have already  
>>> discribed the
>>> other day on this list),
>>
>> I read the earlier posts on Wellhausen's ideology, which I do not
>> doubt. However, ultimately the DH stands or falls on evidence.
>> While Wellhausen appears to have had an ulterior motive, nevertheless
>> the basic hypothesis and its refinements have stood the test of time
>> and is accepted by scholars and others from all over the religious
>> spectrum. Many who accept it and/or have made refinements to the DH
>> can not be accused of having ulterior motives. Its an idea which  
>> now stands
>> independently of its origins. If you are holding back because of
>> Wellhausen's private ideology, that's not a valid reason.
>>
>> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> You are raising a valid point and, to my taste, you are doing it in a
> morally sensitive and scientifically balanced way, for which I am
> sincerely grateful to you.
>
> Since I am working at present on the article touching on this topic,
> too, let me answer you in the most scientific, parsimonious,
> minimalist way which has emerged from the minimalist tradition having
> something to do with Wellhausen's contempt for the Bible as a valid
> source of an immensely rich, broad, and otherwise unavailable
> inspiration, historical and factual including.
>
> (1) A young German mathematician, Paul Julius Oswald Teichmueller
> (1913 - 1943), became an active member of the Nazi party and played a
> major role in getting the students at Goettingen to dismiss the most
> prominent Jew there, Professor Edmund Landau, the world star in Number
> Theory.
>
> This story has greatly impressed me, a young scientist as I was, but
> did not prevent me from studying Teichmueller's mathematical papers
> and even translating a book which deals with the generalizations of
> his work.
>
> (2) Yes, I do understand that Wellhausen's DH theory is well respected
> by many scientists today, and this fact does not provoke my  
> indignation.
>
> (3) And I am not committed to this theory for reasons of absolutely
> scientific nature, which have nothing to do with Wellhausen?s
> ideological cladistics.
>
> (4) On a more personal note, my experience as a scientist has taught
> me that scientific theories appear, disappear or settle on something
> much more modest than their creators expected, even after an
> enthusiastic lull of a century -- as it happened for example with
> Laplace's universal mechanical philosophy.
>
> Thank you for this occasion to made the above points without
> infringing on somebody's convictions.
>
> Edward G. Belaga
> ******************************************************
> Institut de Recherche en Math?matique Avanc?e
> Universite Louis Pasteur
> 7, rue Ren? Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, FRANCE
> tel.: 333 90 24 02 35, FAX: 333 90 24 03 28
> e-mail : edward.belaga at math.u-strasbg.fr
> ******************************************************
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 05:30:24 -0800
> From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<acd782170801070530n171dfc98ga6337ee8b8cee0dd at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Bill:
>
> On Jan 6, 2008 12:53 PM, Bill Rea  
> <bsr15 at cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>> Karl wrote:-
>>
>>> You mentioned cladistic analysis, but you mentioned neither for nor
>>> against if it could be used for DH.
>>
>> I thought my statement that it didn't deal with authorship was clear
>> enough. But I guess not.
>>
>
> My understanding (and I just checked your message again) was just  
> that it
> had not been applied.
>
>>
>>> DH's parsimony? I thought the opposition was for the opposite  
>>> reason.
>>
>> Yes, parsimony. I expect your confusion is because you have your own
>> private meaning for the word which does not agree with standard usage
>> much in the same way you have unique, highly idiosyncratic  
>> definitions
>> for words like ``science'', ``observation'' and ``evidence''.
>
>
> When you wrote "parsimony", my first reaction was to check the  
> dictionary
> that comes with MacOS 10.4, because I didn't see how it applied to the
> question. The definition given there is:
>
> parsimony |?p?rs??m?n?|noun extreme unwillingness to spend money or  
> use
> resources : a great tradition of public design has been shattered by
> government parsimony.
> PHRASES principle (or law) of parsimony the scientific principle  
> that things
> are usually connected or behave in the simplest or most economical  
> way, esp.
> with reference to alternative evolutionary pathways. Compare  
> withOccam's
> razor .
> ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin parsimonia, parcimonia,
> from parcere 'be sparing.'
>
> After checking the dictionary, I see the multiple authorship theory  
> as more
> complex than the single authorship picture given in the text.  
> Hence, I don't
> see how parsimony fits this theory.
>
> As for the other definitions, I got them from reading Dr.s George  
> Gaylord
> Simpson and William S. Beck and many other scientists. Look on  
> Amazon.com,
> how many books authored by them are still being sold: how many  
> books on
> science by you should I find there?
>
>>
>> Parimony is about getting maximum explantory power from a minimum  
>> number
>> number of variables. It requires *balancing* explantory power against
>> number of variables. In many situations parsimony can be measured
>> with information criteria and an optimal number of explantory  
>> variables
>> chosen. In the DH vs single-author hypothesis, there are a large  
>> number
>> of problems with a single author hypothesis for which the supporters
>> engage in all sorts of special pleading. For a number of these  
>> problems
>> you don't even have to be able to read Hebrew, they can be seen in  
>> most
>> English translations. Ultimately it becomes simpler, i.e. more
>> parsimonious, to believe that the text was composed by combining  
>> several
>> earlier closely related traditions. Whether those traditions were
>> oral or written or a bit of both is not hugely important.
>>
>> The fact is that if people examine the evidence most people are  
>> convinced
>> the that DH is on the right track. I'm not a professional Hebrew  
>> scholar
>> but when I was learning Hebrew and doing some related Biblical  
>> study I
>> came into contact with the DH. The evidence was persuasive and so I
>> switched away from believing in a single author who composed the  
>> whole
>> five books of Moses from scratch. Most people do.
>>
>
> I had a professor many years ago try to convince us in class that  
> DH was the
> way to go, but then he included in his lectures what sounded like
> contradictory statements which made me wonder if the only reason  
> for DH was
> philosophical (religious) and not based on objective standards.  
> Then I read
> a PhD dissertation showing the history and philosophy of DH that  
> verified my
> initial impression of the theory.
>
>>
>>> One of the main reasons I heard over the years for opposing the
>>> methodology of DH is that it can be applied to only one document,  
>>> that it
>>> cannot accurately describe any other document. If it cannot be  
>>> applied to
>>> any other document, why should we trust it when applied to Bible? It
>>> doesn't matter if the method has been computerized, if it can't
>>> accurately describe other documents where the authorship is  
>>> known, then
>>> it is useless in supporting DH as well.
>>
>> This is a red-herring. There is no problem developing unique  
>> methods to
>> deal with unique problems. However, I believe other list members have
>> addressed this issue, so I will leave it.
>>
>
> This is akin to saying that the reasons we have for heliocentrism  
> apply only
> to the sun and our planets, but we should not expect those reasons  
> to apply
> to other planets and stars. If DH cannot be applied to Tolstoy or  
> other
> modern authors or literary works and give accurate results, then  
> why should
> I trust it concerning Bible?
>
>>
>> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
>> E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
>> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
>> Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'
>>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:38:14 EST
> From: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph":  Patriarchal Successions
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <d61.1b67a95b.34b38546 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> 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
> successions.
>
> 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).  Ishmael is
> 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 Isaac?
> 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 binding
> 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 brother
> 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 ambiguous,
> 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 (though
> 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 the
> 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 buried
> 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 prize.  The
> 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 is
> weaned, except for the occasion of their father Abraham?s funeral.   
> Jacob?s older
> 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 feared that
> 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 history of
> 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 stuff
> 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.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:45:17 -0800
> From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw at com-pair.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph":  Patriarchal Successions
> To: <JimStinehart at aol.com>, <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <005701c8514c$b519f240$84345142 at oemcomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> 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
> hON HGAPHSAS
> 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
>> successions.
>>
>> 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).
> Ishmael is
>> 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
> Isaac?
>> 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
> binding
>> 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
> brother
>> 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
> ambiguous,
>> 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
> (though
>> 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
> the
>> 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
> buried
>> 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
> prize.  The
>> 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
> is
>> weaned, except for the occasion of their father Abraham?s  
>> funeral.  Jacob?s
> older
>> 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
> feared that
>> 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
> history of
>> 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
> stuff
>> 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.
>> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ----------
>
>
> 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
> AM
>
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a  
> courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:09:25 +0200
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Wellhausen
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<e6ea6c000801071009r32451fdajf32ad2f44c68cfd6 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> List readers may be interested in the following article, which I  
> placed online:
> Tatian's Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch
> by Prof. George F. Moore (Read in December 1889)
> Journal of Biblical Literature 9 (1890) 201-15
> http://yitzhaksapir.googlepages.com/tatian%27sdiatessaron
>
> I found it amazing how an article from over a century ago, is still  
> so timely.
> It is as if all the critics against the Documentary Hypothesis are  
> simply
> repeating, for a century now, the same arguments, with no care to  
> the fact
> that long ago, responses have been published to those same questions.
>
> Using the Diatessaron, it is possible to place the Documentary  
> Hypothesis
> on more solid ground.  Accordingly, the Diatessaron would serve as  
> a basis
> by which editorial and redactional methods may be analyzed in the
> Pentateuch.  If it is possible to show that there exist a number of  
> documents
> to which when some methods of redaction, the same as in the  
> Diatessaron,
> are applied provides us with the text of the Pentateuch, that would  
> stand as
> an argument for their original independent existence.  The basic  
> hypothesis
> would be, then, that if a unified text was composed from scratch,  
> without
> previous source documents of which it is a composite, there would  
> be no group
> of source documents of comparable length to which an arbitrary  
> series of
> redactional methods similar to those applied to the Diatessaron  
> could be
> applied, and which would provide us with that unified original text.
> This should
> be fairly easy to disprove -- for one can take any text produced,  
> such as
> Tolstoy's War and Peace (to use one author whose name has come up),
> and simply produce for us those source documents.  But so long as the
> hypothesis stands, despite the large amounts of compositions which  
> could
> be utilized to disprove it, it must show that the Pentateuch is  
> indeed a
> composite work, and the only reason we find those source documents in
> the Pentateuch, is because they are really there.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:10:42 EST
> From: JimStinehart at aol.com
> Subject: [b-hebrew] The Name "Joseph":  Patriarchal Successions
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <bc3.1ecbe694.34b3d332 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III :
>
> 1.  You wrote:  ?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
>  hON HGAPHSAS
>  22:12   ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU
>  22:16   ..."your only son, MT, 'et-yechidad; LXX, TOU AGAPHTOU?
>
> Yes, but that is after Sarah forced Abraham, with YHWH?s explicit  
> approval,
> to exile Ishmael in chapter 21 of Genesis.  So with Ishmael  
> seemingly out of
> the picture at this point (having been exiled 12 long regular years  
> ago), Abraham
> ?s only remaining son, who was born either by Abraham?s main wife  
> #1 or on
> her behalf, is Isaac.
>
> Yet note that Abraham is not stated in the text to be grieved or  
> upset at the
> imminent prospect of having to kill his ?only son?, Isaac.  And  
> note that
> Abraham had never thanked YHWH for Isaac?s birth.  Abraham bargains  
> with YHWH
> for Ishmael in the text, but Abraham never bargains with YHWH for  
> Isaac in the
> text, even in the harrowing binding incident.
>
> Abraham makes the right decisions, for the right reasons, in  
> selecting Isaac
> over Ishmael.  Abraham does that based on YHWH?s clear commands,  
> and thus
> Abraham is righteous.  The very point of the binding incident,  
> indeed, is to
> confirm that Abraham is selecting Isaac over Ishmael for the right  
> reasons, namely
> because YHWH has divinely told Abraham to do so, rather than  
> Abraham selecting
> Isaac over Ishmael because Isaac is Abraham?s favorite son.
>
> 2.  You wrote:  ?Furthermore, the text in 17:17-22 clearly  
> indicates that
> Sarah will give birth to a son well past 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.?
>
> Yes, I agree with that entirely.  That in no way means that Isaac  
> was Abraham?
> s favorite son, however.  The son who gets the ultimate blessing is  
> always
> the right choice, and is fully approved of by YHWH, but is never  
> the Patriarch?s
> favorite son.  Certainly you would agree that Esau was Isaac?s  
> favorite son,
> yet Isaac gives the great blessing to Jacob, not Esau, and Isaac  
> does not
> attempt to rescind that blessing of Jacob after the trickery of  
> Rebekah and Jacob
> is revealed.  And likewise, you would certainly agree that Joseph  
> is Jacob?s
> favorite son.  Yet Jacob names Judah, not Joseph, to be the leader  
> of the next
> generation of the new monotheists.
>
> This is precisely the very point that I am driving at.  It is quite  
> unusual
> for a leader to give the greatest honor, and sole leadership, to a  
> non-favorite
> son, especially a non-favorite son who is not the leader?s  
> firstborn son.
> Yet that is exactly what happens in all three Patriarchal  
> successions.  The
> author of the Patriarchal narratives is trying to tell us something  
> important
> here, if we will only pay close attention to what the received text  
> actually says.
>
> 3.  You wrote:  ?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.?
>
> I may agree with most of your facts, but I entirely disagree with your
> conclusion.  True, the mid-14th century BCE may not fit any part of  
> the Bible except
> the Patriarchal narratives, including not fitting well as a  
> starting point
> for computing the dates of the Exodus and Solomon.  But that is not  
> because the
> Patriarchal narratives are historically inaccurate.  No, that is  
> because both
> the mid-1st millennium BCE Hebrews (including JEPD), and modern  
> analysts of
> the Bible as well, misunderstand the Patriarchal narratives, and  
> the mid-14th
> century BCE historical time period of the Patriarchal narratives.
>
> Everything in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives matches
> perfectly to the well-documented secular history of the mid-14th  
> century BCE.
> Archaeology may not have proven an historical Exodus or an  
> historical Solomon?s
> Empire, but the archaeological facts do establish the historical  
> beginnings of
> Judaism, in the mid-14th century BCE historical Patriarchal Age.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
>
> **************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 61, Issue 4
> ***************************************




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list