Additional Polemic Points Raised by JR and Answered by Brit-Am (1 March 2016, 21 Adar-A, 5776)
1. Geographical Terms Used as Names
2. Ruler of Moab
3. The Name Orpah versus Ophrah
4. Why did God NOT expressly say that Ammonite and Moabite Females were Exempt from the Prohibition?
5. Judges or gods or God?
6. JR Defends Catholic Scholars [who actually agree with us!]
7. Is Mexico Moab?
JR Replies to Sequel to Ruth:Â http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/sequel.html
1. Geographical Terms Used as Names
There is evidence Reuben's territory was called Moab after Joshua's conquest. For starters, Samuel never used the tribal designation Reubenite, Gadite, or MannasiteÂ in the singular or plural in any of the writings attributed to him in describing Israelites living east of the Jordan in the land of Moab/Gilead.Â Ever wonder why? Probably due to the fact he exclusively referred to Israelites living in the land of Moab/Gilead, north of the Arnon, as Moabite (ess) (Rth 1:22, 2:2,6, 21; 4:5, 10) and Gileadite(s) (Jdg10:3; 11:1,40; 12:7)! ... it was Samuel's habit to identify IsraelitesÂ based on the land they occupied.
The Israelites conquered lands of the Amorites that had previously belonged to Ammon and Moab. This region was known as Gilead and Bashan. People who came from this area were referred to as Gileadites or by their Tribal names. If you want to claim that they also could be called Moabites then you areÂ going against the simple traditional meaning of the text. You need to find at least one single example that is unequivocally as you say before you even begin your argument. Why do you not do so?
29 Moses said to them, 'If the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben, everyone who is armed for battle, will cross with you over the Jordan in the presence of the Lord, and the land is subdued before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession;
10 all the cities of the plateau and all Gilead and all Bashan, as far as Salecah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
43 Bezer in the wilderness on the plateau for the Reubenites, and Ramoth in Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan for the Manassites.
2 Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and ruled from Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, both the middle of the valley and half of Gilead, even as far as the brook Jabbok, the border of the sons of Ammon;
After the conquest and distribution of the land to the different we never find any Israelite area named Moab. As you say we do find people living in the former areas of Ammon and Moab as being referred to as Gileadites. Why, according to your line of thought,Â are they not called Ammonites or Moabites?Â
2. Ruler of Moab
Pahath-Moab was an individual whose descendants returned to Judah from Babylon approximately 538 BC. His name means "Governor of Moab" (Ezr 2:6; Ezr 8:4; Neh 7:11, 10:14). Several other men are mentioned as having "ancient" dominion in "Moab" (1 Ch 4:22).Â We can rule out the notion these men were descendants of Lot (Moabites), for the lists of names consist of descendants from the people of Israel (1Ch 4:1,22; Neh 7:7,11). There is also the prohibition of Moabites and Ammonites from ever entering the congregation of Israel (Deu 23:3). Neither one could have governed a city in the nation of Moab, for God said he would not give any part of the 'nation' of Moab for Israel to possess (Deu 2:9) . One cannot rule over a land not under one's possession. So what 'Moab' did these men rule and or have dominion?' There is only one viable conclusion--the land inhabited by Reuben referred to by Samuel as the sadeh of "Moab" (Rth 1:1). This is ironclad proof the area inherited by Reuben was referred to as "Moab" and once governed ' by an Israelite judge!
David and Solomon and other Israelites ruled over Moab. Apparently it was permitted in their time. They must have had a few Israelite officials there to rule over them. Why is it the very few (i.e. one or two) names of Israelites that may be related to Moab are ONLY those concerning such rulership?
2 ...So the Moabites became subject to David and brought him tribute.
4 Now Mesha king of Moab raised sheep, and he had to pay the king of Israel a tribute of a hundred thousand lambs and the wool of a hundred thousand rams.
5 But after Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.
21 The sons of Shelah son of Judah:
Er the father of Lekah, Laadah the father of Mareshah and the clans of the linen workers at Beth Ashbea, 22 Jokim, the men of Kozeba, and Joash and Saraph, who ruled over [Hebrew: "baalu b.."] Moab and Jashubi Lehem. (These records are from ancient times.)
Further supporting the conclusion Ruth and Orpah were Israelites is found in an unlikely source-- Orpah's name. Orpah was Naomi's other daughter-in-law who decided not to join Naomi and Ruth on their trip back to Judah. Her name is a transliterated variant of an Israelite named Ophrah (1 Ch 4:14). Both Hebrew names are spelled different, yet have a similar definition:
Ophrah-- Strong's: H6084=female fawn
Orpah BDB: H6204 = gazelle
Young Gazelles are called fawns.Â Ophrah was also a city in Benjamin's and Mannaseh's territory ' (Jos 18:23;Jdg 8:27; 1Sa 13:17).'Â Interestingly, a Benjamite named Shaharaim had children in the [sadeh] of Moab (1 Ch 8:8). The same area we find Ruth and Orpah!
Â Could Orpah have been namedÂ or have once resided in this Benjamite town which curiously happened to be located just a couple of miles west of the 'sadeh of Moab'? Ruth's sister was named after two Israelite cities. It would not at all be strange for Ruth to be labeled a Moabitess for residing in the Reuben's territory called the "sadeh of Moab".'
Â The Moabites spoke a Hebrew dialect. It is only to be expected that some names might be similar. On the other hand Orpah may, or may not, have a name derived from the same source as Ofrah, BUT the name is still not the same.
Your evidence would have some merit if such a town as Orpah or some derivative even remotely existed south of the Arnon, in Moab proper's territory . But no evidence of one exists. But there are not one but two Israelite cities that are transliterations of her name. You question whether Orpah may or may not have a name derived from the same source as Ofrah. There is no question that it does :
Additionally, names for the same person are sometimes spelled different. For instance, compare the names in 1 Ki 4:31 and 1 Ch 2:6. Notice Darda and Dara is the same Israelite even though both names are spelled different and have different meanings.
It is also certainly plausible for errors in spelling of biblical place names, particularly in those instances where several copies of the same list are preserved. As an example, the towns of Simeon are listed in Joshua 19: 2-8; 1 Chronicles 4: 28-33; and Joshua 15: 26-32; while a few of them also appear in Nehemiah 11: 25-29 and 1 Samuel 30: 27-30. Comparison of these lists reveals that errors and changes have taken place in some of the names and it has nothing to do with a different Hebrew dialect.
This is not an argument and you know it. It proves nothing but serves as a smoke-screen to hide your lack of real proof.
We have the names of two Moabite Kings:
When Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab...Â
[ Ehud ] Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and because they did this evil the Lord gave Eglon king of Moab power over Israel.
The meaning of "Balak" is not certain though it could connote "white" or "shining" in Hebrew. "Eglon" in Hebrew means "Little Bull-Calf."
Do you think "Eglon" was really an Israelite because of his name?
What about Ruth?
What does her name mean? Where there any Israelite women with such a name?
If it is so obvious that "Orpah" is the same as "Ophrah" why do we not find Israelite women with that name?
They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years...
You continually speak of the simple meaning of scripture. Well the simple meaning of scripture states no Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the congregation "olawm" [forever](Deuteronomy 23:3-6).
Yet the Sages, which you yourself admit are "human" indicating they are subject to error, have created all sorts of exceptions to the "simple" reading of scripture.Â If Moses wanted to convey it only applied to males (zakur), he would have been just as specific as he was for the statute in Deu 16:16. But he did not. Nehemiah irrefutably confirms the statute applies to both sexes.
16 Â Three times in a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread and at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths, and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed.
There is a reason for everything.
Perhaps the Almighty wanted the legitimacy of King David and the future Messiah to be dependent on the Decision of the Sages? HE gave them the authority to decide one way or theÂ other (Deuteronomy 17:8-13).
Why was that?
Why does this worry you so much?
Concerning Nehamiah you are ignoring our article on this subject, see:
"Nehamiah. Foreign Women"
WeÂ show by a close study of the relevant verses that Nehemiah went out of his way to emphasize that his actions DID NOTÂ CONTRADICT the exemption given to women from Moab and Ammon once they convert.
5. Judges or gods or God?
15 Then she said, 'Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law.' 16 But Ruth said, 'Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. 17 Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the Lord do to me, and worse, if anything butdeath parts you and me.' 18 When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her.
In Rth 1:15, Naomi beseeches Ruth to follow in the footsteps of her sister and return to her 'gods' [elohim-plural]. The Hebrew term 'elohim' is generally a plural term. In some cases, it can also take on a singular aspect.
Â We also find evidence of Ruth and Naomi utilizing the term elohim exclusively for judges . At the end of Ruths infamous dialogue with Naomi (Rth 1:15), she appeals to the Almighty to bear witness to her statement and does NOT refer to Him as elohim. She creates a distinction from the judges [elohim] in verse 16, by referring to the Almighty as LORD [YHVH] in verse seventeen.
Britam replies: This is not evidence. I could just as well as answer that she used the expression Eloyaich ("Your God") in the singularÂ (Ruth 1:16) as a juxtaposition to "elohayah" her gods in the previous verse (Ruth 1:15) . The Hebrew says, "Your God is my God"Â Ruth 1:16 in the singular. The word "elohaya" Ruth 1:15Â means "her gods" and refers to the Moabite gods of Orpah.
I doubt if you will find any translation or any commentator (apart from yourself and your own coterie) anywhere who says that these words in Ruth 1:15-16 mean "judges."
Incidentally, your claim does not even resonate with the atmosphere of the narrative. This was before the days of "Womens Lib."Â Women were then more interested in raising a family rather than how exactly the juridical process was working.
Your reconstruction of the Hebrew text is not found anywhere in the Bible. One cannot just invent things.
6. JR Defends Catholic Scholars [who actually agree with us!]
Interestingly, some scholars have closely scrutinize Ruth 1:16 by comparing the text to similar biblical and ancient near East dialogues, and at least one Catholic scholar who believes Ruth was a descendant of Moab, has come to the conclusion that: "It is as if the newcomer shares in some sort the same blood".Â Perhaps because Ruth, the newcomer, did share the same Israelite blood as Naomi!
Oh. So he is a Catholic? And that means he is more reliable in these matters than we are, does it?
So Jews are the only ones whom the Almighty has allowed to understand the dialogues of the Ancient Near East? You can place the Almighty in your own littleÂ baqbukÂ [Hebrew: "bottle'"?] if you want, but I will not limit whom He chooses to reveal knowledge. In light of the evidence presented, it is merely interesting to me based his expertise on Ancient Near East dialogues has led him to conclude a biological connection in her statement,Â even though he believes Ruth was not an Israelite.
You can be what you like. We all have our agendas however.
Until now we assumed the "Ruth was a Hebrew" school to mainly belong to the fringe "Identity" and "Holy Name" groups. They wrote articles before you did and your major arguments are to be found as already present in their writings.
There is a difference however.
Their commitment was derived more from Racialist considerations. Yours may be theological.
7. Is Mexico (and other Hispanic peoples?) Moab?
The Mexicans are descended mainly from Spanish males and South Amerindian females. Spain in Medieval literature is usually identified with Tubal son of Japhet. Israelites, Jews, and Edomites were also present. So were others.
A good while ago someone (whose name we have lost) sent us a note suggesting that Mexico was Moab.
They drew a parallel between the geographical location of Mexico vis-a -vis the USA and that of Ancient Israel compared to Moab.
Spain was also ruled over for a while by Muslims from Morocco. One of the terms applied tot hese rulers was "Moabi."
The Moorish alliance never forgot their Moabi origin. Christian chronicles sometimes referred to the Almoravids as 'Moabites'. There are numerous references to the 'Moabites' in the Chronica Adephonsi [e.g. , , , , ; the references are to paragraphs] and the reference to 'Ali' and Texufinus (Tashufin) as kings of the Moabites would seem to support their theory that this term refers to Almoravids -
Almoravids -Â Arabic al-Mur bi n ('those dwelling in frontier garrisons') ,Â confederation of Berber tribes. Lamt nah, Gud lah, Mass fah of the anh jah clan, whose religious zeal and military enterprise built an empire in northwestern Africa and Muslim Spain in the 11th and 12th centuries.Â
The Berbers were white Africans and to some degree related to the native inhabitants of Spain.
The DNA findings for what they are worth link the Spanish to other Europeans but allow for the possibilities of an influx from the region of Moab ("Southwest Asia") in Ancient times.
Genetic history of the Spaniards and the Portuguese
The majority of Iberian paternal lineages are of Indo-European (R1b, G2a3b1, J2b2 and a small amount of R1a), which can be attributed to the Proto-Celtic and Hallstatt Celtic invaders, and to a lower extent to later Roman and Germanic settlers. In total, these amount to 50-85% of Spanish Y-DNA and 60% of Portuguese Y-DNA. Maternal lineages, on the other hand, appear to have a mostly Neolithic and Mesolithic origin, notably haplogroups H1, H3, HV0, K1a, J1c, J2a1, J2b1a, T2, U5b, V and X, which make up over 80% of the mtDNA in regions like the Basque country or Asturias, and always over 50% of the population of any region.
Western Iberia, from Galicia and Asturias to southern Portugal and western Andalusia, have relatively high percentages of Southwest Asian Y-chromosomal haplogroups (E-M34, J1, J2a, T). Their historical origin is diverse, being the cumulative contributions of Levantine Neolithic herders, Phoenicians, Jews and Arabs, although their exact proportion remains difficult to assess and may vary a lot between regions. What can be ascertained is that northern regions such as Cantabria, Asturias and even Galicia have negligible medieval Arabic, Jewish and Phoenician ancestry, and therefore the presence of Southwest Asian haplogroups should be attributed to Neolithic herders. Maternal Southwest Asian lineages included especially HV, J1d, J2a2, U3, X1 as well as some K, T and X2 subclades. Autosomal data shows a maximum of 12% of Southwest Asian and Red Sea DNA in southern Portugal and western Andalusia, and a minimum of 0% in the Basque country.
We may therefore raise the possibility that Ammon and Moab helped give rise to the Spanish and Portuguese and through them to All Latin Americans? This would explain much. There may also have been preliminary input from Moab and Ammon amongst the Amerindians of Latin America. At the moment we are only speculating and have not got much to go on this area but more may follow. We also have Poles and Ukrainians and the feeling is that they too were in part from Biblical Peoples. Craig White identified the Poles with Elamites.