Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: was Michael -- deuteronomy, (amphictyonies)

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, (amphictyonies)
  • Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:34:48 +0100


Ian, precedent answer escaped me while still in draft, and went only to you,
not
to the list.

To summarise:

there are issues one can not definitively pro or con out of themselves. This
experience we made with the discussion concerning the "canonincal" position
of
Benjamin after Joseph.

My objections against your 2 examples (besides Deut. 33) were following:

1. Numbers 34:19-28 is a geographical list and is to be avoided when
discussing
canonical lists. Up to a certain point we can verify this pretention, but our
knowledge of historical geography are limited, since the geopolitical might
have
slightly changed from time to time

2. Since I admitted that the canonical ORDERS were derived from the birth
legends, it is no wonder to me that Manasseh, coming by birthright after
Benjamin
, might be quoted at a later place.
However Joseph was born before Benjamin so Joseph has usually to be
considered
before Benjamin, what in all cases except the litigious ones happens. Judges
5:14-18 seems to me a piece following a different order than the canonical
one:

beligerant nonbeligerant beligerant

south of Tabor north of Tabor

Efraim Ruben Sebulon (bis)
Benjamin Gilead Naftali
Machir Dan
Sebulon Ascher
Issachar

Apparently Debora is bringing from the south the first part of the troops. In
Judges 4:6 we read Barak should bring with him 10000 from Naftali and
Sebulon,
that is from the north of Tabor. Their forces should join at Tabor.

Please confirm this reading.

There is not even a rest of canonical order or intention at there but some
kind
of geopolitical + subjective order. So were is the evidence?

However I invite to caution, the canon belongs indeed to the issues we can on
its
own means not definitively settle. So I don´t reclaim more probability for
the
canonical order than an initial reasonable fifty-fifty. I have the hope you
could
in the mean time agree, that the necessary rest 50% evidence comes from the
context.

> >Well, that´s true. But there is nothing arbitrary in the insertion
> >of Benjamin.
>
> No, your presuppositions have imposed this on your analysis.

I hope you will make next a short pause and think the whole thing over.


Best regards my friend,

Michael Bányai





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page