What is the meaning of Pesach?
Pesach is NOT the name of a holiday. It is the name of a certain kind of sacrifice, just like there is an olah (burnt-offering), shelamim (peace) and in other traditions todah (thanksgiving) chatath (sin), asham (guilt) and nedabah (voluntary). These are all different kinds of sacrifices that people were expected to offer to yahweh on different occasions and whose sacrificial procedure typically varied. It seems that the distinguishing characteristic of the Pesach was NOT its connection to the Abib festival (dated to the 14th of the first lunar month in P). Rather the pesach sacrifice was tied to the season of the year. In other words, other sacrifices were contingent upon the commital of transgressions (asham) or upon certain events (todah) or were offered on a regular basis (olah) or were just general peace-offerings offered to yahweh when things were going well (shelam or shelamim). Pesach’s uniqueness was that it was tied to a solar calendar; it was brought on the three key seasons of the solar calendar: the season of ripening (abib), the season of harvest (qatsir) and the season of gathering (asiph).
Ironically, even though it seems that there would be many other occasions when one would bring an animal sacrifice to the Yahweh shrine, there actualy wasn’t. In fact, it seems that in the very beginning of days, people would not even observe three annual festivals but just one. This is apparent from the passage in 1Samuel that describes how Elkanah used to go up to the house of yahweh in Shiloh to sacrifice "miyamim yamimah" (from year to year). But even when three times a year became the norm (perhaps sometime during the divided monarchy after 922 BCE), it was usually ONLY three times a year. Unlike in P where a person is obliged to bring an offering upon various actions and events, as described above, those sacrifices are never mentioned in J or E. In JE we only find three kinds of sacrifices: Olah, Shelam (sometimes called zebach shelam or simply zebach) and Pesach (which is also sometimes called zebach pesach or simply zebach). An olah was offered wholly to yahweh and was not brought by individuals and so we won’t discuss that here. Between Shelamim and Pesach we find no difference in sacrifice ritual or rules. The only difference is that Pesach was tied to a season and the Shelam was not but since people were bringing the Pesach three times a year anyway, the Shelam never gained widespread practice by inviduals (atleast during the first temple).
In essence what I am saying here is that during the first temple there was no clear distinction between Pesach and Shelam. The Pesach was the Shelam (that, is the seasonal offering was actually little more than a peace offering) and the Shelam was the Pesach (that is, the peace offering was tied to annual seasons). Accordingly, when JE talks about a Pesach it is talking about ANY peace offering (although those offerings were typically tied to a season) and the term is synonymous with Zebach which literally means simply "sacrifice".
What is the connection between Pesach and Matsah?
In the JE tradition, although leavened bread tastes better and is easier to digest than unleavened bread, it is considered "impure" and unbecoming for a godly sacrifice. Just like when it comes to animal offerings and grain offerings Yahweh wants the firstborn and the firstfruit, so when it comes to baked goods yahweh prefers matsah. It is really not my point here to go into details as to why and how this tradition developed. What we do know is that this is an extremely old tradtition and it is NOT tied specifically to Pesach. Any grain offering made to Yahweh or eaten along with sacrificial meat offered to Yahweh ought to be unleavened.
The prohibition against chamets in the oldest pentateuchal sources (Exodus 23:18 and 34:25) are very simple and minimal:
Not to eat chamets together with the sacrificial meat of the Pesach, expressed in the archaic form "do not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice over chamets".
There is no command to eat Matsah as in D and P.
The seven-day prohibition is not from JE. According to JE, chamets is only forbidden to be eaten along with the Pesach.
Analysis of the JE texts on the Abib festival
שמות לד יח אֶת־חַג הַמַּצּוֹת תִּשְׁמֹר שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ לְמוֹעֵד חֹדֶשׁ הָֽאָבִיב כִּי בְּחֹדֶשׁ הָֽאָבִיב יָצָאתָ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם: יט כָּל־פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם לִי וְכָֽל־מִקְנְךָ תִּזָּכָר פֶּטֶר שׁוֹר וָשֶֽׂה: כ וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה וְאִם־לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַֽעֲרַפְתּוֹ כֹּל בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה וְלֹא־יֵֽרָאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָֽם: כא שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּֽעֲבֹד וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת בֶּֽחָרִישׁ וּבַקָּצִיר תִּשְׁבֹּֽת: כב וְחַג שָֽׁ בֻעֹת תַּֽעֲשֶׂה לְךָ בִּכּוּרֵי קְצִיר חִטִּים וְחַג הָֽאָסִיף תְּקוּפַת הַשָּׁנָֽה: כג שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵֽרָאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶת־פְּנֵי הָֽאָדֹן יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵֽל: כד כִּֽי־אוֹרִישׁ גּוֹיִם מִפָּנֶיךָ וְהִרְחַבְתִּי אֶת־גְּבֻלֶךָ וְלֹֽא־יַחְמֹד אִישׁ אֶֽת־אַרְצְךָ בַּֽעֲלֹֽתְךָ לֵֽרָאוֹת אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָֽה: כה לֹֽא־תִשְׁחַט עַל־חָמֵץ דַּם־זִבְחִי וְלֹֽא־יָלִין לַבֹּקֶר זֶבַח חַג הַפָּֽסַח:
שמות כג יד שָׁלֹשׁ רְגָלִים תָּחֹג לִי בַּשָּׁנָֽה: טו אֶת־חַג הַמַּצּוֹת תִּשְׁמֹר שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת כַּֽאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ לְמוֹעֵד חֹדֶשׁ הָֽאָבִיב כִּי־בוֹ יָצָאתָ מִמִּצְרָיִם וְלֹא־יֵֽרָאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָֽם: טז וְחַג הַקָּצִיר בִּכּוּרֵי מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה וְחַג הָֽאָסִף בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה בְּאָסְפְּךָ אֶֽת־מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶֽה: יז שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵֽרָאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶל־פְּנֵי הָֽאָדֹן יְהוָֹֽה: יח לֹֽא־תִזְבַּח עַל־חָמֵץ דַּם־זִבְחִי וְלֹֽא־יָלִין חֵֽלֶב־חַגִּי עַד־בֹּֽקֶר: יט רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּֽחֲלֵב אִמּֽוֹ:
-------------------------------------------------
I have this strong suspicion that the command about eating Matsah for seven days was not originally part of the JE text. Rather the E text should read something like this (and a similar substitution should be made to the J text):
יד שָׁלֹשׁ רְגָלִים תָּחֹג לִי בַּשָּׁנָֽה: טו אֶת־חַג הַאביב תעשה לך בכורי שְעֹרָה: טז וְחַג הַקָּצִיר בִּכּוּרֵי מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה וְחַג הָֽאָסִף בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה בְּאָסְפְּךָ אֶֽת־מַֽעֲשֶׂיךָ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶֽה: יז וְלֹא־יִרְאוּ פָנַי רֵיקָֽם שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יִרְאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶת־פְּנֵי הָֽאָדֹן יְהוָֹֽה: יח לֹֽא־תִזְבַּח עַל־חָמֵץ דַּם־זִבְחִי וְלֹֽא־יָלִין חֵֽלֶב־חַגִּי עַד־בֹּֽקֶר: יט רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּֽחֲלֵב אִמּֽוֹ:
And the translation is as follows (NRSV with my revision):
14 Three times in the year you shall hold a festival for me. 15 You shall observe the Festival of Fresh Ears (of barley) with the first fruits of barley 16 and the Festival of Harvest with the firstfruits of your labor that you sow in the field and the Festival of Ingathering at the year’s end with your labor that you gather from the field. 17 No one shall appear before me empty-handed. Three times in the year, all your males shall see the face of the lord yahweh. 18 You shall not spill the blood of my sacrifice over leavened bread, or let the fat of my festival remain until the morning. 19 The choicest of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Yahweh your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.
How do I know that the seven-day matsah verse (Ex 23:15 and 34:18) is an insertion by a later D or P editor?
There are several clues!
1. The language used is typical of P. Both the term "moed" and (appointed time) and "tishmor" (you shall guard) are hallmarks of P.
2. "as I have commanded you" is an extremely suspicious phrase and really doesn’t make any sense if it is part of JE. It seems that the author is referring to a widely known law code that the reader is assumed to be familiar with and the author’s intent is just to reiterate it and perhaps elaborate or modify it. Since the JE "book of the covenant" (of which this verse is part) is the the first published law code, such a reference to a past commandment does not make any sense. Where in JE do we previously find the seven-day matsah law? Even if we do find it elsewhere in JE (Ex 13:6-7 if you believe that this particular text is originally JE), why would we assume that the other instance is primal and and this one secondary and why would there be a need to reference it?
3. The other two festivals are named after an aglicultural season. Abib is the ripening of barley ears season Qatsir is the wheat harvest season and Asiph is the ingathering season. Why doesn’t he call it chag h’abib like the other two festivals? Note that in Leviticus 23:6 the P author names the three festivals Matsoth, Bikkurim and Sukkoth, all three names based on practices observed during those festivals rather than on aglicultural seasons and so we see that "festival of the matsoth" is a Priestly terminology.
4. We don’t find anywhere in the Bible or elsewhere that seven-day festivals were actually observed during the first temple, let alone three such festivals per year. (Since the text does not differentiate between the three festivals we are made to assume that they all last for seven days if we assume that the abib festival is seven days). Since the JE text was written during the first temple, they must have been applicable at the time of authorship and this verse can therefore not have been part of the original JE cultic calendar.
5. "for in it you emerged from Egypt" is the reason given for the observance of the Matsoth festival in the Abib season but that is inconsistent with the flow of the JE text. We see that the other festivals are tied to agricultural seasons and ONLY to agricultural seasons. Why would the JE author tie the "matsoth" festival to the historical event of Exodus while completely ignoring the association of the other festivals with any historical event in Israel’s history?
6. The implication of this verse is that Matsah is somehow unique to the abib festival but that seems to be disputed elsewhere in JE: in the cultic calendar all three annual festivals are mentioned and then laws pertaining to those festivals are enumerated and one of those is that the "sacrifice shall not be slaughtered over leavened bread". Clearly, this rule applies to the sacrifices of all three festivals and we thus see that the prohibition of chamets in JE is not peculiar to the Abib festival.
This is why I have come to the conclusion that the clause about eating matsah for seven days in the JE cultic calendar was added in by a later editor, probably from the priestly school. "as I have commanded you" refers to a command contained somewhere in the prestly code (probably Ex 12:15 since the prieslty cultic calendar Leviticus 23 hasn’t been introduced yet). The priestly writer thus deliberately edited the existing JE cultic calendar in order to produce a new and radical change: The festival of Abib is s seven day festival and not just one day and leavened bread is forbidden all seven days. Other major inventions of the priesly writer are:
Seven-day Matsoth and Sukkoth festival but only a one-day Bikkurim festival. (in J all three festivals are one-day).
Leavened bread is forbidden during the Matsoth festival, encouraged on the Bikkurim festival (the actual firstfruit grain offering brought on Bikkurim was chamets) and treated neutrally on the Sukkoth festival.
The Pesach animal sacrifice ("chag" or "zebach") is brought on the first day of the seven-day festival. (in JE the Pesach is offered on the seventh day of the Abib and Qatsir month).
The Pesach sacrifice is only offered on the matsoth festival. There is no Pesach sacrifice on other festivals; there are only communal Olah sacrifices. (in JE all three annual festivals are to be celebrated with Pesach animal sacrifices by the individual, if affordable).
The festivals are called Matsoth, Bikkurim and Sukkoth after the ritual actions required on each one of them: Eating of unleavened bread is unique to the Matsoth festival. The offering of firstfruits of the new wheat grain is unique to the Bikkurim festival and the dwelling in booths is unique to the Sukkoth festival. (In J the festivals are named after the agricultural seasons in which they are observed and the actual rituals are the same for all three except that the offerings are made from whatever produce is in season).
Matsoth and Sukkoth are on the fiteenth day of the month. Matsoth is in the first month and Sukkoth is in the seventh month. Bikkurim is an appendage to the matsoth festival just like Atsereth is an appendage to the Sukkoth festival. The only difference is that Bikkurim is celebrated seven weeks after Matsoth and Atsereth is celebrated immediately after Sukkoth. (In J, Qatsir is just as important a festival as Abib and Asiph and is NOT dependent in timing on Abib. Abib and Qatsir are observed on the seventh day after their respective agricultural season commences. Thus the Abib festival was held roughly on the seventh of Iyur and Qatsir on the seventh of Sivan. There does not seem to be a seven-day count towards the Asiph festival and so the Asiph festival was celebrated immediately upon the commence of Ingathering or anytime during the season (which is quite extensive).
individual vs national festival. The priestly festivals are national, that is the entire nation is to observe the festival on the very same day and in the manner prescribed by the Priestly code. In J, festival observance is an individual matter. Each person celebrates the festival when he is engaged in the agricultural activity to which it is attached. Thus, there is no single day during which the entire nation is convened in the central shrine in observance of a national holiday. Furthermore, J does not require the individual to offer anything specific in any given number or quantity. In J, the individual offers to yahweh whatever is seasonal in agriculture and whatever firstborn kosher animal is available for sacrifice as a Pesach.
The Pesach must be a one year old male sheep in P and does not have to be a firstborn whereas in JE the Pesach animal can be any kosher male animal of any age but it must be a firstborn. Furthermore, all firstborn animals must be dedicated to yahweh as Pesach sacrifices.
The Pesach meat is not shared with the priests in P but it is shared with the priests and with God in JE, that is, certain parts of the animal are burned on the altar and certain parts are earmarked for the priests. P does not need to require people to share the Pesach with priests for according to Priestly law firstborn animals are completely committed to them (Num 18:17-18) and so the priests had no need for Pesach meat.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Friday, April 07, 2006
א כְּרָפְאִי לְיִשְֹרָאֵל וְנִגְלָה עֲוֹן אֶפְרַיִם וְרָעוֹת שֹׁמְרוֹן כִּי פָעֲלוּ שָׁקֶר וְגַנָּב יָבוֹא פָּשַׁט גְּדוּד בַּחוּץ: ב וּבַל-יֹאמְרוּ לִלְבָבָם כָּל-רָעָתָם זָכָרְתִּי עַתָּה סְבָבוּם מַעַלְלֵיהֶם נֶגֶד פָּנַי הָיוּ: ג בְּרָעָתָם יְשַֹמְּחוּ-מֶלֶךְ וּבְכַחֲשֵׁיהֶם שָֹרִים: ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵאֹפֶה יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ: ה יוֹם מַלְכֵּנוּ הֶחֱלוּ שָֹרִים חֲמַת מִיָּיִן מָשַׁךְ יָדוֹ אֶת-לֹצְצִים: ו כִּי-קֵרְבוּ כַתַּנּוּר לִבָּם בְּאָרְבָּם כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה יָשֵׁן אֹפֵהֶם בֹּקֶר הוּא בֹעֵר כְּאֵשׁ לֶהָבָה: ז כֻּלָּם יֵחַמּוּ כַּתַּנּוּר וְאָכְלוּ אֶת-שֹׁפְטֵיהֶם כָּל-מַלְכֵיהֶם נָפָלוּ אֵין-קֹרֵא בָהֶם אֵלָי:
Hosea 7 (NRSV translation)
1 when I would heal Israel,the corruption of Ephraim is revealed,and the wicked deeds of Samaria;for they deal falsely,the thief breaks in,and the bandits raid outside. 2 But they do not considerthat I remember all their wickedness.Now their deeds surround them,they are before my face. 3 By their wickedness they make the king glad,and the officials by their treachery. 4 They are all adulterers;they are like a heated oven,whose baker does not need to stir the fire,from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. 5 On the day of our king the officialsbecame sick with the heat of wine;he stretched out his hand with mockers. 6 For they are kindled like an oven, their heart burns within them;all night their anger smoulders;in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. 7 All of them are hot as an oven,and they devour their rulers.All their kings have fallen;none of them calls upon me.
------------------------------------------------
The preceding verses are somewhat cryptic. It is important to note that Hosea prophesied in the Kingdom of Israel before the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrian king Sargon in 722 BCE. This sets him apart from most other prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekial who were active during the sixth century in the Kingdom of Judah. Now while it is admittedly probable that he did not write down his own prophesies and the book we have now was put to writing many years later, yet even so we can assume that the historical Hosea prophesied somewhere along the lines of the version of the book we have now. Furthermore, the book of Hosea was probably written before most other prophetic books and this explains why the abovementioned verses are so cryptic.
Verse 4
ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵאֹפֶה יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:
They are all adulterers; they are like a heated oven, whose baker does not need to stir the fire,from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. (NRSV)
The NRSV does not explain the Hebrew letter "mem" prefix attached to the word baker ("opheh" in Hebrew).
Another problem: The Hebrew word "me`ir" could be translated "stirrer", that is, the person who stirs the fire, or it could be translated "from stirring". The NRSV seems to go with the latter translation but I don’t find any such expression elsewhere in the bible. me`ir as stirrer is found in Isaiah 13:17, Jeremiah 50:9 and Jeremiah 51:1 - in all those instances it denotes the person who stirs (a fire and by secondary meaning strring people up to war and conquest).
Verse 5 requires further investigation. What is meant by "the day od our king". The intent of this verse is that the king and his officials are also involved in corruption. It continues from verse 3 where it states that the king and his officials are happy about the wickedness and treachery of the people, that is, they do not protest those acts and are possibly benefiting directly from such corruption in the form of bribery. I have a strong feeling that the Hebrew word "yom" (translated as day) is an error and it should instead be some verb that is a parallel to thee verb "hechelu" associated with his officials, which presumably has a root meaning sickness.
The overall point of this passage, however, is not very hard to figure out. Hosea is condeming the social iniquities practiced by the powerful. He is comparing them to a fire in the oven that burns quietly all night when it is not being used but in the morning it is stirred up so that it can be used for baking and warming. Likewise, the evildoers of Samaria are acting clandestinely. They pretend to be innocent and benevolent but when the opportunity arises they will burst out of their shell (just like the fire in the oven flares up in the morning) and attack the innocent stealing their property etc... Furthermore, in the rage of their evils they even attack their judges so that no justice can be served upon them. This is the intent of verse 7. The "kings" that are mentioned there do not refer to the corrupt kings talked about earlier who are perticipants in the corruption. Rather, they are the parallel of the "judges", namely those officials who are responsible for enforcing the law and meting out justice.
Now that we understand the overall meaning of these passages and how the wicked are compared to a simmering oven, we can examine verse 4 and 6 more closely.
MT (Masoretic text) reading:
ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵאֹפֶה יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:
Revised reading (my educated guess):
ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בְּעֵרָה מֵאַפָּהּ יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:
And the translation is:
They are all adulterers; a fire comes forth from her nostrils just like the fire that comes forth from an oven, after the stirrer has rested, from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. (italics are added for clarification and not in Hebrew).
In other words, just like the oven remains smoldering quietly while the dough is rising and then when the dough is ready to be baken, the stirrer suddenly flares up the fire, so the evildoers from Samaria pretend to be innocent and quiet and then when ready to attack, they do suddenly and unexpectedly.
The Hebrew word "be’erah" is found in the covenant code with precisely this meaning (Exodus 22:5) "the one who kindled the fire shall make restitution". It is also interesting to note the verse in Numbers 11:1:
א וַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנֲנִים רַע בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוָֹה וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָֹה וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ וַתִּבְעַר-בָּם אֵשׁ יְהֹוָה וַתֹּאכַל בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה:
When the people complained in the ears of the Lord about their misfortunes, Yahweh heard it His nostrils were steaming and the fire from Yahweh burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. (NRSV trsnlation with my revision)
Thus we see that a fire (be`erah) comes forth from a steaming nostril (‘aph). As you will see, we find another example of this association in verse 6.
Verse 6
ו כִּי-קֵרְבוּ כַתַּנּוּר לִבָּם בְּאָרְבָּם כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה יָשֵׁן אֹפֵהֶם בֹּקֶר הוּא בֹעֵר כְּאֵשׁ לֶהָבָה:
For they are kindled like an oven, their heart burns within them; all night their anger smoulders; in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. (NRSV)
Obviously, the NRSV reads the Hebrew word "be`arbam" (in their lurking/ambush) as "beqirbam" (in their midst/within them). However, it is not clear to me how it reads the first word in the verse "qarebu" which literally means "they came close". The two Hebrew words that could be translated as "they are kindled" are "yaqedu" and "ba`aru", neither of which is close in spelling to the original "qarebu".
I have therefore given it some thought and considered the possibility that be`arbam and qarebu got mixed up. be`arbam should be beqirbam and qarebu should be `arebu:
Revised reading (my educated guess)
ו כִּי-אָרְבוּ כַתַּנּוּר לִבָּם בְּקִרְבָּם כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה יָשֵׁן אַפֵּהֶם בֹּקֶר הוּא בֹעֵר כְּאֵשׁ לֶהָבָה:
For their heart lurks inside them like an oven; their nostril is asleep all night; in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. (NRSV translation with my revision)
In the context of the passage, as explained earlier, this verse makes a lot of sense. Hosea compares the evildoer’s heart to a "lurking oven". Just like the oven lurks in ambush all night and flares up in the morning, so is their mind in ambush, that is, they think of ways to hide their aggressive and corrupt deeds so that their victims are vulnerable and unprepared.
Thus, verse 6 is a slight variation of verse 4. In verse 4, the oven simmers while the dough is rising; here the oven simmers all night. In verse 4, fire bursts forth from their nostrils when they are ready to attack just like the oven does when it is ready to accept the dough; here it is the morning that signals the burning of their nostrils just like the oven is flared up in the morning.
The clear association of `aph (nostril) and bo’er (burns) in verse 6 is strong evidence that in verse 4 it talks about `aph, a nostril and not opheh, a baker.
Hosea 7 (NRSV translation)
1 when I would heal Israel,the corruption of Ephraim is revealed,and the wicked deeds of Samaria;for they deal falsely,the thief breaks in,and the bandits raid outside. 2 But they do not considerthat I remember all their wickedness.Now their deeds surround them,they are before my face. 3 By their wickedness they make the king glad,and the officials by their treachery. 4 They are all adulterers;they are like a heated oven,whose baker does not need to stir the fire,from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. 5 On the day of our king the officialsbecame sick with the heat of wine;he stretched out his hand with mockers. 6 For they are kindled like an oven, their heart burns within them;all night their anger smoulders;in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. 7 All of them are hot as an oven,and they devour their rulers.All their kings have fallen;none of them calls upon me.
------------------------------------------------
The preceding verses are somewhat cryptic. It is important to note that Hosea prophesied in the Kingdom of Israel before the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrian king Sargon in 722 BCE. This sets him apart from most other prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekial who were active during the sixth century in the Kingdom of Judah. Now while it is admittedly probable that he did not write down his own prophesies and the book we have now was put to writing many years later, yet even so we can assume that the historical Hosea prophesied somewhere along the lines of the version of the book we have now. Furthermore, the book of Hosea was probably written before most other prophetic books and this explains why the abovementioned verses are so cryptic.
Verse 4
ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵאֹפֶה יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:
They are all adulterers; they are like a heated oven, whose baker does not need to stir the fire,from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. (NRSV)
The NRSV does not explain the Hebrew letter "mem" prefix attached to the word baker ("opheh" in Hebrew).
Another problem: The Hebrew word "me`ir" could be translated "stirrer", that is, the person who stirs the fire, or it could be translated "from stirring". The NRSV seems to go with the latter translation but I don’t find any such expression elsewhere in the bible. me`ir as stirrer is found in Isaiah 13:17, Jeremiah 50:9 and Jeremiah 51:1 - in all those instances it denotes the person who stirs (a fire and by secondary meaning strring people up to war and conquest).
Verse 5 requires further investigation. What is meant by "the day od our king". The intent of this verse is that the king and his officials are also involved in corruption. It continues from verse 3 where it states that the king and his officials are happy about the wickedness and treachery of the people, that is, they do not protest those acts and are possibly benefiting directly from such corruption in the form of bribery. I have a strong feeling that the Hebrew word "yom" (translated as day) is an error and it should instead be some verb that is a parallel to thee verb "hechelu" associated with his officials, which presumably has a root meaning sickness.
The overall point of this passage, however, is not very hard to figure out. Hosea is condeming the social iniquities practiced by the powerful. He is comparing them to a fire in the oven that burns quietly all night when it is not being used but in the morning it is stirred up so that it can be used for baking and warming. Likewise, the evildoers of Samaria are acting clandestinely. They pretend to be innocent and benevolent but when the opportunity arises they will burst out of their shell (just like the fire in the oven flares up in the morning) and attack the innocent stealing their property etc... Furthermore, in the rage of their evils they even attack their judges so that no justice can be served upon them. This is the intent of verse 7. The "kings" that are mentioned there do not refer to the corrupt kings talked about earlier who are perticipants in the corruption. Rather, they are the parallel of the "judges", namely those officials who are responsible for enforcing the law and meting out justice.
Now that we understand the overall meaning of these passages and how the wicked are compared to a simmering oven, we can examine verse 4 and 6 more closely.
MT (Masoretic text) reading:
ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵאֹפֶה יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:
Revised reading (my educated guess):
ד כֻּלָּם מְנַאֲפִים כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בְּעֵרָה מֵאַפָּהּ יִשְׁבּוֹת מֵעִיר מִלּוּשׁ בָּצֵק עַד-חֻמְצָתוֹ:
And the translation is:
They are all adulterers; a fire comes forth from her nostrils just like the fire that comes forth from an oven, after the stirrer has rested, from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened. (italics are added for clarification and not in Hebrew).
In other words, just like the oven remains smoldering quietly while the dough is rising and then when the dough is ready to be baken, the stirrer suddenly flares up the fire, so the evildoers from Samaria pretend to be innocent and quiet and then when ready to attack, they do suddenly and unexpectedly.
The Hebrew word "be’erah" is found in the covenant code with precisely this meaning (Exodus 22:5) "the one who kindled the fire shall make restitution". It is also interesting to note the verse in Numbers 11:1:
א וַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנֲנִים רַע בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוָֹה וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָֹה וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ וַתִּבְעַר-בָּם אֵשׁ יְהֹוָה וַתֹּאכַל בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה:
When the people complained in the ears of the Lord about their misfortunes, Yahweh heard it His nostrils were steaming and the fire from Yahweh burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. (NRSV trsnlation with my revision)
Thus we see that a fire (be`erah) comes forth from a steaming nostril (‘aph). As you will see, we find another example of this association in verse 6.
Verse 6
ו כִּי-קֵרְבוּ כַתַּנּוּר לִבָּם בְּאָרְבָּם כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה יָשֵׁן אֹפֵהֶם בֹּקֶר הוּא בֹעֵר כְּאֵשׁ לֶהָבָה:
For they are kindled like an oven, their heart burns within them; all night their anger smoulders; in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. (NRSV)
Obviously, the NRSV reads the Hebrew word "be`arbam" (in their lurking/ambush) as "beqirbam" (in their midst/within them). However, it is not clear to me how it reads the first word in the verse "qarebu" which literally means "they came close". The two Hebrew words that could be translated as "they are kindled" are "yaqedu" and "ba`aru", neither of which is close in spelling to the original "qarebu".
I have therefore given it some thought and considered the possibility that be`arbam and qarebu got mixed up. be`arbam should be beqirbam and qarebu should be `arebu:
Revised reading (my educated guess)
ו כִּי-אָרְבוּ כַתַּנּוּר לִבָּם בְּקִרְבָּם כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה יָשֵׁן אַפֵּהֶם בֹּקֶר הוּא בֹעֵר כְּאֵשׁ לֶהָבָה:
For their heart lurks inside them like an oven; their nostril is asleep all night; in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire. (NRSV translation with my revision)
In the context of the passage, as explained earlier, this verse makes a lot of sense. Hosea compares the evildoer’s heart to a "lurking oven". Just like the oven lurks in ambush all night and flares up in the morning, so is their mind in ambush, that is, they think of ways to hide their aggressive and corrupt deeds so that their victims are vulnerable and unprepared.
Thus, verse 6 is a slight variation of verse 4. In verse 4, the oven simmers while the dough is rising; here the oven simmers all night. In verse 4, fire bursts forth from their nostrils when they are ready to attack just like the oven does when it is ready to accept the dough; here it is the morning that signals the burning of their nostrils just like the oven is flared up in the morning.
The clear association of `aph (nostril) and bo’er (burns) in verse 6 is strong evidence that in verse 4 it talks about `aph, a nostril and not opheh, a baker.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Exodus 32
כא וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן מֶה-עָשָֹה לְךָ הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי-הֵבֵאתָ עָלָיו חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה: כב וַיֹּאמֶר אַהֲרֹן אַל-יִחַר אַף אֲדֹנִי אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת-הָעָם כִּי בְרָע הוּא: כג וַיֹּאמְרוּ לִי עֲשֵֹה-לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי-זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה-הָיָה לוֹ: כד וָאֹמַר לָהֶם לְמִי זָהָב הִתְפָּרָקוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ-לִי וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה: כה וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם: כו וַיַּעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לַיהוָֹה אֵלָי וַיֵּאָסְפוּ אֵלָיו כָּל-בְּנֵי לֵוִי: כז וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל שִֹימוּ אִישׁ-חַרְבּוֹ עַל-יְרֵכוֹ עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ-אֶת-אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת-קְרֹבוֹ:
----------------------------------------------------
There are is one verse here which is enigmatic:
כה וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם:
Ex 32:25 When Moses saw that the people were running wild, for Aaron had let them run wild, to the derision of their enemies, 26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me!’ And all the sons of Levi gathered around him.
This is the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) translation of the verse. Presumably the idea here is that the people were reveling wildly and sinfully and Moses therefore instructed his followers to kill all those who were "running wild". Under this translation, "derision of their enemies" is mentioned to illustrate how wildly drunk and light-headed they were: they were deriding their enemies in their lightheadedness.
According to Rashi the Hebrew root being used here pr‘ means "reveal/expose" and the translation of the verse is:
When Moses saw that (the disgrace of) the people had been exposed, for Aaron had exposed them, thus causing derision by their enemies, then Moses stood...
Both of these translations have their difficulties. In particular, according to Rashi, how does the Sin of the Golden Calf cause derision by the Israelite enemies, being that it’s purely a religious matter and it does not affect their enemies at all? Furthermore, what is the connection between this verse and the following verse? How does the Israelites’ expected derision by their enemies necessitate the killing of thousands of people? This is somewhat problematic according to the NRSV’s translation as well: why mention the derision of the Israelite enemies here altogether? It doesn’t seem to play any role in the event and it is not directly the cause for the civil war that follows. Moses is instructing his followers to massacre the calf worshippers because they are wild and sinful, not because they are deriding their enemies.
The very meaning of the Hebrew root pr‘ ought to be investigated better and we also should take into consideration "variants" in the text (different versions of the Hebrew biblical text) as well as similar sounding words in this chapter and elsewhere.
The NRSV seems to confuse pr‘ (peh, resh ayin) with pr’ (peh, resh, aleph). pr’ is known to mean "wild" like it says on Ismael gen 16:12 "he shall be a wild ass of a man" but pr‘ with an ayin never has such a direct meaning. Perhaps the NRSV considers the Masorete version to be a copyist error but I do not have any more information on this and so I will not give the NRSV translation any serious consideration.
Exodus 32:22 (translated by the NRSV): And Aaron said, ‘Do not let the anger of my lord burn hot; you know the people, that they are bent on evil. "on evil" is the three letter word in Hebrew br‘ an extremely similar word to pr‘ since the letter beth and the letter peh sound alike and can be easily confused. The three letter word br‘ is also present earlier in the book of Exodus 5:19 The Israelite supervisors saw that they were in trouble when they were told, ‘You shall not lessen your daily number of bricks.’ These two instances of br‘ essentially convey the same meaning since bad/evil and trouble are closely related. But is there a relation between br‘ and pr‘? Note that in both 5:19 (br‘) and in 32:25 (pr‘), the Hebrew verb for seeing is used in connection with the word. In 5:19 the Israelite supervisors see themselves in trouble and in 32:25 Moses sees that the people are exposed/wild.
וַיִּרְאוּ שֹׁטְרֵי בְנֵי-יִשְֹרָאֵל אֹתָם בְּרָע
וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא
It is therefore very tempting to suggest that pr‘ in 32:25 is a copyist’s error since the pr‘ root is found relatively infrequently in the bible and it just doesn’t seem to make much sense here. This hypothesis is further supported by the instance of the br‘ root earlier in this very chapter (32:22) when describing the very people Moses is describing here (32:25).
According to this hypothesis, the translation of 32:25 would be "when Moses saw that the people were bent on evil..." and we would still need to find some difficult translation for the remainder of the verse. I think that this makes sense as a possibility but it would require too much revision and there are better explanations which don’t require as much revision.
As you know, the LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made in the second century BCE. Since the standardization of the MT (Masoretic text) did not even start until the fifth century or so, the LXX is therefore generally more reliable than the MT.
The LXX (translated into English) reads 32:25: When Moses saw that the people were scattered --for Aaron had scattered them so as to be a rejoicing to their enemies-- then Moses stood...
Obviously, the LXX translates pr‘ to "scatter", unlike Rashi’s translation or the NRSV, but there is another major difference here. "rejoicing" is a translation of the Hebrew root šmx expressed as "lesimcha" in this verse whereas according to the Masoretes the root šmº meaning "derision/defamation" is being used and it is pronounced "leshimtsah". The intent of the verse according to the LXX is not clear but it seems that it is talking about the punishment of exile for the sin of worshipping idols. The ultimate punishment of exile and scatter among the gentiles for the sin of idolatry is a major deuteronomistic theme. Moses looks into the future and sees that the nation will suffer exile and scatter among the nations for the current and future instances of idolatry and he is trying to preclude that by having the primordial sinners executed. Rephrasing the LXX according to this understanding, it would read like this:
32:25: When Moses saw that the people were (to be) scattered --for Aaron had (caused them to be) scattered, thus providing rejoice to their enemies-- then Moses stood...
This translation has its own problems. The root pr‘ occurs infrequently and is somewhat hard to define exactly but it never means "scatter" in the narrow sense. As we will see below, pr‘ almost always relates to disheveled hair or to the conduct of a person with disheveled hair. This just leaves me wondering whether the LXX translator had a different Hebrew word than we do and if so what that might be. (the root npº is what first comes to mind but that bears very little resemblance to pr‘). Besides, the verse seems to be talking about Moses "seeing" (that is analyzing) the current situation, not about something that Moses sees preveniently to be happening in the future. We don’t find the verb "seeing" apply to a prophetic vision by Moses, elsewhere in the HB.
This is why I have come up with my own translation of this verse based on the assumption that "leshimtsah" should be read "lesimchah", which I will explain below. But first I will discuss the background for the Golden Calf episode as detailed by the E author in this chapter and the meaning of the root pr‘ elsewhere in the Bible.
There are several tough questions about the Golden Calf episode.
If "all the sons of Levi" (Ex 32:26) heeded Moses’ call for arms against the idolators, then by killing their "brothers" and "relatives" (32:27) they would essentially be killing co-fighters and that doesn’t sound right. This would be the equivalent of the president of the United States of America calling on his troops to fight other troops within their very own division, which doesn’t make much sense, especially unprovoked as the case is here.
The similarities between the Golden Calf episode and the deeds of the first Israelite king Jeroboam are astounding. Jeroboam had just seceded from the southern Davidic kingdom and was looking to solidify his subjects’ loyalty to him. In an attempt to set up northern centers of worship so that northerners need not go to the Davidic Jerusalem to worship, he introduced the worship of bulls in his kingdom. He set up one shrine at Dan in the north and one at Bethel in the south, he placed golden bulls in them and said "Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt." (1kings 12:28) Some years later, Elijah punishes the idolatrous Israelites by taking them down to the river and having them slaughtered there (1kings 18:40) just like Moses did in our episode. Is all this coincidence or there’s something more to this?
What accounts for the two modes of executing the idolators? First, Moses takes the idolators to the river, grinds the golden statue and spreads its dust over the water and then has them drink the water and die. Then he calls the yahwists to arms and has all the idolators massacred.
The golden calf episode is an E document, first put to writing in the northern kingdom in the eighth century BCE by the yahwist party. At the time, the vast majority of the priesthood and did not belong to the yahwist party. In fact, Elijah, Elisha and Hosea are the only known Northern yahwists and the Deuteronomist pictures them as facing overwhelming opposition. Thus we have the idolatrous party, initiated by Jeroboam and his priests who are quite successful and confident in their success and then we have the yahwist party, small, isolated and on the brink of vanishing forever. But then something amazing happens. After Jehu becomes king, all the Baal priests are invited to a solemn assembly ("atsarah") to feast and worship the Baal in Samaria. Jehu makes sure that only Baal priests participate and he then instructs the eighty guards stationed outside the temple complex to come in and kill the Ball priests. In the midst of all the revelry and when they least expected it, the Baal priests were brutally murdered, thus inaugurating a new era for the yahwists. From then on, the yahwists grew stronger and stronger until the destruction of Israel when they migrated south and joined Judah.
In light of these historical events, I see the golden calf episode written by these northern priests shortly after Jehu’s extermination of the Baal priests as simply another "etiological episode". Etiological episodes are not necessarily true in every detail, but rather serve to explain the current socio-political and religious situation. As precedents to current realities they are likely to have occurred in one way or another. However, the details of such events do not reflect the truth. Rather, they are highly idealized to depict what past events are expected to be like, based on the current reality. The parallels between historical events and idealized etiologies are quite clear:
Elijah represents the yahwist flag-bearer after the Northern kingdom had been established. Moses represents the chief yahwist before the Israelites conquered Canaan and he is believed to have first introduced yahwism while the Israelites were slaves in Egypt (borrowing from Ikhnaton perhaps?)
Elijah is having trouble getting people to accept yahwism and almost gets himself killed in the process. Moses likewise is having a hard time introducing monotheism and almost gets himself killed ("a bit more and they will stone me").
Elijah goes 40 days without drinking and then receives a revelation from yahweh in Horeb. Moses goes 40 days without eating or drinking and then receives the tablets of the law at Horeb.
A "civil war" in the time of Jehu catches the idolators by surprise while in the midst a pagan feast. The yahwists prevail and the Baal worshippers are wiped out. A "civil war" in the time of Moses catches the idolators by surprise while attending a special feast for the bull-god and the yahwists among the priests prevail over the non-yahwist priests and massacre them.
Elisha has the idolatrous priests taken to the river Qishon and slaughtered there, after he demonstrates that only yahweh is the true God answering his call for fire and rain. Moses burns the golden calf, grinds it to dust, spreads it over the water (of a local river?) and gives to the idolators to drink and die (Ex 32:20).
I am sure that there are many more parallels but these are enough to make my point: the golden calf episode is a projection back in time and its details were designed to replicate the realities of later stages in Israelite history. It’s as if the yahwist is saying: I am not coming up with anything new; all this has already happened in the past thus providing an iron-clad precedent for the yahwist tradition!
Accordingly, "all the sons of Levi" is either a late revision by a copyist or an illogical attempt by the author to make yahwism seem universal among the priesthood even though he himself contradicts himself (perhaps unintentionally) moments later by saying that some Levite relatives were among the massacred and thus among the idol worshippers. If we search among the historical parallels to the golden calf episode, we never find any point in time when "all the priesthood" was yahwist (and if we did find such a case then there would be no need to massacre any idolators anyway for there cannot be a religious cult without a priesthood).
What really happened here is a civil war. Even though the Bible does not say that those massacred fought back, this is self understood. It is also likely that those people were backed militarily by Aharon in the ensuing battle, even though Aharon is said to be apologetic at one point, saying that "the calf emerged" (without his involvement). There was a religious conflict among the Levites (who, by the way, are likely to have been the only tribe to ever be in Egypt) as to what the proper way of worshipping the deity/deities is. Details of this ancient religious conflict are hard to reconstruct since the entire episode is etiological, that is, it serves to explain the current realities (eighth century BCE in the Northern Kingdom) and so it is by definition heavily slanted to conform with current realities. If the "bad guys" in the eyes of the 8th century BCE Yahwist party are idol worshippers (golden calves at Dan and Bethel) then the bad guys in Moses’ days are also depicted as idol worshippers. Aharon headed the idolatrous party and Moses headed the yahwist party.
Why was Aharon chosen as the villain and Moses as the hero? Simple! The Judahite priesthood descendent from ºadoq traced their ancestry to "Aharon" and only ºadoq descendants were allowed to serve in the Solomonic temple. Abiathar and his descendants who traced their ancestry to Eli the priest from Shiloh and Moses, were ousted from the Judahite priesthood by Solomon because they supported his rival Adonijah. Abiathar and his descendants, naturally ended up settling in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (since they couldn’t serve in the south) even though they didn’t quite get accepted into the Northern priesthood either. Aharon was therefore the perfect villainous character for the heretic priest in the Golden Calf saga and Moses was the perfect heroic character.
Now lets return to the question of the meaning of pr’ for a moment. As mentioned earlier, this root does not occur often in the earliest biblical documents.
מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם: כו וַיַּעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר
ex 32:25 When Moses saw that the people were running wild (for Aaron had let them run wild, to the derision of their enemies),
---------------------------------------
רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל-תִּפְרָעוּ וּבִגְדֵיכֶם לֹא-תִפְרֹמוּ וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ וְעַל כָּל-הָעֵדָה יִקְצֹף
lev 10:6 And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, ‘Do not dishevel your hair, and do not tear your vestments,
------------------------------------------------------
אֶת-הַבְּגָדִים אֶת-רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם
lev 21:10 ... shall not dishevel his hair, nor tear his vestments (sign of mourning)
---------------------------------
אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה וּפָרַע אֶת-רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה
num 5:18 The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair...
----------------------------------
לַיהוָֹה קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְֹעַר רֹאשׁוֹ:
num 6:5 they shall let the locks of the head grow long.
----------------------------
בָּאָה וְעָשִֹיתִי לֹא-אֶפְרַע וְלֹא-אָחוּס וְלֹא אֶנָּחֵם כִּדְרָכַיִךְ וְכַעֲלִילוֹתַיִךְ שְׁפָטוּךְ נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהֶוִֹה:
ezek 24:14 I the Lord have spoken; the time is coming, I will act. I will not refrain, I will not spare, I will not relent.
-------------------------
וְרֹאשָׁם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ כָּסוֹם יִכְסְמוּ אֶת-רָאשֵׁיהֶם:
ezek 44:20 They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long; they shall only trim the hair of their heads.
--------------------------
יח בְּאֵין חָזוֹן יִפָּרַע עָם וְשֹׁמֵר תּוֹרָה אַשְׁרֵהוּ:
prov 29:18 Where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint,but happy are those who keep the law.
--------------------------
ב בִּפְרֹעַ פְּרָעוֹת בְּיִשְֹרָאֵל בְּהִתְנַדֵּב עָם בָּרְכוּ יְהֹוָה:
judg 5:2 ‘When locks are long in Israel, when the people offer themselves willingly, bless the Lord!
------------------------------------------
מב אַשְׁכִּיר חִצַּי מִדָּם וְחַרְבִּי תֹּאכַל בָּשָֹר מִדַּם חָלָל וְשִׁבְיָה מֵרֹאשׁ פַּרְעוֹת אוֹיֵב:
deut 32:42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood,and my sword shall devour flesh—with the blood of the slain and the captives,from the long-haired enemy.
------------------------------------------------
כה וַתִּפְרְעוּ כָל-עֲצָתִי וְתוֹכַחְתִּי לֹא אֲבִיתֶם:
prov 1:25 and because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
--------------------------------------
יד בְּאֹרַח רְשָׁעִים אַל-תָּבֹא וְאַל-תְּאַשֵּׁר בְּדֶרֶךְ רָעִים: טו פְּרָעֵהוּ אַל-תַּעֲבָר-בּוֹ שְֹטֵה מֵעָלָיו וַעֲבוֹר:
prov 4:15 Avoid it; do not go on it; turn away from it and
----------------------------------
לב וְעַתָּה בָנִים שִׁמְעוּ-לִי וְאַשְׁרֵי דְּרָכַי יִשְׁמֹרוּ: לג שִׁמְעוּ מוּסָר וַחֲכָמוּ וְאַל-תִּפְרָעוּ:
prov 8:33 Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the aforementioned list of pr’ instances, most are post exilic. The following are ancient Hebrew and were most likely first written down before the 587 BCE exile:
Basically, disheveled hair can indicate one of two things: 1- an act of mourning. The person does not care about anything and has lost interest in living a normal productive life and is demonstrating this state of mind by the unrestrained disheveling of hair (as if there is nothing to worry about and there is no tomorrow), tearing of garments etc... 2 - an act of revelry. The person is showing unbridled lust (party like there’s no tomorrow). If it’s a girl, the act indicates "I am available and lustful, don’t be ashamed to come forward and grab me". This is why Rebecca took a scarf and covered herself once she married Isaac. The priest dishevels the hair of a woman who is suspected of adultery so that everyone sees that she is promiscuous and willing to sleep with anyone who comes along.
In Proverbs pr’ has the connotation of avoid/neglect/ignore but we don’t see such a connotation anywhere else in the bible. In all other cases pr’ as a noun denotes long disheveled locks of hair and as a verb means to expose and dishevel one’s hair. It seems that the use of pr’ in Proverbs as well as Ezekiel 24:14 is in the broader sense of the word, namely to act carelessly / neglect.
Now that we understand the meaning of pr’ in all the other instances we can return to the ancient document at hand. In all three cases pr’ is used in the broad sense of acting in an unbridled/careless way, which is personified by the person who dishevels his hair out of revelry. In Judges, it is talking about Israelites disheveling their long hair out of rejoice in defeating their enemy (Jabin, king of Hazor). In Deuteronomy, the "long-haired enemy" is mentioned because he is confident and unsuspecting and therefore vincible by a surprise attack. Likewise, in Exodus we are talking about Israelites who are partying unrestrainedly in front of their idol and thus easily vincible by their enemies through a surprise attack.
Moses is seeing that Aharon has allowed his people to be "disheveled", that is they have left their guard down in the course of their feasting and so he wisely decides that this is the time to strike at Aharon’s people, the idolators. Remember what we have concluded above: this is a civil war among the levites. Some levites are yahwists and follow Moses (Elijah, Elisha etc...) but most of them follow the idolatrous Aharon (the Baal priests). Under normal circumstances it would be hard for the yahwists to overcome the idolators but now that they are "disheveled" is the perfect time to strike and so he called his followers to arms.
The Masorete reading is ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם:
Our reading is ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פְרָעָהוּ אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְחָה בְּקֻמֵיהֶם:
Or it could be ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֹעַ פְרָעָהוּ אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְחָה בְּקֻמֵיהֶם:
And the translation is When Moses saw that Aharon had disheveled the people upon their rise to rejoice, then Moses stood...
"rising to rejoice" is mentioned in an earlier verse (32:6) "the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel".
I prefer my first reading, according to which there is "duplicate phrase" copyist error, the duplicate phrase here being the words "ki pare’ghahu". Such kind of errors are found elsewhere in the bible (I don’t remember where offhand) whereby a scribe simply mistakenly writes down the same phrase twice. According to my alternative reading, the first mention of pr’ is a noun and is made to emphasize the verb. This kind of expression is extremely common in the bible and the intent here is that Moses saw that Aharon’s people were extremely disheveled. In fact, in Judges 5:2 the pr’ verb is written in such "emphasis duplicate" form.
כא וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן מֶה-עָשָֹה לְךָ הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי-הֵבֵאתָ עָלָיו חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה: כב וַיֹּאמֶר אַהֲרֹן אַל-יִחַר אַף אֲדֹנִי אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת-הָעָם כִּי בְרָע הוּא: כג וַיֹּאמְרוּ לִי עֲשֵֹה-לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי-זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה-הָיָה לוֹ: כד וָאֹמַר לָהֶם לְמִי זָהָב הִתְפָּרָקוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ-לִי וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה: כה וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם: כו וַיַּעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לַיהוָֹה אֵלָי וַיֵּאָסְפוּ אֵלָיו כָּל-בְּנֵי לֵוִי: כז וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל שִֹימוּ אִישׁ-חַרְבּוֹ עַל-יְרֵכוֹ עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ-אֶת-אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת-קְרֹבוֹ:
----------------------------------------------------
There are is one verse here which is enigmatic:
כה וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם:
Ex 32:25 When Moses saw that the people were running wild, for Aaron had let them run wild, to the derision of their enemies, 26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me!’ And all the sons of Levi gathered around him.
This is the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) translation of the verse. Presumably the idea here is that the people were reveling wildly and sinfully and Moses therefore instructed his followers to kill all those who were "running wild". Under this translation, "derision of their enemies" is mentioned to illustrate how wildly drunk and light-headed they were: they were deriding their enemies in their lightheadedness.
According to Rashi the Hebrew root being used here pr‘ means "reveal/expose" and the translation of the verse is:
When Moses saw that (the disgrace of) the people had been exposed, for Aaron had exposed them, thus causing derision by their enemies, then Moses stood...
Both of these translations have their difficulties. In particular, according to Rashi, how does the Sin of the Golden Calf cause derision by the Israelite enemies, being that it’s purely a religious matter and it does not affect their enemies at all? Furthermore, what is the connection between this verse and the following verse? How does the Israelites’ expected derision by their enemies necessitate the killing of thousands of people? This is somewhat problematic according to the NRSV’s translation as well: why mention the derision of the Israelite enemies here altogether? It doesn’t seem to play any role in the event and it is not directly the cause for the civil war that follows. Moses is instructing his followers to massacre the calf worshippers because they are wild and sinful, not because they are deriding their enemies.
The very meaning of the Hebrew root pr‘ ought to be investigated better and we also should take into consideration "variants" in the text (different versions of the Hebrew biblical text) as well as similar sounding words in this chapter and elsewhere.
The NRSV seems to confuse pr‘ (peh, resh ayin) with pr’ (peh, resh, aleph). pr’ is known to mean "wild" like it says on Ismael gen 16:12 "he shall be a wild ass of a man" but pr‘ with an ayin never has such a direct meaning. Perhaps the NRSV considers the Masorete version to be a copyist error but I do not have any more information on this and so I will not give the NRSV translation any serious consideration.
Exodus 32:22 (translated by the NRSV): And Aaron said, ‘Do not let the anger of my lord burn hot; you know the people, that they are bent on evil. "on evil" is the three letter word in Hebrew br‘ an extremely similar word to pr‘ since the letter beth and the letter peh sound alike and can be easily confused. The three letter word br‘ is also present earlier in the book of Exodus 5:19 The Israelite supervisors saw that they were in trouble when they were told, ‘You shall not lessen your daily number of bricks.’ These two instances of br‘ essentially convey the same meaning since bad/evil and trouble are closely related. But is there a relation between br‘ and pr‘? Note that in both 5:19 (br‘) and in 32:25 (pr‘), the Hebrew verb for seeing is used in connection with the word. In 5:19 the Israelite supervisors see themselves in trouble and in 32:25 Moses sees that the people are exposed/wild.
וַיִּרְאוּ שֹׁטְרֵי בְנֵי-יִשְֹרָאֵל אֹתָם בְּרָע
וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא
It is therefore very tempting to suggest that pr‘ in 32:25 is a copyist’s error since the pr‘ root is found relatively infrequently in the bible and it just doesn’t seem to make much sense here. This hypothesis is further supported by the instance of the br‘ root earlier in this very chapter (32:22) when describing the very people Moses is describing here (32:25).
According to this hypothesis, the translation of 32:25 would be "when Moses saw that the people were bent on evil..." and we would still need to find some difficult translation for the remainder of the verse. I think that this makes sense as a possibility but it would require too much revision and there are better explanations which don’t require as much revision.
As you know, the LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made in the second century BCE. Since the standardization of the MT (Masoretic text) did not even start until the fifth century or so, the LXX is therefore generally more reliable than the MT.
The LXX (translated into English) reads 32:25: When Moses saw that the people were scattered --for Aaron had scattered them so as to be a rejoicing to their enemies-- then Moses stood...
Obviously, the LXX translates pr‘ to "scatter", unlike Rashi’s translation or the NRSV, but there is another major difference here. "rejoicing" is a translation of the Hebrew root šmx expressed as "lesimcha" in this verse whereas according to the Masoretes the root šmº meaning "derision/defamation" is being used and it is pronounced "leshimtsah". The intent of the verse according to the LXX is not clear but it seems that it is talking about the punishment of exile for the sin of worshipping idols. The ultimate punishment of exile and scatter among the gentiles for the sin of idolatry is a major deuteronomistic theme. Moses looks into the future and sees that the nation will suffer exile and scatter among the nations for the current and future instances of idolatry and he is trying to preclude that by having the primordial sinners executed. Rephrasing the LXX according to this understanding, it would read like this:
32:25: When Moses saw that the people were (to be) scattered --for Aaron had (caused them to be) scattered, thus providing rejoice to their enemies-- then Moses stood...
This translation has its own problems. The root pr‘ occurs infrequently and is somewhat hard to define exactly but it never means "scatter" in the narrow sense. As we will see below, pr‘ almost always relates to disheveled hair or to the conduct of a person with disheveled hair. This just leaves me wondering whether the LXX translator had a different Hebrew word than we do and if so what that might be. (the root npº is what first comes to mind but that bears very little resemblance to pr‘). Besides, the verse seems to be talking about Moses "seeing" (that is analyzing) the current situation, not about something that Moses sees preveniently to be happening in the future. We don’t find the verb "seeing" apply to a prophetic vision by Moses, elsewhere in the HB.
This is why I have come up with my own translation of this verse based on the assumption that "leshimtsah" should be read "lesimchah", which I will explain below. But first I will discuss the background for the Golden Calf episode as detailed by the E author in this chapter and the meaning of the root pr‘ elsewhere in the Bible.
There are several tough questions about the Golden Calf episode.
If "all the sons of Levi" (Ex 32:26) heeded Moses’ call for arms against the idolators, then by killing their "brothers" and "relatives" (32:27) they would essentially be killing co-fighters and that doesn’t sound right. This would be the equivalent of the president of the United States of America calling on his troops to fight other troops within their very own division, which doesn’t make much sense, especially unprovoked as the case is here.
The similarities between the Golden Calf episode and the deeds of the first Israelite king Jeroboam are astounding. Jeroboam had just seceded from the southern Davidic kingdom and was looking to solidify his subjects’ loyalty to him. In an attempt to set up northern centers of worship so that northerners need not go to the Davidic Jerusalem to worship, he introduced the worship of bulls in his kingdom. He set up one shrine at Dan in the north and one at Bethel in the south, he placed golden bulls in them and said "Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt." (1kings 12:28) Some years later, Elijah punishes the idolatrous Israelites by taking them down to the river and having them slaughtered there (1kings 18:40) just like Moses did in our episode. Is all this coincidence or there’s something more to this?
What accounts for the two modes of executing the idolators? First, Moses takes the idolators to the river, grinds the golden statue and spreads its dust over the water and then has them drink the water and die. Then he calls the yahwists to arms and has all the idolators massacred.
The golden calf episode is an E document, first put to writing in the northern kingdom in the eighth century BCE by the yahwist party. At the time, the vast majority of the priesthood and did not belong to the yahwist party. In fact, Elijah, Elisha and Hosea are the only known Northern yahwists and the Deuteronomist pictures them as facing overwhelming opposition. Thus we have the idolatrous party, initiated by Jeroboam and his priests who are quite successful and confident in their success and then we have the yahwist party, small, isolated and on the brink of vanishing forever. But then something amazing happens. After Jehu becomes king, all the Baal priests are invited to a solemn assembly ("atsarah") to feast and worship the Baal in Samaria. Jehu makes sure that only Baal priests participate and he then instructs the eighty guards stationed outside the temple complex to come in and kill the Ball priests. In the midst of all the revelry and when they least expected it, the Baal priests were brutally murdered, thus inaugurating a new era for the yahwists. From then on, the yahwists grew stronger and stronger until the destruction of Israel when they migrated south and joined Judah.
In light of these historical events, I see the golden calf episode written by these northern priests shortly after Jehu’s extermination of the Baal priests as simply another "etiological episode". Etiological episodes are not necessarily true in every detail, but rather serve to explain the current socio-political and religious situation. As precedents to current realities they are likely to have occurred in one way or another. However, the details of such events do not reflect the truth. Rather, they are highly idealized to depict what past events are expected to be like, based on the current reality. The parallels between historical events and idealized etiologies are quite clear:
Elijah represents the yahwist flag-bearer after the Northern kingdom had been established. Moses represents the chief yahwist before the Israelites conquered Canaan and he is believed to have first introduced yahwism while the Israelites were slaves in Egypt (borrowing from Ikhnaton perhaps?)
Elijah is having trouble getting people to accept yahwism and almost gets himself killed in the process. Moses likewise is having a hard time introducing monotheism and almost gets himself killed ("a bit more and they will stone me").
Elijah goes 40 days without drinking and then receives a revelation from yahweh in Horeb. Moses goes 40 days without eating or drinking and then receives the tablets of the law at Horeb.
A "civil war" in the time of Jehu catches the idolators by surprise while in the midst a pagan feast. The yahwists prevail and the Baal worshippers are wiped out. A "civil war" in the time of Moses catches the idolators by surprise while attending a special feast for the bull-god and the yahwists among the priests prevail over the non-yahwist priests and massacre them.
Elisha has the idolatrous priests taken to the river Qishon and slaughtered there, after he demonstrates that only yahweh is the true God answering his call for fire and rain. Moses burns the golden calf, grinds it to dust, spreads it over the water (of a local river?) and gives to the idolators to drink and die (Ex 32:20).
I am sure that there are many more parallels but these are enough to make my point: the golden calf episode is a projection back in time and its details were designed to replicate the realities of later stages in Israelite history. It’s as if the yahwist is saying: I am not coming up with anything new; all this has already happened in the past thus providing an iron-clad precedent for the yahwist tradition!
Accordingly, "all the sons of Levi" is either a late revision by a copyist or an illogical attempt by the author to make yahwism seem universal among the priesthood even though he himself contradicts himself (perhaps unintentionally) moments later by saying that some Levite relatives were among the massacred and thus among the idol worshippers. If we search among the historical parallels to the golden calf episode, we never find any point in time when "all the priesthood" was yahwist (and if we did find such a case then there would be no need to massacre any idolators anyway for there cannot be a religious cult without a priesthood).
What really happened here is a civil war. Even though the Bible does not say that those massacred fought back, this is self understood. It is also likely that those people were backed militarily by Aharon in the ensuing battle, even though Aharon is said to be apologetic at one point, saying that "the calf emerged" (without his involvement). There was a religious conflict among the Levites (who, by the way, are likely to have been the only tribe to ever be in Egypt) as to what the proper way of worshipping the deity/deities is. Details of this ancient religious conflict are hard to reconstruct since the entire episode is etiological, that is, it serves to explain the current realities (eighth century BCE in the Northern Kingdom) and so it is by definition heavily slanted to conform with current realities. If the "bad guys" in the eyes of the 8th century BCE Yahwist party are idol worshippers (golden calves at Dan and Bethel) then the bad guys in Moses’ days are also depicted as idol worshippers. Aharon headed the idolatrous party and Moses headed the yahwist party.
Why was Aharon chosen as the villain and Moses as the hero? Simple! The Judahite priesthood descendent from ºadoq traced their ancestry to "Aharon" and only ºadoq descendants were allowed to serve in the Solomonic temple. Abiathar and his descendants who traced their ancestry to Eli the priest from Shiloh and Moses, were ousted from the Judahite priesthood by Solomon because they supported his rival Adonijah. Abiathar and his descendants, naturally ended up settling in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (since they couldn’t serve in the south) even though they didn’t quite get accepted into the Northern priesthood either. Aharon was therefore the perfect villainous character for the heretic priest in the Golden Calf saga and Moses was the perfect heroic character.
Now lets return to the question of the meaning of pr’ for a moment. As mentioned earlier, this root does not occur often in the earliest biblical documents.
מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם: כו וַיַּעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר
ex 32:25 When Moses saw that the people were running wild (for Aaron had let them run wild, to the derision of their enemies),
---------------------------------------
רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל-תִּפְרָעוּ וּבִגְדֵיכֶם לֹא-תִפְרֹמוּ וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ וְעַל כָּל-הָעֵדָה יִקְצֹף
lev 10:6 And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, ‘Do not dishevel your hair, and do not tear your vestments,
------------------------------------------------------
אֶת-הַבְּגָדִים אֶת-רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם
lev 21:10 ... shall not dishevel his hair, nor tear his vestments (sign of mourning)
---------------------------------
אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה וּפָרַע אֶת-רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה
num 5:18 The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair...
----------------------------------
לַיהוָֹה קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְֹעַר רֹאשׁוֹ:
num 6:5 they shall let the locks of the head grow long.
----------------------------
בָּאָה וְעָשִֹיתִי לֹא-אֶפְרַע וְלֹא-אָחוּס וְלֹא אֶנָּחֵם כִּדְרָכַיִךְ וְכַעֲלִילוֹתַיִךְ שְׁפָטוּךְ נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהֶוִֹה:
ezek 24:14 I the Lord have spoken; the time is coming, I will act. I will not refrain, I will not spare, I will not relent.
-------------------------
וְרֹאשָׁם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ כָּסוֹם יִכְסְמוּ אֶת-רָאשֵׁיהֶם:
ezek 44:20 They shall not shave their heads or let their locks grow long; they shall only trim the hair of their heads.
--------------------------
יח בְּאֵין חָזוֹן יִפָּרַע עָם וְשֹׁמֵר תּוֹרָה אַשְׁרֵהוּ:
prov 29:18 Where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint,but happy are those who keep the law.
--------------------------
ב בִּפְרֹעַ פְּרָעוֹת בְּיִשְֹרָאֵל בְּהִתְנַדֵּב עָם בָּרְכוּ יְהֹוָה:
judg 5:2 ‘When locks are long in Israel, when the people offer themselves willingly, bless the Lord!
------------------------------------------
מב אַשְׁכִּיר חִצַּי מִדָּם וְחַרְבִּי תֹּאכַל בָּשָֹר מִדַּם חָלָל וְשִׁבְיָה מֵרֹאשׁ פַּרְעוֹת אוֹיֵב:
deut 32:42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood,and my sword shall devour flesh—with the blood of the slain and the captives,from the long-haired enemy.
------------------------------------------------
כה וַתִּפְרְעוּ כָל-עֲצָתִי וְתוֹכַחְתִּי לֹא אֲבִיתֶם:
prov 1:25 and because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
--------------------------------------
יד בְּאֹרַח רְשָׁעִים אַל-תָּבֹא וְאַל-תְּאַשֵּׁר בְּדֶרֶךְ רָעִים: טו פְּרָעֵהוּ אַל-תַּעֲבָר-בּוֹ שְֹטֵה מֵעָלָיו וַעֲבוֹר:
prov 4:15 Avoid it; do not go on it; turn away from it and
----------------------------------
לב וְעַתָּה בָנִים שִׁמְעוּ-לִי וְאַשְׁרֵי דְּרָכַי יִשְׁמֹרוּ: לג שִׁמְעוּ מוּסָר וַחֲכָמוּ וְאַל-תִּפְרָעוּ:
prov 8:33 Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the aforementioned list of pr’ instances, most are post exilic. The following are ancient Hebrew and were most likely first written down before the 587 BCE exile:
- ex 32:25
- judg 5:2
- deut 32:42
Basically, disheveled hair can indicate one of two things: 1- an act of mourning. The person does not care about anything and has lost interest in living a normal productive life and is demonstrating this state of mind by the unrestrained disheveling of hair (as if there is nothing to worry about and there is no tomorrow), tearing of garments etc... 2 - an act of revelry. The person is showing unbridled lust (party like there’s no tomorrow). If it’s a girl, the act indicates "I am available and lustful, don’t be ashamed to come forward and grab me". This is why Rebecca took a scarf and covered herself once she married Isaac. The priest dishevels the hair of a woman who is suspected of adultery so that everyone sees that she is promiscuous and willing to sleep with anyone who comes along.
In Proverbs pr’ has the connotation of avoid/neglect/ignore but we don’t see such a connotation anywhere else in the bible. In all other cases pr’ as a noun denotes long disheveled locks of hair and as a verb means to expose and dishevel one’s hair. It seems that the use of pr’ in Proverbs as well as Ezekiel 24:14 is in the broader sense of the word, namely to act carelessly / neglect.
Now that we understand the meaning of pr’ in all the other instances we can return to the ancient document at hand. In all three cases pr’ is used in the broad sense of acting in an unbridled/careless way, which is personified by the person who dishevels his hair out of revelry. In Judges, it is talking about Israelites disheveling their long hair out of rejoice in defeating their enemy (Jabin, king of Hazor). In Deuteronomy, the "long-haired enemy" is mentioned because he is confident and unsuspecting and therefore vincible by a surprise attack. Likewise, in Exodus we are talking about Israelites who are partying unrestrainedly in front of their idol and thus easily vincible by their enemies through a surprise attack.
Moses is seeing that Aharon has allowed his people to be "disheveled", that is they have left their guard down in the course of their feasting and so he wisely decides that this is the time to strike at Aharon’s people, the idolators. Remember what we have concluded above: this is a civil war among the levites. Some levites are yahwists and follow Moses (Elijah, Elisha etc...) but most of them follow the idolatrous Aharon (the Baal priests). Under normal circumstances it would be hard for the yahwists to overcome the idolators but now that they are "disheveled" is the perfect time to strike and so he called his followers to arms.
The Masorete reading is ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם:
Our reading is ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פְרָעָהוּ אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְחָה בְּקֻמֵיהֶם:
Or it could be ויַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם כִּי פָרֹעַ פְרָעָהוּ אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְחָה בְּקֻמֵיהֶם:
And the translation is When Moses saw that Aharon had disheveled the people upon their rise to rejoice, then Moses stood...
"rising to rejoice" is mentioned in an earlier verse (32:6) "the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel".
I prefer my first reading, according to which there is "duplicate phrase" copyist error, the duplicate phrase here being the words "ki pare’ghahu". Such kind of errors are found elsewhere in the bible (I don’t remember where offhand) whereby a scribe simply mistakenly writes down the same phrase twice. According to my alternative reading, the first mention of pr’ is a noun and is made to emphasize the verb. This kind of expression is extremely common in the bible and the intent here is that Moses saw that Aharon’s people were extremely disheveled. In fact, in Judges 5:2 the pr’ verb is written in such "emphasis duplicate" form.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Acting in Self Defense
It is common sense that when acting in self-defense, one is justified to commit some major violations of other people's rights. In fact, if your very life is being threatened, I think most people will agree that you are entitled to kill another human, if that's what it takes to remove the threat. The question therefore is, where do we draw the line? Are we to carry a pistol and shoot to death anyone who annoys us, however minutely? Or, are we to sit idly by and do nothing while our rights, financial entitlements and sometimes our lives are being threatened, because the law says that we're not supposed to be violent?
Before I proceed, let me make it clear that the law is meaningless when it comes to these matters. Common law is vital for a successful society to exist and someone who has no regard for the law of the land will invariably not be able to survive. But does the law always act in our best interest?
My car was once parked on a Brooklyn street some two years ago on a street-cleaning day and I got a ticket, as occurred countless times prior. But there was one major thing different that day. There was no sign on that entire block posting the street cleaning rules (SCR). The ticket wasn't that much and perhaps it would have been easier for me to pay it off rather than bother fighting it but being as I am -an extremely principled person- I decided to fight it. I took several high-res 8x10 pictures of the ENTIRE block from various angles and I presented them to the judge. Those pictures clearly showed that there was no SCR sign. Yet the judge denied my appeal claiming that the pictures were inadequate.
I was playing 10-20 Holdem in Play Station once and I posted my big blind while a gypsy asshole to my left was raking in the pot. He raked my $10 big blind in together with his pot. When I tried to get my money back, he wouldn't hear it. He was insistent that it was his money and that I never posted the blind. The floorperson ultimately sided with him and I had to post again.
These are just two among many examples where I was clearly wronged. In these two cases, there wasn't much I could do to make things right and so I swallowed the bullet and moved on with life. But the real question here is: am I "supposed" to put up with these just because there is no way I can legally fight them? If there was a way to reverse these wrongs, how far am I justified to go in doing so? The answer might surprise you!
When it comes to personal decisions, "common law" is irrelevant. What matters is how to serve your best interests while imposing the minimal injury or damage upon others. And the reason we try to avoid injuring others if possible is simply because it is not economical to do so. Each and every person on this planet serves and important role in the overall welfare of the global civilization. Evolution has worked extremely hard over Billions of years to create this marvelous creature we call "human" and it is therefore imprudent to "do away" with any human we dislike. In other words: it might be in our own best long-term interest to let the gypsy asshole and the unscrupulous judge --and other people like these-- live. Even if they don't serve my immediate best interest, they might do so in the future or they might be important to people who are important to me, thus indirectly acting out a constructive role in my life. It is also important to note that people are naturally kind and cooperative. If and when they act in a hostile manner it is usually due to a perceived threat. Thus even though the gypsy thief and the inept judge are hurting me, they are not doing so in premeditated, deliberate manner. In other words, they are not going out of their way to rob me or pervert justice. In other aspects of their lives --I am sure-- they serve some very useful roles. They might have loving wives, good children, productive jobs etc... Yet, even these guys only narrowly escape the death sentence if I had to judge and act according to my "personal law" (which is admittedly non-binding).
People who Deserve the Death Sentence
Do not be afraid to mete out the death penalty to your enemies! Remember that the nurse who saved Hitler's life when he was a baby was acting "mercifully" while in fact creating the biggest monster the world had ever seen. That act was not mercy; it was an act of hatred. Mercy would have been to take the baby and smother him to death, thus saving the lives of tens of millions of innocents.
People who continuously engage in behavior that is detrimental to the average person, do not have the license to live. With their "license to live" revoked, they are walking targets and may theoretically be shot to death at the hands of any person suffering under their wicked actions. It's really a question of weighing the person's pros and cons. If he is engaged in too much negative behavior and not enough positive behavior (not just towards you), then they have no right to live.
One example that easily comes to mind are traffic cops. These people often do nothing other than lurking on the side of the road waiting to pounce upon a speeding motorist. They do this on the first of the month, on the 15th and on the 30th, in the morning, afternoon and evening; that's all they ever do. If you get caught speeding or committing any traffic infraction, it does not matter how lenient the circumstances are or whether the intent of the law was for such a particular act to be illegal, they WILL give you a hefty summons (between $180 and $300 on the Garden State Parkway, NJ), no questions asked and no pleas for forgiveness accepted.
Are they providing any benefit to the common people? Absolutely not! Speeding is not the cause of accidents or any other harm to other people (and neither is not wearing a seat belt). These cops are essentially trying to raise money for the local town by unjustly accusing speeding motorists of committing a violation of the common good. There is, in fact, no violation of the common good in speeding; there is just one thing: municipalities and their cop agents lining their pockets by robbing innocent people at gunpoint; that's essentially what it is since if you don't pay the ticket you get your driver's license and registration revoked.
This case is more severe --in my opinion-- than the previous two cases even though these cops seem extremely innocent and are supposedly acting within the framework of the law. The key incriminating factor here is that they do nothing else and they make a deliberate attempt to inflict harm on many innocent people. It's one thing if they helped some people and hurt others or if they stopped drivers who were really out of control. As it is, however, circumstances are irrelevant to them. Their mission is to "trap" speeding motorists by a fluke of the law. If you have a loaded gun in your car when you get pulled over and know that you could avoid State "retribution" for your justified cop murder in self-defense, then the correct thing for you to do is shoot him right in the head and take off. If enough people will do this, then these bandits will eventually learn to leave motorists alone. Palestinians fought Israelis for years and the Israelis finally realized that the best thing is "disengagement"; just leave your enemy alone. Hopefully, those criminal cops will disengage as well.
Some of the other outrageous tickets I received are listed below:
I was waiting in line for a toll booth at the Verrezano Bridge. The car in front of me was stopped at the booth and was not moving for a prolonged time. I noticed this from afar and so I hesitated while approaching him from behind, so as to be able to switch to another lane if he is indeed "stuck" or there is some other problem. The cop pulled me aside and cited me for "obstruction of traffic".
On Feb 12 2006 on a Saturday night while returning to Brigantine, NJ from Brooklyn, NY on a snowy and slippery night, I skidded on the GSP, I mistakenly braked in panic, spun out of control, slammed into a tree and totaled my car. Instead of sympathizing with my plight, the cop cited me for "careless driving" (a 4-point violation) and never asked if I was okay or offered me the warmth of his vehicle while I was waiting for the tow truck (40 minutes) in my cold shattered-rear-window car.
These are the kind of cops who deserve the death penalty, albeit it is unenforceable!
It is common sense that when acting in self-defense, one is justified to commit some major violations of other people's rights. In fact, if your very life is being threatened, I think most people will agree that you are entitled to kill another human, if that's what it takes to remove the threat. The question therefore is, where do we draw the line? Are we to carry a pistol and shoot to death anyone who annoys us, however minutely? Or, are we to sit idly by and do nothing while our rights, financial entitlements and sometimes our lives are being threatened, because the law says that we're not supposed to be violent?
Before I proceed, let me make it clear that the law is meaningless when it comes to these matters. Common law is vital for a successful society to exist and someone who has no regard for the law of the land will invariably not be able to survive. But does the law always act in our best interest?
My car was once parked on a Brooklyn street some two years ago on a street-cleaning day and I got a ticket, as occurred countless times prior. But there was one major thing different that day. There was no sign on that entire block posting the street cleaning rules (SCR). The ticket wasn't that much and perhaps it would have been easier for me to pay it off rather than bother fighting it but being as I am -an extremely principled person- I decided to fight it. I took several high-res 8x10 pictures of the ENTIRE block from various angles and I presented them to the judge. Those pictures clearly showed that there was no SCR sign. Yet the judge denied my appeal claiming that the pictures were inadequate.
I was playing 10-20 Holdem in Play Station once and I posted my big blind while a gypsy asshole to my left was raking in the pot. He raked my $10 big blind in together with his pot. When I tried to get my money back, he wouldn't hear it. He was insistent that it was his money and that I never posted the blind. The floorperson ultimately sided with him and I had to post again.
These are just two among many examples where I was clearly wronged. In these two cases, there wasn't much I could do to make things right and so I swallowed the bullet and moved on with life. But the real question here is: am I "supposed" to put up with these just because there is no way I can legally fight them? If there was a way to reverse these wrongs, how far am I justified to go in doing so? The answer might surprise you!
When it comes to personal decisions, "common law" is irrelevant. What matters is how to serve your best interests while imposing the minimal injury or damage upon others. And the reason we try to avoid injuring others if possible is simply because it is not economical to do so. Each and every person on this planet serves and important role in the overall welfare of the global civilization. Evolution has worked extremely hard over Billions of years to create this marvelous creature we call "human" and it is therefore imprudent to "do away" with any human we dislike. In other words: it might be in our own best long-term interest to let the gypsy asshole and the unscrupulous judge --and other people like these-- live. Even if they don't serve my immediate best interest, they might do so in the future or they might be important to people who are important to me, thus indirectly acting out a constructive role in my life. It is also important to note that people are naturally kind and cooperative. If and when they act in a hostile manner it is usually due to a perceived threat. Thus even though the gypsy thief and the inept judge are hurting me, they are not doing so in premeditated, deliberate manner. In other words, they are not going out of their way to rob me or pervert justice. In other aspects of their lives --I am sure-- they serve some very useful roles. They might have loving wives, good children, productive jobs etc... Yet, even these guys only narrowly escape the death sentence if I had to judge and act according to my "personal law" (which is admittedly non-binding).
People who Deserve the Death Sentence
Do not be afraid to mete out the death penalty to your enemies! Remember that the nurse who saved Hitler's life when he was a baby was acting "mercifully" while in fact creating the biggest monster the world had ever seen. That act was not mercy; it was an act of hatred. Mercy would have been to take the baby and smother him to death, thus saving the lives of tens of millions of innocents.
People who continuously engage in behavior that is detrimental to the average person, do not have the license to live. With their "license to live" revoked, they are walking targets and may theoretically be shot to death at the hands of any person suffering under their wicked actions. It's really a question of weighing the person's pros and cons. If he is engaged in too much negative behavior and not enough positive behavior (not just towards you), then they have no right to live.
One example that easily comes to mind are traffic cops. These people often do nothing other than lurking on the side of the road waiting to pounce upon a speeding motorist. They do this on the first of the month, on the 15th and on the 30th, in the morning, afternoon and evening; that's all they ever do. If you get caught speeding or committing any traffic infraction, it does not matter how lenient the circumstances are or whether the intent of the law was for such a particular act to be illegal, they WILL give you a hefty summons (between $180 and $300 on the Garden State Parkway, NJ), no questions asked and no pleas for forgiveness accepted.
Are they providing any benefit to the common people? Absolutely not! Speeding is not the cause of accidents or any other harm to other people (and neither is not wearing a seat belt). These cops are essentially trying to raise money for the local town by unjustly accusing speeding motorists of committing a violation of the common good. There is, in fact, no violation of the common good in speeding; there is just one thing: municipalities and their cop agents lining their pockets by robbing innocent people at gunpoint; that's essentially what it is since if you don't pay the ticket you get your driver's license and registration revoked.
This case is more severe --in my opinion-- than the previous two cases even though these cops seem extremely innocent and are supposedly acting within the framework of the law. The key incriminating factor here is that they do nothing else and they make a deliberate attempt to inflict harm on many innocent people. It's one thing if they helped some people and hurt others or if they stopped drivers who were really out of control. As it is, however, circumstances are irrelevant to them. Their mission is to "trap" speeding motorists by a fluke of the law. If you have a loaded gun in your car when you get pulled over and know that you could avoid State "retribution" for your justified cop murder in self-defense, then the correct thing for you to do is shoot him right in the head and take off. If enough people will do this, then these bandits will eventually learn to leave motorists alone. Palestinians fought Israelis for years and the Israelis finally realized that the best thing is "disengagement"; just leave your enemy alone. Hopefully, those criminal cops will disengage as well.
Some of the other outrageous tickets I received are listed below:
I was waiting in line for a toll booth at the Verrezano Bridge. The car in front of me was stopped at the booth and was not moving for a prolonged time. I noticed this from afar and so I hesitated while approaching him from behind, so as to be able to switch to another lane if he is indeed "stuck" or there is some other problem. The cop pulled me aside and cited me for "obstruction of traffic".
On Feb 12 2006 on a Saturday night while returning to Brigantine, NJ from Brooklyn, NY on a snowy and slippery night, I skidded on the GSP, I mistakenly braked in panic, spun out of control, slammed into a tree and totaled my car. Instead of sympathizing with my plight, the cop cited me for "careless driving" (a 4-point violation) and never asked if I was okay or offered me the warmth of his vehicle while I was waiting for the tow truck (40 minutes) in my cold shattered-rear-window car.
These are the kind of cops who deserve the death penalty, albeit it is unenforceable!
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Feb 22 2006
In this document I will discuss passages in the Hebrew Bible where I believe the Masoretes mis-punctuated the text or there is a copyist error. This is commonly called "lower criticism". Masorete errors include:
In this document I will discuss passages in the Hebrew Bible where I believe the Masoretes mis-punctuated the text or there is a copyist error. This is commonly called "lower criticism". Masorete errors include:
- wrong end of verse
- wrong end of chapter
- wrong vowels
- wrong spelling - a waw is commonly confused with a yod and a daleth with a resh
Copyist errors are more difficult to identify and they usually involve mis-spelled words. I will also make note of all instances where I believe that a prefixed waw is an explanatory waw and not an appending waw. In other words, the "waw" indicates that the following verse is an explanation and elaboration of the previous phrase, NOT an addition to it.
When I want to eliminate or change a word, I will enclose it in parenthesis and the correct word will be placed in boxed parenthesis.
Article 1:
------------------------------------------------------------------
פרשת בראשית א בְּרֵאשִׁית (בָּרָא) בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ (: ב) וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחשֶׁךְ עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם:
This is the first verse in the Bible and it is so unfortunate that it has been misinterpreted by most scholars. The second word in the first verse could be pronounced "bara" and be a verb "created" and it could also be pronounced "beroh" (according to masoretic pronunciation) and be a noun "creation". The Masoretes mistakenly decided that it’s a verb and most --if not all-- subsequent translations followed suit. Big mistake! the P author is saying that in the beginning of god’s creation of heaven and earth, the earth was formless and void and there was darkness upon the face of the deep thus necessitating the special godly command that there shall be light. He is not saying that in the beginning, god created heaven and earth.
There are several indicators that the masorete understanding is wrong. First, The P creation account is modeled after the J creation account (2:4-25) and in the J account this introductory statement that at first there was nothing, is articulated very clearly: "every plant of the field had yet to be on earth, and every herb of the field had yet to grow" (2:5). Second, verses 6-10 explain how god created the heaven and earth on the second and third day, respectively. This is a direct contradiction to the statement made in verse 1 according to the masorete understanding that in the beginning (that is, on the first day, even before there was light), god created heaven and earth. Third, we see from the creations in subsequent days that each day was devoted to the creation of only one major element on earth. At the very least, the P author pauses after each major creation by saying that "god saw that it was good". According to the masorete understanding, however, there are three major elements created in the first day: light, heaven and earth. Lastly, the language used in verse 1 simply does not match the style of the P author for expressing creational events. In most of the other events, god orders that objects should come into existence, they do so ("wayehi ken"), and he then names the objects and he sees that they are good. Also, P always uses a verb that begins with a waw .(וַיַּעַשֹ וַיֹּאמֶר וַיִּקְרָא וַיִּתֵּן וַיַּרְא וַיִּבְרָא וַיְבָרֶךְ)
Now before I leave this P creation story, I must caution that the first day’s events are still quite problematic. Even according to my interpretation, light is said to be created on the first day and this contradicts the story of light’s creation on the fourth day. I think there is a possibility that the original story of creation from which the P account is derived (which is --by the way-- of Babylonian origin) did not say that anything was created on the first day, or possibly god himself is said to have been born on that day. To the Jewish P audience, however, god could not be perceived as an entity that was born at a given time and did not exist previously. They had to assign some object as the creation of the first day and they therefore took the light from the fourth day and placed it in the first day. According to this understanding, verse 18 originally read:
יח וְלִמְשֹׁל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה וּלְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחשֶׁךְ וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי-טוֹב וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר יוֹם רְבִיעִי:
Upon moving the creation of light to the first day, the phrase "god separated light from darkness" ended up duplicated both on the first day (verse 4) and on the fourth day (verse 18) and the phrase "god named the light day and the darkness night" was completely moved from the fourth day to the first day.
If this understanding is true, then the first day’s creation was god and this is the hidden meaning behind the phrase "the spirit of god hovered upon the water". It means that the only living creature on earth was God. All that should be contained in the first day’s story is the following:
א בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחשֶׁךְ עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם: ה וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד:
And what is meant by this is that on the first day nothing but god existed. Gradually, all elements mentioned here are created. Heavens on the second day, earth on the third day, light on the fourth day, spirit/wind of water animals on the fifth day (as contrasted with the spirit of god-only being on the water) and land animals on the sixth day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2:
פרק ג כה וַיִּֽהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָֽאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבּשָֽׁשׁוּ: (פרק ג) א וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אַף כִּֽי־אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹֽאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּֽן: ב וַתֹּאמֶר הָֽאִשָּׁה אֶל־הַנָּחָשׁ מִפְּרִי עֵץ־הַגָּן נֹאכֵֽל:
What exactly the word "gharum/gharumim" means is debatable. The KJV translates gharumim as naked and gharum as "subtle". I strongly suspect that both words have a similar meaning. However, even if the two words have no connection whatsoever, we still see from the overall account of the "Fall" (as Christians like to call it) that verse 2:25 is part of the Fall narrative that follows and not part of the preceding creation narrative. J is saying that Adam and his wife were at first naked and unashamed, to contrast this with when they were ashamed of being naked after they ate from the tree of knowledge, and were forced to sew garbs from fig leaves to cover their nakedness. Thus it is clear to me that verse 2:25 ought to be 3:1. I do not have the slightest inkling as to who made this verse part of chapter 2 and why, but this is how it is in the Jewish Pentateuch and it’s wrong.
----------------------------------
Article 3
כא וַיָּרַח יְהוָֹה אֶת־רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל־לִבּוֹ לֹא אֹסִף לְקַלֵּל עוֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָה בַּֽעֲבוּר הָֽאָדָם כִּי יֵצֶר לֵב הָֽאָדָם רַע מִנְּעֻרָיו וְלֹֽא־אֹסִף עוֹד לְהַכּוֹת אֶת־כָּל־חַי כַּֽאֲשֶׁר עָשִֽׂיתִי: כב (עֹד) עַד כָּל־יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּֽתוּ:
The Hebrew word "od" (spelled ayin waw daleth) means "more" or "still" whereas the word "ad" (spelled ayin daleth) means until. The Masorete spells the first word in verse 22 with a cholem on the ayin so that it means "more": while the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. This is wrong!! We see the word "od" with this meaning in the very previous verse spelled with a waw. Why is this one lacking a waw if it’s the same word?
Hence we see that the word is "ad" meaning until: Until all the days of earth (that is, forever) seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
The phrase "until all the days of the earth" as used in this context in the J account, parallels the "perpetual generations" (darath gholam) covenant god makes with Noah in the P account (9:12)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Article 4
ד וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ הָבָה נִבְנֶה־לָּנוּ עִיר וּמִגְדָּל וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּנוּ (שֵׁם) שָם פֶּן־נָפוּץ עַל־פְּנֵי כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ:
This verse should be compared to the verse in 2kings 6:2
ב נֵלְכָה-נָּא עַד-הַיַּרְדֵּן וְנִקְחָה מִשָּׁם אִישׁ קוֹרָה אֶחָת וְנַעֲשֶֹה-לָּנוּ שָׁם מָקוֹם לָשֶׁבֶת שָׁם וַיֹּאמֶר לֵכוּ:
It is the only other place in the Bible where these three consecutive words appear and clearly the word is pronounced "sham" in Kings and it means "there". Likewise, I believe that in our case it should be pronounced sham and translated as "there" and not "name" which is the translation of the Hebrew word "shem". I should also note that the expression "making a name" is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has no easily interpreted meaning.
The tower of Babel J account is very ancient and cryptic. It does not clarify precisely what prompted these people to build the city and a tower "whose top is in heaven" and what they were trying to accomplish. How would the tower prevent their dispersal and why is a dispersal bad? Furthermore, how did this plan threaten Yahweh?
Most likely, it refers to the ziggurats that the ancients built in Mesopotamia. These ziggurats were essentially terraced mounds on top of which a brick temple was built. They had a particular interest in building the temple on highly elevated ground, seemingly in order to be closer to god who presumably resides in heaven. It seems that these ziggurats were destroyed in the course of the Semitic raids (the amorites) on these ancient Sumerian cities during the early second millennium BCE. See the Wiki article on ziggurats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat.
Accordingly, the reason why yahweh would object to such a projeact is simply that it was dedicated to another god and yahweh is jealous, fearing that a ziggurat dedicated to another deity would allow that deity to wield too much control over the earthly mortals and diminish yahweh’s control over them. The J author thus views the ziggurat destruction and the dispersal of humanity as an expression of yahweh’s anger at those who were worshipping another deity through the ziggurat built in Babel.
Regardless of what the precise purpose of this building project was and why Yahweh objected to it, one thing is clear: "making a name", as the Hebrew words in 11:4 literally mean according to the Masorete tradition, does not present any threat to yahweh and does not prevent dispersal.
Under our understanding, these words translate to "let us make there..." and it does not specify what they will make. In fact, this is probably why the Masoretes changed the meaning of the phrase. Something seemed amiss since it didn’t say what they will make and so the masorete interpreted it to mean "let us make a name". Personally, I believe that the verse should read:
ד וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ הָבָה נִבְנֶה־לָּנוּ עִיר וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּנוּ שָׁם מִגְדָּל פֶּן־נָפוּץ עַל־פְּנֵי כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ:
They said, Come, let us build us a city whose top is in the heaven, and let us make a tower there lest we be scattered upon the face of the whole earth.
Note how I moved the word "tower" ("mijdal", which refers to the temple built on top of the terraced mound) from the beginning of the verse and placed it after the word "there". Now the verse reads perfectly fine and it also makes sense. By "city", the J author does not mean a traditional city; rather, what is meant is a series of receding tiers, each of which is filled with earth and enclosed by baked brick, upon which the "tower" (aka temple) may be built. If it is true that in the original text, "mijdal" followed the word "sham", then the reason it was moved is well understood in this context. The scribe could not imagine how a city’s top can reach the heaven and therefore restructured the verse so that it would be talking about the top of the tower and this ultimately caused the word shm to be mistakenly read as "shem". In our explanation, however, based on the construction of the actual ziggurats, "city" here means a mound and the intent is to build a very tall, tiered mound and so there’s no need to edit the text.
Finally, I should note that in this very J account (Genesis 11:1-9) the word "sham" meaning there is mentioned five times, which is a lot. "Shem" meaning name is mentioned once and that is the word "shemah" (her name) in verse 11:9 when referring to the name of the city Babel. And so we see contextually that this particular J author was fond of the word "sham".
-------------------------------------------------------------
Article 5
טז וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת־זַֽרְעֲךָ כַּֽעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אִם־יוּכַל אִישׁ לִמְנוֹת אֶת־עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ גַּם־זַֽרְעֲךָ (יִמָּנֶֽה) יִמְּנֶה :
This is but one out of many instances where the Masorete prefers to use a passive verb than an active one. The word ימנה in modern Hebrew could mean "he will count" or it could mean "will be counted" depending on the pronunciation. This reflects a relatively advanced vocabulary used in later generations and at the masoretic times. The problem is that in ancient Hebrew, the one spoken during much of the first temple, there was no clear distinction between past tense, present tense and future tense. The same exact word could be understood as referring to the past, present or future depending on the context, while the spelling AND pronunciation are identical. Likewise, I don’t see any definitive evidence that ancient Hebrew had such passive words as "will be seen" or "will be counted". Thus, the spelling of the word ימּנה as "yim’maneh" rather than "yimneh" is a projection of contemporary Hebrew grammar upon an ancient generation who didn’t have such complex grammatical structures.
But even if the J author did have the capacity to express himself in a passive way, it is quite clear that the author is talking here about a specific person who is counting either dust particles or the seed of Abram. He is not talking about whether the dust or seed can "be" counted. Rather, he is saying that whoever can count the dust of the earth can count the seed of Abram.
----------------------------------------------------------------
[רביעי] א וַיְהִי בִּימֵי (אַמְרָפֶל) אַמַרְפָל מֶֽלֶךְ־שִׁנְעָר אַרְיוֹךְ מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר: (כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר) כַּדְלַעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם (וְתִדְעָל) וְתַרְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִֽם (: ב) עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה אֶת־(בֶּרַע) בֶּלַע מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם וְאֶת־(בִּרְשַׁע) בַּרְשַּׂע מֶלֶךְ (עֲמֹרָה) עֲמֹרְהָה (שִׁנְאָב) שִׁנְאָר מֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה וְשֶׁמְאֵבֶר מֶלֶךְ צְבֹיִים וּמֶלֶךְ (בֶּלַע) בֶּלַךּ הִיא־(צֹֽעַר) צְעֹר: ג כָּל־אֵלֶּה חָֽבְרוּ אֶל־עֵמֶק הַשִּׂדִּים הוּא יָם הַמֶּֽלַח: ד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה עָֽבְדוּ אֶת־כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר וּשְׁלשׁ־עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה מָרָֽדוּ: ה וּבְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בָּא כְדָרְלָעֹמֶר וְהַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ וַיַּכּוּ אֶת־רְפָאִים בְּעַשְׁתְּרֹת (קַרְנַיִם) וְקַרְנַיִם וְאֶת־הַזּוּזִים (בְּהָם) בָּהֶם וְאֵת הָֽאֵימִים בְּשָׁוֵה קִרְיָתָֽיִם: ו וְאֶת־הַֽחֹרִי (בְּהַֽרֲרָם) בְּהָרֵי שֵׂעִיר עַד אֵיל פָּארָן אֲשֶׁר (עַל־הַמִּדְבָּֽר) בַּמִּדְבָּֽר: ז וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל־עֵין מִשְׁפָּט הִוא קָדֵשׁ וַיַּכּוּ אֶת־כָּל־(שְׂדֵה) שָׂרֵי הָֽעֲמָֽלֵקִי וְגַם אֶת־הָאֱמֹרִי הַיּשֵׁב בְּחַֽצֲצֹן תָּמָֽר: ח וַיֵּצֵא מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹם וּמֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה וּמֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה וּמֶלֶךְ צְבֹיִים [צְבוֹיִם] וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע הִוא־צֹעַר וַיַּֽעַרְכוּ אִתָּם מִלְחָמָה בְּעֵמֶק הַשִּׂדִּֽים: ט אֵת כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם וְאַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ שִׁנְעָר וְאַרְיוֹךְ מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר אַרְבָּעָה מְלָכִים אֶת־הַֽחֲמִשָּֽׁה: י וְעֵמֶק הַשִּׂדִּים בֶּֽאֱרֹת בֶּֽאֱרֹת חֵמָר וַיָּנֻסוּ מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹם וַֽעֲמֹרָה וַיִּפְּלוּ־שָׁמָּה וְהַנִּשְׁאָרִים הֶרָה נָּֽסוּ: יא וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־כָּל־רְכֻשׁ סְדֹם וַֽעֲמֹרָה וְאֶת־כָּל־אָכְלָם וַיֵּלֵֽכוּ: יב וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־לוֹט וְאֶת־רְכֻשׁוֹ בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם וַיֵּלֵכוּ וְהוּא ישֵׁב בִּסְדֹֽם: יג וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָֽעִבְרִי וְהוּא (שֹׁכֵן) שָׁכַן בְּאֵֽלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָֽאֱמֹרִי אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַֽאֲחִי (עָנֵר) עֻנָן וְהֵם בַּֽעֲלֵי בְרִית־אַבְרָֽם: יד וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת־חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד־דָּֽן: טו (וַיֵּֽחָלֵק) וַיְּחַלֵק עֲלֵיהֶם לַיְלָה הוּא וַֽעֲבָדָיו וַיַּכֵּם וַֽיִּרְדְּפֵם עַד־חוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר מִשְּׂמֹאל לְדַמָּֽשֶׂק: טז וַיָּשֶׁב אֵת כָּל־(הָֽרְכֻשׁ) רֶכֶשׁ סְדֹם וְגַם אֶת־לוֹט אָחִיו וּרְכֻשׁוֹ הֵשִׁיב וְגַם אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת־הָעָֽם: יז וַיֵּצֵא מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹם (לִקְרָאתוֹ) לְקִרְאָתוֹ אַֽחֲרֵי שׁוּבוֹ מֵֽהַכּוֹת אֶת־כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר וְאֶת־הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ אֶל־עֵמֶק (שָׁוֵה) שָּׂבִּי הוּא עֵמֶק הַמֶּֽלֶךְ: יח וּמַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיֽוֹן: יט וַֽיְבָֽרֲכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן (קֹנֵה) קָנָה שָׁמַיִם וָאָֽרֶץ: כ וּבָרוּךְ אֵל עֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר־מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ מַֽעֲשֵׂר מִכֹּֽל: [חמישי] כא וַיֹּאמֶר מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹם אֶל־אַבְרָם תֶּן־לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ( וְהָֽרְכֻשׁ) וְהָֽרֶכֶשׁ קַח־לָֽךְ: כב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל־מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל־יְהוָֹה אֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָֽרֶץ: כג אִם־מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ־נַעַל וְאִם־אֶקַּח מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לָךְ וְלֹא תֹאמַר אֲנִי הֶֽעֱשַׁרְתִּי אֶת־אַבְרָֽם: כד בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָֽכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָֽאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָֽלְכוּ אִתִּי עָנֵר אֶשְׁכֹּל וּמַמְרֵא הֵם יִקְחוּ חֶלְקָֽם: ס
----------------------------------------------------
I have made many corrections to this J narrative of Abraham fighting the Sodomite kings. One of the key corrections to this account is the pause after "Arioch, king of Ellasar". He is saying that the story took place in the days of Amarphal and Arioch; Chodollogomor is already part of the actual story. As we see in verse 5, Chodollogomor was the leading king in the war against the Sodomite kings and so the narrative starts with him, saying that he and Tharghal waged war against the Sodomite kings without mentioning that the minor kings Amarphal and Arioch (probably his vassals) were allied with him. The Masorete understanding is that "in the days of..." refers to all four kings mentioned in verse 1 and not just the first one or two.
While I do not have any definitive proof that the masorete interpretation is wrong, my interpretation is based on the LXX and the LXX (Septuagint) is generally more reliable than the MT (masoretic text).
All other corrections in the pronunciation of the kings or their nations are based directly on the English translation of the Septuagint. Additionally there are some "material" changes as well, that effect a major change in meaning. For example, in verse 5 according to the MT, "Ham" is a name-place where the Zuzites were slain, whereas according to the LXX there are no "Zuzites". The Hebrew term "Zuzim bahem" means the strong amongst them and the Hebrew word for strong is "ghazuz" as in Isaiah 42:25.
Under this interpretation, verse 5 mentions only names of places; it does not name any specific people who were slain at these places. All three Hebrew words used in reference to the people slain have the connotation of "mighty ones". Rephaim are giants who reside in Astaroth. Zuzim are strong nations who reside in Qarnayim and Eimim are mighty ones who reside in the village Saweh. Note that "qarithim" is not part of the name of the village.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 6
פרק כט
[שני] א וַיִּשָּׂא יַֽעֲקֹב רַגְלָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַרְצָה בְנֵי־קֶֽדֶם: ב וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה בְאֵר בַּשָּׂדֶה וְהִנֵּה־שָׁם שְׁלשָׁה עֶדְרֵי־צֹאן רֹֽבְצִים עָלֶיהָ כִּי מִן־הַבְּאֵר הַהִוא יַשְׁקוּ הָֽעֲדָרִים: וְהָאֶבֶן גְּדֹלָה עַל־פִּי הַבְּאֵֽר (: ג) וְנֶֽאֶסְפוּ־שָׁמָּה כָל־הָֽעֲדָרִים וְגָֽלֲלוּ אֶת־הָאֶבֶן מֵעַל פִּי הַבְּאֵר וְהִשְׁקוּ אֶת־הַצֹּאן וְהֵשִׁיבוּ אֶת־הָאֶבֶן עַל־פִּי הַבְּאֵר לִמְקֹמָֽהּ:
I don’t know why the Masorete ended verse 2 after "there was a big stone at the mouth of the well". It is quite clear to me that this clause is part of the next verse and is intended to describe the routine shephered practice of combining their efforts to roll over the stone to enable access to the water when needed. Apparently they did not want the well to be exposed when not in use, for fear of contamination. In fact, it is possible that the new verse starts even earlier at "for the flocks were to drink from that well...". The conjunction "for" explains why the flocks were lying beside the well and is therefore the beginning of the new verse that describes the routine which required that all the flocks be present before they can roll the stone off and drink from the well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
י וַתְּהִי רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ בָּבֶל וְאֶרֶךְ וְאַכַּד (וְכַלְנֶה) וְכֻּלָנָה בְּאֶרֶץ שִׁנְעָֽר:
This is one of those instances where a major error was made in the pronunciation and thus interpretation of a word. While Erech and Akkad are known Sumerian city-states of the third Millenium BCE, there is no such place as "calneh". The word here is "kulanah" and it means "and all". The author is saying that all the aforementioned cities (Babel, Erech and Akkad) are in the land of Sina’ar, which is Sumeria. This is how the translation occurs in the NRSV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
כ וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה זַֽעֲקַת סְדֹם וַֽעֲמֹרָה כִּי־רָבָּה וְחַטָּאתָם כִּי כָֽבְדָה מְאֹֽד: כא אֵֽרֲדָה־נָּא וְאֶרְאֶה הַכְּצַֽעֲקָתָהּ הַבָּאָה אֵלַי עָשׂוּ (כָּלָה וְאִם־לֹא אֵדָֽעָה) כֻּלָהּ אִם־לֹא וְאֵדָֽעָה:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the context in which how the expression "I shall know" is elsewhere. See the following P passages in Exodus (2:23-25):
וַיֵּאָֽנְחוּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן־הָֽעֲבֹדָה וַיִּזְעָקוּ וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעָתָם אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִים מִן־הָֽעֲבֹדָֽה: כד וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים אֶת־נַֽאֲקָתָם וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת־בְּרִיתוֹ אֶת־אַבְרָהָם אֶת־יִצְחָק וְאֶֽת־יַֽעֲקֹֽב: כה וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּדַע אֱלֹהִֽים: ס
God is listening to the cries of the Israelites and he "knows" what do in response, and that is, rescure the oppressed and inflict retribution upon the oppressor. Likewise, Yahweh is saying here that he will descend from heaven and see whether all the evils purported to have been done in Sodom had actually taken place and he will then punish the oppressor.
Note that the Hebrew word spelled {kapf lamed he} almost always has the meaning of completion, NOT detruction and in JE always has such meaning. In fact, this very word is mentioned by the J author in his telling of the very same Sodom story. Several verses later (Genesis 18:33) Yahweh goes (to Sofom) after completing his talk with Abraham. This word is also mentioned by J in Genesis 13:10 "Lot lifted his eyes and saw that the plain of Jordan was completely watered" and elsewhere.
The only place in the Pentateuch where calah obviously means destruction is a P passage in Numbers 16 and 17 where God is saying that he will destroy the assembly in a moment. In all other instances of this root, it denotes completion, including the verse in Genesis 41:30 translated by KJV "and the famine will consume the land". This is wrong! The correct defintion here is "the famine will encompass the complete land".
Note also that I have moved the waw from being prefixed to "calah", to being prefixed to "ed’ghah" (I shall know). The passgae reads much better this way and the Masorete version is therefore most likely the result of a copypyist error.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
פרק ב כב וַיְצַו פַּרְעֹה לְכָל־עַמּוֹ לֵאמֹר כָּל־הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד הַיְאֹרָה תַּשְׁלִיכֻהוּ וְכָל־הַבַּת תְּחַיּֽוּן: (פ פרק ב) א וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי וַיִּקַּח אֶת־בַּת־לֵוִֽי: ב וַתַּהַר הָֽאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן...
Verse 22 is part of the following story and not part of the preceding story. In fact, it is not even by the same author. Exodus 1:18-21 is by the E author as evidenced by its used of "Elohim" to designate the Hebrew god. Exodus 1:22-2:23A is by the J author as evidenced by the naming of Moses’s father-in-law "reghu’el" as opposed to "Jethrau".
The accounts also tell different stories of how Pharaoh attempted to stifle Hebrew expansion by having male babies killed and how Moses came to be born. In the E account, the Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Pu’ghah are told to kill male Hebrew babies immediately upon giving birth. They do not listen to Pharaoh; they "fear god" and let the babies live and as a result, Hebrew "houses" are created (1:21). By "houses" the author means huge tribal clans, which are popularly known as the house of the founder of the tribe such as "bith dawid" for the house of David and bith Omri for the house of Omri (in the Moab Stele). There is no story about the birth of Moses in E because Moses was from the J tribe of Levi and not related to E.
J has the story slighly differnet. According to J, Pharaoh instructs all his people (as opposed to just the Hebrew midwives) to throw all male newborn babies into the Nile (Ye’or is the name of the Nile in Egyptian). This probably means Hebrew newborn babies only but we still see some major differences in the details of this episode between J and E.
I should also note that according to the E story, there would have been no need to take any measures to ensure the survival of a baby once it survived the birth-giving process. We see that the midwives claim as their defense for not killing Hebrew babies "because the Hebrew women are unlike the Egyptian... they give birth before the midwife comes to them". Thus, it is only their obligation to kill the baby while aiding in the birth process. Whereas in J, all newborn babies ought to be thrown into the river even after they survive their birth, and this gives rise to the necessity of hiding the newborn infant that was to be Moses. as detailed further by J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
כב וַיֵּט מֹשֶׁה אֶת־יָדוֹ עַל־הַשָּׁמָיִם וַיְהִי חֹֽשֶׁךְ־אֲפֵלָה בְּכָל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם: שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִֽים (: כג) לֹֽא־רָאוּ אִישׁ אֶת־אָחִיו וְלֹא־קָמוּ אִישׁ מִתַּחְתָּיו שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים וּֽלְכָל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה אוֹר בְּמֽוֹשְׁבֹתָֽם:
"Three days" of the end of verse 22 actually belongs to verse 23 and it should read thus: Three days a man could not see his bother and no man rose from his place for three days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, February 20, 2006
Biblical Question and Answer Feb 16 2006.
Q: What’s up with all those different names assigned to the patriarchs and other biblical figures?
A: There are some serious problems with the traditional understanding of name-switching.
Let’s take Jacob, for example. The conventional understanding is that he was first named Jacob and after his struggle with an angel was renamed Israel. There are several problems with this. First, the text does not exclusively call him Israel after this event, as is the case with Abraham vs. Abram and Sarah vs. Sarai. Second, the origin of the name Israel is obviously mythological. An angel in human form do not exist in reality. Third, even if angels in human form do exist --or if assume that he struggled with an ordinary person-- how could they "change" a person’s name. If that is the name he is known by amongst his tribe, family and friends, then why and how could it be changed? If this particular patriarch was known as "Jacob" for most of his lifetime, then there’s no need to change this name. Finally, even if such a change could be effected and it did in fact occur, why does the biblical author bother with it. Why not call him "Jacob" all the time since that was his primary name or "Israel" all the time since that was his revised and ultimate name?
This is why I believe that name variations in the bible are attributable to variations in biblical documentary sources. In the case of Jacob/Israel I am very much convinced that this is the case, since the name is so different and because the new name is not applied consistently. Furthermore, I believe that these names do not refer to the same historical person. Thus, there was a "patriarch" to the northern Israelite tribes (headed by Ephraim) by the name of Israel and there was a Judahite patriarch known as Jacob. The priestly author or some other redactor (perhaps the JE redactor) had to reconcile these two divergent traditions and accomplished this through a "name change".
Q: What is so unique about the tribe of Joseph?
A: The tribe of Joseph is subdivided between Ephraim and Manasseh. According to the Genesis account (Genesis 48) Manasseh is the older one and is therefore entitled to the birthright (double portion of the inheritance) and a special blessing, much like that Isaac should have given to his eldest son Esau and ended up giving to Jacob after he fooled him. In the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, however, Jacob himself initiated the switch placing Ephraim before Manasseh because Ephraim’s future is destined to be bigger than Manasseh’s and his seed will "fill the nations".
But there’s something even more important in Jacob’s blessing to Joseph’s sons as recorded in the E document (Genesis 48:8-22). Jacob is saying to Joseph: The angel who redeemed me from all evil shall bless the lads and he shall call in them my name and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac and they shall flourish like fish in the midst of the land. "call in them my name" means that they and only they represent the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and can be called Jacobites/Israelites. All other sons of Jacob will have to be subordinate to Ephraim and Manasseh and will not be the primary representatives of the Israelite family.
This is remarkable! Jacob is taking his youngest son and he is not only giving him the birthright by splitting Joseph into two tribes thus giving him a double portion, but he is also pretending that Ephraim and Manasseh are his direct sons and constitute the primary inheritors of his name.
We believe that most if not all stories in the Bible should be interpreted as myth and their sole purpose is to explain the origin and background to the realities of life experienced by the biblical author. Accordingly, this E story of Ephraim and Manasseh was developed during the divided kingdom in an attempt to explain the realities of contemporary political life.
* Manasseh is said to be the eldest son because in the formative years of Israel’s existence Manasseh played a pivotal role in the affairs of the loose Israelite tribal federation. Gide’on the son of Yoash and Jair the Gile’adite and Jephtach the Gile’adite were from the tribe of Manasseh. In the case of Gide’on Ben Yoash, he says to the angel (Judges 6:15) "My family is the poorest in Manasseh". Gide’on Ben Yoash heeded to the angel’s voice and lead Israel against the Amalzkites and Midianites. In the case of Jair the Gile’adite (Judges 10:3), he is said to have judged Israel 22 years and fathered thirty sons who in turn founded thirty cities which were called "Havothjair" in Gile’ad. Finally, there was Jephtach the Gile’adite who was at first despised by his people but was later appointed chief in order to defend the Gileadites against the Amonites (Judges 11).
Gile’ad is synonymous with Manasseh. We see this in several places:
Jair the son of Manasseh from Gile’ad founded "Havothjair". In judges 10 it doesn’t say that Jair was from Manasseh but this is stated in Deuteronomy 3:14.
In Joshua 17 it states that Makir the firstborn of Manasseh was the father of Gile’ad. He was "a man of war and so he had Gile’ad and Bashan" (Joshua 17:1).
* Ephraim is said to be the younger son of Joseph because Ephraim’s power emerged in later years. After the united kingdom was established by Saul and then continued by David and Solomon, Jeroboam Ben Nebat from Ephraim was the first Israelite king to break away from the southern Davidic kingdom and establish his own, more prosperous kingdom. Ever since then, "Ephraim" became synonymous with "Israel".
* Jacob is depicted as placing the younger and weaker Ephraim before Manasseh because the weaker Ephraim eventually becomes the stronger of the two. The weakness of Ephraim compared to Manasseh in the days of the judges is illustrated by the story in Judges (12:1-6) wherein the Manassites pursue the Ephraimites, conquer the passages of the Jordan and slay any Ephraimite attempting to escape. 42,000 Ephraimites are said to have died in this battle. By contrast, in the days of the monarchy, not only was Ephraim the royal tribe (as pointed out earlier that Jeroboam was an Ephraimite), but Manasseh didn’t seem to play any significant role in the monarchy. Like the other tribes who settled east of the Jordan (Reuben and Gad), it seems that they gradually assimilated into the neighboring nations of Amon, Moab and Edom. At the time of the monarchy, no mention is ever made in the book of kings or chronicles that any Israelite tribes lived east of the Jordan and inhabited such huge tracts of land as the Bashan and Gile’ad.
* Joshua, the servant of Moses is an Ephraimite in the E tradition. He followed Moses’ leadership of the Israelites into Canaan.
Are the biblical stories about Joseph true?
As I pointed out earlier, we believe that biblical stories of Israel’s ancestral past are reconstructed based on current realities. In the case of Joseph, consider the following parallels between the story of Joseph and later Israelite history.
* According to J, Le’ah had four sons (Genesis 29:31-35) Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah. Note that these tribes later (after 922 BCE) constituted the Southern "Davidic" Kingdom. Judah was the core of the Davidic kingdom, Levi provided the priesthood for the Jerusalem temple, Simeon first inherited land bordering the "Negev" in southern Judah. During monarchic times, however, Simeon had become assimilated into Judah. Reuben never inhabited any land west of the Jordan but they did live close to Judah east of the Jordan at one point in early history. By monarchic times we no longer hear from Reuben; it seems that they had assimilated into Moab or Edom. If they assimilated into Edom then Judah actually ruled Reubenites while they ruled Edom (until the days of Jehoshaphat) and Reubenites thus constituted part of the southern kingdom. At any rate, Reuben is certainly not associated with the northern kingdom like all other tribes are. They lived quite far from the northwestern territory of Israel and were never ruled by Jeroboam or subsequent Israelite dynasties.
* According to E, Rachel was the matriarch of the three tribes that later constituted the core of the northern kingdom: Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin. Banjamin lies to the immediate north of Judah, then comes Ephraim and then Manasseh. Manasseh’s northern border was Beth she’an and the valley of Jezreel.
To the north of Manasseh we have Issachar and Zebulon and then Dan and Naphtali to the far north. These four tribes were not always part of Israel; much of the land in their territory was never completely under tribal control. Even at monarchic times, their land was not always under the monarchy’s rule, especially the northernmost territories. Asher was part of the Phoenician coast and Gad occupied land east of the Jordan.
A clear picture of projected patriarchal affiliations based on later history now emerges. Rachel is the mother of the northern kingdom and Leah is the mother of the southern kingdom (Issachar and Zebulun are attributed to Le’ah by the E writer; they are NOT Leah’s sons in the J document). The E story, written in the north, portrays the six Le’ah brothers representing the southern tribes as antagonistic to the Rachel brothers representing the northern tribes and in the process created the story that even though Reuben and Judah were the older sons of Jacob (reflecting Judahite seniority during the united monarchy), they were not the most beloved of his sons. In fact, E claims that Israel loved Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) more than any of his other sons. The six Leah brothers envied him for this and ganged up to do something about it. The Le’ah brothers’ subjugation and humiliation of Joseph reprsents Solomon’s and Rehoboam’s heavy taxation and exploitation of the north. Solomon divided his kingdom into twelve districts and each district had to furnish provisions to the king on a different month; they also had to provide manpower to the Judahite king ("Mas obed"). The Le’ah borthers are going to find pasture in Shechem and then in Dothan, both of which are in Manasseh territory. This further illustrates how the south is attempting to unrightfully exploit the north.
Consequently, the northern tribes are forced to secede and form their own kingdom. Rehoboam declares war on the house of Israel and gathers 180 thousand soldiers to fight the Israelites (1kings 12:21). This is represented by the E expression: "they could not talk in peace with him" (Genesis 37:4), which means that it was the Le’ah brothers who initiated the schism. According to E, Jacob sends Joseph to Shechem to ensure the peace of his brothers and the peace of the sheep. This represents Israel’s willingness to make peace even under the heavy taxation by Judah but Judah is not willing to compromise and alleviate some of the taxation. It comes to a point where continued taxation by Judah is seen by E as synonymous with Israel’s annihilation and E therefore represents this event with the Le’ah brothers’ attempt to kill Joseph.
Reuben comes to the rescue and suggests that Joseph be lowered into a pit that does not contain water (so that he does not drown and die immediately) so that he dies of starvation and thirst and not in their hands. Reuben’s real plan is to eventually "rescue" Joseph and return him to his father but when he returns after having eaten a meal with his brothers elsewhere, it is found that Joseph is no longer there. He had been pulled out by Midianites and is on his way to Egypt.
In J’s version of this episode, it is Judah who comes to Joseph’s rescue but Judah only intends to save Joseph’s life, not to return him to his father. Judah suggests that Joseph be sold to Ismaelite merchants traveling from Gile’ad towards Egypt.
What accounts for the JE variation between Judah and Reuben?
In E, Reuben --as the eldest son of Israel-- is seen as the most important of the Le’ah brothers. Of course, Joseph is even more important even though he is the youngest but Joseph does not belong to the Le’ah family. Therefore, whenever E is about to describe a responsible role, it naturally confers that role upon the eldest Le’ah son, Reuben. E assumes this approach when it comes to the identitiy of Joseph’s savior and the one pledging to return Benjamin to his father.
J has a different approach. In J, Reuben is not important; the tribe of Reuben does not worship in the Jerusalem temple and has no cultural affiliation with Judah. Reuben, the eponymous forefather, has "lost" his birthright, as Jacob says in the Blessing of Jacob "You shall not excel!" (Genesis 49:4). In J, Judah has taken over as the most preeminent tribal patriarch among the Le’ah brothers and the roles played by Reuben in E are therefore played by Judah in J. In addition, J adds the role of Judah of pleading with Joseph to return Benjamin after he is arrested for stealing the silver cup. Moreover, the insistence that Reuben was the one objecting to the conspiracy to slay Joseph is a grave insult to the tribe of Judah as it implies that their eponymous ancestor stood there quietly as the eponymous ancestor of Joseph, the core of Israel, was about to be irreversably annihilated. Naturally, therefore, J’s version of the episode insisted that it was Judah who intervened on Joseph’s behalf.
Why are Dan and Naphtali viewed as sons of Rachel’s concubine, Bilhah while Gad and Asher are viewed as sons of Leah’s concubine?
Dan and Naphtali are naturally considered allies of the northern kingdom. However, as pointed out earlier, the Israelite grip over their territory was not that firm. Besides, these tribes were not considered as "elite" as the Ephraim and Manasseh tribes who constituted the core of Israel. Accordingly, they are represented as allied with the Rachel tribes but not related closely enough to belong to Israel proper.
Asher inhabited the phoenician coast which was never directly controlled by the northern kingdom. Likewise, Gad settled to the east of the Jordan in Amorite territoy (Sihon, king of the Amorites) and were never ruled or affiliated with the northern kingdom. What remains unclear, though, is how they came to be associated with the Le’ah tribes. It is possible that since Solomon maintained extremely good relations with the Phoenician kingdom of Tyre, Asher came to be viewed as part of that alliance. Gad, was also seen as seen as subordinate to the southern kingdom since the south presumably led some military campaigns in that area at some point in time. Gad and Asher thus came to be seen as vassals of Judah (in addition to their presumed ethnic ties) and were therefore depicted as descendant from a Le’ah concubine.
E source
J source
יח וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ מֵֽרָחֹק וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַֽהֲמִיתֽוֹ: כא וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ: כב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְיָד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־בוֹ לְמַעַן הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם לַֽהֲשִׁיבוֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו: כד וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָֽיִם: כה וַיֵּֽשְׁבוּ לֶֽאֱכָל־לֶחֶם: כח וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹֽחֲרִים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּֽעֲלוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף מִן־הַבּוֹר: כט וַיָּשָׁב רְאוּבֵן אֶל־הַבּוֹר וְהִנֵּה אֵין־יוֹסֵף בַּבּוֹר וַיִּקְרַע אֶת־בְּגָדָֽיו: ל וַיָּשָׁב אֶל־אֶחָיו וַיֹּאמַר הַיֶּלֶד אֵינֶנּוּ וַֽאֲנִי אָנָה אֲנִי־בָֽא: לו וְהַמְּדָנִים מָֽכְרוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־מִצְרָיִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִֽים:
---------------------------------------------------------
יט וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל־אָחִיו הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַֽחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּֽא: כ וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַֽהַרְגֵהוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת וְאָמַרְנוּ חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ וְנִרְאֶה מַה־יִּֽהְיוּ חֲלֹֽמֹתָֽיו: [שלישי] כג וַיְהִי כַּֽאֲשֶׁר־בָּא יוֹסֵף אֶל־אֶחָיו וַיַּפְשִׁיטוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף אֶת־כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ אֶת־כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלָֽיו: כד וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵֽינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ וְהִנֵּה אֹֽרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹֽשְׂאִים נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט הֽוֹלְכִים לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָֽיְמָה: כו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל־אֶחָיו מַה־בֶּצַע כִּי נַֽהֲרֹג אֶת־אָחִינוּ וְכִסִּינוּ אֶת־דָּמֽוֹ: כז לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים וְיָדֵנוּ אַל־תְּהִי־בוֹ כִּֽי־אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ הוּא וַֽיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶחָֽיו: כח וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף מִצְרָֽיְמָה: לא וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־כְּתֹנֶת יוֹסֵף וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שְׂעִיר עִזִּים וַיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶת־הַכֻּתֹּנֶת בַּדָּֽם: לב וַֽיְשַׁלְּחוּ אֶת־כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל־אֲבִיהֶם וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ זֹאת מָצָאנוּ הַכֶּר־נָא הַכְּתֹנֶת בִּנְךָ הִוא אִם־לֹֽא: לג וַיַּכִּירָהּ וַיֹּאמֶר כְּתֹנֶת בְּנִי חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ טָרֹף טֹרַף יוֹסֵֽף: לד וַיִּקְרַע יַֽעֲקֹב שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיָּשֶׂם שַׂק בְּמָתְנָיו וַיִּתְאַבֵּל עַל־בְּנוֹ יָמִים רַבִּֽים: לה וַיָּקֻמוּ כָל־בָּנָיו וְכָל־בְּנֹתָיו לְנַֽחֲמוֹ וַיְמָאֵן לְהִתְנַחֵם וַיֹּאמֶר כִּֽי־אֵרֵד אֶל־בְּנִי אָבֵל שְׁאֹלָה וַיֵּבְךְּ אֹתוֹ אָבִֽיו:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
לז וַיֹּאמֶר רְאוּבֵן אֶל־אָבִיו לֵאמֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵי בָנַי תָּמִית אִם־לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ תְּנָה אֹתוֹ עַל־יָדִי וַֽאֲנִי אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ אֵלֶֽיךָ: לח וַיֹּאמֶר לֹֽא־יֵרֵד בְּנִי עִמָּכֶם כִּֽי־אָחִיו מֵת וְהוּא לְבַדּוֹ נִשְׁאָר וּקְרָאָהוּ אָסוֹן בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּֽלְכוּ־בָהּ וְהֽוֹרַדְתֶּם אֶת־שֵֽׂיבָתִי בְּיָגוֹן שְׁאֽוֹלָה:
----------------------------------------------
ח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי וְנָקוּמָה וְנֵלֵכָה וְנִֽחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ גַם־אַתָּה גַּם־טַפֵּֽנוּ: ט אָֽנֹכִי אֶֽעֶרְבֶנּוּ מִיָּדִי תְּבַקְשֶׁנּוּ אִם־לֹא הֲבִֽיאֹתִיו אֵלֶיךָ וְהִצַּגְתִּיו לְפָנֶיךָ וְחָטָאתִי לְךָ כָּל־הַיָּמִֽים: י כִּי לוּלֵא הִתְמַהְמָהְנוּ כִּֽי־עַתָּה שַׁבְנוּ זֶה פַֽעֲמָֽיִם: יא וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבִיהֶם אִם־כֵּן אֵפוֹא זֹאת עֲשׂוּ קְחוּ מִזִּמְרַת הָאָרֶץ בִּכְלֵיכֶם וְהוֹרִידוּ לָאִישׁ מִנְחָה מְעַט צֳרִי וּמְעַט דְּבַשׁ נְכֹאת וָלֹט בָּטְנִים וּשְׁקֵדִֽים: יב וְכֶסֶף מִשְׁנֶה קְחוּ בְיֶדְכֶם וְאֶת־הַכֶּסֶף הַמּוּשַׁב בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹֽתֵיכֶם תָּשִׁיבוּ בְיֶדְכֶם אוּלַי מִשְׁגֶּה הֽוּא: יג וְאֶת־אֲחִיכֶם קָחוּ וְקוּמוּ שׁוּבוּ אֶל־הָאִֽישׁ: יד וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַֽחֲמִים לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת־אֲחִיכֶם אַחֵר וְאֶת־בִּנְיָמִין וַֽאֲנִי כַּֽאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי שָׁכָֽלְתִּי:
----------------------------------------------------
כב וַיַּעַן רְאוּבֵן אֹתָם לֵאמֹר הֲלוֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם לֵאמֹר אַל־תֶּֽחֶטְאוּ בַיֶּלֶד וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם וְגַם־דָּמוֹ הִנֵּה נִדְרָֽשׁ: ------------------------------------------
יד וַיָּבֹא יְהוּדָה וְאֶחָיו בֵּיתָה יוֹסֵף וְהוּא עוֹדֶנּוּ שָׁם וַיִּפְּלוּ לְפָנָיו אָֽרְצָה: טו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם יוֹסֵף מָֽה־הַמַּֽעֲשֶׂה הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם הֲלוֹא יְדַעְתֶּם כִּֽי־נַחֵשׁ יְנַחֵשׁ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר כָּמֹֽנִי: טז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה מַה־נֹּאמַר לַֽאדֹנִי מַה־נְּדַבֵּר וּמַה־נִּצְטַדָּק הָֽאֱלֹהִים מָצָא אֶת־עֲוֹן עֲבָדֶיךָ הִנֶּנּוּ עֲבָדִים לַֽאדֹנִי גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ גַּם אֲשֶׁר־נִמְצָא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּיָדֽוֹ: יז וַיֹּאמֶר חָלִילָה לִּי מֵֽעֲשׂוֹת זֹאת הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נִמְצָא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּיָדוֹ הוּא יִֽהְיֶה־לִּי עָבֶד וְאַתֶּם עֲלוּ לְשָׁלוֹם אֶל־אֲבִיכֶֽם: ס ס ס [פרשת ויגש] יח וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי יְדַבֶּר־נָא עַבְדְּךָ דָבָר בְּאָזְנֵי אֲדֹנִי וְאַל־יִחַר אַפְּךָ בְּעַבְדֶּךָ כִּי כָמוֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹֽה: יט אֲדֹנִי שָׁאַל אֶת־עֲבָדָיו לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ־לָכֶם אָב אוֹ־אָֽח: כ וַנֹּאמֶר אֶל־אֲדֹנִי יֶשׁ־לָנוּ אָב זָקֵן וְיֶלֶד זְקֻנִים קָטָן וְאָחִיו מֵת וַיִּוָּתֵר הוּא לְבַדּוֹ לְאִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו אֲהֵבֽוֹ: כא וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־עֲבָדֶיךָ הֽוֹרִדֻהוּ אֵלָי וְאָשִׂימָה עֵינִי עָלָֽיו: כב וַנֹּאמֶר אֶל־אֲדֹנִי לֹֽא־יוּכַל הַנַּעַר לַֽעֲזֹב אֶת־אָבִיו וְעָזַב אֶת־אָבִיו וָמֵֽת: כג וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־עֲבָדֶיךָ אִם־לֹא יֵרֵד אֲחִיכֶם הַקָּטֹן אִתְּכֶם לֹא תֹֽסִפוּן לִרְאוֹת פָּנָֽי: כד וַֽיְהִי כִּי עָלִינוּ אֶֽל־עַבְדְּךָ אָבִי וַנַּגֶּד־לוֹ אֵת דִּבְרֵי אֲדֹנִֽי: כה וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִינוּ שֻׁבוּ שִׁבְרוּ־לָנוּ מְעַט־אֹֽכֶל: כו וַנֹּאמֶר לֹא נוּכַל לָרֶדֶת אִם־יֵשׁ אָחִינוּ הַקָּטֹן אִתָּנוּ וְיָרַדְנוּ כִּי־לֹא נוּכַל לִרְאוֹת פְּנֵי הָאִישׁ וְאָחִינוּ הַקָּטֹן אֵינֶנּוּ אִתָּֽנוּ: כז וַיֹּאמֶר עַבְדְּךָ אָבִי אֵלֵינוּ אַתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם כִּי שְׁנַיִם יָֽלְדָה־לִּי אִשְׁתִּֽי: כח וַיֵּצֵא הָֽאֶחָד מֵֽאִתִּי וָֽאֹמַר אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד־הֵֽנָּה: כט וּלְקַחְתֶּם גַּם־אֶת־זֶה מֵעִם פָּנַי וְקָרָהוּ אָסוֹן וְהֽוֹרַדְתֶּם אֶת־שֵֽׂיבָתִי בְּרָעָה שְׁאֹֽלָה: ל וְעַתָּה כְּבֹאִי אֶל־עַבְדְּךָ אָבִי וְהַנַּעַר אֵינֶנּוּ אִתָּנוּ וְנַפְשׁוֹ קְשׁוּרָה בְנַפְשֽׁוֹ: [שני] לא וְהָיָה כִּרְאוֹתוֹ כִּי־אֵין הַנַּעַר וָמֵת וְהוֹרִידוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַת עַבְדְּךָ אָבִינוּ בְּיָגוֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה: לב כִּי עַבְדְּךָ עָרַב אֶת־הַנַּעַר מֵעִם אָבִי לֵאמֹר אִם־לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ וְחָטָאתִי לְאָבִי כָּל־הַיָּמִֽים: לג וְעַתָּה יֵֽשֶׁב־נָא עַבְדְּךָ תַּחַת הַנַּעַר עֶבֶד לַֽאדֹנִי וְהַנַּעַר יַעַל עִם־אֶחָֽיו: לד כִּי־אֵיךְ אֶֽעֱלֶה אֶל־אָבִי וְהַנַּעַר אֵינֶנּוּ אִתִּי פֶּן אֶרְאֶה בָרָע אֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא אֶת־אָבִֽי:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What’s up with all those different names assigned to the patriarchs and other biblical figures?
A: There are some serious problems with the traditional understanding of name-switching.
Let’s take Jacob, for example. The conventional understanding is that he was first named Jacob and after his struggle with an angel was renamed Israel. There are several problems with this. First, the text does not exclusively call him Israel after this event, as is the case with Abraham vs. Abram and Sarah vs. Sarai. Second, the origin of the name Israel is obviously mythological. An angel in human form do not exist in reality. Third, even if angels in human form do exist --or if assume that he struggled with an ordinary person-- how could they "change" a person’s name. If that is the name he is known by amongst his tribe, family and friends, then why and how could it be changed? If this particular patriarch was known as "Jacob" for most of his lifetime, then there’s no need to change this name. Finally, even if such a change could be effected and it did in fact occur, why does the biblical author bother with it. Why not call him "Jacob" all the time since that was his primary name or "Israel" all the time since that was his revised and ultimate name?
This is why I believe that name variations in the bible are attributable to variations in biblical documentary sources. In the case of Jacob/Israel I am very much convinced that this is the case, since the name is so different and because the new name is not applied consistently. Furthermore, I believe that these names do not refer to the same historical person. Thus, there was a "patriarch" to the northern Israelite tribes (headed by Ephraim) by the name of Israel and there was a Judahite patriarch known as Jacob. The priestly author or some other redactor (perhaps the JE redactor) had to reconcile these two divergent traditions and accomplished this through a "name change".
Q: What is so unique about the tribe of Joseph?
A: The tribe of Joseph is subdivided between Ephraim and Manasseh. According to the Genesis account (Genesis 48) Manasseh is the older one and is therefore entitled to the birthright (double portion of the inheritance) and a special blessing, much like that Isaac should have given to his eldest son Esau and ended up giving to Jacob after he fooled him. In the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, however, Jacob himself initiated the switch placing Ephraim before Manasseh because Ephraim’s future is destined to be bigger than Manasseh’s and his seed will "fill the nations".
But there’s something even more important in Jacob’s blessing to Joseph’s sons as recorded in the E document (Genesis 48:8-22). Jacob is saying to Joseph: The angel who redeemed me from all evil shall bless the lads and he shall call in them my name and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac and they shall flourish like fish in the midst of the land. "call in them my name" means that they and only they represent the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and can be called Jacobites/Israelites. All other sons of Jacob will have to be subordinate to Ephraim and Manasseh and will not be the primary representatives of the Israelite family.
This is remarkable! Jacob is taking his youngest son and he is not only giving him the birthright by splitting Joseph into two tribes thus giving him a double portion, but he is also pretending that Ephraim and Manasseh are his direct sons and constitute the primary inheritors of his name.
We believe that most if not all stories in the Bible should be interpreted as myth and their sole purpose is to explain the origin and background to the realities of life experienced by the biblical author. Accordingly, this E story of Ephraim and Manasseh was developed during the divided kingdom in an attempt to explain the realities of contemporary political life.
* Manasseh is said to be the eldest son because in the formative years of Israel’s existence Manasseh played a pivotal role in the affairs of the loose Israelite tribal federation. Gide’on the son of Yoash and Jair the Gile’adite and Jephtach the Gile’adite were from the tribe of Manasseh. In the case of Gide’on Ben Yoash, he says to the angel (Judges 6:15) "My family is the poorest in Manasseh". Gide’on Ben Yoash heeded to the angel’s voice and lead Israel against the Amalzkites and Midianites. In the case of Jair the Gile’adite (Judges 10:3), he is said to have judged Israel 22 years and fathered thirty sons who in turn founded thirty cities which were called "Havothjair" in Gile’ad. Finally, there was Jephtach the Gile’adite who was at first despised by his people but was later appointed chief in order to defend the Gileadites against the Amonites (Judges 11).
Gile’ad is synonymous with Manasseh. We see this in several places:
Jair the son of Manasseh from Gile’ad founded "Havothjair". In judges 10 it doesn’t say that Jair was from Manasseh but this is stated in Deuteronomy 3:14.
In Joshua 17 it states that Makir the firstborn of Manasseh was the father of Gile’ad. He was "a man of war and so he had Gile’ad and Bashan" (Joshua 17:1).
* Ephraim is said to be the younger son of Joseph because Ephraim’s power emerged in later years. After the united kingdom was established by Saul and then continued by David and Solomon, Jeroboam Ben Nebat from Ephraim was the first Israelite king to break away from the southern Davidic kingdom and establish his own, more prosperous kingdom. Ever since then, "Ephraim" became synonymous with "Israel".
* Jacob is depicted as placing the younger and weaker Ephraim before Manasseh because the weaker Ephraim eventually becomes the stronger of the two. The weakness of Ephraim compared to Manasseh in the days of the judges is illustrated by the story in Judges (12:1-6) wherein the Manassites pursue the Ephraimites, conquer the passages of the Jordan and slay any Ephraimite attempting to escape. 42,000 Ephraimites are said to have died in this battle. By contrast, in the days of the monarchy, not only was Ephraim the royal tribe (as pointed out earlier that Jeroboam was an Ephraimite), but Manasseh didn’t seem to play any significant role in the monarchy. Like the other tribes who settled east of the Jordan (Reuben and Gad), it seems that they gradually assimilated into the neighboring nations of Amon, Moab and Edom. At the time of the monarchy, no mention is ever made in the book of kings or chronicles that any Israelite tribes lived east of the Jordan and inhabited such huge tracts of land as the Bashan and Gile’ad.
* Joshua, the servant of Moses is an Ephraimite in the E tradition. He followed Moses’ leadership of the Israelites into Canaan.
Are the biblical stories about Joseph true?
As I pointed out earlier, we believe that biblical stories of Israel’s ancestral past are reconstructed based on current realities. In the case of Joseph, consider the following parallels between the story of Joseph and later Israelite history.
* According to J, Le’ah had four sons (Genesis 29:31-35) Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah. Note that these tribes later (after 922 BCE) constituted the Southern "Davidic" Kingdom. Judah was the core of the Davidic kingdom, Levi provided the priesthood for the Jerusalem temple, Simeon first inherited land bordering the "Negev" in southern Judah. During monarchic times, however, Simeon had become assimilated into Judah. Reuben never inhabited any land west of the Jordan but they did live close to Judah east of the Jordan at one point in early history. By monarchic times we no longer hear from Reuben; it seems that they had assimilated into Moab or Edom. If they assimilated into Edom then Judah actually ruled Reubenites while they ruled Edom (until the days of Jehoshaphat) and Reubenites thus constituted part of the southern kingdom. At any rate, Reuben is certainly not associated with the northern kingdom like all other tribes are. They lived quite far from the northwestern territory of Israel and were never ruled by Jeroboam or subsequent Israelite dynasties.
* According to E, Rachel was the matriarch of the three tribes that later constituted the core of the northern kingdom: Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin. Banjamin lies to the immediate north of Judah, then comes Ephraim and then Manasseh. Manasseh’s northern border was Beth she’an and the valley of Jezreel.
To the north of Manasseh we have Issachar and Zebulon and then Dan and Naphtali to the far north. These four tribes were not always part of Israel; much of the land in their territory was never completely under tribal control. Even at monarchic times, their land was not always under the monarchy’s rule, especially the northernmost territories. Asher was part of the Phoenician coast and Gad occupied land east of the Jordan.
A clear picture of projected patriarchal affiliations based on later history now emerges. Rachel is the mother of the northern kingdom and Leah is the mother of the southern kingdom (Issachar and Zebulun are attributed to Le’ah by the E writer; they are NOT Leah’s sons in the J document). The E story, written in the north, portrays the six Le’ah brothers representing the southern tribes as antagonistic to the Rachel brothers representing the northern tribes and in the process created the story that even though Reuben and Judah were the older sons of Jacob (reflecting Judahite seniority during the united monarchy), they were not the most beloved of his sons. In fact, E claims that Israel loved Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) more than any of his other sons. The six Leah brothers envied him for this and ganged up to do something about it. The Le’ah brothers’ subjugation and humiliation of Joseph reprsents Solomon’s and Rehoboam’s heavy taxation and exploitation of the north. Solomon divided his kingdom into twelve districts and each district had to furnish provisions to the king on a different month; they also had to provide manpower to the Judahite king ("Mas obed"). The Le’ah borthers are going to find pasture in Shechem and then in Dothan, both of which are in Manasseh territory. This further illustrates how the south is attempting to unrightfully exploit the north.
Consequently, the northern tribes are forced to secede and form their own kingdom. Rehoboam declares war on the house of Israel and gathers 180 thousand soldiers to fight the Israelites (1kings 12:21). This is represented by the E expression: "they could not talk in peace with him" (Genesis 37:4), which means that it was the Le’ah brothers who initiated the schism. According to E, Jacob sends Joseph to Shechem to ensure the peace of his brothers and the peace of the sheep. This represents Israel’s willingness to make peace even under the heavy taxation by Judah but Judah is not willing to compromise and alleviate some of the taxation. It comes to a point where continued taxation by Judah is seen by E as synonymous with Israel’s annihilation and E therefore represents this event with the Le’ah brothers’ attempt to kill Joseph.
Reuben comes to the rescue and suggests that Joseph be lowered into a pit that does not contain water (so that he does not drown and die immediately) so that he dies of starvation and thirst and not in their hands. Reuben’s real plan is to eventually "rescue" Joseph and return him to his father but when he returns after having eaten a meal with his brothers elsewhere, it is found that Joseph is no longer there. He had been pulled out by Midianites and is on his way to Egypt.
In J’s version of this episode, it is Judah who comes to Joseph’s rescue but Judah only intends to save Joseph’s life, not to return him to his father. Judah suggests that Joseph be sold to Ismaelite merchants traveling from Gile’ad towards Egypt.
What accounts for the JE variation between Judah and Reuben?
In E, Reuben --as the eldest son of Israel-- is seen as the most important of the Le’ah brothers. Of course, Joseph is even more important even though he is the youngest but Joseph does not belong to the Le’ah family. Therefore, whenever E is about to describe a responsible role, it naturally confers that role upon the eldest Le’ah son, Reuben. E assumes this approach when it comes to the identitiy of Joseph’s savior and the one pledging to return Benjamin to his father.
J has a different approach. In J, Reuben is not important; the tribe of Reuben does not worship in the Jerusalem temple and has no cultural affiliation with Judah. Reuben, the eponymous forefather, has "lost" his birthright, as Jacob says in the Blessing of Jacob "You shall not excel!" (Genesis 49:4). In J, Judah has taken over as the most preeminent tribal patriarch among the Le’ah brothers and the roles played by Reuben in E are therefore played by Judah in J. In addition, J adds the role of Judah of pleading with Joseph to return Benjamin after he is arrested for stealing the silver cup. Moreover, the insistence that Reuben was the one objecting to the conspiracy to slay Joseph is a grave insult to the tribe of Judah as it implies that their eponymous ancestor stood there quietly as the eponymous ancestor of Joseph, the core of Israel, was about to be irreversably annihilated. Naturally, therefore, J’s version of the episode insisted that it was Judah who intervened on Joseph’s behalf.
Why are Dan and Naphtali viewed as sons of Rachel’s concubine, Bilhah while Gad and Asher are viewed as sons of Leah’s concubine?
Dan and Naphtali are naturally considered allies of the northern kingdom. However, as pointed out earlier, the Israelite grip over their territory was not that firm. Besides, these tribes were not considered as "elite" as the Ephraim and Manasseh tribes who constituted the core of Israel. Accordingly, they are represented as allied with the Rachel tribes but not related closely enough to belong to Israel proper.
Asher inhabited the phoenician coast which was never directly controlled by the northern kingdom. Likewise, Gad settled to the east of the Jordan in Amorite territoy (Sihon, king of the Amorites) and were never ruled or affiliated with the northern kingdom. What remains unclear, though, is how they came to be associated with the Le’ah tribes. It is possible that since Solomon maintained extremely good relations with the Phoenician kingdom of Tyre, Asher came to be viewed as part of that alliance. Gad, was also seen as seen as subordinate to the southern kingdom since the south presumably led some military campaigns in that area at some point in time. Gad and Asher thus came to be seen as vassals of Judah (in addition to their presumed ethnic ties) and were therefore depicted as descendant from a Le’ah concubine.
E source
J source
יח וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ מֵֽרָחֹק וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַֽהֲמִיתֽוֹ: כא וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ: כב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְיָד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־בוֹ לְמַעַן הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם לַֽהֲשִׁיבוֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו: כד וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָֽיִם: כה וַיֵּֽשְׁבוּ לֶֽאֱכָל־לֶחֶם: כח וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹֽחֲרִים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּֽעֲלוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף מִן־הַבּוֹר: כט וַיָּשָׁב רְאוּבֵן אֶל־הַבּוֹר וְהִנֵּה אֵין־יוֹסֵף בַּבּוֹר וַיִּקְרַע אֶת־בְּגָדָֽיו: ל וַיָּשָׁב אֶל־אֶחָיו וַיֹּאמַר הַיֶּלֶד אֵינֶנּוּ וַֽאֲנִי אָנָה אֲנִי־בָֽא: לו וְהַמְּדָנִים מָֽכְרוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־מִצְרָיִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִֽים:
---------------------------------------------------------
יט וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל־אָחִיו הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַֽחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּֽא: כ וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַֽהַרְגֵהוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת וְאָמַרְנוּ חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ וְנִרְאֶה מַה־יִּֽהְיוּ חֲלֹֽמֹתָֽיו: [שלישי] כג וַיְהִי כַּֽאֲשֶׁר־בָּא יוֹסֵף אֶל־אֶחָיו וַיַּפְשִׁיטוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף אֶת־כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ אֶת־כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלָֽיו: כד וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵֽינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ וְהִנֵּה אֹֽרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹֽשְׂאִים נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט הֽוֹלְכִים לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָֽיְמָה: כו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל־אֶחָיו מַה־בֶּצַע כִּי נַֽהֲרֹג אֶת־אָחִינוּ וְכִסִּינוּ אֶת־דָּמֽוֹ: כז לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים וְיָדֵנוּ אַל־תְּהִי־בוֹ כִּֽי־אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ הוּא וַֽיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶחָֽיו: כח וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף מִצְרָֽיְמָה: לא וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־כְּתֹנֶת יוֹסֵף וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שְׂעִיר עִזִּים וַיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶת־הַכֻּתֹּנֶת בַּדָּֽם: לב וַֽיְשַׁלְּחוּ אֶת־כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל־אֲבִיהֶם וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ זֹאת מָצָאנוּ הַכֶּר־נָא הַכְּתֹנֶת בִּנְךָ הִוא אִם־לֹֽא: לג וַיַּכִּירָהּ וַיֹּאמֶר כְּתֹנֶת בְּנִי חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ טָרֹף טֹרַף יוֹסֵֽף: לד וַיִּקְרַע יַֽעֲקֹב שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיָּשֶׂם שַׂק בְּמָתְנָיו וַיִּתְאַבֵּל עַל־בְּנוֹ יָמִים רַבִּֽים: לה וַיָּקֻמוּ כָל־בָּנָיו וְכָל־בְּנֹתָיו לְנַֽחֲמוֹ וַיְמָאֵן לְהִתְנַחֵם וַיֹּאמֶר כִּֽי־אֵרֵד אֶל־בְּנִי אָבֵל שְׁאֹלָה וַיֵּבְךְּ אֹתוֹ אָבִֽיו:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
לז וַיֹּאמֶר רְאוּבֵן אֶל־אָבִיו לֵאמֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵי בָנַי תָּמִית אִם־לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ תְּנָה אֹתוֹ עַל־יָדִי וַֽאֲנִי אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ אֵלֶֽיךָ: לח וַיֹּאמֶר לֹֽא־יֵרֵד בְּנִי עִמָּכֶם כִּֽי־אָחִיו מֵת וְהוּא לְבַדּוֹ נִשְׁאָר וּקְרָאָהוּ אָסוֹן בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּֽלְכוּ־בָהּ וְהֽוֹרַדְתֶּם אֶת־שֵֽׂיבָתִי בְּיָגוֹן שְׁאֽוֹלָה:
----------------------------------------------
ח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי וְנָקוּמָה וְנֵלֵכָה וְנִֽחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ גַם־אַתָּה גַּם־טַפֵּֽנוּ: ט אָֽנֹכִי אֶֽעֶרְבֶנּוּ מִיָּדִי תְּבַקְשֶׁנּוּ אִם־לֹא הֲבִֽיאֹתִיו אֵלֶיךָ וְהִצַּגְתִּיו לְפָנֶיךָ וְחָטָאתִי לְךָ כָּל־הַיָּמִֽים: י כִּי לוּלֵא הִתְמַהְמָהְנוּ כִּֽי־עַתָּה שַׁבְנוּ זֶה פַֽעֲמָֽיִם: יא וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבִיהֶם אִם־כֵּן אֵפוֹא זֹאת עֲשׂוּ קְחוּ מִזִּמְרַת הָאָרֶץ בִּכְלֵיכֶם וְהוֹרִידוּ לָאִישׁ מִנְחָה מְעַט צֳרִי וּמְעַט דְּבַשׁ נְכֹאת וָלֹט בָּטְנִים וּשְׁקֵדִֽים: יב וְכֶסֶף מִשְׁנֶה קְחוּ בְיֶדְכֶם וְאֶת־הַכֶּסֶף הַמּוּשַׁב בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹֽתֵיכֶם תָּשִׁיבוּ בְיֶדְכֶם אוּלַי מִשְׁגֶּה הֽוּא: יג וְאֶת־אֲחִיכֶם קָחוּ וְקוּמוּ שׁוּבוּ אֶל־הָאִֽישׁ: יד וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַֽחֲמִים לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת־אֲחִיכֶם אַחֵר וְאֶת־בִּנְיָמִין וַֽאֲנִי כַּֽאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי שָׁכָֽלְתִּי:
----------------------------------------------------
כב וַיַּעַן רְאוּבֵן אֹתָם לֵאמֹר הֲלוֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם לֵאמֹר אַל־תֶּֽחֶטְאוּ בַיֶּלֶד וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם וְגַם־דָּמוֹ הִנֵּה נִדְרָֽשׁ: ------------------------------------------
יד וַיָּבֹא יְהוּדָה וְאֶחָיו בֵּיתָה יוֹסֵף וְהוּא עוֹדֶנּוּ שָׁם וַיִּפְּלוּ לְפָנָיו אָֽרְצָה: טו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם יוֹסֵף מָֽה־הַמַּֽעֲשֶׂה הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם הֲלוֹא יְדַעְתֶּם כִּֽי־נַחֵשׁ יְנַחֵשׁ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר כָּמֹֽנִי: טז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה מַה־נֹּאמַר לַֽאדֹנִי מַה־נְּדַבֵּר וּמַה־נִּצְטַדָּק הָֽאֱלֹהִים מָצָא אֶת־עֲוֹן עֲבָדֶיךָ הִנֶּנּוּ עֲבָדִים לַֽאדֹנִי גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ גַּם אֲשֶׁר־נִמְצָא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּיָדֽוֹ: יז וַיֹּאמֶר חָלִילָה לִּי מֵֽעֲשׂוֹת זֹאת הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נִמְצָא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּיָדוֹ הוּא יִֽהְיֶה־לִּי עָבֶד וְאַתֶּם עֲלוּ לְשָׁלוֹם אֶל־אֲבִיכֶֽם: ס ס ס [פרשת ויגש] יח וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי יְדַבֶּר־נָא עַבְדְּךָ דָבָר בְּאָזְנֵי אֲדֹנִי וְאַל־יִחַר אַפְּךָ בְּעַבְדֶּךָ כִּי כָמוֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹֽה: יט אֲדֹנִי שָׁאַל אֶת־עֲבָדָיו לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ־לָכֶם אָב אוֹ־אָֽח: כ וַנֹּאמֶר אֶל־אֲדֹנִי יֶשׁ־לָנוּ אָב זָקֵן וְיֶלֶד זְקֻנִים קָטָן וְאָחִיו מֵת וַיִּוָּתֵר הוּא לְבַדּוֹ לְאִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו אֲהֵבֽוֹ: כא וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־עֲבָדֶיךָ הֽוֹרִדֻהוּ אֵלָי וְאָשִׂימָה עֵינִי עָלָֽיו: כב וַנֹּאמֶר אֶל־אֲדֹנִי לֹֽא־יוּכַל הַנַּעַר לַֽעֲזֹב אֶת־אָבִיו וְעָזַב אֶת־אָבִיו וָמֵֽת: כג וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־עֲבָדֶיךָ אִם־לֹא יֵרֵד אֲחִיכֶם הַקָּטֹן אִתְּכֶם לֹא תֹֽסִפוּן לִרְאוֹת פָּנָֽי: כד וַֽיְהִי כִּי עָלִינוּ אֶֽל־עַבְדְּךָ אָבִי וַנַּגֶּד־לוֹ אֵת דִּבְרֵי אֲדֹנִֽי: כה וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִינוּ שֻׁבוּ שִׁבְרוּ־לָנוּ מְעַט־אֹֽכֶל: כו וַנֹּאמֶר לֹא נוּכַל לָרֶדֶת אִם־יֵשׁ אָחִינוּ הַקָּטֹן אִתָּנוּ וְיָרַדְנוּ כִּי־לֹא נוּכַל לִרְאוֹת פְּנֵי הָאִישׁ וְאָחִינוּ הַקָּטֹן אֵינֶנּוּ אִתָּֽנוּ: כז וַיֹּאמֶר עַבְדְּךָ אָבִי אֵלֵינוּ אַתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם כִּי שְׁנַיִם יָֽלְדָה־לִּי אִשְׁתִּֽי: כח וַיֵּצֵא הָֽאֶחָד מֵֽאִתִּי וָֽאֹמַר אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד־הֵֽנָּה: כט וּלְקַחְתֶּם גַּם־אֶת־זֶה מֵעִם פָּנַי וְקָרָהוּ אָסוֹן וְהֽוֹרַדְתֶּם אֶת־שֵֽׂיבָתִי בְּרָעָה שְׁאֹֽלָה: ל וְעַתָּה כְּבֹאִי אֶל־עַבְדְּךָ אָבִי וְהַנַּעַר אֵינֶנּוּ אִתָּנוּ וְנַפְשׁוֹ קְשׁוּרָה בְנַפְשֽׁוֹ: [שני] לא וְהָיָה כִּרְאוֹתוֹ כִּי־אֵין הַנַּעַר וָמֵת וְהוֹרִידוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַת עַבְדְּךָ אָבִינוּ בְּיָגוֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה: לב כִּי עַבְדְּךָ עָרַב אֶת־הַנַּעַר מֵעִם אָבִי לֵאמֹר אִם־לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ וְחָטָאתִי לְאָבִי כָּל־הַיָּמִֽים: לג וְעַתָּה יֵֽשֶׁב־נָא עַבְדְּךָ תַּחַת הַנַּעַר עֶבֶד לַֽאדֹנִי וְהַנַּעַר יַעַל עִם־אֶחָֽיו: לד כִּי־אֵיךְ אֶֽעֱלֶה אֶל־אָבִי וְהַנַּעַר אֵינֶנּוּ אִתִּי פֶּן אֶרְאֶה בָרָע אֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא אֶת־אָבִֽי:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)