Continuing the (somewhat odd, if the previous chapter really is part of this) story of how the polytheistic Phoenician Danaans became the tribe of Dan and, after settling on the Mediterranean coast, were forced to move northwards and reestablish themselves at La'ish (and by inference how they came to be the "son" of Bilhah).
But also, I believe, continuing a pseudo-chronological description of the development of Yisra-Eli society, from the world of the shaman, manifested through the oracular Judges like Devorah, by way of the priest-kings whose Messianic role was to deliver the nation from attacking enemies, to the separated-interconnection of "church" and state that will begin with the very next book: the establishment of "schools" of Prophets, whose job is to oversee the moral and spiritual life of the nation, and who anoint (and can unanoint) the priest-king who takes charge of the secular life, the same role that Merlin has with Arthur in the Celtic, the Buddhist Yogi with the Japanese Emperor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury with the English monarch. That transition would also accord with Auguste Comte's theory of the "Three stages of human evolution", with this transition representing the move upwards from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2, from the Mythological (or theological) to the start of the Metaphysical.
18:1 BA YAMIM HA HEM EYN MELECH BE YISRA-EL U VA YAMIM HA HEM SHEVET HA DANI MEVAKESH LO NACHALAH LASHEVET KI LO NAPHLAH LO AD HA YOM HA HU BETOCH SHIVTEY YISRA-EL BE NACHALAH
18:1 BA YAMIM HA HEM EYN MELECH BE YISRA-EL U VA YAMIM HA HEM SHEVET HA DANI MEVAKESH LO NACHALAH LASHEVET KI LO NAPHLAH LO AD HA YOM HA HU BETOCH SHIVTEY YISRA-EL BE NACHALAH
בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבַיָּמִים הָהֵם שֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי מְבַקֶּשׁ לֹו נַחֲלָה לָשֶׁבֶת כִּי לֹא נָפְלָה לֹּו עַד הַיֹּום הַהוּא בְּתֹוךְ שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנַחֲלָה
BN (BibleNet translation): In those days there was no king in Yisra-El. Now at that time the tribe of the Dani was seeking a place where they could settle, because, until that time, they had not managed to find a place where they could settle, anywhere among the tribes of Yisra-El.
EYN MELECH: I shall not rehearse the entire argument again; suffice it to say that a) numerous MELACHIM have been named in land that is now Yisra-El, throughout the latter books of Mosheh, the whole of Joshua, and several in Judges as well; it is simply that the Beney Yisra-El do not themselves have a king, yet (unless we count Avi-Melech in Judges 9); b) see my notes on the word MELECH at Judges 9.
EYN MELECH: I shall not rehearse the entire argument again; suffice it to say that a) numerous MELACHIM have been named in land that is now Yisra-El, throughout the latter books of Mosheh, the whole of Joshua, and several in Judges as well; it is simply that the Beney Yisra-El do not themselves have a king, yet (unless we count Avi-Melech in Judges 9); b) see my notes on the word MELECH at Judges 9.
LO NACHALAH: So much for Yehoshu'a having conquered the whole land, and YHVH having fulfilled his promise! But see Judges 1:34.
The inference of the text (though it is lost in the KJ translation) is that the Dani were foreigners; and of course they were, as all the tribes were, coming from Egypt according to the Mosaic legends, or from east of the Yarden according to the Book of Joshua; but the inference here is the one in Judges 5:17, where Devorah asks why the Dani "remained in their ships". To which the answer must be: because they were Phoenicians, Danaans to be precise, who had come to colonise. This, not the tale told in Genesis, let alone the Mosaic or the Joshuaic. We can (it is not immediately obvious; but watch and see) replace Danite with Philistine, as in the Shimshon stories.
And yet, as the next verse confirms, they do have lands, ostensible lands anyway, along the coast, the ones given them by Mosheh and affirmed by Yehoshu'a.
samech break
And yet, as the next verse confirms, they do have lands, ostensible lands anyway, along the coast, the ones given them by Mosheh and affirmed by Yehoshu'a.
samech break
18:2 VA YISHLECHU VENEY DAN MI MISHPACHTAM CHAMISHAH ANASHIM MIKTSOTAM ANASHIM BENEY CHAYIL MI TSAR'AH U ME ESHTA'OL LERAGEL ET HA ARETS U LE CHAKRAH VA YOMRU AL'EHEM LECHU CHIKRU ET HA ARETS VA YAVO'U HAR EPHRAYIM AD BEIT MIYCHAH VA YALIYNU SHAM
וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ בְנֵי דָן מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם חֲמִשָּׁה אֲנָשִׁים מִקְצֹותָם אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי חַיִל מִצָּרְעָה וּמֵאֶשְׁתָּאֹל לְרַגֵּל אֶת הָאָרֶץ וּלְחָקְרָהּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם לְכוּ חִקְרוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וַיָּבֹאוּ הַר אֶפְרַיִם עַד בֵּית מִיכָה וַיָּלִינוּ שָׁם
BN: And the Beney Dan sent five of their tribesmen from their coasts, all of them trained soldiers, from Tsar'ah, and from Eshta'ol, to explore the land, and to investigate it. And they said to them: "Go, find out what you can about the land". And when they came to Mount Ephrayim, to the house of Miychah, they spent the night there.
The number of these tales that end up on Mount Ephrayim leaves us wondering if we can identify the general source of all the tales there. It constitutes the heartland of ancient Yisra-El, with Yehudah not included to the south, as far as the Galil in the north. The Book of Chronicles belongs to the same tribes and Ephrayim was the name by which the ten tribes referred to themselves, rather than Yisra-El, when they separated from Yehudah in the civil war between the sons of King Shelomoh (Solomon).
TSAR'AH...ESHTA'OL: Exactly the places where Shimshon was previously, and places that were not in the area where Dan is supposed to have lived, but much further south, in what was already Philistine territory when Yehoshu'a arrived. Nor are these two just any places, or even necessarily geographical locations at all - see my notes in Judges 13, but even more significantly, see the notes to the very last verse of the Shimshon tale, at Judges 16:31, his burial "between Tsar'ah and Eshta'ol". Is this tale then in some way a continuation of the Shimshon legend?
YALIYNU: In Judges 17:7 the young man of Beit Lechem Yehudah also came to stay, but in his case the verb used was GAR, where this is YALIYNU: the former takes up residence, the latter is a one-night stay.
The number of these tales that end up on Mount Ephrayim leaves us wondering if we can identify the general source of all the tales there. It constitutes the heartland of ancient Yisra-El, with Yehudah not included to the south, as far as the Galil in the north. The Book of Chronicles belongs to the same tribes and Ephrayim was the name by which the ten tribes referred to themselves, rather than Yisra-El, when they separated from Yehudah in the civil war between the sons of King Shelomoh (Solomon).
TSAR'AH...ESHTA'OL: Exactly the places where Shimshon was previously, and places that were not in the area where Dan is supposed to have lived, but much further south, in what was already Philistine territory when Yehoshu'a arrived. Nor are these two just any places, or even necessarily geographical locations at all - see my notes in Judges 13, but even more significantly, see the notes to the very last verse of the Shimshon tale, at Judges 16:31, his burial "between Tsar'ah and Eshta'ol". Is this tale then in some way a continuation of the Shimshon legend?
YALIYNU: In Judges 17:7 the young man of Beit Lechem Yehudah also came to stay, but in his case the verb used was GAR, where this is YALIYNU: the former takes up residence, the latter is a one-night stay.
18:3 HEMAH IM BEIT MIYCHAH VE HEMAH HIKIYRU ET KOL HA NA'AR HA LEVI VA YASURU SHAM VA YOMRU LO MI HEVIY'ACHA HALOM U MAH ATAH OSEH BA ZEH U MAH LECHA POH
הֵמָּה עִם בֵּית מִיכָה וְהֵמָּה הִכִּירוּ אֶת קֹול הַנַּעַר הַלֵּוִי וַיָּסוּרוּ שָׁם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו מִי הֱבִיאֲךָ הֲלֹם וּמָה אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה בָּזֶה וּמַה לְּךָ פֹה
KJ: When they were by the house of Micah, they knew the voice of the young man the Levite: and they turned in thither, and said unto him, Who brought thee hither? and what makest thou in this place? and what hast thou here?
BN: When they came to Miychah's shrine, they recognised the voice of the young man, the Levite, and they turned in there, and said to him: "Who brought you here?" And "what are you doing in this place?" And "what have you got here?".
The young man was a nobody from Beit Lechem Yehudah, so why would tribesmen from the coast of Dan know him; it isn't impossible, but still highly unlikely. But what lies behind their questions: surprise that a Levite of the Beney Yisra-El is now working for a pagan priest? Something in the tone makes me think that the young man has been telling porkie-pies about himself, has been looking for somewhere so that he can hide and disguise himself, that these crooks know him from past ganging, and that their final question is about potential spoils. We shall see.
The young man was a nobody from Beit Lechem Yehudah, so why would tribesmen from the coast of Dan know him; it isn't impossible, but still highly unlikely. But what lies behind their questions: surprise that a Levite of the Beney Yisra-El is now working for a pagan priest? Something in the tone makes me think that the young man has been telling porkie-pies about himself, has been looking for somewhere so that he can hide and disguise himself, that these crooks know him from past ganging, and that their final question is about potential spoils. We shall see.
18:4 VA YOMER AL'EHEM KA ZOH VE CHA ZEH ASAH LI MIYCHAH VA YISKERENI VA EHI LO LE KOHEN
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם כָּזֹה וְכָזֶה עָשָׂה לִי מִיכָה וַיִּשְׂכְּרֵנִי וָאֱהִי לֹו לְכֹהֵן
BN: And he said to them: "Thus and thus does Michah deal with me, and he has hired me, and I am his priest".
Wonderfully evasive language!
Wonderfully evasive language!
KA ZOH VE CHA ZEH: Modern Ivrit is largely a recreation out of Biblical Yehudit, with idioms restored and modern words neologised out of ancient ones (chashmal for electricity, for example, or letadlek for refuelling an aircraft); modern Ivrit has created the rather ugly "kacha ve kacha" for "thus and thus"; why not pick up the much more elegant phrase used here?
But did he actually use the expression, or is the story-teller simply being lazy?
KJ: And they said unto him, Ask counsel, we pray thee, of God, that we may know whether our way which we go shall be prosperous.
But did he actually use the expression, or is the story-teller simply being lazy?
18:5 VA YOMRU LO SHE'AL NA VE ELOHIM VE NED'AH HA TATSLIYACH DARKENU ASHER ANACHNU HOLCHIM ALEYHA
וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו שְׁאַל נָא בֵאלֹהִים וְנֵדְעָה הֲתַצְלִיחַ דַּרְכֵּנוּ אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ הֹלְכִים עָלֶיהָ
BN: And they said to him: "Ask counsel, we pray, of your god, that we may know whether the way we are going will prove prosperous".
The Yehudit text uses Elohim here; possibly a scribal error. The original would surely have read El or Elim. Nor would a Yisra-Eli priest, let alone YHVH, respond to such a request. This was one of the key differences between the Yisra-Eli cult, even in those days, and those around them, that they went in for oracles and predictions just the same, but in a very different manner: they went to the Kohen Gadol, who wore the Urim and Tumim, the twelve-jeweled zodiacal breastplate attached to the "ephod" - the very one made by Miychah in the last chapter (see the illustration and note at 17:5)? But we have said thatthis is not a Yisra-Eli text. So do we have Danites who clearly do not follow YHVH, asking a pagan priest, who happens to be a Yisra-Eli Levite acting in the capacity of a Kohen at a polytheistic shrine filled with teraphim and molten images, to provide an oracle through the mouth of a skull? Once again, I leave this to the folks of faith to unravel.
The Yehudit text uses Elohim here; possibly a scribal error. The original would surely have read El or Elim. Nor would a Yisra-Eli priest, let alone YHVH, respond to such a request. This was one of the key differences between the Yisra-Eli cult, even in those days, and those around them, that they went in for oracles and predictions just the same, but in a very different manner: they went to the Kohen Gadol, who wore the Urim and Tumim, the twelve-jeweled zodiacal breastplate attached to the "ephod" - the very one made by Miychah in the last chapter (see the illustration and note at 17:5)? But we have said thatthis is not a Yisra-Eli text. So do we have Danites who clearly do not follow YHVH, asking a pagan priest, who happens to be a Yisra-Eli Levite acting in the capacity of a Kohen at a polytheistic shrine filled with teraphim and molten images, to provide an oracle through the mouth of a skull? Once again, I leave this to the folks of faith to unravel.
SHE'AL: Where did I get that "mouth of a skull" from, you are wondering? And no, it was not, alas, from poor Yorick, though I know the play he is in well. They asked him to ask, and the verb is SHE'AL, from the same root that will yield both the Underworld, She'ol, and its king, Sha'ul (other forms of asking will use LEVAKESH; SHE'AL is very specific to the business of enquiry, and used today for rational and scientific enquiry for the same reason). See my notes on the oracles of Devorah at Judges 4. See also this link, which reinforces the connection between the tribe of Dan and the Greek Danaans; the Greek name for an "oracle of the dead" was necromanteion.
18:6 VA YOMER LAHEM HA KOHEN LECHU LE SHALOM NOCHACH YHVH DARKECHEM ASHER TELCHU VAH
KJ: And the priest said unto them, Go in peace: before the LORD is your way wherein ye go.
18:6 VA YOMER LAHEM HA KOHEN LECHU LE SHALOM NOCHACH YHVH DARKECHEM ASHER TELCHU VAH
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַכֹּהֵן לְכוּ לְשָׁלֹום נֹכַח יְהוָה דַּרְכְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ בָהּ
BN: And the priest said to them: "Go in peace. Before YHVH is the way that you are going".
Which makes it sound as if all they wanted was for the priest to give them a blessing, which he does.
Which makes it sound as if all they wanted was for the priest to give them a blessing, which he does.
But then the switch back from Elohim to YHVH, presumably made by the Redactor rather than the Levite; though the answer he gives them is actually meaningless. They have asked which way to go, meaning the physical path; he has answered them with an affirmation of a spiritual path, which is neither his nor theirs; though it is the Redactor's (and will later be Zoroaster's, and Jesus': "I am the Way").
pey break
KJ: Then the five men departed, and came to Laish, and saw the people that were therein, how they dwelt careless, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure; and there was no magistrate in the land, that might put them to shame in any thing; and they were far from the Zidonians, and had no business with any man.
18:7 VA YELCHU CHAMESHET HA ANASHIM VA YAVO'U LAYESHAH VA YIR'U ET HA AM ASHER BE KIRBAH YOSHEVET LA VETACH KE MISHPAT TSIDONIM SHOKET U VOT'E'ACH VE EYN MACHLIM DAVAR BA ARETS YORESH ETSER U RECHOKIM HEMAH MI TSIDONIM VE DAVAR EYN LAHEM IM ADAM
וַיֵּלְכוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיָּבֹאוּ לָיְשָׁה וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבָּהּ יֹושֶׁבֶת לָבֶטַח כְּמִשְׁפַּט צִדֹנִים שֹׁקֵט וּבֹטֵחַ וְאֵין מַכְלִים דָּבָר בָּאָרֶץ יֹורֵשׁ עֶצֶר וּרְחֹקִים הֵמָּה מִצִּדֹנִים וְדָבָר אֵין לָהֶם עִם אָדָם
BN: Then the five men departed, and came to La'ish, and saw the people who were living there, how they lived in security, under the rule of the Tsidonians, quiet and safe, and no one trying to destroy anything in the land, no magistrates, no rulers, and the Tsidonians themselves far enough away that they did not interfere in anybody's life.
LA'ISH: It is a very long way from Miychah's place to La'ish; indeed, the journey must almost exactly have mirrored Ya'akov's to Padan-Aram, or Av-Ram's previously, but in reverse. And why did they go via Miychah anyway? Was it just a chance stop on their journey? Or a need of the Redactor to join up the stories? Or is there an entire chunk of the tale missing? After all, all they did was stop, ask for a blessing, and get one. So what? Why include it? And what of the insinuations in their third question, and the fact they they recognised him?
LA'ISH: It is a very long way from Miychah's place to La'ish; indeed, the journey must almost exactly have mirrored Ya'akov's to Padan-Aram, or Av-Ram's previously, but in reverse. And why did they go via Miychah anyway? Was it just a chance stop on their journey? Or a need of the Redactor to join up the stories? Or is there an entire chunk of the tale missing? After all, all they did was stop, ask for a blessing, and get one. So what? Why include it? And what of the insinuations in their third question, and the fact they they recognised him?
What did they actually find at La'ish? A paradise, an El Dorado, a land of milk and honey, or actually beer and chocolates by the sound of it, and no one in charge - even better! California!
TSIDONIM: Tsidon is Sidon, the second of the southern cities of the Lebanon.
VE EYN MACHLIM: Is this what is really meant by people "doing as they saw fit in their own eyes"? A world without magistrates and rulers: is that the same as the world without sherriffs that Billy the Kid dreamed? "Muggers Paradise", stripped of all CCTV. The world of "responsible capitalism doesn't need regulating" of which Ayn Rand dreamed?
But first: is that even what MACHLIM means? the various translators (click here) offer anything from "humiliation" to "rebuke", which assumes that the root is KALAM (כָּלַם). But if that was the root, then the conjugating here would require MACHLIMIM, so it cannot be that root. And if not, what might it be? MACHAL (מכל) would conjugate as MACHLIM, but there is no root MACHAL (several words appear to be so, such as MICHLAH for "a sheepfold", and MICHLOL for "perfection"; but these are Hiphil forms of the root KALAL - כלל). So we either have a two-letter root, Kaph-Lamed (כל), or we require a final letter, for which only a HEY (ה) could work, so KALAH (כלה), which is used for a bride (Songs 4:8, Jeremiah 2:32 and 7:34) and a daughter-in-law (Genesis 38:11, Ruth 4:15); but mostly - and presumably there were originally two entirely different words that merged, like kerb and curb, and story and storey, in the American - it is used to mean "destruction", which makes rather more sense in this sentence; cf Jeremiah 4:27, Nehemiah 9:31, Nahum 1:8 et al.
18:8 VA YAVO'U EL ACHEYHEM TSAR'AH VE ESHTA'OL VA YOMRU LAHEM ACHEYHEM MAH ATEM
KJ: And they came unto their brethren to Zorah and Eshtaol: and their brethren said unto them, What say ye?
18:8 VA YAVO'U EL ACHEYHEM TSAR'AH VE ESHTA'OL VA YOMRU LAHEM ACHEYHEM MAH ATEM
וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל אֲחֵיהֶם צָרְעָה וְאֶשְׁתָּאֹל וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶם אֲחֵיהֶם מָה אַתֶּם
BN: And they came to their kinsmen in Tsar'ah and Eshta'ol, and their kinsmen said to them: "What do you say?"
ACHEYHEM: "Brethren" here means fellow tribesmen.
ACHEYHEM: "Brethren" here means fellow tribesmen.
Worth comparing this tale of spying out the land with the one that Mosheh sent, in Numbers 13.
KJ: And they said, Arise, that we may go up against them: for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good: and are ye still? be not slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land.
18:9 VA YOMRU KUMAH VE NA'ALEH ALEYHEM KI RA'IYNU ET HA ARETS VE HINEH TOVAH ME'OD VE ATEM MACHSHIM AL TE'ATSLU LALECHET LAV'O LARESHET ET HA ARETS
וַיֹּאמְרוּ קוּמָה וְנַעֲלֶה עֲלֵיהֶם כִּי רָאִינוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה טֹובָה מְאֹד וְאַתֶּם מַחְשִׁים אַל תֵּעָצְלוּ לָלֶכֶת לָבֹא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאָרֶץ
BN: And they said: "Come on, let's go up and take it. We've seen the land, and, I promise you, it's seriously good. Why are you still sitting there? Come on, don't drag your feet. Let's go take the land for ourselves...
And that is really only half a paraphrase; the full one would read (and is stated explicitly as this in the next verse): "we have found a really quiet place full of peace-loving tribes who mean no harm to anyone. Let's go and conquer them." With Elohim's blessing, thanks to Miychah's little Levite!
And that is really only half a paraphrase; the full one would read (and is stated explicitly as this in the next verse): "we have found a really quiet place full of peace-loving tribes who mean no harm to anyone. Let's go and conquer them." With Elohim's blessing, thanks to Miychah's little Levite!
Note that it is Elohim again, not YHVH.
KJ: When ye go, ye shall come unto a people secure, and to a large land: for God hath given it into your hands; a place where there is no want of any thing that is in the earth.
18:10 KE VO'ACHEM TAVO'U EL AM BOTE'ACH VE HA ARETS RACHAVAT YADAYIM KI NETANAH ELOHIM BE YEDCHEM MAKOM ASHER EYN SHAM MACHSOR KOL DAVAR ASHER BA ARETS
כְּבֹאֲכֶם תָּבֹאוּ אֶל עַם בֹּטֵחַ וְהָאָרֶץ רַחֲבַת יָדַיִם כִּי נְתָנָהּ אֱלֹהִים בְּיֶדְכֶם מָקֹום אֲשֶׁר אֵין שָׁם מַחְסֹור כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ
BN: "When you get there, you'll find a people living in security, and a land as large as your arms can stretch. But Elohim has given it into your hands. It is a place where there is no want of anything that you could find in any land."
Ah, the joys of empire-building: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the British Empire - go, find someone else's land, conquer it, reduce the people to slavery, take home their resources for your own people! And leave behind the symbols of your presence: a garrison, a mass-grave, a branch of MacDonalds.
KJ: And there went from thence of the family of the Danites, out of Zorah and out of Eshtaol, six hundred men appointed with weapons of war.
Ah, the joys of empire-building: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the British Empire - go, find someone else's land, conquer it, reduce the people to slavery, take home their resources for your own people! And leave behind the symbols of your presence: a garrison, a mass-grave, a branch of MacDonalds.
18:11 VA YIS'U MI SHAM MI MISHPACHAT HA DANI MI TSAR'AH U ME ESHTA'OL SHESH ME'OT ISH CHAGUR KLEY MILCHAMAH
וַיִּסְעוּ מִשָּׁם מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת הַדָּנִי מִצָּרְעָה וּמֵאֶשְׁתָּאֹל שֵׁשׁ מֵאֹות אִישׁ חָגוּר כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה
BN: And so they left, six hundred men of the tribe of the Danites, from Tsar'ah and from Eshta'ol, armed with weapons of war.
It is an oddity that the text keeps repeating these two towns, which just happen to be the book-ends, or do I mean the pillars, of the Shimshon tale.
It is an oddity that the text keeps repeating these two towns, which just happen to be the book-ends, or do I mean the pillars, of the Shimshon tale.
18:12 VA YA'ALU VA YACHANU BE KIRYAT YE'ARIM BIYHUDAH AL KEN KAR'U LA MAKOM HA HU MACHANEH DAN AD HA YOM HA ZEH HINEH ACHAREY KIRYAT YE'ARIM
וַיַּעֲלוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּקִרְיַת יְעָרִים בִּיהוּדָה עַל כֵּן קָרְאוּ לַמָּקֹום הַהוּא מַחֲנֵה דָן עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה הִנֵּה אַחֲרֵי קִרְיַת יְעָרִים
BN: And they went up, and camped beside Kiryat Ye'arim, in Yehudah; which is why that place is called Machaneh Dan until this day: you will find it behind Kiryat Ye'arim.
KIRYAT YE'ARIM: (קרית יערים), the village in the woods. No doubt there were many villages in many woods, and perhaps several took this logical name. But Kiryat Ye'arim is also a very specific village, where the Ark was left after being returned by the Pelishtim (1 Samuel 7), and there is no suggestion that it was named Machaneh Dan - literally "the camp of Dan" - at that time, or indeed afterwards. If it were the same Kiryat Ye'arim, then "unto this day" would help us date the text to before the time when the Ark was taken there, which would make this a purely oral tale, the written alphabet not having been invented at that time (but see verse 30, which provides a very much later date). In all probability however, it was an entirely different Kiryat Ye'arim; this Davidic one was to the west of Yeru-Shala'im, a very long way from La'ish, and actually south of Miychah's place - however, see the next verse.
KIRYAT YE'ARIM: (קרית יערים), the village in the woods. No doubt there were many villages in many woods, and perhaps several took this logical name. But Kiryat Ye'arim is also a very specific village, where the Ark was left after being returned by the Pelishtim (1 Samuel 7), and there is no suggestion that it was named Machaneh Dan - literally "the camp of Dan" - at that time, or indeed afterwards. If it were the same Kiryat Ye'arim, then "unto this day" would help us date the text to before the time when the Ark was taken there, which would make this a purely oral tale, the written alphabet not having been invented at that time (but see verse 30, which provides a very much later date). In all probability however, it was an entirely different Kiryat Ye'arim; this Davidic one was to the west of Yeru-Shala'im, a very long way from La'ish, and actually south of Miychah's place - however, see the next verse.
18:13 VA YA'AVRU MI SHAM HAR EPHRAYIM VA YAVO'U AD BEIT MIYCHAH
וַיַּעַבְרוּ מִשָּׁם הַר אֶפְרָיִם וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד בֵּית מִיכָה
BN: And they went from there to Mount Ephrayim, and came to the shrine of Miychah.
We need to look at a map and work this out, but it seems to me a very circuitous route unless they are making pilgrimage to obtain a blessing before the move and before the battle - why not follow the coast, where the Derech ha Yam was the west-coast equivalent then of the I-95 from Miami to Baltimore today? Or did they go expressly to procure a priest, which is definitely worthwhile? Or to "liberate" some eleven hundred shekels' worth of valuables, which is better still.
18:14 VA YA'ANU CHAMESHET HA ANASHIM HA HOLCHIM LERAGEL ET HA ARETS LA'ISH VA YOMRU EL ACHEYHEM HA YEDA'TEM KI YESH BA BATIM HA ELEH EPHOD U TERAPHIM U PESEL U MASECHAH VE ATAH DE'U MAH TA'ASU
וַיַּעֲנוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַהֹלְכִים לְרַגֵּל אֶת הָאָרֶץ לַיִשׁ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל אֲחֵיהֶם הַיְדַעְתֶּם כִּי יֵשׁ בַּבָּתִּים הָאֵלֶּה אֵפֹוד וּתְרָפִים וּפֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וְעַתָּה דְּעוּ מַה תַּעֲשׂוּ
YA'ANU: Implies a question, but none was asked.
BATIM: The plural leaves me wondering if the shrine in question was more of the Hindu or Shinto sort, a room, or just a space, inside the domicile, set apart to house the icons and used as a place of prayer, rather than being an entire building dedicated to the purpose. Many a grand house in Europe since the mediaeval epoch included private chapels in the same manner.
18:15 VA YASURU SHAMAH VA YAVO'U EL BEIT HA NA'AR HA LEVI BEIT MIYCHAH VA YISH'ALU LO LE SHALOM
וַיָּסוּרוּ שָׁמָּה וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל בֵּית הַנַּעַר הַלֵּוִי בֵּית מִיכָה וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ לֹו לְשָׁלֹום
BN: And they turned toward the place, and came to the house of the young man, the Levite, to the house of Miychah, and enquired politely after his health.
VAYISH'ALU: That verb again! Choice of language is everything in any piece of writing. KJ translates this as "saluted", which sounds rather more military than ecclesiastical, as though they were entering an army base, not a religious shrine. Others have chosen "greeted", and I would be willing to accept it if it were not for the use of YISH'ALU - for which see my notes at verse 5. I think the next verse confirms my paraphrase.
18:16 VE SHESH ME'OT ISH CHAGURIM KELEY MILCHAMTAM NITSAVIM PETACH HA SHA'AR ASHER MI BENEY DAN
KJ: And the six hundred men appointed with their weapons of war, which were of the children of Dan, stood by the entering of the gate.
VAYISH'ALU: That verb again! Choice of language is everything in any piece of writing. KJ translates this as "saluted", which sounds rather more military than ecclesiastical, as though they were entering an army base, not a religious shrine. Others have chosen "greeted", and I would be willing to accept it if it were not for the use of YISH'ALU - for which see my notes at verse 5. I think the next verse confirms my paraphrase.
18:16 VE SHESH ME'OT ISH CHAGURIM KELEY MILCHAMTAM NITSAVIM PETACH HA SHA'AR ASHER MI BENEY DAN
וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאֹות אִישׁ חֲגוּרִים כְּלֵי מִלְחַמְתָּם נִצָּבִים פֶּתַח הַשָּׁעַר אֲשֶׁר מִבְּנֵי דָן
BN: And six hundred men of the Beney Dan, armed with weapons of war, stood at the entrance to the gate.
The shrine, that is to say, is being seized. This is war, or robbery, not oracle-seeking.
18:17 VA YA'ALU CHAMESHET HA ANASHIM HA HOLCHIM LERAGEL ET HA ARETS BA'U SHAMAH LAKCHU ET HA PESEL VE ET HA EPHOD VE ET HA TERAPHIM VE ET HA MASECHAH VE HA KOHEN NITSAV PETACH HA SHA'AR VE SHESH ME'OT HA ISH HE CHAGUR KELEY HA MILCHAMAH
KJ: And the five men that went to spy out the land went up, and came in thither, and took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image: and the priest stood in the entering of the gate with the six hundred men that were appointed with weapons of war.
The shrine, that is to say, is being seized. This is war, or robbery, not oracle-seeking.
18:17 VA YA'ALU CHAMESHET HA ANASHIM HA HOLCHIM LERAGEL ET HA ARETS BA'U SHAMAH LAKCHU ET HA PESEL VE ET HA EPHOD VE ET HA TERAPHIM VE ET HA MASECHAH VE HA KOHEN NITSAV PETACH HA SHA'AR VE SHESH ME'OT HA ISH HE CHAGUR KELEY HA MILCHAMAH
וַיַּעֲלוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַהֹלְכִים לְרַגֵּל אֶת הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ שָׁמָּה לָקְחוּ אֶת הַפֶּסֶל וְאֶת הָאֵפֹוד וְאֶת הַתְּרָפִים וְאֶת הַמַּסֵּכָה וְהַכֹּהֵן נִצָּב פֶּתַח הַשַּׁעַר וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאֹות הָאִישׁ הֶחָגוּר כְּלֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה
BN: And the five men who had gone to spy out the land climbed up, and went inside, and took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image; and the priest stood in the entrance to the gate with the six hundred men who were appointed with weapons of war.
And where is Miychah, the supposed-man? Being the god he always was, I suspect, and this priest on his stranded lonesome.
NITSAV: Is he standing defiantly against them, or in cahoots with them, or as their hostage-prisoner? The text is not clear, but, given the dodgy nature of his background and their apparently recognising him, we can probably, at the very least, assume that he is going to go along with them, for his own best interest. Now see verse 20.
18:18 VE ELEH BA'U BEIT MIYCHAH VA YIKCHU ET PESEL HA EPHOD VE ET HA TERAPHIM VE ET HA MASECHAH VA YOMER ALEYHEM HA KOHEN MAH ATEM OSIM?
וְאֵלֶּה בָּאוּ בֵּית מִיכָה וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת פֶּסֶל הָאֵפֹוד וְאֶת הַתְּרָפִים וְאֶת הַמַּסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם הַכֹּהֵן מָה אַתֶּם עֹשִׂים
BN: Then the five men went into Miychah's house, and fetched out the carved image, the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image. And the priest said to them: "What are you doing?"
Probably not as politely as that, but the Tanach does not go in for colloquial expletives (though the next verse certainly infers that he said something defiant).
Probably not as politely as that, but the Tanach does not go in for colloquial expletives (though the next verse certainly infers that he said something defiant).
18:19 VA YOMRU LO HACHARESH SIYM YADCHA AL PIYCHA VE LECH IMANU VE HEYEH LANU LE AV U LE KOHEN HA TOV HEYOT'CHA KOHEN LE VEIT ISH ECHAD O HEYOT'CHA KOHEN LE SHEVET U LE MISHPACHAH BE YISRA-EL
וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו הַחֲרֵשׁ שִׂים יָדְךָ עַל פִּיךָ וְלֵךְ עִמָּנוּ וֶהְיֵה לָנוּ לְאָב וּלְכֹהֵן הֲטֹוב הֱיֹותְךָ כֹהֵן לְבֵית אִישׁ אֶחָד אֹו הֱיֹותְךָ כֹהֵן לְשֵׁבֶט וּלְמִשְׁפָּחָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And they said to him: "Shut it! Put your hand over your mouth, and come with us. You can serve as a father and a priest to us. Which do you reckon will be better for you? To be a priest in the house of one man? Or to be the priest to a tribe and a clan in Yisra-El?"
Confirming that Miychah was a pagan. And also seeming to confirm my note to BATIM at verse 14. It would now seem that we are in a wealthy district, and that mum's eleven hundred shekels were set aside, in today's parlance, to purchase a Chagall that would rival the Manet just acquired by one neighbour, and the rather small and not highly regarded Monet just bought at auction by those tradespeople the Beney Chakchak in the wooden house down the hill.
Confirming that Miychah was a pagan. And also seeming to confirm my note to BATIM at verse 14. It would now seem that we are in a wealthy district, and that mum's eleven hundred shekels were set aside, in today's parlance, to purchase a Chagall that would rival the Manet just acquired by one neighbour, and the rather small and not highly regarded Monet just bought at auction by those tradespeople the Beney Chakchak in the wooden house down the hill.
Note again that he is trained as a Levite, but they want him to serve as a Kohen - or probably both, and in the end that is the explanation. Because Torah is very clear about the distinctions, and that one cannot serve for the other.
KJ: And the priest's heart was glad, and he took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image, and went in the midst of the people.
18:20 VA YIYTAV LEV HA KOHEN VA YIKACH ET HA EPHOD VE ET HA TERAPHIM VE ET HA PASEL VA YAV'O BE KEREV HA AM
וַיִּיטַב לֵב הַכֹּהֵן וַיִּקַּח אֶת הָאֵפֹוד וְאֶת הַתְּרָפִים וְאֶת הַפָּסֶל וַיָּבֹא בְּקֶרֶב הָעָם
BN: And the priest's heart was glad, and he took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image, and went in the midst of the people.
YIYTAV: Glad, because he now has a better job? Or glad because he had expected to be killed?
YIYTAV: Glad, because he now has a better job? Or glad because he had expected to be killed?
Why did they leave the Masechah behind (see verses 14, 17 and 18)? Or was it just the story-teller who forgot it?
Note that this becomes a repetition of the original theft of the eleven hundred shekels in Judges 17:2 (minus the Masechah).
KJ: So they turned and departed, and put the little ones and the cattle and the carriage before them.
18:21 VA YIPHNU VA YELECHU VA YASIYMU ET HA TAPH VE ET HA MIKNEH VE ET HA KEVUDAH LIPHNEYHEM
וַיִּפְנוּ וַיֵּלֵכוּ וַיָּשִׂימוּ אֶת הַטַּף וְאֶת הַמִּקְנֶה וְאֶת הַכְּבוּדָּה לִפְנֵיהֶם
BN: So they turned and departed, and put the little ones and the cattle and the carriage in the vanguard.
Just the six hundred, and the rest are plunder and captives from Kiryat Ye'arim? Or has the rest of the tribe now joined them, and brought its goods, its cattle, its children?
And if the latter, how many of them were there? The census in the Book of Numbers (1:39) reckoned them at sixty-two thousand, seven hundred, but this tale makes it seem like just a couple of thousand, if even that. And if it was the Numbers number, and the full tribe was now moving... why are the other tribes not worried, with Dan clealy looking for a new home on what is their, not its, allotted portion?
Or perhaps they are, and that is why his neighbours grab arms and follow in the next verse.
18:22 HEMAH HIRCHIYKU MI BEIT MIYCHAH VE HA ANASHIM ASHER BA BATIM ASHER IM BEIT MIYCHAH NIZ'AKU VA YADBIYKU ET BENEY DAN
KJ: And when they were a good way from the house of Micah, the men that were in the houses near to Micah's house were gathered together, and overtook the children of Dan.
Just the six hundred, and the rest are plunder and captives from Kiryat Ye'arim? Or has the rest of the tribe now joined them, and brought its goods, its cattle, its children?
And if the latter, how many of them were there? The census in the Book of Numbers (1:39) reckoned them at sixty-two thousand, seven hundred, but this tale makes it seem like just a couple of thousand, if even that. And if it was the Numbers number, and the full tribe was now moving... why are the other tribes not worried, with Dan clealy looking for a new home on what is their, not its, allotted portion?
Or perhaps they are, and that is why his neighbours grab arms and follow in the next verse.
18:22 HEMAH HIRCHIYKU MI BEIT MIYCHAH VE HA ANASHIM ASHER BA BATIM ASHER IM BEIT MIYCHAH NIZ'AKU VA YADBIYKU ET BENEY DAN
הֵמָּה הִרְחִיקוּ מִבֵּית מִיכָה וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר בַּבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר עִם בֵּית מִיכָה נִזְעֲקוּ וַיַּדְבִּיקוּ אֶת בְּנֵי דָן
BN: And when they were a good way from Miychah's house, the men who were in the houses close to Miychah's house gathered together, and overtook the Beney Dan.
Answering my question from the previous verse. The rest of the tribe must have been following close behind them.
18:23 VA YIKRE'U EL BENEY DAN VA YASEBU PENEYHEM VA YOMRU LE MIYCHAH MAH LECHA KI NIZ'AKTA
KJ: And they cried unto the children of Dan. And they turned their faces, and said unto Micah, What aileth thee, that thou comest with such a company?
Answering my question from the previous verse. The rest of the tribe must have been following close behind them.
18:23 VA YIKRE'U EL BENEY DAN VA YASEBU PENEYHEM VA YOMRU LE MIYCHAH MAH LECHA KI NIZ'AKTA
וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל בְּנֵי דָן וַיַּסֵּבּוּ פְּנֵיהֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְמִיכָה מַה לְּךָ כִּי נִזְעָקְתָּ
BN: And they called out to the Beney Dan. And they turned their faces, and said to Miychah: "What's up with you, that you've joined an army?"
NIZ'AKTA? Sefaria translates it as "mustered". The phrasing is highly colloquial: curt and slangy and informal: difficult to translate unless into a parallel idiom.
MIYCHAH: And now this makes absolutely no sense at all. Is Miychah also the name of the previously unnamed young man, the Levite-Kohen? Or has the first Miychah gone with as well? And if so: willingly, or as captive...
NIZ'AKTA? Sefaria translates it as "mustered". The phrasing is highly colloquial: curt and slangy and informal: difficult to translate unless into a parallel idiom.
MIYCHAH: And now this makes absolutely no sense at all. Is Miychah also the name of the previously unnamed young man, the Levite-Kohen? Or has the first Miychah gone with as well? And if so: willingly, or as captive...
To which the next verse will provide an answer, but with one problem: in this verse, from the phrasing as well as the syntax, it is definitely his neighbours who are posing the question; but from the verses that follow, it is to the Beney Dan that he gives his answer.
18:24 VA YOMER ET ELOHAY ASHER ASIYTI LEKACHTEM VE ET HA KOHEN VE TELCHU U MAH LI OD U MAH ZEH TOMRU MAH LACH
וַיֹּאמֶר אֶת אֱלֹהַי אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְקַחְתֶּם וְאֶת הַכֹּהֵן וַתֵּלְכוּ וּמַה לִּי עֹוד וּמַה זֶּה תֹּאמְרוּ אֵלַי מַה לָּךְ
BN: And he said: "You have stolen the gods that I made, and the priest, and now you are going away; and what else do I have? And then you wonder: 'What's up with you?'"
As Rachel took Lavan's terpahim. A shrine with no gods is no longer a kosher shrine - Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, for example, was not achieved in battle, but by cleansing the Ka'aba of all the icons. The ephod and the pesel are replaceable, but not the teraphim. But these are most definitely "gods" in the plural. Which causes us to ask: at what point did Mosaic law begin to take effect in Yisra-El? Which is another way of asking: at what point did the monotheistic faith in YHVH begin to take effect? Clearly not in the days of the Judges, though YHVH's name is often inserted into the tales.
KJ: And the children of Dan said unto him, Let not thy voice be heard among us, lest angry fellows run upon thee, and thou lose thy life, with the lives of thy household.
As Rachel took Lavan's terpahim. A shrine with no gods is no longer a kosher shrine - Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, for example, was not achieved in battle, but by cleansing the Ka'aba of all the icons. The ephod and the pesel are replaceable, but not the teraphim. But these are most definitely "gods" in the plural. Which causes us to ask: at what point did Mosaic law begin to take effect in Yisra-El? Which is another way of asking: at what point did the monotheistic faith in YHVH begin to take effect? Clearly not in the days of the Judges, though YHVH's name is often inserted into the tales.
18:25 VA YOMRU ELAV BENEY DAN AL TASHM'A KOLCHA IMANU PEN YIPGE'U VA CHEM ANASHIM MAREY NEPHESH VE ASAPHTAH NAPHSHECHA VE NEPHESH BEITECHA
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו בְּנֵי דָן אַל תַּשְׁמַע קֹולְךָ עִמָּנוּ פֶּן יִפְגְּעוּ בָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים מָרֵי נֶפֶשׁ וְאָסַפְתָּה נַפְשְׁךָ וְנֶפֶשׁ בֵּיתֶךָ
BN: And the Beney Dan said to him: "I'd keep your mouth shut, if I were you, lest angry blokes among us turn on you, and you lose your life, and the rest of your family with you."
He stole the 1100 shekels to make them, so this may be divine retribution! Do you not just love the way that thieves and bullies operate? "Don't stop us stealing your goods, and definitely don't complain about it, or you'll make us angry, and then we may have to use violence as well."
KJ: And the children of Dan went their way: and when Micah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went back unto his house.
He stole the 1100 shekels to make them, so this may be divine retribution! Do you not just love the way that thieves and bullies operate? "Don't stop us stealing your goods, and definitely don't complain about it, or you'll make us angry, and then we may have to use violence as well."
18:26 VA YELCHU VENEY DAN LE DARCHAM VA YAR MIYCHAH KI CHAZAKIM HEMAH MIMENU VA YIPHEN VA YASHAV EL BEITO
וַיֵּלְכוּ בְנֵי דָן לְדַרְכָּם וַיַּרְא מִיכָה כִּי חֲזָקִים הֵמָּה מִמֶּנּוּ וַיִּפֶן וַיָּשָׁב אֶל בֵּיתֹו
BN: And the Beney Dan went on their way; and when Miychah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went back into his house.
No, this is definitely the original Miychah? Maybe the Levite wasn't named Miychah after all. Gosh but the way this tale is told is confusing.
18:27 VE HEMAH LAK'CHU ET ASHER ASAH MIYCHAH VE ET HA KOHEN ASHER HAYAH LO VA YAVO'U AL LA'ISH AL AM SHOKET U VOTE'ACH VA YAKU OTAM LEPHI CHAREV VE ET HA IR SARPHU VA ESH
וְהֵמָּה לָקְחוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מִיכָה וְאֶת הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר הָיָה לֹו וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל לַיִשׁ עַל עַם שֹׁקֵט וּבֹטֵחַ וַיַּכּוּ אֹותָם לְפִי חָרֶב וְאֶת הָעִיר שָׂרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ
BN: And they took the things which Miychah had made, and the priest that he had, and came to La'ish, to a people who lived in peace and quietude; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.
The brutality of these people, their callousness, is so often emphasised, this cannot be a Yisra-Eli tribe being described by fellow Yisra-Elim - no one makes their own history so negative. It endorses the view that the Danites were the Dana'ans, Sea Peoples, probably themselves Pelishtim, and that the taking of La'ish was a phase of their conquest of parts of Kena'an. It may be that they were later absorbed into the northern kingdom, but as the entire northern kingdom disappeared in the 8th century BCE, it neither matters nor is provable either way.
KJ: And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon, and they had no business with anyman; and it was in the valley that lieth by Bethrehob. And they built a city, and dwelt therein.
The brutality of these people, their callousness, is so often emphasised, this cannot be a Yisra-Eli tribe being described by fellow Yisra-Elim - no one makes their own history so negative. It endorses the view that the Danites were the Dana'ans, Sea Peoples, probably themselves Pelishtim, and that the taking of La'ish was a phase of their conquest of parts of Kena'an. It may be that they were later absorbed into the northern kingdom, but as the entire northern kingdom disappeared in the 8th century BCE, it neither matters nor is provable either way.
18:28 VE EYN MATSIL KI RECHOKAH HI MI TSIYDON VE DAVAR EYN LAHEM IM ADAM VE HI BA EMEK ASHER LE VEIT RECHOV VA YIVNU ET HA IR VA YESHVU VAH
וְאֵין מַצִּיל כִּי רְחֹוקָה הִיא מִצִּידֹון וְדָבָר אֵין לָהֶם עִם אָדָם וְהִיא בָּעֵמֶק אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית רְחֹוב וַיִּבְנוּ אֶת הָעִיר וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בָהּ
BN: And there was no one to come to their assistance, because it was a long way from Tsidon, and they had no dealings with anybody; it lay in the Beit Rechov valley. And they built a city, and settled there.
BEIT RECHOV (בית רחוב): the equivalent of today's Rechovot (though that is located elsewhere) it technically means "broad place", as in the plaza that opened at the inside of every walled city's gate (cf Genesis 26:22); but who ever heard of a shrine to the god or goddess of the town square? The root, surprisingly, is Rachav (Rahab), the Prince of the Sea, another version of the same Dagon we have just encountered, and probably the town square got to be named Rechovot because there was a statue or obelisk of Rachav there, and it came to mean "broad place" later, when the statue or obelisk was removed. Given that these are the same Phoenicians, I think we can regard Rachav as the Phoenician and Dagon as the Philistine, the latter having added the corn-god role which Rachav does not have. And yes, we have encountered and explained Rachav before - in the conquest of Yericho in the Book of Yehoshu'a (Joshua 6).
The pattern seems to have been to burn the city as a way of ensuring its conquest, and then to build a new one in its place. This is not the same as burning Nagasaki to the ground with hydrogen; most houses were daub and wattle at best (does daub and wattle even burn?).
KJ: And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.
YEHONATAN: The name Jonathan in English, the same name as the son of Sha'ul in the King David stories (1 Samuel 14:6 ff); probably a variation imposed by the Redactor, an attempt to masculinise the deity behind the name, disguising YAH as YAHU - the original was almost certainly Yah-Natan.
Though he was never named previously, this is obviously the wandering Levite whom Miychah took in, and being a Bene Gershom makes him a genuine candidate for the priesthood, though how a Gershomite gets to be a Menashite as well re-opens our continual question about the tribes: it seems that the Levites were originally a Guild like the Prophets, and that anyone from any tribe could join the Guild; and this is also why it had no land of its own. At some later stage, presumably once the tribal confederacy had been established and the historical invention of their being the twelve sons of Ya'akov, this changed to the structure we are now asked to accept.
KJ: And they set them up Micah's graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.
Shemu-El (Samuel) was raised at the shrine of Shiloh by the priest Eli (1 Samuel 2:11 ff). It never retained its sacred status after Aphek until king Achi-Yah made it his capital after the post-Solomonic division (1 Kings 4).
The name Shiloh also occurs in Genesis 49:10 as part of Ya'akov's blessing of Yehudah: "The sceptre shall not depart from Yehudah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." Shiloh reads here like a synonym for the Messiah, and has to be read as a late Yisra-Eli prophecy, either of the restoration of Yehudah and the Davidic kingdom, or perhaps a restoration of the pre-Davidic kingdom, when Shiloh was the spiritual centre.
None of which fully explains the phrasing of the last verse; probably it is a variation of the ending of the previous verse, a way of expressing that it stayed in use throughout that period.
Which leaves two questions that need answering. First, what happened to Miychah - to which we have to say, we don't know, unless the unnamed "man" of the following chapter is himself Miychah. We can only answer by asking the second question: was the other Miychah, the Prophet, possibly the same Miychah as this one? Again, the answer lies in the next chapter.
The Prophet Miychah operated from approximately 737–696 BC, which is exactly the period referred to at the end of each of the last two verses - so this may well have been his story, or his "prophetic" book. He predicted the fall of the kingdom from his base in Yehudah, and in fact lived through that period of destruction, which would have included the re-destruction of Danite La'ish. He was a contemporary of Yesha-Yah (Isaiah), Amos and Hoshe'a (Hosea).
Coming from Moreshet-Gat, in south-west Yehudah, makes him both a stronger and a weaker candidate to be the same Miychah; in the Judges story he is based in Shiloh, which is on the West Bank, but as this was the religious capital at the time he could as easily have come to there as from there; Moreshet-Gat on the other hand lies deep in Danite-Philistine territory, and allows the possibility that his pagan shrine was already a Danite shrine. Counting against the argument, the Prophet Miychah rebuked the people of Yehudah for dishonesty and especially for idolatry - the teraphim in the Judges story would have counted as idolatry. On the other hand, the tale connects him with Beit Lechem, because Shaul's son Yehonatan comes from there. The Prophet Miychah prophesied that the Messiah would be born in the town of Beit Lechem (as Jesus quotes in Matthew 2:1-6) and would bring with him an era of universal peace - the same kind of El Dorado which the Danites describe at La'ish. Irresistible to quote from Miychah 5:1 (5:2 in some translations), because it endorses the Tammuz connection by giving the full name: "But you, Beit Lechem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Yehudah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Yisra-El; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." King David, of course, had previously come from Beit Lechem Ephratah.
pey break
18:29 VA YIKRE'U SHEM HA IR DAN BE SHEM DAN AVIYHEM ASHER YULAD LE YISRA-EL VE ULAM LA'ISH SHEM HA IR LA RI'SHONAH
וַיִּקְרְאוּ שֵׁם הָעִיר דָּן בְּשֵׁם דָּן אֲבִיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יוּלַּד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאוּלָם לַיִשׁ שֵׁם הָעִיר לָרִאשֹׁנָה
BN: And they named the city Dan, after Dan their ancestor, who was born to Yisra-El; however the name of the city had previously been La'ish.
YISRA'EL: As in Ya'akov, the man, rather than the nation that branched from him.
YISRA'EL: As in Ya'akov, the man, rather than the nation that branched from him.
LA'ISH: worth looking at this link for more archaeological background on La'ish as Leshem, as well as La'ish as Dan.
KJ: And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.
18:30 VA YAKIYMU LAHEM BENEY DAN ET HA PASEL VIYHONATAN BEN GERSHOM BEN MENASHEH HU U VANAV HAYU KOHANIM LE SHEVET HA DANI AD YOM GELOT HA ARETS
וַיָּקִימוּ לָהֶם בְּנֵי דָן אֶת הַפָּסֶל וִיהֹונָתָן בֶּן גֵּרְשֹׁם בֶּן מְנַשֶּׁה הוּא וּבָנָיו הָיוּ כֹהֲנִים לְשֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי עַד יֹום גְּלֹות הָאָרֶץ
BN: And the Beney Dan set up the graven image for themselves; and Yehonatan ben Gershom ben Menasheh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.
Though he was never named previously, this is obviously the wandering Levite whom Miychah took in, and being a Bene Gershom makes him a genuine candidate for the priesthood, though how a Gershomite gets to be a Menashite as well re-opens our continual question about the tribes: it seems that the Levites were originally a Guild like the Prophets, and that anyone from any tribe could join the Guild; and this is also why it had no land of its own. At some later stage, presumably once the tribal confederacy had been established and the historical invention of their being the twelve sons of Ya'akov, this changed to the structure we are now asked to accept.
GERSHOM (גרשם) was a son of Mosheh and Tsiporah (Exodus 2:22 and 18:3). Pronounced correctly, and as two words, it is really "ger sham", meaning "he was a stranger there", from which the root came to mean "stranger", probably because of its apparent similarity with the verb GERESH, "to expel" or "drive out", as Adam and Chavah (Eve) were in Genesis 3:24 and 4:14, and Yishma-El (Ishmael) and Hagar were in Genesis 21:10. GARASH is also used for divorce. The names Gershon and Gershom thus also become interchangeable - Gershon was a son of Levi in Genesis 46:11, Exodus 6:16, Numbers 3:17 et al. The failure of the earlier text to reveal Yehonotan's name, and the description given of him, only makes sense because he turns out to be a Gershomite (presumably residing in Yehudah, as we speculated earlier), as explained above - if he turned out to be anything else, the tale would lose its meaning.
AD YOM GELUT HA ARETS: Where verse 12 seemed to infer a very early date for the tale, this enables us to date it - or at least its writing-down - much later: 722 BCE is the date when the northern kingdom disappeared. The two dates are not incompatible of course; one is the tale, the other its published version, so this verse could simply be a late addition.
18:31 VA YASIYMU LAHEM ET PESEL MIYCHAH ASHER ASAH KOL YEMEY HEYOT BEIT HA ELOHIM BE SHILOH
וַיָּשִׂימוּ לָהֶם אֶת פֶּסֶל מִיכָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כָּל יְמֵי הֱיֹות בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים בְּשִׁלֹה
BN: And they set up the graven image which Miychah had made, all the time that the house of Elohim was in Shiloh.
Is there a phrase missing from the text, after "had made"? "And they continued to worship it throughout...".
SHILOH (שלה) was the central shrine of the Beney Yisra-El for many years, before David made Chevron and then Yeru-Shala'im the centre. Joshua 18:1 has the Ark of the Tabernacle being set up there; Zevachim 118:b claims it stayed there for 369 years. It was at Shiloh that lots were cast for the division of the kingdom into tribal territories, and where the annual pilgrim festivals took place. Only when Sha'ul took the Ark into battle against the Pelishtim at Aphek did the Ark leave Shiloh, and of course it was lost (see my note to verse 12); the Tabernacle - the tent that housed the Ark - was saved, and taken to Giv-Yah (Gibeah). When the Pelishtim returned the Ark it was taken to Ba'aley Yehudah (2 Samuel 6:2), and after that to Kiryat Ye'arim - so all three key cities connected with the Mishkan find their way into this odd little tale about Miychah.
Is there a phrase missing from the text, after "had made"? "And they continued to worship it throughout...".
SHILOH (שלה) was the central shrine of the Beney Yisra-El for many years, before David made Chevron and then Yeru-Shala'im the centre. Joshua 18:1 has the Ark of the Tabernacle being set up there; Zevachim 118:b claims it stayed there for 369 years. It was at Shiloh that lots were cast for the division of the kingdom into tribal territories, and where the annual pilgrim festivals took place. Only when Sha'ul took the Ark into battle against the Pelishtim at Aphek did the Ark leave Shiloh, and of course it was lost (see my note to verse 12); the Tabernacle - the tent that housed the Ark - was saved, and taken to Giv-Yah (Gibeah). When the Pelishtim returned the Ark it was taken to Ba'aley Yehudah (2 Samuel 6:2), and after that to Kiryat Ye'arim - so all three key cities connected with the Mishkan find their way into this odd little tale about Miychah.
Shemu-El (Samuel) was raised at the shrine of Shiloh by the priest Eli (1 Samuel 2:11 ff). It never retained its sacred status after Aphek until king Achi-Yah made it his capital after the post-Solomonic division (1 Kings 4).
The name Shiloh also occurs in Genesis 49:10 as part of Ya'akov's blessing of Yehudah: "The sceptre shall not depart from Yehudah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." Shiloh reads here like a synonym for the Messiah, and has to be read as a late Yisra-Eli prophecy, either of the restoration of Yehudah and the Davidic kingdom, or perhaps a restoration of the pre-Davidic kingdom, when Shiloh was the spiritual centre.
None of which fully explains the phrasing of the last verse; probably it is a variation of the ending of the previous verse, a way of expressing that it stayed in use throughout that period.
Which leaves two questions that need answering. First, what happened to Miychah - to which we have to say, we don't know, unless the unnamed "man" of the following chapter is himself Miychah. We can only answer by asking the second question: was the other Miychah, the Prophet, possibly the same Miychah as this one? Again, the answer lies in the next chapter.
The Prophet Miychah operated from approximately 737–696 BC, which is exactly the period referred to at the end of each of the last two verses - so this may well have been his story, or his "prophetic" book. He predicted the fall of the kingdom from his base in Yehudah, and in fact lived through that period of destruction, which would have included the re-destruction of Danite La'ish. He was a contemporary of Yesha-Yah (Isaiah), Amos and Hoshe'a (Hosea).
Coming from Moreshet-Gat, in south-west Yehudah, makes him both a stronger and a weaker candidate to be the same Miychah; in the Judges story he is based in Shiloh, which is on the West Bank, but as this was the religious capital at the time he could as easily have come to there as from there; Moreshet-Gat on the other hand lies deep in Danite-Philistine territory, and allows the possibility that his pagan shrine was already a Danite shrine. Counting against the argument, the Prophet Miychah rebuked the people of Yehudah for dishonesty and especially for idolatry - the teraphim in the Judges story would have counted as idolatry. On the other hand, the tale connects him with Beit Lechem, because Shaul's son Yehonatan comes from there. The Prophet Miychah prophesied that the Messiah would be born in the town of Beit Lechem (as Jesus quotes in Matthew 2:1-6) and would bring with him an era of universal peace - the same kind of El Dorado which the Danites describe at La'ish. Irresistible to quote from Miychah 5:1 (5:2 in some translations), because it endorses the Tammuz connection by giving the full name: "But you, Beit Lechem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Yehudah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Yisra-El; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." King David, of course, had previously come from Beit Lechem Ephratah.
pey break
No comments:
Post a Comment