|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: LEVITICUS - Second Thoughts (Bible nonstop)
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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....
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Nigel M!!! You are back!! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Best news I have had all day!
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Garden of Eden! Garden of Eden!
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
@ 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]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um...
Um-hum? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(more tub-thumping) Isn't divination trying to access knowledge before it naturally comes to you?
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Leviticus 23:1-22
Nigel M - this is the best yet!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Amen to that. And I am now going to address the Lord as He Who Bangs on until it ceases to make me giggle.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif) .
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elspethp
Apprentice
# 15716
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Elspeth
Merthyr
Posts: 4 | From: Merthyr Tydfil | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
