|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: LEVITICUS - Second Thoughts (Bible nonstop)
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
...and immediately I came across something that I hadn't noticed before and probably wouldn't have if Bullfrog hadn't started the Leviticus thread up. Usually it is at this point that I get all excited, do a unique and beautifully formed dance, proclaim my Eureka moment – only to find the audience yawning, glancing at their watches, and saying “Yes, yes; we know all about that.”
This being a non-visual form of communication, you will just have to imagine the excitement oozing through the typeface and – there, did you like my dance???
The Eureka moment: Leviticus begins in Hebrew with the word-order format that is used within a sequence of events, rather than the word-order associated with new starts. Even the Greek LXX kicks off with the conjunction “And...” (kai).
This suggests a deliberate link across the book boundary back to somewhere in Exodus. The nearest point of contact linguistically is the similar word-order chain ending in Exodus 40:34 (“Then the cloud covered the Meeting Tent, and Lord's glory filled the tabernacle”). The final few verses of Exodus (40:35-38) sit as a lower level piece of information, almost bracketed away from the main line of narrative. It suggests that the author (that could include whoever compiled these books in the format we have received them) intended the reader to unite the two now distinct narratives:
“Then the cloud covered the Meeting Tent, and Lord's glory filled the tabernacle, and Lord called to Moses from the Meeting Tent...”
This being a non-visual form of communication, I will just have to imagine the yawns, watch glancing...
[ 19. November 2013, 02:46: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Fascinating! It makes me think of the link between Luke and Acts. Have any other scholars wandered across it before? You'd think with all of the source critics out there someone would notice the pattern...
--------------------
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
It's another item in my 'ideas on scraps of paper that are filling a multiverse' – one day I aim to get around the looking at in more depth: What happens at the boundaries?
Humans like to categorise; we love being able to drop all the data we come across into nice neat little boxes and, if it were only possible, without having one of those pesky 'Miscellaneous' boxes at the end. This means we prefer to divide things up. In bible study we want to have neat units to work with, doing what biologists are forced to do when faced with an ecosystem: quarter it up in manageable squares and limit observation to what happens in the grid. Perhaps this too was what source critics were trying to do: accommodate the desire for categories by dividing the data up into neat boxes.
In recent years, however, I've been interested in the possibility that network theory might be relevant here. If we move away from node-based analysis to flow-form networks and ask the question: How do these parts actually relate at the boundaries?, I wonder if we might find that there's more to communication that the mere passing on of information in divisible chunks. There may be more important metaphors of communication at the boundaries.
This has ramifications for discourse analysis just as much as for biology and historical criticism. I certainly was accustomed during my training to view discourses as units – the first question to ask before analysing a text is “What is the unit?” I guess it is inevitable that this will be a necessary first step – it's pretty hard to get one's mind around canon as a unit, just as it must be to analyse an ecosystem without breaking it down into manageable units first. Still, I wonder if the fact that we as Christian readers stop at the end of Exodus one day and pick up Leviticus on a another day causes us to mis-read the ecosystem in some way?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yeah, well you know me. Hate boxes. I'll go with the flow any day...
But dang me ,does that mean I've got to stop printing off Leviticus and go back to where I lost my place in Exodus? One day, one day.
[ 16. February 2010, 18:41: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
To save time, how about printing off the last few verses and first few verses of each book and stitching them together to see what comes out? A little like a Whopper-Double-Stupendous-Mac-O'Burger, but with out the burger bit?
I wonder what Christianity would look like then...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
To save time, how about printing off the last few verses and first few verses of each book and stitching them together to see what comes out? A little like a Whopper-Double-Stupendous-Mac-O'Burger, but with out the burger bit?
I wonder what Christianity would look like then...
This imaginary is just too mouth watering. Christianity looks like pickle and tomato saying to each other: 'Lettuce sing, Bread of heaven, bread of heaven...'?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Well, stitching together all the alpha and omegas from the narrative books in the Jewish Scriptures produces: -
quote:
In the beginning he was laid in a coffin in Egypt and the sons, during every stage of their travels, spoke to him on Mount Sinai and in the desert of Sinai, across from Jericho. These are the words in the sight of all Israel when Moses was dead in the hill country of Ephraim after the death of Joshua, when everyone did as they pleased. In those days Jesse was the father of David and there was a man fasting for seven days after the death of Saul, when the plague stopped. Now David was an old man, just like his father, after Ahab died for the rest of his life. Adam, Seth, Enosh – and all the neighbouring kingdoms – solidified and let him go in the first year of the wives. The words “O My God” happened during that time of all his descendants. There was a man who died.
Actually, it all makes sense to me now.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
What's with the protuberance of the liver?
--------------------
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
A hernia?!
Some options referred to include a fatty mass at the opening of the liver, extending to kidneys. Also mentioned is the caudate lobe, which may be the same thing – and as I am not a master in matters autopsical, I will have to defer to others of a more anatomical bent.
Perhaps because the kidneys and livers had to go their separate ways in the sacrifice, anything that connected one to other would have to be cut at some point.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Conscious that Leviticus is the “Holy Book” and that we will be encountering the word usually translated in English with 'holy' quite often (קׁדֶשׁ = qodesh). That English word, like others (e.g., 'sin', 'righteousness', justification', 'sanctification', 'glorification') has really become too technical to be used today in a modern translation. It doesn't mean anything any more – it has to be explained to people, Christians included. This is why I tend to prefer to use words like 'rebellion' for 'sin' in places.
What would be a good, more modern word to use in place of 'holy' in Leviticus? Does such an English word exist?!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Conscious that Leviticus is the “Holy Book” and that we will be encountering the word usually translated in English with 'holy' quite often (קׁדֶשׁ = qodesh). That English word, like others (e.g., 'sin', 'righteousness', justification', 'sanctification', 'glorification') has really become too technical to be used today in a modern translation. It doesn't mean anything any more – it has to be explained to people, Christians included. This is why I tend to prefer to use words like 'rebellion' for 'sin' in places.
What would be a good, more modern word to use in place of 'holy' in Leviticus? Does such an English word exist?!
Of course it does! Is it not COOL ? And since the fourth letter is silent it makes it easy for oriental converts to pronounce, and sexy for French ones to contemplate... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Or how about The Chilli Bible?
The Hot Ghost??
Red Pepper Communion???
I need to find out what the latest street-cred word is for Holy! Right everyone: text your teenagers to find out.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Thanks for the info re how to participate in the Bible non-stop and for NigelM's most amusing History of the World.
I'll try participate when I have more time. At the moment I'm not much good at in depth discussions.
A NT book might generate more interest tho Bullfrog? So its not just you and Nigel? Leviticus is rather....um....detailed....um ......out there.... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I should record my interest here: I think it is not possible to get a proper feel for the NT message without understanding the OT message. Of course, the downside of that soap box stance is that it took, what, 500-1000 years perhaps to develop the OT message? That means we should postpone starting the NT Bible Nonstop until at least the year of our Lord 2,508. I've put the date in my diary. Could we do it in the morning, because I've got the Rapture booked for the p.m.?
Seriously though (and what evils have been visited on the world by taking the bible seriously, eh?!!!), I'll follow the queue to any biblical book. There is already a sister thread, although no relation, that started up on John's Gospel, which may be of interest? I've been intending to get round to posting again on that - time has slipped by. The ground rules for that thread are different, so may not be along the lines preferred.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
RE: another word for 'holy'.
Well, it's not really one word, but I opted for “Above the Norm” as an option, picking up on the way the sanctuary was designed, reflecting as it does the state of existence on either side of what was considered normal (or clean). The holy place mirrors those things in creation that are set apart as pure. The opposite is the wilderness – outside the camp – Below the Norm as it were, the unclean. In between is the norm.
Still, this doesn't really capture other aspects of 'holy': free from pollutants, worthy of offering worship, dedicated / consecrated...
It may be the case that this is another one of those words that will need translating differently in different contexts.
Open to ideas!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
A professor (who might have picked this up from a book,) I think it was Dr. Vena, explained it thusly:
You walk into a clothing store. The pants that are on the shelf are essentially profane. They are ordinary and of no relation to you, in a neutral sort of way.
When you pick a pair of pants and purchase then, then they are sacred to you.
An abomination is when some punk kid smears his ice cream cone all over your new pants.
Holy is inside, profane is outside, and abomination is when something comes inside that has absolutely no business being there.
Or something like that. It's been a few years since I listened to this one.
--------------------
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
That must have made a fascinating sermon: My theme today is 'God is Pants'!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Don't encourage her! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Don't encourage her!
Who? Me? I wouldn't preach on pants (though I do intend to preach while wearing them,) just thought it was an interesting analogy... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 20. March 2010, 18:03: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
just thought it was an interesting analogy...
Especially to those on the other side of the pond!
Certainly to those on this side of the pond, 'pants' it just a little too close to the skin...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
just thought it was an interesting analogy...
Especially to those on the other side of the pond!
Certainly to those on this side of the pond, 'pants' it just a little too close to the skin...
So...should I have typed "trousers" instead?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So...should I have typed "trousers" instead?
Perhaps we could just skirt round the issue?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
It's another item in my 'ideas on scraps of paper that are filling a multiverse' – one day I aim to get around the looking at in more depth: What happens at the boundaries?
Humans like to categorise; we love being able to drop all the data we come across into nice neat little boxes... Perhaps this too was what source critics were trying to do: accommodate the desire for categories by dividing the data up into neat boxes.
...Still, I wonder if the fact that we as Christian readers stop at the end of Exodus one day and pick up Leviticus on a another day causes us to mis-read the ecosystem in some way?
Very much so, imho - we love our pigeon holes. Problem is, we forget they exist to help us manage information (a limitation of our brains, I suspect - we can only handle so much flow at any given moment) and we fall into thinking that the shape of the box in some way accurately reflects or even determines the shape of reality.
I tend to view it as our human limitations slamming into God's vastness - how do we make sense of God? And isn't it great that He has given us a series of interconnecting pieces which display His nature, His character, His patience, His love... (etc!)?
I'm with you, Nigel - Hebrew scriptures are sadly neglected by most Christians. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
It's another item in my 'ideas on scraps of paper that are filling a multiverse' – one day I aim to get around the looking at in more depth: What happens at the boundaries?
Humans like to categorise; we love being able to drop all the data we come across into nice neat little boxes... Perhaps this too was what source critics were trying to do: accommodate the desire for categories by dividing the data up into neat boxes.
...Still, I wonder if the fact that we as Christian readers stop at the end of Exodus one day and pick up Leviticus on a another day causes us to mis-read the ecosystem in some way?
Very much so, imho - we love our pigeon holes. Problem is, we forget they exist to help us manage information (a limitation of our brains, I suspect - we can only handle so much flow at any given moment) and we fall into thinking that the shape of the box in some way accurately reflects or even determines the shape of reality.
I tend to view it as our human limitations slamming into God's vastness - how do we make sense of God? And isn't it great that He has given us a series of interconnecting pieces which display His nature, His character, His patience, His love... (etc!)?
I'm with you, Nigel - Hebrew scriptures are sadly neglected by most Christians.
[Tangent] re God's vastness. Have you seen the latest Hubble photographs? Aren't they beautiful?
And if there were life on the outer edges of one of those star nurseries, what then? What we see now is something that happened light-years in the past. And while we can see both edges of the galaxy at the same time - though with considerable hindsight! - they - being light-years apart, cannot see each other.
And if we can begn to get our heads round that,
what might a God know? [/Tangent]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I am a very rare visitor to Kerygmania, and I am also a legislative drafter.
So apologies for the delayed reaction, but I thought I would just pop in here and say I found the rendition of Leviticus 5 utterly hilarious in the best possible way.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
If you enjoyed that I think you would like Exodus, which is now in Limbo.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
The next in what could be a long list of English translations of Hebrew words that could really do with a make over: Torah.
Pretty universally translated by 'Law', I think this is another example of a word that drags more into the Bible than was intended by the author(s) and leads to confusion. By extension, the same could be said of 'Law' as a translation of nomos in the NT.
The challenge: what word could be used in English to translate the meaning of Torah (and nomos)? I've had a go by using 'Standard' in the Leviticus thread in an attempt to allow the whole of the first five books to be considered, narrative as well as regulation. The Pentateuch becomes The Standard, within which one finds standards.
Even that word, though, fails to do justice to Torah as a concept. It sounds like a newspaper. Anyway, what do others think? Are we doomed (as with some other words in Hebrew) to resort to multiple-words-in-a-phrase in translation, or to a word like 'Law' accompanied by hefty footnotes? Or do we transliterate with hefty footnotes?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
The Rule?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The Rule?
That's not bad - it conjures up the idea of regulation as well as a baseline for measuring acceptable behaviour.
In fact, if it weren't for the fact that we Christians had already filched the idea, I would have suggested calling it "The Canon!"
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Cycle through the synonyms used in Psalm 119?
[eta link]
[ 02. August 2010, 19:57: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The Rule?
That's not bad - it conjures up the idea of regulation as well as a baseline for measuring acceptable behaviour.
In fact, if it weren't for the fact that we Christians had already filched the idea, I would have suggested calling it "The Canon!"
It is not uncommon for Jewish writers to use "teaching" or the like.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
So...if the early Hebrews were monotheists...where did this "Azazel" guy come from and why did they make offerings to him?
Is this a detail the deuteronomist missed?
--------------------
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
Whoever edited these sections must have had a bad day if he missed all four of the entries in chapter 16! I rather think their inclusion was deliberate. The translators of the Septuagint had a problem with this word, though. They appear to have assumed the word was a combination of two Hebrew words: the noun for 'goat' (az) and the verb 'depart' (azal) – hence “the one [goat] to be sent off” and the idea of carrying off evil into the wilderness as a scape-goat. The back-translated Hebrew sentence construction that would result is a bit tricky, however, in that it makes the goat go to itself.
If the Hebrew of BHS is correct, then the later book of Enoch has this refer to a demon-god, an evil spirit. As Leviticus is not presenting the goat as a sacrifice, I suppose it's possible that later Jews were not too hung up on the idea of there being a demon in the wilderness (it would be too unbelievable to have the passage refer to a sacrifice to a demon!). The key question is whether the author of Leviticus understood 'Azazel' to mean a demon. The word is unique to chapter 16, which would be strange if the author and his readers knew of thee existence of such a demon associated with the wilderness – especially given the years of trek through that territory. Still, there is Lev. 17:7 with its prohibition on the demonstration of loyalty by sacrifice to 'he-goats' (the demons in goat form – satyrs). It's a different word form, but might refer to the same thing.
Whichever reading is taken, verses 8 and 9 of chapter 16 have to be understood somehow in the context of verse 10:
quote:
Masoretic Text (BHS)
...the goat which was selected by lot for Azazel shall be stood alive before the Lord to make atonement on it to send it away to Azazel to the wilderness.
LXX
...the goat which the lot fell on of the one to carry away evil, he shall set it alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, to send it away into the place for sending away, he shall let it go into the wilderness.
The Lord makes atonement on it. The NIV falls over several stools (again!) here – the translator assumes that the atonement (whatever that is) is effected by the sending of the goat off into the wilderness. That's not what the text says. The NIV also follows the earlier tradition of translating 'azalel' by 'scapegoat.' I can't help wondering if this hasn't led the translator to prefer the idea of atonement being the act of sending away. Better, perhaps, to avoid the mistake of reading into this text something that may not be there by keeping 'Azalel' as it is.
I suppose we can't avoid here the link to 'atonement' and the 'atonement seat' in this chapter. The gold seat-thingy first makes an appearance at the planning stage, but it is not until here (Lev. 16) that its use is demonstrated. Interestingly, the blood of the sacrificed animals is used with respect to offsetting in some way the impact of the people’s rebellions on the Tent (and thus on the Lord), yet the offsetting-goat-for-Azazel goes off, blood and all. No sacrifice there.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Re: azazel, have either of you seen this lexicon entry from Gesenius?
Also: "Heb. Azazel, that is, the goat-gone-away. The Hebrew [ ] has been supposed by some to be the name of a place, either a mountain or cliff, to which the goat was led. But no place of that name has ever been pointed out, except a mountain near Sinai, which was too distant for the goat to be conducted there from Jerusalem. Other learned men think it was the name of the devil, who was worshipped by the heathen in the form of a goat. But Bp. Patrick justly objects to this opinion; for it is difficult to conceive, that when the other goat was offered to God, this should be sent among demons. The more probable opinion seems to be, that it was name given to the goat itself, on account of his being let go; from aiz, a goat, and azal, to depart. So LXX. [~apopompaov~] and Vulgate emissarius, sent away; Aquila and Symmachus [~tragov apercomenov~] or [~apolelumenov~:] the goat going away, or dismissed."
There are a bunch of commentaries and teachings there at BlueLetterBible; I've not gone through all of them yet. I do find it useful to bear in mind that the Septuagint was translated in the third century before Christ whereas the Masoretic text is post-Christian; so if you're looking for Jewish thought unencumbered by Christian overtones, the Septuagint is arguably more accurate; the Masoretic is reactionary.
It may be a better translation, by and large, but it's definitely reactionary (e.g., the whole virgin/young woman variance from Isaiah 7).
So I don't think azazel is a guy/demon/whatever and I do think 'scapegoat' is a better understanding - but that leads to the whole "slain outside the camp" thing, which Hebrews 13 references - so nope, can't let that stand.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
On Leviticus 18:25 (and following) all the translations I have seen agree that the land "vomits" out its inhabitants. As a metaphor, it is great, but was it supposed to imply some sort of natural event and, if so, what? At first I was thinking of a volcano, but surely there weren't any in the area at the time, were there? Could the thought have been of an earthquake (sort of the dry heaves, I guess)?
I admit that I have been a bit hesitant of late to contribute to the Non-Stop, particularly with Leviticus, which I find rather difficult to "translate" into Non-Stoppage. But even ignoring that, I am keenly aware that I am not nearly as learned as others who contribute and I worry greatly that I am getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
But then I started feeling guilty that Nigel M and Bullfrog are left carrying the load, so I have started contributing again. But my courage may leave me at any moment!
--------------------
"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
Hedgehog:
Thanks to a recent move I have not been able to be online as oft as I used to be, but wanted to express my gratitude to you for having the courage to contribute and to say that you have no reason to be ashamed. Your post was funny and hit the right points. I wish more were as courageous as you.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Nigel M: It was a bit of a walk to the Meeting Tent and by the time he and his sons were within sprinkling distance he had run out of words to rhyme with “priest” so was reduced to...
“Hum diddle la, yiddle diddle phweest,
Yad da de dum bum, I'm going to be a priest!”
I know I'm a little late for this, but this had me tear-faced with laughter. I actually had to make an effort to hide this, because I read this at work, transforming my laughts into a rather unelegant snort.
I realize that this probably takes a lot of time and effort, but if some day you could go on with this thread it would be much appreciated!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
The Second Thoughts thread is for more serious discussion. So, seriously, is there a typo in Leviticus when you get to 19:19? God has been talking about Justice and Love Your Neighbor As Your Self--pretty much key points in how we believe God wants us to interact with each other--and then suddenly He says: By the way, don't wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric????
Is that as random as it looks? Does it make sense to suddenly be discussing the Coat-Of-Many-Colors-But-Only-One-Fabric? Is there an explanation that would make such a prohibition a logical follow-up to what has gone before?
Actually, this is partially why I like doing the Non-Stop--because it (ironically) makes me stop and read carefully sections that I used to just blip over quickly without thinking.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I wonder if nearby people had some sort of religious requirement that you had to wear mixed fibers, at least under some circumstances.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think it was a kind of object lesson on not mixing up more important things, i.e. religions. A lot of the weirder purity laws seem to have been like that--don't sow 2 kinds of seed in same field, yoke two different species together, etc. etc. Even the dietary laws appear to be aimed at making sure you eat proper fish, fowl, land animals, and not the weirdo things that fall in between (crabs, for example, which haven't got scales like a proper fish!).
--------------------
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
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
My guess is somebody made a vest out of linen with soft cotton arms, then washed the thing in water that was too hot. The cotton shrrank more than the linen....
Of course, some things are meant to be crooked, but they (HE) hadn't cottoned on to that yet. You know, like different woods to allow a bow to bend without snapping, not to mention all the metal thingies which only work because one heats up and expands faster than the other. I wonder if the local bowmakers kept the lid on the different woods thing, to keep their books full of replacement orders...
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I've wondered if it had to do with quality (one is nicer than the other) or source material (one is from animal, the other from plants.)
--------------------
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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Is that as random as it looks? Does it make sense to suddenly be discussing the Coat-Of-Many-Colors-But-Only-One-Fabric? Is there an explanation that would make such a prohibition a logical follow-up to what has gone before?
You may not find it particularly satisfying, but I can offer an explanation of the way Swedenborgians interpret a passage such as Leviticus 19:19. Or rather, a similar passage such as Deuteronomy 22:11, which Bullfrog seems to be alluding to:
quote:
You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.
I agree that such a prohibition makes no sense as a divine command from on high, from the creator of the universe, as part of a new religion with a new moral code of conduct. However, I take it as a strong indication that there is more going on here than is apparent from a literal reading. I do think that the Israelites were supposed to follow the law literally and not wear garments of mixed materials, but as Lamb Chopped points out, it can be taken as symbolic of something different.
Clothing is referenced all throughout the Bible, such as in very detailed descriptions that included as are part of various visions, including visions of Christ himself in Revelation. We (Swedenborgians) take all these references to various types of clothing as symbolic, external representations of the more abstract concept of how a person chooses to interact with others, because how we dress is often one of the most visible signs which other people take as cues about our attitude and which help determine how they treat us and respond to us. For a couple of extreme examples, we can easily offend a host if we choose to dress too informally as a guest at a formal occasion, or invite criticism if we were to dress entirely inappropriately in something like a Halloween costume at a Bible discussion group.
In the case of Deuteronomy 22:11, we interpret the literal reference to mixing wool and linen in clothing as a symbolic reference to mixing two very different modes of interaction. The interpretation we give to each material is based on the fact that, as Bullfrog pointed out, the former is derived from sheep and the latter is derived from the flax plant.
In general our relationships with each other are either based on love, or based on rules and norms - usually rules and norms derived from social context and culture. Because wool is derived from sheep and sheep are symbolic representations of innocence and purity, we interpret woolen clothing as symbolizing our interactions in relationships based on love. And because linen is derived from a plant, we interpret linen clothing as symbolizing our interactions in relations based on rules.
The reason we believe God prohibited the Israelites from wearing material mixed of wool and linen is that it was symbolic prohibition against mixing the two basic modes of interacting - one mode being for relationships based on love and one mode for relationships based on rules. Each mode of interacting is appropriate for its corresponding type of relationship, but once the relationship moves from being one based on rules to one based on love, the old mode of interacting is no longer appropriate. This idea is very abstract and therefore difficult for me to elaborate on, but that is also why I think God did not give the Israelites a straight-forward translation of this particular concept into specific ways of interacting that they should avoid. So instead of trying to elaborate, let me just give a couple of examples.
If I were to join a company as a new employee, I might be assigned a mentor who would be responsible for introducing me to my job and to the way the company operates. The mentor might also evaluate me and give me specific directions about what work I'm supposed to do or not do. Such a relationship would be somewhat formal and would tend to follow social norms about a relationship between people in unequal positions. If, over the next several years, the two of us were develop a very close friendship, our interactions would naturally evolve from being based on rules and norms to being based more on the nature of our friendship. If my friend were to suddenly revert to interacting with me according to our original relationship as my mentor, for whatever reason, our friendship could easily be severely jeopardized or even ruined because the two modes of interacting conflict with each other. Similarly, if two close friends join a company and one becomes the other's supervisor, things could easily get very messy.
As another example, if I were to take a class taught by my parent, I would expect that parent to treat me as a student in the class room, but as a family member otherwise. Treating me as a family member during class or as a student outside of class just would not work well and could easily cause resentment.
These examples are only examples and I'm sure the Biblical laws about mixed material clothing are actually about more important relationships than those in my examples. (I would imagine that they probably refer to something like relationships between priest and laity, or between people and God.) But I'm hoping that perhaps my examples serve to illustrate (although somewhat clumsily) a concept that is, at best, fuzzy in my own mind.
So to me, Leviticus 19:19 fits in just fine with the flow of the previous laws. Of course, this still leaves open the whole question of why God would have the Israelites follow such a law purely as a symbolic gesture, but that's a different discussion.
I'd be interested to hear whether this makes any sense to you (or anyone else) or not.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I would like to use two words to replace 'holy' and 'abomination'.
Instead of 'holy' I would use 'different' or even 'radical' depending on the context.
You are to be different, your behaviour is to be radical.
I would stop saying things are an abomination; instead I would use the word 'taboo'.
The idea is that for 'different' people, there are some things that are 'taboo'.
It's not that in themselves some of these things are intrinsically evil, it's just that for God's people - even when the reasoning is not always clear, some actions and behaviours are simply taboo.
i.e., God's people are different to others in society; for them, some things(acceptable to others) are taboo.
We are different, not better or morally superior.
We just don't do it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I just want to clarify or emphasise a point - that if the injunction to be 'different' is what lies behind holiness, the question is, 'different to what'?
The answer is that Israel was chosen to be different to the other tribes and nations. So, if there was a practice, a ritual, a 'way of doing things' that was identifiably from a particular culture, God simply said, 'but you are different, so don't do X, y or z.'
A lot of what was cultural in other nations was intrinsically tied up with ritual practice - as we all know there was no religious/secular divide in the ancient world - so often, thinghs we see as unexplainable and unjustifiable - mixed fibres, for example - may well have their origin in the dress of an idolatrous tribe.
The injunction be 'different' therefore includes the taboo of wearing mixed fibres because, morally neutral as wool and cotton in a coat may well be, it actually would make the Israelites look very different to the Canaanite or Amalekite tribes who may have worn particular distinctive clothing.
Just a thought that highlights that holiness doesn't always mean internally pure, but can also simply mean 'look different' because you belong to YHWH.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Is that as random as it looks? Does it make sense to suddenly be discussing the Coat-Of-Many-Colors-But-Only-One-Fabric? Is there an explanation that would make such a prohibition a logical follow-up to what has gone before?
I was told long ago, and assumed that everyone else now did, that the Coat of many colours was a mistranslation. I was told that It was a coat with long sleeves, which meant that father-favoured Jospeph was not doing any menial, dirty work which would have required him to 'pull his sleeves up'.
quote:
The NetBible notes say:
It is not clear what this tunic was like, because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the OT. An examination of cognate terms in Semitic suggests it was either a coat or tunic with long sleeves (cf. NEB, NRSV), or a tunic that was richly embroidered (cf. NIV). It set Joseph apart as the favored one.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I was told long ago, and assumed that everyone else now did, that the Coat of many colours was a mistranslation. I was told that It was a coat with long sleeves, which meant that father-favoured Jospeph was not doing any menial, dirty work which would have required him to 'pull his sleeves up'.
Before this gets derailed, let me apologize. My reference to the Coat of Many Colors was just me being whimsical. I was thinking about a requirement of a garment being of only one fabric, and my mind, being what it is, immediately cross-referenced it with the traditional concept of the Coat of Many Colors. And it struck me as funny to think of a garment of many colors while a religious prohibition required it to be made of one fabric. Sorry. It is just the way my mind works. I keep promising myself to restrain the impulse to be whimsical on these boards, but to be honest, it ain't never gonna happen. I know myself too well. Honestly, it is why I feel at home in the Non-Stop threads.
W Hyatt, thank you for your response. I am not sure sure that I am convinced by it, but it is a fascinating perspective on the issue. It still strikes me as odd that God (the one of Many-Tenses, as Non-Stop likes to say), would suddenly go allegorical when the verses before were decidedly non-allegorical. But, honestly, that might not be God. That might be a monk in, oh, say, the 800s trying to "clarify" things for us. God bless him.
--------------------
"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
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I would have been amazed if you were convinced by it. Since it's a way of interpreting the Bible that doesn't get much air time, and since the passage is one that is so puzzling, I thought it was good time to present it as at least one possible approach to making sense of that particular passage.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Bravo!!
