Fact-Checking the Torah -- can you hear me now?

Wow. It’s been almost two years since I posted the start of my thread on Documentary Hypothesis, showing that it is mathematically improbable, factually and logically false.

For two years, nobody has responded to my critique of DH. There are lots of reasons for people not commenting on my posts.

·        People have been busy with their lives. When they have a spare moment, they can’t find information that would help them, that I didn’t already cover.

·        Or they already agreed with me, even if on different grounds.

·        Or the people who used to support it, have given up on it for whatever reason.

·        Or the right people haven’t seen the posts. If you know somebody and you think they could refute me, send them a link to the first post. Remember, I trashed DH from multiple angles, including mathematical probability and logic, as well as false facts and failures of Occam’s Razor.

I still occasionally go out on the web looking for new papers on DH. I found a 2016 paper (see first link) that had three takeaways for me.

First, DH continues to unravel. Ongoing studies are casting doubt on the history “in” D. Combined with the late 20^th century retreat from E, and Baden’s complete rejection of historicity (which undermines P), it means there’s not a lot left to DH.

Second, the paper comes to a conclusion, no doubt surprising to DH scholars, that Joshua reflects knowledge of Torah, which is not possible if the DH timeline is correct. Unless, of course, Joshua was invented after all of them including P. Which is not possible because Joshua uses pre-Captivity Biblical Hebrew grammar -- certainty epistemics, va-y’hi timing expressions, duplicate conditionals – as well as having examples of Olrik’s principles, the sign that it is an oral tradition.

Third, the author committed a mistake common to high-school writers. The conclusion has new material not predicted or supported by the body. It tees off on having to study for years to get accepted as an expert.  It was a startling mistake for somebody who had been publishing for at least 5 years, all the way back to a paper in a 2011 book called “The Death of Archaeological Theory”. The introduction to this book is in the second link.

Reviews of the book are instructive.

·        The title is a nod to a well-known interpretationist author. Bintliff's conclusion is clearly interpretationist.

·        Flannery and Marcus commit the redefinition fallacy by equating archaeology and anthropology – and denying that archaeology ever existed in the first place.

·        Kristiansen uses 20-year-old data without support and without citations. As a 60-year veteran in academic studies (as of 2011), he should have known better.

·        Gramsch shows how monolinguism has prevented European archaeologists from using work not written in their first language – something that also happens in the US – and therefore they lack a well-rounded understanding of events in the field.

It’s just another sad example of people in academe who create uproars at professional conferences (which they did) to get attention in their field, and why they have to create uproars.

This is not the caliber of work needed to rehabilitate DH, assuming that Bintliff and the others wanted to. None of them know that it needs rehabilitation. That’s where Graf/Baden isolationism has put DH: in Plato’s cave, looking at the light show without a clue of what’s going on outside.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1010-99192016000200005

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259922761_The_Death_of_Archaeological_Theory

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- Genesis 4:21-24, shivataim

Genesis 4:21-24

 

כא וְשֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו יוּבָ֑ל ה֣וּא הָיָ֔ה אֲבִ֕י כָּל־תֹּפֵ֥שׂ כִּנּ֖וֹר וְעוּגָֽב:

כב וְצִלָּ֣ה גַם־הִ֗וא יָֽלְדָה֙ אֶת־תּ֣וּבַל קַ֔יִן לֹטֵ֕שׁ כָּל־חֹרֵ֥שׁ נְח֖שֶׁת וּבַרְזֶ֑ל וַאֲח֥וֹת תּֽוּבַל־קַ֖יִן נַֽעֲמָֽה:

כג וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לֶ֜מֶךְ לְנָשָׁ֗יו עָדָ֤ה וְצִלָּה֙ שְׁמַ֣עַן קוֹלִ֔י נְשֵׁ֣י לֶ֔מֶךְ הַֽאֲזֵ֖נָּה אִמְרָתִ֑י כִּ֣י אִ֤ישׁ הָרַ֨גְתִּי֙ לְפִצְעִ֔י וְיֶ֖לֶד לְחַבֻּֽרָתִֽי:

כד כִּ֥י שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻֽקַּם־קָ֑יִן וְלֶ֖מֶךְ שִׁבְעִ֥ים וְשִׁבְעָֽה:

 

Translation: The name of his brother was Yuval; he was the father of all playing the harp and ugav.

Tsillah, she gave birth to Tuval Qain sharpening every tool of bronze and iron; the sister of Tuval Qain was Naamah.

Lemekh said to his wives “Adah and Tsillah, obey me, wives of Lemekh hearken to my saying; if I killed a man [was it] for my wounding? or a boy, for my injury?

If Qain is avenged shivataim; then Lemekh seventy seven.”

 

Vocabulary

תֹּפֵשׂ	toucher
כִּנּוֹר	harp
לֹטֵשׁ	sharpener
חֹרֵשׁ	Tool
נְחשֶׁת	Bronze, copper
בַרְזֶל	iron
הַאֲזֵנָּה	Listen to
פִצְעִי	My wounding
חַבֻּרָתִי	My injury
יֻקַּם	Be avenged

 

Let’s get the grammar out of the way first. Yuqam is hufal, of course, as it was earlier.  Lemekh is saying that he personally should be legally defined as yuqam in the 77^th – what? 

 

Lemekh is the seventh generation of people in the world. This suggests that shivataim is seven pairs, that is seven pairs of parents or seven generations. So Lemekh should be avenged to the 77^th generation.  Why?  Qain is only supposed to be avenged if somebody kills him, and he’s still alive.

 

Or is he? Whom did Lemekh kill? What boy did he wound? Midrash Tanchuma Breshit 11 says that he was blind and his son Tuval Qain used to lead him around, put bow and arrow in his hand, and tell him where to aim. Up to this date, the arrows only found animals. Today, Lemekh killed Qain. When the boy told him what had happened, Lemekh killed the boy by accident.

 

Qain was sorry for what he did. Lemekh is not. Lemekh is presumptuous, thinking that 77 generations of descendants will follow him.  A blind man has no excuse for handling weapons, let alone letting a minor child, who cannot legally form intent, tell him where to aim. It’s a recipe for trouble.  Lemekh blinded himself to the possible consequences and thinks he’s going to get away with it just because Qain did.  How often have we heard that in the news?  Human nature hasn’t changed in thousands of years.

Knitting -- sleeveless summer blouse

This is based on the V-neck vest. I like to have the points of my shoulders bare in our summer heat. Use a fingering weight cotton or linen yarn; the counts below are for Comfy Fingering and (Lindy Chain linen/cotton).

This takes at least a week, like knitting the body of a pullover. You need 5 50-gram balls of yarn.

Cable on 280 (300) stitches to a 24-inch size 3 (size 1) circular needle.
Work 10 rows k2/p2 rib (cable on 1 more stitch and work 11 rows seed stitch)
Mark the underarms and center front and back.
Work 130 (140) rounds to the armpits.
On the last two rounds, five stitches short of the underarm marker, work P2/K6/P2 to set up your selvages (4 stitches of seed stitch for the armhole edge).
Work the back above the armpits in stockinette for 30 rows.
Now do a k2TOG before and after the selvage (armhole edge) every 3 rows for 30 rows.
Work the last 5 (25) rows without decreasing. Total 65 (85) rows.
Leave all stitches on the needle.

On the front, work above the armpits in stockinette for 28 rows with the selvage (seed stitch armhole edging).
At the front center marker, set up the base of the V neck with P2/K6/P2 on a knit row, or K2/P6/K2 on a purl row (use seed stitch for 4 stitches at the center).
On the next row, decrease one at the selvage and one before the center, then P2/K3 or K2/P1/K2 depending on whether it's a knit row or purl row, respectively.
(Work 2 stitches of seed stitch at the edge of the vee and at the armhole with Lindy Chain).
Do the decreases at the VEE side EVERY row, at the ARMHOLE every THIRD row.
At row 65 stop decreasing. (Work to row 85 in Lindy Chain)
Knit to the back at the top across the selvage.
Repeat this for the other side of the front.
Work 2 rows of seed stitch at the neck in the back and bind off.

Here is how the front of this top looks. The purple one is Comfy Fingering and the green one is Lindy Chain.






Now, why did I have you set a center back marker and not have you do anything with it? That's for next week.

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- Genesis 4:17-20, "decreeing a child"

Genesis 4:17-20

 

יז וַיֵּ֤דַע קַ֨יִן֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־חֲנ֑וֹךְ וַֽיְהִי֙ בֹּ֣נֶה עִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הָעִ֔יר כְּשֵׁ֖ם בְּנ֥וֹ חֲנֽוֹךְ:

יח וַיִּוָּלֵ֤ד לַֽחֲנוֹךְ֙ אֶת־עִירָ֔ד וְעִירָ֕ד יָלַ֖ד אֶת־מְחֽוּיָאֵ֑ל וּמְחִיָּיאֵ֗ל יָלַד֙ אֶת־מְת֣וּשָׁאֵ֔ל וּמְתֽוּשָׁאֵ֖ל יָלַ֥ד אֶת־לָֽמֶךְ:

יט וַיִּֽקַּח־ל֥וֹ לֶ֖מֶךְ שְׁתֵּ֣י נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם הָֽאַחַת֙ עָדָ֔ה וְשֵׁ֥ם הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית צִלָּֽה:

כ וַתֵּ֥לֶד עָדָ֖ה אֶת־יָבָ֑ל ה֣וּא הָיָ֔ה אֲבִ֕י ישֵׁ֥ב אֹ֖הֶל וּמִקְנֶֽה:

 

Translation: Qain knew his wife, she became pregnant and gave birth to Chanokh; it must have been boneh ir that he named the city for his son Chanokh.

There was born to Chanokh Irad and Irad sired Mechuyael and Mechiyael sired Metushael and Metushael sired Lemekh.

Lemekh took himself two wives; the name of one was Adah and the name of the other was Tsillah.

Adah gave birth to Yaval; he was the father of those living in tents and flocks.

 

Vocabulary

 

עִיר	city
אֹהֶל	tent
מִקְנֶה	flocks

 

Yeda in the first verse of this section is perfect aspect; this is a new episode. The ancient question of “where did Qain’s wife come from” is irrelevant. Olrik says: oral narratives don’t give all the gory details, they are stripped down to essentials.  It’s not important to the story who was Chanokh’s mother or where she came from. The city had a tradition that it had been named after the son of Qain who built it, and that’s what is recorded here.

 

And so va-y’hi “it must have been when” plus the progressive boneh and so on.

 

Boneh ir is a construct phrase, using the progressive in a descriptive sense that edges over into the substantive. But it also takes advantage of progressive in the sense of something just done.

 

Va-yivaled is nifal in the narrative past. It sounds strange to say that it was decreed that Irad was born to Chanokh, but it suggests that there wasn’t necessarily a biological relationship.  Irad inherited from Chanokh due to a legal decree. The biology was irrelevant.

 

Yalad, on the other hand, means “sired” when used with a masculine subject. We’ll see the hifil later, and it’s a beautiful demonstration that BH uses verbs in a causative way even if they aren’t hifil.  That’s on top of using hifil without causative meaning, with a strictly transitive meaning. So just like I told you to kick “intensive” to the curb with reference to piel, you can kick “causative” to the curb with reference to hifil.  They are labels that don’t really help you get at the meaning of the material.

 

What yalad is not, is yoled which we’ll see soon.

 

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- hufal binyan

Genesis 4:13-16

יג וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־יְהוָֹ֑ה גָּד֥וֹל עֲוֹנִ֖י מִנְּשֽׂוֹא:  

יד הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיּ֗וֹם מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹֽצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי:

טו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר ל֣וֹ יְהֹוָ֗ה לָכֵן֙ כָּל־הֹרֵ֣ג קַ֔יִן שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקָּ֑ם וַיָּ֨שֶׂם יְהוָֹ֤ה לְקַ֨יִן֙ א֔וֹת לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכּוֹת־אֹת֖וֹ כָּל־מֹֽצְאֽוֹ:

טז וַיֵּ֥צֵא קַ֖יִן מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהוָֹ֑ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־נ֖וֹד קִדְמַת־עֵֽדֶן:

Translation: Qain said to the Lord: is my sin great beyond bearing?

Behold you have expelled me today from the surface of the earth, from Your Presence, I shall be in hiding; a wanderer and trembler on earth, from now on anybody who finds me will kill me.
The Lord said to him, therefore anybody killing Qain, he is avenged shivataim; the Lord set for Qain a sign for anybody finding him not killing him.
Qain went out from before the Lord; he lived in the land of Nod eastward of Eden.
 

Now. Why do we have yuqam?

 

This is hufal binyan which I mentioned before.  It looks a lot like hifil except for the “oo” in the first syllable.  Like pual, it is used differently in narratives compared to legal material.

 

In legal material, hufal is the binyan of a legal definition.   When an ox kills more than one person, it is defined in law as huad, noticeably dangerous.  The same term is used of a murderer. 

 

Equally importantly, hurtsah is used of a sacrifice which has been performed according to all the details of the ritual that applies, meaning that it’s acceptable.  In BH, rotseh does not mean “want”; that’s what it means in Mishnaic Hebrew and Modern Hebrew as the auxiliary verb for the volitive.  BH does the volitive in morphology; MH and MH use periphrasis.

 

In narratives hufal seems to indicate following a norm of behavior or a local custom.  Hugad tends to mean receiving information only through official sources.

 

Which do we have here?  The audience would have understood yuqam to mean court-ordered sanctions for a killing.  In Qain’s case, it’s exile because he’s guilty of manslaughter, not murder.  In the case of anybody who kills Qain, it will be whatever fits the case – the death penalty or exile.  And since nobody has killed Qain yet, we don’t know what that will be.

 

Why not use nifal?  Nifal is used for court rulings, not legal definitions.  Pual is not appropriate because it says that what happened may not meet the legal definition expressed in hufal.  Qual is not appropriate because in laws, it points to consequences that are unexpected or counterintuitive.

 

Each of the binyanim has a specific role.  While piel and hifil can both be used transitively when the qal is intransitive, or as action verbs when qal is descriptive, I have yet to notice a case when piel and hifil both exist for a verb and both are transitive and have identical meaning.  In such cases, one of them has a special meaning.  I’ll do a special lesson on this much later.  Let’s get through the basics first.

 

You will see yuqam again soon and that will identify an important issue about the Qain saga.
 

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- Genesis 4:13-16, trop controls

Genesis 4:13-16

 

יג וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־יְהוָֹ֑ה גָּד֥וֹל עֲוֹנִ֖י מִנְּשֽׂוֹא:

יד הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיּ֗וֹם מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹֽצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי:

טו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר ל֣וֹ יְהֹוָ֗ה לָכֵן֙ כָּל־הֹרֵ֣ג קַ֔יִן שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקָּ֑ם וַיָּ֨שֶׂם יְהוָֹ֤ה לְקַ֨יִן֙ א֔וֹת לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכּוֹת־אֹת֖וֹ כָּל־מֹֽצְאֽוֹ:

טז וַיֵּ֥צֵא קַ֖יִן מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהוָֹ֑ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־נ֖וֹד קִדְמַת־עֵֽדֶן:

 

Translation: Qain said to the Lord: is my sin great beyond bearing?

Behold you have expelled me today from the surface of the earth, from Your Presence, I shall be in hiding; a wanderer and trembler on earth, from now on anybody who finds me will kill me.

The Lord said to him, therefore anybody killing Qain, he is avenged shivataim; the Lord set for Qain a sign for anybody finding him not killing him.

Qain went out from before the Lord; he lived in the land of Nod eastward of Eden.

 

Vocabulary

 

עֲוֹנִי	My sin
מִנְּשׂוֹא	… than bearing
אֶסָּתֵר	I shall be hidden
שִׁבְעָתַיִם	Seven pairs

 

So now that you have recovered from my translation of hashomer achi anokhi, verse 14 presents another issue. Esater is a nifal imperfect and remember, a nifal is a decree. Look under the previous word; there is a little curve pointing to ha-adamah. “Mi-pney ha-adamah u-mi-panekha” is a phrase. The verb is separated from it. Most translations give the idea that Qain thinks he can hide from Gd. The trop disagrees.

 

What you have is two parts of the verse falling each into two halves. The gerashti in the part before the etnach results in Qain being a na va-nad, a phrase after the etnach.  The esater before the etnach is because of his fear that “anybody who finds me will kill me.” What Qain does is decree upon himself to hide.

 

Also notice that the “sign of Qain” is set to protect him.

 

Yahargeni: this is the Jewish law of manslaughter; the killer has to get to a city of refuge and the relatives of the dead can avenge the killing whenever he is not within the city precincts. When this happens, it’s not a legal execution at the hands of the court but it also is not murder. However, there are no cities yet as we are about to see.

 

Mi-n’so echoes the “beyond” concept from the previous verse. The rabbis turn this around; is what Qain did really beyond Gd’s capability to bear with human imperfections?

 

“Seven pairs” is shivataim. It looks like a class of nouns in Hebrew that end in –aim and come in pairs. Eynaim eyes, raglaim feet, aznaim ears. Also shnataim two years; sh’vuaim two weeks; yomaim two days.

 

But what is shivataim doing here? That can only be understood in the context of the rest of the episode, which is coming up.

 

Knitting -- getting a new hold

I love watching old movies, as you know if you remember my Constance Bennet tuxedo post.

So I was watching a noir film and one of the women prisoners was knitting with the right hand needle held high and pushed through the stitches, then she wrapped the yarn and pulled the right needle out.

Recently I was watching a British series on YouTube and one of the women characters used the same hold on her needles.

So I started googling. Turns out that this is called lever or Irish cottage or Pit style, as well as a "pencil hold", because your right hand holds the needle like a pencil, instead of with the same hold as your left hand.

Apparently it is mostly used with straight needles, but I tried it while working a linen top on  a circular needle. I was using KTBL on the odd rows and having trouble working quickly.  Until I changed to the pencil hold.

Here's how it works. Tension the yarn on your right hand. Use your left hand to push the stitch onto the right needle. Use your right hand to loop the yarn. Use your left hand to pull the inactive side of the loop off the right needle.

This video is great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNlt_-F-3ZA

It shows how much faster purling goes with the pencil hold, because you don't have to move the yarn as much. The Continental style is supposed to work faster than the English style, but if you are uber-righthanded like me, your left hand cramps a lot unless you originally learned to knit Continental style. Pit style is more natural for me.

The video also talks about something I've seen on other websites. If you knit a lot, English or Continental style, you may have developed carpal tunnel or some other  repetitive motion syndrome. This is a different motion and it won't stress your hands or joints the same way.

The same person did a video for circular needles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHCqMBrIfU

The pencil hold, if I work up some speed with it, might help me with skirt patterns at freevintageknitting.com. But I have a lot of summer tops to finish -- and that's the next post.