> Dave Washburn:
>
> You say there is no evidence for the connection with Shechem. I said
> that the association with Joseph is itself evidence, but you ignored
> this. More specifically, the context concerns the political ascendancy
> of Ephraim.
I ignored the statement because it's not evidence. It's just a statement.
> Other evidence can be adduced if one accepts that the texts were written
> by different authors. You give a lot of weight to the requirement of
> consistency with other texts about Jacob. It would be more convincing if
> there were another text about Jacob's military activities.
I don't accept JEPD. You do. It's likely that never the twain shall meet.
> But in any case I don't believe that the text in question is primarily
> historical. We are dealing with personifications of the political
> realities of a certain era -- an era, I would guess, in which Schechem
> was still pre-eminent, and there was a memory of its pre-Israelite status.
This is a common assumption, but it's still nothing more than an assumption.
I doubt we're
going to get anywhere with this topic.
Dave Washburn
"I'll hold the nail. And when I nod my head, you hit it with the hammer."