Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Banyai AT t-online.de (Banyai)]

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