[b-hebrew] , cultic calendar, shanah
JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Tue Jul 23 12:50:59 EDT 2013
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III:
You wrote: “Now, just because our more modern ideas or theories or
experience does not match that to what is found in the Tanakh does not mean that
what was said is wrong, incorrect, falsehood, etc. The ancients were there,
we were not. UNLESS there is something in the TEXT that states otherwise.
Just because the Hebrew grammar and syntax may allow for a possibility does
not mean that it was probable. There are degrees of certainty: Not
possible, not probable, possible, probable, certain. Your theories over the past
several years lie in the area of ‘Not possible and Not possible’.”
It is “not possible” that Abraham’s father Terah lived to age 205 years
in 12-month years. But what the TEXT says is that Terah lived to age 205
shanah. The archaic meaning of shanah was a 6-month period. What the text is
actually saying, then, is that Terah lived to age 102½ years in 12-month
years. That is “possible” [though it begins to strain the outer limits of
how old a person could live to in the ancient world].
The reason w-h-y Terah is portrayed as living such a long life of 102½
years is to enable Terah to be portrayed as dying 17½ years after Isaac’s
birth, with Abraham then dying at age 17½ tenfold shanah, and the Patriarchal
Age ending with Joseph’s death 17½ tenfold years after Abraham’s birth.
All of the ages in the text are reasonable ages, once one realizes that
shanah is being given its archaic meaning of a 6-month period. And all of
the numbers also make symbolic sense as well.
I honestly don’t know why you characterize my views as being “Not possible
” based on the TEXT. In fact, I see every stated age as being possible in
the text, based on shanah having its archaic meaning of a 6-month period in
setting forth people’s ages in the Patriarchal narratives. I am in fact
the one who is asserting that every stated age in the TEXT is in fact “
possible” and indeed realistic, with no need to rely on miracles as to any age,
much less as to a-l-l ages in the Patriarchal narratives. I am sure you
are well aware that one of the attacks on the historicity of the
Patriarchal narratives by university scholars is that the Patriarchs’ lifespans are
allegedly way too long to be believable:
"[P]rodigious life spans [are] attributed to the Patriarchs.” John J.
Collins, "Introduction to the Hebrew Bible" (2004), at p. 84.
My theory of the case, which sees shanah as having its archaic meaning of
a 6-month period in setting forth stated ages of people in the Patriarchal
narratives, totally destroys that scholarly argument against the
Patriarchal narratives. Although I can readily understand people being reluctant to
accept my new, controversial ideas, I honestly don’t understand why so many
people react so terribly adversely to my ideas. I’m the one who is
defending the believability and historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, by
showing that Terah is not portrayed as living to age 205 years in 12-month
years, and that Ishmael is not a boy who is carried by his mother Hagar into
exile at approximately age 16 years in 12-month years. I have shown that if
shanah in those cases has the archaic meaning of denoting a 6-month
period, then Terah lives to age 102½ years, and Ishmael is a boy/nar age 9½ years
when he is exiled.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the b-hebrew