quote:

---

Joinette scampered up at this point and said, “Would it pleasure One if I were to acquire the services of a Pleb to attend to this Junior Pleb's needs, perchance?” (A wily young lass, that. Pride of the Tribe).

---

Would it pleasure one?! Oh my...
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
From Nigel's post over on the main thread:

quote:

---

Joinette scampered up at this point and said, “Would it pleasure One if I were to acquire the services of a Pleb to attend to this Junior Pleb's needs, perchance?” (A wily young lass, that. Pride of the Tribe).

---

Would it pleasure one?! Oh my...

---

Authorial intention, my dear, authorial intention!!!!
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
It's the great unexpected delight I've gotten from these Bible Non-stop threads: the way other people see a passage and the humor or emotional insight they bring in their paraphrases... I mean, I enjoy writing up a paraphrase but I enjoy reading what others say a lot more.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
"Just the facts, ma'am!" Yes, AR, I've often wished for more editorial comments from within scripture: "and this was bad because..." Or perhaps I'm just slow that way! I do find, however, that if I ask God to explain something to me, He usually does (sometimes very quickly and sometimes months later; His timing is His timing).

I have heard speculation that this pharaoh, the one who didn't know Joseph (since it's 400 years later and Joseph only lived to 110, we know there have been quite a few pharaoh's who didn't know him), wasn't Egyptian but a one of the conquering rulers (occasionally different people groups had the upper had in Egypt); I went looking for the name of the people group (I want to say something with an H-- helpful, eh?!*) but look what I found from the BBC, not the most pro-religious of organizations. On page 2464-65 of Dr William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities he alludes to an Assyrian or Babylonian dynasty in Egypt.

* Found it: Hyksos, in this rather interesting article. I do know from my brother & his wife and their multiple travels in Egypt with a rather well-known Egyptologist (I have one of his books but it's packed and I don't remember his name-- wait, I think this is him: Bob Brier, The Murder of Tutankhamen) that the Egyptians were very quick to rewrite their history to serve their own purposes - and naturally those purposes changed from dynasty to dynasty, pharaoh to pharaoh. Almost all records of Tutankhamen were obliterated not very many years after he died (you know, chiseled out of monuments, etc.). Deep stuff.

---

You might be interested in 'Ages in Chaos ' by Immanuel Velikovsky. He sees parallels between Exodus account and an ancient doc called the 'Ipuwer Papyrus'(PP21-26 of AIC). The basic thesis is the total destruction of the Egyptian infrastructure which led to a paucity of evidence surviving.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Oh interesting, Jamat - I know Velikovsky by reputation but confess I've not read any of his books (at least I don't remember reading Worlds In Collision but I might have, ages back). I see others have independently concurred with some of his ideas.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
What do people make of the Divine Name / Tetragrammaton / YHWH / Adonai / יהוה reference in Exodus 3:14 (and elsewhere)?

If a verb, which tense? If a noun, is a verbal translation appropriate? Was it intended to be the Divine Name for use by God's people or was it a passing reference that became blown out of all proportion?

Or is it a case of the making of books on this subject there is no end, so perhaps we shouldn't start here?!
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
oooh, you posted in Hebrew! cool! (yes, I know there's a sticky thread; I just don't do it) I've been studying Hebrew for about a year and a half now with our rabbi (my church has a special relationship with a local synagogue; they use our church for their High Holy Days because we've got the capacity - and over these 9 years we've built a really rich relationship, so Rabbi is teaching a handful of us goyim) and he certainly sees the name as highly significant - he spent a fair amount of time explaining how past-present-future tense are all implied in the structure of the name, etc. - that was pretty far over my head but I do remember that "was and is and is to come" quality. If we're meeting this week I'll try to remember to make a note to your question, Nigel, and get his opinion at least.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Oh interesting, Jamat - I know Velikovsky by reputation but confess I've not read any of his books (at least I don't remember reading Worlds In Collision but I might have, ages back). I see others have independently concurred with some of his ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
If we're meeting this week I'll try to remember to make a note to your question, Nigel, and get his opinion at least.

---

It would be interesting to get his take on whether the divine name phrase in v.14 is in any way linked to the exact same verb usage in v.12, where God tells Moses that he (God) “Will be with you.” In verse 12 the usage is the 1st person singular imperfect of the verb hayah (= היה), “To be.” I wonder if verse 14 has this in mind? If it has, then the emphasis is on the future state – I will be.

Of course the name has become overlain with an incredible amount of significance. I can't tell whether this passage was recorded and retained to account for that significance, or whether it is a by-product of it.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Well, this is the first time that God has attached a name to Himself; I think in itself that gives tremendous importance to the name. Up until now it's been "I am the God of your fathers, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" or others have attached a name to Him, like Hagar in Genesis 16:13 where she calls Him 'the God that Sees me' (אל ראי if I've done it right). Moses, writing the Torah, has the name from the beginning so he can specify even though the name apparently hasn't been provided yet. I find it interesting the times people ask Him, "what is Your name?" and He declines to give them His name.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Further to this post addressing Exodus 4:24, a friend's daughter came to me at a Mythcon a few years back and asked me about this scripture. She'd been reading her Bible and thought it was really weird and asked her parents, who didn't know the answer, and I suppose didn't get a satisfactory answer from their minister, either. So I sat down and read the passage (one I'd never really thought about, myself) and asked God to show me what was going on. And I think He did:

I've noticed a type I don't really have a word for - when God is establishing something, when He's doing a new thing, He really slaps hard in order that we might get it, take it seriously.

He's calling Moses to be the giver of the Law - but Moses hasn't kept the law in his own household; apparently Zipporah objected to circumcision and he allowed her opinion to be preeminent, at least in this regard.

The passage also says Moses, his wife and sons (plural) but apparently only one circumcision takes place, which makes me wonder if he got his way with their first son and then she said no, not with the second son.

How can Moses give the Law if he doesn't live the Law? And circumcision had been established when God changed Abram's name to Abraham, back in Genesis
17:9, so it's something that Moses should have been diligent about - yet he hadn't.

And you can't tell me that Moses could escape death if God actually wanted him dead - no, I think God was saying, "Wake up! This is serious!" by threatening him - and doing it in front of Zipporah so that she also had to come into agreement with God.

I think the death of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is another example of this type (and maybe even that is the wrong terminology-- I am happy to be educated further); the lesson there being do not attempt to deceive the Holy Spirit. And I see the death of Uzzah when he puts out his hand to steady the Ark of the Covenant as another example; they had the Law, they knew the right way to transport the Ark - just because God allowed the ignorant Philistines to 'get away with' putting it on a cart drawn by cattle doesn't mean God will let His own people do likewise, not when they should know better.

Thoughts?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Tend to agree. Of course, it's rough on the folks that end up as Horrible Warnings. But I can't deny that God has the right to do so.

[ 29. April 2008, 00:19: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
It's one of the challenges of scripture and the nature of God, I think, and how He's very different from us: He has a much easier time seeing The Big Picture™. I don't know that He has fewer qualms about allowing someone to die in order that the community learn a vital lesson (e.g., Uzzah) but the nature of His qualms is different. I don't think smiting Uzzah was 'personal' (not in the way that smiting Er was personal... or maybe I'm wrong about that, too - Lord knows it's happened before!). But I don't see any reason why Uzzah wouldn't be in heaven, fr'instance; I view the Jews who predate the Incarnation as going to the bosom of Abraham and being part of the people in Sheol/Hell to whom Jesus preaches - and I trust the vast majority will recognize their Messiah when He says, "Come with me if you want to live--" (a little Terminator reference ).

In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Jews who have yet to die are even in the bosom of Abraham when Jesus shows up to preach - it's an outside-of-time thing, methinks.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I saw a book once with an amusing title. It was Here I Am Lord, Send Aaron.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Wow - did you read it?! Great title...
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I leafed through it. The text did not appear to live up to the title, so I didn't get it.

The author appears to have used up all his inspiration on the title.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
That can happen... and I suspect if it lived up to the title (still grinning), I'd've heard of it - you'd say, "well remember how Frank N. Furter in Here I Am Lord, Send Aaron said, "it's always darkest just before the bush ignites," and I would nod knowingly and say, "yes, yes, wonderful book."

Ach weel--
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Over on the main thread - - if I was familiar with Office Space I'm sure that Bullfrog's latest would be even more amusing to me *sigh*

However, I actually have a serious query - Nigel, I think, wrote the memo about the work stoppage or the Hebrews not fulfilling the quota of (gadgets? widgets? something).

My reading of scripture is that the Israelites met the quota up until Pharaoh stopped supplying them with straw, thus radically increasing the burden of work because they had to make the bricks (as per usual) and procure their own supplies, which had been provided up until then.

The motive has always seemed to me to be: "Hey, if you guys have got enough time to talk about having a 3 day love-in in the desert, you've got too much time on your hands." Is that me reading into the scripture?

quote:

---

"But the quota of bricks which they were making previously, you shall impose on them; you are not to reduce any of it. Because they are lazy, therefore they cry out, 'Let us go and sacrifice to our God.' Let the labor be heavier on the men, and let them work at it so that they will pay no attention to false words."

---

I loved this.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
I have been corrupted. Of course, I'm also getting ahead of the story... *nevermind*
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
*sigh*
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Over on the main thread - [Big Grin] - if I was familiar with Office Space I'm sure that Bullfrog's latest would be even more amusing to me *sigh*

---

Eh, the jokes aren't very sophisticated. The beginning of the movie portrays a man trapped in a stereotypical cubicle job being asked by three supervisors for these mysterious "TCP reports." The picture of the guy representing the Egyptian managers is his main boss, a farcically dull, yet manipulative and passive-aggressive jerk.

The scene portrayed in the "angry Israelites" is one where the protagonist and his henchmen take their vengeance, to a pounding rap rhythm (I'm sure this is a mockery of another movie, but I don't know which), upon a very recalcitrant printer. Yes, the scene involves a baseball bat.

The picture of Light Bringer (and I hope that's Moses) is one of the protagonist's buddies, who is apparently a computer whiz, and "Drawn Out" is the protagonist, a charismatic (if someone foolish) man who has, shall we say, a path to liberation from cubicle hell that drives the main plot of the movie.

The whole flick is basically one running joke on the hell that is office work (with some asides on the restaurant business) and one man's ill-advised escape therefrom. I thought it worked rather well with Nigel's theme.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Actually "Lightbringer" is Aaron and Moses means Drawn (so I went with "Drawn Out" because Autenrieth Road went with it... resonates with 'the woman you gave me', doesn't it?!) - it's what Pharaoh's daughter said.

But only folks who know the show (and that may be everyone except me--!) will think you miscast...
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
...Nigel, I think, wrote the memo about the work stoppage or the Hebrews not fulfilling the quota of (gadgets? widgets? something).

My reading of scripture is that the Israelites met the quota up until Pharaoh stopped supplying them with straw, thus radically increasing the burden of work because they had to make the bricks (as per usual) and procure their own supplies, which had been provided up until then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Actually "Lightbringer" is Aaron and Moses means Drawn (so I went with "Drawn Out" because Autenrieth Road went with it... resonates with 'the woman you gave me', doesn't it?!) - it's what Pharaoh's daughter said.

But only folks who know the show (and that may be everyone except me--!) will think you miscast...

---

quote:

---

“So be it,” huffed Drawn-Out, “I'll never, ever, come before you again.”

And dramatically swinging his cloak about him, he swung about and exited stage left.

---

And then in posting Chapter 11 (hmmm...) I got hung up on verse 8 and finally realized Moses didn't leave Pharaoh's presence until then - this final 'huff' is pretty drawn out! Another example of the Biblical pattern of giving a synopsis and then giving a more detailed account, eh?
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Good point. There was one final puff between Moses' huff and God blowing the Egyptian house in.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Yeah, I kept struggling to figure out what was going on; I find it weird that Moses makes this announcement in front of Pharaoh (verse 2) - but perhaps that's what he's going to do as soon as he leaves Pharaoh's presence - sometimes these things are hard to work into clarity by modern standards... but I enjoy trying!
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Why hasn't anyone posted anything else on the Bible Nonstop thread??? It's been freaking days!

I'd post again, but I've already double posted!
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
'Cos when I carefully work out a post to put on that thread, I get there and someone's always got there before me?
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
But the last post was, like, two weeks ago!
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Sorry, guys - I've been juggling cats and just haven't had the mental energy, at the end of the day (read: middle of the night!). But I figured I could post ONCE PER DAY --and often did!-- through the Genesis thread... feel free, Bullfrog (you plague beast you!)
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
This and following post by Bullfrog prompt me to ask if y'all have seen the animated film, Prince of Egypt? There are some things I don't like but, by and large, a remarkable, evocative film, giving a very legit look at Moses and the exodus.

Nigel, as for your 'disturbance in the force' reference, I feared you might have had a different reference in mind
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Nigel, as for your 'disturbance in the force' reference, I feared you might have had a different reference in mind

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
"Just the facts, ma'am!" Yes, AR, I've often wished for more editorial comments from within scripture:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
This and following post by Bullfrog prompt me to ask if y'all have seen the animated film, Prince of Egypt? There are some things I don't like but, by and large, a remarkable, evocative film, giving a very legit look at Moses and the exodus.

---

I haven't seen that one. Honestly, I just made that scene up in my head. There might have been an unconscius Terry Pratchett influence going on...
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Nigel

Yo Ken - but the Book of the Wards of the Lord doesn't track... is that LDS?

Bullfrog, no question of undue influence, just a certain humorous resonance (although not in this sequence)... In your copious free time you and Gwai might find it a very enjoyable evening.

Now must go watch Stuart Little 2 with my grandkids! The benefit of reproducing really early is relatively young grammyness
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Bullfrog, you're the one who wanted us to revive the Exodus thread, and now you're not playing either!

Selfish reasons here, the reading this morning was a bit further on in Exodus, chapter 16, and I was hoping that someone would know more about some of the names there.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I hope you all continue the paraphrase. I'm enjoying it very much.

I don't have the kind of mind that can do that, but I like others' efforts.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
I do, too -- I've not been as active because my time is really pressed right now but I'll see what I can squeeze out... a few verses, perhaps!
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Just had to commemorate this bit of Nigel's Holy Spirit-filled punnery:

quote:

---

“Oooh, oooh!” perked up Drawn-Out, “I know; we'll build a ship, shall we?”

“No,” said God, “A Ship would be a Foolish thing to do. Use that staff of yours instead...”

---

 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Sorry, Nigel for lifting so much of your first verse, but I couldn't work out quite how to follow on staying in theme, without using some of the same stuff.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
I always figure that's a mark of a good paraphrase, when others take it and run with it. Like TMPHOSITW, a brilliant concept!
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I agree! Fun, eh?

I think the name Miriam will cause a problem; it doesn't have a commonly agreed heritage. I opted for "Arum-love" on the basis that it might more readily be Egyptian rather than Hebrew (or other semitic language), but it anyone has a better idea, go for it.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I've heard "bitterness" or even "rebellion," but haven't really researched. FWIW, I have a hard time with all these translations, which is why I rarely participate anymore. I can't keep the players straight without a scorecard--which rather takes the fun out of it.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Blue Letter Bible does show the root of the name as being "rebellion" (news to me) and "Mara" is bitter - the name Naomi takes when she returns to Bethlehem and no longer feels "pleasant"...

Please don't drop out, Lamb Chopped! We can throw in the recognizable names with greater frequency (right, eh? yes yes?) to make sure that people don't forget just who we're talking about.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
It certainly can take some work remembering who's who in the Bible Almanac! I assume there's no particular rule that thou shalt not add nor take away from this book (i.e. one must follow what someone posted before) for fear that one's name however written may be erased from the book of life?
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
No, having a slew of names is in the rich biblical tradition! Especially pun-based names...
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
In Exodus 15:25 - 26, God appears to be addressing Moses directly: the masculine singular form of verbs and pronouns is being used in the Hebrew (and Greek) text. All the English versions I took a look at translate this with the plural form ("them", etc.), on the assumption that the referent was intended to be the people as a whole. No doubt that would be the case, even if Moses is the direct referent, considering that he was an intermediary between God and people. Still, I like the fact that the text makes it plain that Moses is being included in all of that: he, too, is subject to the conditions of citizenship.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
When I went looking for the meaning of Elim, I found a suggestion that the El- bit might refer to God, but the -im was unknown.

Nigel, I'm glad you did the next section: the convenant. I was thinking around that - as you can tell from the way I went looking to find out the origins of the place names and hadn't quite worked out how to play it.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
For what it's worth--. My rabbi wants us to pronounce Elimelech correctly (more like Ellie Melek than eh limb uh lech) because of it's wonderful meaning.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
I confess to neglecting the Exodus thread mightily; I was involved in a conference (more of an oversight thing) and it suddenly became much more active and demanding than I expected it to be or it was meant to me (harrumph).

So I'm just having such a grand time now, sitting down and reading through all the entries I missed! Especially Nigel's And there was evening and there was morning, the bird day entry! my my my!!! And the song after crossing the Red Sea! I'm so delighted, you guys are so spiffy and dandy and wonderful!!!
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
In yesterday's lectionary text, taken from Exodus 16.1-15, the NRSV (which biblegateway doesn't offer) uses the word "complaining" a lot. E.g. - in v. 7, where God hears the people's "complaining", or "grumbling", as other translations have it.

Does anyone know, does the Hebrew have the same negative connotation, or could it also be more like "complaint" - something which could be a legitimate complaint? It seems to me that starving is a legitimate complaint.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
God hears the people's "complaining", or "grumbling", as other translations have it.

Does anyone know, does the Hebrew have the same negative connotation, or could it also be more like "complaint" - something which could be a legitimate complaint? It seems to me that starving is a legitimate complaint.

---

Sounds pretty negative to me. Here's murmurings and murmur; what do you think?

I think the challenge for the Jews in the wilderness --and for us-- is to come into agreement with God. It's hard to really imagine that situation, being miraculously delivered from Egypt (and from the plagues that assaulted Egypt), through the divided sea (which, however deep, is deep enough to drown Pharaoh's army) - all these extraordinary things.

So how likely is it that the God who did this work is going to let the million-plus of them starve in the desert? God reiterates (and it's easy for us because we've got the scriptures, we can read the whole thing and catch the over-arching themes quite readily) "for My Name's sake," that His Name will be glorified in the heavens and the earth. So clearly rescuing the Jews from Pharaoh only to have them die in the desert does nothing to glorify His Name therefore He won't allow it.

So, somehow, there is a way that the Jews in the desert could have petitioned God and asked for His provision; likewise, we can approach our needs in a way that reminds God of His promises to us ("I will never leave you or forsake you," for instance, or "consider the lilies of the field...") and then looks in a state of expectation for His provision.

Attitude seems to be a really big theme through a lot of the book of Exodus... it makes me look at myself and
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
{bump}
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
I just had a couple of thoughts after working from the Tanakh for our latest installment...

First off, the bit in 32:18 is set apart as if it were a chunk of poetry or something. Was that an ancient aphorism?

Second, how big was that calf? My understanding is that gold is fairly heavy stuff even by itself, so it seems that Moses (per 32:20) would've needed something like Hulk-strength to heft it, burn it, powder it, stew it and serve it in such sequence. Stopping and thinking certainly makes those terse verses seem much more impressive!
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
...the bit in 32:18 is set apart as if it were a chunk of poetry or something. Was that an ancient aphorism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
...how big was that calf?

---

One suggestion I've read is that this was plated gold around a (wooden?) structure. Whatever it was, the episode develops with humour on the part of the story teller!
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
NigelM, Just how long did it take you to think up the feck - feckless punning?
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
NigelM, Just how long did it take you to think up the feck - feckless punning?

---

Sometimes I think it needs a great deal of reck.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
So...is it really true that the Hebrew in the most-recently copied section of Exodus implies that God showed his rump to Moses while passing by? It's a joke I've heard before, though the NRSV translates it as "back."*

* Granted, this is the same translation that, I'm told, when encountering a Greek equivalent to "shit," opts for "rubbish."
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Yes, I've heard that link made, too. I suspect that I've also heard a number of evangelical preachers preach from the passage in ways that try to avoid making any such link, while making it look as though they never even thought of that link! Save the blushes and pass the offering plate.

I don't actually think there is an attempt in the text to make a sneaky connection to the rear end of a deity. The noun in Ex. 33:23, used as it is in the plural construct form, is achor (= אחוֹר) and is used elsewhere simply to denote the rear of a three-dimensional object – no particular part, just the whole of that rear – as in the back of a building as opposed to the front. The nether regions of a human or animal are just one part of that rear when it refers to creatures, but those regions are not being referred to specifically.

There are a couple of Hebrew words that do denote the buttocks and which could have been used, but weren't:

1] sheth (= שֵּׁת). It crops up in two texts (NIV translation) – 2 Sam. 10:4 (“So Hanun seized David's men, shaved off half of each man's beard, cut off their garments in the middle at the buttocks, and sent them away”); and Isa. 20:4 (“so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt's shame”).

2] miphsah (= מפשׂעה), occurring in 1 Chron. 19:4, the equivalent of the 2 Sam. 10:4 passage above, but using a different word for 'buttocks.'

It is possible that sheth is also used figuratively in Ps. 11:3 to connote 'foundations' (“When the foundations are destroyed, what can the godly accomplish?”). The word there may not necessarily be the same sheth, though.

So I think it's safe to sit through a sermon on this passage without feeling squeamish. Keep an eye on the preacher, though, to see if he or she turns red. Behold! The cheeks of a man reveal the inner heart!

That's not a biblical proverb, by the way, though perhaps it should have been.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
{bump}
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Well, that's the Exodus. Where to now? Shall we continue linearly through Leviticus (famous for bogging down so many youthful efforts to read the bible cover to cover,) or shall we break the line and move onto something else?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Break it and go to something that's got more than a wee dram of narrative in it. The thought of trying to be witty with endless layers of laws makes me .
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
There is an enticing challenge in trying to make books like Leviticus light-hearted! Also, I guess if a book like Leviticus is one that causes most Christian eyes to glaze over, then there might be an onus on us to try and explain the layout in more modern ways.

However, 27 chapters-worth could very easily cause a person to become unclean.

We don't really get historical again (rather than hysterical) until Joshua, do we? Is that the place to go next?
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Would it be possible to try to run two threads at once?
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Two threads at once might weaken both if the effort of the writers was diluted.
 

---

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
There is an enticing challenge in trying to make books like Leviticus light-hearted! ...<snip>...
We don't really get historical again (rather than hysterical) until Joshua, do we? Is that the place to go next?

---

I'm a big fan of the Hebrew scriptures and I'd be reluctant to see a light-hearted treatment of Leviticus simply because the weight of gravity can pull it into mockery and that strikes me as risky.

Joshua would be interesting. So would Proverbs, in a very different way! I'll keep an eye out for what y'all choose to run with...
 

---

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
The Comic Torah handles Leviticus with admirable panache - and a (liberal) Jewish reverence. Tells it like it is, in fact, and I guess God should be able to take it even if some Christians couldn't.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Now that's the sort of Levitical interpretation that makes one think!

There's a range of approaches to the type of texts one finds in Leviticus and her sister acts. One could simply use synonyms for words currently found in assorted English versions; one could present the material in a court-room setting, within a legal framework; one could take the oral tradition route - how the material might have been told in a family setting before it was recorded in its final written form. I think all of these are valid paraphrases.

What, for example, would be the background to, and significance of, the burnt offering procedure in Lev. 1? Asking these type of questions* could start the journey on the way to re-presenting the material to a 21st century audience, engrossed in game consoles and 24 hour news channels.

* The questions grow in the thinking: Just what kind of animal are we talking about? Why a male? What is this 'atonement' all about? Why is there a process that is acceptable to the Lord - what was going on that was not acceptable? What is the point of 'blood'? Who had the job of cleaning up the mess afterwards?
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
OK, it's been a few days, and mostly because I'm somewhat OCD and also because the idea of making Leviticus funny (and I don't mean in a mocking sense) is very tempting.

I might suggest rather than simply line by lining trying to explain the history or possible applications of various rules.

Since nothing is happening now, I'm tempted to start a new thread, but I don't want to drive anyone away since it's apparent that not everyone wants to go that way.

[ 07. February 2010, 02:33: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I'll be happy to go with whatever you want, Bullfrog - Law, Writings or Prophets!
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
It is begun. Help would be greatly appreciated. One hopes one did not take too many liberties with the beginning.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Well done, Bullfrog! I respect y'all taking on this challenge...

Thus endeth Exodus

Kelly Alves
Kerygmania Host

[ 15. February 2010, 05:01: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0