Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: LEVITICUS - Second Thoughts (Bible nonstop)

Thread: Kerygmania: LEVITICUS - Second Thoughts (Bible nonstop) Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000982

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

...and immediately I came across something that I hadn't noticed before and probably wouldn't have if Bullfrog hadn't started the Leviticus thread up. Usually it is at this point that I get all excited, do a unique and beautifully formed dance, proclaim my Eureka moment – only to find the audience yawning, glancing at their watches, and saying “Yes, yes; we know all about that.”

This being a non-visual form of communication, you will just have to imagine the excitement oozing through the typeface and – there, did you like my dance???

The Eureka moment: Leviticus begins in Hebrew with the word-order format that is used within a sequence of events, rather than the word-order associated with new starts. Even the Greek LXX kicks off with the conjunction “And...” (kai).

This suggests a deliberate link across the book boundary back to somewhere in Exodus. The nearest point of contact linguistically is the similar word-order chain ending in Exodus 40:34 (“Then the cloud covered the Meeting Tent, and Lord's glory filled the tabernacle”). The final few verses of Exodus (40:35-38) sit as a lower level piece of information, almost bracketed away from the main line of narrative. It suggests that the author (that could include whoever compiled these books in the format we have received them) intended the reader to unite the two now distinct narratives:

“Then the cloud covered the Meeting Tent, and Lord's glory filled the tabernacle, and Lord called to Moses from the Meeting Tent...”

This being a non-visual form of communication, I will just have to imagine the yawns, watch glancing...

[ 19. November 2013, 02:46: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Fascinating! It makes me think of the link between Luke and Acts. Have any other scholars wandered across it before? You'd think with all of the source critics out there someone would notice the pattern...

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

It's another item in my 'ideas on scraps of paper that are filling a multiverse' – one day I aim to get around the looking at in more depth: What happens at the boundaries?

Humans like to categorise; we love being able to drop all the data we come across into nice neat little boxes and, if it were only possible, without having one of those pesky 'Miscellaneous' boxes at the end. This means we prefer to divide things up. In bible study we want to have neat units to work with, doing what biologists are forced to do when faced with an ecosystem: quarter it up in manageable squares and limit observation to what happens in the grid. Perhaps this too was what source critics were trying to do: accommodate the desire for categories by dividing the data up into neat boxes.

In recent years, however, I've been interested in the possibility that network theory might be relevant here. If we move away from node-based analysis to flow-form networks and ask the question: How do these parts actually relate at the boundaries?, I wonder if we might find that there's more to communication that the mere passing on of information in divisible chunks. There may be more important metaphors of communication at the boundaries.

This has ramifications for discourse analysis just as much as for biology and historical criticism. I certainly was accustomed during my training to view discourses as units – the first question to ask before analysing a text is “What is the unit?” I guess it is inevitable that this will be a necessary first step – it's pretty hard to get one's mind around canon as a unit, just as it must be to analyse an ecosystem without breaking it down into manageable units first. Still, I wonder if the fact that we as Christian readers stop at the end of Exodus one day and pick up Leviticus on a another day causes us to mis-read the ecosystem in some way?

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Yeah, well you know me. Hate boxes. I'll go with the flow any day...

But dang me ,does that mean I've got to stop printing off Leviticus and go back to where I lost my place in Exodus? One day, one day.

[ 16. February 2010, 18:41: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

To save time, how about printing off the last few verses and first few verses of each book and stitching them together to see what comes out? A little like a Whopper-Double-Stupendous-Mac-O'Burger, but with out the burger bit?

I wonder what Christianity would look like then...

Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
To save time, how about printing off the last few verses and first few verses of each book and stitching them together to see what comes out? A little like a Whopper-Double-Stupendous-Mac-O'Burger, but with out the burger bit?

I wonder what Christianity would look like then...

This imaginary is just too mouth watering. Christianity looks like pickle and tomato saying to each other: 'Lettuce sing, Bread of heaven, bread of heaven...'?

[Help]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Well, stitching together all the alpha and omegas from the narrative books in the Jewish Scriptures produces: -

quote:
In the beginning he was laid in a coffin in Egypt and the sons, during every stage of their travels, spoke to him on Mount Sinai and in the desert of Sinai, across from Jericho. These are the words in the sight of all Israel when Moses was dead in the hill country of Ephraim after the death of Joshua, when everyone did as they pleased. In those days Jesse was the father of David and there was a man fasting for seven days after the death of Saul, when the plague stopped. Now David was an old man, just like his father, after Ahab died for the rest of his life. Adam, Seth, Enosh – and all the neighbouring kingdoms – solidified and let him go in the first year of the wives. The words “O My God” happened during that time of all his descendants. There was a man who died.

Actually, it all makes sense to me now.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

What's with the protuberance of the liver?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

A hernia?!

Some options referred to include a fatty mass at the opening of the liver, extending to kidneys. Also mentioned is the caudate lobe, which may be the same thing – and as I am not a master in matters autopsical, I will have to defer to others of a more anatomical bent.

Perhaps because the kidneys and livers had to go their separate ways in the sacrifice, anything that connected one to other would have to be cut at some point.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Conscious that Leviticus is the “Holy Book” and that we will be encountering the word usually translated in English with 'holy' quite often (קׁדֶשׁ = qodesh). That English word, like others (e.g., 'sin', 'righteousness', justification', 'sanctification', 'glorification') has really become too technical to be used today in a modern translation. It doesn't mean anything any more – it has to be explained to people, Christians included. This is why I tend to prefer to use words like 'rebellion' for 'sin' in places.

What would be a good, more modern word to use in place of 'holy' in Leviticus? Does such an English word exist?!

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Conscious that Leviticus is the “Holy Book” and that we will be encountering the word usually translated in English with 'holy' quite often (קׁדֶשׁ = qodesh). That English word, like others (e.g., 'sin', 'righteousness', justification', 'sanctification', 'glorification') has really become too technical to be used today in a modern translation. It doesn't mean anything any more – it has to be explained to people, Christians included. This is why I tend to prefer to use words like 'rebellion' for 'sin' in places.

What would be a good, more modern word to use in place of 'holy' in Leviticus? Does such an English word exist?!

Of course it does! Is it not COOL ? And since the fourth letter is silent it makes it easy for oriental converts to pronounce, and sexy for French ones to contemplate... [Biased]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Or how about The Chilli Bible?

The Hot Ghost??

Red Pepper Communion???

I need to find out what the latest street-cred word is for Holy! Right everyone: text your teenagers to find out.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Thanks for the info re how to participate in the Bible non-stop and for NigelM's most amusing History of the World. [Biased]

I'll try participate when I have more time. At the moment I'm not much good at in depth discussions.

A NT book might generate more interest tho Bullfrog? So its not just you and Nigel? Leviticus is rather....um....detailed....um ......out there.... [Two face]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

I should record my interest here: I think it is not possible to get a proper feel for the NT message without understanding the OT message. Of course, the downside of that soap box stance is that it took, what, 500-1000 years perhaps to develop the OT message? That means we should postpone starting the NT Bible Nonstop until at least the year of our Lord 2,508. I've put the date in my diary. Could we do it in the morning, because I've got the Rapture booked for the p.m.?

Seriously though (and what evils have been visited on the world by taking the bible seriously, eh?!!!), I'll follow the queue to any biblical book. There is already a sister thread, although no relation, that started up on John's Gospel, which may be of interest? I've been intending to get round to posting again on that - time has slipped by. The ground rules for that thread are different, so may not be along the lines preferred.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

RE: another word for 'holy'.

Well, it's not really one word, but I opted for “Above the Norm” as an option, picking up on the way the sanctuary was designed, reflecting as it does the state of existence on either side of what was considered normal (or clean). The holy place mirrors those things in creation that are set apart as pure. The opposite is the wilderness – outside the camp – Below the Norm as it were, the unclean. In between is the norm.

Still, this doesn't really capture other aspects of 'holy': free from pollutants, worthy of offering worship, dedicated / consecrated...

It may be the case that this is another one of those words that will need translating differently in different contexts.

Open to ideas!

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

A professor (who might have picked this up from a book,) I think it was Dr. Vena, explained it thusly:

You walk into a clothing store. The pants that are on the shelf are essentially profane. They are ordinary and of no relation to you, in a neutral sort of way.

When you pick a pair of pants and purchase then, then they are sacred to you.

An abomination is when some punk kid smears his ice cream cone all over your new pants.

Holy is inside, profane is outside, and abomination is when something comes inside that has absolutely no business being there.

Or something like that. It's been a few years since I listened to this one.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

That must have made a fascinating sermon: My theme today is 'God is Pants'!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Don't encourage her! [Eek!]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Don't encourage her!

Who? Me? I wouldn't preach on pants (though I do intend to preach while wearing them,) just thought it was an interesting analogy... [Snigger]

[ 20. March 2010, 18:03: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
just thought it was an interesting analogy...

Especially to those on the other side of the pond!

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
just thought it was an interesting analogy...
Especially to those on the other side of the pond!

Certainly to those on this side of the pond, 'pants' it just a little too close to the skin...

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
just thought it was an interesting analogy...
Especially to those on the other side of the pond!
Certainly to those on this side of the pond, 'pants' it just a little too close to the skin...

So...should I have typed "trousers" instead?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So...should I have typed "trousers" instead?

Perhaps we could just skirt round the issue?

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
It's another item in my 'ideas on scraps of paper that are filling a multiverse' – one day I aim to get around the looking at in more depth: What happens at the boundaries?

Humans like to categorise; we love being able to drop all the data we come across into nice neat little boxes... Perhaps this too was what source critics were trying to do: accommodate the desire for categories by dividing the data up into neat boxes.

...Still, I wonder if the fact that we as Christian readers stop at the end of Exodus one day and pick up Leviticus on a another day causes us to mis-read the ecosystem in some way?

Very much so, imho - we love our pigeon holes. Problem is, we forget they exist to help us manage information (a limitation of our brains, I suspect - we can only handle so much flow at any given moment) and we fall into thinking that the shape of the box in some way accurately reflects or even determines the shape of reality.

I tend to view it as our human limitations slamming into God's vastness - how do we make sense of God? And isn't it great that He has given us a series of interconnecting pieces which display His nature, His character, His patience, His love... (etc!)?

I'm with you, Nigel - Hebrew scriptures are sadly neglected by most Christians. [Frown]

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Reading through Leviticus and I must say how delightful I am finding it! [Big Grin]

Bravo!!

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
It's another item in my 'ideas on scraps of paper that are filling a multiverse' – one day I aim to get around the looking at in more depth: What happens at the boundaries?

Humans like to categorise; we love being able to drop all the data we come across into nice neat little boxes... Perhaps this too was what source critics were trying to do: accommodate the desire for categories by dividing the data up into neat boxes.

...Still, I wonder if the fact that we as Christian readers stop at the end of Exodus one day and pick up Leviticus on a another day causes us to mis-read the ecosystem in some way?
Very much so, imho - we love our pigeon holes. Problem is, we forget they exist to help us manage information (a limitation of our brains, I suspect - we can only handle so much flow at any given moment) and we fall into thinking that the shape of the box in some way accurately reflects or even determines the shape of reality.

I tend to view it as our human limitations slamming into God's vastness - how do we make sense of God? And isn't it great that He has given us a series of interconnecting pieces which display His nature, His character, His patience, His love... (etc!)?

I'm with you, Nigel - Hebrew scriptures are sadly neglected by most Christians.

[Tangent] re God's vastness. Have you seen the latest Hubble photographs? Aren't they beautiful?
And if there were life on the outer edges of one of those star nurseries, what then? What we see now is something that happened light-years in the past. And while we can see both edges of the galaxy at the same time - though with considerable hindsight! - they - being light-years apart, cannot see each other.

And if we can begn to get our heads round that,
what might a God know? [/Tangent]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I am a very rare visitor to Kerygmania, and I am also a legislative drafter.

So apologies for the delayed reaction, but I thought I would just pop in here and say I found the rendition of Leviticus 5 utterly hilarious in the best possible way.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

If you enjoyed that I think you would like Exodus, which is now in Limbo.

Moo

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

The next in what could be a long list of English translations of Hebrew words that could really do with a make over: Torah.

Pretty universally translated by 'Law', I think this is another example of a word that drags more into the Bible than was intended by the author(s) and leads to confusion. By extension, the same could be said of 'Law' as a translation of nomos in the NT.

The challenge: what word could be used in English to translate the meaning of Torah (and nomos)? I've had a go by using 'Standard' in the Leviticus thread in an attempt to allow the whole of the first five books to be considered, narrative as well as regulation. The Pentateuch becomes The Standard, within which one finds standards.

Even that word, though, fails to do justice to Torah as a concept. It sounds like a newspaper. Anyway, what do others think? Are we doomed (as with some other words in Hebrew) to resort to multiple-words-in-a-phrase in translation, or to a word like 'Law' accompanied by hefty footnotes? Or do we transliterate with hefty footnotes?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

The Rule?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The Rule?

That's not bad - it conjures up the idea of regulation as well as a baseline for measuring acceptable behaviour.

In fact, if it weren't for the fact that we Christians had already filched the idea, I would have suggested calling it "The Canon!"

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Cycle through the synonyms used in Psalm 119?

[eta link]

[ 02. August 2010, 19:57: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The Rule?
That's not bad - it conjures up the idea of regulation as well as a baseline for measuring acceptable behaviour.

In fact, if it weren't for the fact that we Christians had already filched the idea, I would have suggested calling it "The Canon!"

It is not uncommon for Jewish writers to use "teaching" or the like.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

So...if the early Hebrews were monotheists...where did this "Azazel" guy come from and why did they make offerings to him?

Is this a detail the deuteronomist missed?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Whoever edited these sections must have had a bad day if he missed all four of the entries in chapter 16! I rather think their inclusion was deliberate. The translators of the Septuagint had a problem with this word, though. They appear to have assumed the word was a combination of two Hebrew words: the noun for 'goat' (az) and the verb 'depart' (azal) – hence “the one [goat] to be sent off” and the idea of carrying off evil into the wilderness as a scape-goat. The back-translated Hebrew sentence construction that would result is a bit tricky, however, in that it makes the goat go to itself.

If the Hebrew of BHS is correct, then the later book of Enoch has this refer to a demon-god, an evil spirit. As Leviticus is not presenting the goat as a sacrifice, I suppose it's possible that later Jews were not too hung up on the idea of there being a demon in the wilderness (it would be too unbelievable to have the passage refer to a sacrifice to a demon!). The key question is whether the author of Leviticus understood 'Azazel' to mean a demon. The word is unique to chapter 16, which would be strange if the author and his readers knew of thee existence of such a demon associated with the wilderness – especially given the years of trek through that territory. Still, there is Lev. 17:7 with its prohibition on the demonstration of loyalty by sacrifice to 'he-goats' (the demons in goat form – satyrs). It's a different word form, but might refer to the same thing.

Whichever reading is taken, verses 8 and 9 of chapter 16 have to be understood somehow in the context of verse 10:

quote:
Masoretic Text (BHS)
...the goat which was selected by lot for Azazel shall be stood alive before the Lord to make atonement on it to send it away to Azazel to the wilderness.

LXX
...the goat which the lot fell on of the one to carry away evil, he shall set it alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, to send it away into the place for sending away, he shall let it go into the wilderness.

The Lord makes atonement on it. The NIV falls over several stools (again!) here – the translator assumes that the atonement (whatever that is) is effected by the sending of the goat off into the wilderness. That's not what the text says. The NIV also follows the earlier tradition of translating 'azalel' by 'scapegoat.' I can't help wondering if this hasn't led the translator to prefer the idea of atonement being the act of sending away. Better, perhaps, to avoid the mistake of reading into this text something that may not be there by keeping 'Azalel' as it is.

I suppose we can't avoid here the link to 'atonement' and the 'atonement seat' in this chapter. The gold seat-thingy first makes an appearance at the planning stage, but it is not until here (Lev. 16) that its use is demonstrated. Interestingly, the blood of the sacrificed animals is used with respect to offsetting in some way the impact of the people’s rebellions on the Tent (and thus on the Lord), yet the offsetting-goat-for-Azazel goes off, blood and all. No sacrifice there.

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Re: azazel, have either of you seen this lexicon entry from Gesenius?

Also: "Heb. Azazel, that is, the goat-gone-away. The Hebrew [ ] has been supposed by some to be the name of a place, either a mountain or cliff, to which the goat was led. But no place of that name has ever been pointed out, except a mountain near Sinai, which was too distant for the goat to be conducted there from Jerusalem. Other learned men think it was the name of the devil, who was worshipped by the heathen in the form of a goat. But Bp. Patrick justly objects to this opinion; for it is difficult to conceive, that when the other goat was offered to God, this should be sent among demons. The more probable opinion seems to be, that it was name given to the goat itself, on account of his being let go; from aiz, a goat, and azal, to depart. So LXX. [~apopompaov~] and Vulgate emissarius, sent away; Aquila and Symmachus [~tragov apercomenov~] or [~apolelumenov~:] the goat going away, or dismissed."

There are a bunch of commentaries and teachings there at BlueLetterBible; I've not gone through all of them yet. I do find it useful to bear in mind that the Septuagint was translated in the third century before Christ whereas the Masoretic text is post-Christian; so if you're looking for Jewish thought unencumbered by Christian overtones, the Septuagint is arguably more accurate; the Masoretic is reactionary.

It may be a better translation, by and large, but it's definitely reactionary (e.g., the whole virgin/young woman variance from Isaiah 7).

So I don't think azazel is a guy/demon/whatever and I do think 'scapegoat' is a better understanding - but that leads to the whole "slain outside the camp" thing, which Hebrews 13 references - so nope, can't let that stand.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

On Leviticus 18:25 (and following) all the translations I have seen agree that the land "vomits" out its inhabitants. As a metaphor, it is great, but was it supposed to imply some sort of natural event and, if so, what? At first I was thinking of a volcano, but surely there weren't any in the area at the time, were there? Could the thought have been of an earthquake (sort of the dry heaves, I guess)?

I admit that I have been a bit hesitant of late to contribute to the Non-Stop, particularly with Leviticus, which I find rather difficult to "translate" into Non-Stoppage. But even ignoring that, I am keenly aware that I am not nearly as learned as others who contribute and I worry greatly that I am getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.

But then I started feeling guilty that Nigel M and Bullfrog are left carrying the load, so I have started contributing again. But my courage may leave me at any moment!

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Hedgehog:

Thanks to a recent move I have not been able to be online as oft as I used to be, but wanted to express my gratitude to you for having the courage to contribute and to say that you have no reason to be ashamed. Your post was funny and hit the right points. I wish more were as courageous as you.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Nigel M: It was a bit of a walk to the Meeting Tent and by the time he and his sons were within sprinkling distance he had run out of words to rhyme with “priest” so was reduced to...

“Hum diddle la, yiddle diddle phweest,
Yad da de dum bum, I'm going to be a priest!”

I know I'm a little late for this, but this had me tear-faced with laughter. I actually had to make an effort to hide this, because I read this at work, transforming my laughts into a rather unelegant snort.

I realize that this probably takes a lot of time and effort, but if some day you could go on with this thread it would be much appreciated!

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

The Second Thoughts thread is for more serious discussion. So, seriously, is there a typo in Leviticus when you get to 19:19? God has been talking about Justice and Love Your Neighbor As Your Self--pretty much key points in how we believe God wants us to interact with each other--and then suddenly He says: By the way, don't wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric????

Is that as random as it looks? Does it make sense to suddenly be discussing the Coat-Of-Many-Colors-But-Only-One-Fabric? Is there an explanation that would make such a prohibition a logical follow-up to what has gone before?

Actually, this is partially why I like doing the Non-Stop--because it (ironically) makes me stop and read carefully sections that I used to just blip over quickly without thinking.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I wonder if nearby people had some sort of religious requirement that you had to wear mixed fibers, at least under some circumstances.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think it was a kind of object lesson on not mixing up more important things, i.e. religions. A lot of the weirder purity laws seem to have been like that--don't sow 2 kinds of seed in same field, yoke two different species together, etc. etc. Even the dietary laws appear to be aimed at making sure you eat proper fish, fowl, land animals, and not the weirdo things that fall in between (crabs, for example, which haven't got scales like a proper fish!).

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

My guess is somebody made a vest out of linen with soft cotton arms, then washed the thing in water that was too hot. The cotton shrrank more than the linen....

Of course, some things are meant to be crooked, but they (HE) hadn't cottoned on to that yet. You know, like different woods to allow a bow to bend without snapping, not to mention all the metal thingies which only work because one heats up and expands faster than the other. I wonder if the local bowmakers kept the lid on the different woods thing, to keep their books full of replacement orders...

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

I've wondered if it had to do with quality (one is nicer than the other) or source material (one is from animal, the other from plants.)

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Is that as random as it looks? Does it make sense to suddenly be discussing the Coat-Of-Many-Colors-But-Only-One-Fabric? Is there an explanation that would make such a prohibition a logical follow-up to what has gone before?

You may not find it particularly satisfying, but I can offer an explanation of the way Swedenborgians interpret a passage such as Leviticus 19:19. Or rather, a similar passage such as Deuteronomy 22:11, which Bullfrog seems to be alluding to:

quote:
You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

I agree that such a prohibition makes no sense as a divine command from on high, from the creator of the universe, as part of a new religion with a new moral code of conduct. However, I take it as a strong indication that there is more going on here than is apparent from a literal reading. I do think that the Israelites were supposed to follow the law literally and not wear garments of mixed materials, but as Lamb Chopped points out, it can be taken as symbolic of something different.

Clothing is referenced all throughout the Bible, such as in very detailed descriptions that included as are part of various visions, including visions of Christ himself in Revelation. We (Swedenborgians) take all these references to various types of clothing as symbolic, external representations of the more abstract concept of how a person chooses to interact with others, because how we dress is often one of the most visible signs which other people take as cues about our attitude and which help determine how they treat us and respond to us. For a couple of extreme examples, we can easily offend a host if we choose to dress too informally as a guest at a formal occasion, or invite criticism if we were to dress entirely inappropriately in something like a Halloween costume at a Bible discussion group.

In the case of Deuteronomy 22:11, we interpret the literal reference to mixing wool and linen in clothing as a symbolic reference to mixing two very different modes of interaction. The interpretation we give to each material is based on the fact that, as Bullfrog pointed out, the former is derived from sheep and the latter is derived from the flax plant.

In general our relationships with each other are either based on love, or based on rules and norms - usually rules and norms derived from social context and culture. Because wool is derived from sheep and sheep are symbolic representations of innocence and purity, we interpret woolen clothing as symbolizing our interactions in relationships based on love. And because linen is derived from a plant, we interpret linen clothing as symbolizing our interactions in relations based on rules.

The reason we believe God prohibited the Israelites from wearing material mixed of wool and linen is that it was symbolic prohibition against mixing the two basic modes of interacting - one mode being for relationships based on love and one mode for relationships based on rules. Each mode of interacting is appropriate for its corresponding type of relationship, but once the relationship moves from being one based on rules to one based on love, the old mode of interacting is no longer appropriate. This idea is very abstract and therefore difficult for me to elaborate on, but that is also why I think God did not give the Israelites a straight-forward translation of this particular concept into specific ways of interacting that they should avoid. So instead of trying to elaborate, let me just give a couple of examples.

If I were to join a company as a new employee, I might be assigned a mentor who would be responsible for introducing me to my job and to the way the company operates. The mentor might also evaluate me and give me specific directions about what work I'm supposed to do or not do. Such a relationship would be somewhat formal and would tend to follow social norms about a relationship between people in unequal positions. If, over the next several years, the two of us were develop a very close friendship, our interactions would naturally evolve from being based on rules and norms to being based more on the nature of our friendship. If my friend were to suddenly revert to interacting with me according to our original relationship as my mentor, for whatever reason, our friendship could easily be severely jeopardized or even ruined because the two modes of interacting conflict with each other. Similarly, if two close friends join a company and one becomes the other's supervisor, things could easily get very messy.

As another example, if I were to take a class taught by my parent, I would expect that parent to treat me as a student in the class room, but as a family member otherwise. Treating me as a family member during class or as a student outside of class just would not work well and could easily cause resentment.

These examples are only examples and I'm sure the Biblical laws about mixed material clothing are actually about more important relationships than those in my examples. (I would imagine that they probably refer to something like relationships between priest and laity, or between people and God.) But I'm hoping that perhaps my examples serve to illustrate (although somewhat clumsily) a concept that is, at best, fuzzy in my own mind.

So to me, Leviticus 19:19 fits in just fine with the flow of the previous laws. Of course, this still leaves open the whole question of why God would have the Israelites follow such a law purely as a symbolic gesture, but that's a different discussion.

I'd be interested to hear whether this makes any sense to you (or anyone else) or not.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I would like to use two words to replace 'holy' and 'abomination'.

Instead of 'holy' I would use 'different' or even 'radical' depending on the context.

You are to be different, your behaviour is to be radical.

I would stop saying things are an abomination; instead I would use the word 'taboo'.

The idea is that for 'different' people, there are some things that are 'taboo'.

It's not that in themselves some of these things are intrinsically evil, it's just that for God's people - even when the reasoning is not always clear, some actions and behaviours are simply taboo.

i.e., God's people are different to others in society; for them, some things(acceptable to others) are taboo.

We are different, not better or morally superior.
We just don't do it.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I just want to clarify or emphasise a point - that if the injunction to be 'different' is what lies behind holiness, the question is, 'different to what'?

The answer is that Israel was chosen to be different to the other tribes and nations. So, if there was a practice, a ritual, a 'way of doing things' that was identifiably from a particular culture, God simply said, 'but you are different, so don't do X, y or z.'

A lot of what was cultural in other nations was intrinsically tied up with ritual practice - as we all know there was no religious/secular divide in the ancient world - so often, thinghs we see as unexplainable and unjustifiable - mixed fibres, for example - may well have their origin in the dress of an idolatrous tribe.

The injunction be 'different' therefore includes the taboo of wearing mixed fibres because, morally neutral as wool and cotton in a coat may well be, it actually would make the Israelites look very different to the Canaanite or Amalekite tribes who may have worn particular distinctive clothing.

Just a thought that highlights that holiness doesn't always mean internally pure, but can also simply mean 'look different' because you belong to YHWH.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Is that as random as it looks? Does it make sense to suddenly be discussing the Coat-Of-Many-Colors-But-Only-One-Fabric? Is there an explanation that would make such a prohibition a logical follow-up to what has gone before?

I was told long ago, and assumed that everyone else now did, that the Coat of many colours was a mistranslation. I was told that It was a coat with long sleeves, which meant that father-favoured Jospeph was not doing any menial, dirty work which would have required him to 'pull his sleeves up'.

quote:
The NetBible notes say:
It is not clear what this tunic was like, because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the OT. An examination of cognate terms in Semitic suggests it was either a coat or tunic with long sleeves (cf. NEB, NRSV), or a tunic that was richly embroidered (cf. NIV). It set Joseph apart as the favored one.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I was told long ago, and assumed that everyone else now did, that the Coat of many colours was a mistranslation. I was told that It was a coat with long sleeves, which meant that father-favoured Jospeph was not doing any menial, dirty work which would have required him to 'pull his sleeves up'.

Before this gets derailed, let me apologize. My reference to the Coat of Many Colors was just me being whimsical. I was thinking about a requirement of a garment being of only one fabric, and my mind, being what it is, immediately cross-referenced it with the traditional concept of the Coat of Many Colors. And it struck me as funny to think of a garment of many colors while a religious prohibition required it to be made of one fabric. Sorry. It is just the way my mind works. I keep promising myself to restrain the impulse to be whimsical on these boards, but to be honest, it ain't never gonna happen. I know myself too well. Honestly, it is why I feel at home in the Non-Stop threads.

W Hyatt, thank you for your response. I am not sure sure that I am convinced by it, but it is a fascinating perspective on the issue. It still strikes me as odd that God (the one of Many-Tenses, as Non-Stop likes to say), would suddenly go allegorical when the verses before were decidedly non-allegorical. But, honestly, that might not be God. That might be a monk in, oh, say, the 800s trying to "clarify" things for us. God bless him.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

I would have been amazed if you were convinced by it. Since it's a way of interpreting the Bible that doesn't get much air time, and since the passage is one that is so puzzling, I thought it was good time to present it as at least one possible approach to making sense of that particular passage.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
...is there a typo in Leviticus when you get to 19:19? God has been talking about Justice and Love Your Neighbor As Your Self--pretty much key points in how we believe God wants us to interact with each other--and then suddenly He says: By the way, don't wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric????

Is that as random as it looks?

I found it helpful to pick up on the linguistic clues floating around in Leviticus to distinguish between two different types of command: the universals and the specific case studies. When the author is specifying a universal law (for his people) the relevant verb is presented using the second person plural (predominantly masculine, imperfect tense). When the subject is a ruling on a specific case, now presented as case law, the relevant verb is in the second person singular. For example, in 19:11-12 there is a queue of universals in the plural:

“Don't steal, don't lie, don't deceive, don't make bad promises...”

This is followed by a series of individual laws that hang off the universals, from v12 to v14. They could be presented as case law in a paraphrase:

“The court ruled that the defendant had made God's name worse than common.
“The court ruled that the defendant had bullied the victim.
“The court ruled that the defendant had committed robbery.
“The court ruled that the defendant had unfairly held back the wages from the victim.

I would guess that these were compiled along side the universals so add to their clarification, as examples for future courts to take into account. Sometimes it is just the verbs that add the clarification (e.g., 'to rob' rather than just 'to steal').

Verse 19 pans out this way under that schema: The universal is the initial “My decrees you (all) MUST keep.” This is followed by the three case law specifics: the breeder who cross-bred too far, the farmer who crossed the boundary, and a type of cross-dressing. A possible reason why these three linked cases appear here is that Leviticus is all about distinguishing the God of the people from the gods and peoples (and practices) of those round about. You can't serve two gods (in another context, you can't serve God and Mammon), so don't try to mix and match. Keep God's decrees, not those of Ra, Adad, Bel, Ba'al, Antu, Shamash....

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Nigel M!!! You are back!! [Yipee]

Best news I have had all day!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
“First: when My People arrive in the land, DO NOT eat any fruit from trees you plant until after three years in. Fruit from the fourth year must be offered to me (in case the people forget which God gave them the fruit), but after that they can eat all the fruit they like.

Garden of Eden! Garden of Eden!

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Best news I have had all day!

It was a slow news day for me, too, Hedgehog!

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Garden of Eden! Garden of Eden!

It's an interesting question: was the creation/Eden episode known when these Levitical judgments were passed (or even vice versa)? Did one have an influence on the other? Even if they didn't, we could always to the human thing and make connections to see where they lead.

A more literal rendering of Lev. 19:23 runs:

quote:
And when you come to the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, you must consider its fruit to be like uncircumcised foreskin for three years. It must not be eaten.

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to look at a Pink Lady in quite the same light again.

One link to make would be the typological* one – Eden is (or should be) a type of the land that was gifted to Israel. There are some similarities, but also some differences to Leviticus: although 'fruit' in Eden is mentioned in general terms, we do have the specific fruit tagged to knowledge and life, something not apparently alluded to in Leviticus, where the emphasis is more on making a clear divide between what went before (unclean) and what comes after (holy). Another difference is the time limitation in Leviticus, though again that is consonant with the nature of the fruit referred to there compared to the reference in Eden.

Still. Adam/Eve went from holy to unclean – or possibly just common – after eating the fruit. Israel would also be considered unclean if they ate the fruit before its time. Every silver lining has a cloud; and any good Christian sermon writer would now have to ask the question that has rattled around my mental cage for a number of years: Where did the land go? And: If Eden had forbidden fruit and the land had forbidden fruit, what is the typological 'forbidden fruit' for Christians?

The “Where did the land go?” question relates to Christians. If mankind at creation had Eden and Israel had the land, what is the equivalent gift for Christians? Did that aspect of God's creation end with the OT or, along with tabernacle-Temple-body and passover-Lord's Supper, etc, is there a biblical theme carrying over?

I've seen a few attempts to answer that question down the years, e.g., land as the whole earth, as koinonia (Christian fellowship), as gifts of the Holy Spirit..., but none really make a consistent case. This might be good news, of course. If we no longer have an Eden/Land on earth today, then we can tuck into Pink Ladies without qualm.

* Defining 'typology' along the lines of “The person or work of God as seen in two or more people, events, or institutions.” This allows room to see types being picked up within the OT itself and not just the links between OT and NT.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Um, it's the new heavens and new earth (aka the New Jerusalem). See Hebrews.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um, it's the new heavens and new earth (aka the New Jerusalem). See Hebrews.

I'm not sure, LC. The new heaven-cum-earth is a future reality and Hebrews places the believer on the road through the wilderness to it. We are still in exile, as it were, but have a ground for our hope of entering the rest. If anything, the writer to the Hebrews has the Christian in the same place as wilderness Israel, (and to extend the typology - Babylonian-exiled Jew). We do have a better hope (the example of Jesus), but we still have to press on to the promised land. Perhaps what Hebrews is doing is making an analogy, rather than typology.

The difference for the Jew by the time of Jesus was that they had the promise of an Eden/Land before they went to be with God at death. There was an 'already' as well as a 'not yet.' Christianity picked that theme up because it had a brilliant fit with the person and work of Jesus. But it leaves open the question of what exactly the 'land' became in a Christian context of the 'already' part of God's promise fulfilment scheme. Are we doomed to have to push that element off to the bright new future?

There is an argument that this is exactly what we have to do and it has its parallels in Judaism. Just as (so the argument goes) Judaism had to reconcile itself with the fact that the land and end of exile seemed to be denied them, at least as far as squaring reality with prophecy went, so Christianity latched onto that way of thinking and let the theme of land fall away.

Is there a 'land' for us here and now?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, I DO think we're in the wilderness phase right now, and no surprise if Egypt corresponds to slavery to sin, the Red Sea crossing to baptism, and Jordan to entry into God's Kingdom (either at death or Christ's second coming; cf. the whole Joshua/Jesus thing).

However, if you prefer to look at it from an "already" perspective, the land we have now is the whole earth. "I saw people from every tribe and nation..." and so forth. "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof". "You will be my witnesses ... to the end of the earth." And so on.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

@ Nigel: I was mostly just being silly. I have had a hobby horse in the past about the Tree of the Knowledge, ETC, being forbidden not forever, but until the fruit was ripe. I gleefully leapt on the above text as supporting my er, parbaked theory. [Big Grin]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um...

Um-hum?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Lamb Chopped:
Yes, I think you're right – we are thrown back on the 'whole earth' as a revamp of 'land.' Personally, though I can see the fit, it doesn't feel totally adequate because we are not stewards of our own ship under God in quite the way that Israel was in the land. We have to deal with the rule of others. If we look for a condition where we do have greater autonomy from our pagan neighbours and enslavers then we have to fall back on 'church' (or body of Christ) as organised fellowship. This aspect, however, has already been typologically grabbed by the tabernacle-temple-church line.

Perhaps, though, this whole typological approach to bible reading is a fool's errand (no better place to discuss it than on a Ship of Typologists) and we should rather limit ourselves to analogy: a side-by-side comparison and contrast between states of affairs, rather than a linear God-ordained plan that will have to have fulfilments in all aspects.

That would take a chunk of fun out of bible reading, though.

Kelly:
Many a powerful thought can be traced back to serendipitous malarkey! I used to do some of my best thinking during Sunday sermons.

Although Genesis 2-3 doesn't set a time limit on eating the fruit, compared to Leviticus, there is a (sort of) common theme lurking in the background: the snake. Whether by design or coincidence (I prefer design) the Hebrew for 'snake' (noun = nahash) is cognate to the verb for practising divination. We have the noun in close proximity to fruit in Gen 3 and the verb under prohibition in Lev. 19:26, a couple of verses away from fruit. Dodgy link, I know!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Typology is very useful if you have a mind that naturally thinks that way! As I do. And I think the Bible caters for that type as well as the more ... normal???? [Snigger]

Actually, "the world" fits "the land" even better if you consider the true situation of ancient Israel in Palestine. Whatever they were intended to do, the fact was they left large pockets of unconverted idol worshippers in, with, and around their own settlements, which meant a constant temptation to idolatry and going off the track. Well, we've got that too. Although our mandate was NEVER to exterminate or drive out the unbelievers, rather to make disciples. But that too requires us to get up close and personal (and to love, and to lay down our lives for!) people who have extremely different priorities at times to ours, and who have power, and who understandably are trying to drag world affairs in the direction they feel things should go. So not so different from ancient Israel in the land after all.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Re: azazel, have either of you seen this lexicon entry from Gesenius?

Hadn't looked that up; thanks for linking, LMC.

I take your point about the dating of MT over LXX versions, though both need treating text-critically on their own grounds, I think, given the plethora of manuscripts that have become available – including the Dead Sea Scroll witnesses for proto-MT as well as MT texts. 'Azazel', for example, appears in scroll 4Q23, matching the MT, so it seems to have a good heritage.

The LXX still suffers from a rather disjointed back-translation into Hebrew if apopompaios is taken as a translation of something approximating az-azal and appended to the goat itself as a name. We end up with a goat named az-azal being sent of to, or for, az-azal (i.e., itself). Someday someone will dig up a stele in, say, Edom, with a nice little inscription about goats that will allow us all to say “Ah! So that's how they did it!” And then we can all be atoned for properly.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(more tub-thumping) Isn't divination trying to access knowledge before it naturally comes to you? [Big Grin]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(more tub-thumping) Isn't divination trying to access knowledge before it naturally comes to you?

I think that's called Wikipedia.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
The difference for the Jew by the time of Jesus was that they had the promise of an Eden/Land before they went to be with God at death. There was an 'already' as well as a 'not yet.' Christianity picked that theme up because it had a brilliant fit with the person and work of Jesus. But it leaves open the question of what exactly the 'land' became in a Christian context of the 'already' part of God's promise fulfilment scheme. Are we doomed to have to push that element off to the bright new future?

Apologies for arriving late at this discussion.

In considering the promise of land to the Jews and early Christians I think it's worth looking at the vision of the restored kingdom in Ezekiel (chapters 40 - 48) and comparing this with the parallel passage at the end of Revelation (21.1 - 22.5).

The Ezekiel passage deals mainly with the vision of the restored temple, but includes a vision of the restored land (47.13-48.29) with sections precisely allocated to each tribe, to the resident aliens and to the princely ruler. This vision for the land has never been realised so although it's a concrete vision of real, physical land it is nonetheless in an ideal future.

The Revelation author takes the Ezekiel vision and adapts it to the new promises of Christianity. The parallelisms are striking - the city with the river of life flowing through it, the trees with healing leaves and so on - but the differences are highly significant and the most important difference is that in the Christian vision there is NO temple and no priestly caste because God is dwelling with his people and all of them can see him face to face. Revelation makes no mention of dividing the land - the earth is a new earth, the heavens are new, and the City has come down from heaven to be the dwelling place of God with men.

The point is that the early Christians believed Jesus was returning very soon and would return before most of them died. So they would experience the City of God in the renewed heaven and earth before death, and that was the nature of the promise.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

One minor caveat--the book of Revelation was written very late, whether you accept the apostle John as the author (in which case old age) or some other John even later than that. So quite a few of the Christians, in fact the whole apostolic generation, was basically gone already-and the church was adjusting to the fact that the End was not quite yet. (Probably also beginning to realize just how large "to the ends of the earth" really was.)

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Yes indeed. I did say "early" Christians - not Christians at the time of Jesus.

But I don't think that negates the argument. The Christian promise in Revelation of a re-making of heaven and earth is to happen in the present world and there will be Christians alive when it happens. It isn't a vision of an afterlife somewhere else, it's a vision of this world transformed by God's presence everywhere rather than (as in Ezekiel) just in the temple.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

How do you see this playing out Chamois? Do you read the passages as an indication that the better state will come gradually, or will there be a definite point in time when God actively intervenes to bring heaven and earth together? Is this a case of humans building Jerusalem on England's green(ish) and pleasant (sort of) land or do we do what we can while awaiting a final resolution (I'll leave out the other option for now – the 'do nothing' option)? I ask because I know there are those on board who favour the gradual human approach. I tend towards the other view, partly because there seem to be some new-heaven-and-earth factors that are beyond human redemption, e.g., carnivores becoming veggie eaters (Isa. 11:6-9 or Isa. 65:17-25).

Re: the temple point, I suppose it could be argued that when God dwells with man in the heaven and earth combined, then the new state is the temple. This in a way compares with indications from archaeological findings from the ancient near east that the state's temple was a reflection of the heavenly sphere and that one had to get the dimensions/layout correct, or one's god would decline the offer of residing in it.

It's an interesting trail from Eden to Revelation – not sure if it is typological or not! I hadn't considered Leviticus as featuring strongly in that line. Interesting, indeed.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Yes indeed. I did say "early" Christians - not Christians at the time of Jesus.

But I don't think that negates the argument. The Christian promise in Revelation of a re-making of heaven and earth is to happen in the present world and there will be Christians alive when it happens. It isn't a vision of an afterlife somewhere else, it's a vision of this world transformed by God's presence everywhere rather than (as in Ezekiel) just in the temple.

Vote "Yes" for people alive when it happens, but "I'm not so sure" on this present world being exactly the same when and while it happens. I'm thinking about all those passages tht speak of reality being "rolled up like a scroll" and taken away, also "worn out like a garment"--seems to imply a kind of exchange. Not that it matters much!

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
How do you see this playing out Chamois? Do you read the passages as an indication that the better state will come gradually, or will there be a definite point in time when God actively intervenes to bring heaven and earth together?

Based on Jesus's words, it's surely got to be a definite moment? When the Son of Man will come on clouds and every eye will behold him? In the meantime the kingdom of God does grow gradually, but I think there will come a point when God dramatically re-makes the world. Perhaps it's like a chick forming gradually in the egg: when the moment is right the shell cracks open and the bird is born.

Having said that, I'm not too interested in end-of-the-world stuff so I haven't thought about it very much.

quote:
Re: the temple point, I suppose it could be argued that when God dwells with man in the heaven and earth combined, then the new state is the temple. This in a way compares with indications from archaeological findings from the ancient near east that the state's temple was a reflection of the heavenly sphere and that one had to get the dimensions/layout correct, or one's god would decline the offer of residing in it.

Yes I agree. It also has something to do with the veil in the temple being ripped apart at the crucifixion so that nothing now separates God and man. For Ezekiel the temple is of central importance and his detailed vision of it goes on for pages and pages. It's a very "priestly" vision, don't you think? All the stuff about who is allowed to enter by which gate and all the rules about sacrifices etc. In Revelation the whole priestly thing is done away with: there is no temple, the gates of the city are open to everyone all the time and all the kings of the earth will bring their multitudes. Universal access to God. And instead of the twelve tribes Revelation has the twelve apostles as the patrons of the city gates.

The Ezekiel/Revelation parallelism also resonates with the passage in Hebrews where the terrifying revelation of Yahweh on Sinai is contrasted with the new dispensation.

Sorry, this is getting a very long way from Leviticus.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

On the line from Eden to New Heaven-Earth, it's possible that Leviticus sets out the principles needed for a believer to be in, but not of, the whole earth – the discipline needed to be different from lifestyles associated with the other gods (or lack thereof). Perhaps there is a connection here with the training up of those who have just become Christian. Just as Israel needed the point driven home time and again about distinctives before they were allowed to enter the promised land, so perhaps those new to the Christian faith need the training to stand on their own two feet in the faith before they are let loose in the 'land.'

Not every church does this very well. Spiritual / faithful growth is not always on the agenda.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Leviticus 23:1-22

Nigel M - this is the best yet!

[Killing me]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Amen to that. And I am now going to address the Lord as He Who Bangs on until it ceases to make me giggle.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Again awesome.
And finally a proof text that all foreign (and posh public schools) footballs are wrong, so even the typo's are blessed with genius [Smile]

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Bullfrog, thank you very much for taking care of Leviticus 25:13-24. I confess that I have stared at it for a couple days and was stumped with how to convey it.

That whole bit fromLeviticus 25:20-22, namely:

quote:
You may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant or harvest our crops?” I will send you such a blessing in the sixth year that the land will yield enough for three years. While you plant during the eighth year, you will eat from the old crop and will continue to eat from it until the harvest of the ninth year comes in.

is a bit...intimidating. I mean, I understand the point. Trust in God: Lilies of the field, birds of the air, etc. But still! Do we have any historical evidence that this plan (of simply trusting that the 6th year harvest will be good enough to last two years) was ever actually tried? And if so, more than once?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

That's a very interesting question. Frankly, I don't know, though I know that scholars have written books on the subject of whether the "Leviticus project" was ever realized. There are probably some deeper questions and assumptions in play here.

I think in the current thread I'm tending toward minimalist, simplistic reads that take the story at face value. It would be interesting to see what people are bringing to the text when they...erm...paraphrase.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Difficult to find a defined definition of the word 'paraphrase' when used in relation to bible translation. Probably every version of the bible is a paraphrase in a basic sense - saying what the author meant using different words. Or at least one would hope so! There may be occasions when a version could very easily be saying what the translator thought the text means using different words.

As pretty much every word in a translation of a foreign sentence needs footnotes to get across the meaning in context, I guess I'm having fun with these Bible nonstop threads trying to get the meaning across in context using extra words, rather than footnotes!

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

And, once again, I post my "translation" first and THEN I come here with a question about it. This really is bass ackwards of me, isn't it?

But my question is on the shekels in Leviticus 27:1-7. For the adults, it is specified that the shekels are to be by the standard of the sanctuary, but when we get to the children, the text explicitly shifts to "shekels silver." Is that different from the Sanctuary Standard? If you just say "shekels" and don't specify "silver" is it assumed that the shekels are to be of gold or something? In short, why does the text go out of its way to refer to "shekels silver" for the children and not for the adults?

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

I've had a dig around the topic, Hedgehog, and it seems that shekel could be used to refer to weight, monetary value, or even area of land (though perhaps that is a secondary referral, based on monetary value). Money was paid out in weighted amounts during the Bronze Age, so in the OT reference to 'shekel' was likely to be a unit of weight, rather than a coin as such. You could have an amount of 'shekels in silver' (e.f., Ex. 21:32), which might have been a term used to define monetary value as opposed to any other use of shekel. Another term, similar in nature, is the 'gold shekel' (1 Chron. 21:25).

The sanctuary shekel, as opposed to a common shekel of weight, was around 11 grams. Apparently it was different to the normal monetary shekel, which weighed around 10 grams, according to archaeological finds.

It seems to have been an expensive thing to dedicate someone to serving God – unless one got in early with one's young child. A bit like planning for the kid's university career just after birth. Less expensive to park one's elderly relative in a temple job than a fit working male!

Posted by Elspethp (# 15716) on :

The mixing of fabrics interpretation makes a lot of sense in the context of the preceding verses which all seem to be about how to be a decent human being. The interpretation could be understood as equating to today's concept of professional boundaries - if I have a professional relationship with someone as a social worker, teacher, doctor etc. then it would be inappropriate to develop a social relationship with them, and seriously wrong to develop a sexual relationship.

On the other hand, all the preceding verses seem quite straightforward so why not this one? Personally I suspect a typo (or ancient scribal equivalent) - it would only take one word for this to actually be about avoiding perhaps mixed marriages. And certainly the Jewish people are stilll unhappy when they're progeny marry 'out' - my parents in law were definitely unhappy about it!

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Shekels of silver and shekels of the sanctuary appear in the same passage at Lev 5:15.

RSV: "...valued by you in shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary..."

JPS: "...convertible into payment in silver by the sanctuary weight..."

Looking again at Lev 27:1-7, it also uses silver and sanctuary shekels together at the start of the passage, in verse 3:

RSV: "...fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary."

JPS: "...fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary weight."

So I don't attribute any particular significance to the fact that later mentions of shekels in this passage leave out sanctuary, and sometimes leave out silver. I take them all to mean silver shekels, of the sanctuary weight for shekels.

I wish I were a Talmudic scholar, though, to know what the rabbis have said about this fluctuation in wording.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

RE: Lev. 27:16-25

Good timing in view of discussions elsewhere on the Board.

This passage provides another passing example of the distinction drawn between the holy and the ultra holy, between above-the-norm and super-above-the-norm. It is between the regular dedication / consecration of an object (verb qadash = קָדַשׁ), and our old friend haram (verbal equivalent of the noun herem = חָרַם).

The land (in this passage) can be 'holy' if it is dedicated/consecrated. However, it will be moved up the scale to complete devotion (holy of holies) under certain circumstances.

And thus with certain types of war...

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Well, the end seems a bit anticlimactic. Though I suppose, were I a priest, I would like to know the details of how my pay would be administrated...

Shall we move on to Numbers? Take a break?

My recollection of reading the Bible cover-to-cover is that Leviticus is the worst of it. Surely it gets more fun from here... [Two face]

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Numbers has great stuff. Rebellion in the ranks, wars, dissension, leprosy! I'm giggling already!

Compared to Leviticus--where we dealt with, oh, what sort of thread to sew up garments--Numbers is fun. Oh, admittedly, it starts slow with all those, you know, numbers, but it gets better!

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Yes, it could be downhill from here!

What do we make of Leviticus as a whole, now we've trawled through it? I picked up the following themes:-

[1] A rather intense desire to put clear water between the practical ways of living associated with the ancient near east and the way such living should be lived in God's empire. There is an acceptance that the Israelites would want to do what they have always done (because everyone else does it), but Leviticus defines the practices in such a way that anyone visiting the Israelite encampment would notice: “Interesting; they do it as well, but not quite in the same way...”

[2] Loads of case law. It seems that a practical understanding of how God would want his people to live is developed by way of specific, real-life incidents that needed clarification. The role of the judiciary is very important (which probably meant the wise elders with long beards, making rather impressive use of forensics for that time).

[3] The rather natty distinction between normal activity and processes below and above that norm, with an added bonus for really above the norm: the unclean-clean-holy distinction, with holy-of-holies at the pinnacle. This paradigm spins off into all of life and what one does with one's 'stuff.'

[4] Sabbath – Sabbatical Year – Jubilee. Another natty principle.

[5] Extrapolating a bit, but it's fun also to see how these themes are picked up in the NT. Leviticus for all the family.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0