|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: NUMBERS - Second Thoughts (Bible nonstop)
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
The census takes place on the first day of the second month of the second year after the exodus from Egypt.
What other temporal markers have we had since the exodus? When did the Israelites get to Sinai, and how long did all the lawgiving take?
Why is Gad listed near the end (among the concubines' sons) when God gives the list of heads of tribes, but gets promoted into Levi's place when the census is taken?
Isn't there something about not counting Israel somewhere? Maybe Solomon gets in trouble for taking a census? Does anyone know the reference? Or am misremembering? But if I'm remembering correctly, why is a census commanded here and prohibited there?
[ 02. July 2015, 21:24: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Re censuses, the motive's the key. If you take a census because God commanded it for some reason (like taxes, or figuring out how many Levites you need, or getting a sense of the army size), no problem. If you do it because you (I'm looking at YOU, David!) have gotten bigheaded, and want to know exactly how great your nation is numerically compared to others, well ENGKKKK! No thanks for playing.
Seriously, though, this is what scares me about the constant demand for numerical reports in my home denomination. Because you know those numbers are being used mainly for self-aggrandizement and publicity (Rah, rah, LCMS!). For assessment purposes, maybe, but that's not usually the case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
As for Gad, well, with Levi suddenly yanked from the list (due to priestly duties and differences), I figure they just reached around and grabbed the handiest tribe left. Maybe one with a real short name? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) I also have a sneaking suspicion that if the author had written (chiseled ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) "Levi" already, "Gad" might have been the easiest name to rework the letters into, there's sort of a resemblance.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Isn't there something about not counting Israel somewhere? Maybe Solomon gets in trouble for taking a census? Does anyone know the reference? Or am misremembering? But if I'm remembering correctly, why is a census commanded here and prohibited there?
God knows! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The forbidden census is in 1 Chronicles 21;1-7. In Numbers, the census is God's idea. In Chronicles it's David's, and Joab argued with him about it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
The census takes place on the first day of the second month of the second year after the exodus from Egypt.
What other temporal markers have we had since the exodus? When did the Israelites get to Sinai, and how long did all the lawgiving take?
When I was researching Numbers 1 (for my own Non-Stop version--you beat me to it!), I read a commentary that the trip from Egypt to Mount Sinai took about three months, so the encampment had been at Mount Sinai for nine or ten months at the time that Numbers opens. But I don't know where the "three months" time marker comes from.
I hope this does not seem presumptuous of me, but I have noticed that when we do a Non-Stop thread, somewhere along the way somebody will interrupt with a question usually to the effect of: "What the heck are you people doing???!?!?"I thought it might be useful--right here at the start of the discussion thread--to set forth my understanding of the "rules" and history of the threads. I don’t claim to be an authority on this, so please correct me if I make a misstatement.
*****************************************
The history and much of the origin story of the Non-Stop threads is lost in cyberspace. My understanding (based on what was said here at the beginning of the Genesis thread is that there once was a discussion about the Bible and how “originally” much of it was written in terms of the audience of that time. The thought was that we might therefore “paraphrase” the received text to reflect our times. The Ship, being the Ship, began to take the concept of “paraphrase” rather loosely, often highlighting (or inserting) humorous takes on the text.
This, it seems to me, is not completely unreasonable. A more recent thread (found HERE) was discussing the concept that parts of the Bible were actually MEANT to be funny, but that we have lost that sense because of the centuries of solemnity that have surrounded the text. I like to think that the Non-Stop threads just restore the balance. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So what do we do in a Non-Stop thread? We--ahem!--paraphrase the text, in consecutive order. But remember, this is a paraphrase, not a complete re-write. The events and basic sense of the original text should be maintained. For example, if (back when Genesis was being covered) you were doing the section of Cain slaying Abel, it would NOT be proper to have the two of them make up, shake hands and go out for a drink. Cain slays Abel and that MUST remain true in the paraphrased version. However, you could make the actual killing read like a comic misadventure, or a noir crime novel, or a selection from Agatha Christie, as your creativity suggests.
To see what has been done so far:
The link to the Genesis thread is above.
Here is the link to Exodus.
And to Leviticus. At least where it is right now. If and when that thread gets moved to Limbo, that link may die—I don’t know if the trip to Limbo breaks the link.
If you post on the Non-Stop thread, please include the Book, Chapter and verse(s) that you are covering at the start of your posts, so that the next poster knows where to pick up. Going back to re-write verses that somebody else already did, while not completely forbidden, is not really The Done Thing. It smacks of discourtesy.
*********************************
--------------------
"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
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Hedgehog, since this is the Second Thoughts, I think a second take on Chapter 1 would be fine here.
Research, gosh, what's that? . I did really add up all those numbers to check the sum, and get the intermediate arithmetic that Aaron murmurs as he's adding.
Thanks for the tip about three months. That gave me a hint for querying the great oracle Google, which gives me, regarding timelines, Exodus 19:1 says:
quote:
At the third new moon after the Israelites had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that very day, they came into the wilderness of Sinai.
Passover is the 15th of Nisan, the 1st month, and months begin at the new moon, so they would have left at the full moon.
"At the third new moon" would be 2 1/2 months later (and in Googling, I've seen this rounded to both 2 months and 3 months. So, the 1st day of the fourth month.
I think I recall hearing somewhere that a tradition has arisen in post-Biblical times that the covenant at Sinai was entered into on Simchat Torah. Simchat Torah (rejoicing in the Torah) is when the annual cycle of reading the Torah ends and the new cycle begins. It is the 22nd or 23rd of Tishri, the 7th month (not sure enough of Jewish dating to say which is correct, I've sort of seen it both ways but there's a double-day thing going on that I don't fully understand).
(My Google-fu isn't turning up this tradition about the covenant and Simchat Torah though -- can anyone verify it? Nor is my Google-fu turning up the Bible citation for entering into the covenant, in Exodus. Grrrr. Or maybe the tradition is about the giving of the Ten Commandments and Simchat Torah. Hmmmmmm. Grrrrr. Or maybe it's a tradition about linking Shavuot and some event in the Exodus. Help!)
So 2 1/2 months to reach Sinai at the start of a new moon, makes it on the 1st day of Tammuz, the 4th month. And 3 3/4 more months to faff around with tablets and so on until the covenant later in Exodus.
So here we are in Exodus 1 on the first day of the second month, Iyar. One year and 2 weeks after leaving Egypt, 10 months after arriving at Sinai, and (extra-biblical tradition) 6 months and a week after entering into the covenant. I guess those six months were taken up with receiving all the commandments in Leviticus.
Do any of these dates connect up with the dates we get for Noah and the Flood, I wonder...?
From this you can see the kind of Biblical research that I enjoy: counting things!
[ 07. November 2011, 18:58: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Hedgehog, since this is the Second Thoughts, I think a second take on Chapter 1 would be fine here.
Research, gosh, what's that? . I did really add up all those numbers to check the sum, and get the intermediate arithmetic that Aaron murmurs as he's adding.
I didn't get that far in drafting--I had not even reached the census, getting bogged down in the names and family affiliations. Honestly, your exercise on the parallel bars was much better than the clunky thing I was working on!
I am proud to state that, running the numbers quickly through my head, I suspected that the numbers Aaron was muttering were actually real! Thanks for the confirmation.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
And following on from this, Chapter 3 contains an obvious math mistake. The number of Levites, as given, comes to 22,300 and yet it is stated in the same chapter that the total is 22,000.
What I find interesting is the number of ways that various commentators have tried to explain this away.
(1) That the Kohath count is wrong because the number for six (shesh) might really have been a misreading of three (shalosh);
(2) That the Gershon count is off because the numeral for 200 might have been misread as 500.
(3) That, 300 of the Levites were actually firstborns since leaving Egypt and therefore already dedicated to God and had to be excluded from the count.
(4) They just rounded the number.
Explanations 3 and 4 carry no weight IMO. #3 is ingenious, but if that sort of technical discounting was being done, I'd expect at least SOME commentary in the text about it--not just delete 300 Levites from the list without a word.
#4 is ludicrous in context, because the count of the firstborn is obviously not rounded off and because the redemption fee is based on the exact numerical difference between the two numbers, it makes no sense to round off one and not the other. It is clear, in context, that the specific count was important.
So I place myself strongly in the typo school, but between explanations #1 and #2 I can't choose--although the actual hardcopy Bible I have at home (Catholic Study Bible) dodges the issue entirely by simply changing the number for Kohath and clan so that the 22,000 works out. Reading it, you wouldn't know there ever was a problem.
Are there any other explanations that others have read about the apparent numerical discrepancy?
--------------------
"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'm just been catching up on the Numbers thread – my grateful thanks to everyone for kicking that off and getting into neat background issues. All great stuff for chewing over with the breakfast, dunking into the tea and slapping a wedge of Marmite over.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Isn't there something about not counting Israel somewhere? Maybe Solomon gets in trouble for taking a census? Does anyone know the reference? Or am misremembering? But if I'm remembering correctly, why is a census commanded here and prohibited there?
Building on Moo's response earlier, another quirk rears its head here. Where 1 Chron. 21 attributes the naughty census taking to Satan who incited David to do it, 2 Sam. 24 fingers Yahweh himself as the inciter. Options for tackling that one? Textually this may be the chap with the chronicler moniker objecting to the vicious circle (God incites, then blames David...) and making an amendment accordingly, or theologically this may be a case of first and second causes – God permits Satan room to manoeuvre in the style of the Job story.
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Chapter 3 contains an obvious math mistake. The number of Levites, as given, comes to 22,300 and yet it is stated in the same chapter that the total is 22,000.
Seriously running out of fingers and toes by this stage, I am. Thoughts drifted to the options here:-
[1] The Auditor General for The People had arthritic fingers and he slipped at this point on the abacus. Generations of auditors after this point refrained from owning up in case the non-Levi descendants of Israel demanded a refund – with accrued interest.
[2] More pedantically, someone at the Temple's Scriptorium Seminary for Scribal Scholars was in the process of laboriously copying verse 28 when the lunch bell rang. He came back after a rather decent lamb cutlet to finish a word off – and missed a letter out. Thus we inherited 8,600 instead of 8,300 for the clan of Kohath.
How [2] might have worked out is as follows.
Arabic numerals, being a foreign invention belonging to another time zone (hundreds of years hence), were out of scope here. The average Hebrew used nominals to get by on buying donkeys, so the '8,600' total for Kohath had to be expressed in long-hand: 'Eight of the thousands and six of the hundreds.' The word for 'six' in Hebrew is only one letter shy of the word for 'three', so it is conceivable that there was a slip in the copying process somewhere.
I checked the Greek Septuagint translation (LXX) to see what options lay there. The standard edition (Göttingen) reads the same as the Masoretic Hebrew from which most English versions are drawn, with the rather bizarre exception of the total for the Merari clan in verse 34, where the Greek reads 6,050 instead of the Hebrew 6,200. Despite this, the overall total figure matches at 22,000 (verse 39). Whichever way we pull this, the totals don't add up!
However, there is one exception in the LXX tradition. Lucian, a fourth century copyist (among other things – martyrdom being another of his CV entries), revised the Greek text for the Kohath total to read 8,300, instead of 8,600. Did he have access to a different Hebrew text, or was he trying to tidy things up? Normally he is credited with revising the Greek text to match the Masoretic. Here, though, he seems to be moving away from it. There is an independent witness to the different text – the Armenian version, which matches Lucian's revision.
On balance, I'd like to go with arthritis. It's simpler.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Where 1 Chron. 21 attributes the naughty census taking to Satan who incited David to do it, 2 Sam. 24 fingers Yahweh himself as the inciter.
I don't know any Hebrew, but it looks to me like it's Yahweh's anger that incites David in 2 Sam. 24 rather than Yahweh himself. Is the Hebrew ambiguous?
Note: I think I fixed your link so it points to 2 Sam. 24 instead of 1 Sam. 24.
[ 19. November 2011, 15:16: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
...it looks to me like it's Yahweh's anger that incites David in 2 Sam. 24 rather than Yahweh himself. Is the Hebrew ambiguous?
Note: I think I fixed your link so it points to 2 Sam. 24 instead of 1 Sam. 24.
Thanks for correcting that – no wonder theology can be so hard to figure out...
The first phrase in 2 Sam. 24 in the Hebrew bible refers to the anger of the Lord in an active mode and this is followed in a temporal sequence with his inciting David. Chronicles has the same consequential phrase, but a different temporal precedent. So we have:-
The Lord's anger was fired up against Israel... he incited David...
The adversary laid charges against Israel...he incited David...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Hedgehog, I am delighted at your discovery and research of the arithmetic error. And I am in stitches (of scarlet and blue thread) at your whole Numbers posting. Well done!
Also, the bit about numbering the Levites vs. Not numbering them explains a qualm I had when reading Numbers, again about "didn't God say not to count, and now he's saying, yes, count?". Good to see I wasn't imagining this!
I feel as if the Talmud ought to provide some moral teaching based on this arithmetic error, but, alas, I am not a Talmud scholar. I'll look this evening and see if my JPS has anything to say on this.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Another interesting mathematical issue pops up in Numbers 4: 34-49.
(Hey, the book is called Numbers--of course there was going to be math!)
Anyway, those sections give a subset of males aged 30 to 50. What I find interesting is when (if you are me) you decide to calculate the percentages.
So, we were told that there were 8,600 Kohathites, of which 2,750 were aged 30-50. Or just under 32% (31.97674).
There were 7,500 Gershons, with 2,630 in the 30-50 bracket. Or just over 35% (35.06666...).
Nothing overly shocking there. But then we get the Merari: total number is 6,200, while the 30-50 range was 3,200, or 51.6129%!!!
Over half the Merari males were aged 30 to 50?? I am not a trained demographer, but that doesn't sound healthy to me. Does anybody have any insight why the Merari percentage should be so high?
I am just speculating, but I wonder if the clan had some contagious illness which seriously depleted their younger ranks--but that they sensibly kept enough to themselves that it did not transfer to even the rest of the Levites, much less to any of the other tribes. This might also explain why the total number of male Merari (6,200) is so much less than the other two families: 1,300 less than the Gershons and 2,400 less than the Kohaths.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Or more likely perhaps ![[Frown]](frown.gif) some form of feud or warfare which involved only that particular clan. It's hard to keep fighting from spreading, but easier maybe than a virus.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Perhaps, but who would they have fought? Another clan from among the Israelites? After all, within the time line of the story, only a year or so prior they were captives in Egypt. I wouldn't expect them to get into many wars while slaves. Unless, perhaps, the Egyptians used them as cannon fodder in one of Egypt's battles?
--------------------
"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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I
The average Hebrew used nominals to get by on buying donkeys, so the '8,600' total for Kohath had to be expressed in long-hand: 'Eight of the thousands and six of the hundreds.'
My own secret suspicion is that the original counted heads of families or warriors and that the words used for those later came to mean commanders of military units of ten or a hundred or a thousand men, and that they were mistakenly taken that way later. So for example a tribe or clan might have been listed as supplying, say, 45 senior warriors and 65 junior warriors and that was mistakenly read as 45 thousands and 65 tens. so 45,650. Or something like that.
But that that "later" was well before the most recent common textual ancestor of all the versions that survive (Greek as well as Hebrew) so that it is now practically impossible to recover the original values.
Also that such misinterprestation of numbers of humans goes all through the Pentateuch and is at least occasional in later books. And I have similar reservations about many of the dates and ages given in, e.g. Exodus and Judges. Far too many suspicious timings that cleanly divide by forty.
This is of course completely undisprovable so I would never take it as "fact" but the idea seems very plausible to me.
Also its a valuable corrective to our modern habit of taking the numbers and dates as firmly set and trying to munge the geneaolgies to fit in with them. I think the geneaolgies are actually the important records - in that they were the ones that would have been important to the original authors whether or not they are accurate records of real descent - and the numbers are in a sense mystical or symbolic comments on them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Perhaps, but who would they have fought? Another clan from among the Israelites? After all, within the time line of the story, only a year or so prior they were captives in Egypt. I wouldn't expect them to get into many wars while slaves. Unless, perhaps, the Egyptians used them as cannon fodder in one of Egypt's battles?
Well, they could have been fighting among themselves...
Alternately, the Merarites might have lived in an area where the Egyptians were using slaves for more-than-usually hazardous work. Better to be a farm slave than a building or mining slave.
--------------------
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 ken:
My own secret suspicion is that the original counted heads of families or warriors and that the words used for those later came to mean commanders of military units of ten or a hundred or a thousand men, and that they were mistakenly taken that way later.
There may be mileage in this idea, ken. The New International Dictionary of OT Theology and Exegesis notes that the word often translated by 'thousand' in English (Hebrew = eleph) can refer a clan leader. So 45,000 could possibly be something like 45 chiefs – or officers.
I'm not sure where it goes to from that point down. Perhaps a number 45,650 could be part clan and part actual number – 45 officers and 650 men (as the second unit is in hundreds and NIDOTTE doesn't offer any other options), but maybe there is indeed a reference now lost in the mists of time.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes. If the speculation is true - or something like it is - its probably impossible to recover the original as its been through two layers of indirection.
Before you can even make informed gueses you need what biological taxonomists call an "outgroup", that is a closely related species (or text) that has come down to us by a different route.
Studying phylogeny and cladistics made me a lot more skeptical of the results of textual scholars...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Numbers 5:5-7 [NET Bible]...
quote:
Tell the Israelites, ‘When a man or a woman commits any sin that people commit, thereby breaking faith with the Lord, and that person is found guilty, then he must confess his sin that he has committed and must make full reparation, add one fifth to it, and give it to whomever he wronged.'
...put me in mind of the Zacchaeus (and, yes, I had to look up the spelling) incident in Luke 19:1-10 [NIV]
quote:
Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today. So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
All the people saw this and began to mutter, He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner'. But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.
Jesus said to him, Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.
He needed only to add 20% to the value.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Violating a long-respected custom, this time I am going to raise my difficulty BEFORE I try to post a Non-Stop version.
We are up to Numbers 6:22-27. This is the reasonably famous blessing: "The Lord bless and keep you. The Lord let His face shine upon you, etc."
From a linguistic perspective, there are a couple interesting points to this selection. For example, I gather this is the only time the verb ('amar) is used as an infinitive absolute. At least, the only time in the records we have. Also in the "That Is So Neat!" category is that the Hebrew gives the three lines of the blessing in a nice arithmetic progression: three words for the first line; five for the second; seven for the third.
(Am I right that that is an arithmetic progression? Oh well, if I am wrong, I am confident that I will be corrected!)
And then there are the commentaries that suggest that the three lines of the blessing somehow reflect the Trinity. The Lord bless and keep you (Father); The Lord let his face shine on you and be gracious to you (Son); The Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace (Holy Spirit). Personally, I think the use of three was more coincidental than evidence of an OT recognition of the Trinity, but I admire the ingenuity of the argument.
But where I get confused is the last line (verse 27), when the Lord says: "So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them." (NIV translation; your translation may vary).
"My name"? Wasn't the reason I AM was being in various tenses with us was to avoid using His Name? Wasn't God the original "He Who Must Not Be Named"? And if so, does this verse mean that the priests when giving this blessing actually spoke The Name Of The Lord, or is this to be read as meaning that the blessing stood in place of using The Name?
--------------------
"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
Not sure about the Trinity intention either, Hedgehog. I like the numerical building blocks in the passage, though!
I think the real intention here – consonant with the aim of much of the Torah/Pentateuch, is to emphasise the God named Yahweh over any other competitor. Rather than focussing on the content of the blessings – protection, graciousness, peace – the real focus would have been on the repetition of 'Yahweh':
“It's YAHWEH, not any other god in the offing you may have been tempted to be loyal to, that will be the one who provides you with peace. And just in case you didn't get that, I'll repeat: It's YAHWEH...”
That in turn explains the final verse, where YAHWEH's name, not any other, is the one to be associated with the people he chose.
There was another thread not too long ago that meandered around to discussing the name Yahweh and its use. Personally, I think the reverence shown to the actual name was a late development and came in gradually. There is some evidence that 'Yahweh' was still being pronounced around the time of Jesus. Additionally, I can't think of a good reason for the authors of the biblical texts to write the word 'Yahweh' (minus the vowels, of course!) unless they were comfortable with pronouncing it.
Contextually it would also be difficult for the average faithful Jew to interact with his or her neighbours in the ancient near east without pronouncing 'Yahweh' (in whatever manner it was pronounced). In a setting of the divine council, the Jewish message was that the supreme god – El – was the one who had chosen them and who had given the name they were to use. This was a political as well as a religious message and a typical conversation with the follower of another god in that council would have tricky without using the name:
quote:
“Our God is El, but not as you know him. It is El in action, one who is with us and protects us in his covenant.”
“What, you mean El leaves his throne to be with you? That's not the El we know of.”
“Yes, this is El as you have never see him before. He has a name for this mode of operation.”
“Really? What's that?”
“I'd rather not say.”
Blink blink.
The “I-Am-In-Various-Tenses" tag has proved to be quite useful as a translation, because it captures the context of Exodus 3:12-15 (NET Bible):
quote:
He [El-ohim] replied, “Surely I will be with you [Hebrew verb 'to be' in imperfect, 1st person singular form, ehyeh = אֶהְיֶה], and this will be the sign to you that I have sent you: When you bring the people out of Egypt, you and they will serve God [the 'El' word] on this mountain.”
Moses said to God, “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ – what should I say to them?”
God said to Moses, “I am that I am.” [Two instances of Hebrew verb 'to be' in imperfect, 1st person singular form, ehyeh] And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I am [again, Hebrew verb 'to be' in imperfect, 1st person singular form, ehyeh] has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The Lord – the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob – has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.
This repetition of the verbal from suggests (to me, at least) that there are two things going on here: one is the need to reinforce the actual name and to link it with that of the supreme God, El; and secondly to infer that this new name means not just "I am," but also “with you” from verse 12 (I will be with you). Incidentally, this fits quite neatly with Isaiah's understanding, when he links the two concepts this time using the 'El' name, in the Hebrew “Immanuel” - God (El) with us.
Convoluted way of saying something. What was it? Oh, yes; I think the priests actually used the name “Yahweh” (pronounced somehow).
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
The census takes place on the first day of the second month of the second year after the exodus from Egypt.
And curiously, nine chapters in, we are suddenly back to a conversation between the Lord and Moses in "the first month of the second year"--or about a month before when Chapter 1 of Numbers took place.
I point this out only as a curiosity. In present day culture, chronological order seems so important, but it is clearly not that important in the construction of Numbers. It does, however, raise the question as to why the book was organized as it was.
--------------------
"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
Could it be that this section (Numbers 9:1-5) acts as in introduction to what follows? In other words, it recaps the essence of Exodus 12:6, 14 and Lev. 23:5 (the Passover ordinance) in order to provide background for the case study that follows of those who were unable to celebrate Passover on the right day. It would fit, at least linguistically, as part of the narrative plot.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
So Numbers 10 involves the Israelite departure from Sinai. And reading it carefully, it raises the age old question: "Where was Moses when the lights went out?" Or, more specifically,where was Moses in the procession?
As you may recall, when camped at Sinai, the Levites were in the center, with the tabernacle. Within the Levite camp, Gershon was to the west, Kohath to the south and Merari to the north, with Moses, Aaron and their families to the east. So:
..................Merari
.........Gershon @ Moses
................Kohath
Around them camped the remaining tribes. To the North (above Merari) were Dan-Asher-Naphtali. To the east (adjoining Moses) were Judah-Issachar-Zebulun. To the south, below Kohath, were Reuben-Simeon-Gad. And to the west, on the other side of Gershon, were Ephraim-Manasseh-Benjamin. Or, rather like this:
.................D-A-N
.................Merari
E-M-B Gershon @ Moses J-I-Z
.................Kohath
..................R-S-G
In the order of departure set out in Numbers 10, J-I-Z goes first, followed by Gershon and Merari. Then R-S-G followed by Kohath. Then E-M-B followed them and D-A-N formed the rear guard.
So when did Moses and company leave? It is not specified. It is tempting to suggest that they went at the front of the procession with J-I-Z, but Numbers 10:8 is pretty clear that the Sons of Aaron are to be the trumpeters and, presumably, they could not leave until they had blown all the signals. That would seem to suggest that the earliest that they could have left was following closely after E-M-B (just after they blew the signal to D-A-N). Or perhaps they travelled with D-A-N.
Of course, Moses doesn't have to travel with Aaron, but everybody else maintains their family grouping, so I'd expect Moses and Aaron to do so, too. So where was Moses in the procession?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
If he's like most mothers and preschool teachers I know, he's running back and forth constantly up and down the line of procession, yelling "Hey, you! Get back where you belong!"
--------------------
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
Yup. Taking the herbal remedies and sorting out judicial suits.
I suppose the logical place would be to travel with his tribe, the Levites. Alternatively, being a leader, he could have been showing the way and more importantly, confirming when to stop. No trumpet blast is recommended for that little operation, so either Aaron is busting a gut and going blue and red in the face from the rear with his horn section, or a message has to be passed from tribe to tribe eastwards "STOP NOW!!!", or Moses has to have some up-front authority.
On balance, I think he sticks close to the tent team and the Levites.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Alternatively, being a leader, he could have been showing the way and more importantly, confirming when to stop. No trumpet blast is recommended for that little operation, so either Aaron is busting a gut and going blue and red in the face from the rear with his horn section, or a message has to be passed from tribe to tribe eastwards "STOP NOW!!!", or Moses has to have some up-front authority.
Or he could just tell the tribe of Judah "Stop when the cloud stops" and be done with it. It would be embarrassing if they overshot: "Say, has anybody seen the cloud recently?" "Yeah, we passed it like it was standing still, a few miles back!" "We did what??? D'oh!!!"
Accepting that Moses went with a group of Levites, we have at least two (known) groups and a third conjectural group. The conjectural one is the horn section at the back. But we are specifically told that Group 1 (Gershon and Merari) take the God Box with them and then, a little further back in the procession, Group 2 (Kohath) come bringing the tent, secure in the knowledge or belief that Gershon and Merari will have already reassembled the tabernacle by the time that the tent gets there.
The more that I think about it, the more likely it seems to me that Moses would travel with the tabernacle. Sort of staying near the Hot Line in case of emergency.
--------------------
"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
Well, having looked at where Moses may have been placed we are presented with the section in Numbers 10:29-36 - and some textual challenges:
[1] In v.33 the ark of the covenant is placed in the vanguard to assist with locating the next appropriate camping ground. On the surface of the text this contradicts previous statements in two ways.
Firstly, the ark should be located with the Kohath clan (part of the Levite tribe) according to Numbers 4:1-15 and that clan belonged in the middle of the Israelite tribal grouping, to the south of the tabernacle, according to 3:29. When the camp got under way, the Kohathites stayed in their central position behind the tribe of Gad (10:21). This ensured that the tent was erected first and ready to receive the ark when the poor sons of Kohath staggered into camp (they had to carry the ark on their shoulders, unlike other clans who had oxen to assist - 7:6-9). So – did Kohath plod along in the middle or at the front?
Secondly, the reason Kohath takes the ark up front is to find the next resting place, whereas 9:17-23 insists the driver for moving and stopping was the Lord's cloud.
[2] vv34-36 in the order we have them in the Masoretic Hebrew bible (BHS) is different to that received by most of the Greek versions (LXX). Verse 34 in BHS (“And the cloud of the Lord was over them by day, when they travelled from the camp”) appears after verse 36 in the LXX.
Hebrew scribes recognised there was an issue with the verses 35-36; the Masoretes effectively bracketed them with a sign that looks like a reversed nun (equivalent of the English letter 'N'), which probably originated as the Greek letter sigma (Σ), used in Greek manuscripts also to signify that an enclosed text most likely originated elsewhere. Moses' announcements in vv35-36 appear in similar forms in the Psalms and elsewhere.
[3] Moses' father-in-law is named Hobab in 10:29, son of Reuel. In Exodus, the father-in-law is named Jethro (3:1; 18:2 - though Exodus 2:16 names him Reuel). This may not be an issue, as the Hebrew word for this type of relative could encompass brother-in-law.
[4] According to 10:33 the Israelites are setting out from Sinai (the mountain of the Lord), but earlier in 10:11-12 they had already moved from Sinai to Paran. This isn't a big issue. Below the surface level of the text, at the plot level, the former may simply be recapping the latter.
Overall it looks as though verses 34-36 – and possibly the wider vv29-36, were added to their current location by scribe or scribes unknown as a best fit option, even though there are some unexplained contrasts with the surrounding text. Rabbinical literature (Sifre on Numbers) accepts this state of affairs, quoting Rabbi Simeon as saying that the text should have moved from v34 directly into chapter 11.
Pieces of a jigsaw...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Before I start my real comment, let me just point out to anybody who is tempted to join in on writing the Non-Stop that Numbers 11 is the perfect time to come on board! There is so much going on in this chapter and--in a morbid humor sort of way, it is almost funny as a straight translation.
However, Nigel M, I am not yet quite prepared to leave the textual challenges of 10:29-36 that you highlighted.
Yes, I know it has been over a month, but I am a slow thinker.
What strikes me about it is that there is a fundamental change in how camp movement works. It seemed fairly clear in the earlier verses that the pillar of cloud/fire would go in front of the Israelites and they were to stop wherever it stopped. In other words, God led the way and the Israelites trusted in Him. However, by putting the ark in front (10:33) instead of in the middle of the group, plus the bits about Moses' prayer when it stopped for God to come settle back with them, makes it read more like Moses (or whomever was up front with the ark) stopped wherever they wanted and then expected God to come settle there, rather like a faithful puppy. After all, if they were just relocating the ark under the pillar of cloud/fire, there would seem to be little need for Moses' prayer.
Phrased more bluntly, these verses seem to flip things from the Israelites trusting entirely in God and following Him to them treating God like He was their servant and they expected Him to toe the line that they drew.
Which brings me to the point I want to make--it is true that 10:29-36 seems like it came from some other source and was pasted in here--except that in the very next chapter (11) what do we have but the abrupt switch of the Israelites from following God to treating him like a servant--"We're sick of manna, feed us something else. Waiter, some meat over here! Hop to it!"
In other words, the change from God picking the resting spot and the Israelites choosing the spot almost seems to reflect the shift in the attitude of the people from considering themselves followers of God to considering God the servant of the people. And, like any good servant, he should follow them.
I will accept the criticism that I am reading too much into it. It may very well just be a coincidental juxtaposition. As I often comment, the annoying thing about coincidences is that they happen.
And, one final question: in 11:1, the fire of the Lord burns among the camp and "consumed" some of the outer part of the camp. That is clear--but do we know if it actually killed anybody? The phrasing that it consumed the "outer parts" of the camp strikes me as being just property damage. On the other hand, as Nadab and Abihu could attest, it is not like God wouldn't burn up a person.
--------------------
"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
The somewhat abrupt transition to chapter 11 is certainly softened by the end of chapter 10 as we now have it, Hedgehog, so what you say makes sense. Even if there was a floating piece of tradition that had no home, the scribes certainly seem to have thought along the same lines, having the plot prepared for the audience by flagging up a "OK, you've had the good news for some time, but now get ready for some traditional good old double-dare-God stuff."
Re: the burnt edges, the text refers to Lordly fire 'eating' around the borders of the camp, but this is preceded by reference to the fire 'burning among them' ('them' being the complaining people), which might have been intended to mean a direct assault on humans. Enough, at any rate, to have the riff-raff set off in the next verses about their part of the camp bearing the brunt when it was the people who did the complaining!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Wonderful take on the old Eldad & Medad story, Lamb Chopped!
What I love about the Non-Stop Versions is that it forces you to take a different perspective on familiar stories. I have heard the reading about Eldad and Medad a number of times, and Moses' response always came across as self-effacing and noble ("Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets!"). I feel rather stupid not to have seen it before (i.e., before I read your version) but Moses' reaction actually follows perfectly naturally from his complaints in the prior verses! He wanted to have the burden taken off of him, moaning about going it alone--and then this happens! Your take captures this attitude perfectly! He would have had a big grin on his face as he says "if only everybody was!"
Of course, I probably didn't notice it before because usually when I hear this selection in the readings I get sidetracked by the phrase "Joshua, son of none" (or, even worse, "son of nun"--they aren't supposed to have sons are they?).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Hey, thanks! I think I always read the story that way--years of coveting other people's volunteer help for use in our particular mission, dontchaknow.
Lately my husband has been muttering over that passage where Jesus promises all of us who have left family to serve him 100 times as much family--"with persecutions!" He never noticed that snarky little addition before, and is now trying to talk God out of it. Oh for seventy elders to shoulder some of the problems that come along with such a big "family." ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
I made fairly heavy weather out of Numbers 14:11-44. It strikes me as rather a mish-mash of things. Maybe somebody can help to straighten me out.
We start with verses 11-12. In this, God tells Moses that He is going to destroy the Israelites--and then He says that "I will make you into a nation stronger than they." Who is the "you" in the sentence? It doesn't seem to make sense that God means the Israelites--because He is planning on destroying them. Is the sense that God is going to start all over again with Moses as the New Abraham--the new Chosen People will all be descended from Moses? Of course, this whole section (including the following verses 13-20) is something of a replay from Exodus 32:9-14--and it is the same bit: "I will destroy this people and then make 'you' into a great nation." But my question remains: is God suggesting the destruction will not be absolute and He will make a great nation of the remainder, or that the destruction will be total and He is starting over again with Moses and his children?
Under either reading, God seems to be implicitly saving Moses from any planned destruction. That, in itself, is not odd--except that when we get to God's revised punishment (keeping the people out of the Promised Land for forty years) it is fairly clear that Moses is not invited--he is subject to the same punishment as the rest of the people (not counting Caleb and Joshua). Was Moses not going to be subject to punishment when destruction was planned, but got included in the punishment when God eased it?
Which brings me to the next head-scratcher. Compare and contrast verse 24 with verse 30 and/or verse 38. In the NIV it doesn't seem so bad, but the NET Bible version in verse 24 clearly phrases it that "only" Caleb will be brought into the land--but verse 30 says both Caleb and Joshua will settle there, as the "only exceptions" to the prohibition. It is not like NET Bible to add words unnecessarily, so in the original language is there a sense of "only Caleb" in verse 24? If so, isn't there an inconsistency with Joshua being added to the survivor's list later in the chapter?
Of course, near the end there is the almost-off-stage deaths of the rest of the spies as the result of a plague--similar to what was originally threatened for all the people. Evidently in the fine print of God's relenting on his punishment was a clause that that particular group would still become plague victims. But that is a minor detail. I can sort of understand Moses pleading for the people as a whole: "Punish those men who created the discontent, but forgive the rest who merely listened to them..."
Anyway, these are the points that I have been struggling with in preparing my latest entry in the Non-Stop. To some extent, the selection seems to have been copied from Exodus and re-played here; at one point it looks like only Caleb will make it to the Promised Land, but then both Caleb and Joshua are the saved ones; God was planning on making Moses the start of a new, better nation, but then includes him in the punishment with the rest--basically, the whole section seems to be a hodgepodge of different sources. Or am I mistaken?
--------------------
"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 enjoyed the post – it does what a good paraphrase should do to my mind: offer concepts set in one (linguistic) milieu in novel ways in the new milieu, as a parallel telling. Forces one out of the “already read that so I'll continue to read what my brain thinks I should expect to read here” mode!
In verses 11-12 I think Moses must be intended by the 'you', it being in the singular and 'Moses' being the nearest single referent before the object. That does indeed raise the interesting question how Moses could be responsible for a great nation. It couldn't be by becoming a 'father' like Abraham, seeing as Moses' progeny receive short shrift the biblical narrative. There's a Gershom in Exodus 2:21-22 and an Eliezer in Ex. 18:4, but they fade away and do not take over as Moses' successor. Perhaps this is an example of God revealing his judicial sentence to one of his prophets before executing the judgement so that the prophet has a chance to intercede, and Moses does just that. God may have been saying that he is going to start over anew - so stand back, implying that he would find a way, as with Abraham, to produce a people against the odds. Then when God relents somewhat the need for a new set of direct descendants from Moses disappears.
We have to get to chapter 20 to find the reason for God's later judgement on Moses that he not enter the land. One day we'll get there (to chapter 20, maybe even the land...).
Regarding verse 24 versus 30 & 38: I think the NET Bible has added the 'only' – it's not explicitly there in the Hebrew text. Presumably the translators wanted to draw out the contrast between Caleb and everyone else who resisted God. That still leaves us with a Joshua-sized hole until the later verses. It could be that there are two accounts being brought together here, though whether it's likely that an editor would really have missed adding “...and Joshua” in verse 24 is a good question.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
So the Non-Stop is up to Numbers 16. And I am puzzled by the Oddity That Is On.
The setting: more of the People are muttering rebellion. In previous chapters, other complainers and malcontents are referred to as "some of the people" or in other anonymous ways. But the rebel leaders in this case are named: Korah, Dathan, Abiram and On. Okay, I realize that this is a direct challenge to Moses' authority and, because of that, they probably deserve to be mentioned specifically. Rather like Guy Fawkes: Lots of grumblers against the Crown, but he raises himself above the crowd.
But what of On? He is deemed important enough to be mentioned by name in 16:1. But, unlike the other three, On is mentioned no more. There is no indication what happened to him: Did he drop out of the rebellion? Did he join in but refuse to be a leader? Was he punished with the rest? I could go on and on about On*, but, seriously, why bother to mention him by name just once and then drop him entirely from the story?
*And if you were expecting me to avoid the obvious pun, you clearly have not read one of my posts before.
--------------------
"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
Another titbit that never registered with me before!
Poor On is a bit of a turn off for commentators who are put off by On's inclusion in the In list of Outsiders. On being out of the later list in chapter 26:8-9 is indicative of an outlying insertion by a later editor, say some commentators, though interestingly they show no interest in laying out reasons for this assumption – why would anyone insert On in at the outer end of the list? There are no textual variants recorded by BHS for this being an addition.
On appears to be a biblical Hebrew name for the Egyptian city that was later named Heliopolis. Perhaps the namesake in Numbers 16 is representative of some of the liminal hangers-on – the 'rabble' – that came with Israel out of Egypt but who were blamed for some of the wilderness angst and desire to return.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
For what it is worth, I am now trying to include a link to a "serious" version of the verses that I am doing on the Non-Stop for those who might be interested. I figure that that is in accord with the normal Keryg rule to always provide a link to verses that you are writing about.
--------------------
"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
That's a good idea; we wouldn't the serious side to feel left out!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Now here was an interesting bit in the recent selection. Numbers 18: 8-19. And the Lord says to Aaron that "all" the holy offerings/gifts of the Israelites (at least, those not put in the fire) belong to Aaron and his sons. These include the grain offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings.
18:10 then specifies that "every male" of Aaron's family may eat it. That seems very specific.
However, the next verse then states that all the "wave offerings" are given to Aaron, his sons "and daughters" and that everyone who is ceremonially clean in the household may partake.
If we drop down to 18:19, we learn that "all" the offerings of the holy gifts (no express restriction) are given to Aaron, his sons and daughters.
So here I am confused. 18:10 made a point that the offerings were set aside and that "every male" could eat it, which would seem to imply that females could not. But by 18:19, there is a specific statement that the gifts are available to both the sons and the daughters of the House of Aaron.
This is where I need somebody who can speak fluent Bible. Is there a distinction being made as to which offerings are only for males of the Aaron family and which could be eaten by both the sons and daughters? Or is the specific "male" restriction in 18:10 overruled by the subsequent provisions suggesting that "all" holy offerings could fill the bellies of both the sons and daughters of the household?
(Note: For the Non-Stop version, I went purposefully vague on this point because I wasn't sure how it was supposed to work.)
--------------------
"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 think the answer may lie in the different terminology in use, Hedgehog. In vv. 9-10 the food available to the males is described as coming from the “most holy” portions (the holy of holies), whereas that for the wider priestly family was a grade lower – just “holy” as it were.
So v. 8 acts as an intro to this section, setting out the principle that the offerings set aside as holy by the Israelites were to be used by the priests for their food (or possibly income). Then vv. 9-10 focus in on the inner circle of holiness for those most intimately involved in the ritual, followed by the wider circle of those (ceremonially clean) in the family who also relied on income in the absence of a land inheritance.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's also the fact that women have the ability to switch tribal affiliation through marriage, divorce, etc which men can't do -- so until the ins and outs of that get discussed in detail a little later, saying specifically and merely "sons and daughters" could create ambiguity. In a lot of cases it's sons-and-daughters -who-haven't -switched tribal affiliation-through a, b, c,--but--d--is--okay-really--don't-worry.
[ 29. June 2013, 15:41: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Oops! Because of some computer gremlin, I seem to have done a duplicate post in the Non-Stop thread. Is there any chance that a passing Host or Admin could delete the duplicate for me? Or at least contract it down to just say "deleted duplicate"?
I mean, Aaron's death deserves a certain amount of decorum, but doing it twice is a bit much.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Thank you so very much! I realized later that it wasn't even a computer gremlin--I was just stupid and hit the "quote" button instead of the "edit" button. You'd think that I'd learn not to try to do this stuff when half asleep!
--------------------
"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
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Honestly, I do have a problem with the use of a snake-image-as-cure in this story. It always sounds a little too much like idolatry for me. Which, of course, it later became (but we can wait for 2 Kings for that story). What was God's plan here?
I suppose, in one sense, it gets us away from Moses doing something to save the people (i.e., exercising God-like powers). Here, the people have to do something, even if it is just looking upon the snake image. It emphasizes that they have to participate in being cured--show faith. And, granted, lack of faith does seem to be a recurrent problem.
But still...creating a magical object to teach faith in God? Wasn't this just begging for trouble?
--------------------
"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
It's always been a “Why-is-that-there-seriously?” moment for me, too. I can understand the general process – the people are heartily sick of things, they complain, God punishes, people become heartily less sick of complaining (well, those who didn't die of sickness), Moses intercedes. Simple, and a nice touch with the snakes instead of the fire, by the way.
It's the follow up that is a cause for comment.
The section fits well within the wider context – it's all part of the people's travel diary. They travel from Kadesh to Hor (20:22), then they travel from Hor around Edom (21:4), next they will travel on to Oboth (21:10). An episode is narrated for each section (after Oboth, though, the narrator gets bored and rushes things along more). So at least in this wider co-text the style fits. That wider text certainly has no need for any division along source-critical grounds – in fact this little snake section sticks in the source craw.
One thing that might be a clue in all this is the focus on ritual as a channel of effective delivery. Earlier Moses is the channel for God's provision when he bangs a rock. Next Aaron dies and Moses channels Aaron's son as successor (he gets Aaron's garments). Now Moses channels healing via the bronze snake. In each of these episodes there's an appointed leader (Moses, who does what God says), there's a physical act (hit-with-stick, transfer-of-garments, and hoisting-the-snake), and there's a physical object of delivery (rock, garments, snake).
Of course there's always a fine line between seeing ritual as a channel for delivery and ritual as delivery, where the latter is magic – prone to the temptation that assumes if one could repeat the ritual 'just so' then delivery is automatic. This view tends to conclude that any failure in delivery means not that the ritual is at fault, but that the actor of the ritual somehow got the wording or action wrong. The two rituals on either side of Eleazar's assumption of the priesthood (the water-from-stone and the healing-from-snake rituals) could both be seen as magic in that Moses did not simply act as a channel in the first, but rather made it look a though he manufactured the miraculous water in place of God, and the people later used the bronze snake as focus for worship.
There may be a lesson in there about how to use ritual and how not to.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
This is maybe going to sound childish, but isn't it a picture prophecy of the Messiah who would destroy the curse by becoming a curse himself? There's all that snake symbolism going on, not to mention the pole bit.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is maybe going to sound childish, but isn't it a picture prophecy of the Messiah who would destroy the curse by becoming a curse himself? There's all that snake symbolism going on, not to mention the pole bit.
I have read of that view, too: snake up on stick takes away curse; Jesus up on cross takes away curse. But it seems to me that the parallel doesn't quite work. After all, the snakes actually were the curse. Jesus took our curse upon himself, but I don't think I can accept that he himself actually was the curse of humanity, which is what would be needed to make the parallel exact.
Still, I suppose there is nothing that states that (outside of mathematics) all parallels must be exact.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
