Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: was Michael -- deuteronomy, (very short)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Banyai AT t-online.de (Banyai)
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: was Michael -- deuteronomy, (very short)
  • Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:51:58 +0100


Ian wrote:


> 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.

As you point out, there are several slightly different schemes one could
derive
from the birth stories as a canonical order:

1. Strictly by birth - than in the case of mentioning Joseph one has to put
him
before Benjamin.

2. By their mothers - in which case again Joseph has again to be put before
Benjamin.

3. The situation is open when one wants to adress the Joseph clans
individualy:
that is Ephraim and Manasseh, but this is not our soup.
Too much insistence on 3-rd example can occur only in the intention to
obscure
the discussion.

The Deut. 33 coresponds to the cases 1 or 2 (there is no individual adress to
Ephraim or Manasseh) and thus we have to absolutely expect Joseph before
Benjamin
and not otherwise. The only exception from this order is Deut. 33. and needs
therefore an explanation. An originar lack of Benjamin (as of southern Dan
and
SIMEON - this is my stress and please don´t jump the subject) correspond to
the
geopolitical isolation of Judah in the same text. It is therefore highly
reasonable. You are remaining at the word level in your analysis and neglect
any
contextuality.

For your relief I am quoting a german standard Bible translation (unbiased by
mine or yours preconceptions):

BENJAMIN:
Täglich wacht über ihn der Höchste, und zwischen seinen Schultern wohne er.
Deut.
33,12 (GOD? Benjamin?) Of course God IS dwelling in Benjamin (Jerusalem), so
we
not do need any magic to come to this interpretation. But if previously there
was
no adress to Benjamin, than we have a wordly translation: und in Schechem
wohne
er. Indeed this is a documented situation.

JUDAH:
... führe ihn heim zu seinem Volk, mit eigenen Händen kämpfe er dafür. Deut
33,7

CROWNING:
und ein König erstand in Jeschurun, als sich die Häupter des Volkes
versammelten.... Deut 33,5

CROWNING IN GAD:
...denn wo der Anteil des Anführers war (Moses grave in GAD), da versammelten
sich die Häupter des Volkes Deut. 33,21 Add this to the precedent to derive
the
place of the crowning.

DAN
Dan ist ein junger Löwe der aus dem Baschan hervorspringt... Deut 33,22

You are selfcontradicting as always Ian, if you posit the southern Dan to be
a
result of the Sea-Peoples invasion. On your own time-scale you would have
this
text (Deut 33) much later as this (imaginary) Sea-People invasion, so you
should
expect a reference to the southern Dan on your schem too unaware of this
Sea-peoples interpolation. Or do you suppose, the text is earlier than Ramses
III? Welcome in the club.

BTW you can not make out of the northern Dan a result of same "invasion" too:
it
is mentioned in the Mari archives a coté de Hazor. One argument more for the
high
dating of the Exodus.
Same makes true for Lus in the country of the Hettites (that is
Luhuzati - Lawazantia) called by the earlier name of Beth-El called in the
Karum
documents.
Same makes true with the presence of the Kaftorites on the Levante coast
(both
archaeologically palpable but also in "Ipuwer" as well as in the Mari
documents
present in the Levante - see Malamat).

All this speaks for a very high date, like mine, for the Exodus.

Best regards,

Bányai Michael





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page