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

sherwin jerome sherwinjerome at gmail.com
Mon Jan 7 15:07:09 EST 2008


hi hello would really like 2 learn the hebrew language >4.spelling
change in the BHS (yigal levin)

On Jan 7, 2008 3:11 PM,  <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.).
>
> 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
>
> ----- 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