Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>> The position of Benjamin in this passage is neither here nor there. What is
>> the canonical order and when was it instituted??
>
>By canonical order is Benjamin always (well with this notable exception) 
>AFTER
>Efraim. Efraim where the nextly incriminated Schechem is. And always AFTER 
>Joseph
>as a whole.

I showed you with the list of lists that there was no necessary canonical 
order at
all. And, as your claimed canonical list notion is a linch pin to what 
argument you
are able to muster, I don't think your theory can get anywhere by depending 
on it.

>You can not quote Ex 1:2-5 for a Joseph after Benjamin, since this is a list 
>of
>the Israelites which came with Jacob to Egypt. Joseph didn´t come with Jacob 
>to
>Egypt, and is therefore lacking from the list.

I didn't. It merely showed that there was no canonical order at that time. 
Note the
order of the other names.

>The sole exception which you may quote is Num 13:4-15, with Mannaseh after
>Benjamin but Ephraim still in the right position.

This is simply your desire for a canonical order. Each list showed its 
variations in
order of names.

>Num 34:19-28 is no canonical
>order list, but follows the names more or the less according to their
>geographical order because it´s a text concerning the partitioning of Canaan
>among the tribes.

As I showed you about six lists, none of which presented the same order, I 
don't see
them augur well for your hopes.

You may explain away one of the dissident orders to your canonical list 
theory, but
it might be better that you first *establish* a date for it before attempting 
to
apply it. I don't think you can, and therefore it's pretty irrelevant until 
you can
relate a date to both texts and some evidence for your corruption hypothesis.

So, where are we again.

>A canonincal order is an abstract order followed, when not more important
reasons, like geography or timely order of the events offer a more oportune
scheme. You may not quote any kind of lists as canonical. In fact the 
canonical
order is derived from the explicit birth order, which reflects leadership 
within
the amphictyony.

Actually the birth order is different as you should notice from that which 
you seem
to be calling the canonical order which places all the Leah sons together, 
and which
places Joseph and Benjamin before the concubines' sons.

However the subtle differences between each of the lists I posted to you 
should show
you that none of them followed a canonical order. While there seems to have 
been
preferred positions for some names, you'll note that they didn't necessarily
maintain them from one list to another.

>> >2. The citation of "shoulders" (Deut. 33,12) in combination with a 
>> >probable
>> >reading : "the High GOD surrounds him all day long - the Beloved 
>> >(GOD)rests
>> >between his shoulders, reminds us of Genesis 48,22, where shoulder is an
>> >allusion to Sichem-Schechem, place of the main Israelite temple in 
>> >Ephraim.
>>
>> Why not read the text in its context? The writer is personifying each of 
>> the
>> tribes as their patronyms, of which Benjamin was the youngest and here is
>> shown carried on fatherly shoulders. "the beloved of Yhwh dwells in the
>> safety of Elyon, Elyon shelters him (the beloved) all day long - he (the
>> beloved) rests on his (Elyon's) shoulders."
>
>Nice and gramatically possible as anything else, but I feel it as quite 
>abberant.
>If it should mean anything, and this is the ground why Benjamin was inserted 
>at
>this position, than it worked later to an allusion to the temple of 
>Jerusalem,
>where Elyon dwells in Benjamin. However there is the crux with the 
>shoulders, a
>clear reminscency of older times, as the passus heared like: he (Elyon) 
>rests on
>his shoulders (in Schechem).

All you are doing is repeating your belief in your personal aberrant approach 
to the
text. We got that message the first time. I see no evidence whatsoever for it 
and
proposed a more literal alternative which makes sense of the material without
straining it, unlike yours. You need to support your alternative view with 
more than
your preference.

>> >3. From 1+2 we may assume that Deut. 33,12 concerned previously Joseph,
>> >Benjamin is intrusive to the original text, and there was no citation
>> >of in the whole blessing.
>>
>> Naaa. The conclusion simply doesn't come from the meagre evidence provided
>> here.
>
>I have still for good reasons a different opinion. And what are you doing 
>with
>the reference made to Judah:
>
>"O LORD ... bring him (Judah) to his people, with his own hands shall he 
>fight
>therefore..."

>> >4. The same makes true of the southern Dan, by Jaffa, reference being made
>> >only of the northern Dan "leaping forth from Bashan". (Same makes true for
>> >Simeon)
>>
>> This southern Dan is a memory of the Denyen (Danuna) who came down the 
>> coast
>> with the Philistines. (Note incidentally 2 Sam 24:6, a place called dnhy`n,
>> followed by the coastal cites Sidon and Tyre.) This provides *at least* a
>> terminus a quo of circa 1180 BCE and the Sea Peoples' arrival. Remember 
>> that
>> "Dan shall judge his people as (sic!) one of the tribes of Israel", ie Dan
>> was not really a tribe of Israel according to the text. And what the hell 
>> is
>> this story of Dan remaining (sic) in his ships!?
>
>Sic, I would explain it the other way round, and with far better arguments.
>Danuna (Denyen) comes from Dan, and if you follow the Danaos story as told by
>Diodorus Siculus (this guy had also to polemise against those who told this 
>story
>in conection with Danaos, he sought he should replace the name by Dyonisos), 
>than
>you would hear that Danaos (Dyonisos) after leaving Egypt settled first in 
>the
>teritorry of Cilicia called by us Danuna.

When was Diodorus writing?!

It's a shame that this is only mythology and isn't born out in fact. Danuna 
is found
in the Amarna letters in a report from Tyre to the pharaoh. (I note here now 
the
stupifying conclusions you later mention.) I don't think working from 
mythological
sources is any modus operandi for historical research. Notwithstanding the
possibility that there is some real events may be behind the myth, you have 
no way
of knowing which part of the myth might have history behind it, so in the end 
the
process is at best pleasant conjecture. (Hence, I'll omit the rest of it.)

>[..].

>The Danite remnant in Israel, had still a good memory of the Danaid  story, 
>it
>just didn´t run under the grecisised name Danaid but that of Dinah. The 
>forced
>marriage to the sons of the Egyptians, which in both stories turned bloody, 
>was
>pittily corrected by Jerobeam I, who replaced his Egyptian patrons (as 
>everywhere
>in the connected Joseph story) by Hamor the son of Schechem.
>The forgery is so obvious, because we see the "butchered" Schichemites faring
>well under the legitimate patronage of a descendent of the same Hamor 
>(governing
>in the mean time the levitical city from outside - like the secular lord
>protector of a bishop city, having his residence outside of the city), and 
>that
>during the reign of Abimelech!
>
>An amusing detail provides Michael Astour, mentioning the Greek "maza"- 
>ritual
>dry barley-cakes = Hebrew mazza. Probably did according to your scenario the
>Danunans learned the Hebrew name and cake and published it later in Greece?
>
>According to my chronology did the Hebrews + Danunans/Danites leave Egypt 
>1622 BC
>, just before the Hyksos invasion, leaving them plenty of time to first go to
>Danuna/Cilicia and than colonise Greece.

I'm pretty amazed at this. I've tried to find the seeds of history in it and 
for the
life of me there's nothing I can identify as such. Working with texts of 
mainly a
"mythological", or at least historically untenable (in the case of the bib. 
lit.),
nature, undatable in origin, contrary to the little historical and 
archaeological
evidence we have, you come up with conclusions and dates (eg "1622 BC" for 
which it
would be nice to have some shred of historical substance) that come out of 
the air
(or mythology). (If you want to relate the reference to Phinehas, son of 
Eleazar,
son of Aaron, at the end on the Judges period (20:28) for dating purpose with 
your
"rather early" dating scheme, I'd be happy to hear how you do it, for, while 
most
punters put the Judges period into the twelfth or eleventh centuries, not long
before the emergence of the greatest judge, Samuel, the priest and prophet, 
you
would apparently put it into the sixteenth century BCE.)

This Danuna of yours then comes back attempting to break into Egypt along 
with the
Philistines, Tjekker et al. some centuries later only to be repulsed and end 
up on
the Palestinian shore along with the other sea peoples! With the apparently 
total
lack of evidence other than mythology, I think one would have a party using 
Occam's
razor here.

>> >6. We read in the Simson story about marriages between the southern 
>> >Danites
>> >and Philistine.
>>
>> Not too strange if these southern Danites are still the Denyen, is it? How
>> much, though, is the Samson story Hebrew? Father a "southern Danite", name
>> means "like the sun", lives near or in Beth-Shemesh (where is the camp of
>> Dan anyway?) from which Timna was further down towards the coast. Isn't 
>> this
>> "southern Dan" country?
>
>Dito.

As your earlier bit made so little sense to me, I'd rather continue with an 
analysis
of the strange Philistine and other non-Hebrew connections.

>> >The reverse occurs at the end of the story about the crime of the
>> >Benjaminites, as they are forced (from now on) to mary Israelite women.
>>
>> This doesn't seem to represent the story as I read it. We have Israelites
>> not permited to give their daughters to the Benjaminites. This causes the
>> trick of the daughters of Jabesh-Gilead
>
>They were first determined to exterminate them. For this purpose was created 
>the
>propagandistic story of Sodom and Gomora, with an identical outrage against a
>foreigner and his women (Lot set against a Levite from Judah). The Sodomites 
>are
>not to be saved from the wrath of GOD since there were not found not even 50
>righteous man, but those who separated from the group (the fugitive Danites, 
>and
>the fugitive Lot) escape.

This a plan of "reintegrating" the "righteous" refugees into Israel by a 
"trick",
not to break the oath, remembering sentimentally also of the fate of Lot´s
daughters, who didn´t find a human male being to mate with.

>>> The Benjaminite story is generally placed after Abimelech, because
>>> of the change of the main Temple (from formerly Schechem to Beth-El
>>> in the Benjamin story).
>>
>> Naaa. Conjecture without good cause. (And not the "amphictyony" again!?)
>
>Thanks for the orthography. This is the single thing I could retain from your
>answer.

Fine. At least there was something useful in the exchange.

>About temples in Israel, temple period and so on, please read my paper
>on the web. I´ll provide you with complementary information afterwards. The
>"conjecture" may be in fact solidly demonstrated.

I don't really have that much time to wade into the conjectural type style 
that you
have so far put on the list. Your basic premises seem to involve your ability 
to
extract historical data, in what appears to me to be a totally arbitrary 
manner,
from texts that don't claim to be historical, that are apparently traditional 
or
mythological, that cannot be related to the periods you'd like to apply them 
to, and
in short are not what I would consider in any sense relevant.

(My phraseology might be helpful for Peter to make another of those
I-don't-believe-what-you're-saying-but-have-no-evidence-to-cite-against-it-so-I'll-r
etort-with-your-words style response.)

>> >7. We read in Deut. 33,5 about a king arousing in Jeshurun: "There arose a
>> >king in Jeshurun, when the leaders of the people assembled", and being
>> >incoronated in the plains of Moab (Deut. 33,21):"For where the commander´s
>> >allotment was reserved, came the leaders of the people". This is the
>> >ground for the obviously wrong attribution to Moses (Moses allotment in
>> >Gad).
>>
>> Who attributes it to Moses? The text refers to Gad.
>
>This the traditional reading of the stance. It has to with the grave of the
>"versteckter Anführer" - i.e. Moses.

That might be the traditional reading (I don't know), but where is it in the 
text?
The text itself talks about Gad.

>> >8. We read in Judges 8,16-23 about a situation arousing at Sukkoth and
>> >Penuel, as Gideon is offered there the crown of Israel by the Israelites,
>> >that is exactly where the allotment of the commander (Moses) was.
>>
>> About all I can see here is that in Gad, where these towns were, Gideon is
>> offered kingship. Your Moses stuff, doesn't seem relevant.
>
>It perfectly is for those knowing the jewish traditions speaking of the
>"versteckter Anführer".

Let's stick to what can be derived from the text itself, huh?

>> >9. Now the original reference to Schechem (destroyed by Abimelech, Gideons
>> >son) offers a terminus ante quem.
>>
>> No, it definitely doesn't. (And incidentally, how many times was Shechem
>> destroyed?)
>
>Only twice. After Abimelech, later on, there was no Temple more IN Schechem,
>never again,

As you've not made anything more than an aberrant analysis of a text which
apparently talks about Banjamin being carried on the shoulders of a loving 
father,
there is nothing to support the claim in your original point #9 about a 
terminus
ante quem.

>so Schechem looses its signification for us. First time by the
>Egyptians (kindly replaced by Jerobeam with Simeon and Levi) during the early
>years of Senwosret III as he fought against the coalised Sichemim and Retenu.
>Soon after, still in his reign, we have a massive pacific influx of Semites,
>probably Retenu to Lower Egypt, and bilateral expedition to the Sinai, where 
>the
>Egyptians and Semites are mining under the protection of the brother of the
>prince of Retenu.
>
>> >Deut. 33,16 is the exact description of the ointing
>> >ceremony, prerequisite to the incoronation: "...Let these come on the head
>> >of Joseph, on the brow of the prince among his brothers". We read about 
>> >the
>> >same incoronation circumstances as of Gideon (being offered the crown in
>> >Gad), but we have no alternative identification.
>>
>> I think this is a little hopeful. Why don't we connect all these little 
>> stor
>> ies about people being offered the kingship and ascribe them to the same
>> person?
>
>Well, following Rasor´s Ockham (or Okhams rasor, ha, ha ,ha). You are

>otherwise free to assume as many coronations as you will.

Occam has nothing to say about it. We have two separate reports which you for 
some
reason choose to conflate. The reason is not transparent, neither is the 
logic.

I personally find it extremely hopeful to start out trusting a text to contain
history as you consistently seem to want to do, especially when you know 
nothing
about the writing or history of the text until it appears in either the 
earliest of
the Greek traditions or, in the case of biblical lit., in the first century 
BCE of
the Qumran texts. Here you are claiming to be able to reclaim "history" which
according to you happened over a thousand years earlier than the earliest 
references
in the literature we possess.

>>But you should have
>>also a feeling for the esthetics of logic.
>
>> >10. The text wants originally to be an incoronation blessing for Gideon.
>> >If it is indeed the original one we may never exactly now.
>>
>> Right. Case in no sense made.
>
>I am precaute.

?

>> >But it must be
>> >much much older than its attribution to Moses, as it was embodied to the
>> >Deuteronomy. Even the insertion of Benjamin to this text predates the
>> >creation of the Deuteronomy. It seems also to predate the period of the
>> >kings of Juda, since not the slightest reference is made of.
>>
>> I haven't seen anything to justify any of these conjectures.
>
>Present us please with anything which could line up with a later historic
>situation.

I'm not here to write your history for you. I will however attempt to state 
my views
on what is history and historical method, as I think they might eventually be
helpful.

>BTW Jeschurun is an absolute archaism as it seems. No wonder we don´t
>find any mention of Israel before Menreptah (if Menreptahs mention has 
>anything
>at all to do with Israel).

(As the Merneptah stele is so tantalising many people want it to mean what 
they want
it to mean, but all we have is the mention of a tribal group in a specific 
area in
the thirteenth century BCE.)

>On the other side, since it seems the text never had
>anything to do with Moses, it has to SURELY predate the Deuteronomy, which
>thematically closes with the death of Moses. The one composing this
>historical monograph, the Deuteronomy, has wrongly thought this to be a text
>best fitting his subject.

I think the growth of the text of Deuteronomy is complex and I'd hazard at the
moment to attempt to do anything other than try a relative chronological 
approach to
the history of that growth. How chapter 33 became the farewell speech I don't 
know.

>>If this should be a fake, than a too intricate one.
>>
>> The intricacy seems to be in the mind of the one who conceived the twisted
>> logic!
>
>Many thanks. I always knew I surpassed many by my intricacy. Still a simple
>mind...

But no coherent argument to support the ideas of that simple mind.


Ian