10:1 VA YEHI CHI SHEMO'A ADONITSEDEK MELECH YERU-SHALA'IM KI LACHAD YEHOSHU'A ET HA AI VA YACHARIYMAH KA ASHER ASAH LIYRIYCHO U LE MALKAH KEN ASAH LA AI U LE MALKAH VE CHI HISHLIYMU YOSHVEY GIV-ON ET YISRA-EL VA YIHEYU BE KIRBAM
וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ אֲדֹנִי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַם כִּי לָכַד יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת הָעַי וַיַּחֲרִימָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לִירִיחֹו וּלְמַלְכָּהּ כֵּן עָשָׂה לָעַי וּלְמַלְכָּהּ וְכִי הִשְׁלִימוּ יֹשְׁבֵי גִבְעֹון אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּהְיוּ בְּקִרְבָּם
BN (BibleNet translation): Now it came to pass, when Adoni-Tsedek, king of Yeru-Shala'im, heard how Yehoshu'a had taken "The Ruins", and had utterly destroyed it; that he had done to "The Ruins" and her king exactly what he had done to Yericho and her king, and how the inhabitants of Giv-On had made peace with Yisra-El, and were now living amongst them...
MELECH: From the Av-Raham story in Genesis 14 we know that Shalem, one of the seven hillside villages that would eventually be conurbated into Yeru-Shala'im, was ruled by a king named Malki-Tsedek, and that he was a follower of El Elyon. But both that Genesis text, and Psalm 110, make clear that he was in fact the High Priest, or the Kohen ha Gadol in its Yehudit form. So we can deduce that the King and the High Priest were in fact the same person, a "sacred king", something like the Emperor of Japan, though rather more like the position held by the Pope when the Vatican State was more than just a Bishopric.
As noted previously, the root is HALACH = "to go", used in the sense of "the one who goes first" in the Pi'el form, or in the Hiphil "one who makes others go", which is the role of the leader; but it is also the root of the principal god of the cult of one of the other villages on that same pre-Jerusalemite hill, namely Moloch of Yevus, whose vast ikon (see the link under his name) was known as the Tsi'un, whence Zion.
YERU-SHALA'IM: The city did not exist yet. There were several villages on the hills and in the valleys, but not yet the conurbation that would be known as Yeru-Shala'im, so the name is an anachronism. We know from the Book of Samuel (as well as from verse 3 below) that Adoni-Tsedek was another of the names used by the king of Shalem, which was one of those villages; so this is not an alternate name for Shalem, but simply an anachronism: as we might speak of the founding of New York, and say New York, but really we should say New Amsterdam.
ADONI-TSEDEK: "My Lord is Righteous" is the meaning, and the Tsedek part of the name, already important from the Malki of Av-Raham's meeting in Genesis 14, will remain so throughout Jewish history. But it is a title, not a personal name; the high priest in Yeru-Shala'im will keep the name, as Tsadok, dropping the Adoni, and from a later holder of the title will come the Tsadikim, the Sadducees of Christian scripture (not to mention Handel's great oratorio "Zadok the Priest", which you can listen to by clicking here).
10:2 VA YIR'U ME'OD KI IR GEDOLAH GIV-ON KE ACHAT AREY HA MAMLACHAH VE CHI HI GEDOLAH MIN HA AI VE CHOL ANSHEYHA GIBORIM
KJ: That they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all the men thereof were mighty.
BN: That he was in a state of great terror, because Giv-On was a major city, one of the royal cities, and larger than Ai, and with a powerful army.
Royal to whom? As per my notes at Joshua 9:3, the name suggests that it was Egyptian - Geb was one of the senior deities, the father indeed of Osher (Osiris) and Eshet (Isis), and most pertinently to this tale Set. But a Gev (גב) in Yehudit is a hill - usually a man-made burial-hill, where a Har (הר) is a natural mound - and probably the name arose because the tumulus in question was dedicated to Geb, who included "Lord of the Underworld" among his titles (making him the equivalent of Sha'ul, whose palace was at another of the Geb sites, Giv-Yah.
ANSHEY GIBORIM: Literally "mighty men" or "its men were heroes", but that ignores the play on words with the city's name: Giv-On and Giborim. I appreciate that my alternate translation fails the same, but idioms are idioms, and my translation renders the idiom accurately (to equivalate this, you wouldn't expect to translate our slang term for the Home Guard into, say, French, as "l'armée de papa").
10:3 VA YISHLACH ADONI-TSEDEK MELECH YERU-SHALA'IM EL HOHAM MELECH CHEVRON VE EL PIR'AM MELECH YARMUT VE EL YAPHIY'A MELECH LACHISH VE EL DEVIR MELECH EGLON LEMOR
KJ: Wherefore Adonizedek king of Jerusalem sent unto Hoham king of Hebron, and unto Piram king of Jarmuth, and unto Japhia king of Lachish, and unto Debir king of Eglon, saying,
BN: Therefore Adoni-Tsedek, the king of Yeru-Shala'im, sent to King Hoham of Chevron, and to King Pir'am of Yarmut, and to King Yaphiy'a of Lachish, and to King Devir of Eglon, saying...
Are these in fact the same five kings that Av-Raham supposedly fought in Genesis 14? So many of these Yehoshu'a tales echo previously told tales whose "historicity" seemed implausible at the time.
HOHAM: Can I resist a really bad jest, and say Ho-Hum, because I have no idea what this name means? No one does. Gesenius plays around, as I have just done, with the Ho! and wonders if it's an early form of Yesha-Yah's (Isaiah's) oft-used Oi and Hoi as an expression of dismay (Oi veis mir in the Yiddish). Probably the name was Hurrian (Kinnahu), or Hittite - the latter the more likely as we know that Chevron was a Hittite city.
PIR'AM: Most scholars follow Gesenius on this as well, and he is probably wrong again. He sees the name as a variant on PER'E (פֶּ֣רֶה), which appears in Psalm 104:11 and Jeremiah 2:24 as a type of wild ass; and yes, the same three letters appear, in the same order, in both words, but a "story" is not the same as a "storey", and to "yaw" a boat is not the same as "yawning". The truth is, we have no idea what the name means, probably because it does not come from one of the still-known languages.
And if this is not the meaning of his name, what might it be? Pi, suggests Peh, which is the mouth; Ram means "great" - so perhaps this wasn't his name at all, but a term of abuse by his Yisra-Eli enemies: "big-mouth". And if Hoham is a deliberate mocking of Chacham, why not Pi-Ram as a second mockery?
YARMUT: Written as Yarmuth in most English translations, and so, on the Gesenius principle, it must be a small port on the east coast of Norfolk, at the mouth of the river Yare, and should not be confused either with the historic harbour town on the Isle of Wight, or with the town in Kena'an pronounced Yarmut, which is in the eastern Shephelah, just north of Beit Shemesh (sorry, but since we are dealing with mockery!).
YAPHIYA: And for a third time, we have to argue with Gesenius. He insists that Yaphiya comes from YAFEH (יפה), which means "beautiful", and is the source of Yafo, or Joppa, the beautiful village on the sea-shore to the immediate south of Tel Aviv. But this YAPHIYA has an Ayin, so it has to be a different root, and again it has to be Hurrian or Hittite, and so we cannot offer a definition (though I am ready to bet that it too wasa mocking-name, and that Yafeh = beauty, or probably its famous absence in this individual, is what is being mocked.
LACHISH: With this name, Gesenius is more obstinate, and I am going to go with him - there is, apparently, a word in Arabic, pronounced Lachash, meaning "obstinate", used to describe a town that is resolute in its determination not to be captured. So another aetiological tale, like Ha Ai and Gil-Gal. Quite probably. (But take a look at this link anyway, which suggests that the word may mean "whisper".)
DEVIR: From the root DAVAR, which yields the Word of YHVH, but also the bee-goddess Devorah (Deborah) and the Devir in the Temple, the innermost sanctum. the Holy of Holies. But Judges 1:11 insists that Devir was the shrine, and the town was originally named Kiryat Sepher, which is itself a name that suggests something of a sacred nature, or at the very least an ancient library - "The Village of the Scroll", literally.
EGLON: And while Judges 1:11 was insisting that Devir was the place, not the king, Judges 3:12 insists that Eglon was a king and not a place, a king of Mo-Av to be precise, and he too involved in a treaty-group attempting to overthrow the early Zionist state that was being formed by illegal Yisra-Eli settlements on the west bank of the Yarden; his allies were Amon and Amalek.
But what if Eglon was the place, and Devir the name (and verses 34ff confirm that it was)? Eglon suggests roundness, the same root that gave us the stone circle of Gil-Gal, and if Devir, like the name Adoni-Tsedek, is a title, and we are assuming that all these cities are ruled by sacred kings... so again it becomes Crusade rather than conquest, and this is less about the indigenous tribes fighting back against an invading enemy than one cult wanting to protect itself against an evangelising newcomer: Ba'al defending himself against YHVH.
And if the text is deliberately mocking Adoni-Tsedek, how do we translate this verse? Perhaps:
KJ: Come up unto me, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon: for it hath made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel.
BN: Come to me and help me, and together we will destroy Giv-On; for it has made peace with Yehoshu'a and with the Beney Yisra-El.
And speaking of Av-Raham and Malki-Tsedek, wasn't there an "eternal treaty", a "special relationship" even, between his people and his people, just as Yehoshu'a has just made with Giv-On? See Genesis 14, and please remind me, because it's years since I studied this, what were the principal causes of the First World War?
10:5 VA YE'ASPHU VA YA'ALU CHAMESHET MALCHEY HA EMORI MELECH YERU-SHALA'IM MELECH CHEVRON MELECH YARMUT MELECH LACHISH MELECH EGLON HEM VE CHOL MACHANEYHEM VA YACHANU AL GIV-ON VA YILACHAMU ALEYHA
KJ: Therefore the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon, gathered themselves together, and went up, they and all their hosts, and encamped before Gibeon, and made war against it.
BN: So the five kings of the Emori, the king of Yeru-Shala'im, the king of Chevron, the king of Yarmut, the king of Lachish and the king of Eglon, gathered themselves together, and went up, themeselves and all of their armies, and camped in front of Giv-On, and went to war against it.
What if the leaders of Giv-On were to dress themselves up in rags, and take mouldy bread with them, and go to see Adoni-Tsedek, and offer to be his servants... no, I guess it wouldn't work a second time.
10:6 VA YISHLECHU ANSHEY GIV-ON EL YEHOSHU'A EL HA MACHANEH HA GIL-GALAH LEMOR AL TEREPH YADECHA ME AVADEYCHA ALEH ELEYNU MEHERAH VE HOSHIY'AH LANU VE AZRENU KI NIKBETSU ELEYNU KOL MALCHEY HA EMORI YOSHVEY HA HAR
KJ: And the men of Gibeon sent unto Joshua to the camp to Gilgal, saying, Slack not thy hand from thy servants; come up to us quickly, and save us, and help us: for all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the mountains are gathered together against us.
BN: And the men of Giv-On sent to Yehoshu'a, to the camp at Gil-Gal, saying: "Do not abandon your servants; come to us as fast as you can, and save us, and help us; for all the kings of the Emori who dwell in the mountains have gathered together against us."
Interesting that Yehoshu'a makes his base camp at Gil-Gal; Sha'ul will do the same some centuries later, though in his case probably just his winter quarters (1 Samuel 13 et al), while his official residence was the fortress at Giv-Yah.
Interesting too that Yehoshu'a doesn't simply say, privately of course, "serves you right, and you'll get your just deserts", and then allow the five kings to save him the trouble as far as Giv-On is concerned. Or perhaps having Giv-On draw in the five kings, and then himself defeat them, is a strategy he has the confidence to risk (Hitler attacking Poland brought England into the war, and therefore a pretext for a Blitz and a would-be conquest - for the same reason as the causes of the First World War: stupid treaties of eternal commitment based on the "now" and without forethought for the vagaries of "then".)
10:7 VA YA'AL YEHOSHU'A MIN HA GIL-GAL HU VE CHOL AM HA MILCHAMAH IMO VE CHOL GIBOREY HE CHAYIL
KJ: So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valour.
BN: So Yehoshu'a came up from the Gil-Gal, he, and all his fighting men with him, and all of his elite front-line troops especially.
VA YA'AL: Not the verb we would expect in this context, but YA'AL is what the sun does every morning, so it makes mythological sense. "So the sun (Yehoshu'a) rose (Ya'al) over the flowing (Gil) and pouring (Gal) elements with which the Cosmos was now imbued, and all the planets (Am ha milchamah), and all the stars (Giborey he chayil)..." something of that order.
72 actually has huge numbers of significances across the worlds of both mythology and science, especially numerology; click here to get a flavour.
10:8 VA YOMER YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A AL TIYRA ME HEM KI VE YADCHA NETATIM LO YA'AMOD ISH ME HEM BE PANEYCHA
KJ: And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.
BN: And YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: "Have no fear of them, for I am delivering them into your hand; not one man among them shall remain standing before you."
10:9 VA YAVO ALEYHEM YEHOSHU'A PIT'OM KOL HA LAILAH ALAH MIN HA GIL-GAL
KJ: Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night.
BN: So Yehoshu'a took them by surprise, coming up from the Gil-Gal in the middle of the night.
But this being Yehoshu'a, he only has power when the sun has risen, and though he can move his troops under cover of darkness, while the moon rules, that surprise attack will not have taken place until - the very same moment, in fact, at which the man of Penu-El asked Ya'akov to let him go, and Ya'akov refused, and won his blessing, and became Yisra-El. The moment, indeed, of YA'AL in verse 7.
10:10 VA YECHUMAM YHVH LIPHNEY YISRA-EL VA YAKEM MAKAH GEDOLAH BE GIV-ON VA YIRDEPHEM DERECH MA'ALEH VEIT CHORON VA YAKEM AD AZEKAH VE AD MAKEDAH
KJ: And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
BN: And YHVH discomfited them before Yisra-El, and slew them with a great slaughter at Giv-On, and chased them along the road that goes up to Beit Choron, and smote them to Azekah, and to Makedah.
YECHUMAM: From the root CHAM, meaning "hot". Exodus 14:24 and 23:27 (and many others; click here) use it exactly as here, to mean "routed" - for which "discomfited" is a very gentle euphemism! But of course, mythologically, there is no more appropriate verb to use when the sun-god is intervening!
BEIT CHORON: Every English version renders it as Beth Horon, as though the main name had a Hey, where it has a Chet in every mention in Scripture (1 Chronicles 7:24, 1 Kings 9:17 et al). ON is generally used to designate "the place of", and Chor is presumably the tribe, the Chorim, who are likewise always rendered in English as Horites, rather than Chorites.
AZEKAH: The exact location has never been identified, though clearly it must be close to Beit Choron, on the way west towards the Shephelah. Quite probably on the Shephelah ("low foothills" or "lowlands"), given that the Sephelah was the cultivated, agricultural land of the region, and the root AZAK means "to till", principally used for employing a mattock to turn over the ground, prior to sewing. See also Nehemiah 11:30 (Yarmut also get a mention there, at verse 29).
MAKEDAH: Another town whose meaning, let alone its precise location, remains unknown. Gesenius connects it with NOKDIM, and deduces that it is therefore sheep territory, but these are foothills and lowlands, and the flocking of the sheep, as we know from the tales of the young King David, tended to take place higher up, around Adul-Am (which is also included in Nehemiah 11:30, as is Lachish). Unless Makedah was the sheepfold, or the sheep market.
10:11 VA YEHI BE NUSAM MI PENEY YISRA-EL HEM BE MORAD BEIT CHORON VA YHVH HISHLICH ALEYHEM AVANIM GEDOLOT MIN HA SHAMAYIM AD AZEKAH VA YAMUTU RABIM ASHER METU BE AVNEY HA BARAD ME ASHER HARGU BENEY YISRA-EL BE CHAREV
KJ: And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
BN: And it fell out that, while they were fleeing from before Yisra-El, and were going down to Beit Choron, that YHVH threw enormous hailstones on them from the skies, all the way to Azekah, and they died; more died from the hailstones than those whom the children of Yisra-El slew with the sword.
Yet again YHVH takes an active part, interfering in human history in a manner that will become contrary to later Jewish theology. The interference renders this a holy war of YHVH, and not just a military conquest. But note that the methodology of interference is natural, by means of hailstones, as he has used earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and flash floods and storms previously: Nature and Deity interchangeable terms, just as Spinoza was excommunicated for suggesting. The god of the Beney Yisra-El remains a verb.
samech break
10:12 AZ YEDABER YEHOSHU'A LA YHVH BE YOM TET YHVH ET HA EMORI LIPHNEY BENEY YISRA-EL VA YOMER LE EYNEY YISRA-EL SHEMESH BE GIV-ON DOM, VE YARE'ACH BE EMEK AYALON
KJ: Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
BN: Then Yehoshu'a spoke to YHVH, on the day that YHVH delivered up the Emori before the children of Yisra-El. And he said, "In the sight of Yisra-El, Sun, stand still upon Giv-On, and you, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.
All modern scholars assume that this is the description of an eclipse, though whether lunar or solar is not clear from the text. However, it is worth pointing out that "the sun stood still" translates into Latin as "solstice", and Drummond in his preface to "Oedipus Judaicus" reckons this may have been the intercalation leap year day. I shall return to Drummond in a moment; first, the eclipse.
The earliest recorded eclipse was lunar, and took place on May 3rd, 1375 BCE - BCE! Clay tablets found in Bavel (Babylonia) show that the Babylonians were the inventors of the Saros Cycle, which is the same system used today at NASA: 6585.3211 days, give or take a fifth decimal point (18 years, 11 days, 8 hours in the language of regular folks) after an eclipse, the Sun, Earth, and Moon return to [approximately] the same [relative] geometry, a [near] straight line, and a [nearly] identical eclipse will occur - and this version of "exact science" is actually on the NASA website [though the not-quite-square brackets are mine]!
And anyway it's wrong, or not precisely accurate anyway, for different reasons than the ones it gives itself. The first known eclipse took place in China, on October 22nd, 2134 BCE. This one was solar, and the Emperor's chief scientists Hsi and Ho were executed for failing to predict it. Why? Because the Emperor was the deity in earthly incarnation, and events like eclipses were proof of his might and power. You can fill in the implications for Hsi and Ho for yourself.
All of which makes Yehoshu'a's the third oldest, though whether this was a lunar or a solar is very hard to determine from the description - though very easy from our deconstruction of the language, both here, and in the previous chapters.
But is also adds weight to my comment on the previous verse. Uncommon, even magical natural events, and generally of a spectacular and impactful kind, but natural events for all that, belong to the deity, in the Yisra-Eli world just as much as in the Chinese.
So let me return to Drummond in "Oedipus Judaicus"; this verse is where he finds his main argument that the entire Yehoshu'a story is calendric, with a battle in each month etc and aetiological explanations of both earthly and stellar events recounted through the pseudo-historical "conquest" tales. What we can say for certain is that Yehoshu'a is calling on both the sun and the moon, both of whom were divinities, to aid him in battle. There is no monotheism here, despite the presence in the text of YHVH.
10:13 VA YIDOM HA SHEMESH VE YARE'ACH AMAD AD YIKOM GOY OYEVAV HA LO HI CHETUVAH AL SEPHER HA YASHAR VA YA'AMOD HA SHEMESH BA CHATSI HA SHAMAYIM VE LO ATS LAVO KE YOM TAMIM
KJ: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
BN: And the sun stood silent, and the moon stayed still, until the people had avenged themselves against their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Yashar? So the sun stood still in the midst of the skies, and was in no hurry to set all that day.
YIDOM...AMAD: The two words are very similar in meaning, but still different words, from different roots. YIDOM comes from from DAMAM (דמם), which can mean "to be still" but is usually used for being silent (Leviticus 10:3, Lamentations 3:28, Psalm 37:7 et al); interesting that the sun, which is YHVH, does that, immediately after Yehoshu'a "spoke to it" and gave it that order: Mosheh would never have had the chutspah to give YHVH orders in that manner (as the next verse effectively acknowledges)! AMAD is the standard verb for standing, whence AMOD = " a pillar" or "column".
Again a miracle wins the day. River partings at Yericho. Trumpets to cause an earthquake at Yericho. Hailstones against the five kings. Now the sun and moon stand still. Given all the many occasions on which I have commented on the sun-moon conflict in this tale, we should not be surprised to find every imaginable lunar and solar incident included at some point.
SEPHER HA YASHAR: The Book of Yashar? Or Jasher, in the English of King James. Lost, alas. Though, if you search the Internet, you will think you have found it, in Yehudit and in English (probably other languages too, but I haven't checked) - click on any of the several links below, but be warned!
First: how can it be both lost, and here? An 18th century forgery is the answer: the English translation, or so it is claimed, of a Latin version of the Biblically mentioned book, by one Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, who is better known as the genuine Alcuin of York - very elaborate, very thorough, and actually very interesting to read. But still a forgery. And nothing to do with Alcuin - putting it in his name simply added one more tier of human deceptibility to the hoax. The forger's name may or may not have been Thomas Ilive (it sounds like a counterfeit name too, doesn't it?), who lived in London between 1705 and 1763, some of that life in jail for blasphemy - he liked to preach deistic and neo-gnostic ideas of the sort that would get Spinoza excommunicated at around the same epoch, and was sentenced to three years in Clerkenwell for his trouble.
And then, to add a third tier to this tale, there is actually a Book of Yashar, and we have it, and it is... the text I linked you to above. But a different book, or should I say a different forgery?
Sefer ha Yashar, "The Book of the Upright" (as opposed to the Midrashic Sepher haYashar, "The Book of the Upright") which is also known as "Toledot Adam" and as "Dibre ha-Yamim be-'Aruk", was printed in Venice in 1625, though that claims to be the 2nd edition, following publication in Naples in 1552. The printer's name was Yosèf ben Samuel; the scribe - neither author nor translator, but simply scribe - was one Jacob ben Atyah, of whom nobody had then or has now ever heard, and his work an attempt to make legible an ancient manuscript whose script had been rendered almost illegible by time. According to its preface, Sefer haYashar was rescued from the ruins of the Temple in 70 CE by a Roman officer named Sidrius, who put it in his library back in Seville. At some point of Moorish history it found its way to the yeshivah in Cordoba, where it was preserved, and then sold to a merchant who took it to Naples to be printed. At much the same period an even more famous "forgery" was beginning its life, the "Book of Zohar" of Moses de León, which he attributed to the Talmudic sage Shimon bar Yochai, and for the same reason - PR value.
KJ: And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
BN: And there was never a day like it, before or since, when YHVH listened to the voice of a man: for YHVH fought for Yisra-El.
But of course this is the tale of "With God On Our Side" that everyone can tell. Henry V won Agincourt because the Christian God, encouraged by Jesus and St Paul no doubt, sent heavy rain to make a quagmire of that battlefield, taking away the advantage from the French cavalry and giving it to the English bowmen.
pey break
KJ: But these five kings fled, and hid themselves in a cave at Makkedah.
BN: But these five kings fled, and hid themselves in a cave at Makedah.
Is this mythological? The sun, the moon and the other five days of the week, each one a planet? Each gone down into its own "black hole", into its own "Underworld"?
10:17 VA YUGAD LIYHOSHU'A LEMOR NIMTSE'U CHAMESHET HA MELACHIM NECHBE'IM BA ME'ARAH BE MAKEDAH
KJ: And it was told Joshua, saying, The five kings are found hid in a cave at Makkedah.
BN: And this was reported to Yehoshu'a, saying: The five kings have been found, hiding in a cave at Makedah.
10:18 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A GOLU AVANIM GEDOLIM EL PI HA ME'ARAH VE HAPHKIYDU ALEYHA ANASHIM LE SHAMRAM
KJ: And Joshua said, Roll great stones upon the mouth of the cave, and set men by it for to keep them:
BN: And Yehoshu'a said: "Roll the biggest rocks you can find across the mouth of the cave, and put guards there to make sure no one leaves...
Still more stones - the Yehudit for the stones is AVANIM, but GOLU for the rolling (though I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't be translating it as "orbiting"!) - as in Gil-Gal (the root for GAL means "a circle", and EGLON, from the same root, is one of the five kings). River Yarden* stones, cairn-stones, hail-stones... just as every incident has its moon and sun, so also these stones.
KJ: And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD your God hath delivered them into your hand.
BN: "And you - don't stand around! Off with you in pursuit of your enemies. Cut off their tails. Do not allow them to get back to their cities. For YHVH your god has delivered them into your hand."
My translation here is literal, word by word. The colloquialism is in the Yehudit.
KJ: And it came to pass, when Joshua and the children of Israel had made an end of slaying them with a very great slaughter, till they were consumed, that the rest which remained of them entered into fenced cities.
BN: And it fell out, when Yehoshu'a and the Beney Yisra-El had finished slaughtering them in what can only be described as a wholesale massacre - because they were virtually wiped out, save only the few who managed to survive - that these latter straggled their ways back to their fenced cities.
This time I acknowledge that my translation may have gone slightly beyond the absolutely literal, and may be accusable of authorial intervention through the adoption of a certain tone. I make no apologies for this; I have simply saved myself the trouble of doing translation and commentary separately (and that "save only" is excellent, don't you agree?).
SARDU MEY HEM: These, the stragglers, the remnant, are surely the very "tail" that Yehoshu'a warned not to leave alive in the last verse. Just like Ezra's people, in Babylon as much as in Yehudah - his listeners would have understood this, without needing a reminder. Today we need the reminder.
What are fenced cities? Bedouin encampments? The word used is IR, not KFAR, which would denote a village; it is unusual for cities to be fenced rather than walled, whereas a village might well only be fenced, and an encampment certainly.
10:21 VA YASHUVU CHOL HA AM EL HA MACHANEH EL YEHOSHU'A MAKEDAH BE SHALOM LO CHARATS LIVNEY YISRA-EL LE ISH ET LESHONO
KJ: And all the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace: none moved his tongue against any of the children of Israel.
BN: Then all the people returned to camp, to Yehoshu'a, to Makedah, in peace; and no one's tongue wagged against any of the Beney Yisra-El.
MAKEDAH: We are not explicitly told, but this verse allows us to know, that Yehoshu'a himself led the assault on the army protecting the cave at Makedah, and then waited there while the remnant of that army was chased out.
LO CHARATS: Insinuating that, despite this being yet another "war crime", no one is calling on the United Nations to condemn it, no one is calling for sanctions, divestment or boycott against the perpetrators: this is simply what happens in war, and fear of the powerful conqueror silences all [public] opposition and protest.
10:22 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A PIT'CHU ET PI HA ME'ARAH VE HOTSIY'U ELAY ET CHAMESHET HA MELACHIM HA ELEH MI HA ME'ARAH
KJ: Then said Joshua, Open the mouth of the cave, and bring out those five kings unto me out of the cave.
BN: Then Yehoshu'a said: Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave.
A voice deep inside my head keeps asking, I wonder who owned this cave, and is it possible that it was part of the estate of Joseph of Arimathea? Which of course it can't have been, because he only came along, historically speaking, about twelve hundred years later (yes, I think I have calculated that precisely accurately) (and yes, I chose my link for Joseph of Arimathea very precisely too: Glastonbury, or Avalon, is where Ar Thur, the Celtic sun-god, was taken for burial.
10:23 VA YA'ASU CHEN VA YOTSIY'U ELAV ET CHAMESHET HA MELACHIM HA ELEH MI HA ME'ARAH ET MELECH YERU-SHALA'IM ET MELECH CHEVRON ET MELECH YARMUT ET MELECH LACHISH ET MELECH EGLON
KJ: And they did so, and brought forth those five kings unto him out of the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon.
BN: And they did so, and brought the five kings to him from out of the cave, the king of Yeru-Shala'im, the king of Chevron, the king of Yarmut, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon.
10:24 VA YEHI KE HOTSIY'AM ET HA MELACHIM HA ELEH EL YEHOSHU'A VA YIKRA YEHOSHU'A EL KOL ISH YISRA-EL VA YOMER EL KETSIYNEY ANSHEY HA MILCHAMAH HE HALCHU ITO KIRVU SIMU ET RAGLEYCHEM AL TSAV'REY HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VA YIKREVU VA YASIYMU ET RAGLEYHEM AL TSAV'REYHEM
KJ: And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them.
BN: And so it came to pass, when they brought those kings out to Yehoshu'a, that Yehoshu'a summoned all the men of Yisra-El, and said to the captains of the men of war who had come with him: "Approach. Put your feet upon the necks of these kings". And they approached, and put their feet upon their necks.
Is this intended literally? A form of humiliation? Or, like taking off your shoe to denote a vow, was this the Biblical equivalent of the Victorian judge putting on the Black Cap as a symolic announcement of a death-sentence?
Returning to mythology, throughout the Mosaic tales I noted the stages of the career of the god YHVH, who began life as an obscure and minor volcano-god on the borders of Mo-Av and Midyan and Edom and Kena'an, famous for blowing his top in spectacular manner when he didn't get what he wanted, and with truly Trumpian aspirations to be the ruler of everyone and everything. Taken with the Beney Yisra-El in symbolic form, he will rise from being a junior member of the polytheon (ha Elohim) to its Prime Minister (Adonai Tseva'ot, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens), and then stage a coup that will leave him as the Omnideity, the autocratic sole ruler of the Cosmos. But that last will not happen until Ezraic times at the earliest - so can we date this Book of Joshua to Ezraic times? What we are witnessing, after all, is the systematic progress of his rise to power, taking the moon under his control at Yericho, the elements at Gil-Gal, the comets at Makedah, and the realms of the five oribiting planets in the verses that are about to follow. (I also find it fascinating, as a remarkable coincidence, that the attempt to overthrow the Capitol took place on January 6, which of course is the original Christmas, the Feast of the Adoration of the Magi; but that is a matter for a different book)
10:25 VA YOMER ALEYHEM YEHOSHU'A AL TIRU VE AL TECHATU CHIZKU VE IMTSU KI CHACHAH YA'ASEH YHVH LE CHOL OYEVEYCHEM ASHER ATEM NILCHAMIM OTAM
KJ: And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.
BN: And Yehoshu'a said to them: "Have no fear. Be strong and of good courage, for thus shall YHVH do to every enemy against whom you fight.
AL TECHATU: Much-repeated since Mosheh first used it in Deuteronomy 31:8; variations through the early chapters of Joshua (1:9, 8:1), but it appears to have become a sort of catchphrase or rallying-cry, like Henry V's Agincourt "Once more unto the breach" or Churchill's simple 2-finger salute, or the fist-pump. They should write the words above the entrance-doors at every army barrack in modern Israel. AL TECHATU!
10:26 VA YAKEM YEHOSHU'A ACHAREY CHEN VA YEMIYTEM VA YITLEM AL CHAMISHAH ETSIM VA YIHEYU TELU'IM AL HA ETSIM AD HA AREV
KJ: And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening.
BN: After which Yehoshu'a struck them, and killed them, by hanging them on five trees: and they were left hanging on the trees until the evening.
YAKEM: Did he physically strike them, or is this simply the Biblical technique of saying the same thing three times: YAKEM, YEMIYTEM, YITLEM? No, probably it was all three: the striking is the act of mockery, the slaughter is the Longinan javelin below the fifth rib, the hanging on the tree is the crucifixion.
KJ: And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones in the cave's mouth, which remain until this very day.
BN: And when the sun rose the following morning, Yehoshu'a gave the order, and they took them down from the trees, and threw them into the cave in which they had hid, and laid huge stones across the mouth of the cave, which are still there to this very day.
BO LA SHEMESH: See my notes to Joshua 8:29.
AVANIM GEDOLOT: Are these in fact the stones already laid there to seal them in, for which see verse 18?
pey break
10:28 VE ET MAKEDAH LACHAD YEHOSHU'A BA YOM HA HU VA YAKEH LE PHI CHEREV VE ET MALKAH HECHERIM OTAM VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH LO HISH'IR SARID VA YA'AS LE MELECH MAKEDAH KA ASHER ASAH LE MELECH YERIYCHO
KJ: And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho.
BN: And that day Yehoshu'a took Makedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and he wiped out its king, him [them], and every soul that was there with him [them]; not one did he allow to remain alive. And he did to the king of Makedah as he had done to the king of Yeriycho.
KJ: Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah:
BN: Then Yehoshu'a moved on from Makedah, and all Yisra-El with him, to Livnah, and he fought against Livnah.
YA'AVOR: That word-play on "Hebrews " again, as though the Redactor is trying to reclaim the name, and make it clean for use. It is not really the obvious verb to use here.
LIVNAH: Now here's an oddity. The five kings have been defeated, and the first of their kingdoms, Makedah, has been taken; in the verses that follow the other will follow suit. But before that happens, a previously unmentioned place gets taken too, which could just be because it happened to be on the road from Makedah to the next one, which is Lachish. And guess what, according even to the most thorough of scholars, "The site of this important stronghold remains unknown (click here). And of course it does, you silly scholar, because there never was a place named Livnah - or not on Earth anyway. Because Livnah means:
KJ: And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho.
BN: And YHVH delivered it too, and its king, into the hand of Yisra-El; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every soul that was in it, not one did he allow to remain alive; but he did to its king as he did to the king of Yeriycho.
The fact that there are so many kings is a give-away too; there were no kings, as we know them, at that time; only cultic sacred kings, which is to say sheikhs serving as shrine-priests; and all of them served the Trinity, because that was the nature of the Trinity.
samech break
10:31 VA YA'AVOR YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO MI LIVNAH LACHISHAH VA YICHAN ALEYHA VA YILACHEM BAH
KJ: And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it:
BN: And Yehoshu'a moved on from Livnah, and all Yisra-El with him, to Lachish, and made camp outside it, and fought against it.
VA YA'AVOR: Again and again, the same verb: they have become "Hebrews".
10:34 VA YA'AVOR YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO MI LACHISH EGLONAH VA YACHANU ALEYHA VA YILACHAMU ALEYHA
KJ: And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it:
BN: And from Lachish Yehoshu'a moved on to Eglon, and all Yisra-El with him; and they made camp outside it, and war against it.
EGLON: See my notes at verses 3 and 18.
10:35 VA YILKEDUHA BA YOM HA HU VA YAKU'AH LE PHI CHEREV VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH BA YOM HA HU HECHERIM KE CHOL ASHER ASAH LE LACHISH
KJ: And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish.
BN: And they took it that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and he wiped out every soul that was in the place that day, exactly as he had done to Lachish.
Again note the use of HECHERIM, whose root is the CHEREM.
pey break
KJ: And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it:
BN: And Yehoshu'a went up from Eglon, and all Yisra-El with him, to Chevron; and they fought against it
ME EGLONAH: Given the ME (from) which is prefixed, should that not be plain Eglon, unneeding of a dative suffix? Otherwise the town acquires the name Eglonah. In verse 34 it was Eglonah in the dative because they went "from Lachish", with the same preposition (MI rather than ME because of the consonant where Eglon is an aspirated vowel; but the same preposition), but without a preposition for EGLON, because EGLONAH infers it (standard Hebrew grammar this, Key Stage2 level).
CHEVRON: See the link. But also note something that really does have to be pure coincidence, because I cannot believe that the ancients would have known this, in any language, let alone the cross-pollenation of languages which leads to it. But a Chevron (I think the "ch" is softened, as though it were "sh") is "one of a series of bones on the ventral (under) side of the tail in many reptiles, dinosaurs (such as Diplodocus; see picture), and some mammals such as kangaroos and manatees." Part of the tail which Yehoshu'a just cut off in verse 19. (To see the picture you will need the link to the source of the quote, which is here).
10:37 VA YILKEDUHA VA YAKU'AH LE PHI CHEREV VE ET MALKAH VE ET KOL AREYHA VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH LO HISH'IR SARID KE CHOL ASHER ASAH LE EGLON VA YACHAREM OTAH VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH
KJ: And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that weretherein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein.
BN: And they captured it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king, and all the villages in its domain, and every soul that was in them. Not one of them did he leave standing - exactly as he had done to Eglon; he destroyed it utterly, and every soul living there.
KOL AREYHA: The first clear indication that Kena'an at that time operated as a series of city-states. This clarifies the surprising number of sacred-kings in such a small land. Can we also guess that there were twelve city-states in all, reflecting the cosmology in the same way that the tribal confederation of David will do, as the Greek amphictyony will do? Worth counting the number of cities conquered by Yehoshu'a, just to see.
As this list goes on, this becomes increasingly reminiscent of the wars of King Sha'ul, which were really (mythologically) the journey of the king of the underworld through the calendar, pursuing the Risen Lord in the guise of David (Yedid-Yah his full name, "the beloved of the moon goddess Yah"), as Eurystheus pursued Herakles (Hera-Kles, "the glory of the moon-goddess Hera"), and Uther Pendragon pursued King Arthur in the Celtic version, which like this one comes from the same common source. It will be worth cross-checking the list of Sha'ul's battles with Yehoshu'a's, to see which if any repeat; the role of Giv-On is of course crucial there as well, because Sha'ul, who was probably a Shet-worshipper, made his capital in Giv-Yah, furthering the Egyptian connection...
Chevron was the city claimed by Sha'ul's son Mephi-Boshet, though David was the one who ruled it... so many parallels it could, at times, almost be the same story, as if the sobriquets Yehoshu'a ("Saviour") and Yedid-Yah ("Beloved of the Moon Goddess") were interchangeable. Mythologically, of course, they are. And David is regarded as the original "Messiah" in the Christian mythologies - Yeshu (Jesus), Moshi'a and Yehoshu'a all coming from the same root.
samech break
10:38 VA YASHAV YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO DEVIRAH VA YILACHEM ALEYHA
KJ: And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it:
BN: Then Yehoshu'a went back, and all Yisra-El with him, to Devir; and he fought against it.
YASHAV: If a person deviates from the religious path, and makes atonement, coming back to the Word of YHVH, they might be said to have made Teshuvah to the Davar YHVH. I cannot help but notice that this construct is present in this verse; at least, until it is countered by the closing phrase. I am probably just readings things into the text.
KJ: And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.
BN: And he captured it, and its king, and all the villages in its domain. And they smote them with the edge of the sword, and wiped out every soul that was in the place; not one did he leave alive. As he had done to Chevron, so he did to Devir, and to its king; as he had done to Livnah as well, and to her king.
YACHARIYMU...HISH'IR: Once again the writer can't make up his mind between the singular and the plural: Yehoshu'a or Yisra-El.
LE DEVIRAH: As with Eglonah above, an extraneous dative suffix, or else the LE is unnecessary - see verse 38, which has the grammar correctly. LE LIVNAH is also correct, because the name of the town includes the qamats-hey (the "ah" ending).
10:40 VA YAKEH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA ARETS HA HAR VE HA NEGEV VE HA SHEPHELAH VE HA ASHEDOT VE ET KOL MALCHEYHEM LO HISH'IR SARID VE ET KOL HA NESHAMAH HECHERIM KA ASHER TSIVAH YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL
KJ: So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
BN: So Yehoshu'a smote all the hill-country, and all of the Negev, and all of the Shephelah, and all the springs, and all their kings: not one of them did he leave standing, but he utterly destroyed everything that breathed, as YHVH the god of Yisra-El commanded.
YHVH the god of Creation! All of this which would constitute genocide and ethnic cleansing if it were so; yet the land remained full of people, most of whom continued to reject the Beney Yisra-El, and to fight them, and to occupy parts that they never managed to... again evidence that "conquest" was a matter of religion only.
But still a long way to go in the conquest of Kena'an! Look at the map - nothing in this story has yet gone more than a mile or two north of the Dead Sea, barely into Bin-Yamin, essentially in Yehudah and Shim'on, having crossed the Yarden in what will be Re'u-Ven and southern Gad. If Chevron was a detour north, and the Negev and the hills and the Shephelah were all he took, with the western Negev in the next verse, then only Shim'on, Yehudah and Bin-Yamin can thus far "claim their possession", and the other tribes, not including the two-and-a-half who have already chosen to stay in Mo-Av, will have to wait a while yet - Joshua 11 is where it will take place. As to these conquests: Shim'on will disappear very soon, mostly lost to the Pelishtim (Philistines), the rest absorbed into Yehudah; Bin-Yamin and Yehudah will become merged as one, and will be the only remaining tribe after 722 BCE, when Shalman-Ezer and San-Cheriv (Sennacherib) conquer the northern kingdom and take away its population.
10:41 VA YAKEM YEHOSHU'A MI KADESH BARNE'A VE AD AZA VE ET KOL ERETS GOSHEN VE AD GIV-ON
KJ: And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.
BN: And Yehoshu'a smote them from Kadesh Barne'a all the way to Azah, and all the country of Goshen, as far as Giv-On.
This really needs another map, because... Goshen? Is there perhaps a second Goshen, beside the one in which the Beney Yisra-El lived in Mitsrayim (Egypt) and where this entire journey started. If Yehoshu'a had really taken an army of Beney Yisra-El all the way back to their slavery-roots in Mitsrayim, it would surely have received more than a map reference point. Though if this were a historical account of Ach-Mousa's expulsion of the Hyksos etc, then going due west at this point, to take the Azah Strip, and then along the coast-route back into Mitsrayim, not for the general area of Goshen so much as its major city, Avaris, which had been the Hyksos capital and needed to be taken back into the control of the now-restored ancient dynasty... well now it would make sense!
Giv-On: and is there also a second Giv-On, in Goshen? This in fact is much more plausible, indeed probable: Giv-On, as pointed out many times previously, means "the place of Geb", so any shrine to the father of fathers of the Egyptian people might bear that name.
There is also something spectacularly symmetrical, that the tale should start with the arrival of the Beney Yisra-El in Goshen, starving and dependent foreigners about to become enslaved, and should end, full circle, pilgrimage complete (YASHAV... DEVIR...) right there, but now as liberating conquerors. "From Goshen to Goshen" - there, a new proverb, better than "From Dan to Be'er Sheva" let alone "From John O'Groats to Land's End".
10:42 VE ET KOL HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VE ET ARTSAM LACHAD YEHOSHU'A PA'AM ECHAT KI YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL NILCHAM LE YISRA-EL
KJ: And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.
BN: And Yehoshu'a took all these kings and their land, at one time, because YHVH the god of Yisra-El fought for Yisra-El.
10:43 VA YASHAV YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO EL HA MACHANEH HA GIL-GALAH
KJ: And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.
BN: And Yehoshu'a returned, and all Yisra-El with him, to the camp at the Gil-Gal.
ADONI-TSEDEK: "My Lord is Righteous" is the meaning, and the Tsedek part of the name, already important from the Malki of Av-Raham's meeting in Genesis 14, will remain so throughout Jewish history. But it is a title, not a personal name; the high priest in Yeru-Shala'im will keep the name, as Tsadok, dropping the Adoni, and from a later holder of the title will come the Tsadikim, the Sadducees of Christian scripture (not to mention Handel's great oratorio "Zadok the Priest", which you can listen to by clicking here).
10:2 VA YIR'U ME'OD KI IR GEDOLAH GIV-ON KE ACHAT AREY HA MAMLACHAH VE CHI HI GEDOLAH MIN HA AI VE CHOL ANSHEYHA GIBORIM
וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד כִּי עִיר גְּדֹולָה גִּבְעֹון כְּאַחַת עָרֵי הַמַּמְלָכָה וְכִי הִיא גְדֹולָה מִן הָעַי וְכָל אֲנָשֶׁיהָ גִּבֹּרִים
BN: That he was in a state of great terror, because Giv-On was a major city, one of the royal cities, and larger than Ai, and with a powerful army.
VA YIR'U: The previous verse was left unfinished, ellided into this one, but ungrammatically; the subject of that sentence is in the opening phrase, CHI SHEMO'A ADONITSEDEK, which is unquestionably singular, but this verse begins VA YIR'U, which is just as unquestionably plural - unless the closing clause is being continued, and it is the men of Giv-On whose fear is being described here. Part of the problem lies in the number of sub-clauses in verse 1, and the inarticulate misordering of the sentence. I have gone for "he" rather than "they", which is how every other translation I have looked at renders it, because the logic of CHI SHEMO'A continues into verse 3 as well, where the attribution of the fear to the Beney Giv-On does not.
Royal to whom? As per my notes at Joshua 9:3, the name suggests that it was Egyptian - Geb was one of the senior deities, the father indeed of Osher (Osiris) and Eshet (Isis), and most pertinently to this tale Set. But a Gev (גב) in Yehudit is a hill - usually a man-made burial-hill, where a Har (הר) is a natural mound - and probably the name arose because the tumulus in question was dedicated to Geb, who included "Lord of the Underworld" among his titles (making him the equivalent of Sha'ul, whose palace was at another of the Geb sites, Giv-Yah.
ANSHEY GIBORIM: Literally "mighty men" or "its men were heroes", but that ignores the play on words with the city's name: Giv-On and Giborim. I appreciate that my alternate translation fails the same, but idioms are idioms, and my translation renders the idiom accurately (to equivalate this, you wouldn't expect to translate our slang term for the Home Guard into, say, French, as "l'armée de papa").
10:3 VA YISHLACH ADONI-TSEDEK MELECH YERU-SHALA'IM EL HOHAM MELECH CHEVRON VE EL PIR'AM MELECH YARMUT VE EL YAPHIY'A MELECH LACHISH VE EL DEVIR MELECH EGLON LEMOR
וַיִּשְׁלַח אֲדֹנִי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶל הֹוהָם מֶלֶךְ חֶבְרֹון וְאֶל פִּרְאָם מֶלֶךְ יַרְמוּת וְאֶל יָפִיעַ מֶלֶךְ לָכִישׁ וְאֶל דְּבִיר מֶלֶךְ עֶגְלֹון לֵאמֹר
BN: Therefore Adoni-Tsedek, the king of Yeru-Shala'im, sent to King Hoham of Chevron, and to King Pir'am of Yarmut, and to King Yaphiy'a of Lachish, and to King Devir of Eglon, saying...
Are these in fact the same five kings that Av-Raham supposedly fought in Genesis 14? So many of these Yehoshu'a tales echo previously told tales whose "historicity" seemed implausible at the time.
HOHAM: Can I resist a really bad jest, and say Ho-Hum, because I have no idea what this name means? No one does. Gesenius plays around, as I have just done, with the Ho! and wonders if it's an early form of Yesha-Yah's (Isaiah's) oft-used Oi and Hoi as an expression of dismay (Oi veis mir in the Yiddish). Probably the name was Hurrian (Kinnahu), or Hittite - the latter the more likely as we know that Chevron was a Hittite city.
But there is one possibility, that Hoham with two Heys should really be CHACHAM with a Chet and a Chaf (חָכָם); Chevron was the central shrine of Kena'an at this time, as we know from Av-Raham purchasing the Cave of Machpelah there ("Mamre of Kiryat Ha'Arba, which is Chevron" in Genesis 35:27), the most royal of all the tombs; and as we also know from David making it his capital, before he conquered the villages that would then be conurbated into Yeru-Shala'im. Chevron is identified with Sarah in the Av-Raham stories, but more significantly it is regarded as the locus of the Garden of Eden, and those who maintain the Cave-shrine to this day insist that Adam and Chavah were both buried there - click here. The only argument against this that I can think of, is that it was a goddess-shrine, as have been all the shrines in the Yehoshu'a tale to date, and a Chacham would need to be a man, where the voice of wisdom at a goddess-shrine would always, like Rachav earlier, be female (and actually there is a counter-argument to that as well: in the Celtic tales, which likewise originate with the Hittites, the Chacham finds himself locked in a tower by the moon-goddess - see the tale of Merlin and Viviane* for example - and serves as her spokesman in the male world).
* a word of Caveat about the link; like most modern renditions of the Celtic tales, this one is hugely corrupted by the attempts of the Christian church to demonise the Celtic religion, reducing its gods and goddesses to fairies and elves, or simply pretending that they were human kings and queens. Exactly the same process that Ezraic undertook with the politically incorrect myths of his time, reducing the hierodules, for example, to whores.
PIR'AM: Most scholars follow Gesenius on this as well, and he is probably wrong again. He sees the name as a variant on PER'E (פֶּ֣רֶה), which appears in Psalm 104:11 and Jeremiah 2:24 as a type of wild ass; and yes, the same three letters appear, in the same order, in both words, but a "story" is not the same as a "storey", and to "yaw" a boat is not the same as "yawning". The truth is, we have no idea what the name means, probably because it does not come from one of the still-known languages.
And if this is not the meaning of his name, what might it be? Pi, suggests Peh, which is the mouth; Ram means "great" - so perhaps this wasn't his name at all, but a term of abuse by his Yisra-Eli enemies: "big-mouth". And if Hoham is a deliberate mocking of Chacham, why not Pi-Ram as a second mockery?
YARMUT: Written as Yarmuth in most English translations, and so, on the Gesenius principle, it must be a small port on the east coast of Norfolk, at the mouth of the river Yare, and should not be confused either with the historic harbour town on the Isle of Wight, or with the town in Kena'an pronounced Yarmut, which is in the eastern Shephelah, just north of Beit Shemesh (sorry, but since we are dealing with mockery!).
YAPHIYA: And for a third time, we have to argue with Gesenius. He insists that Yaphiya comes from YAFEH (יפה), which means "beautiful", and is the source of Yafo, or Joppa, the beautiful village on the sea-shore to the immediate south of Tel Aviv. But this YAPHIYA has an Ayin, so it has to be a different root, and again it has to be Hurrian or Hittite, and so we cannot offer a definition (though I am ready to bet that it too wasa mocking-name, and that Yafeh = beauty, or probably its famous absence in this individual, is what is being mocked.
LACHISH: With this name, Gesenius is more obstinate, and I am going to go with him - there is, apparently, a word in Arabic, pronounced Lachash, meaning "obstinate", used to describe a town that is resolute in its determination not to be captured. So another aetiological tale, like Ha Ai and Gil-Gal. Quite probably. (But take a look at this link anyway, which suggests that the word may mean "whisper".)
DEVIR: From the root DAVAR, which yields the Word of YHVH, but also the bee-goddess Devorah (Deborah) and the Devir in the Temple, the innermost sanctum. the Holy of Holies. But Judges 1:11 insists that Devir was the shrine, and the town was originally named Kiryat Sepher, which is itself a name that suggests something of a sacred nature, or at the very least an ancient library - "The Village of the Scroll", literally.
EGLON: And while Judges 1:11 was insisting that Devir was the place, not the king, Judges 3:12 insists that Eglon was a king and not a place, a king of Mo-Av to be precise, and he too involved in a treaty-group attempting to overthrow the early Zionist state that was being formed by illegal Yisra-Eli settlements on the west bank of the Yarden; his allies were Amon and Amalek.
But what if Eglon was the place, and Devir the name (and verses 34ff confirm that it was)? Eglon suggests roundness, the same root that gave us the stone circle of Gil-Gal, and if Devir, like the name Adoni-Tsedek, is a title, and we are assuming that all these cities are ruled by sacred kings... so again it becomes Crusade rather than conquest, and this is less about the indigenous tribes fighting back against an invading enemy than one cult wanting to protect itself against an evangelising newcomer: Ba'al defending himself against YHVH.
And if the text is deliberately mocking Adoni-Tsedek, how do we translate this verse? Perhaps:
BN (alternate translation): Therefore Big Chief Justman, the king of Yeru-Shala'im, sent to Big Chief Wiseman of Chevron, and to Big Chief Bigmouth of Yarmouth, and to Lord Ugliness Himself in Lachish, and to King Callmegod of Eglon, saying...
And I honestly do think that this is how we should be reading this verse.
10:4 ALU ELAY VE IZRUNI VE NAKEH ET GIV-ON KI HISHLIYMAH ET YEHOSHU'A VE ET BENEY YISRA-EL
10:4 ALU ELAY VE IZRUNI VE NAKEH ET GIV-ON KI HISHLIYMAH ET YEHOSHU'A VE ET BENEY YISRA-EL
עֲלוּ אֵלַי וְעִזְרֻנִי וְנַכֶּה אֶת גִּבְעֹון כִּי הִשְׁלִימָה אֶת יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְאֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: Come to me and help me, and together we will destroy Giv-On; for it has made peace with Yehoshu'a and with the Beney Yisra-El.
And speaking of Av-Raham and Malki-Tsedek, wasn't there an "eternal treaty", a "special relationship" even, between his people and his people, just as Yehoshu'a has just made with Giv-On? See Genesis 14, and please remind me, because it's years since I studied this, what were the principal causes of the First World War?
10:5 VA YE'ASPHU VA YA'ALU CHAMESHET MALCHEY HA EMORI MELECH YERU-SHALA'IM MELECH CHEVRON MELECH YARMUT MELECH LACHISH MELECH EGLON HEM VE CHOL MACHANEYHEM VA YACHANU AL GIV-ON VA YILACHAMU ALEYHA
וַיֵּאָסְפוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַם מֶלֶךְ חֶבְרֹון מֶלֶךְ יַרְמוּת מֶלֶךְ לָכִישׁ מֶלֶךְ עֶגְלֹון הֵם וְכָל מַחֲנֵיהֶם וַיַּחֲנוּ עַל גִּבְעֹון וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ עָלֶיהָ
BN: So the five kings of the Emori, the king of Yeru-Shala'im, the king of Chevron, the king of Yarmut, the king of Lachish and the king of Eglon, gathered themselves together, and went up, themeselves and all of their armies, and camped in front of Giv-On, and went to war against it.
What if the leaders of Giv-On were to dress themselves up in rags, and take mouldy bread with them, and go to see Adoni-Tsedek, and offer to be his servants... no, I guess it wouldn't work a second time.
10:6 VA YISHLECHU ANSHEY GIV-ON EL YEHOSHU'A EL HA MACHANEH HA GIL-GALAH LEMOR AL TEREPH YADECHA ME AVADEYCHA ALEH ELEYNU MEHERAH VE HOSHIY'AH LANU VE AZRENU KI NIKBETSU ELEYNU KOL MALCHEY HA EMORI YOSHVEY HA HAR
וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ אַנְשֵׁי גִבְעֹון אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה הַגִּלְגָּלָה לֵאמֹר אַל תֶּרֶף יָדֶיךָ מֵעֲבָדֶיךָ עֲלֵה אֵלֵינוּ מְהֵרָה וְהֹושִׁיעָה לָּנוּ וְעָזְרֵנוּ כִּי נִקְבְּצוּ אֵלֵינוּ כָּל מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי יֹשְׁבֵי הָהָר
BN: And the men of Giv-On sent to Yehoshu'a, to the camp at Gil-Gal, saying: "Do not abandon your servants; come to us as fast as you can, and save us, and help us; for all the kings of the Emori who dwell in the mountains have gathered together against us."
Interesting that Yehoshu'a makes his base camp at Gil-Gal; Sha'ul will do the same some centuries later, though in his case probably just his winter quarters (1 Samuel 13 et al), while his official residence was the fortress at Giv-Yah.
Interesting too that Yehoshu'a doesn't simply say, privately of course, "serves you right, and you'll get your just deserts", and then allow the five kings to save him the trouble as far as Giv-On is concerned. Or perhaps having Giv-On draw in the five kings, and then himself defeat them, is a strategy he has the confidence to risk (Hitler attacking Poland brought England into the war, and therefore a pretext for a Blitz and a would-be conquest - for the same reason as the causes of the First World War: stupid treaties of eternal commitment based on the "now" and without forethought for the vagaries of "then".)
10:7 VA YA'AL YEHOSHU'A MIN HA GIL-GAL HU VE CHOL AM HA MILCHAMAH IMO VE CHOL GIBOREY HE CHAYIL
וַיַּעַל יְהֹושֻׁעַ מִן הַגִּלְגָּל הוּא וְכָל עַם הַמִּלְחָמָה עִמֹּו וְכֹל גִּבֹּורֵי הֶחָיִל
BN: So Yehoshu'a came up from the Gil-Gal, he, and all his fighting men with him, and all of his elite front-line troops especially.
VA YA'AL: Not the verb we would expect in this context, but YA'AL is what the sun does every morning, so it makes mythological sense. "So the sun (Yehoshu'a) rose (Ya'al) over the flowing (Gil) and pouring (Gal) elements with which the Cosmos was now imbued, and all the planets (Am ha milchamah), and all the stars (Giborey he chayil)..." something of that order.
HA GIL-GAL: The first time it has ever been named with a definite article, and actually it is much more logical to do so. Washington is the city, but we speak of "the" Lincoln Memorial, as in London we speak of "the" Serpentine and in Paris "the" Eiffel Tower. The same applied to Ha Ai earlier.
GIBOREY HA CHAYIL: Referring back to my notes to verse 2, David's GIBORIM were a special unit, thirty-six men appointed as his personal bodyguard, but who actually provided the senior command in times of war, regardless of whether David was there or not - see 2 Samuel 11 especially, for the death of one of those Giborim, Ur-Yah, leading the charge at the siege of Rabah. That same number, thirty-six, will acquire a more abstract significance when the mythological age metamorphoses into the metaphysical, the 36 Heroes becoming the 36 Just Men (Lamed-Vavnikim), upon whose shoulders the moral rectitude of the universe depends - and funny coincidence, they are also known as Tsadikim, just like Adoni-Tsedek here. At this time, however - and I am conscious that I am deliberately using very modern phrasing - the 36 are simply what in Pakistan would be called "the Black Storks", in Britain the SAS, in Russia "the Alpha Group", and in America "Delta Force".
But 36 is not just any number. As Drummond explains in "Oedipus Judaicus", "The Oriental astronomers divided each sign of the zodiac into three parts. They were called decans, and amounted to thirty-six for the whole zodiacal circle, as connected with these decans." Drummond names these "paranatellons". So there are the Sun and Moon, and their "Beloved Son" the Earth. Then there are the Five Kings, each a planet, but subordinate to the Sun and Moon and Earth. Then there are the Twelve Tribes, each a constellation. Then the Thirty-Six Giborim, the divisions of the Tribes - and of course we can also see, which Drummond failed to, that the 36 are really the Twelve, once at each of the three phases of the Moon. And double them, as they do for the Tsadikim, 36 in Israel and 36 in the Diaspora, and you have the 72, which is the number most associated with Osher and Set (Osher was put in his coffin by 72 of Set's followers), adding yet another Egyptian link to these mythological tales.
GIBOREY HA CHAYIL: Referring back to my notes to verse 2, David's GIBORIM were a special unit, thirty-six men appointed as his personal bodyguard, but who actually provided the senior command in times of war, regardless of whether David was there or not - see 2 Samuel 11 especially, for the death of one of those Giborim, Ur-Yah, leading the charge at the siege of Rabah. That same number, thirty-six, will acquire a more abstract significance when the mythological age metamorphoses into the metaphysical, the 36 Heroes becoming the 36 Just Men (Lamed-Vavnikim), upon whose shoulders the moral rectitude of the universe depends - and funny coincidence, they are also known as Tsadikim, just like Adoni-Tsedek here. At this time, however - and I am conscious that I am deliberately using very modern phrasing - the 36 are simply what in Pakistan would be called "the Black Storks", in Britain the SAS, in Russia "the Alpha Group", and in America "Delta Force".
But 36 is not just any number. As Drummond explains in "Oedipus Judaicus", "The Oriental astronomers divided each sign of the zodiac into three parts. They were called decans, and amounted to thirty-six for the whole zodiacal circle, as connected with these decans." Drummond names these "paranatellons". So there are the Sun and Moon, and their "Beloved Son" the Earth. Then there are the Five Kings, each a planet, but subordinate to the Sun and Moon and Earth. Then there are the Twelve Tribes, each a constellation. Then the Thirty-Six Giborim, the divisions of the Tribes - and of course we can also see, which Drummond failed to, that the 36 are really the Twelve, once at each of the three phases of the Moon. And double them, as they do for the Tsadikim, 36 in Israel and 36 in the Diaspora, and you have the 72, which is the number most associated with Osher and Set (Osher was put in his coffin by 72 of Set's followers), adding yet another Egyptian link to these mythological tales.
72 actually has huge numbers of significances across the worlds of both mythology and science, especially numerology; click here to get a flavour.
10:8 VA YOMER YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A AL TIYRA ME HEM KI VE YADCHA NETATIM LO YA'AMOD ISH ME HEM BE PANEYCHA
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ אַל תִּירָא מֵהֶם כִּי בְיָדְךָ נְתַתִּים לֹא יַעֲמֹד אִישׁ מֵהֶם בְּפָנֶיךָ
BN: And YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: "Have no fear of them, for I am delivering them into your hand; not one man among them shall remain standing before you."
10:9 VA YAVO ALEYHEM YEHOSHU'A PIT'OM KOL HA LAILAH ALAH MIN HA GIL-GAL
וַיָּבֹא אֲלֵיהֶם יְהֹושֻׁעַ פִּתְאֹם כָּל הַלַּיְלָה עָלָה מִן הַגִּלְגָּל
BN: So Yehoshu'a took them by surprise, coming up from the Gil-Gal in the middle of the night.
But this being Yehoshu'a, he only has power when the sun has risen, and though he can move his troops under cover of darkness, while the moon rules, that surprise attack will not have taken place until - the very same moment, in fact, at which the man of Penu-El asked Ya'akov to let him go, and Ya'akov refused, and won his blessing, and became Yisra-El. The moment, indeed, of YA'AL in verse 7.
10:10 VA YECHUMAM YHVH LIPHNEY YISRA-EL VA YAKEM MAKAH GEDOLAH BE GIV-ON VA YIRDEPHEM DERECH MA'ALEH VEIT CHORON VA YAKEM AD AZEKAH VE AD MAKEDAH
וַיְהֻמֵּם יְהוָה לִפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּכֵּם מַכָּה גְדֹולָה בְּגִבְעֹון וַיִּרְדְּפֵם דֶּרֶךְ מַעֲלֵה בֵית חֹורֹן וַיַּכֵּם עַד עֲזֵקָה וְעַד מַקֵּדָה
KJ: And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
BN: And YHVH discomfited them before Yisra-El, and slew them with a great slaughter at Giv-On, and chased them along the road that goes up to Beit Choron, and smote them to Azekah, and to Makedah.
YECHUMAM: From the root CHAM, meaning "hot". Exodus 14:24 and 23:27 (and many others; click here) use it exactly as here, to mean "routed" - for which "discomfited" is a very gentle euphemism! But of course, mythologically, there is no more appropriate verb to use when the sun-god is intervening!
BEIT CHORON: Every English version renders it as Beth Horon, as though the main name had a Hey, where it has a Chet in every mention in Scripture (1 Chronicles 7:24, 1 Kings 9:17 et al). ON is generally used to designate "the place of", and Chor is presumably the tribe, the Chorim, who are likewise always rendered in English as Horites, rather than Chorites.
AZEKAH: The exact location has never been identified, though clearly it must be close to Beit Choron, on the way west towards the Shephelah. Quite probably on the Shephelah ("low foothills" or "lowlands"), given that the Sephelah was the cultivated, agricultural land of the region, and the root AZAK means "to till", principally used for employing a mattock to turn over the ground, prior to sewing. See also Nehemiah 11:30 (Yarmut also get a mention there, at verse 29).
MAKEDAH: Another town whose meaning, let alone its precise location, remains unknown. Gesenius connects it with NOKDIM, and deduces that it is therefore sheep territory, but these are foothills and lowlands, and the flocking of the sheep, as we know from the tales of the young King David, tended to take place higher up, around Adul-Am (which is also included in Nehemiah 11:30, as is Lachish). Unless Makedah was the sheepfold, or the sheep market.
10:11 VA YEHI BE NUSAM MI PENEY YISRA-EL HEM BE MORAD BEIT CHORON VA YHVH HISHLICH ALEYHEM AVANIM GEDOLOT MIN HA SHAMAYIM AD AZEKAH VA YAMUTU RABIM ASHER METU BE AVNEY HA BARAD ME ASHER HARGU BENEY YISRA-EL BE CHAREV
וַיְהִי בְּנֻסָם מִפְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם בְּמֹורַד בֵּית חֹורֹן וַיהוָה הִשְׁלִיךְ עֲלֵיהֶם אֲבָנִים גְּדֹלֹות מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם עַד עֲזֵקָה וַיָּמֻתוּ רַבִּים אֲשֶׁר מֵתוּ בְּאַבְנֵי הַבָּרָד מֵאֲשֶׁר הָרְגוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בֶּחָרֶב
BN: And it fell out that, while they were fleeing from before Yisra-El, and were going down to Beit Choron, that YHVH threw enormous hailstones on them from the skies, all the way to Azekah, and they died; more died from the hailstones than those whom the children of Yisra-El slew with the sword.
Yet again YHVH takes an active part, interfering in human history in a manner that will become contrary to later Jewish theology. The interference renders this a holy war of YHVH, and not just a military conquest. But note that the methodology of interference is natural, by means of hailstones, as he has used earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and flash floods and storms previously: Nature and Deity interchangeable terms, just as Spinoza was excommunicated for suggesting. The god of the Beney Yisra-El remains a verb.
samech break
אָז יְדַבֵּר יְהֹושֻׁעַ לַיהוָה בְּיֹום תֵּת יְהוָה אֶת הָאֱמֹרִי לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר לְעֵינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמֶשׁ בְּגִבְעֹון דֹּום וְיָרֵחַ בְּעֵמֶק אַיָּלֹון
BN: Then Yehoshu'a spoke to YHVH, on the day that YHVH delivered up the Emori before the children of Yisra-El. And he said, "In the sight of Yisra-El, Sun, stand still upon Giv-On, and you, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.
All modern scholars assume that this is the description of an eclipse, though whether lunar or solar is not clear from the text. However, it is worth pointing out that "the sun stood still" translates into Latin as "solstice", and Drummond in his preface to "Oedipus Judaicus" reckons this may have been the intercalation leap year day. I shall return to Drummond in a moment; first, the eclipse.
The earliest recorded eclipse was lunar, and took place on May 3rd, 1375 BCE - BCE! Clay tablets found in Bavel (Babylonia) show that the Babylonians were the inventors of the Saros Cycle, which is the same system used today at NASA: 6585.3211 days, give or take a fifth decimal point (18 years, 11 days, 8 hours in the language of regular folks) after an eclipse, the Sun, Earth, and Moon return to [approximately] the same [relative] geometry, a [near] straight line, and a [nearly] identical eclipse will occur - and this version of "exact science" is actually on the NASA website [though the not-quite-square brackets are mine]!
And anyway it's wrong, or not precisely accurate anyway, for different reasons than the ones it gives itself. The first known eclipse took place in China, on October 22nd, 2134 BCE. This one was solar, and the Emperor's chief scientists Hsi and Ho were executed for failing to predict it. Why? Because the Emperor was the deity in earthly incarnation, and events like eclipses were proof of his might and power. You can fill in the implications for Hsi and Ho for yourself.
All of which makes Yehoshu'a's the third oldest, though whether this was a lunar or a solar is very hard to determine from the description - though very easy from our deconstruction of the language, both here, and in the previous chapters.
But is also adds weight to my comment on the previous verse. Uncommon, even magical natural events, and generally of a spectacular and impactful kind, but natural events for all that, belong to the deity, in the Yisra-Eli world just as much as in the Chinese.
So let me return to Drummond in "Oedipus Judaicus"; this verse is where he finds his main argument that the entire Yehoshu'a story is calendric, with a battle in each month etc and aetiological explanations of both earthly and stellar events recounted through the pseudo-historical "conquest" tales. What we can say for certain is that Yehoshu'a is calling on both the sun and the moon, both of whom were divinities, to aid him in battle. There is no monotheism here, despite the presence in the text of YHVH.
And why is that so? Because we are witnessing the sun as he moves from moon-shrine to moon-shrine, and regardless of later patriarchal monotheism, which belongs (still belongs today) to a post Fertilty Cult world precisely because it has moved into the towns and cities and agriculture is merchandise, not a necessity of Life itself, this was still the epoch of the Fertility Cult, and the corn was something you grew, not bought at market, so the rains mattered etc... the point being that the sun and the moon, which is to say the male and the female, are equally essential, and equally existential, which is why Drummond concludes that this was not an eclipse at all, but the moment of harmonisation of the lunar and solar calendars, the intercalation leap year day.
Is there also, at the political level, a matter of Yehoshu'a needing to show the people that he can call up the powers, as well as them acting in spite of him?
AYALON: See the link.
Is there also, at the political level, a matter of Yehoshu'a needing to show the people that he can call up the powers, as well as them acting in spite of him?
AYALON: See the link.
10:13 VA YIDOM HA SHEMESH VE YARE'ACH AMAD AD YIKOM GOY OYEVAV HA LO HI CHETUVAH AL SEPHER HA YASHAR VA YA'AMOD HA SHEMESH BA CHATSI HA SHAMAYIM VE LO ATS LAVO KE YOM TAMIM
וַיִּדֹּם הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְיָרֵחַ עָמָד עַד יִקֹּם גֹּוי אֹיְבָיו הֲלֹא הִיא כְתוּבָה עַל סֵפֶר הַיָּשָׁר וַיַּעֲמֹד הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בַּחֲצִי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְלֹא אָץ לָבֹוא כְּיֹום תָּמִים
BN: And the sun stood silent, and the moon stayed still, until the people had avenged themselves against their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Yashar? So the sun stood still in the midst of the skies, and was in no hurry to set all that day.
YIDOM...AMAD: The two words are very similar in meaning, but still different words, from different roots. YIDOM comes from from DAMAM (דמם), which can mean "to be still" but is usually used for being silent (Leviticus 10:3, Lamentations 3:28, Psalm 37:7 et al); interesting that the sun, which is YHVH, does that, immediately after Yehoshu'a "spoke to it" and gave it that order: Mosheh would never have had the chutspah to give YHVH orders in that manner (as the next verse effectively acknowledges)! AMAD is the standard verb for standing, whence AMOD = " a pillar" or "column".
Again a miracle wins the day. River partings at Yericho. Trumpets to cause an earthquake at Yericho. Hailstones against the five kings. Now the sun and moon stand still. Given all the many occasions on which I have commented on the sun-moon conflict in this tale, we should not be surprised to find every imaginable lunar and solar incident included at some point.
SEPHER HA YASHAR: The Book of Yashar? Or Jasher, in the English of King James. Lost, alas. Though, if you search the Internet, you will think you have found it, in Yehudit and in English (probably other languages too, but I haven't checked) - click on any of the several links below, but be warned!
First: how can it be both lost, and here? An 18th century forgery is the answer: the English translation, or so it is claimed, of a Latin version of the Biblically mentioned book, by one Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, who is better known as the genuine Alcuin of York - very elaborate, very thorough, and actually very interesting to read. But still a forgery. And nothing to do with Alcuin - putting it in his name simply added one more tier of human deceptibility to the hoax. The forger's name may or may not have been Thomas Ilive (it sounds like a counterfeit name too, doesn't it?), who lived in London between 1705 and 1763, some of that life in jail for blasphemy - he liked to preach deistic and neo-gnostic ideas of the sort that would get Spinoza excommunicated at around the same epoch, and was sentenced to three years in Clerkenwell for his trouble.
And then, to add a third tier to this tale, there is actually a Book of Yashar, and we have it, and it is... the text I linked you to above. But a different book, or should I say a different forgery?
Sefer ha Yashar, "The Book of the Upright" (as opposed to the Midrashic Sepher haYashar, "The Book of the Upright") which is also known as "Toledot Adam" and as "Dibre ha-Yamim be-'Aruk", was printed in Venice in 1625, though that claims to be the 2nd edition, following publication in Naples in 1552. The printer's name was Yosèf ben Samuel; the scribe - neither author nor translator, but simply scribe - was one Jacob ben Atyah, of whom nobody had then or has now ever heard, and his work an attempt to make legible an ancient manuscript whose script had been rendered almost illegible by time. According to its preface, Sefer haYashar was rescued from the ruins of the Temple in 70 CE by a Roman officer named Sidrius, who put it in his library back in Seville. At some point of Moorish history it found its way to the yeshivah in Cordoba, where it was preserved, and then sold to a merchant who took it to Naples to be printed. At much the same period an even more famous "forgery" was beginning its life, the "Book of Zohar" of Moses de León, which he attributed to the Talmudic sage Shimon bar Yochai, and for the same reason - PR value.
And how can you tell it's a forgery? The easiest way is to look for anachronisms. Mentions of say, Franzia, and Lumbardi, which are the mediaeval names for countries that would not come into existence until a thousand years after the book's supposed writing. Imagine finding a "lost play" of Shakespeare's, in which a character spoke about the United States of America, and sent messages by wire-telegraph!
10:14 VE LO HAYAH KA YOM HA HU LEPHANAV VE ACHARAV LISHMO'A YHVH BE KOL ISH KI YHVH NILCHAM LE YISRA-EL
10:14 VE LO HAYAH KA YOM HA HU LEPHANAV VE ACHARAV LISHMO'A YHVH BE KOL ISH KI YHVH NILCHAM LE YISRA-EL
וְלֹא הָיָה כַּיֹּום הַהוּא לְפָנָיו וְאַחֲרָיו לִשְׁמֹעַ יְהוָה בְּקֹול אִישׁ כִּי יְהוָה נִלְחָם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ: And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
BN: And there was never a day like it, before or since, when YHVH listened to the voice of a man: for YHVH fought for Yisra-El.
But of course this is the tale of "With God On Our Side" that everyone can tell. Henry V won Agincourt because the Christian God, encouraged by Jesus and St Paul no doubt, sent heavy rain to make a quagmire of that battlefield, taking away the advantage from the French cavalry and giving it to the English bowmen.
pey break
10:15 VA YASHAV YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO EL HA MACHANEH HA GIL-GALAH
KJ: And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.
BN: So Yehoshu'a returned, and all Yisra-El with him, to the camp at Ha Gil-Gal.
This now the third time the HA has been included, and I am left wondering if it is because the name changed, from the Av-Rahamic shrine to this present one, and calling it "The Gil-Gal" is equivalent to us today saying "The Temple" and understanding that there were dozens of temples in Kena'an, but only one, this one, in Yeru-Shala'im. And Ha Gil-Gal does appear to be the effective capital for the moment, which adds weight to the suggestion.
10:16 VA YANUSU CHAMESHET HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VA YECHAV'U BA ME'ARAH BE MAKEDAH
וַיָּשָׁב יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמֹּו אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה הַגִּלְגָּלָה
KJ: And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.
BN: So Yehoshu'a returned, and all Yisra-El with him, to the camp at Ha Gil-Gal.
This now the third time the HA has been included, and I am left wondering if it is because the name changed, from the Av-Rahamic shrine to this present one, and calling it "The Gil-Gal" is equivalent to us today saying "The Temple" and understanding that there were dozens of temples in Kena'an, but only one, this one, in Yeru-Shala'im. And Ha Gil-Gal does appear to be the effective capital for the moment, which adds weight to the suggestion.
10:16 VA YANUSU CHAMESHET HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VA YECHAV'U BA ME'ARAH BE MAKEDAH
וַיָּנֻסוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֵּחָבְאוּ בַמְּעָרָה בְּמַקֵּדָה
BN: But these five kings fled, and hid themselves in a cave at Makedah.
Is this mythological? The sun, the moon and the other five days of the week, each one a planet? Each gone down into its own "black hole", into its own "Underworld"?
10:17 VA YUGAD LIYHOSHU'A LEMOR NIMTSE'U CHAMESHET HA MELACHIM NECHBE'IM BA ME'ARAH BE MAKEDAH
וַיֻּגַּד לִיהֹושֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר נִמְצְאוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הַמְּלָכִים נֶחְבְּאִים בַּמְּעָרָה בְּמַקֵּדָה
KJ: And it was told Joshua, saying, The five kings are found hid in a cave at Makkedah.
BN: And this was reported to Yehoshu'a, saying: The five kings have been found, hiding in a cave at Makedah.
10:18 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A GOLU AVANIM GEDOLIM EL PI HA ME'ARAH VE HAPHKIYDU ALEYHA ANASHIM LE SHAMRAM
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ גֹּלּוּ אֲבָנִים גְּדֹלֹות אֶל פִּי הַמְּעָרָה וְהַפְקִידוּ עָלֶיהָ אֲנָשִׁים לְשָׁמְרָם
BN: And Yehoshu'a said: "Roll the biggest rocks you can find across the mouth of the cave, and put guards there to make sure no one leaves...
Still more stones - the Yehudit for the stones is AVANIM, but GOLU for the rolling (though I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't be translating it as "orbiting"!) - as in Gil-Gal (the root for GAL means "a circle", and EGLON, from the same root, is one of the five kings). River Yarden* stones, cairn-stones, hail-stones... just as every incident has its moon and sun, so also these stones.
* I have failed to point out previously that the Heaven of this sun-god, Yehoshu'a's Gil-Gal, from which he Ya'als for all his battles, is located on the river Yarden, from YARAD, "to go down"; and of course, every evening, Yehoshu'a and his men Yored to the Yarden, in order to get a good moontime's rest. Ah the word-games that are simply untranslatable into English!
If you think my translation is too colloquial, look at the Yehudit in the next verse.
10:19 VE ATEM AL TA'AMODU RIDPHU ACHAREY OYEVEYCHEM VE ZINAVTEM OTAM AL TITNUM LAVO EL AREYHEM KI NETANAM YHVH ELOHEYCHEM BE YEDCHEM
If you think my translation is too colloquial, look at the Yehudit in the next verse.
10:19 VE ATEM AL TA'AMODU RIDPHU ACHAREY OYEVEYCHEM VE ZINAVTEM OTAM AL TITNUM LAVO EL AREYHEM KI NETANAM YHVH ELOHEYCHEM BE YEDCHEM
וְאַתֶּם אַל תַּעֲמֹדוּ רִדְפוּ אַחֲרֵי אֹיְבֵיכֶם וְזִנַּבְתֶּם אֹותָם אַל תִּתְּנוּם לָבֹוא אֶל עָרֵיהֶם כִּי נְתָנָם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם
BN: "And you - don't stand around! Off with you in pursuit of your enemies. Cut off their tails. Do not allow them to get back to their cities. For YHVH your god has delivered them into your hand."
My translation here is literal, word by word. The colloquialism is in the Yehudit.
ZINAVTEM: Well, perhaps I may have over-stated this one, but army slang would understand it, and it is the literal meaning; "attack their rear-guard" is the intention. ZANAV is the word for an animal's tail.
In the realms of cosmic mythology, comets, which are generally described as dragons, have tails ("one is a plasma trail, which draws a straight line like a broomstick; the other is a dust tail, which opens like the bristles on a broom. The plasma tail comprises electrons and ions that are ionized by the sun's ultraviolet radiation; the dust tail consists of micrometer-scale particles" - from this website if you want to verify it).
10:20 VA YEHI KE CHALOT YEHOSHU'A U VENEY YISRA-EL LEHAKOTAM MAKAH GEDOLAH ME'OD AD TUMAM VE HASRIYDIM SARDU MEY HEM VA YAVO'U EL AREY HA MIVTSAR
In the realms of cosmic mythology, comets, which are generally described as dragons, have tails ("one is a plasma trail, which draws a straight line like a broomstick; the other is a dust tail, which opens like the bristles on a broom. The plasma tail comprises electrons and ions that are ionized by the sun's ultraviolet radiation; the dust tail consists of micrometer-scale particles" - from this website if you want to verify it).
10:20 VA YEHI KE CHALOT YEHOSHU'A U VENEY YISRA-EL LEHAKOTAM MAKAH GEDOLAH ME'OD AD TUMAM VE HASRIYDIM SARDU MEY HEM VA YAVO'U EL AREY HA MIVTSAR
וַיְהִי כְּכַלֹּות יְהֹושֻׁעַ וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַכֹּותָם מַכָּה גְדֹולָה מְאֹד עַד תֻּמָּם וְהַשְּׂרִידִים שָׂרְדוּ מֵהֶם וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל עָרֵי הַמִּבְצָר
BN: And it fell out, when Yehoshu'a and the Beney Yisra-El had finished slaughtering them in what can only be described as a wholesale massacre - because they were virtually wiped out, save only the few who managed to survive - that these latter straggled their ways back to their fenced cities.
This time I acknowledge that my translation may have gone slightly beyond the absolutely literal, and may be accusable of authorial intervention through the adoption of a certain tone. I make no apologies for this; I have simply saved myself the trouble of doing translation and commentary separately (and that "save only" is excellent, don't you agree?).
SARDU MEY HEM: These, the stragglers, the remnant, are surely the very "tail" that Yehoshu'a warned not to leave alive in the last verse. Just like Ezra's people, in Babylon as much as in Yehudah - his listeners would have understood this, without needing a reminder. Today we need the reminder.
What are fenced cities? Bedouin encampments? The word used is IR, not KFAR, which would denote a village; it is unusual for cities to be fenced rather than walled, whereas a village might well only be fenced, and an encampment certainly.
10:21 VA YASHUVU CHOL HA AM EL HA MACHANEH EL YEHOSHU'A MAKEDAH BE SHALOM LO CHARATS LIVNEY YISRA-EL LE ISH ET LESHONO
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ כָל הָעָם אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ מַקֵּדָה בְּשָׁלֹום לֹא חָרַץ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאִישׁ אֶת לְשֹׁנֹו
BN: Then all the people returned to camp, to Yehoshu'a, to Makedah, in peace; and no one's tongue wagged against any of the Beney Yisra-El.
MAKEDAH: We are not explicitly told, but this verse allows us to know, that Yehoshu'a himself led the assault on the army protecting the cave at Makedah, and then waited there while the remnant of that army was chased out.
LO CHARATS: Insinuating that, despite this being yet another "war crime", no one is calling on the United Nations to condemn it, no one is calling for sanctions, divestment or boycott against the perpetrators: this is simply what happens in war, and fear of the powerful conqueror silences all [public] opposition and protest.
10:22 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A PIT'CHU ET PI HA ME'ARAH VE HOTSIY'U ELAY ET CHAMESHET HA MELACHIM HA ELEH MI HA ME'ARAH
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ פִּתְחוּ אֶת פִּי הַמְּעָרָה וְהֹוצִיאוּ אֵלַי אֶת חֲמֵשֶׁת הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה מִן הַמְּעָרָה
KJ: Then said Joshua, Open the mouth of the cave, and bring out those five kings unto me out of the cave.
BN: Then Yehoshu'a said: Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave.
A voice deep inside my head keeps asking, I wonder who owned this cave, and is it possible that it was part of the estate of Joseph of Arimathea? Which of course it can't have been, because he only came along, historically speaking, about twelve hundred years later (yes, I think I have calculated that precisely accurately) (and yes, I chose my link for Joseph of Arimathea very precisely too: Glastonbury, or Avalon, is where Ar Thur, the Celtic sun-god, was taken for burial.
10:23 VA YA'ASU CHEN VA YOTSIY'U ELAV ET CHAMESHET HA MELACHIM HA ELEH MI HA ME'ARAH ET MELECH YERU-SHALA'IM ET MELECH CHEVRON ET MELECH YARMUT ET MELECH LACHISH ET MELECH EGLON
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן וַיֹּצִיאוּ אֵלָיו אֶת חֲמֵשֶׁת הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה מִן הַמְּעָרָה אֵת מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶת מֶלֶךְ חֶבְרֹון אֶת מֶלֶךְ יַרְמוּת אֶת מֶלֶךְ לָכִישׁ אֶת מֶלֶךְ עֶגְלֹון
BN: And they did so, and brought the five kings to him from out of the cave, the king of Yeru-Shala'im, the king of Chevron, the king of Yarmut, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon.
10:24 VA YEHI KE HOTSIY'AM ET HA MELACHIM HA ELEH EL YEHOSHU'A VA YIKRA YEHOSHU'A EL KOL ISH YISRA-EL VA YOMER EL KETSIYNEY ANSHEY HA MILCHAMAH HE HALCHU ITO KIRVU SIMU ET RAGLEYCHEM AL TSAV'REY HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VA YIKREVU VA YASIYMU ET RAGLEYHEM AL TSAV'REYHEM
וַיְהִי כְּהֹוצִיאָם אֶת הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיִּקְרָא יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל כָּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל קְצִינֵי אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה הֶהָלְכוּא אִתֹּו קִרְבוּ שִׂימוּ אֶת רַגְלֵיכֶם עַל צַוְּארֵי הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיִּקְרְבוּ וַיָּשִׂימוּ אֶת רַגְלֵיהֶם עַל צַוְּארֵיהֶם
BN: And so it came to pass, when they brought those kings out to Yehoshu'a, that Yehoshu'a summoned all the men of Yisra-El, and said to the captains of the men of war who had come with him: "Approach. Put your feet upon the necks of these kings". And they approached, and put their feet upon their necks.
Is this intended literally? A form of humiliation? Or, like taking off your shoe to denote a vow, was this the Biblical equivalent of the Victorian judge putting on the Black Cap as a symolic announcement of a death-sentence?
Returning to mythology, throughout the Mosaic tales I noted the stages of the career of the god YHVH, who began life as an obscure and minor volcano-god on the borders of Mo-Av and Midyan and Edom and Kena'an, famous for blowing his top in spectacular manner when he didn't get what he wanted, and with truly Trumpian aspirations to be the ruler of everyone and everything. Taken with the Beney Yisra-El in symbolic form, he will rise from being a junior member of the polytheon (ha Elohim) to its Prime Minister (Adonai Tseva'ot, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens), and then stage a coup that will leave him as the Omnideity, the autocratic sole ruler of the Cosmos. But that last will not happen until Ezraic times at the earliest - so can we date this Book of Joshua to Ezraic times? What we are witnessing, after all, is the systematic progress of his rise to power, taking the moon under his control at Yericho, the elements at Gil-Gal, the comets at Makedah, and the realms of the five oribiting planets in the verses that are about to follow. (I also find it fascinating, as a remarkable coincidence, that the attempt to overthrow the Capitol took place on January 6, which of course is the original Christmas, the Feast of the Adoration of the Magi; but that is a matter for a different book)
10:25 VA YOMER ALEYHEM YEHOSHU'A AL TIRU VE AL TECHATU CHIZKU VE IMTSU KI CHACHAH YA'ASEH YHVH LE CHOL OYEVEYCHEM ASHER ATEM NILCHAMIM OTAM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יְהֹושֻׁעַ אַל תִּירְאוּ וְאַל תֵּחָתּוּ חִזְקוּ וְאִמְצוּ כִּי כָכָה יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לְכָל אֹיְבֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם נִלְחָמִים אֹותָם
BN: And Yehoshu'a said to them: "Have no fear. Be strong and of good courage, for thus shall YHVH do to every enemy against whom you fight.
AL TECHATU: Much-repeated since Mosheh first used it in Deuteronomy 31:8; variations through the early chapters of Joshua (1:9, 8:1), but it appears to have become a sort of catchphrase or rallying-cry, like Henry V's Agincourt "Once more unto the breach" or Churchill's simple 2-finger salute, or the fist-pump. They should write the words above the entrance-doors at every army barrack in modern Israel. AL TECHATU!
10:26 VA YAKEM YEHOSHU'A ACHAREY CHEN VA YEMIYTEM VA YITLEM AL CHAMISHAH ETSIM VA YIHEYU TELU'IM AL HA ETSIM AD HA AREV
וַיַּכֵּם יְהֹושֻׁעַ אַחֲרֵי כֵן וַיְמִיתֵם וַיִּתְלֵם עַל חֲמִשָּׁה עֵצִים וַיִּהְיוּ תְּלוּיִם עַל הָעֵצִים עַד הָעָרֶב
BN: After which Yehoshu'a struck them, and killed them, by hanging them on five trees: and they were left hanging on the trees until the evening.
YAKEM: Did he physically strike them, or is this simply the Biblical technique of saying the same thing three times: YAKEM, YEMIYTEM, YITLEM? No, probably it was all three: the striking is the act of mockery, the slaughter is the Longinan javelin below the fifth rib, the hanging on the tree is the crucifixion.
I mentioned Joseph of Arimathea earlier, but need to point out that, with the five kings, they appear to have been crucified after they rolled back the rock to bring them out of the sepulchre, rather than the other way around.
This repeated hanging of kings on trees draws us back to the Jesus mythology, but way before that to Frazer's Golden Bough. Is each incident really a religious one, the establishment of Yehoshu'a as sacred king in every non-Yisra-Eli shrine (and thereby of YHVH in the heavens)? Endless coronations, following the defeat of the champion? If so, where are the sacred wives? And is there in this an explanation of the name Yehoshu'a, Saviour? As if we were reading an account of the conquest of South America, in which every town was personally, physically, captured by Jesus; by, not only for.
This repeated hanging of kings on trees draws us back to the Jesus mythology, but way before that to Frazer's Golden Bough. Is each incident really a religious one, the establishment of Yehoshu'a as sacred king in every non-Yisra-Eli shrine (and thereby of YHVH in the heavens)? Endless coronations, following the defeat of the champion? If so, where are the sacred wives? And is there in this an explanation of the name Yehoshu'a, Saviour? As if we were reading an account of the conquest of South America, in which every town was personally, physically, captured by Jesus; by, not only for.
AD HA AREV: I have pointed this out so frequently, I imagine that you read it, and predicted my comment. Next verse ditto.
This last again demonstrates the story as an explanation of existing conditions. In creating our historical narrative, the redactor seems to be saying, we shall create a legend to explain how all those pagan shrines became Yisra-Eli, and then you can stop going to them in their ancient manner, and you can start going to them in the newly proscribed manner. Religious totalitarianism by cultural conquest in practice. For what we clearly have is a cave like Machpelah, and presumably the usual paraphernalia of oracular priestesses, skull oracles, sacred trees etc, and all still in use when the Redactor came to write.
This last again demonstrates the story as an explanation of existing conditions. In creating our historical narrative, the redactor seems to be saying, we shall create a legend to explain how all those pagan shrines became Yisra-Eli, and then you can stop going to them in their ancient manner, and you can start going to them in the newly proscribed manner. Religious totalitarianism by cultural conquest in practice. For what we clearly have is a cave like Machpelah, and presumably the usual paraphernalia of oracular priestesses, skull oracles, sacred trees etc, and all still in use when the Redactor came to write.
With one difference on this occasion, as we will learn in the next verse: that worship at this cave-shrine had long ago ceased, and what is being explained is the closure.
10:27 VA YEHI LE ET BO HA SHEMESH TSIVAH YEHOSHU'A VA YORIYDUM ME AL HA ETSIM VA YASHLICHUM EL HA ME'ARAH ASHER NECHBE'U SHAM VA YASIMU AVANIM GEDOLOT AL PI HA ME'ARAH AD ETSEM HA YOM HA ZEH
10:27 VA YEHI LE ET BO HA SHEMESH TSIVAH YEHOSHU'A VA YORIYDUM ME AL HA ETSIM VA YASHLICHUM EL HA ME'ARAH ASHER NECHBE'U SHAM VA YASIMU AVANIM GEDOLOT AL PI HA ME'ARAH AD ETSEM HA YOM HA ZEH
וַיְהִי לְעֵת בֹּוא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ צִוָּה יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיֹּרִידוּם מֵעַל הָעֵצִים וַיַּשְׁלִכֻם אֶל הַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר נֶחְבְּאוּ שָׁם וַיָּשִׂמוּ אֲבָנִים גְּדֹלֹות עַל פִּי הַמְּעָרָה עַד עֶצֶם הַיֹּום הַזֶּה
KJ: And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones in the cave's mouth, which remain until this very day.
BN: And when the sun rose the following morning, Yehoshu'a gave the order, and they took them down from the trees, and threw them into the cave in which they had hid, and laid huge stones across the mouth of the cave, which are still there to this very day.
BO LA SHEMESH: See my notes to Joshua 8:29.
AVANIM GEDOLOT: Are these in fact the stones already laid there to seal them in, for which see verse 18?
pey break
10:28 VE ET MAKEDAH LACHAD YEHOSHU'A BA YOM HA HU VA YAKEH LE PHI CHEREV VE ET MALKAH HECHERIM OTAM VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH LO HISH'IR SARID VA YA'AS LE MELECH MAKEDAH KA ASHER ASAH LE MELECH YERIYCHO
וְאֶת מַקֵּדָה לָכַד יְהֹושֻׁעַ בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וַיַּכֶּהָ לְפִי חֶרֶב וְאֶת מַלְכָּהּ הֶחֱרִם אֹותָם וְאֶת כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ לֹא הִשְׁאִיר שָׂרִיד וַיַּעַשׂ לְמֶלֶךְ מַקֵּדָה כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְמֶלֶךְ יְרִיחֹו
BN: And that day Yehoshu'a took Makedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and he wiped out its king, him [them], and every soul that was there with him [them]; not one did he allow to remain alive. And he did to the king of Makedah as he had done to the king of Yeriycho.
HECHERIM: Note the choice of verb again. The Cherem.
OTAM: Is plural, but HECHERIM is singular, and there is only one king. The King James translation tries to loop around this, but ends up with "it" and "them". I believe the error is in the text, and OTAM should be OTAH (אֹותָה) - feminine, because Makedah is feminine, and so "her king", which is MALKAH, the word that we do indeed have, immediately before HECHERIM. OTAH is used in parallel context in verse 30.
OTAM: Is plural, but HECHERIM is singular, and there is only one king. The King James translation tries to loop around this, but ends up with "it" and "them". I believe the error is in the text, and OTAM should be OTAH (אֹותָה) - feminine, because Makedah is feminine, and so "her king", which is MALKAH, the word that we do indeed have, immediately before HECHERIM. OTAH is used in parallel context in verse 30.
YERIYCHO: I have no explanation for this, but merely point out, that on this occasion, and it is by no means unique, a Yud has been added to the name.
10:29 VA YA'AVOR YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO MI MAKEDAH LIVNAH VA YILACHEM IM LIVNAH
10:29 VA YA'AVOR YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO MI MAKEDAH LIVNAH VA YILACHEM IM LIVNAH
וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמֹּו מִמַּקֵּדָה לִבְנָה וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם לִבְנָה
BN: Then Yehoshu'a moved on from Makedah, and all Yisra-El with him, to Livnah, and he fought against Livnah.
YA'AVOR: That word-play on "Hebrews " again, as though the Redactor is trying to reclaim the name, and make it clean for use. It is not really the obvious verb to use here.
LIVNAH: Now here's an oddity. The five kings have been defeated, and the first of their kingdoms, Makedah, has been taken; in the verses that follow the other will follow suit. But before that happens, a previously unmentioned place gets taken too, which could just be because it happened to be on the road from Makedah to the next one, which is Lachish. And guess what, according even to the most thorough of scholars, "The site of this important stronghold remains unknown (click here). And of course it does, you silly scholar, because there never was a place named Livnah - or not on Earth anyway. Because Livnah means:
"The white one". Mosheh stopped at a place bearing the same name in Numbers 33:20. Ya'akov spent more than twenty years working for the priest of another of her shrines, in Padan-Aram: that of his uncle Lavan (Laban). And just west of Padan-Aram is the land named in her honour, Ha Levanon (Lebanon), where her beloved son is known to this day as Adonis, or Adonai, if you are saying "my Lord". "The white one" - Guinevere in the Celtic tongue. The moon goddess herself - known elsewhere simply as Yeriycho, "the moon"? So the five planets have been taken by day, but her Ladyship the Queen Consort has to give her approval, or be forced to, in the eternal squabble-marriage of Shimshon (Sun in Aramaic) and Delilah (Night in Aramaic).
So we witness the conquest, on Earth as it is in the heavens. And as to: I know you think I'm reading in to a simple historical tale. All I can say is: that once might have been pure haphazard, and twice chance, and three times maybe coincidence, but four times is already becoming a discernible and predictable pattern. And we are already well past the fourth time. Though not yet at twelve!
10:30 VA YITEN YHVH OTAH BE YAD YISRA-EL VE ET MALKAH VA YAKEH LE PHI CHEREV VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH LO HISIR BAH SARID VA YA'AS LE MALKAH KA ASHER ASAH LE MELECH YERIYCHO
10:30 VA YITEN YHVH OTAH BE YAD YISRA-EL VE ET MALKAH VA YAKEH LE PHI CHEREV VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH LO HISIR BAH SARID VA YA'AS LE MALKAH KA ASHER ASAH LE MELECH YERIYCHO
וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה גַּם אֹותָהּ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת מַלְכָּהּ וַיַּכֶּהָ לְפִי חֶרֶב וְאֶת כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ לֹא הִשְׁאִיר בָּהּ שָׂרִיד וַיַּעַשׂ לְמַלְכָּהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְמֶלֶךְ יְרִיחֹו
BN: And YHVH delivered it too, and its king, into the hand of Yisra-El; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every soul that was in it, not one did he allow to remain alive; but he did to its king as he did to the king of Yeriycho.
The fact that there are so many kings is a give-away too; there were no kings, as we know them, at that time; only cultic sacred kings, which is to say sheikhs serving as shrine-priests; and all of them served the Trinity, because that was the nature of the Trinity.
samech break
10:31 VA YA'AVOR YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO MI LIVNAH LACHISHAH VA YICHAN ALEYHA VA YILACHEM BAH
וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמֹּו מִלִּבְנָה לָכִישָׁה וַיִּחַן עָלֶיהָ וַיִּלָּחֶם בָּהּ
BN: And Yehoshu'a moved on from Livnah, and all Yisra-El with him, to Lachish, and made camp outside it, and fought against it.
VA YA'AVOR: Again and again, the same verb: they have become "Hebrews".
LACHISH: see verses 3 and 23.
10:32 VA YITEN YHVH ET LACHISH BE YAD YISRA-EL VA YILKEDAH BA YOM HA SHENI VA YAK'EHA LE PHI CHEREV VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH KE CHOL HA ASHER ASAH LE LIVNAH
KJ: And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah.
BN: And YHVH delivered Lachish into the hand of Yisra-El - who took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every soul that was in it - exactly as he had done to Livnah.
pey break
10:33 AZ ALAH HORAM MELECH GEZER LA'AZOR ET LACHISH VA YAK'EHU YEHOSHU'A VE ET AMO AD BILTI HISHIR LO SARID
KJ: Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining.
BN: Then "Hu-Ram", the king of Gezer, came to the aid of Lachish; and Yehoshu'a smote him and his people, until not so much as a single one of them was left.
10:32 VA YITEN YHVH ET LACHISH BE YAD YISRA-EL VA YILKEDAH BA YOM HA SHENI VA YAK'EHA LE PHI CHEREV VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH KE CHOL HA ASHER ASAH LE LIVNAH
וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת לָכִישׁ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ בַּיֹּום הַשֵּׁנִי וַיַּכֶּהָ לְפִי חֶרֶב וְאֶת כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְלִבְנָה
BN: And YHVH delivered Lachish into the hand of Yisra-El - who took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every soul that was in it - exactly as he had done to Livnah.
pey break
10:33 AZ ALAH HORAM MELECH GEZER LA'AZOR ET LACHISH VA YAK'EHU YEHOSHU'A VE ET AMO AD BILTI HISHIR LO SARID
אָז עָלָה הֹרָם מֶלֶךְ גֶּזֶר לַעְזֹר אֶת לָכִישׁ וַיַּכֵּהוּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְאֶת עַמּוֹ עַד בִּלְתִּי הִשְׁאִיר לוֹ שָׂרִיד
KJ: Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining.
BN: Then "Hu-Ram", the king of Gezer, came to the aid of Lachish; and Yehoshu'a smote him and his people, until not so much as a single one of them was left.
HORAM: should be Hu-Ram, rather than Ho-Ram, or Hiram as he becomes in some English translations; or even Achi-Ram, as per the link above. There are other examples, of which the most famous is David and Yehonatan's (Jonathan's) friend Eshmun-Azar, to whom the sobriquet Hu-Ram ("he is great") was attached, in the same way that Macedonian Alexander and Russian Catherine were sobriqueted.
Except for one problem. The Hu-Ram of 1 Kings 5 et al is rendered as Chiram (חִירָ֨ם), with a Chet (ח), not the Hey (ה) that he has here, and therefore an entirely different name (as Jean and Jane, or Jon and John, are very similar, but still different) - the same spelling can be found at 2 Samuel 5:11, but when it appears again in 1 Chronicles 14:1 the Masoretic scribe questions whether that should not actually be Churam. This is because there is a Churam, likewise with a Chet (חוּרָֽם), in 1 Chronicles 8:5; he was one of the many sons of Bela ben Bin-Yamin, and not the Hiram of Tsur (Tyre) of the questioned verse. This is then made even more complicated by 2 Chronicles 2:12/13, which also has a Churam with a Chet, and likewise connected to the building of the Solomonic Temple, but described there, not as the king of Tsur (Tyre), but as "Churam-Avi, a man of great skill, whose mother was from Dan and whose father was from Tsur." The son of the king, possibly; though most Jewish translators assume that Avi means "master", and Churam therefore the apprentice.
None of which resolves the issue of it being Horam or Hu-Ram with a Hey in this verse; my hypothesis is that all those others were Hu-Ram too, but the tales that get passed on through the oral tradition get these kind of errors, especially when it is convenient for them to do so.
Except for one problem. The Hu-Ram of 1 Kings 5 et al is rendered as Chiram (חִירָ֨ם), with a Chet (ח), not the Hey (ה) that he has here, and therefore an entirely different name (as Jean and Jane, or Jon and John, are very similar, but still different) - the same spelling can be found at 2 Samuel 5:11, but when it appears again in 1 Chronicles 14:1 the Masoretic scribe questions whether that should not actually be Churam. This is because there is a Churam, likewise with a Chet (חוּרָֽם), in 1 Chronicles 8:5; he was one of the many sons of Bela ben Bin-Yamin, and not the Hiram of Tsur (Tyre) of the questioned verse. This is then made even more complicated by 2 Chronicles 2:12/13, which also has a Churam with a Chet, and likewise connected to the building of the Solomonic Temple, but described there, not as the king of Tsur (Tyre), but as "Churam-Avi, a man of great skill, whose mother was from Dan and whose father was from Tsur." The son of the king, possibly; though most Jewish translators assume that Avi means "master", and Churam therefore the apprentice.
None of which resolves the issue of it being Horam or Hu-Ram with a Hey in this verse; my hypothesis is that all those others were Hu-Ram too, but the tales that get passed on through the oral tradition get these kind of errors, especially when it is convenient for them to do so.
10:34 VA YA'AVOR YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO MI LACHISH EGLONAH VA YACHANU ALEYHA VA YILACHAMU ALEYHA
וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמֹּו מִלָּכִישׁ עֶגְלֹנָה וַיַּחֲנוּ עָלֶיהָ וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ עָלֶיהָ
BN: And from Lachish Yehoshu'a moved on to Eglon, and all Yisra-El with him; and they made camp outside it, and war against it.
EGLON: See my notes at verses 3 and 18.
10:35 VA YILKEDUHA BA YOM HA HU VA YAKU'AH LE PHI CHEREV VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH BA YOM HA HU HECHERIM KE CHOL ASHER ASAH LE LACHISH
וַיִּלְכְּדוּהָ בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וַיַּכּוּהָ לְפִי חֶרֶב וְאֵת כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ בַּיֹּום הַהוּא הֶחֱרִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְלָכִישׁ
BN: And they took it that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and he wiped out every soul that was in the place that day, exactly as he had done to Lachish.
Again note the use of HECHERIM, whose root is the CHEREM.
pey break
10:36 VA YA'AL YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO MEY EGLONAH CHEVRONAH VA YILACHAMU ALEYHA
וַיַּעַל יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמֹּו מֵעֶגְלֹונָה חֶבְרֹונָה וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ עָלֶיהָ
BN: And Yehoshu'a went up from Eglon, and all Yisra-El with him, to Chevron; and they fought against it
Though we have noted the word GAL, meaning a circle, in the name, we also need to note that an EGEL is a calf - the sort enstatued in gold at many an Egyptian shrine, and told in full at Exodus 32, or at this link.
CHEVRON: See the link. But also note something that really does have to be pure coincidence, because I cannot believe that the ancients would have known this, in any language, let alone the cross-pollenation of languages which leads to it. But a Chevron (I think the "ch" is softened, as though it were "sh") is "one of a series of bones on the ventral (under) side of the tail in many reptiles, dinosaurs (such as Diplodocus; see picture), and some mammals such as kangaroos and manatees." Part of the tail which Yehoshu'a just cut off in verse 19. (To see the picture you will need the link to the source of the quote, which is here).
10:37 VA YILKEDUHA VA YAKU'AH LE PHI CHEREV VE ET MALKAH VE ET KOL AREYHA VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH LO HISH'IR SARID KE CHOL ASHER ASAH LE EGLON VA YACHAREM OTAH VE ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH
וַיִּלְכְּדוּהָ וַיַּכּוּהָ לְפִי חֶרֶב וְאֶת מַלְכָּהּ וְאֶת כָּל עָרֶיהָ וְאֶת כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ לֹא הִשְׁאִיר שָׂרִיד כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְעֶגְלֹון וַיַּחֲרֵם אֹותָהּ וְאֶת כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ
BN: And they captured it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king, and all the villages in its domain, and every soul that was in them. Not one of them did he leave standing - exactly as he had done to Eglon; he destroyed it utterly, and every soul living there.
KOL AREYHA: The first clear indication that Kena'an at that time operated as a series of city-states. This clarifies the surprising number of sacred-kings in such a small land. Can we also guess that there were twelve city-states in all, reflecting the cosmology in the same way that the tribal confederation of David will do, as the Greek amphictyony will do? Worth counting the number of cities conquered by Yehoshu'a, just to see.
As this list goes on, this becomes increasingly reminiscent of the wars of King Sha'ul, which were really (mythologically) the journey of the king of the underworld through the calendar, pursuing the Risen Lord in the guise of David (Yedid-Yah his full name, "the beloved of the moon goddess Yah"), as Eurystheus pursued Herakles (Hera-Kles, "the glory of the moon-goddess Hera"), and Uther Pendragon pursued King Arthur in the Celtic version, which like this one comes from the same common source. It will be worth cross-checking the list of Sha'ul's battles with Yehoshu'a's, to see which if any repeat; the role of Giv-On is of course crucial there as well, because Sha'ul, who was probably a Shet-worshipper, made his capital in Giv-Yah, furthering the Egyptian connection...
Chevron was the city claimed by Sha'ul's son Mephi-Boshet, though David was the one who ruled it... so many parallels it could, at times, almost be the same story, as if the sobriquets Yehoshu'a ("Saviour") and Yedid-Yah ("Beloved of the Moon Goddess") were interchangeable. Mythologically, of course, they are. And David is regarded as the original "Messiah" in the Christian mythologies - Yeshu (Jesus), Moshi'a and Yehoshu'a all coming from the same root.
samech break
10:38 VA YASHAV YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO DEVIRAH VA YILACHEM ALEYHA
וַיָּשָׁב יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמֹּו דְּבִרָה וַיִּלָּחֶם עָלֶיהָ
BN: Then Yehoshu'a went back, and all Yisra-El with him, to Devir; and he fought against it.
YASHAV: If a person deviates from the religious path, and makes atonement, coming back to the Word of YHVH, they might be said to have made Teshuvah to the Davar YHVH. I cannot help but notice that this construct is present in this verse; at least, until it is countered by the closing phrase. I am probably just readings things into the text.
All the conquered towns appear to have been shrines; this one is particularly interesting because the Devir was the cloth that separated the Holy of Holies in the Temple from the common courtyard, while DAVAR was the "Word of God", and Devorah one of the key manifestations of the deity, the bee-goddess who provided one half of the promise of the land, its honey (see my notes at verse 3).
10:39 VA YILKEDAH VE ET MALKAH VE ET KOL AREYHA VA YAKUM LE PHI CHEREV VA YACHARIYMU ET KOL NEPHESH ASHER BAH LO HISH'IR SARID KA ASHER ASAH LE CHEVRON KEN ASAH LE DEVIRAH U LE MALKAH VE CHA ASHER ASAH LE LIVNAH U LE MALKAH
10:39 VA YILKEDAH VE ET MALKAH VE ET KOL AREYHA VA YAKUM LE PHI CHEREV VA YACHARIYMU ET KOL NEPHESH ASHER BAH LO HISH'IR SARID KA ASHER ASAH LE CHEVRON KEN ASAH LE DEVIRAH U LE MALKAH VE CHA ASHER ASAH LE LIVNAH U LE MALKAH
וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ וְאֶת מַלְכָּהּ וְאֶת כָּל עָרֶיהָ וַיַּכּוּם לְפִי חֶרֶב וַיַּחֲרִימוּ אֶת כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ לֹא הִשְׁאִיר שָׂרִיד כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְחֶבְרֹון כֵּן עָשָׂה לִדְבִרָה וּלְמַלְכָּהּ וְכַאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְלִבְנָה וּלְמַלְכָּהּ
BN: And he captured it, and its king, and all the villages in its domain. And they smote them with the edge of the sword, and wiped out every soul that was in the place; not one did he leave alive. As he had done to Chevron, so he did to Devir, and to its king; as he had done to Livnah as well, and to her king.
YACHARIYMU...HISH'IR: Once again the writer can't make up his mind between the singular and the plural: Yehoshu'a or Yisra-El.
LE DEVIRAH: As with Eglonah above, an extraneous dative suffix, or else the LE is unnecessary - see verse 38, which has the grammar correctly. LE LIVNAH is also correct, because the name of the town includes the qamats-hey (the "ah" ending).
10:40 VA YAKEH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA ARETS HA HAR VE HA NEGEV VE HA SHEPHELAH VE HA ASHEDOT VE ET KOL MALCHEYHEM LO HISH'IR SARID VE ET KOL HA NESHAMAH HECHERIM KA ASHER TSIVAH YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL
וַיַּכֶּה יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת כָּל הָאָרֶץ הָהָר וְהַנֶּגֶב וְהַשְּׁפֵלָה וְהָאֲשֵׁדֹות וְאֵת כָּל מַלְכֵיהֶם לֹא הִשְׁאִיר שָׂרִיד וְאֵת כָּל הַנְּשָׁמָה הֶחֱרִים כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: So Yehoshu'a smote all the hill-country, and all of the Negev, and all of the Shephelah, and all the springs, and all their kings: not one of them did he leave standing, but he utterly destroyed everything that breathed, as YHVH the god of Yisra-El commanded.
YHVH the god of Creation! All of this which would constitute genocide and ethnic cleansing if it were so; yet the land remained full of people, most of whom continued to reject the Beney Yisra-El, and to fight them, and to occupy parts that they never managed to... again evidence that "conquest" was a matter of religion only.
10:41 VA YAKEM YEHOSHU'A MI KADESH BARNE'A VE AD AZA VE ET KOL ERETS GOSHEN VE AD GIV-ON
וַיַּכֵּם יְהֹושֻׁעַ מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ וְעַד עַזָּה וְאֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן וְעַד גִּבְעֹון
BN: And Yehoshu'a smote them from Kadesh Barne'a all the way to Azah, and all the country of Goshen, as far as Giv-On.
This really needs another map, because... Goshen? Is there perhaps a second Goshen, beside the one in which the Beney Yisra-El lived in Mitsrayim (Egypt) and where this entire journey started. If Yehoshu'a had really taken an army of Beney Yisra-El all the way back to their slavery-roots in Mitsrayim, it would surely have received more than a map reference point. Though if this were a historical account of Ach-Mousa's expulsion of the Hyksos etc, then going due west at this point, to take the Azah Strip, and then along the coast-route back into Mitsrayim, not for the general area of Goshen so much as its major city, Avaris, which had been the Hyksos capital and needed to be taken back into the control of the now-restored ancient dynasty... well now it would make sense!
Giv-On: and is there also a second Giv-On, in Goshen? This in fact is much more plausible, indeed probable: Giv-On, as pointed out many times previously, means "the place of Geb", so any shrine to the father of fathers of the Egyptian people might bear that name.
There is also something spectacularly symmetrical, that the tale should start with the arrival of the Beney Yisra-El in Goshen, starving and dependent foreigners about to become enslaved, and should end, full circle, pilgrimage complete (YASHAV... DEVIR...) right there, but now as liberating conquerors. "From Goshen to Goshen" - there, a new proverb, better than "From Dan to Be'er Sheva" let alone "From John O'Groats to Land's End".
10:42 VE ET KOL HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VE ET ARTSAM LACHAD YEHOSHU'A PA'AM ECHAT KI YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL NILCHAM LE YISRA-EL
וְאֵת כָּל הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה וְאֶת אַרְצָם לָכַד יְהֹושֻׁעַ פַּעַם אֶחָת כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִלְחָם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And Yehoshu'a took all these kings and their land, at one time, because YHVH the god of Yisra-El fought for Yisra-El.
10:43 VA YASHAV YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YISRA-EL IMO EL HA MACHANEH HA GIL-GALAH
וַיָּשָׁב יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמֹּו אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה הַגִּלְגָּלָה
BN: And Yehoshu'a returned, and all Yisra-El with him, to the camp at the Gil-Gal.
HA GIL-GALAH: Picking up my comment about the incorrect datives in verses 36 and 39, here it is in its most perfectly grammatically form, a rather posh form, not often used, but HA at the beginning gives the definite article, and AH at the end provides the dative, and no need for LE, because it is implicit in the AH.
Just as Sha'ul will do later, Yehoshu'a always returns to Gil-Gal, the central megalithic shrine of Yisra-El - more important apparently than Chevron. Which simply requires us to go back to the Genesis stories of Gil-Gal and recognise again that placing them on the patriarchal journeys was critical to the creation of a historical narrative, and identity. It will also provide a key moment in King David's story, when he returns from voluntary exile after the death of Av-Shalom (2 Samuel 19:15) and likewise establishes (in his case re-establishes) his kingdom.
And of course, within the context of his personal story, as opposed to the larger tale of the Beney Yisra-El as a whole, his circle comes full (Gil-Gal means "circle of stones") by returning to Gil-Gal, the Stonehenge that he established at the crossing of the Yarden.
pey break
Just as Sha'ul will do later, Yehoshu'a always returns to Gil-Gal, the central megalithic shrine of Yisra-El - more important apparently than Chevron. Which simply requires us to go back to the Genesis stories of Gil-Gal and recognise again that placing them on the patriarchal journeys was critical to the creation of a historical narrative, and identity. It will also provide a key moment in King David's story, when he returns from voluntary exile after the death of Av-Shalom (2 Samuel 19:15) and likewise establishes (in his case re-establishes) his kingdom.
And of course, within the context of his personal story, as opposed to the larger tale of the Beney Yisra-El as a whole, his circle comes full (Gil-Gal means "circle of stones") by returning to Gil-Gal, the Stonehenge that he established at the crossing of the Yarden.
pey break
No comments:
Post a Comment