orion-list Re: orion V2002 #17
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Victor Horovitz wrote: Excuse me for being blunt, but your assertion is ridiculous. The semitic word for sun is $VmV$. It is shared by all semitic languages (Heb $eme$, Akkadian $am$su, Ugaritic $p$, Arabic sams, etc). The Akkadian nominal form would be $am$u with the nominative ending. The form $ama$ is the absolute form used in personal names, so $ama$ is simply the way one adresses the sun (Mr. Sun). THe word for the heavenly luminary precedes its deification, and does not derive from it. Dear Victor: The fact that the name $ama$ could mean Mr. Sun presupposes that it could also have meant Lord Sun ranking him among the nobility, in a monarchial structure, where, perhaps, $ama$ was its king. We cannot rule out a form of pagan idolatry where a deceased king is honored and considered the rising sun in the eternal life. In this case then the origin of the name does not precludes that it was involved in its very origin as a religio-mythic cult of a primogenetor king who eternally lives and reigns and who can give us enlightenment. Judaism seems to have broken off from this cultic sun-worship and imputed to the one-uncreated-God the faculties and personality of $ama$ and established monotheism as an outgrowth and a response to this. Victor Horovitz wrote: Although the sun may have been adored in Israelite religion, biblical or post biblical, as has been asserted by many scholars (see, for example Morton Smith's article on Helios in Palestine in the Orlinsky Volume of Eretz Israel, or Hadley? articles and books), your argument is simply wrong, backward, and irrelevant. I agree that the Israeli sun worshipping would be irrelevant since it would have been post Sumerian period which first gave evidence to this phenomenon. Conseuently, Judaism would have been a development as an outgrowth from Sumerian culture, which appears to have lapsed back into its former Sumerian form from time to time. Victor Horovitz wrote: As for adoring the rising sun, in particular, I might refer you to the famous Sun Disk inscription of Nebobaladan (King, Babylonian Boundary Stones no. 36) which tells that the statue of $ama$ was lost, and until it was miraculously rediscovered, it was substituted for by a niphu. Now, niphu designates a sundisk model, round and decorated with a four pointed star with wavy lines characteristic of $ama$ between each arm of the star. If you look at a picture of the tablet you will see such a niphu. What is relevant to your suggestion about this, is that the Akkadian verb napahu, from which niphu is derived, means to break out in flames, and also sun rise, so if we may learn anything from this it may be that the accepted non-anthropormorphic symbol of the Babylonian Sun God $ama$ was a model of the rising sun. Victor Yes, Victor, $ama$ would have been associated with the sun and time, hence he would be considered as father-time or the eternal one, or, perhaps called, Lord Sun-Rise. It is from this origin that it appears that Judaism was born. Substituting or replacing Ehad the One the eternal and uncreated God, who is the source of all creation, with $ama$, forms the new monotheistic religion of Judaism. The first Jews had adored the sun but as the Father who could enlighten us and give revelations. He could speak through prophets, kings, priests, and reveal himself to the human family. The disolvement between monolitheistic cult worship with the sun and without it seems to have drifted in and out suggesting priests from different schools existed and that the high priests were selected shifting between these different schools from time to time. Best regards, John = John N. Lupia 501 North Avenue B-1 Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com For private reply, e-mail to John Lupia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Re: orion V2002 #17
Dear John, I find your comments as off base as the original suggestion I commented on, and inall due respect for your imagination I respectfully dismiss it out of hand. Please note that the sumerian sungod was named UTU, the Sumerian word for sun. May I suggest that you do some reading on the development of Mesopotamian religion. Start with Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness. Victor And now I will go all the way down to the bottom of this letter to let teh trailor loose. It's a long way down! On Mon, 6 May 2002, John Lupia wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Victor Horovitz wrote: Excuse me for being blunt, but your assertion is ridiculous. The semitic word for sun is $VmV$. It is shared by all semitic languages (Heb $eme$, Akkadian $am$su, Ugaritic $p$, Arabic sams, etc). The Akkadian nominal form would be $am$u with the nominative ending. The form $ama$ is the absolute form used in personal names, so $ama$ is simply the way one adresses the sun (Mr. Sun). THe word for the heavenly luminary precedes its deification, and does not derive from it. Dear Victor: The fact that the name $ama$ could mean Mr. Sun presupposes that it could also have meant Lord Sun ranking him among the nobility, in a monarchial structure, where, perhaps, $ama$ was its king. We cannot rule out a form of pagan idolatry where a deceased king is honored and considered the rising sun in the eternal life. In this case then the origin of the name does not precludes that it was involved in its very origin as a religio-mythic cult of a primogenetor king who eternally lives and reigns and who can give us enlightenment. Judaism seems to have broken off from this cultic sun-worship and imputed to the one-uncreated-God the faculties and personality of $ama$ and established monotheism as an outgrowth and a response to this. Victor Horovitz wrote: Although the sun may have been adored in Israelite religion, biblical or post biblical, as has been asserted by many scholars (see, for example Morton Smith's article on Helios in Palestine in the Orlinsky Volume of Eretz Israel, or Hadley? articles and books), your argument is simply wrong, backward, and irrelevant. I agree that the Israeli sun worshipping would be irrelevant since it would have been post Sumerian period which first gave evidence to this phenomenon. Conseuently, Judaism would have been a development as an outgrowth from Sumerian culture, which appears to have lapsed back into its former Sumerian form from time to time. Victor Horovitz wrote: As for adoring the rising sun, in particular, I might refer you to the famous Sun Disk inscription of Nebobaladan (King, Babylonian Boundary Stones no. 36) which tells that the statue of $ama$ was lost, and until it was miraculously rediscovered, it was substituted for by a niphu. Now, niphu designates a sundisk model, round and decorated with a four pointed star with wavy lines characteristic of $ama$ between each arm of the star. If you look at a picture of the tablet you will see such a niphu. What is relevant to your suggestion about this, is that the Akkadian verb napahu, from which niphu is derived, means to break out in flames, and also sun rise, so if we may learn anything from this it may be that the accepted non-anthropormorphic symbol of the Babylonian Sun God $ama$ was a model of the rising sun. Victor Yes, Victor, $ama$ would have been associated with the sun and time, hence he would be considered as father-time or the eternal one, or, perhaps called, Lord Sun-Rise. It is from this origin that it appears that Judaism was born. Substituting or replacing Ehad the One the eternal and uncreated God, who is the source of all creation, with $ama$, forms the new monotheistic religion of Judaism. The first Jews had adored the sun but as the Father who could enlighten us and give revelations. He could speak through prophets, kings, priests, and reveal himself to the human family. The disolvement between monolitheistic cult worship with the sun and without it seems to have drifted in and out suggesting priests from different schools existed and that the high priests were selected shifting between these different schools from time to time. Best regards, John = John N. Lupia 501 North Avenue B-1 Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 For private reply, e-mail to avigdor horovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Re: orion V2002 #17
I have found the recent exchanges about Israelite Sun worship to be most interesting, having done some research on this topic. There are verses in the Hebrew Bible that metaphorically seem to identify Yahweh-Elohim with the Sun. Malachi metaphorically identifies God with a winged Sun disc whose wings are associated with healing (recalling the Egyptian winged Sun disc). In Deuteronomy, God is spoken of as DAWNING from Seir, a term which suggests Sun worship. The temple at Jerusalem faced the East and the Sun-rise. The Cherubim, identified with winged sphinxes found in Canaanite art forms of the Late Bronze Age in Phoenicia, Syria, and Canaan (Megiddo) are understood to be reinterpretations of Egyptian winged Sphinxes. The Egyptian Sphinx was associated with Solar worship, particularly the rising Sun at morning, being called Hor-em-akhet (Horus in the Horizon). The great sphinx of Giza which guards the Pyramids, faces the east and the rising sun, of which he is an aspect. The Egyptians also portrayed the Sun (called at times Horus or Re) as being born each morning as a bull-calf, the son of Hathor the cow goddess who personified the sky. In the Egyptian temples of the Sinai, Serabit el Khadim and Timna, Hathor images were found as well as votives, amongst which were sphinxes. Although I am in agreement with Critical scholarship that the Exodus as portrayed in the Bible is fiction, I do embrace the notion that behind all myths lie historical kernels and my research is directed at identifying these archaeologically attested kernels. Egypt ruled Canaan from 1560-1140 BCE and it is not to be ruled out that Egyptian forms of Solar worship penetrated the Canaanite religious mindset and were adapted and assimilated to the worship of Yahweh. Sooo, it is my understanding that the tree of life, the cherubim which guard it, the temple's facing east, the ark of the covenant and its mercy seat, calf worship, are all echoes of Egyptian solar worship (allowing a fusion with similar motifs in Mesopotamian and Syrian motifs which also exist, for example, the Sun and Moon being associated with a calf ). I have noted that the Bible suggests in its chronologies preserved in Judges and Samuel, and Exodus occurring in the reign of Pharaoh Ahmose I, who expelled the Hyksos. The archaeological evidence though, shows that Israel's settlement of the Hill country is Early Iron I. For me, the biblical narrator has projected Israel's Iron Age settlement into the 18th dynasty and associated it with the Hyksos expulsion. The big concern for all in studies of the Hebrew Bible is WHERE is the archaeological evidence in the Sinai, Negev and Arabah for the Exodus ? My research suggests that events at Timna, occuring in the Late Bronze/Early Iron I phase are being recalled and transformed into Moses and the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Timna is a Ramesside creation, and the Exodus begins at Ramesses in Egypt according to the Bible. I thus understand that the Exodus is a fusion and conflation of events attested archaeologically, extending in time from Early Bronze II to Late Iron II (7th/6th centuries BCE). Those with an interest in this subject can access my research at the following urls- Exodus Memories of Southern Sinai (Linking the Archaeological Data to the Biblical Narratives) http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusTimnaSerabitelKhadim.html Is Mount Horeb (Mt. Sinai) Jebel `Arribeh by St. Catherine's or Mount Timna` ? http://www.bibleorigins.net/MountHoreb.html Dating the Exodus, The Hyksos Expulsion of 1540 BCE ? http://www.bibleorigins.net/Exodus1540BCHyksos.html Dating the Exodus (And Other Associated Problems) http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusProblems.html The Exodus Traditions (Their pre-biblical backgrounds) http://www.bibleorigins.net/Hebrewhabiruslaves.html Cherubim, The Pre-Biblical Origins of (And The Mercy Seat Atop the Ark of the Covenant) http://www.bibleorigins.net/CherubimOrigins.html All the best, Walter Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld Walldorf by Heidelberg Baden-Wurttemburg, Germany www.bibleorigins.net - Original Message - From: John Lupia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 12:51 AM Subject: orion-list Re: orion V2002 #17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Victor Horovitz wrote: Excuse me for being blunt, but your assertion is ridiculous. The semitic word for sun is $VmV$. It is shared by all semitic languages (Heb $eme$, Akkadian $am$su, Ugaritic $p$, Arabic sams, etc). The Akkadian nominal form would be $am$u with the nominative ending. The form $ama$ is the absolute form used in personal names, so $ama$ is simply the way one adresses the sun (Mr. Sun). THe word for the heavenly luminary precedes its deification, and does not derive from it. Dear Victor: The fact that the name $ama$ could mean Mr. Sun presupposes that it could also have meant Lord Sun ranking him among the nobility, in a monarchial structure, where, perhaps, $ama$ was its king. We
orion-list Two Priestly Factions - Enoch/Hanoch vs. ?
On 13 April 2002, David Suter made some interesting
comments about Boccaccini's Sources of Rabbinic Judaism.
This particular publication identifies the opposition between Zadokite
and Enochic Judaism as an intrapriestly dispute representing the
aftermath
of the push for power of the sons of Zadok back in the early Restoration
period, pushing aside the Davidic line to establish the high priesthood
and the high priestly theocracy (this is the origin of the high priestly
office, he argues I think correctly, since prior to the exile the king
had
been the chief official in charge of the cultus)There is reason on
the
part of the royal and non-Zadokite priests to object, since, if I follow
his analysis correctly, the Zadokites cooperated with the Babylonians
during the exile and are therefore perceived to have betrayed the nation.
...While I don't necessarily agree with Boccaccini's dating in every
case, the advantage that I see to the argument is that it traces the
fragmentation of Second Temple Judaism to a dispute within the
priesthood in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods
[END OF QUOTE]
I found these comments more than enough encouragement to
look at where the intra-priestly factions might actually be best
seen in the O.T.
And I have to wonder if Jeremiah isn't the most obvious place!
We read:
Jer 35:16 Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have
performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded
them; but his people hath not hearkened unto me
Jer 35:18 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus
saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed
the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts,
and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Jer 35:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel;
Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me
for ever.
[END OF TEXT]
I believe most will agree that the phrase stand before me is a
standard phrase meaing, perform priestly duties before me.
And so what we have here is a fairly explicit reference to a
Rechabite priesthood, standing before the God of Israel.
This text is usually just passed over. But there really isn't
a more dramatic indication of a RIVAL priesthood than this.
Some have suggested that Jeremiah himself was of Rechabite
extraction. And I am sympathetic to these views.
But who were these Rechabites? Do we see any other clues that
would suggest that the Rechabites were part parcel of the
Yahwist community? In fact, there are so many clues it makes
one wonder whether the identity of the Rechabites was intentionally
hidden? or in fact made quite easy to trace.
Conventionally speaking, the Rechabites are descended from
the Midianites who are, in turn, descended from the Kenites.
Does this offer us a clue?
One possible clue is the identity of Enoch/Hanoch.
Strong's has the following:
02585 Chanowk {khan-oke'}
from 02596;
AV - Enoch 9, Hanoch 5, Henoch 2; 16
n pr m
Enoch = dedicated
1) eldest son of Cain
2) son of Jared and father of Methuselah whom God
took home to heaven without dying
n pr loc
3) the city which Cain built and named after his
son Enoch
n pr m
Hanoch = dedicated
4) a son of Midian, the third child
5) the eldest son of Reuben
[END OF DEFINITION]
And here we see the following:
a) phonetic linkage between Khan of Hanoch and Ken
of Kenites - with Cain being the first born of Adam;
b) the first born of Cain;
c) the name of the city Hanoch/Enoch;
d) a son of Midian, with the Kenite connection to Midian;
and finally...
e) the first born of Reuben.
There's an awful lot of first born aspect to this Enoch/Hanoch.
And this leads one to wonder more about the Reuben connection.
Reuben was the first born of Jacob/Israel. And yet we know practically
nothing about this tribe. We know that it had the first position in
front
of the ark. And that it settled the first territory of the Transjordan
Moab region.
Certainly by the time of Meshe of Moab, there doesn't appear to
be a trace of Reuben left. What has happened to this entire tribe?
Could it in fact be just another name for a tribe of Rechob?
Interestingly, the Hebrew word for Reubenite is phonetically not
that distant from Rechob-im:
07206 Reh'uwbeniy {reh-oob-ay-nee'}
patronymic from 07205;; adj
AV - Reubenite 17, Reuben 1; 18
Reubenite = see Reuben behold a son
1) a descendant of Reuben the son of Jacob
[END OF DEFINITION]
And in the story of Exodus we hear Moses successfully
persuading the Midianites to lead his people into the lands
they are familiar with. This would put the Midianites into the
first position. Wouldn't this be ahead of Reuben? Or was
it, in fact, Reuben that they came to represent.
I know that all of this is very speculative. But the inescapable
nugget in this discussion is that Jeremiah says that there will
ALWAYS be a Rechabite priest serving the Lord of Israel.
These are incredibly
Re: orion-list Re: orion V2002 #17
Let me add one more comment to this comment. There are plenty of Sumerian gods with EN or NIN (Lord/Lady) as the first component in their names. UTU is not one of them. Victor On Tue, 7 May 2002, avigdor horovitz wrote: Dear John, I find your comments as off base as the original suggestion I commented on, and inall due respect for your imagination I respectfully dismiss it out of hand. Please note that the sumerian sungod was named UTU, the Sumerian word for sun. May I suggest that you do some reading on the development of Mesopotamian religion. Start with Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness. Victor And now I will go all the way down to the bottom of this letter to let teh trailor loose. It's a long way down! On Mon, 6 May 2002, John Lupia wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Victor Horovitz wrote: Excuse me for being blunt, but your assertion is ridiculous. The semitic word for sun is $VmV$. It is shared by all semitic languages (Heb $eme$, Akkadian $am$su, Ugaritic $p$, Arabic sams, etc). The Akkadian nominal form would be $am$u with the nominative ending. The form $ama$ is the absolute form used in personal names, so $ama$ is simply the way one adresses the sun (Mr. Sun). THe word for the heavenly luminary precedes its deification, and does not derive from it. Dear Victor: The fact that the name $ama$ could mean Mr. Sun presupposes that it could also have meant Lord Sun ranking him among the nobility, in a monarchial structure, where, perhaps, $ama$ was its king. We cannot rule out a form of pagan idolatry where a deceased king is honored and considered the rising sun in the eternal life. In this case then the origin of the name does not precludes that it was involved in its very origin as a religio-mythic cult of a primogenetor king who eternally lives and reigns and who can give us enlightenment. Judaism seems to have broken off from this cultic sun-worship and imputed to the one-uncreated-God the faculties and personality of $ama$ and established monotheism as an outgrowth and a response to this. Victor Horovitz wrote: Although the sun may have been adored in Israelite religion, biblical or post biblical, as has been asserted by many scholars (see, for example Morton Smith's article on Helios in Palestine in the Orlinsky Volume of Eretz Israel, or Hadley? articles and books), your argument is simply wrong, backward, and irrelevant. I agree that the Israeli sun worshipping would be irrelevant since it would have been post Sumerian period which first gave evidence to this phenomenon. Conseuently, Judaism would have been a development as an outgrowth from Sumerian culture, which appears to have lapsed back into its former Sumerian form from time to time. Victor Horovitz wrote: As for adoring the rising sun, in particular, I might refer you to the famous Sun Disk inscription of Nebobaladan (King, Babylonian Boundary Stones no. 36) which tells that the statue of $ama$ was lost, and until it was miraculously rediscovered, it was substituted for by a niphu. Now, niphu designates a sundisk model, round and decorated with a four pointed star with wavy lines characteristic of $ama$ between each arm of the star. If you look at a picture of the tablet you will see such a niphu. What is relevant to your suggestion about this, is that the Akkadian verb napahu, from which niphu is derived, means to break out in flames, and also sun rise, so if we may learn anything from this it may be that the accepted non-anthropormorphic symbol of the Babylonian Sun God $ama$ was a model of the rising sun. Victor Yes, Victor, $ama$ would have been associated with the sun and time, hence he would be considered as father-time or the eternal one, or, perhaps called, Lord Sun-Rise. It is from this origin that it appears that Judaism was born. Substituting or replacing Ehad the One the eternal and uncreated God, who is the source of all creation, with $ama$, forms the new monotheistic religion of Judaism. The first Jews had adored the sun but as the Father who could enlighten us and give revelations. He could speak through prophets, kings, priests, and reveal himself to the human family. The disolvement between monolitheistic cult worship with the sun and without it seems to have drifted in and out suggesting priests from different schools existed and that the high priests were selected shifting between these different schools from time to time. Best regards, John = John N. Lupia 501 North Avenue B-1 Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 For private reply, e-mail to avigdor horovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- For private reply, e-mail to avigdor horovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion,
Re: orion-list Two Priestly Factions - Enoch/Hanoch vs. ?
Dear George,
I certainly can't get involved in all these issues, yet I must comment on
one of your points below. You say that the first city was named Hanoch. In
fact, William Hallo, in his JCS article on Antediluvian Cities has
suggested that the first city was Irad, and that this is a reflection of
Mesopotamian tradition which regarded Eridu as the first city. Hallo
understands wayyiqra $em ha`ir ke$em beno Hanok as meaning he named the
city after the name of Hanok's son (the waw is like the waw in wehayto
eretz in Gen 1:24). So later sources, anticipating your interpretation,may
have indeed understood the first city to have been named Hanok, but this
may not be the plain meaning of the biblical text.
Victor
On Mon, 6 May 2002, George Brooks wrote:
On 13 April 2002, David Suter made some interesting
comments about Boccaccini's Sources of Rabbinic Judaism.
This particular publication identifies the opposition between Zadokite
and Enochic Judaism as an intrapriestly dispute representing the
aftermath
of the push for power of the sons of Zadok back in the early Restoration
period, pushing aside the Davidic line to establish the high priesthood
and the high priestly theocracy (this is the origin of the high priestly
office, he argues I think correctly, since prior to the exile the king
had
been the chief official in charge of the cultus)There is reason on
the
part of the royal and non-Zadokite priests to object, since, if I follow
his analysis correctly, the Zadokites cooperated with the Babylonians
during the exile and are therefore perceived to have betrayed the nation.
...While I don't necessarily agree with Boccaccini's dating in every
case, the advantage that I see to the argument is that it traces the
fragmentation of Second Temple Judaism to a dispute within the
priesthood in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods
[END OF QUOTE]
I found these comments more than enough encouragement to
look at where the intra-priestly factions might actually be best
seen in the O.T.
And I have to wonder if Jeremiah isn't the most obvious place!
We read:
Jer 35:16 Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have
performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded
them; but his people hath not hearkened unto me
Jer 35:18 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus
saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed
the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts,
and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Jer 35:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel;
Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me
for ever.
[END OF TEXT]
I believe most will agree that the phrase stand before me is a
standard phrase meaing, perform priestly duties before me.
And so what we have here is a fairly explicit reference to a
Rechabite priesthood, standing before the God of Israel.
This text is usually just passed over. But there really isn't
a more dramatic indication of a RIVAL priesthood than this.
Some have suggested that Jeremiah himself was of Rechabite
extraction. And I am sympathetic to these views.
But who were these Rechabites? Do we see any other clues that
would suggest that the Rechabites were part parcel of the
Yahwist community? In fact, there are so many clues it makes
one wonder whether the identity of the Rechabites was intentionally
hidden? or in fact made quite easy to trace.
Conventionally speaking, the Rechabites are descended from
the Midianites who are, in turn, descended from the Kenites.
Does this offer us a clue?
One possible clue is the identity of Enoch/Hanoch.
Strong's has the following:
02585 Chanowk {khan-oke'}
from 02596;
AV - Enoch 9, Hanoch 5, Henoch 2; 16
n pr m
Enoch = dedicated
1) eldest son of Cain
2) son of Jared and father of Methuselah whom God
took home to heaven without dying
n pr loc
3) the city which Cain built and named after his
son Enoch
n pr m
Hanoch = dedicated
4) a son of Midian, the third child
5) the eldest son of Reuben
[END OF DEFINITION]
And here we see the following:
a) phonetic linkage between Khan of Hanoch and Ken
of Kenites - with Cain being the first born of Adam;
b) the first born of Cain;
c) the name of the city Hanoch/Enoch;
d) a son of Midian, with the Kenite connection to Midian;
and finally...
e) the first born of Reuben.
There's an awful lot of first born aspect to this Enoch/Hanoch.
And this leads one to wonder more about the Reuben connection.
Reuben was the first born of Jacob/Israel. And yet we know practically
nothing about this tribe. We know that it had the first position in
front
of the ark. And that it settled the first territory of the Transjordan
Moab region.
Certainly by the time of Meshe of Moab, there doesn't appear to
be a trace of Reuben left. What has happened to
