1. Michelle Bowie: Celeb
and the Kenizzites? Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1582
Yes, indeed Caleb was a Kenizzite, but we see here also he is listed as being a
son of Hezron
I suspect then, he is most likely a descendant of Shelah, the only surviving son
of Judah by his first wife:
1Ch 2:3 The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto
him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was
evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him.
1Ch 2:18 And Caleb the son of Hezron begat children of Azubah his wife, and of
Jerioth: her sons are these; Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon.
This then would make Caleb half Israelite and half Canaanite or more accurately
Below are verses showing his ties to Judah through Hezron, son of Phares. Most
likely, he married into the Phares line?..but without further scripture to prove
this, it is speculation.
Gen 46:12 And the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and
Zerah: but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Pharez were
Hezron and Hamul.
Num 26:21 And the sons of Pharez were; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites:
of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.
Oldest Known Example of the Star of David From: zeev barkan
Subject: I found the picture
See the original
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31383164@N06/4480995095/ 3. Addition to Article: King David and the Oral Law
The Choice is between an Ancient Oral Tradition and a New One Derived from Base
The simple literal common sense meaning is that Ruth was of non-Israel Moabite
This however would seem to contradict a Biblical commandment not to accept
Moabites into the fold.
The Rabbis resolve this by explaining that the prohibition applied to males and
not females and they quote the relevant Biblical verses to justify their
I personally accept this because I am Jewish by religion and understand that an
Oral Law or Explanation must have existed from the beginning.
Otherwise numerous commandments and statements remain without explanation as to
their practical application.
In addition the Bible itself gave the Sages authority to decide how the Law
should be applied which is why seventy elders were appointed by Moses.
Suppose however I was not Jewish and did not feel obligated to accept the Law as
expounded by the Sages?
I would then find in the case of Ruth the explanation of the Prohibition
applying to males only to be a possibility.
Or I would leave the case open. Not every problem or apparent contradiction has
to have an immediate answer.
The solution offered by people like Fix saying that Ruth was really an Israelite
woman is in effect far-fetched.
It needs proving.
It would require Biblical verses to support it.
The supporting verse would have to apply to Ruth and the resulting scenario
would have to be compatible to the simple literal sense of the Book of Ruth as
read and especially as read in the Hebrew and in line with everything else in
The explanation of Fix does not do that.
Fix in effect has a thinly disguised double edged motivation for his proposed
(a) He considers the Moabites to have been somehow racially inferior to the
Israelites. By accepting Ruth as being from Moab he would be admitting that the
ancestor of David came in part from inferior stock!! David would be a product of
(b) By not saying that Ruth was really an Israelitess he would be leaving the
Rabbinical solution open as a likely possibility. This is anathema!
Because Fix (and people like him) has these ulterior motivations they in effect
invent an oral tradition of their own!
In other words it is not a case of accepting the literal meaning (as proposed by
Fix etc) in place of the Oral Law Rabbinical explanation.
It is rather a choice between accepting one Oral Law Explanation (of the
Rabbis) that is consistent with the Literal Meaning instead of another Oral
Tradition (of Fix etc) that is inconsistent with the Literal meaning and has
In addition to all this the so-called Oral Tradition of the Rabbis has thousands
of years behind it and can be shown to have existed from the very beginning;
from the time of the Bible itself!
What we have said regarding the preferability of the Rabbinical Explanation in
the case of Ruth applies in all other cases.
If you are not Jewish we do not say that you should automatically accept
Just keep an open mind, search for the truth and accept the possibility that
maybe the Rabbis were right.
They were not evil. Nor were they stupid. They did have traditions. They knew
Hebrew. They argued with each other, contradicted each other, and in the end
reached conclusions supported by logical analysis of Scripture.
To Make an Offering to
Pleased with what you read?
The Brit-Am enterprise is a Biblical work. God willing, they who assist Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications.
'It is impossible to rightly govern the
world without God or the Bible.'
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE
FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.