|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Deborah and Jael - Israel's "sexy deliverers"?
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
In case anybody's interested, I did find some "Biblical Romance stories" online - a kind of Harlequin Midrash, I guess - and there's one there about Jael and Sisera. Lot's of torn bodices and heaving bosoms, etc.:
quote:
Sisera came into the tent and she bade him to lie down, and she covered him with a blanket. She also lie down in her own bed, waiting to see if he would fall asleep. But Sisera could not sleep. He knew that the men of Israel would eventually discover his whereabouts and kill him. And his fear was transformed into a passion wherein he wished to lose himself. So Sisera arose from his bed and slipped into the bed of Jael. When she protested, he silenced her by dint of his strength. She begged him, "My lord, do not so to a woman who has hidden you in her tent." He replied, "Ah, but I wish to hide in your arms. Am I not a man of valor? Have I not sped? Shall I not divide the prey? To every soldier a damsel or two. To Sisera a prey of the spoil. A prey of the softness of a woman. Be still and submit to me, for I am a mighty soldier. And you are meet for me."
And he poured all of his remaining strength into her body, for she was widowed young, and her face and body were still pleasing to men. Sisera was spent but he still trembled in fear for his life. He said to her, "I am thirsty. Give me please some water to drink." Jael said to him, "Now sleep, my lord, and you will be well hidden here with me." So she prepared milk for him into which she had poured a potion, and he drank. Shortly he was overcome with sleepiness. As he drifted off, he repeated,
"Baal has failed me. He has not been strong against YHWH." He closed his eyes and as he fell into the trance, she said to him, "Yes, all the gods of Canaan are as non-gods to Him, for He is strong. My father's house left off from following the Baalim, for they wished to worship the God of Israel. So am I named for Him, for my name means 'YHWH is God', and I am the servant of YHWH, and you have defiled me before Him this day with your uncircumcision." Then she arose, and as he slept, she drove a spike through his head so that he died there in her tent. Then Jael went out and met Barak and Deborah and told them that Sisera lay dead in her tent. So the Israelites prevailed against the Canaanites after that day more and more, by JHVH's power, until they killed Jabin, king of Canaan.
It does bring some interesting possibilities to mind, I must say .... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Are you saying people read that sort of stuff for fun, TubaMirum? I've seen better writing in primary school, although not on such a theme!
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
No one's asking anyone to "swallow" anything, but rather to recognize that it is a well-documented interpretation that is considered valid by a majority of scholars in the field, and hence something to at least take seriously, even if you disagree.
If you don't like it, that's fine. I didn't invent this interpretation, I just happen to agree with it, and I hope others find it fruitful as well.
I must admit I thought it was what was commonly accepted amongst scholars when I was studying Ruth at Oxford Uni (only as an undergrad tho), both from the commentaries and the Dons. That's not to say there weren't other interpretations, but that was what was held to be the commonly held view.
(re: feet being a euphemism for genitals )
[ 03. May 2007, 12:53: Message edited by: Emma. ]
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
My problem with the theory is that the OT frequently makes very specific references to genitals. Why should they start using euphemisms?
Not only does the OT specifically mention genitals when that is the topic, there are also discussions of other matters where sexual terms are used as metaphors, e.g. Ezekiel 23:19-20, quote:
Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My problem with the theory is that the OT frequently makes very specific references to genitals. Why should they start using euphemisms?
Maybe for the same reason that we sometimes use specific references at times, and at other times use euphemisms?
The instance you quoted was an abstract reference to Israel's apostasy, where a specific reference is appropriate (for prophetic shock value), whereas actual narratives of a specific story are better suited for euphemisms, where the words would not derail the story.
(Maybe also because "The Old Testament" is not a monolithic literary product with a consistent use of language from Genesis to Malachi?)
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith
whereas actual narratives of a specific story are better suited for euphemisms, where the words would not derail the story.
The use of euphemism implies that the topic has to be handled very delicately. The use of explicit language throughout the OT indicates to me that they did not feel the need to use euphemism. I don't believe that overtly sexual language would have derailed the story for the listeners of those times. They were accustomed to calling a spade a spade.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The use of euphemism implies that the topic has to be handled very delicately. The use of explicit language throughout the OT indicates to me that they did not feel the need to use euphemism. I don't believe that overtly sexual language would have derailed the story for the listeners of those times. They were accustomed to calling a spade a spade.
Then that would raise the question of whether "The Old Testament" is a monolithic literary product with a consistent use of language from Genesis to Malachi.
Perhaps the prophetic author(s) of Ezekiel were used to calling a spade a spade, but the authors of Judges, working with earlier poetic material, were probably more inclined to get creative...
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
On the contrary. I think that the text certainly indicates that Jael acted seductively towards Sisera, and it's not wholly unreasonable to suggest she had sex with him. I do think, though, that it's not intrinsic to the narrative to read it in that way, and that if the intent were to make us think so for sure, it would be more explicit. Judges is pretty explicit when the need arises.
My reason for thinking that Jael probably did not have sex with Sisera – put yourself in this position:
Your day started badly – a subordinate told you that the Israelites were assembling an army to defy your master, and you realised that they needed to be crushed – and fast – if King Jabin’s authority was to be upheld. But you weren’t too worried – your 900 hundred iron-clad chariots were a formidable army, and you had proved on many raids that Israel has nothing to rival them.
After half a day’s march up the valley, the Kishon in full flood on your left flank, you reach a confluence of streams feeding into it, opposite Megiddo and Taanach. It might be raining, and visibility is poor. Your chariots are at the head of your column of march, and your scouts are out in strength, but have not yet sighted the enemy. You cross the stream in front of you with a few men to get a better sight of the valley as it turns south, and no sooner have your chariot wheels cleared the muddy banks, there’s a shout from behind you, and ten thousand screaming Israelites come charging out of the dead ground to the north and smash through the hastily formed line of infantry. Your charioteers do their best to break the enemy, but are hemmed in, facing uphill, on soft ground, and can do little to turn the tide. You can’t see what’s happening at the rear of the battle, but where you are, it does not look good. Your second in command looks at you with fear in his eyes: “We can’t hold them, master. We just have to hope the rearguard know their work, and will beat them.” Already, the Canaanite ranks near you are wavering – there are men trying to swim the Kishon for safety, and Israelite dartsmen and slingers are picking them off at leisure. Your deputy speaks again “We’ll be overrun in minutes - you should save yourself while you can, master”. And indeed there are men coming across the ford now, spears stained with blood, and screaming the name of their god.
You turn your chariot away, but the pace is slow – maybe the wheels are clogged, or one of the ponies has been hurt, but it’s clear that you’ll do better, and be less easily seen, on foot. You run for it. You risk one look back, after a mile or so, and see the last of your elite charioteers dragged down and clubbed to death in the mud, while far beyond, the broken remnants of your infantry stream away to the west. You stumble on, expecting at any moment to hear the battle shout behind you, and to feel the shot stone in your back.
But no foe comes near you, and by the end of the day, you have taken your bearings and made your way to the tents of Heber, a Kenite outsider who has made his peace with King Jabin, presenting him with tribute and flattery in exchange for safety. Heber himself seems to be away, but his wife greets you as lord, and invites you to rest here without fear.
You aren’t safe, of course. Heber’s loyalty was never more than pragmatic, and he won’t risk his life for you. You are alone, and there is a victorious enemy army out looking for you. And your future looks bleak - Jabin’s rule was strong, but the loss of your army will be a severe blow to him, and who knows whether his subjects will answer his call while the Israelites remain unsubdued. But at least the horror of today is over.
What’s more likely – than you finish the drink offered you and collapse into an exhausted sleep; or that you calculate how long you think it’ll take Heber – the man whom you are now forced to trust for your survival – to get home from the pastures, and decide that that gives you just long enough to try to fuck his wife?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What’s more likely – than you finish the drink offered you and collapse into an exhausted sleep; or that you calculate how long you think it’ll take Heber – the man whom you are now forced to trust for your survival – to get home from the pastures, and decide that that gives you just long enough to try to fuck his wife?
Y'know, my position till now was ,"Nobody knows either way and why does it really matter?" but you just convinced me.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Then that would raise the question of whether "The Old Testament" is a monolithic literary product with a consistent use of language from Genesis to Malachi.
Perhaps the prophetic author(s) of Ezekiel were used to calling a spade a spade, but the authors of Judges, working with earlier poetic material, were probably more inclined to get creative...
I think the story which begins at Judges 19:22 is as explicit as Ezekiel.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
No, Moo, not quite - nothing about "emissions"...
Seriously though, that passage is one of the most disturbing in scripture. Lot offering his virgin daughters in Gen. 19:8 is right up there, but in that case the men refuse the daughters.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Seriously though, that passage is one of the most disturbing in scripture. Lot offering his virgin daughters in Gen. 19:8 is right up there, but in that case the men refuse the daughters.
I agree, and the ensuing war is just plain insane...(as I think I posted before).
But then, the punchline of the whole bloody massacre/sex fest was "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."
So maybe it's all just really extreme evidence to underline the oh-so-understated punchline at the end of the book.
But then, in Samuel, God expresses resentment against the monarchy (sorry I can't think of the exact citation). Hmmm...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Yes, I think it's the great underlining of "see how stupid you are when you live in anarchy?"
1 Sam. 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them." I find that pretty clear: God's ideal was that Israel obey Him as king, which clearly they did not, during the time of the judges.
But I can empathize with the Jews: it's hard to maintain a close and accountable relationship with an invisible Being. He gives us directions and wants us to get on with it and yet not drift away into doing our own thing and ignoring Him. It's a challenge.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
1 Sam. 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them." I find that pretty clear: God's ideal was that Israel obey Him as king, which clearly they did not, during the time of the judges.
This, I think, is the thing about Judges: the judges themselves are the prime ministers of God's kingship over Israel, but the people don't recognise this, and do as they please. This leads to them being subject to other kings - their neighbours - and so they demand an earthly king of their own, to protect them. They were not satisfied with God's kingship: how do they expect human kingship to be better?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Accepting what Teufelchen said about the antiquity of the composition (and the poetic piece in chapter 5 has many hallmarks of antiquity – e.g., obsolete language and syntax), I understand what BWSmith says about a final redaction of this book – though am pretty open on when that happened. I agree that authors, particularly authors in those times when the process of writing was expensive and time consuming, must have had a pretty good reason for putting on papyrus the words they used. I would think that the author of Judges intended to get a particular message across and that there was a reason for his decision to include both the narrative and the poetic versions of the Sisera episode in his work. Why? Why not use the narrative version on its own, which would fit with the style of the rest of the work? What was so special about the poetry that merited taking up all that extra expensive ink and time to include? One way to answer these questions is to try and answer another: What does the poetic section have that the narrative doesn’t?
Well, it has poetry, of course (yes, it’s always best to state the obvious up front). Is that significant? It does what Hebrew poetry does best – pulls the reader into the action, taking him and her through the stages by using rising parallelism. It raises a smile – especially that corking verse 27:
quote:
At her feet he sank,
he fell - there he lay;
At her feet he sank, he fell;
where he sank, there he fell –
Destroyed!
It is possible that the author felt that the effort involved in including chapter 5’s material was worth it simply because it was effective poetry, but as I say, that’s a pretty significant investment. Is there something else?
New elements in chapter 5 include the gloating against Sisera and his people; and the note of accusation against those in Israel who didn’t show up for the fight. The former may simply be expected as part of the nature of poetry – all that figurative and rhetorical language, etc. The latter is more significant, I think. The battle involved the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali, principally. The poem specifically names other tribes as being less than helpful here: Reuben, Gilead, Dan and Asher.
Whatever the reason, I think the significance lies elsewhere than in the story of either Deborah or Jael. I suspect there was no intent to allude to sexual behaviour in here because the aim of the piece is to leave Sisera extremely dead. Usually when we have euphemisms, the prime object of the euphemism (e.g. Ba’al “going aside” in 1 Kings 18:27 as a possible reference to the privy) is subject to one activity only: the euphemism connotes a single activity. With Sisera, the activity is his death – I assume that’s not in doubt? It doesn’t seem likely that the ‘tent peg’ would connote a form of sexual activity at one and the same time as it denotes a literal tent peg. Sisera either suffers an unexpected favour from Jael, or he is equally surprised by a hole in the head. I can’t really see how it can possibly be both.
And on a separate note: I am no expert in the arts of Karma Sutra, so I will need guidance from someone who is and who can tell me the hypothetical position that would be needed by a first party to engage in a sexual activity while trying to hammer a peg into the head of a second party. Just can’t picture it at the moment, I’m afraid.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
And on a separate note: I am no expert in the arts of Karma Sutra, so I will need guidance from someone who is and who can tell me the hypothetical position that would be needed by a first party to engage in a sexual activity while trying to hammer a peg into the head of a second party. Just can’t picture it at the moment, I’m afraid.
I'm no expert either, but I think this is theoretically possible from something as simple as a normal female superior position. However, the text tells us that Sisera was asleep at the time of the attack, which would be unlikely in such circumstances. Which further inclines me to your view - one action only is intended here, and as that's definitely nailing, it can't also be screwing.
T.
[ 04. May 2007, 14:18: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I suppose the nailing could have come after the screwing...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
They were not satisfied with God's kingship: how do they expect human kingship to be better?
Well said.
Apropos of Nigel, did ancient Israel write the Torah and Tanach on papyrus? I believe the Torah is always on parchment, isn't it? hmmm. I'll try to remember to ask Rabbi about Elijah on Mt Carmel, about that... but (I'm considering) even here in the USA, "do you need to go?" is perhaps the most common euphemism, used by mothers with young children.
I just don't see a lot of editing work done by the Jews in regard to these writings, even in the ancient past. The work is far too unflattering to have been edited by focus people, you know?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
The work is far too unflattering to have been edited by focus people, you know?!
Unless the point of the text was to make the era of the Judges look bad. It brings to mind a possible parallel in Chinese history where the only evidence we have of the Shang dynasty is polemics made using them as negative archetypes by the Chou dynasty, which of course took over after they fell.
This could have been a form of political propaganda. I'm not saying that it is, but it's a possible theory that would explain the really negative stories.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Although, on the lines of "focus people" editing the Bible, has anyone read Stefan Heym's novels The King David Report, which is about exactly that? I'm sure it's not the way it really happened and there is nothing remotely scholarly about it, but it does make you think about Biblical spin-doctors editing the text...
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Damn, missed the edit window...
I also wanted to say that, speaking (as I just was) of Biblical fiction, and speaking as someone who has written fiction about this particular Biblical story...
Eliab, that was awesome! Loved it.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Trudy,
Thank you. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Unless the point of the text was to make the era of the Judges look bad. It brings to mind a possible parallel in Chinese history where the only evidence we have of the Shang dynasty is polemics made using them as negative archetypes by the Chou dynasty, which of course took over after they fell.
This could have been a form of political propaganda. I'm not saying that it is, but it's a possible theory that would explain the really negative stories.
I think the closing chapters of Judges are propaganda, but I think the message is a lot more subtle than simply that standards were low in the bad old days.
I'm inclined to take the writer literally when he says "every man did what was right in his own eyes". He really means it.
Once past the initial (and inexcuseable) rape (which is told a with literary allusion to Lot's story, though may of course have its own historical basis), everything that happens can be seen, and I think is meant to be seen, as people doing "right" (*) on some level, but with terrible results because there is no central authority to decide between conflicting principles.
The host was "right" to try to protect his guest, even at such a terrible price; the Levite was "right" to seek justice for his concubine's death; the other tribes were "right" to feel outrage; the Benjaminites were "right" to defend their tribesmen from mob vengeance; the other tribes were "right" not to give their daughters in marriage to rapists and the condoners of rape - and they were "right" to grieve for the consequences of that vow once the war was over; and consequently, the reunited nation of Israel was "right" to seek to preserve one of its tribes by taking women from a recalcitrant city, and then when that did not suffice, "right" to evade the oath by a staged abduction. The irony being that all these "right" decisions end up with the nation that set out to punish one rape and murder actively condoning a mass slaughter and rape on a vastly greater scale.
The tension, though, is not between "good and evil" or "us and them", but between principles of tribal loyalty and justice which the reader is supposed to have some sympathy with on both sides. I think the effect is meant to be similar to that of a Greek tragedy, or an Icelandic blood-feud saga - people who in different circumstances might have been friends being driven to appalling acts by conflicting moral principles which they are not able to escape.
I think the point of the propaganda is that the King is meant to be the resolution of those conflicting principles, the person who unites and regulates the best instincts of the nation, not merely the one who restrains its wickedness. The general message is that there are circumstances where even good people can't be trusted, and that without sound guidance, good intentions can do great harm.
Modern applications of the principle are not difficult to find.
(* "right" here not meaning that I personally endorse it, just that it is possible that a good number of the writer's audience would be expected to see that someone might in good faith endorse it).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
one action only is intended here, and as that's definitely nailing, it can't also be screwing.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Apropos of Nigel, did ancient Israel write the Torah and Tanach on papyrus? I believe the Torah is always on parchment, isn't it?
Well, the use of papyri for writing pre-dates that of parchment. Use of the latter seems to have started up in earnest around the 3rd century BC, when papyrus became scarce. One of the oldest fragments of the OT we have is the Nash Papyrus (actually four fragments), dating to somewhere around 167-37 BC. The majority of the Dead Sea scrolls are parchment, with only a few on papyri, and these scrolls date from about 150 BC to AD 50. So it seemed likely to me that the Hebrew Scriptures were recorded on papyrus before copies were made on parchment.
Although the scribes were pretty faithful to the text they were copying, it is the case that the earliest Old Testament texts were subject to changes. Scribes tended to annotate, correct, add or remove portions of the text. Texts found that date prior to c. AD 100 show quite a few differences (hence the need for textual criticism) and it wasn’t until after that date that a unified text came into existence and rules for copying began to develop in earnest.
Back on the issue of intention: critical self-reflection (or reflection on one's ancesters) may have been behind the text of Judges. In the same way that the Pharisees said that if they had been alive in the time of the prophets, they would not have persecuted them (see Matthew 23:29-30), so perhaps Judges reflects a mentality that in effect says, "If we had been alive in those days we would not have stayed behind when our brothers from other tribes were in danger, we would not have left it to a woman to have to kill our enemy; shame on our ancesters!"
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Eliab:
Thanks for the explanation of the Judges story. That does make a lot of sense.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Some of that (textural changes) I think relates to the dynamic of an oral language which becomes a written language (e.g., the later addition of vowel marks, which still don't exist in a Torah scroll).
My understanding about annotations is that they happened *in the margins* as it were, and were not inserted into the text, and contained questions and clarifications about a particular passage (e.g., either 1 Kings 7:23 or 2 Chron. 4:2 have an inserted he, which changes the mathematical value of the word-- there's a notation about that extra he but it isn't removed).
What's your source for adding/removing portions of the text? That's not something I've heard before--
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Back from Hebrew class and I did get a chance to inquire of the rabbi - he says that "feet" is ONLY used as an euphemism for male genitalia, never for female genitalia, so verse 5:27 which specifies "between her feet" it is indeed speaking of feet.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Some of that (textural changes) I think relates to the dynamic of an oral language which becomes a written language (e.g., the later addition of vowel marks, which still don't exist in a Torah scroll).
My understanding about annotations is that they happened *in the margins* as it were, and were not inserted into the text, and contained questions and clarifications about a particular passage (e.g., either 1 Kings 7:23 or 2 Chron. 4:2 have an inserted he, which changes the mathematical value of the word-- there's a notation about that extra he but it isn't removed).
What's your source for adding/removing portions of the text? That's not something I've heard before--
You’re absolutely right LMC about the oral tradition; that’s a factor that has come into its own in recent decades, particularly through the work of Kenneth Bailey and James Dunn (admittedly in relation to the NT, but I feel applies just as well to OT studies). Even at a larger scale than words, the oral passing-on of stories allows for the chief characteristics of a story – its core – to be retained over time, while permitting variations in the lesser details – the non-core elements.
The process of placing emendations and clarifications in the margins became a rule in rabbinic times, after the fall of Jerusalem; the strict rules we usually associate with the Masoretic School reached their height during the middle medieval period. Prior to that time it was somewhat more a case of scribes "doing as they saw fit"...
A useful article that provides an oversight of OT textual criticism work is that by Bruce Waltke, “Aims of OT Textual Criticism”, in the Westminster Theological Journal 51.1 (Spring 1989): 93-108. Happily that is one that can be found on the web. Just in case you cannot access this, I’ll quote a few passages from the article that demonstrate the sort of issues faced when reviewing two or more manuscripts (MSS) covering the same passages in Scripture.
quote:
“The Qumran MSS validate conjectural emendations by containing original readings not found in the traditional MSS. For example, 4QSam(a) contains about three lines introducing chap. 11 of 1 Samuel heretofore known only partially in Josephus.”
“John Sanders noted: ‘There is no early biblical manuscript of which I am aware no matter how ‘accurate' we may conjecture it to be, or faithful to its Vorlage, that does not have some trace in it of its having been adapted to the needs of the community from which we, by archaeology or happenstance, receive it.’”
“The welter of conflicting readings in the Qumran scrolls prior to the fixing of the text sometime between 70 BC and AD 100 also suggests to canonical critics that the text was fluid and flexible, capable of being moderately adjusted and made relevant to the times. According to them, restraints on the text, such as the canonical proscription against adding or taking away from the text (cf. Deut 4:2; 31:9ff; Josh 24:25–26; 1 Sam 10:25) were balanced with the need to shape it in accordance with what communities thought God was doing in their times.”
“The functions of scribes and text critics became confounded after the text became stabilised at the turn of the first century AD for after that time scribes no longer sought to modernise and relativise the text but only to preserve it. Thereafter scribes sought to restore the text by means of the ketiv-qere (i.e. alternative traditional readings), sebir (i.e. expected readings to be rejected), and tiqqune sopherim traditions. Later on the Masoretes added the Masorah, the vowels, and the accents to preserve it.”
What the research demonstrates is that prior to the first century AD scribes felt more free to amend the texts they were copying than did their successors, who were subject to more rigorous rules. Things become even more fluid when we look at the translations (e.g. Greek LXX and the Samaritan), where changes were made for theological and geographic reasons as well.
Of interest in the Waltke article is the comparison between 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18, where the same psalm appears in slightly different forms. This is an example from within MSS (rather than just between MSS) where variations from a scribal tradition can be seen.
If you are interested in further reading on this subject, the following are materials that I grew up with – which means they are not exactly hot off the press, but nevertheless they are still valid pieces of research:
* Cross, Frank Moore. "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts." In Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.
* Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
* McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
I’m sure there are more recent works as well, though I haven’t had the chance to check and see. OT research lags a bit behind its NT counterpart on this.
I'd better also make it clear - in case I'm giving anyone the wrong impression - that these early changes to the Hebrew texts were not entirely random or profound; someone once calculated that at least 80% of the content of MSS we have at our disposal so far show agreement with each other. Of the remaining 20%, the vast majority of the alterations are not of a significant nature. They include, for example, the likes of early attempts at vocalisation (the matres lectionis). Just occasionally we land up with a meaty choice between variants. An example from the OP text is Judges 5:7a – part of the poetic section. When we compare that verse in assorted English translations, we can see that the translators had to take a decision about which reading to follow.
quote:
The peasantry ceased, they ceased in Israel. [NASB]
Village life in Israel ceased... [NIV – footnote = ‘warriors’]
The peasantry prospered in Israel, they grew fat on plunder. [NRSV]
The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel. [AV/KJV]
Gone was freedom beyond the walls, gone indeed from Israel. [NAB]
Warriors became fat and sloppy, no fight left in them. [Message]
So the issue here is, are we talking about warriors, peasants, villages, inhabitants, or what?
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Sorry - I forgot; there is a good up to date text book, covering both OT and NT textual critical work and aimed at first-year uni students: Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results, Downers Grove, Il.: IVP, 2006.
Although slightly disjointed (at least I found it so - presumably because it had to tie in to a uni course), it is a very decent place to kick off study and his excurses contain very helpful wrap-ups.
Anyway - enough; I'm through!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Nigel, thanks for the rich post (which I haven't had a chance to fully unpack yet--) but you said: Prior to that time it was somewhat more a case of scribes "doing as they saw fit"... - how does that reconcile with the accuracy of the Great Isaiah Scroll, which comes from Qumran? Or are you arguing that the exactitude in copying is only a post-diaspora phenomenon, thus explaining the Great Iaiah Scroll?
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Back from Hebrew class and I did get a chance to inquire of the rabbi - he says that "feet" is ONLY used as an euphemism for male genitalia, never for female genitalia, so verse 5:27 which specifies "between her feet" it is indeed speaking of feet.
On how many occasions besides Judges 5 is there an opportunity for the OT to refer to female genitalia?
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
In SOS they seem to keep referring to female genitalia as "a garden."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Back from Hebrew class and I did get a chance to inquire of the rabbi - he says that "feet" is ONLY used as an euphemism for male genitalia, never for female genitalia, so verse 5:27 which specifies "between her feet" it is indeed speaking of feet.
On how many occasions besides Judges 5 is there an opportunity for the OT to refer to female genitalia?
That's not what the rabbi was addressing; he was referencing both Biblical and Talmudic uses of metaphoric language for genitalia and, according to him (and he's a *very* brilliant guy, serious linguistic scholar, fluent in Hebrew and Arabic) "feet" is ONLY a metaphor for male genitalia, never female. So it has no bearing on how many times before Judges 5 there is opportunity...
Kelly, my rabbi mentioned the overflowing cup (of wine) which is commonly described as the navel and he said, "now THAT's the vagina." Okay--
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Nigel, thanks for the rich post (which I haven't had a chance to fully unpack yet--) but you said: Prior to that time it was somewhat more a case of scribes "doing as they saw fit"... - how does that reconcile with the accuracy of the Great Isaiah Scroll, which comes from Qumran? Or are you arguing that the exactitude in copying is only a post-diaspora phenomenon, thus explaining the Great Iaiah Scroll?
The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran are a good place to go, because the web comes to our rescue again: facsimiles of the Great Scroll (Qa) have been placed on a site for everyone to look at – link here for the main directory. Take as an example Isaiah 40, if only because I’m partial to that chapter! I’m hoping you are able to open the link, because this is fun (ignores memos to get out more) and it is not necessary to read Hebrew to see what the scribe was doing. Those red arabic numerals in the facsimile are most definitely a later recension! They have been added by the web site's author to show where the verse divisions occur.
Underneath the facsimile is a short explanation of the various differences between this page and the same passage now in the Biblia Hebraica (BHS – based on the early 11th century Codex Leningradensis). There are some marginal notes, some superlineal emendations, some alterations to words (e.g. the divine name) and some words that are just different to those found in the BHS. It’s worth having a flick around other parts of that Isaiah scroll.
As to accuracy, that’s always a bit relative. There appear to have been degrees of ‘accuracy’ (in the sense of rules to govern the copying of manuscripts) at all times, but the accuracy that we usually think of when talking about the Jewish Scriptures and scribal work belongs to the era post-rebellion – after the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) and even more so after the failed Bar-Kokhba revolt (AD 135). The Diaspora Jews (bolstered in their numbers now by those who had fled Israel) recognised the need to fix the canon of their Scriptures and build a definitive text that could be used across the world by Jews. I’m sure that the debates with the early Christians had something to do with this, too; the Christians were notorious for waving the Scripture texts under the noses of the Jews to show how those Scriptures pointed to Jesus. The texts most in use for this purpose tended to be the Greek translations and this seems to have been behind the drive by rabbis to establish a definitive Hebrew/Aramaic text.
A definitive text required rules for copying and checking, partly to counter unintentional changes e.g., the scribe missing a line or confusing similar letters, but also the regulate intentional changes e.g., to harmonise, clear up difficulties, or ‘correct’ theology. A key principle in these rules for changes was that the main text should not be changed; any emendations were to be placed in the margins or at the foot of the page. This contrasts with the earlier approach which saw – as in the Qumran scrolls – a freedom to change the very text itself.
By the 10th century AD these rules had become fixed and the scribal schools were pretty good at adhering to them. This great tradition lasted pretty much up to the invention of the printing press, after which the need for manuscripts dwindled (though still in use today in Judaism).
I haven't been able to find a web site containing facsimiles of the book of Judges. If, however, you are able to access the BHS at some time, you could take a look at the footnotes (the critical apparatus) and see how that MSS compares with others.
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Kelly, my rabbi mentioned the overflowing cup (of wine) which is commonly described as the navel and he said, "now THAT's the vagina." Okay--
See, I'll buy that because there is actually some logic involved.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Female genitalia are quite a bit like a cup. They are nothing like feet.
And as I said on the other thread I linked, I don't see why it needs to be such a black and white issue as to the feet thing. Yes, there are things that we call "balls", for instance, but sometimes we really are actually using the word to describe a game of ping-pong.
Same goes for bowls of milk, gardens, etc.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
