Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Benjamin - Sons of Ammon

Expand Messages
  • historynow2002
    Djehuti, You write some pretty dramatic stuff: My current conclusion is that there is a biblical cover-up of an ... and Peleset against Binyamiyn. But then
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 1, 2002
      Djehuti,

      You write some pretty dramatic stuff:

      "My current conclusion is that there is a biblical cover-up of an
      > alliance that had existed between Yehuwdah [Judah], Ammown,
      and Peleset against Binyamiyn."

      But then you throw away the genealogies, which are elements
      of history EASIEST to maintain:

      "I think the daughters of Nakash were of no relation to Dawiyd
      and that the Chronicler had made that attribution for reasons
      unknown."

      While I am the first to admit that the genealogies are
      frequently in conflict with each other, I use this as a
      benchmark to show how much MORE inaccurate the "prose stories"
      must be. I'm especially interested in an analysis of the
      "3rd person" reportage for details of story line that
      concern what the enemy said amongst each other, or what was
      discussed only between 2 people, or what happened when only
      1 person was around to see it.

      These are CLASSIC elements of story telling. And yet we
      reflexively believe these story elements have been preserved
      accurately by the Hebrew writers.

      Before you start elaborating a very complicated scneario
      involving the Ammonites and a conspiracy against Benjamin,
      I would suggest that you consider the story of David surrendering
      members of Saul's family members to the Gibeonite leadership.
      See 2 Sam 21.

      The Gibeonites actually perform human sacrifice in order
      to satisfy Yahweh and end the 3 year drought. This is a
      pretty amazing chapter of 2 Samuel, and I doubt if many
      sermons are EVER written about it!

      In this chapter, the Gibeonites are described as Amorites
      (though elsewhere they are labeled Hivites I believe).
      And they are protesting what Saul did to them years before.

      Ironically, we know that Saul descends from a Gibeonite
      elite, so what gives here? Well, Saul is described as amongst
      the prophets. And I would suggest that Saul is a "Gibeonite
      brother", and that per Judges 9, where the "first king of
      Israel" slaughters his 70 brethern, that Saul is slaughtering
      his brethern in Gibeah (in this case, it is 84 or so, not 70).

      And that this priestly bloodshed (which then extends to
      those remaining in Nob) is the only hint of what the Gibeonites
      could want to SACRIFICE Saul's family members over.

      So I am specifically saying that the Judges 9 story of Abimelech
      *is* a re-telling of the conflict between Saul and his Benjaminite/
      Gibeonite brethern.

      If this is too much for you to "digest" so soon, then let's
      go back to something you already wrote:

      You write:
      "I think the daughters of Nakash were of no relation to Dawiyd
      and that the Chronicler had made that attribution for reasons
      unknown."

      And yet David has ALL SORTS of Ammonite and Moabite connections;
      he brings his parents to Moab to obtain protection. Many of
      his warriors seem to be "alien" to Israel, and certainly to Judah.

      I will pull together the texts about the Gibeon/Gibeah connection.
      But I wanted you to have time to think about these ideas.

      George
    • djahuti.geo
      In 1Samuel 22:22, Dawiyd implies that he had been the cause of the deaths of the priests (although indirectly). Considering the history of his conquest of
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 1, 2002
        In 1Samuel 22:22, Dawiyd implies that he had been the cause of the
        deaths of the priests (although indirectly). Considering the history
        of his conquest of Binyamiyn, it's enough to make one wonder if all
        the atrocities ascribed to Shauwl against inhabitants of Binyamiyn had
        not in fact been those of Dawiyd.

        As for the Daughters of the Serpent mentioned by the Chronicler, it
        seems evident to me that the Chronicler has very questionable
        information and motives as biblical books are among his sources and he
        doesn't even reproduce their information accurately. Yithra of
        YisraEl in 2Samuel 17:25 becomes Yether of YishmaEl in 1Chronicles
        2:17. Although the name "Yether" can be cited in other places (1Kings
        2:5, 2:32), it seems that the Chronicler had turned the "s" and "r" of
        "YisraEl" into the "sh" and "m" of "YishmaEl". It would have been
        easy enough to have made a scribal error in reading the siyn (s) as a
        shiyn (sh) but the reysh (r) requires a conscious addition to become a
        mem (m). The differences would therefore seem to have been of
        conscious design on the Chronicler's part. Keep in mind that this is
        the same person who omits unfavorable material about Dawiyd and
        neglects to mention the history of the kings of YisraEl with the kings
        of Yehuwdah. Thus, whenever differences occur between the Chronicler
        and some other biblical source, the Chronicler's version is always
        suspect.

        Djehuti Sundaka


        --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "historynow2002"
        <historynow2002@y...> wrote:
        > Djehuti,
        >
        > You write some pretty dramatic stuff:
        >
        > "My current conclusion is that there is a biblical cover-up of an
        > > alliance that had existed between Yehuwdah [Judah], Ammown,
        > and Peleset against Binyamiyn."
        >
        > But then you throw away the genealogies, which are elements
        > of history EASIEST to maintain:
        >
        > "I think the daughters of Nakash were of no relation to Dawiyd
        > and that the Chronicler had made that attribution for reasons
        > unknown."
        >
        > While I am the first to admit that the genealogies are
        > frequently in conflict with each other, I use this as a
        > benchmark to show how much MORE inaccurate the "prose stories"
        > must be. I'm especially interested in an analysis of the
        > "3rd person" reportage for details of story line that
        > concern what the enemy said amongst each other, or what was
        > discussed only between 2 people, or what happened when only
        > 1 person was around to see it.
        >
        > These are CLASSIC elements of story telling. And yet we
        > reflexively believe these story elements have been preserved
        > accurately by the Hebrew writers.
        >
        > Before you start elaborating a very complicated scneario
        > involving the Ammonites and a conspiracy against Benjamin,
        > I would suggest that you consider the story of David surrendering
        > members of Saul's family members to the Gibeonite leadership.
        > See 2 Sam 21.
        >
        > The Gibeonites actually perform human sacrifice in order
        > to satisfy Yahweh and end the 3 year drought. This is a
        > pretty amazing chapter of 2 Samuel, and I doubt if many
        > sermons are EVER written about it!
        >
        > In this chapter, the Gibeonites are described as Amorites
        > (though elsewhere they are labeled Hivites I believe).
        > And they are protesting what Saul did to them years before.
        >
        > Ironically, we know that Saul descends from a Gibeonite
        > elite, so what gives here? Well, Saul is described as amongst
        > the prophets. And I would suggest that Saul is a "Gibeonite
        > brother", and that per Judges 9, where the "first king of
        > Israel" slaughters his 70 brethern, that Saul is slaughtering
        > his brethern in Gibeah (in this case, it is 84 or so, not 70).
        >
        > And that this priestly bloodshed (which then extends to
        > those remaining in Nob) is the only hint of what the Gibeonites
        > could want to SACRIFICE Saul's family members over.
        >
        > So I am specifically saying that the Judges 9 story of Abimelech
        > *is* a re-telling of the conflict between Saul and his Benjaminite/
        > Gibeonite brethern.
        >
        > If this is too much for you to "digest" so soon, then let's
        > go back to something you already wrote:
        >
        > You write:
        > "I think the daughters of Nakash were of no relation to Dawiyd
        > and that the Chronicler had made that attribution for reasons
        > unknown."
        >
        > And yet David has ALL SORTS of Ammonite and Moabite connections;
        > he brings his parents to Moab to obtain protection. Many of
        > his warriors seem to be "alien" to Israel, and certainly to Judah.
        >
        > I will pull together the texts about the Gibeon/Gibeah connection.
        > But I wanted you to have time to think about these ideas.
        >
        > George
      • djahuti.geo
        I should really start checking the archaeological record before drawing some conclusions. Since the Transjordan kingdoms didn t come into existence until a
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 2, 2002
          I should really start checking the archaeological record before
          drawing some conclusions. Since the Transjordan kingdoms didn't
          come into existence until a century after Dawiyd, an alliance or
          significant interaction with Ammown couldn't have existed. This also
          throws consideral doubt on the story of Yiftak (Judges 11:12-13).

          Djehuti Sundaka


          --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "djahuti.geo" <ahuguley@i...> wrote:
          > I've been doing a little looking into this myself concerning Dawiyd.

          > My current conclusion is that there is a biblical cover-up of an
          > alliance that had existed between Yehuwdah, Ammown, and Peleset
          > against Binyamiyn. I think the daughters of Nakash were of no
          > relation to Dawiyd and that the Chronicler had made that attribution
          > for reasons unknown. These women both had sons who seem to have
          been
          > of the same generation as Dawiyd. That would put these women in the
          > same generation as Yishay, Dawiyd's father. Their sons were known
          by
          > their mothers rather than by their fathers which indicates to me
          that
          > the women had been of royalty. So why are the grandsons of Nakash
          > serving with Dawiyd? Being the sons of royal women, there had
          > probably been no chance of them being in line to inherit the throne
          so
          > why not seek one's fortune in the service of an ally? 2Samuel
          10:1-2
          > mentions "kindness" that had been shown to Dawiyd by Nakash but the
          > event this refers to is nowhere to be found as far as I can see.
          The
          > first time we hear of Nakash is in 1Samuel 11:1 and it is because of
          > this event that Shauwl becomes king (again? - 1Samuel 11:14). So,
          in
          > different stories, we find Dawiyd being consistently allied with the
          > enemies of Binyamiyn. Close to him are guards from the Peleset and
          > generals from the Ammowniy royalty indicating some sort of an
          > alliance with these two groups. Although the Bible makes Dawiyd out
          > to have become the king of YisraEl, his conquest of Binyamiyn does
          not
          > include the rest of YisraEl. This is odd as the armies of the king
          of
          > Binyamiyn should have included the rest of YisraEl had Shauwl
          actually
          > been the overall leader. Previously, I had thought that Shauwl had
          > been the king of Binyamiyn and the judge of YisraEl and that Dawiyd,
          > upon his conquest of Binyamiyn, had also been the king of Yehuwdah
          and
          > judge of YisraEl. But now it looks as if Binyamiyn had been alone
          in
          > its struggles against its enemies. It looks as if in choosing a
          king
          > for itself, Binyamiyn had no longer been apart of YisraEl. This
          would
          > explain why only the territory of Binyamiyn had become the
          possession
          > of Yehuwdah to the exclusion of YisraEl. This also makes me think
          > that Dawiyd had also never been the judge of YisraEl. It's still a
          > challenge for me to determine which stories of Dawiyd had been
          > historically inspired and which had been pure fiction.
          >
          > Djehuti Sundaka
          >
          >
          > --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "historynow2002"
          > <historynow2002@y...> wrote:
          > > Djehuti,
          > >
          > > I'm gathering some specific texts, but I thought I would
          > > just offer some general thoughts about Saul's possible
          > > connection to the Ammonites.
          > >
          > > Strong's shows that Nahash, the king of the Ammonites
          > > is pronounced like this:
          > >
          > > 05176 Nachash {naw-khawsh'}
          > > the same as 05175;;
          > > AV - Nahash 9; 9
          > > Nahash = "serpent"
          > > n pr m
          > > 1) a king of the Ammonites during the time of king Saul
          > > 2) the father of Abigail, the mother of Amasa, the
          > > commander of Absalom's army
          > >
          > > As you can see, there is an obvious similarity between
          > > "khawsh" and "kish" (Kish is the father of Saul).
          > >
          > > And perhaps the "Na-" is even derived from Kish's
          > > father, "Ner". But I was hesitant to spend any time
          > > on this possible connection until I looked at the activities
          > > of Abner (also of Saul's family) and Saul's son.
          > >
          > > After Saul's death, Abner takes Saul's son EAST of the Jordan,
          > > where apparently his rule is MORE secure. This would be very
          > > odd for a BENJAMINITE to do.... especially since David's
          > > rule is based out of Hebron, rather than Jerusalem at this
          > > time.
          > >
          > > But, if we interpret the word "Benjaminite" to be a reference
          > > to the Ammonite royal family West of the Jordan, then perhaps
          > > it makes much more sense.
          > >
          > > And Abner's willingness to strike a deal with David could
          > > be just as much do to a close clan relationship with David
          > > as anything else. The explanation for why Abner turns his
          > > back on Saul's son is not exactly the most convincing. But
          > > neither are the circumstances behind Abner's assassination.
          > > David makes a VERY BIG FUSS over honoring Abner in the
          > > funer procession. And unless Abner was a relative, it hardly
          > > seems justified.
          > >
          > > But I will collect the texts supporting this scenario and
          > > post them soon I hope. But I don't think I have much more
          > > evidence than these general working assumptions I have outlined
          > > above.
          > >
          > > George
        • historynow2002
          Djehuti, The fact the Transjordan kingdoms were not really a presence until Iron Age II is exactly why I think the stories of David and Solomon are
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 2, 2002
            Djehuti,

            The fact the Transjordan kingdoms were not really
            a "presence" until Iron Age II is exactly why I think
            the stories of David and Solomon are "transplanted"
            backwards from a more recent period.

            But in this transplanting process, were ALL historical
            references purged? Or did some relationships between
            personalities and regions get retained?

            As you said before, I too have a hard time knowing
            which part of the David and Solomon stories is fictional,
            and what represents possible historical value.

            George


            --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "djahuti.geo" <ahuguley@i...> wrote:
            > I should really start checking the archaeological record before
            > drawing some conclusions. Since the Transjordan kingdoms didn't
            > come into existence until a century after Dawiyd, an alliance or
            > significant interaction with Ammown couldn't have existed. This
            also
            > throws consideral doubt on the story of Yiftak (Judges 11:12-13).
            >
            > Djehuti Sundaka
            >
            >
            > --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "djahuti.geo" <ahuguley@i...>
            wrote:
            > > I've been doing a little looking into this myself concerning
            Dawiyd.
            >
            > > My current conclusion is that there is a biblical cover-up of an
            > > alliance that had existed between Yehuwdah, Ammown, and Peleset
            > > against Binyamiyn. I think the daughters of Nakash were of no
            > > relation to Dawiyd and that the Chronicler had made that
            attribution
            > > for reasons unknown. These women both had sons who seem to have
            > been
            > > of the same generation as Dawiyd. That would put these women in
            the
            > > same generation as Yishay, Dawiyd's father. Their sons were
            known
            > by
            > > their mothers rather than by their fathers which indicates to me
            > that
            > > the women had been of royalty. So why are the grandsons of
            Nakash
            > > serving with Dawiyd? Being the sons of royal women, there had
            > > probably been no chance of them being in line to inherit the
            throne
            > so
            > > why not seek one's fortune in the service of an ally? 2Samuel
            > 10:1-2
            > > mentions "kindness" that had been shown to Dawiyd by Nakash but
            the
            > > event this refers to is nowhere to be found as far as I can see.
            > The
            > > first time we hear of Nakash is in 1Samuel 11:1 and it is because
            of
            > > this event that Shauwl becomes king (again? - 1Samuel 11:14).
            So,
            > in
            > > different stories, we find Dawiyd being consistently allied with
            the
            > > enemies of Binyamiyn. Close to him are guards from the Peleset
            and
            > > generals from the Ammowniy royalty indicating some sort of an
            > > alliance with these two groups. Although the Bible makes Dawiyd
            out
            > > to have become the king of YisraEl, his conquest of Binyamiyn
            does
            > not
            > > include the rest of YisraEl. This is odd as the armies of the
            king
            > of
            > > Binyamiyn should have included the rest of YisraEl had Shauwl
            > actually
            > > been the overall leader. Previously, I had thought that Shauwl
            had
            > > been the king of Binyamiyn and the judge of YisraEl and that
            Dawiyd,
            > > upon his conquest of Binyamiyn, had also been the king of
            Yehuwdah
            > and
            > > judge of YisraEl. But now it looks as if Binyamiyn had been
            alone
            > in
            > > its struggles against its enemies. It looks as if in choosing a
            > king
            > > for itself, Binyamiyn had no longer been apart of YisraEl. This
            > would
            > > explain why only the territory of Binyamiyn had become the
            > possession
            > > of Yehuwdah to the exclusion of YisraEl. This also makes me
            think
            > > that Dawiyd had also never been the judge of YisraEl. It's still
            a
            > > challenge for me to determine which stories of Dawiyd had been
            > > historically inspired and which had been pure fiction.
            > >
            > > Djehuti Sundaka
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "historynow2002"
            > > <historynow2002@y...> wrote:
            > > > Djehuti,
            > > >
            > > > I'm gathering some specific texts, but I thought I would
            > > > just offer some general thoughts about Saul's possible
            > > > connection to the Ammonites.
            > > >
            > > > Strong's shows that Nahash, the king of the Ammonites
            > > > is pronounced like this:
            > > >
            > > > 05176 Nachash {naw-khawsh'}
            > > > the same as 05175;;
            > > > AV - Nahash 9; 9
            > > > Nahash = "serpent"
            > > > n pr m
            > > > 1) a king of the Ammonites during the time of king Saul
            > > > 2) the father of Abigail, the mother of Amasa, the
            > > > commander of Absalom's army
            > > >
            > > > As you can see, there is an obvious similarity between
            > > > "khawsh" and "kish" (Kish is the father of Saul).
            > > >
            > > > And perhaps the "Na-" is even derived from Kish's
            > > > father, "Ner". But I was hesitant to spend any time
            > > > on this possible connection until I looked at the activities
            > > > of Abner (also of Saul's family) and Saul's son.
            > > >
            > > > After Saul's death, Abner takes Saul's son EAST of the Jordan,
            > > > where apparently his rule is MORE secure. This would be very
            > > > odd for a BENJAMINITE to do.... especially since David's
            > > > rule is based out of Hebron, rather than Jerusalem at this
            > > > time.
            > > >
            > > > But, if we interpret the word "Benjaminite" to be a reference
            > > > to the Ammonite royal family West of the Jordan, then perhaps
            > > > it makes much more sense.
            > > >
            > > > And Abner's willingness to strike a deal with David could
            > > > be just as much do to a close clan relationship with David
            > > > as anything else. The explanation for why Abner turns his
            > > > back on Saul's son is not exactly the most convincing. But
            > > > neither are the circumstances behind Abner's assassination.
            > > > David makes a VERY BIG FUSS over honoring Abner in the
            > > > funer procession. And unless Abner was a relative, it hardly
            > > > seems justified.
            > > >
            > > > But I will collect the texts supporting this scenario and
            > > > post them soon I hope. But I don't think I have much more
            > > > evidence than these general working assumptions I have outlined
            > > > above.
            > > >
            > > > George
          • jdcroft
            The issue of human sacrifice and the Bible is an interesting one. We know that in times of stress the Canaanites sacrificed their sons in an attempt to procure
            Message 5 of 25 , Jul 2, 2002
              The issue of human sacrifice and the Bible is an interesting one.

              We know that in times of stress the Canaanites sacrificed their sons
              in an attempt to procure the favours of the gods. Such infanticide
              was common, and was one of the reasons for Roman hatred of the
              Carthaginians, whose tophet are common in Carthaginian graveyards.

              Strangely such Tophet are common archaeologically in Israel and Judah
              in Monarchial times. The cessation of this custom, long thought to
              be exclusively Canaanite, is now dated to Exilic (or immediate pre-
              exlic times).

              There are other forms of human sacrifice indicated also. The
              sacrifice of the Jubilee involved an animal upon whom all the
              community's "sins" of the previous period were loaded. There is
              evidence that humans were originally used for such a purpose. The
              Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, recalls the use of such a dopelganger who
              was sacrificed on a particularly inauspicious occasion in such a
              manner. Assyria was at the height of its power at this period, and
              it is quite likely that other monarchs copying Assyrian practice were
              involved in similar practices. Manasseh was condemned
              for "abominations" which are believed to have involved human
              sacrifice.

              It is interesting that there a number of occasions when human
              sacrifice are hinted at. There are also a number of occasions which
              suggest that monarchy was not a case of male primogenature, but
              rather a case of marriage into a royal line. Thus the husbands of
              Sauls daughters were slain by David, whilst Saul's sons were allowed
              to live. The amazing story of the rape of Tamar by Absolom seems to
              have heralded a re-emptive bid for the throne (porrayed as an attempt
              to displace David). The peculiar position of Maacah too, who appears
              as the wife of a number of the early kings of Judah.

              This matrilineal succession suggests interesting things about the
              roles of Jezebel and Athaliah. Was there an Omride Empire that came
              to an end with the confrontation of Damascus.

              One final thing I am wrestling with is the Canaanites. Culturally
              there appears no destinction between the Israelites and the
              Canaanites until the Babylonian Exile forever set the latter apart
              from the former. Was "Canaanite" a term that was used first with the
              exile to destinguish the post Babylonian returnees, who "alone had
              preserved ther true traditions" from the folk who had remained in
              Palestine?

              Interested in people's thoughts

              John


              --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "historynow2002"
              <historynow2002@y...> wrote:
              > Djehuti,
              >
              > You write some pretty dramatic stuff:
              >
              > "My current conclusion is that there is a biblical cover-up of an
              > > alliance that had existed between Yehuwdah [Judah], Ammown,
              > and Peleset against Binyamiyn."
              >
              > But then you throw away the genealogies, which are elements
              > of history EASIEST to maintain:
              >
              > "I think the daughters of Nakash were of no relation to Dawiyd
              > and that the Chronicler had made that attribution for reasons
              > unknown."
              >
              > While I am the first to admit that the genealogies are
              > frequently in conflict with each other, I use this as a
              > benchmark to show how much MORE inaccurate the "prose stories"
              > must be. I'm especially interested in an analysis of the
              > "3rd person" reportage for details of story line that
              > concern what the enemy said amongst each other, or what was
              > discussed only between 2 people, or what happened when only
              > 1 person was around to see it.
              >
              > These are CLASSIC elements of story telling. And yet we
              > reflexively believe these story elements have been preserved
              > accurately by the Hebrew writers.
              >
              > Before you start elaborating a very complicated scneario
              > involving the Ammonites and a conspiracy against Benjamin,
              > I would suggest that you consider the story of David surrendering
              > members of Saul's family members to the Gibeonite leadership.
              > See 2 Sam 21.
              >
              > The Gibeonites actually perform human sacrifice in order
              > to satisfy Yahweh and end the 3 year drought. This is a
              > pretty amazing chapter of 2 Samuel, and I doubt if many
              > sermons are EVER written about it!
              >
              > In this chapter, the Gibeonites are described as Amorites
              > (though elsewhere they are labeled Hivites I believe).
              > And they are protesting what Saul did to them years before.
              >
              > Ironically, we know that Saul descends from a Gibeonite
              > elite, so what gives here? Well, Saul is described as amongst
              > the prophets. And I would suggest that Saul is a "Gibeonite
              > brother", and that per Judges 9, where the "first king of
              > Israel" slaughters his 70 brethern, that Saul is slaughtering
              > his brethern in Gibeah (in this case, it is 84 or so, not 70).
              >
              > And that this priestly bloodshed (which then extends to
              > those remaining in Nob) is the only hint of what the Gibeonites
              > could want to SACRIFICE Saul's family members over.
              >
              > So I am specifically saying that the Judges 9 story of Abimelech
              > *is* a re-telling of the conflict between Saul and his Benjaminite/
              > Gibeonite brethern.
              >
              > If this is too much for you to "digest" so soon, then let's
              > go back to something you already wrote:
              >
              > You write:
              > "I think the daughters of Nakash were of no relation to Dawiyd
              > and that the Chronicler had made that attribution for reasons
              > unknown."
              >
              > And yet David has ALL SORTS of Ammonite and Moabite connections;
              > he brings his parents to Moab to obtain protection. Many of
              > his warriors seem to be "alien" to Israel, and certainly to Judah.
              >
              > I will pull together the texts about the Gibeon/Gibeah connection.
              > But I wanted you to have time to think about these ideas.
              >
              > George
            • historynow2002
              The Gibeonites sacrifice members of Saul s family. The Gibeonites are mentioned as Hivites and Amorites. The Gibeonites are clearly portrayed as part of the
              Message 6 of 25 , Jul 3, 2002
                The Gibeonites "sacrifice" members of Saul's family.
                The Gibeonites are mentioned as Hivites and Amorites.
                The Gibeonites are clearly portrayed as part of the
                original inhabitants of the land. And yet there is
                something about them that still "smells" of newcomers.
                But perhaps this is just my bias towards how I want
                to interpret the Benjaminites, and their Gibeonite
                ancestry.

                The rise of Hebron and the House of David seems to
                be even NEWER than the Benjaminites.

                As I have discussed in earlier posts, I see David and
                Saul as Ammonite kin.... thus all of that rhetoric about how
                David would NOT kill or harm Saul (otherwise the rhetoric
                is complete overkill).

                Saul "carves" out his realm West of the Jordan....
                presumably at the expense of his biological Ammonite
                father, or at the expense of his Ammonite patron (Kish).
                Ammonites WEST of the Jordan under Saul become
                known as Benjaminites.

                Saul's success spurs on David. And he carves out
                a sphere of power from his sojourning in the Sinai
                Negev, and eventually establishes his power base in
                Hebron. The House of David becomes associated with
                the regional term "JUDAH" ... which I suggest comes
                from the NORTHERN Aramean "Yahudi" influx.

                Arameans in Iron Age II are exiled to KIR, and this
                Kir is either in Edom (Kir = "Khorites") or a reference
                to Kir-Jathjearim (if ever a city name benefits from
                an abbreviated form, this city obviously would). These
                may be what we CALL the AMMONITES, since the O.T. wants
                to make the Ammonites and Moabites the "descendants"
                of Edomite personalities (the daughters of Lot).

                George



                --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "jdcroft" <jdcroft@y...> wrote:
                > The issue of human sacrifice and the Bible is an interesting one.
                >
                > We know that in times of stress the Canaanites sacrificed their sons
                > in an attempt to procure the favours of the gods. Such infanticide
                > was common, and was one of the reasons for Roman hatred of the
                > Carthaginians, whose tophet are common in Carthaginian graveyards.
                >
                > Strangely such Tophet are common archaeologically in Israel and
                Judah
                > in Monarchial times. The cessation of this custom, long thought to
                > be exclusively Canaanite, is now dated to Exilic (or immediate pre-
                > exlic times).
                >
                > There are other forms of human sacrifice indicated also. The
                > sacrifice of the Jubilee involved an animal upon whom all the
                > community's "sins" of the previous period were loaded. There is
                > evidence that humans were originally used for such a purpose. The
                > Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, recalls the use of such a dopelganger
                who
                > was sacrificed on a particularly inauspicious occasion in such a
                > manner. Assyria was at the height of its power at this period, and
                > it is quite likely that other monarchs copying Assyrian practice
                were
                > involved in similar practices. Manasseh was condemned
                > for "abominations" which are believed to have involved human
                > sacrifice.
                >
                > It is interesting that there a number of occasions when human
                > sacrifice are hinted at. There are also a number of occasions which
                > suggest that monarchy was not a case of male primogenature, but
                > rather a case of marriage into a royal line. Thus the husbands of
                > Sauls daughters were slain by David, whilst Saul's sons were allowed
                > to live. The amazing story of the rape of Tamar by Absolom seems to
                > have heralded a re-emptive bid for the throne (porrayed as an
                attempt
                > to displace David). The peculiar position of Maacah too, who
                appears
                > as the wife of a number of the early kings of Judah.
                >
                > This matrilineal succession suggests interesting things about the
                > roles of Jezebel and Athaliah. Was there an Omride Empire that came
                > to an end with the confrontation of Damascus.
                >
                > One final thing I am wrestling with is the Canaanites. Culturally
                > there appears no destinction between the Israelites and the
                > Canaanites until the Babylonian Exile forever set the latter apart
                > from the former. Was "Canaanite" a term that was used first with
                the
                > exile to destinguish the post Babylonian returnees, who "alone had
                > preserved ther true traditions" from the folk who had remained in
                > Palestine?
                >
                > Interested in people's thoughts
                >
                > John
                >
                >
                > --- In AncientBibleHistory@y..., "historynow2002"
                > <historynow2002@y...> wrote:
                > > Djehuti,
                > >
                > > You write some pretty dramatic stuff:
                > >
                > > "My current conclusion is that there is a biblical cover-up of an
                > > > alliance that had existed between Yehuwdah [Judah], Ammown,
                > > and Peleset against Binyamiyn."
                > >
                > > But then you throw away the genealogies, which are elements
                > > of history EASIEST to maintain:
                > >
                > > "I think the daughters of Nakash were of no relation to Dawiyd
                > > and that the Chronicler had made that attribution for reasons
                > > unknown."
                > >
                > > While I am the first to admit that the genealogies are
                > > frequently in conflict with each other, I use this as a
                > > benchmark to show how much MORE inaccurate the "prose stories"
                > > must be. I'm especially interested in an analysis of the
                > > "3rd person" reportage for details of story line that
                > > concern what the enemy said amongst each other, or what was
                > > discussed only between 2 people, or what happened when only
                > > 1 person was around to see it.
                > >
                > > These are CLASSIC elements of story telling. And yet we
                > > reflexively believe these story elements have been preserved
                > > accurately by the Hebrew writers.
                > >
                > > Before you start elaborating a very complicated scneario
                > > involving the Ammonites and a conspiracy against Benjamin,
                > > I would suggest that you consider the story of David surrendering
                > > members of Saul's family members to the Gibeonite leadership.
                > > See 2 Sam 21.
                > >
                > > The Gibeonites actually perform human sacrifice in order
                > > to satisfy Yahweh and end the 3 year drought. This is a
                > > pretty amazing chapter of 2 Samuel, and I doubt if many
                > > sermons are EVER written about it!
                > >
                > > In this chapter, the Gibeonites are described as Amorites
                > > (though elsewhere they are labeled Hivites I believe).
                > > And they are protesting what Saul did to them years before.
                > >
                > > Ironically, we know that Saul descends from a Gibeonite
                > > elite, so what gives here? Well, Saul is described as amongst
                > > the prophets. And I would suggest that Saul is a "Gibeonite
                > > brother", and that per Judges 9, where the "first king of
                > > Israel" slaughters his 70 brethern, that Saul is slaughtering
                > > his brethern in Gibeah (in this case, it is 84 or so, not 70).
                > >
                > > And that this priestly bloodshed (which then extends to
                > > those remaining in Nob) is the only hint of what the Gibeonites
                > > could want to SACRIFICE Saul's family members over.
                > >
                > > So I am specifically saying that the Judges 9 story of Abimelech
                > > *is* a re-telling of the conflict between Saul and his
                Benjaminite/
                > > Gibeonite brethern.
                > >
                > > If this is too much for you to "digest" so soon, then let's
                > > go back to something you already wrote:
                > >
                > > You write:
                > > "I think the daughters of Nakash were of no relation to Dawiyd
                > > and that the Chronicler had made that attribution for reasons
                > > unknown."
                > >
                > > And yet David has ALL SORTS of Ammonite and Moabite connections;
                > > he brings his parents to Moab to obtain protection. Many of
                > > his warriors seem to be "alien" to Israel, and certainly to Judah.
                > >
                > > I will pull together the texts about the Gibeon/Gibeah connection.
                > > But I wanted you to have time to think about these ideas.
                > >
                > > George
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.