TheBibleNet: Genesis 15:1-15:21

Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50

15:1 ACHAR HA DEVARIM HA ELEH HAYAH DEVAR YHVH EL AV-RAM BA MACHAZEH LEMOR AL TIYRA AV-RAM ANOCHI MAGEN LACH SECHARCHA HARBEH ME'OD

אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר יְהוָה אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ שְׂכָרְךָ הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד

KJ (King James translation): After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

BN (BibleNet translation): After these things the voice of YHVH came to Av-Ram in a vision, saying, "Have no fear, Av-Ram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great."

DAVAR: Means "a word", but as described here, what Av-Ram encounters first is the voice, and only then the content; hence my translation.

MACHAZEH: What do we understand by this? The root is CHAZAH (חזה), and the word only appears one other time, in Numbers 24, where in fact it occurs twice, in verse 4 and then again in verse 16 (ASHER MACHAZEH SHADAI YECHEZEH - אֲשֶׁר מַחֲזֵה שַׁדַּי יֶחֱזֶה - "who sees Shadai in a vision") both of them relating to the pagan prophet Bil'am (Balaam), whose attempts to curse Yisra-El are turned into curses; Shadai being precisely the El Shadai who we have been told was Av-Ram's god. The reason why there are no other occurrences is almost certainly because this way of making prophesy was anathema to the Beney Yisra-El, which therefore makes it rather more surprising to find the word used here of Av-Ram, than to not find it elsewhere. Visions belong to those who take haoma (as we today might take LSD or smoke ganja), or who engage with Yidonim and Ba'alot Ov (Leviticus 20:6 specifically prohibits this), who participate in seances with ouija boards or consult the Tarot. Elsewhere we read that YHVH MIT'HOLECH with Av-Ram; that, like Mosheh, Av-Ram has immediate and direct contact, albeit usually through those messages sent by the light of the stars and known as "angels". How then does this idea of his having a vision even get into the text? Av-Ram is not Muhammad on the night of the Isra.

YHVH obviously approves of the way Av-Ram handled the Eylamites and the five kings. But the god who appears here is "almost certainly the Bull-God El, a Kena'anite god, and probably the same one who will attack Ya'akov in Genesis 32 and try to kill Moses in Exodus 18:38" (Graves' view this; I express no opinion, but merely present the scholarly opinions).

"This presence was later identified with the pillar of fire (Exodus 13 ff) and by the fire that consumed Eli-Yahu's (Elijah's) sacrifices (1 Kings 18:38). The sacrificial animals in the following verses were sacred to the Kena'anite moon-goddess Amaltheia (heifer), the goddess of the Pelishtim who mothered Cretan Zeus (she-goat); and the ram to the Sumerian sky-god or the ram-headed Ammon of Egypt. Note that the ram appears again at the Akeda."

Ammon, or sometimes Amon, is the Greek rendering of the name; Egyptian pronunication prefers Amun. Amaltheia was her name among the Cretans, which makes sense that it should therefore have been her name among the Pelishtim, but it is not obvious who her equivalent might have been in the Kena'ani world (though my notes to verse 17 may offer a possibility)

Go to verse 5 and it will then become clear where the vision took place – inside the Tent of Sarah. Which was not her bedroom, but the shrine - see also Genesis 24:67. Redacted carefully, the source nonetheless reveals itself: this was originally liturgical.

15:2 VA YOMER AV-RAM ADONAI YHVH MAH TITEN LI VE ANOCHI HOLECH ARIYRI U VEN MESHEK BEYTI HU DAMESEK ELI-EZER

וַיֹּאמֶּר אַבְרָם אֲדֹנָי יֱהוִה מַה תִּתֶּן לִי וְאָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי וּבֶן מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר

KJ: And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

BN: Then Av-Ram said, "Lord YHVH, what will you give me, seeing that I am childless, and the one who will inherit my house is Eli-Ezer of Damasek?”

What indeed does a vision mean? This verse suggests that it was Av-Ram who went looking for his god, and not the other way around. A sheikh who has everything, but no heir, and fears that his non-tribal steward will inherit for lack of anyone else. Normal enough to pray to god for a son in such circumstances. Strangely this vision is never referred to in sermons on the visitations of the angels; yet they clearly come in answer to this prayer of Av-Ram's. The only oddity is his surprise when the fulfillment of the prayer is announced.

Add in another dimension though; in terms of original sources: do not forget that Sarai is herself the fertility goddess.

Av-Ram, knowing he is in favour at the moment (yet why is he in favour; he has not done anything specific to merit favour, or not with this god anyway; is it rather that god-worship was not about faith but about fear and bartering? If you god will give me a son I will thank you by giving you sacrifices...), wants the covenant on his terms; YHVH says I will look after you and be your reward - the reward he has turned down above - but Av-Ram wants tangibles not abstracts: all of which is highly pertinent to an understanding of the Beney Yisra-Eli mind, which talks with its god as with an equal, and trades and bargains and expects as with any other partner in a contract. Why should YHVH be dealt with in his treaty any differently from Mamre or Eshkol in theirs?

ADONAI YHVH (אדני יהוה): Calling him Lord or Master does nonetheless establish the real courtier-king relationship.

VEN MESHEK...ELI-EZER (בן משק...אליעזר): Interesting to see the ancient tribal customs here. Because he has no son, a foreigner who happens to be his chief steward is automatically his heir; though of course Eli-Ezer isn't really a foreigner, or only in the same degree that Av-Ram himself is. The real point is that Eli-Ezer is from a different tribe. Is this the same Eli-Ezer who later fetches Rivkah (Rebecca) for Yitschak? The Midrashic tradition that he had 318 servants is sourced in Genesis 14:14, but claims to be based on the numerical value of Eli-Ezer's name, which it says is 318 (but it isn't; 318 in Yehudit/Ivrit letters is שיח - so maybe they were counting in Aramaic; but type "318 in Hebrew letters" into a surf engine and see how much mystico-fun you can have!).

And then see Genesis 14:14: "And when Av-Ram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan." So the Midrash is half-right: it wasn't 318 servants, but 318 men of fighting age – by no means the same thing. We will see a similar disparity of counting when Mosheh brings the Beney Yisra-El out of Mitsrayim (Egypt).

ARIYRI (ערירי): from the root ARAR (ערר) whence also "naked" and "cunning" as with the serpent of Eden; but is it not odd that the idea of "childlessness" should suddenly be linked to this word! Almost as if the curse on Chavah and the serpent is "barrenness", and not the pain of parturition. Go back with this to Genesis 3:14-16.

15:3 VA YOMER AV-RAM HEN LI LO NATATAH ZARA VE HINEH VEN BEYTI YORESH ITI

וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע וְהִנֵּה בֶן בֵּיתִי יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי

KJ: And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

BN: And Av-Ram said, "Behold, to me you have given no descendant, and lo, one born in my house is to be my heir."

Is this not exactly what he said in the previous verse?

Thereby discounting Lot as a possible heir; why as nephew can he not inherit? In fact, under Mosaic law, if Av-Ram died without leaving a son, it is precisely Lot who would inherit, ahead of Eli-Ezer. So the only reason there can be for Lot not inheriting is that, in this version at least, Lot is either: not a relative; or: not male.

Did verse 2 not just call him Eli-Ezer of Damasek? So where was he born – there, or in Av-Ram's house (which of course is a nomadic house, a mobile home)? He is unlikely to be called Eli-Ezer of Damasek unless he came from Damasek. Under what legal powers then does a foreigner who has taken a job become the natural heir? Did Av-Ram formally adopt him? Is he some kind of "Senior Vassal"?

15:4 VE HINEH DEVAR YHVH ELAV LO YIYRASHCHA ZEH KI IM ASHER YETS'E MI ME'EYCHA HU YIYRASHECHA

וְהִנֵּה דְבַר יְהוָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר לֹא יִירָשְׁךָ זֶה כִּי אִם אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ הוּא יִירָשֶׁךָ

KJ: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

BN: And behold, the voice of YHVH came to him saying, "This man shall not be your heir; but he who will come from your own testicles will be your heir."

Michelangelo anatomical sketch

The KJ above really is the standard translation and requires no further comment than to say that it displays a rather naive understanding of human reproductive anatomy; or is it mere prurience? Not in the Yehudit though, which is remarkably explicit - MA'ACH can be found in Leviticus 22:24 as one of the ways (in this case damaged testicles) that render an animal blemished and therefore unfit for sacrifice. Written this way at the time of the Latin Vulgate, before Michelangelo and Leonard did their dissections and their anatomical drawings; before Vesalius. Maybe they just didn't know any better!

15:5 VA YOTS'E OTO HACHUTSAH VA YOMER HABET NA HASHAMAYEMAH U SEPHOR HA KOCHAVIM IM TUCHAL LISPOR OTAM VA YOMER LO KOH YIHEYEH ZAR'ECHA

וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים אִם תּוּכַל לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ

KJ: And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

BN: And he took him outside, and said, "Look up at the skies and count the stars, if you are even able to count them"; and he said to him, "So shall your descendants be."

HACHUTSAH (החוצה): Neither the KJ above, nor the common alternative: "the word of YHVH came to him outside", but literally "and he took him outside".

The verse is a variation on the previous covenant.

Again the words come to him in vision. This is theologically different from other scenes wherein the god talks to men, even to Av-Ram or Av-Raham: this again helps us date the text.

15:6 VE HE'EMIN BA YHVH VA YACHSHEVEHA LO TSEDAKAH

וְהֶאֱמִן בַּיהוָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָה

KJ: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

BN: And he believed in YHVH; and he thought well of him for this righteousness.

HE'EMIN (האמן): this may be the only time that "belief in" rather than "fear of" is spoken of in the Tanach; again it dates the text very late, because intellectual convictions and abstract paradigms of the divinity (as opposed to the deity) do not commence earlier than the 6th century BCE (Zoroastrianism started earlier, but like Biblical proto-Judaism did not become abstract until later). The root of the word "Amen" lies here: "I believe". Having said which, the belief is still of the LEV, the heart; there is no mention of MO'ACH = "brain" anywhere in the Tanach, though the verb that follows, YACHSHEVEHA, is rooted in the word for intellectual thought, CHASHAV (חשב); but it also gives the word CHESHBON, which is a financial account or a reckoning of some kind; and it is this latter which Rashi offers as the most likely translation: "and He accounted it to him as righteousness" in his rendition (click here).

YACHSHEVEHA...TSEDEKAH (ויחשבה לו צדקה): The use of the feminine is highly significant here (especially as the feminine ending followed by the masculine pronoun actually makes no grammatical sense), indeed it provides the clue that the place of worship, the tent, was Sarai's, which is to say Asherah's.

The translation as given in KJ and many other English versions makes no sense at all however; the reference to TSEDAKAH (צדקה) seems to take us back to Malki Tsedek a few verses ago, but it clearly is not that. Most likely this verse has been bowdlerised to hide either Av-Ram's expression of loyalty to his sun-god, and that god's female consort-goddess, or more likely it is the reduction of a tale in which Av-Ram is himself the bestower of fertility for his people, in his capacity as sun and/or sky-god, with Sarai as his female consort-goddess. Either that, or it is the Beney Yisra-Eli tribal sheikh, bearing his god's name as a dynastic title, but worshipping the sun-god Av-Ram and the moon-goddess Sarai.

End of fifth fragment

15:7 VA YOMER ELAV ANI YHVH ASHER HOTS'ETICHA ME UR KASDIM LATET LECHA ET HA ARETS HA ZOT LE RISHTAH

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים לָתֶת לְךָ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְרִשְׁתָּהּ

KJ: And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

BN: And he said to him, "I am YHVH, who brought you out of Ur Kasdim, to give you this land as an inheritance."

A form of words that echoes the covenant with Mosheh (though it has been pointed out that Av-Ram may well not actually have come from Ur). Phrases like this do rather make a nonsense later on, in Exodus, of the claim that he was never called YHVH by Av-Raham, Yitschak or Ya'akov (see Exodus 6:3 for example: "and I appeared to Av-Raham, to Yitschak and to Ya'akov as El Shadai, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them."

UR KASDIM: The texts actually have Terach taken out of Ur Kasdim, Av-Ram merely a member of his entourage, and Av-Ram's call - "Lech lecha" - from Charan; which sounds like hair-splitting, but it may also be the difference between Av-Ram and Av-Raham in the original tribal myths and legends.

15:8 VA YOMAR ADONAI YEHVIH, BA MAH EDA KI IYRASHENAH

וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהוִה בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה

KJ: And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

BN: And he said: "My Lord YEHVIH, how shall I know that I shall inherit it?"

And yet, just two verses ago, we were told unequivocally that Av-Ram "believed"; is this simply lazy editing, or does the word "belief" contain some other meaning than any of those the dictionary has yet elucidated.

YEHVIH - יֱהוִה: Every translation I can find uses the god-name, YHVH, but what is written in the Yehudit text may or may not be the familiar god-name. The Masoretic text has pointed it so that it reads YEHVIH. However, the original Ugaritic alphabet/Yehudit version, in which there is no pointing, renders it in the familiar manner -

which at first sight makes you think that it says Zeus, not YHVH!

The residual question then is: why did the Masoretes point it in this manner?

15:9 VA YOMER ELAV KECHAH LI EGLAH MESHULESHET VE EZ MESHULESHET VE AYIL MESHULASH VE TOR VE GOZAL

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו קְחָה לִי עֶגְלָה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת וְעֵז מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת וְאַיִל מְשֻׁלָּשׁ וְתֹר וְגוֹזָל

KJ: And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

BN: And he said to him, "Take a heifer, three years old, and a she-goat, three years old, and a three year old ram, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon."

For a detailed list of the types and methods of offering and sacrifice, as well as the Biblical text sources for each, click here or here; both are useful and complement each other. After Mosheh (possibly before as well but we can't know that), the turtle-dove will only have been offered as a burnt offering at the door of the tabernacle, by a commoner for specific sins (Leviticus 6:13), or as a general offering for the unintentional sins of the people (Leviticus 4:12); obviously Av-Ram was not following Mosaic practice, but the Mosaic practice is likely to have been typical of the world at that time, so we can reasonably assume that Av-Ram is sacrificing for a specific sin of his own and of his people, and doing so in his role as priest-king (Leviticus 4:12 describes a practice carried out by the priests on behalf of an individual, rather than by any individual for himself, or on behalf of the common people). The logic of the context infers that he is cleansing himself and them of blood-sins acquired in the recent war.

KECHAH (קחה): again why feminine? The masculine would be KACH - קח. Is YHVH speaking to Av-Ram or to Sarai? If he was talking to Av-Ram, he should surely say KACH; it is hard to "believe" in a god who does not even speak his own first language grammatically correctly.

EGLAH (עגלה): note the female. As pointed out by Graves (see note to verse 1), the heifer was sacred to the Kena'anite equivalent of the moon-goddess Amaltheia, and the Mosaic laws are very precise about which animal, and which age and gender of animal, is sacrificed to YHVH in any particular circumstance. Significant offerings are always male (see for example Leviticus 1:3); other than the red heifer of Numbers 19, which is quite specific to the purification of the Kohanim, significant sacrifices of female animals in the Mosaic laws are restricted to lambs and goats, or otherwise to fowl (turtle-doves and pigeons).

MESHULESHET (משלשת): three years old for a heifer would make the meat very tough and not good for eating - why then a three-year-old? Because three is the sacred number of the triple goddess! Amaltheia once again.

EZ (עז): a nanny not a billy goat; this would make the offering, by Mosaic Law, accord with Leviticus 4:12 (see above).

AYIL (איל): this time male, a ram, if it is indeed AYIL. But if it were AYAL (איל), spelled the same but pointed differently, it would be a stag or hart or gazelle, female, of which Ein Gedi is still abundant to this day, and of which the Vale of Sidim was famous in Av-Ram's time as it still is to this day. The Ayal would also link back to the Tsevoyim (צבאים) earlier. Given the context, it is highly likely to have been AYAL, though Leviticus 4:12 would require it to be AYELET, the female.

TOR (תר): the turtle-dove, sacred to guess which female divinity. But the turtle-dove was also the emblem of the Beney Edom and the nomadic Beney Yishma-El; the pigeon, or actually the white dove (Hosea 7:11 and 11:11; Song of Songs 2:14) was the emblem of Yisra-El. I have not written the Yehudit; to give you a moment to guess it. Yonah of course: יוֹנָה - Jonah.

GOZAL (גוזל): any fledgling bird could be called a GOZAL, though usually it referred to the dove and pigeon. Need I say more - we are again talking about the imposition of a patriarchal cult upon an earlier female one - clearly the deity with whom Av-Ram spoke and agreed a covenant was the triple goddess, one of whose Yehudit names was Sarai.

Quite a feast for a god(dess)!

But the verse is the first real piece of clear proof of the nature of the gods (note the plural) that Av-Ram worshipped; and we can take it that the sheikh's first wife served as the priestess of the female deity, sharing the divine name Sarai?

Why does YHVH ask for these sacrifices, if it is not post-war purgation as suggested above? He has promised Av-Ram massive fertility; though Av-Ram is doubtful, despite verse 6. In ancient terms, a successful sacrifice is needed. If YHVH accepts the sacrifice, it proves the covenant. If YHVH does not accept it, the law of Kayin applies. And how anyway does the god reject a sacrifice? By the sacrificial beast shying away, or being found unclean, or rain damping down the fire, or some other such obstacle.

15:10 VA YIKACH LO ET KOL ELEH VA YEVATER OTAM BA TAVECH VA YITEN ISH BITRO LIKRA'T RE'EHU VE ET HA TSIPUR LO VATAR

וַיִּקַּח לוֹ אֶת כָּל אֵלֶּה וַיְבַתֵּר אֹתָם בַּתָּוֶךְ וַיִּתֵּן אִישׁ בִּתְרוֹ לִקְרַאת רֵעֵהוּ וְאֶת הַצִפֹּר לֹא בָתָר

KJ: And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

BN: And he took all of these for himself, and separated them half-and-half on the altar, placing each half beside the other; but he did not separate the birds.

TOR (תר) = "turtle-dove", YEVATER (יבתר) = "divided", BITRO (בתרו), which is really BI TERO, but ellided = "against each other", BATAR (בתר) = "divided"; a lovely series of puns around the root letters Bet Tav and Reysh (ב-ת-ר).

BATAVECH (בתוך): Is this right? Or is it BETOCH (בתוך)? Or indeed a scribal error for BA TEVACH (בטבח) = "on the altar"? The latter I believe, but standard translations and commentaries all go for "BATAVECH" = "in the midst", even though it actually makes no sense to slice them in half before sacrificing them, because that would render them as blemished, and blemished creatures cannot be sacrificed.

Indeed the whole meaning of this verse needs more thinking about.

LO VATAR (לא בתר): why not?

Covenants were not drawn up as legal documents, but entered into by means of a rite, usually through the covenantee immersing himself in or smearing his body with the blood of the severed carcases, and something somewhere getting cut (see Exodus 24:5-8). This is known as KARAT BERIT (Genesis 15:18 below; also 21:27 et alia) or AVRAT BI BRIT (Deuteronomy 29:11); see also Ezekiel 16:8 (VA AVO VI VERIT OT'CHA - וָאָבוֹא בִבְרִית אֹתָךְ) and 2 Kings 23:3 (VA YIKROT ET HA BERIT - וַיִּכְרֹת אֶת הַבְּרִית). Clearly this is what is about to take place here. Many of these rites included the use of drugs (cf 1 Samuel 10), and this may serve as an explanation of the "vision" experienced by Av-Ram, save only that the use of drugs was never a part of the Beney Yisra-El rites (or it was, but the Ezraic Redactor disapproved, and the new theology required its removal from history as well as its own present).

15:11 VA YERED HA AYIT AL HA PEGARIM VA YASHEV OTAM AV-RAM

וַיֵּרֶד הָעַיִט עַל הַפְּגָרִים וַיַּשֵּׁב אֹתָם אַבְרָם

KJ: And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

BN: And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Av-Ram drove them away.

Not a good sign. Precisely the sort of "obstacle" suggested above; if the birds of prey got the carcass, it would be rendered unclean, and so the god could not receive it and the sacrifice was rejected. All this is worth taking back to the Kayin and Havel story.

And is this perhaps also why the sacrificed birds were not half-and-halved?

15:12 VA YEHI HA SHEMESH LAV'O VE TARDEMAH NAPHLAH AL AV-RAM VE HINEH EYMAH CHASHECHA GEDOLAH NOPHELET ALAV

וַיְהִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ לָבוֹא וְתַרְדֵּמָה נָפְלָה עַל אַבְרָם וְהִנֵּה אֵימָה חֲשֵׁכָה גְדֹלָה נֹפֶלֶת עָלָיו

KJ: And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

BN: And it came to pass that, when the sun was going down, that a deep sleep fell upon Av-Ram, and lo a dread, even a great darkness, fell upon him.

EYMAH: Once again, connected to a sacrificial cult, deep sleep and strange hallucinations, followed by godspeak - compare this with the Adam-play in Genesis 2. But it is also what we should expect, if Av-Ram is indeed the sun-god; every day of the year, come rain or come shine, the sun-god falls into a deep sleep at the end of day, and stays there, his eyes blinded and his hair-rays cut, like Shimshon, until the dawn chorus wakes him up again, and he can be reborn, so to speak, through the thighs of Nut (that's the Egyptian version - click here)

Also, what is the significance above of not dividing the birds? Are we talking hallucinogenics at this point, or the trance of fervent prayer? The body-painting, the visions, and now this, all suggest shamanistic rituals, something from a much earlier age that has somehow lived on in the sagas.

But this is not fear and terror as we envision it today. We have already met the Eymim, in Genesis 14:5, where they were simply one of the participants in the War of the Kings. But follow the link on their name, and you will see that these were something akin to the Greek Harpies or the Babylonian Lilim - night-spirits. The fear and terror is simply Av-Ram having a nightmare - probably induced by whatever drugs were used in the ceremony. But does it also require us to go back and rethink the War of the Kings as an astrological event, rather than a human one?

SHEMESH (שמש): if this is a sun-cult, then the going down of the sun equates with death, and the darkness of sleep likewise; but is it a simulated death, as part of the ritual; or simply a metaphorical one. Clearly it isn't meant literally. cf Ya'akov at Beit-El in Genesis 28, but also "Sha'ul among the Prophets" (1 Samuel 19:24). And then, he is about to receive an oracular response - think of Shakespeare's Macbeth, going down into the dark underworld of Hecate, or Hamlet with the skull of Yorick.

15:13 VA YOMER LE AV-RAM YADO'A TEDA KI GER YIHEYEH ZAR'ACHA BE ERETS LO LAHEM VA AVADUM VE INU OTAM ARBA ME'OT SHANAH

וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה

KJ: And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

BN: And he said to Av-Ram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will be servants to them; and they will suffer under them for four hundred years."

Who is speaking to Av-Ram? The priest, priestess, god or goddess? Or an oracle, through a serpent-mask or a skull?

AVADUM (עבדום): Is this grammatically correct?

Strange prophecy, appearing as it does to reverse the former blessing and covenant. How much of it is a late addition by the Guild of Prophets or the Ezraic Redactor, an attempt to establish the historical authenticity of the Passover tale; and if so, it leads to the question: why was such an authentication necessary? Did people hear it, and say: don't be ridiculous? To which the Redactor needed an answer, and came up with this – "but it was actually predicted to Av-Ram in a dream that wasn't just an ordinary dream but a really special kind of shamanistic vision". And four verses earlier the concept of "intellectual belief in god" had been introduced, somewhat anachronistically – and now we know why. "Av-Ram believed, so you should too."

And yet the precise time of the exile which is later claimed for the Beney Yisra-El in Egypt was 430 years (Exodus 12:40), though the details in the rest of that book do not bear the number out; so this isn't quite such a precise vision of the deity after all!

Obviously all this was induced by drugs, as was most ancient prophecy. This is Av-Ram serving in his capacity as priest-king.

15:14 VE GAM ET HA GOY ASHER YA'AVODU DAN ANOCHI VE ACHAREY CHEN YETS'U BIRCHUSH GADOL

וְגַם אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ דָּן אָנֹכִי וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל

KJ: And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

BN: "And I will also judge that nation, the one whom they shall serve; and afterward they shall leave with much wealth.

The other part of the Exodus story that defies intellectual credibility is the "great substance" that the supposed slaves brought out of Mitsrayim (Egypt); enough to make a golden calf, and then the entire panoply of theatricalities for the Mishkan: clothing, ornaments, etc. Where did they get it, given that they were supposedly oppressed slaves living in poverty in Goshen? There is an absurd statement that the women of Mitsrayim stood at the roadside while the Beney Yisra-El fled by night, and handed them their jewellery (Exodus 12:35 et al). One can imagine the listeners to Ezra smiling when that verse was recited. But Ezra needed to authenticate that part of the Passover story too – and here it is, in Av-Ram's shamanistic vision.

DAN (דן): this seems to be the source of the confusion, as it isn't written as either noun or verb; the sentence appears to say "Ve anochi gam yidan ha goy asher ya'avodu" = "and I will also judge the nation who will enslave them" – meaning the Egyptians; the same words unchanged but in a slightly different order; and thereby making sense - clearly Hertz shares this view, judging (!) by his translation.

15:15 VE ATAH TAVO EL AVOTEYCHA BE SHALOM TIKAVER BE SEYVAH TOVAH

וְאַתָּה תָּבוֹא אֶל אֲבֹתֶיךָ בְּשָׁלוֹם תִּקָּבֵר בְּשֵׂיבָה טוֹבָה

KJ: And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

BN: "But you will go to your ancestors in peace; you will be buried at a ripe old age.

ATAH: Masculine singular, not plural, and therefore definitely a statement about Av-Ram and not about his descendants. I mention this only because the preceding and succeeding verses are both about the descendants.

15:16 VE DOR REVIYI YASHUVU HENAH KI LO SHALEM AVON HA EMORI AD HENAH

וְדוֹר רְבִיעִי יָשׁוּבוּ הֵנָּה כִּי לֹא שָׁלֵם עֲוֹן הָאֱמֹרִי עַד הֵנָּה

KJ: But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

BN: "But the fourth generation shall return here; for the sins of the Emorites will not be expiated until then."

AVON HA EMORI (עון האמרי): What iniquity? Is something missing from the text? Av-Ram, or somebody, is going to be punished, through four generations of descendants (cf Numbers 14:18 and Deuteronomy 5:9), for something unstated in the text that has to do with the Emorites; and we have been told (though probably incorrectly) that Av-Ram was himself an Emorite? However, if we read Emorites as "the inhabitants of the land of Ke n a'an", then their iniquities are the ones listed in Leviticus 18:21-30; Joshua 10 ff describes the conquest of the Emorites.

We might also care to note that an exile lasting four hundred years, and a return after four generations, only works in the numbering system of the earliest chapters of Genesis, where people live to several hundred years. Based on a maximum life-expectancy of 70-80, a generation lasts about 25 years, so 16 generations would be a better calculation.

Not for the first or last time, the tone and style of the language suggests something that might have been written by one of the major Prophets, Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah) the most likely.

SHALEM: More plays on words: the sins will be expiated (shalem) when they return here - and the place in question to which they will return? this is all taking place at the town of Shalem!

15:17 VA YEHI HA SHEMESH BA'AH VA ALATAH HAYAH VE HINEH TANUR ASHAN VE LAPID ESH ASHER AVAR BEYN HA GEZARIM HA ELEH

וַיְהִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בָּאָה וַעֲלָטָה הָיָה וְהִנֵּה תַנּוּר עָשָׁן וְלַפִּיד אֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָבַר בֵּין הַגְּזָרִים הָאֵלֶּה

KJ: And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

BN: And it came to pass that, when the sun went down, and there was thick darkness, and behold a smoking furnace, and a burning light that passed between the separated parts of the sacrificial offerings.

He is hallucinating! The description might be of Hell if there were such a place in Beney Yisra-El mythology. Links to the sun god self-evidently. But the key here is the LAPID.

The sun had already gone down and the darkness descended in verse 12. But this needed to be emphasised, so nobody would miss the point: Av-Ram either is, or at the very least worships and represents as priest-king, a sun-god; his power diminishes as the day comes to an end, "even-ing" out with that of the moon goddess as dusk falls, condemned to the darkness of Hades, She'ol, the Underworld, once it has completely set.

LAPID: The Underworld goddess of the Beney Yisra-El, when they were still polytheists, as in Av-Ram's time, was Devorah, for whom click the link rather than me repeating my notes. In The Book of Judges 4:4 her "husband" is named Lapidot, though clearly he is not her "husband" but her "master" (the word Ba'al covers both meanings), the equivalent of Logi in the Nordic myths, the spirit of fire who, manifested as a torch, or here as the sparks of kindled coal, is much to be advised as an aide-de-voyage when you go down to the cave of Hecate and make enquiries about Banquo.

GEZARIM: from the root GAZAR = "to cut"; though this is not the verb used for cutting a Berit (covenant); that is KARAT, which by no coincidence appears in the very next verse. The word GAZRIN is known from Chaldean documents as a verb applied to horoscope readers and other forms of divination, which certainly cannot be overlooked in this context. But the standard translation of this, as "pieces", does not actually mean anything. Which "pieces" does the burning light pass between? No pieces of anything have been mentioned, unless the sacrificial animals, in which case he is simply waking to see the flames on the altar which have not yet been extinguished - not a lot of point mentioning that.

15:18 BA YOM HA HU KARAT YHVH ET AV-RAM BERIT LEMOR LE ZAR'ACHA NATATI ET HA ARETS HA ZOT MI NEHAR MITSRAYIM AD NAHAR HA GEDOL NEHAR PERAT

בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כָּרַת יְהוָה אֶת אַבְרָם בְּרִית לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת מִנְּהַר מִצְרַיִם עַד הַנָּהָר הַגָּדֹל נְהַר פְּרָת

KJ: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

BN: On that day YHVH made a covenant with Av-Ram saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Perat.

PERAT: From the Nile to the Euphrates. This is simply implausible, given - well given everything! Modern translators of Numbers 34:5 have skirted round the problem by rendering Perat as the Brook or River or even Wadi of Egypt, which is Wadi El Arish on the boundary between Mitsrayim and Kena'an, and most convenient for evading one side of the territorial issue (YHVH promised us all of this land, according to these borders), but also engendering an entirely different territorial problem (YHVH promised us nothing but this tiny stretch of useless land, desert all the way, at least, according to these borders).

Historically the territory claimed as Beney Yisra-El land was never larger than under King Shelomoh (Solomon - cf 1 Kings 5:1 ff), and did indeed stretch as far as the Euphrates... but see the adjacent map, which modifies the concept of "stretch" to the concept of "influence", and anyway that part of the Euphrates was upriver, largely the area around Aleppo, and not the Babylonian heartland where the Tigris and the Euphrates flow together.

As with Ya'akov at Penu-El, as with the coronation of King Sha'ul, what we are reading can only be the coronation of the priest-king - entirely logical that some kind of coronation, as sheikh, should follow from his crucial role in the war, which after all liberated Ken'aan and placed him at the summit of power as far as both Shalem and Sedom were concerned - and the only place to go to find out more of the detail is Frazer's "Golden Bough", for we are clearly in that realm. This is mystic association, drug-rites et al; note importantly the absence in this version of the customary change of name, or rather the taking of the king-name - every major Beney Yisra-El patriarch and king has two names, his own and his official title; unless we regard the change from Av-Ram to Av-Raham as belonging here, but misplaced in the text. The declaration of land-area and of inheritance is likewise part of the ceremony, stating what geographical realm he is now to be king of, and what are the terms of his descent; and again, that it should stretch to the Euphrates is logical as an outcome of this particular war. The only significant piece missing is the ritual immolation, either of the heel or the thigh; or do we read the sacrifice of the first-born son, which will follow shortly, as a symbolic replacement, in the way that Pidyon Ha Ben would do later? If so, it sets Av-Ram historically much later than Ya'akov !

15:19 ET HA KEYNI VE ET HA KENIZI VE ET HA KADMONI

אֶת הַקֵּינִי וְאֶת הַקְּנִזִּי וְאֵת הַקַּדְמֹנִי

KJ: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

BN: The Kenite and the Kenizite and the Kadmonite.

KENITES AND KENIZITES: linked to Kayin of course; both were friendly tribes from the south which merged with the Beney Yisra-El later.

KADMONITES: see the notes.

The remaining question then is: who exactly is it that is anointing him king? The peoples mentioned, the Ivrim or Beney Yisra-El alone, the local shrine-area around Chevron, or Sedom? It isn't clear. And remember this is all taking place at Shalem, where David will later be made king. The answer lies in the war described above, with Av-Ram seriously "the great" (as his name means) if he has conquered or liberated all the lands of all nine of those kings.

15:20 VE ET HA CHITI VE ET HA PERIZI VE ET HA REPHA'IM

וְאֶת הַחִתִּי וְאֶת הַפְּרִזִּי וְאֶת הָרְפָאִים

KJ: And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,

BN: And the Chitite and the Perizite and the Repha'im

The list reads like the one Mosheh's spies came up with! Worth comparing. The text is in Numbers 13:27-33.

15:21 VE ET HA EMORI VE ET HA KENA'ANI VE ET HA GIRGASHI VE ET HA YEVUSI

וְאֶת הָאֱמֹרִי וְאֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְאֶת הַגִּרְגָּשִׁי וְאֶת הַיְבוּסִי

KJ: And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

BN: And the Emori and the Kena'ani and the Girgashi and the Yevusi.

All these are to be part of Av-Ram's realm, including the EMORI, of whom we are told that he was himself one, though the text also insists on UR KASDIM and descent from EVER. The tribal list gives us an alternate map of the entire land of Kena'an, and it isn't that far different from other verbal maps.

PERIZITES: see Genesis 13:7.

REPHA'IM: see Genesis 14:5.

TheBibleNet

Genesis 15:1-15:21

No comments:

Post a Comment