May 3 2006
Last week I came up with the new theory about the early history of Israel. It occurred to me that Moses and Joshua did not rule over the same people in succession. Rather, they ruled over a different tribe or group of tribes altogether. Moses was a Levite and was associated with the southern "Le’ah tribes" and Joshua was an Ephraimite/Israelite and associated with the northern "Rachel tribes".
Central to our investigation is the question of the Levites origin. Unlike other tribes, the Levites did not inherit any land according to the Bible. P does make it clear that the Levites were granted 48 cities and even if we discredit this as non-historical or non-reflective of early tribal history, we still know that the Levites had some villages of their own, such as "Nob" the Priestly city (which was destroyed by Saul for supporting his enemy David) and Anathoth (which is where the priest Abiathar was banished by Solomon after he supported Adonijah and is also the birthplace of the prophet Jeremiah three centuries later). However, these were small villages scattered here and there without any strong foothold or political power over the surrounding region. In other words, the Levites did not have their own tribal political organization, their cities were not situated within a single bloc of land, and they did not engage in combat. They were politically and economically dependent upon the more powerful tribes of the region such as Judah and Ephraim. In one area they did hold a monopoly, however, and that was divination and priesthood.
Why do I mention all this? Because the Levites’ obscure origin and lack of a well-defined border in their land inheritance makes them a mysterious and enigmatic people. It is hard for us to really figure out where they came from and how they came to hold a monopoly over the priesthood in later years. In fact it is not even clear that they were a "tribe" in the classical sense. It is entirely possible that any priest was called a Levite in early days and only later was the office of passed on within the blood line and thus confined to existing Levites. This, in fact, is my favorite opinion and there is important evidence for this in the book of Judges (17:7) "Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite; and he sojourned there". How is it possible for a Judahite to be a Levite? (tribal affiliations were always patrimonial, so that a person belonged to the tribe of his father and ONLY to that tribe). Later in Judges 19, in the concubine murder story, it is a Levite from the far end (northern end that is) of Mount Ephraim who takes a concubine from Bethlehem, Judah. What is the Levite doing in the far end of Mt. Ephraim? and why is he going all the way to Bethlehem, Judah to get a concubine?
It seems to me that a "Levite" originally did not denote a tribal affiliation. Rather, it meant simply a person who is proficient at divination, priesthood and communication with God. It designated a profession, not a blood-line. Furthermore, as you see from the Pesel Micah story and the Levite Concubine-Gibeah story, the Levites were somehow associated with the town of Bethlehem (note that these are the only two instances of Levite in the book of Judges) in Judah. This demonstrates that the Levites were in early tribal history very closely connected with the Judahites and according to my theory they were actually Judahites as indicated by the verse in Judges 17:7 above. Their origin can be explained very elegantly and simply: they were a professional class of people within the tribe of Judah who specialized in priestly services. plain and simple.
Naturally, since these people earned their living through payment for priestly services (in the form of food mostly), rather than having to engage in agriculture or herding, they were not tied to the land and were encouraged to emigrate from Judah in search of "clients" elsewhere in the land. This is just like a doctor, lawyer or other professional will often go anywhere his services are needed while a factory or store owner will not. The factory owner is tied to the land; the professional is not only free but encouraged to move about in search of business. Note in the story of Samuel how he would travel around each year through the towns of Ephraim and Benjamin: Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, Ramah (1Sam 7:16-17).
The "prototype" story from which we can derive (and induce) all other Levite emigrations out of Judah is actually the Pesel micah story. The verse states that the Levite was looking "to sojourn wherever he can find" (Judges 17:9). This has one and only meaning: he was looking to expand his business and find customers within the northern tribes and he actually found exactly what he was looking for. When Micah saw that a "levite" is passing through the land he hired him on the spot to officiate in his temple. Micah was happy for he acquired a "Levite" (professional priest) for his temple (Judges 17:13) and the Levite was happy for he had found what he was looking for, a job.
But the Pesel Micah story does not merely explain how the Levites came to inhabit the North; the story has much deeper significance. In my opinion this story marked the beginning of the spread of Yahwism to the North, following the Levite’s kidnapping and eventual service in the temple the Danites erected at Laish. This wasn’t just an isolated event. By appointing a Levite to the Dan temple, the Danites signaled their acceptance of Levite religious doctrine, primary of which was the unity of the god "Yahweh" and his characteristics as described in Exodus (34:6-7). Before the Levites arrived, the North probably never even heard of "Yahweh". Now that the Levites arrived, they were told to worship one and only one god and his name was "Yahweh tsebaoth". Furthermore, the entire political connection between the North and South in later generations was precipitated by this Levite migration. Since the North had accepted the religious doctrine of the southern Levites, they now shared a strong cultural bond with the Judahites of the south which allowed for political unity during the early days of Saul and during David’s and Solomon’s reign. If not for the Levite migration and the resultant sharing of a similar faith, the Joseph tribes probably would not have felt any closer to Judah than to Amon Moab and Edom (who were equally "Hebrews") and even Aram and Sidon (Phoenicia). In fact, in later years Israel sometimes aligned itself with Aram against Judah and Judah sometimes aligned itself with Aram against Israel (1kings 15:19).
Which tribes participated in the Exodus?
According to my current tentative theory there were actually two different Exodus’s. One was the Exodus of Judah and the second was that of the Jospeh tribes. These tribes were both in Egypt at some point in history for some time due to drought in Canaan. Then, when Semitic persecution in Egypt reached its peak they escaped or were expelled from there and they returned to the Semitic lands in the Levant. Judah seems to have followed a direct route from Egypt through the Sinai peninsula and to the southern sections of Canaan where it settled, while the Joseph tribes navigated around Edom and Moab and passing through the desert regions east of Edom and Moab finally reaching "Shittim" in the "plains of Moab" and crossing the Jordan from there. It seems to me that Judah experienced the Exodus first, perhaps a century or two before Joseph did.
Why did Judah settle in the south at once while Joseph passed through the transjordan deserts before returning to Canaan?
If it is true that Judah experienced the Exodus first, then it would seem that by the time Joseph emerged the southern sections of Canaan were already "taken" and they could therefore not pass through. Not only were the Judahites there but there were also the Philistines (who may not have been settled there yet when Judah arrived) on the coast, the Amalakites and the Canaanites from Arad. Naturally then the Josephites were forced east to transjordan and then north and they had to travel through desert regions longer than the Judahites before finally finding a "weak spot" in Jericho and thereby gaining access to the desirable land west of the Jordan ("cisjordan").
Who were the Judah core and vassal tribes?
Reuben Simeon Levi and Judah are the core of the "Le’ah tribes". This is reflected by the original J text concerning the birth of these eponyms (Gen 29:31-35) and also by the fact that only these four tribes inhabited the southern sections of the Levant. E or some other editor later attributed Issachar and Zebulun to Le’ah as well and he assigned Gad and Asher to Leah’s maidservant. This tradition seemingly reflects the political situation at the time of David. Issachar and Zebulun were firmly under David’s control and so they were considered regular brothers of Judah while Gad in the transjordan and Asher on the Phoenician coast were tributaries of David and thus considered descendants of Leah’s maidservant.
Who were the Joseph core and vassal tribes?
Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin constituted the core of the Northern tribal federation. These tribes occupied the central highlands of Canaan, what was later called "Mt. Ephraim", and they were extremely powerful. Their economy consisted of barley, wheat, grapevines and olive orchards, which they also traded with Sidon. Dan and Naphtali are seen as descendant from a Rachel maidservant, but it is not clear to me why. Possibly, since they never came under the dominion of David (North Dan that is, South Dan was in Central Canaan) but they did come under the North’s control either before or after David, it seemed more appropriate to classify them as Rachel vassals.
Did the other Le’ah tribes accompany Judah in its descent and later Exodus from Egypt?
No! I am convinced that Issachar, Zebulun, Gad and Asher never experienced the Exodus from Egypt. In addition to the lack of evidence that they did experience the Exodus, there is also a practical reason: these tribes inhabited fertile land that did NOT depend on rainwater as much as the lands of Joseph and Judah. Issachar and Zebulun lived in the Jezreel valley region while Gad inhabited fertile land in the Transjordan that once belonged to Sihon, the Amorite king and Asher was on the coast where rain is plentiful. Thus, if these tribes or the eponyms of these tribes already inhabited those fertile regions before their supposed descent into Egypt, then there would never have been any need to go to Egypt in the first place, for the famine would not affect their land. Also the disjunction of these tribal lands from the Judah bloc of land in southern Canaan is further evidence that those lands were not conquered/populated by Issachar-Zebulun and Judah at the same time.
Reuben, Simeon and Levi are a bit harder to figure out. In the book of Judges we see the tradition that Judah and Simeon formed a military alliance when conquering their lands, but Reuben is not mentioned. On the other hand we know that Reuben was at one point an extremely important tribe in the south superseding Judah and in the Joseph legend in the book of Genesis it is Reuben, not Judah, who comes to the rescue of Joseph and later pledges his son as collateral against Jacob’s son Benjamin, according to one ancient source. Thus, we see that Reuben also held an Egyptian Exodus tradition (assuming that the ancient source above is Reubenite) and they were very possibly the most important tribe within the southern bloc at the time of Judah’s exodus. Recall also the story of Dathan and Abiram the Reubenites, disputing Moses’ leadership. This legend possibly reflects the point in time when the Reubenite political and religious leadership of the southern bloc was replaced by Moses (from the tribe of Levi/Judah) and the Reubenites made a last-ditch effort to regain control but failed. In light of all of this evidence, it seems that all four tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah participated in the Judahite Exodus.
How long were the Judahite tribes in Egypt and how many people participated in the Exodus?
J makes it abundantly clear that the fourth generation returned to Canaan. This is stated openly (Gen 15:16) "the fourth generation will return here". You will ask me immediately "but in verse 13 it says that Abraham’s descendants will spend 400 years in Egypt?"
Some scholars have attempted to reconcile the two traditions saying that each patriarchal generation is 100 years. Indeed, Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac according to P and Jacob was 100 years old or close to it when he had Joseph according to the P claim that Joseph was 30 when he stood before Pharaoh and Jacob was 130 when he stood before Pharaoh (although to be exact, Jacob appeared before Pharaoh at least 9 years after Joseph did, accounting for the seven fat years and two of the seven lean years).
But there are several problems with this. For one, P says openly that Isaac was 60 when he had Jacob, so that’s much less than a full "patriarchal generation". Secondly, J rarely if ever uses precise numbers when dealing with chronology and measurements. 400 years is more of a deuteronomical or priestly expression than a J expression. Third, we know that the deuteronomist considers a generation to be 40 years. Thus, David and Solomon reign for 40 years each and Solomon’s temple is built "480" years after the Exodus, which really means 12 generations. Accordingly, P may be articulating here an entirely different tradition which holds that the Israelites were in Egypt for ten generations, not four. We already know that the priestly writer is fond of ten-generation intervals: ten generations between Adam and Noah and ten generation between Noah and Abraham. Likewise, P is continuing this tradition here and saying that there were ten generations from Abraham until the return of the Israelites to Canaan. For our purposes, however, we will ignore the P tradition and we will stick to the older and more reliable J tradition of four generations.
Why is the four generation tradition so important? Because it changes the entire picture we have of the Exodus. Instead of a major, somewhat-miraculous multiplication of Israelites from 70 to 600,000 persons in the course of several generations, we should picture a modest, natural growth occurring in the course of just four generations among just three or four tribes (depending on whether we count Levi as separate tribe). Note that even if we assume that each of 72 males entering Egypt had 12 children!! (six males and six females) there won’t be more than 15,552 people in the fourth generation. The Bottom line is that according to the J tradition, which makes it very clear that the fourth generation returned to Canaan, there couldn’t have been anything even remotely close to 600,000 people, who left Egypt according to P.
Rather, in the J tradition there were just three hebrew families, Reuben, Simeon and Judah who emerged from Egypt. I can only estimate that each of these families numbered in the hundreds (in the fourth generation), producing a total of less than 1000 people who participated in the Judahite Exodus. This scenario is also much more compatible with the fact that no archaeological remains were found anywhere in the Sinai peninsula from the period of the Israelite Exodus and the fact that there are no Egyptian records whatsoever pertaining to a mass exodus of Hebrew slaves from their country. Levi was possibly not a separate tribe, but rather the title of a priest, so that a Levite is actually also a Reubenite, Judahite, or Simeonite.
Is Moses a historical figure and if so what role did he play within the Judahite tribal alliance?
Moses is surely a historical personage. There is no reason for me to doubt that a person by this name actually existed who headed the Judahite tribal alliance out of Egypt. What is questionable rather is all the details attributed to him; the fact that he was born to a "Levite", the manner in which was hidden from the Egyptians in an ark in the Nile for three months etc.. What is also questionable is how much of the "law" that Judah and Israel later adopted was initiated by him.
In all likelihood, Moses was NOT a lawmaker. His era was too unstable to accommodate lawmaking and law enforcement. It was a tribal-oriented era in which "each man did what was right in his eyes" as was the case in the later era of the Judges according to the Deuteronomist. Nonetheless, if he was indeed a priest and a leader, then by definition he was also involved in some basic level of order-keeping and religious creativity. Certainly, however, not even a fraction of the laws attributed to him in the Pentateuch as currently formulated are really from him. It was a common ancient practice to attribute new laws to "classical leaders" in order to promote their widespread acceptance. Thus the Deuteronomical law code was "found" in the days of Josiah, meaning that it was first "invented" by his court officials who attributed it to an "old document" found in the temple, when in fact it was anything but.
What kind of shrine did the Judahites have in their early tribal days?
Note that even if you don’t believe in by budding theory that Judah entered Canaan from the south and Israel from the East at different times and without any coordination between them, you still must admit that there was a very weak bond between Israel and Judah in early tribal days. This is evident from the various episodes told in the book of Judges in which Judah is completely neglected or treated as a separate entity, when talking about "Israel". (See the story of Deborah and Barak). Thus, in all likelihood, Israel and Judah did not share a shrine and other religious tenets and artifacts. R. E. Friedman notes that the "ark of the covenant" is NEVER mentioned in E while the "tent of meeting" is NEVER mentioned in J. So we know that in Judah the Ark was a revered object but we don’t know where it was kept. I am convinced that before the ark arrived in Shiloh (Ephraimite territory) in the days of Eli and Samuel (c. 1100 BCE) it resided somewhere in Judean territory. In fact it may have even been stationed in one of the five philistine cities: Ashdod, Gazah, Ashkelon Gath, Ekron. These cities were originally under Judahite control and perhaps when the Philistines arrived on the scene (c. 1150 BCE) and started taking over territory from Judah, the Levites (who were the Judahite priests) moved the ark in a Northeast direction, finally setting up the shrine in Shiloh. Recall how the Danites were forced out of their territory due to the invading Philistines which set off the Pesel Micah story told in Judges. Note also how it is said in that story that the Danites "recognized the voice of the Levite", indicating that the Levites were common in the Danite and Judahite coastal regions later vanquished by the Philistines. I should point out that Hebron or Jerusalem were definitely not the original locations of Judahite shrines for those cities were not yet under Judahite control. (In fact, Jerusalem, then called "Jebus", lay in Benjamite territory). Also, Hebron was conquered by a "kenizzite" clan under Caleb’s leadership who only later became integrated into Judah.
Is it possible that there was more than one shrine in Judah in those days?
Not only is it possible but it is almost certain. Judahite territory was quite expansive and it would not be practical to require a Judahite to travel such long distances whenever he wished to offer sacrifices to his God. Any village in Judah mentioned as a "levite city" in the book of Joshua probably contained a shrine as well in early days, for what were the Levites doing there if not offering their priestly services to the public? Nine villages are mentioned: Hebron, Libnah, Jattir, ‘eshtemo`ah, Cholon, Debir, ‘ayin, Jatteh and Beth Shemesh (Joshua 21:13).
What did the Ark of the Covenant contain?
In those early days, writing on papyrus had not been invented yet, at least not among the Judahites. There were two ways of recording things: clay tablets and stone tablets. According to the Bible, the "Ten Articles of the Covenant" were carved into stone and kept in the Ark. Now even though the Ark seems to serve a utilitarian purpose only according to this understanding, it is possible that it gradually took on additional significance. By the time the golden Cherub statues were added to the Ark, the ark had been transformed from a mere "carrying case" to the most holy object in the shrine. There is considerable debate as to what the Cherub’s represented or even what kind of creature it is. R.E. Friedman believes they served as a pedestal for the deity; that is, the deity presumably rested on their wings. But I am somewhat hesitant to accept this because I strongly believe in that all ancient religious objects and ideas were of a concrete nature; no imagination! These people lived very simple and concrete lives anything that could not be felt with the senses did not exist. They were not capable or willing to "imagine" a deity resting upon the cherub’s wings. Rather, the cherubs may have represented angels or messengers sent down from God in heaven to guide and assist the Hebrews in their struggles.
Why is the "tent of meeting" not mentioned in J?
By the time J and E were committed to writing, the monarchy had already been divided. The southern Davidic kingdom possessed a magnificent temple in Jerusalem (or at least it was magnificent according to the biblical claim) while the North had several shrines none of which were very elaborate or permanent. I think that this very basic difference between the North and South is why the North developed or retained the idea of the "tent of meeting" while the South had no need for such tent. Another reason could be advanced in light of the fact that the Israelites, according to our theory, spent much more time wandering in the desert that Judah did. E, therefore, felt compelled to conceive of a tent of meeting as the official national shrine before they entered Canaan while J saw no such need.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Friday, April 21, 2006
Meaning of the Hebrew root 'pqd'
The Hebrew root ‘pqd’ is grossly misuderstood and mistranslated. The problem with this word is that it is found in the Bible in various contexts prompting the translator to come up with a different meaning in many instances depending on the context. What they don’t realize is that even though CBH (classical Biblical Hebrew) is a relatively poor language with a small vocabulary and the speaker or writer of Hebrew can therefore express himself with a word that can be applied in several ways, yet such words can have one and only one primary meaning.
The secondary meanings of pqd used for translation purposes are: miss, remember, reserve, count.
The primary meaning of pqd as a noun is an item that is temporarily cared for by a person who does not own it. The item is thus a "temporary burden" upon the niphqad (trustee).
The best example of the pqd root used in this way in JE is Gen 41:36 RSV: the food shall be a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine... (wehayah ha’akel lepiqqadon le’arets). But the RSV is not even consistent with its translation of this root two verses earlier: let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land... (weyepaqqed piqqedim ‘al ha`arets). In one verse it means overseers and in the next verse it means reserve food? Unlikely!
Rather, Piqqadon here is borrowed from the primary meaning of the word as used in Lev 5:21. Piqqadon is an object that is entrusted to a friend to watch over it and guard it temporarily so that it will be available at a later time to the owner. The piqqadon is thus an object of burden to the trustee. Likewise, the food shall be "carried by the land" or "entrusted to the land" during the seven fat years so that it is available later during the seven lean years. weyepaqqed piqqedim ‘al ha`arets means: Paraoh shall place the food as a temporary burden over the land.
Likewise, whenever the root pqd is used as a verb referring to an army, it means to provide battle equipment to troops, which they are responsible to guard and care for temporarily. When the battle is over they must return the equipment.
י וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּבֹּק%
The Hebrew root ‘pqd’ is grossly misuderstood and mistranslated. The problem with this word is that it is found in the Bible in various contexts prompting the translator to come up with a different meaning in many instances depending on the context. What they don’t realize is that even though CBH (classical Biblical Hebrew) is a relatively poor language with a small vocabulary and the speaker or writer of Hebrew can therefore express himself with a word that can be applied in several ways, yet such words can have one and only one primary meaning.
The secondary meanings of pqd used for translation purposes are: miss, remember, reserve, count.
The primary meaning of pqd as a noun is an item that is temporarily cared for by a person who does not own it. The item is thus a "temporary burden" upon the niphqad (trustee).
The best example of the pqd root used in this way in JE is Gen 41:36 RSV: the food shall be a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine... (wehayah ha’akel lepiqqadon le’arets). But the RSV is not even consistent with its translation of this root two verses earlier: let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land... (weyepaqqed piqqedim ‘al ha`arets). In one verse it means overseers and in the next verse it means reserve food? Unlikely!
Rather, Piqqadon here is borrowed from the primary meaning of the word as used in Lev 5:21. Piqqadon is an object that is entrusted to a friend to watch over it and guard it temporarily so that it will be available at a later time to the owner. The piqqadon is thus an object of burden to the trustee. Likewise, the food shall be "carried by the land" or "entrusted to the land" during the seven fat years so that it is available later during the seven lean years. weyepaqqed piqqedim ‘al ha`arets means: Paraoh shall place the food as a temporary burden over the land.
Likewise, whenever the root pqd is used as a verb referring to an army, it means to provide battle equipment to troops, which they are responsible to guard and care for temporarily. When the battle is over they must return the equipment.
י וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּבֹּק%
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Which Hebrew tribes were slaves in Egypt?
Judah seems to be one of those tribes who never was in Egypt. We know for sure that the tribe of Levi and Joseph were in Egypt. Levi we know because Moses and Aharon and the entire concept of Yahwism originated from this tribe during their stay in Egypt. In fact, I strongly suspect that the Levites were in turn influenced by the Egyptian monotheist movement by Akhenaten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten.
According to J theology, why were the Hebrews enslaved in Egypt? The reason for their enslavement is openly stated in J, even though it is commonly misinterpreted. Common sense dictates that J should have something to say about why the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to whom Yahweh promised the land of Canaan, should be enslaved for four generations (Gen 16:16) before inheriting the land.
There are actually two reasons for their enslavement:
One reason is "for the iniquity of the Amorite has not been complete until now" (Gen 16:16). But why should the Hebrews suffer enslavement? Wouldn’t it be sufficient that the Hebrews simply sojourn in Egypt like their forbears did and have the status of "aliens" while waiting for the Amorites to be punished and expelled from Canaan for their sin? It should be noted that the sections of Exodus where the "rigorous labor of the Israel" is described (Exodus 1:13) are not part of J. And so it is possible that J had a different idea of what alien status in a foreign land involved for the Hebrews.
But there is another verse we need to focus in on:
ו וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָֹה עַל-פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָֹה יְהֹוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת: ז נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים נֹשֵֹא עָוֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים וְעַל-בְּנֵי בָנִים עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים:
Yahweh passed before him and Yahweh proclaimed, "Yahweh is a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in kindness and faithfulness, keeping kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation" (Exodus 34:6-7).
This verse is extremely central to J theology because it essentially summarizes the character of the newly invented deity "Yahweh". Later, when the Hebrews committed the grave "iniquity" of accepting the negative report of the spies and conspiring to rebel against Moses and head back to Egypt, Moses invoked this verse to show that Yahweh is a forgiving God (Numbers 14:17). But what is meant by the statement "visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children..."?
I have a strong suspicion that it refers to the tribal patriarchs iniquity of selling Joseph into slavery. God is saying that he had remembered this iniquity for four generations (i.e. Levi, Qehath, `amram, Moses) but the fourth generation is now being forgiven and he will bring them into the promised land remembering the faithful kindness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to the thousands of Hebrews about to enter Canaan. J emphasizes the fact that only the three patriarchs exhibited kindness towards God. Yet thousands of their descendants will now benefit as a result. J also emphasizes Yahweh’s concern for justice necessitating the punishment of four generations for the Joseph iniquity.
We thus see that the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt according to J is a punishment for the sin of selling Joseph into slavery.
Other proof will be listed below:
In Genesis 42:21-22 (which is not part of J) Jacob’s sons realize that their troubles are a punishment for selling Joseph into slavery: Then they said to one another, "In truth we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us and we would not listen; therefore is this distress come upon us." The meaning of this is a bit deeper that it seems. It’s not just "a" punishment; it’s punishment in kind. They sold Joseph into Egyptian slavery; now they are about to be enslaved to an Egyptian official. They refused to listen to Joseph’s supplications not to harm him; now they are supplicating Joseph to believe them that they are not spies but he refuses to listen to them. Joseph then tests his half-brothers to see whether they are still antagonistic towards the "Rachel brothers" (Benjamin) and when he sees their devotion and concern for Benjamin he forgives them, identifies himself and invites them over to Egypt so that they may survive the famine. However, their iniquity is not quite forgiven by God. A new king emerges who does not "know" Joseph (which has the secondary meaning of that he does not remember that Joseph forgave his brothers) and he enslaves the brothers’ descendants just like their ancestors caused Joseph to be enslaved.
There is also another interesting verse in Genesis which seems somewhat trivial and out of context but is now very well understood:
כד וַיַּרְא יוסב לְאֶפְרַיִם בְּנֵי שִׁלֵּשִׁים גַּם בְּנֵי מָכִיר בֶּן-מְנַשֶּׁה יֻלְּדוּ עַל-בִּרְכֵּי יוסב:
Joseph saw a third generation to Ephraim. Even the sons of Machir the son of Manasseh gave birth on the knees of Joseph (Genesis 50:23).
The question is: why is this mentioned? and why not talk about the third/fourth generations of the other brothers? But according to our explanation, this verse sits very well. It is pointing out that Joseph’s descendants, up to four generations, were all "seen" by Joseph, that is they were treated well and protected from slavery because of Joseph’s status. This is an important anecdote because it is essential that the punishment of the rest of the Hebrews not involve the Joseph tribe since Joseph is the victim and not the sinner. He’s the reason that the other tribes were enslaved in Egypt in the first place.
Why mention four generations of Joseph? Because after four generations, all of Israel is bound to emerge from Egypt anyway and so there’s no need to point out that the fifth generation and onward were "seen" by Joseph.
In the very next verse Joseph makes his brothers swear that they will bring his bones up from Egypt and bury him with his fathers once Yahweh remembers them on occasion of the Exodus. This passage is now situated well contextually because Joseph is saying: even though my progeny will be well off during those four generations and yours will not, swear to me that after Yahweh brings you up from Egypt you will bring my bones with you (which act symbolizes that the Joseph tribe remains part of Israel and does not become assimilated into Egypt).
Other proof:
"fathers" and "sons" as mentioned in Exodus 34:7 are abstract terms if not for my interpretation. Abstractions are possible in Priestly writings but they are virtually nonexistent in the extremely ancient J source. In J everything is concrete and could be felt by the senses. God himself is a physical entity in J who descends from heaven in order to destroy the tower of Babel and to rescue Israel from Egypt. J is not talking about a theoretical sinner whose four generations must suffer as a result. In fact Deut 24:16 states openly that sons should not be put to death for a sin of their fathers. If our J verse here lays forth a central Yahwist principle (of which we see no application anywhere in the Bible), then the Deuteronomist would have been unable to change that in the seventh century BCE. Rather, Yahweh is saying here what he had already done: he remembered the iniquity of the Jacob brothers for four generations. Now however, Yahweh is saying that he is about to remember the kindness of the patriarchs towards him and in turn visit kindness upon the thousands of their descendants by means of giving them the land of Canaan. But he expects some continuing service on the part of Israel as well and so he goes on making a covenant (Exodus 34:10) in which the duties of both parties are specified:
Yahweh will make "a wonderful act" (niphle’ath) before all the people and all will see that the deed of Yahweh is awesome (Exodus 34:10). This "wonderful act" refers to the the standing "as one heap" of the waters coming down from the Jordan so as to allow the Israelites to pass in dry land (Joshua 3:16). The term "niphla`oth" (wonders) is mentioned in Joshua in this regard (part of the J narrative) and it’s --in all likelihood-- what the verse here is referring to. (the plural "wonders" in Joshua is probably the hands of a late editor; it should read without the waw and the translation is "a wonderful act", not "wonderful acts").
In turn, Israel will observe the "ten articles of the covenant" (diberei haberith `asereth hadebarim Exodus 34:28) involving acts of service to Yahweh such as dedicating firstborn animals and fruits to Yahweh and observing three annual festivals to Yahweh.
Judah seems to be one of those tribes who never was in Egypt. We know for sure that the tribe of Levi and Joseph were in Egypt. Levi we know because Moses and Aharon and the entire concept of Yahwism originated from this tribe during their stay in Egypt. In fact, I strongly suspect that the Levites were in turn influenced by the Egyptian monotheist movement by Akhenaten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten.
According to J theology, why were the Hebrews enslaved in Egypt? The reason for their enslavement is openly stated in J, even though it is commonly misinterpreted. Common sense dictates that J should have something to say about why the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to whom Yahweh promised the land of Canaan, should be enslaved for four generations (Gen 16:16) before inheriting the land.
There are actually two reasons for their enslavement:
One reason is "for the iniquity of the Amorite has not been complete until now" (Gen 16:16). But why should the Hebrews suffer enslavement? Wouldn’t it be sufficient that the Hebrews simply sojourn in Egypt like their forbears did and have the status of "aliens" while waiting for the Amorites to be punished and expelled from Canaan for their sin? It should be noted that the sections of Exodus where the "rigorous labor of the Israel" is described (Exodus 1:13) are not part of J. And so it is possible that J had a different idea of what alien status in a foreign land involved for the Hebrews.
But there is another verse we need to focus in on:
ו וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָֹה עַל-פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָֹה יְהֹוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת: ז נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים נֹשֵֹא עָוֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה וְנַקֵּה לֹא יְנַקֶּה פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים וְעַל-בְּנֵי בָנִים עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים:
Yahweh passed before him and Yahweh proclaimed, "Yahweh is a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in kindness and faithfulness, keeping kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation" (Exodus 34:6-7).
This verse is extremely central to J theology because it essentially summarizes the character of the newly invented deity "Yahweh". Later, when the Hebrews committed the grave "iniquity" of accepting the negative report of the spies and conspiring to rebel against Moses and head back to Egypt, Moses invoked this verse to show that Yahweh is a forgiving God (Numbers 14:17). But what is meant by the statement "visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children..."?
I have a strong suspicion that it refers to the tribal patriarchs iniquity of selling Joseph into slavery. God is saying that he had remembered this iniquity for four generations (i.e. Levi, Qehath, `amram, Moses) but the fourth generation is now being forgiven and he will bring them into the promised land remembering the faithful kindness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to the thousands of Hebrews about to enter Canaan. J emphasizes the fact that only the three patriarchs exhibited kindness towards God. Yet thousands of their descendants will now benefit as a result. J also emphasizes Yahweh’s concern for justice necessitating the punishment of four generations for the Joseph iniquity.
We thus see that the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt according to J is a punishment for the sin of selling Joseph into slavery.
Other proof will be listed below:
In Genesis 42:21-22 (which is not part of J) Jacob’s sons realize that their troubles are a punishment for selling Joseph into slavery: Then they said to one another, "In truth we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us and we would not listen; therefore is this distress come upon us." The meaning of this is a bit deeper that it seems. It’s not just "a" punishment; it’s punishment in kind. They sold Joseph into Egyptian slavery; now they are about to be enslaved to an Egyptian official. They refused to listen to Joseph’s supplications not to harm him; now they are supplicating Joseph to believe them that they are not spies but he refuses to listen to them. Joseph then tests his half-brothers to see whether they are still antagonistic towards the "Rachel brothers" (Benjamin) and when he sees their devotion and concern for Benjamin he forgives them, identifies himself and invites them over to Egypt so that they may survive the famine. However, their iniquity is not quite forgiven by God. A new king emerges who does not "know" Joseph (which has the secondary meaning of that he does not remember that Joseph forgave his brothers) and he enslaves the brothers’ descendants just like their ancestors caused Joseph to be enslaved.
There is also another interesting verse in Genesis which seems somewhat trivial and out of context but is now very well understood:
כד וַיַּרְא יוסב לְאֶפְרַיִם בְּנֵי שִׁלֵּשִׁים גַּם בְּנֵי מָכִיר בֶּן-מְנַשֶּׁה יֻלְּדוּ עַל-בִּרְכֵּי יוסב:
Joseph saw a third generation to Ephraim. Even the sons of Machir the son of Manasseh gave birth on the knees of Joseph (Genesis 50:23).
The question is: why is this mentioned? and why not talk about the third/fourth generations of the other brothers? But according to our explanation, this verse sits very well. It is pointing out that Joseph’s descendants, up to four generations, were all "seen" by Joseph, that is they were treated well and protected from slavery because of Joseph’s status. This is an important anecdote because it is essential that the punishment of the rest of the Hebrews not involve the Joseph tribe since Joseph is the victim and not the sinner. He’s the reason that the other tribes were enslaved in Egypt in the first place.
Why mention four generations of Joseph? Because after four generations, all of Israel is bound to emerge from Egypt anyway and so there’s no need to point out that the fifth generation and onward were "seen" by Joseph.
In the very next verse Joseph makes his brothers swear that they will bring his bones up from Egypt and bury him with his fathers once Yahweh remembers them on occasion of the Exodus. This passage is now situated well contextually because Joseph is saying: even though my progeny will be well off during those four generations and yours will not, swear to me that after Yahweh brings you up from Egypt you will bring my bones with you (which act symbolizes that the Joseph tribe remains part of Israel and does not become assimilated into Egypt).
Other proof:
"fathers" and "sons" as mentioned in Exodus 34:7 are abstract terms if not for my interpretation. Abstractions are possible in Priestly writings but they are virtually nonexistent in the extremely ancient J source. In J everything is concrete and could be felt by the senses. God himself is a physical entity in J who descends from heaven in order to destroy the tower of Babel and to rescue Israel from Egypt. J is not talking about a theoretical sinner whose four generations must suffer as a result. In fact Deut 24:16 states openly that sons should not be put to death for a sin of their fathers. If our J verse here lays forth a central Yahwist principle (of which we see no application anywhere in the Bible), then the Deuteronomist would have been unable to change that in the seventh century BCE. Rather, Yahweh is saying here what he had already done: he remembered the iniquity of the Jacob brothers for four generations. Now however, Yahweh is saying that he is about to remember the kindness of the patriarchs towards him and in turn visit kindness upon the thousands of their descendants by means of giving them the land of Canaan. But he expects some continuing service on the part of Israel as well and so he goes on making a covenant (Exodus 34:10) in which the duties of both parties are specified:
Yahweh will make "a wonderful act" (niphle’ath) before all the people and all will see that the deed of Yahweh is awesome (Exodus 34:10). This "wonderful act" refers to the the standing "as one heap" of the waters coming down from the Jordan so as to allow the Israelites to pass in dry land (Joshua 3:16). The term "niphla`oth" (wonders) is mentioned in Joshua in this regard (part of the J narrative) and it’s --in all likelihood-- what the verse here is referring to. (the plural "wonders" in Joshua is probably the hands of a late editor; it should read without the waw and the translation is "a wonderful act", not "wonderful acts").
In turn, Israel will observe the "ten articles of the covenant" (diberei haberith `asereth hadebarim Exodus 34:28) involving acts of service to Yahweh such as dedicating firstborn animals and fruits to Yahweh and observing three annual festivals to Yahweh.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)