5:1 VA YEHI CHI SHEMO'A KOL MALCHEY HA EMORI ASHER BE EVER HA YARDEN YAMAH VE CHOL MALCHEY HA KENA'ANI ASHER AL HA YAM ET ASHER HOVISH YHVH ET MEY HA YARDEN MI PENEY VENEY YISRA-EL AD AVARNU VA YIMAS LEVAVAM VE LO HAYAH VAM OD RU'ACH MI PENEY BENEY YISRA-EL
וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ כָּל מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן יָמָּה וְכָל מַלְכֵי הַכְּנַעֲנִי אֲשֶׁר עַל הַיָּם אֵת אֲשֶׁר הֹובִישׁ יְהוָה אֶת מֵי הַיַּרְדֵּן מִפְּנֵי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד [עָבְרָנוּ כ] (עָבְרָם ק) וַיִּמַּס לְבָבָם וְלֹא הָיָה בָם עֹוד רוּחַ מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN (BibleNet translation): And so it fell out that, when all the kings of the Emori, who were on the western side of the Yarden, and all the kings of the Kena'ani, who were on the coast, heard that YHVH had dried up the waters of the Yarden in the face of the Beney Yisra-El, until we had crossed over, that their hearts melted, until there was no spirit left in them any longer, in the face of the Beney Yisra-El.
The statement is surprising - coastal Yisra-El was Kena'ani (Canaanite), the West Bank was Emori. But the patriarchs claimed to be Emori (Amorites) too (Ezekiel 16:3, and see also the commentaries at this link), and the West Bank was precisely where Ya'akov settled when he first returned from the Emorites' origins, in Padan Aram - so they were technically the same family.
And then there is a secondary factor, though it is one that will not apply until the time of Ezra and Nechem-Yah, when this book is being written down, and an attempt made to create a single national identity: the Shomronim, who by this time were the principal inhabitants of the West Bank, who had either come here with Shalman-Ezer when he conquered the northern kingdom, or who had been forced to move here by Nebuchadnezzar when he conquered the whole land... the Shomronim too were Emorites from Padan Aram.
AVARNU: If this is a historical narrative, written down at some later time, then this has to be an error in the text. Some Jewish versions ackowledge this by offering a correction in parenthesis - as per my text, above, which is from Mechon-Mamre? AVARNU would mean "we crossed"; this needs to read "AVRAM", "their crossing".
AVARNU: If this is a historical narrative, written down at some later time, then this has to be an error in the text. Some Jewish versions ackowledge this by offering a correction in parenthesis - as per my text, above, which is from Mechon-Mamre? AVARNU would mean "we crossed"; this needs to read "AVRAM", "their crossing".
The same in verse 6, with LATET LANU.
samech break
5:2 BA ET HA HI AMAR YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A ASEH LECHA CHARVOT TSURIM VE SHUV MOL ET BENEY YISRA'EL SHENIT
בָּעֵת הַהִיא אָמַר יְהוָה אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ עֲשֵׂה לְךָ חַרְבֹות צֻרִים וְשׁוּב מֹל אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֵׁנִית
BN: At that time YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: Make sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Yisra-El a second time.
How do you actually do that, physically? Either there is something other than normal circumcision going on, such as a ceremonial covenant rite (see later), or else there must have been uncircumcised men amongst them - but the text states specifically "a second time". Of course it could mean that circumcision was not a Yisra-Eli rite until now, or that the custom had fallen into disuse, or some families just hadn't, and "second time" is the Redactor's way - or even Yehoshu'a's way - of dealing with the problem gently. Or again that this tale precedes those of the patriarchs - i.e they look back on some truly ancient accounts of the arrival of whoever in the land, but became incorporated into the Yehudit later... see verse 4.
5:3 VA YA'AS LO YEHOSHU'A CHARVOT TSURIM VA YAMAL ET BENEY YISRA-EL EL GIV'AT HA ARALOT
וַיַּעַשׂ לֹו יְהֹושֻׁעַ חַרְבֹות צֻרִים וַיָּמָל אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל גִּבְעַת הָעֲרָלֹות
BN: So Yehoshu'a had sharp knives made, and circumcised the Beney Yisra-El at the Hill of the Foreskins.
GIVAT HA ARALOT: Most translations leave this as Givat Ha Aralot, which could be any hill, anywhere, but saves the blushes of the prurient! But if you do translate it, as above! We are obviously into aetiology again, though this one is worth some more investigation (and quite possibly a cartoon!)
So to do that, once again, forget history and think mythologically. We are drawing a map of the heavens in this book, and making a simulated version of it in Kena'an. We have just witnessed Creation with the breaking of the waters and the transition from the uterus of the empty desert into the fertility of the Promised Land. We are about to arrive at Yericho, which is both the moon (Yareyach) and the "thigh" - see my notes at Joshua 2:1. Circumcision parallels humanly the process of Creation in the ancient world - see for example the tale of Marduk slicing in half the serpent Orphis that was wrapped around the Cosmic Egg, preventing it from hatching: the bifurcated serpent then becomes Tiamat, the white dragon who lives in the sea, and Behemot, the red dragon who inhabits the Earth, both of which were able to come into existence when the egg was freed to hatch. Echoes of this throughout Genesis 1.
Having said all of which: how could they possibly enter Yericho uncircumcised! Though I will ask one more question. We know that they crossed the Yarden on the 10th day of the 1st month (Joshua 4:19); can we then assume that the Brit Milah (circumcision rite) would have taken place on the 18th? (Unfortunately we cannot, if verse 12 is correct.)
5:4 VE ZEH HA DAVAR ASHER MAL YEHOSHU'A KOL HA AM HA YOTSE MI MITSRAYIM HA ZECHARIM KOL ANSHEY HA MILCHAMAH METU VA MIDBAR BA DERECH BE TSE'TAM MI MITSRAYIM
וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר מָל יְהֹושֻׁעַ כָּל הָעָם הַיֹּצֵא מִמִּצְרַיִם הַזְּכָרִים כֹּל אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה מֵתוּ בַמִּדְבָּר בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתָם מִמִּצְרָיִם
KJ: And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.
BN: And this is the reason why Yehoshu'a circumcised them: all the people who came out of Mitsrayim, who were males, including all the soldiery, had died in the desert along the way, after they came out of Mitsrayim.
Which fails to explain anything - or only allows what the following verse will confirm, that those born during the wilderness crossing were never circumcised - because YHVH clearly said in verse 2 "a second time". But it does not explain why they were never circumcised, when they should have been, because it was one of YHVH's commandments long before - or they wouldn't have been circumcised in Mitsrayim? So, again, why didn't they? They had the knives - for sacrifices and for warfare. The mythological explanation answers this question, where the historical cannot. Because, as a people, they were still unborn, foetal, inhabiting the infertile wilderness of the primordial desert. But when they crossed the Yarden they were born as a people - and so, eight days later, circumcision is required.
5:5 KI MULIM HAYU KOL HA AM HA YOTS'IM VE CHOL HA AM HA YILODIM BA MIDBAR BA DERECH BE TSE'TAM MI MITSRAYIM LO MALU
כִּי מֻלִים הָיוּ כָּל הָעָם הַיֹּצְאִים וְכָל הָעָם הַיִּלֹּדִים בַּמִּדְבָּר בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתָם מִמִּצְרַיִם לֹא מָלוּ
BN: Now all the people who came out were circumcised: but all the people who were born in the desert along the way as they came out of Mitsrayim, them they had not circumcised.
This simply is not correct! Three times over. And more than incorrect for the first two occasions, because it disregards a hugely important moment: because Mosheh's own son Gershom was circumcised, and it was the boy's mother, Tsiporah, who acted as Mohelet, and she found the whole business absolutely disgusting - Exodus 4:25. Now it is correct that this event took place before Mosheh even went back to Mitsrayim from Midyan, but it is also regarded by many Jewish scolars as the starting-point for why no further circumcisions were carried out.
All of which then becomes still more complex in Exodus 18, when Yitro arrives at the desert camp and - see my note on the Midrash relating to this, at Exodus 4:25 - but it really is not clear whether the ceremonies that then take place include the circumcision of second son Eli-Ezer, or not - for which see my notes at 18:12.
And then there is Exodus 12:43, which deals with the eating of the Passover meal, and stipulates that "every man's servant who has been bought for money, once you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it..."; though of course that could be taken as a law for "when you get to the Promised Land", and wasn't put into practice at that time.
The laws in respect of childbirth, including circumcision, can be found at Leviticus 12, but the same proviso as above could apply here too.
But there are also two other, completely different forms of circumcision, and we cannot ignore the first of these, because it comes up twice in the Book of Deuteronomy, the first at 10:16, the second at 30:6: the "circumcision of the foreskin of the heart". No one is entirely sure what that might mean as a physical act, but as a metaphor it is very easy to follow, and probably the best way to sum up that explanation is in the word Kavanah. And having followed it, we can follow the second one as well, which occurs in Isaiah 6:5, and, more relevantly for our purpose, at Exodus 6:12, both making a very similar statement, metaphorically, though the exact language is subtly different: Yesha-Yah simply insists that "I am a man of unclean lips - TEM'E SEPHATAYIM"; whereas Mosheh says that he is "ARAL SEPHATAYIM - a man of uncircumcised lips".
5:6 KI ARBA'IM SHANAH HALCHU VENEY YISRA'EL BA MIDBAR AD TOM KOL HA GOY ANSHEY HA MILCHAMAH HA YOTS'IM MI MITSRAYIM ASHER LO SHAM'U BE KOL YHVH ASHER NISHBA YHVH LAHEM LE VILTI HAR'OTAM ET HA ARETS ASHER NISHBA YHVH LA AVOTAM LATET LANU ERETS ZAVAT CHALAV U DVASH
5:6 KI ARBA'IM SHANAH HALCHU VENEY YISRA'EL BA MIDBAR AD TOM KOL HA GOY ANSHEY HA MILCHAMAH HA YOTS'IM MI MITSRAYIM ASHER LO SHAM'U BE KOL YHVH ASHER NISHBA YHVH LAHEM LE VILTI HAR'OTAM ET HA ARETS ASHER NISHBA YHVH LA AVOTAM LATET LANU ERETS ZAVAT CHALAV U DVASH
כִּי אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה הָלְכוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר עַד תֹּם כָּל הַגֹּוי אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה הַיֹּצְאִים מִמִּצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּקֹול יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לָהֶם לְבִלְתִּי הַרְאֹותָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹותָם לָתֶת לָנוּ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ
BN: For the Beney Yisra-El walked for forty years through the desert, until all those who were men of war, who had come out of Mitsrayim, were consumed, because they did not obey the voice of YHVH: to whom YHVH swore that he would not show them the land, which YHVH swore to their ancestors that he would give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
There were men of war in Mitsrayim? Presumably this refers to the census in the desert when the number of conscriptables was counted. Or does it confirm TheBibleNet's conviction that one of the multiple layers of the Mosheh story used to make Shemot (Exodus) and the other books of the Torah was the tale of Pharaoh Ach-Mousa overthrowing the Hyksos.
Those who did not obey began their disobedience in the desert; the only commandment in Mitsrayim was to leave, which obviously they did or they wouldn't have been in the desert in the first place. So the circumcision argument folds inwards.
LATET LANU: Note "us" again, and this time not in a parenthesis.
Milk and honey were sacred to very specific goddesses: Yah (Eshet in Mitsrayim) and Le'ah (Hat-Hor in Mitsrayim) for the milk; Devorah for the honey (in Mitsrayim the bee was associated with the Pharaoh of Lower Egypt, not with a deity - click here). They are fertility symbols, and especially significant because they are the only fertility symbols that can be eaten raw but taste cooked, being provided by Mother Nature with any need for human involvement, except to gather them freely wherever they can be found.
5:7 VE ET BENEYHEM HEKIM TACHTAM OTAM MAL YEHOSHU'A KI ARELIM HAYU KI LO MALU OTAM BA DARECH
וְאֶת בְּנֵיהֶם הֵקִים תַּחְתָּם אֹתָם מָל יְהֹושֻׁעַ כִּי עֲרֵלִים הָיוּ כִּי לֹא מָלוּ אֹותָם בַּדָּרֶךְ
BN: And their children, who grew up as their posterity, them Yehoshu'a circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised along the way.
All of which could just be a convoluted way of dealing with the problem already raised, that these people either preceded the patriarchs, in which case they would not have been circumcised and therefore would not have been accepted at the time of writing; or they were a completely different people being amalgamated, to which the same applies.
There is something disconcerting about the need of the Redactor to spend quite this many verses providing an explanation, where no explanation is necessary anyway. My guess is that the Redactor, being intent on writing all this down as pseudo-history, either ignored, or simply did not understand, the mythological, and therefore felt the need to explain what to him was a gap or a flaw.
5:8 VA YEHI KA ASHER TAMU CHOL HA GOY LEHIMOL VA YESHVU TACHTAM BA MACHANEH AD CHAYOTAM
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּמּוּ כָל הַגֹּוי לְהִמֹּול וַיֵּשְׁבוּ תַחְתָּם בַּמַּחֲנֶה עַד חֲיֹותָם
BN: And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they stayed in their tents in the camp, until they were fully healed.
Worth looking at the tale of the men of Shechem in Genesis 34, and that of the men of Gat in 1 Samuel 18:24-27.
AD CHAYOTAM: "Until they were whole" is simply, anatomically, inaccurate: they will never be physically "whole" again. "Until they were healed" is not unreasonable; I have known several men who were circumcised without anaesthetic in order to be marry orthodox women and embrace the orthodox life: it can take several days, however clean the cut. But the word here is not REPHU'A, healing; it is CHAYOTAM, and Chai is Life itself. A Jew is not properly born until he has been circumcised.
pey break
5:9 VA YOMER YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A HA YOM GALOTI ET CHERPAT MITSRAYIM ME ALEYCHEM VA YIKRA SHEM HA MAKOM HA HU GIL-GAL AD HA YOM HA ZEH
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ הַיֹּום גַּלֹּותִי אֶת חֶרְפַּת מִצְרַיִם מֵעֲלֵיכֶם וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקֹום הַהוּא גִּלְגָּל עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה
BN (provisional translation) And YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: This day have I rolled away the reproach of Mitsrayim from off you. Which is why the name of the place is called Gil-Gal unto this day.
GALOTI: Yet another aetiological explanation, and yet another that is either wrong, or makes the previous explanation(s) wrong, because this is not why it has previously been called Gil-Gal. But as theology - there is a need for the Ezraic Redactor to make a break with the past now, so this can be made to work (as Halloween and Christmas are now universally accepted as Christian festivals, when in fact both were taken over by Christianity from earlier religions, and then Christian legend adapted to fit). Though GALOTI is not really what you do to achieve this goal. And what is it exactly, this "reproach of Mitsrayim"?
And anyway, why is the Redactor finding the word Gil-Gal here. The verb for "to roll away" would be GALAL, but there is no second Lamed here: that would be GALALETI. The root is GALAH, from which the word GALUT - exile. And so we should translate this verse rather differently, but leave out the incorrect appendix which is the closing phrase:
BN: (revised translation) And YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: Today I have brought to an end the exile in Mitsrayim. [Which is why the name of the place is called Gil-Gal unto this day.]
Because today, returned to the land from which Yoseph was trafficked and which Ya'akov left, they are now, literally, born again.
Because today, returned to the land from which Yoseph was trafficked and which Ya'akov left, they are now, literally, born again.
5:10 VA YACHANU VENEY YISRA-EL BA GIL-GAL VA YA'ASU ET HA PESACH BE ARBA'AH ASAR YOM LA CHODESH BA EREV BE ARVOT YERICHO
וַיַּחֲנוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּגִּלְגָּל וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יֹום לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעֶרֶב בְּעַרְבֹות יְרִיחֹו
KJ: And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El made camp in Gil-Gal, and kept the Pesach on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Yericho.
Chapter 4:19 spoke of "the first month", which today would be Tishrey, and therefore Yom Kippur on the 10th, but was probably still Nisan at that time (click here for the full calendar). Much more logical, as Pesach (Passover) falls on the full moon of Nisan, which means two weeks from the crossing of the river to the festival, including the circumcision and healing-time, and of course it makes for a completion of the pilgrimage cycle, in that they left Mitsrayim on evening of the first day, and are now arrived on the eve of the first day.
This tells us it was still the Egyptian, and this story, right down to the parting of the waters, is clearly the same Passover story, moved to a new place, a new time, a new leader; and after it the hakaphot of the moon at Yericho, just as they circumambulated the volcanic hill in the previous version.
And making the circumcision rite here, and the constant word-games with EVER and IVRIM ("crossing over" and "Hebrews"), allows a further play on words, because Passing-Over from slavery to liberation, from wilderness to Promised Land, from east to west Yarden, is precisely what they have just done.
5:11 VA YOCHLU ME AVUR HA ARETS MI MACHARAT HA PESACH MATSOT VE KALU'I BE ETSEM HA YOM HA ZEH
וַיֹּאכְלוּ מֵעֲבוּר הָאָרֶץ מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח מַצֹּות וְקָלוּי בְּעֶצֶם הַיֹּום הַזֶּה
BN: And they ate of the produce of the land on the day after Pesach, unleavened cakes and parched corn, on the selfsame day.
Which again links them, not to YHVH but to Osher (Osiris), the corn-god, in the Egyptian version, or perhaps Tammuz, his Babylonian equivalent, given that we are in the moon-city of Yericho.
But this is problematic. Where did they get the corn to make the matzah? They have just come out of the desert, where they were not farming. Stolen perhaps, from the defeated tribes? But stolen corn is an abomination, and cannot be sacrificed, according to the Mosaic rules of booty!
5:12 VA YISHBOT HA MAN MI MACHARAT BE ACHLAM ME AVUR HA ARETS VE LO HAYAH OD LI VENEY YISRA'EL MAN VA YO'CHELU MI TEVU'AT ERETS KENA'AN BA SHANAH HA HI
וַיִּשְׁבֹּת הַמָּן מִמָּחֳרָת בְּאָכְלָם מֵעֲבוּר הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא הָיָה עֹוד לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מָן וַיֹּאכְלוּ מִתְּבוּאַת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִיא
KJ: And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.
BN: And the manna ceased on the morning after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; nor did the Beney Yisra-El require manna any longer; rather they ate of the fruit of the land of Kena'an that year.
Or did they go into the local towns with cash, and buy at the market? See the next verse.
samech break
5:13 VA YEHI BI HEYOT YEHOSHU'A BI YERICHO VA YISA EYNAV VA YAR VE HINEH ISH OMED LE NEGDO VE CHARBO SHELUPHAH BE YADO VA YELECH YEHOSHU'A ELAV VA YOMER LO HA LANU ATAH IM LE TSAREYNU
וַיְהִי בִּהְיֹות יְהֹושֻׁעַ בִּירִיחֹו וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ עֹמֵד לְנֶגְדֹּו וְחַרְבֹּו שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדֹו וַיֵּלֶךְ יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֵלָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו הֲלָנוּ אַתָּה אִם לְצָרֵינוּ
BN: And it happened that, when Yehoshu'a was in Yericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there was a man standing near him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Yehoshu'a went up to him, and said to him: Are you for us, or for our enemies?
BI YERICHO: BI is definitely "in" and not "by". Risky, no, Yehoshu'a himself going into the city, especially after the report of the spies and the words of Rachav? Or perhaps he has gone specifically to visit the moon-shrine - the next verses make rather more sense there than, say, on a trip to market to purchase corn.
5:14 VA YOMER LO KI ANI SAR TSEVA YHVH ATAH VA'TI VA YIPOL YEHOSHU'A EL PANAV ARTSAH VA YISHTACHU VA YOMER LO MAH ADONI MEDABER EL AVDO
5:14 VA YOMER LO KI ANI SAR TSEVA YHVH ATAH VA'TI VA YIPOL YEHOSHU'A EL PANAV ARTSAH VA YISHTACHU VA YOMER LO MAH ADONI MEDABER EL AVDO
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא כִּי אֲנִי שַׂר צְבָא יְהוָה עַתָּה בָאתִי וַיִּפֹּל יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל פָּנָיו אַרְצָה וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו מָה אֲדֹנִי מְדַבֵּר אֶל עַבְדֹּו
BN: And he said: No. I have come here as a captain of the army of YHVH. And Yehoshu'a fell on his face on the ground, and worshipped, and said to him: What says my Lord to his servant?
SAR TSEVA YHVH: Angels? We are definitely in ritual-mythological territory, and specifically that of YHVH Tseva'ot, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens. Did the sight of the angel precede, as here, or more likely follow, Yehoshu'a's prostration? And presumably, given that this is a moon-shrine, the priestess who he has come to speak to, and who is leading the prayer ceremony in which Yehoshu'a is asking for the deity to assist in the forthcoming siege, is Rachav.
Who, in the angelology, is the captain of the host? Micha-El, if I am not mistaken.
5:15 VA YOMER SAR TSEVA YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A SHAL NA'ALCHA ME AL RAGLECHA KI HA MAKOM ASHER ATAH OMED ALAV KODESH HU VA YA'AS YEHOSHU'A KEN
Who, in the angelology, is the captain of the host? Micha-El, if I am not mistaken.
5:15 VA YOMER SAR TSEVA YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A SHAL NA'ALCHA ME AL RAGLECHA KI HA MAKOM ASHER ATAH OMED ALAV KODESH HU VA YA'AS YEHOSHU'A KEN
וַיֹּאמֶר שַׂר צְבָא יְהוָה אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ שַׁל נַעַלְךָ מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ כִּי הַמָּקֹום אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹמֵד עָלָיו קֹדֶשׁ הוּא וַיַּעַשׂ יְהֹושֻׁעַ כֵּן
BN: And the captain of the army of YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: Untie your shoe and take it off, for the place where you are standing is holy. And Yehoshu'a did so.
The same instruction given to Mosheh before the burning bush (Exodus 3:5); confirmation that he has entered the shrine, not just the town. We are left to wonder why he had not already taken his shoes off, because he has come to visit the moon-shrine, so that he knows perfectly well that it is a holy place, and the normal custom was to de-shoe before entering. Do we read this too, then, as aetiological - the inception of the de-shoeing? No, because Mosheh had already incipited it.
As we have begun to notice, not only is the name Yehoshu'a a variation of the name Mosheh - and also not - and in exactly the same way that Elisha (Elishah) is a variation of Eli-Yahu (Elijah), but also not; so, too, every key incident in Mosheh's life will find its echo, its parallel, its variant in the Yehoshu'a story, until we can see that... did you know that Merlin in the Arthur legends was originally Mer-Ddin, and that both names, but in different languages, mean "The King", just as Mosheh and Yehoshu'a, and later Jesus, all mean "the Saviour", and Av-Raham means "Great Father" - as do Yo-Pater or Jupiter, and Celtic Phádraig - and derives from, or varies, but also doesn't, the Hindu Brahma, as Sarah is and is not Asherah...dialect variations, in culture as in language.
No comments:
Post a Comment