9:1 VA YEHI CHI SHEMO'A KOL HA MELACHIM ASHER BE EVER HA YARDEN BA HAR U VA SHEPHELAH U VE CHOL CHOPH HA YAM HA GADOL EL MUL HA LEVANON HA CHITI VE HA EMORI HA KENA'ANI HA PERIZI HA CHIVI VE HA YEVUSI
וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ כָּל הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן בָּהָר וּבַשְּׁפֵלָה וּבְכֹל חֹוף הַיָּם הַגָּדֹול אֶל מוּל הַלְּבָנֹון הַחִתִּי וְהָאֱמֹרִי הַכְּנַעֲנִי הַפְּרִזִּי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי
KJ (King James translation): And it came to pass, when all the kings which were on this side Jordan, in the hills, and in the valleys, and in all the coasts of the great sea over against Lebanon, the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, heard thereof;
BN (BibleNet translation): And it came to pass, when all this was heard by the kings who lived on the other side of the Yarden, in the hills, and in the valleys, and along the coast of the Great Sea towards the Levanon - the Chiti and the Emori, the Kena'ani, the Perizi, the Chivi, the Yevusi...
HA YAM HA GEDOL: I commented in the last chapter that the map reading for YAM must have intended the Dead Sea (Yam ha Melach), because the Mediterranean rarely figures in the Yehudi consciousness. The Mediterranean is HA YAM HA GEDOL and its naming here confirms that it was the Dead Sea in the previous chapter.
CHITI: Hittites.
EMORI: Amorites.
KENA'ANI: Canaanites.
PERIZI: Perizzites.
CHIVI: Hivites.
YEVUSI: Jebusites.
But this sense that the "terror" has inflicted the entire region was already present when Mosheh tried to secure a safe passage through Edom, as long ago as Numbers 20, and then again with Arad the Kena'ani, and Sichon the Emori, in Numbers 21... and the tale of Bil'am starts by stating it (Numbers 22:3)... and Rachav of Yericho was quite explicit about it in Joshua 2:9.
9:2 VA YITKABTSU YACHDAV LEHILACHEM IM YEHOSHU'A VE IM YISRA-EL PEH ECHAD
KJ: That they gathered themselves together, to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one accord.
BN: ...that they formed an alliance, to fight against Yehoshu'a and Yisra-El as a single axis.
YITKABTSU: Two modern words are derived from the same source, whose connection may not be obvious in normal usage, but are here: "kibbutz" and "kibbitz". The former - the socialist collective farms that formed the agricultural backbone of modern Israel - is the "gathered together" of the KJ translation; the latter - the fifth person at the Jewish bridge table, the one who doesn't play, but only watches, yet can always tell you why your bid was incorrect and your choice of cards to play entirely wrong - is he who sits in the discussions that lead to "one accord".
pey break
9:3 VA YOSHVEY GIV-ON SHAM'U ET ASHER ASAH YEHOSHU'A LIYRICHO VE LA AI
BN (BibleNet translation): And it came to pass, when all this was heard by the kings who lived on the other side of the Yarden, in the hills, and in the valleys, and along the coast of the Great Sea towards the Levanon - the Chiti and the Emori, the Kena'ani, the Perizi, the Chivi, the Yevusi...
HA YAM HA GEDOL: I commented in the last chapter that the map reading for YAM must have intended the Dead Sea (Yam ha Melach), because the Mediterranean rarely figures in the Yehudi consciousness. The Mediterranean is HA YAM HA GEDOL and its naming here confirms that it was the Dead Sea in the previous chapter.
CHITI: Hittites.
EMORI: Amorites.
KENA'ANI: Canaanites.
PERIZI: Perizzites.
CHIVI: Hivites.
YEVUSI: Jebusites.
But this sense that the "terror" has inflicted the entire region was already present when Mosheh tried to secure a safe passage through Edom, as long ago as Numbers 20, and then again with Arad the Kena'ani, and Sichon the Emori, in Numbers 21... and the tale of Bil'am starts by stating it (Numbers 22:3)... and Rachav of Yericho was quite explicit about it in Joshua 2:9.
9:2 VA YITKABTSU YACHDAV LEHILACHEM IM YEHOSHU'A VE IM YISRA-EL PEH ECHAD
וַיִּתְקַבְּצוּ יַחְדָּו לְהִלָּחֵם עִם יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְעִם יִשְׂרָאֵל פֶּה אֶחָד
BN: ...that they formed an alliance, to fight against Yehoshu'a and Yisra-El as a single axis.
YITKABTSU: Two modern words are derived from the same source, whose connection may not be obvious in normal usage, but are here: "kibbutz" and "kibbitz". The former - the socialist collective farms that formed the agricultural backbone of modern Israel - is the "gathered together" of the KJ translation; the latter - the fifth person at the Jewish bridge table, the one who doesn't play, but only watches, yet can always tell you why your bid was incorrect and your choice of cards to play entirely wrong - is he who sits in the discussions that lead to "one accord".
pey break
9:3 VA YOSHVEY GIV-ON SHAM'U ET ASHER ASAH YEHOSHU'A LIYRICHO VE LA AI
וְיֹשְׁבֵי גִבְעֹון שָׁמְעוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהֹושֻׁעַ לִירִיחֹו וְלָעָי
BN: And when the inhabitants of Giv-On heard what Yehoshu'a had done to Yericho and to Ha Ai...
GIV-ON : GIV-ON, rather than Givon or Gibeon, given that this was a shrine to the Egyptian god Geb. On is more complex: in Yehudit it simply means "a place", and gets appended to town-names in the same way that "stead" and "bury" and "ton" do in English; but in Egypt the central sun-shrine was named On, though it is remembered with its later Greek name, which was Heliopolis: so it might have been a double shrine... or it might have been neither of these. Because a GEV in Yehudit can mean any piece of high ground that isn't quite tall enough to call a hill; the word was usually reserved for the megalithic burial-sites, which were man-made hills, tumuli dedicated to... self-evidently Geb, if you read what was at the link under his name. At least three towns - Gev'a, Giv-Yah and Giv-On are known to have grown up around such sites (all three are marked on the map at this link), and that other Lord of the Underworld, King Sha'ul (Saul), not surprisingly had his fortress-palace at one of them, shared with the moon-goddess: click here to find out if you worked out correcty which one that must be.
AI: should be HA AI as the text here has LA AI, which is dative. And in that case, should we not translate it, every time we see it, as "the ruins", rather than skipping the point by using the meaningless-in-English name AI?
9:4 VA YA'ASU GAM HEMAH BE ARMAH VA YELCHU VA YITSTAYARU VA YIKCHU SAKIM BALIM LA CHAMOREYHEM VE NO'DOT YAYIN BALIM U MEVUKA'IM U METSORARIM
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גַם הֵמָּה בְּעָרְמָה וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיִּצְטַיָּרוּ וַיִּקְחוּ שַׂקִּים בָּלִים לַחֲמֹורֵיהֶם וְנֹאדֹות יַיִן בָּלִים וּמְבֻקָּעִים וּמְצֹרָרִים
BN: ... they too came up with a cunning scheme, and they went and made all manner of anguished noises, and put ragged sacks on their asses, and empty wine-bottles, and tied old and torn and damaged things on them...
YITSTAYARU: Try hunting for this among the binyanim and you may have difficulty; it is one of Yehudit/Hebrew's linguistic oddities. Normally, when a root is employed in the Hitpa'el (reflexive) form, it prefixes the "hit" as spelled - התפעל. But not when the first letter of the root is a Tsade (צ), as it is here; on those occasions the Tav (ת) is always replaced by a Tet (ט), and please don't ask me why. So the root here turns out to be TSIYR (ציר), but TSIYR at first appears to make no sense in the context: it is either the hinge of a door (Proverbs 26:14), or the sound made by that hinge when it needs oiling, which is to say "creakings", which are actually a splendid metaphor for the "anguished cries", or "labour pains", of Isaiah 13:8 and 21:3, or 1 Samuel 4:19. Did they make lots of "anguished cries" as part of their cunning scheme, alongside the "homeless vagabond" clothing? Possible. But it also happens that, in Arabic, a TSIYR is a messenger, and it appears as such in the Yehudit too, in Proverbs 13:17 and 25:13, though both of these probably derive from the text of Joshua 9:4 which we are reading right now, so we have gone full circle (which is another of the meanings of TSIYR).
9:5 U NE'ALOT BALOT U METULA'OT BE RAGLEYHEM U SHELAMOT BALOT ALEYHEM VE CHOL LECHEM TSEYDAM YAVESH HAYAH NIKUDIM
וּנְעָלֹות בָּלֹות וּמְטֻלָּאֹות בְּרַגְלֵיהֶם וּשְׂלָמֹות בָּלֹות עֲלֵיהֶם וְכֹל לֶחֶם צֵידָם יָבֵשׁ הָיָה נִקֻּדִים
BN: ... and they put old and patched-up shoes on their feet, and threadbare garments on their bodies, and every scrap of bread among their provisions was dry and mouldy.
9:6 VA YELCHU EL YEHOSHU'A EL HA MACHANEH HA GIL-GAL VA YOMRU ELAV VE EL ISH YISRA-EL ME ERETS RECHOKAH BA'NU VE ATAH KIRTU LANU VERIT
וַיֵּלְכוּ אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה הַגִּלְגָּל וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו וְאֶל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ רְחֹוקָה בָּאנוּ וְעַתָּה כִּרְתוּ לָנוּ בְרִית
BN: And they went to Yehoshu'a at the camp at Gil-Gal, and said to him, and to the men of Yisra-El: "We come from a far country: now, therefore, form a league with us...
So begins a tale that will be returned to on many occasions in the Tanach, to the extent that something else must be going on than is immediately apparent here. The way these people appear to Yehoshu'a now suggests the "Harijan" (or preferably Dalit) "caste" of India, and when their trickery is found out, in Joshua 9:21, that is precisely what they will become: "hewers of wood and drawers of water for all the congregation". But then, centuries later, the Lord of the Underworld will get involved, as we would expect of people from Giv-On, King Sha'ul blaming them for a famine, and pursuing them in order to wipe them out, despite Yehoshu'a eternal treaty with them. Which becomes even more complex when this latter story gets recounted (2 Samuel 21) in the last years of King David's reign, when he is trying to make peace with the House of Sha'ul, and fetches the last survivors of the Beney Giv-On, and asks what they want by way of damages:
"Let seven of his male offspring be handed over to us, and we will impale them before YHVH in Giv-Yah of Sha'ul, the chosen one of YHVH.” And the king replied, “I will do so.”
Impale? As in some sort of Crucifixion? Seven - that sacred number yet again! with references to BECHIR YHVH, "the chosen one of YHVH? Can we say, once again, that these tales of Yehoshu'a's conquests are in fact no more than an anthology of the religious myths of the people of that time, and that this book is in fact part of a trilogy with the same purpose: Genesis, Joshua, Judges?
9:7 VA YOMRU ISH YISRA-EL EL HA CHIVI ULAI BE KIRBI ATAH YOSHEV VE EYCH ECHRAT LECHA VERIT
וַיֹּאמְרוּ (וַיֹּאמֶר) אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל הַחִוִּי אוּלַי בְּקִרְבִּי אַתָּה יֹושֵׁב וְאֵיךְ [אֶכְרֹות־ כ] (אֶכְרָת־לְךָ ק) בְרִית
BN: And the men of Yisra-El said to the Chivi: "And what if you should come to dwell among us; how can we form a league with you?"
Much argument among the Rabbis and scholars over the text of this verse, as you can see from all the parentheses and alternatives. Singulars and plurals are the main issue. But the real issue, surely, is the statement itself, with its unstated inference of rejection: we cannot form a league with you, because we are circumcised followers of YHVH, and you are idol-worshipping, uncircumcised Goyim. Apartheid, implicit in Jewish racial purity.
And where does it tell us that they were Chivi? And if they took them for Chivi, then they took them for local people - see verse 1, where the main locals are listed. And why are the Beney Yisra-El not immediately suspicious of their physical condition (ambasadors usually try to look smart, don't they?)?
9:8 VA YOMRU EL YEHOSHU'A AVADEYCHA ANACHNU VA YOMER ALEYHEM YEHOSHU'A MI ATEM U ME AYIN TAVO'U
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲנָחְנוּ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יְהֹושֻׁעַ מִי אַתֶּם וּמֵאַיִן תָּבֹאוּ
BN: And they said to Yehoshu'a: We are your servants. And Yehoshu'a said to them: "Who are you?", and "Where do you come from?"
It sounds to me like he is actually rather dubious about their claims. The tone makes me want to translate his second question with a sarcastic: "Where exactly do you come from?" Yet he accepts their answer, and foolishly forms the league. His second major foolishness, after the first attempt against Ai.
9:9 VA YOMRU ELAV ME ERETS RECHOKAH ME'OD BA'U AVADECHA LE SHEM YHVH ELOHEYCHA KI SHAMA'NU SHAM'O VE ET KOL ASHER ASAH BE MITSRAYIM
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו מֵאֶרֶץ רְחֹוקָה מְאֹד בָּאוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ לְשֵׁם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי שָׁמַעְנוּ שָׁמְעֹו וְאֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה בְּמִצְרָיִם
BN: And they said to him: "Your servants have come from a far and distant land, because of the name of YHVH your god; for his fame has reached our ears, and everything that he did in Mitsrayim...
BA'U AVADECHA: If "they said", then this should be plural, either BANU instead of BA'U (1st person plural rather than 3rd), and/or AVADEYCHA (AVADIM SHELCHA elided), but AVADECHA is singular.
They have come from "a far and distant land", which would have taken weeks at the very least; they came because they had heard what Yehoshu'a had done, but he only did it in the last couple of weeks, or at most a month, and news would have taken a camel-train some time to get there, and then word to get around, and people to think about going there, and, and... though they could well have known about the events listed in the coming verse.
9:10 VE ET KOL ASHER ASAH LI SHNEY MALCHEY HA EMORI ASHER BE EVER HA YARDEN LE SICHON MELECH CHESHBON U LE OG MELECH HA BASHAN ASHER BE ASHTAROT
וְאֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לִשְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן לְסִיחֹון מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבֹּון וּלְעֹוג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן אֲשֶׁר בְּעַשְׁתָּרֹות
BN: "And all that he did to the two kings of the Emori, who lived beyond the Yarden, and to Sichon king of Cheshbon, and to Og king of Bashan, who was at Ashtarot...
SICHON, King of CHESHBON. See Numbers 21.
OG, King of BASHAN: See Deuteronomy 3 for the defeat of Og by Mosheh.
ASHTAROT: As with Beit-El/Ai previously, and also Beit-El/Luz in Genesis 28:19, there appears to be a town with a name, and a shrine with a name, and it is unclear whether they are the same: is the Vatican City the same place as Rome, the Ka'aba the same as Mecca? Yes and no, in both cases. Ashterot is given in Genesis 14:5 as Ashterot-Karnayim, a city of the Repha'im, and was one of the five cities destroyed in the War of the Kings. Ashterot was a Kena'ani (Canaanite) fertility goddess (or were the Ashterot simply her groves?), probably a dialect variant of Ishtar, and therefore connected with Sarah and Asherah as well. The Karnayim were her horns; she was usually depicted as a horned ewe, which also connects her with the Rachelite fertility cult.
9:11 VA YOMRU ELEYNU ZEKEYNEYNU VE CHOL YOSHVEY ARTSENU LEMOR KECHU VE YEDCHEM TSEYDA LA DERECH U LECHU LIKRA'TAM VA AMARTEM ALEYHEM AVDEYCHEM ANACHNU VE ATAH KIRTU LANU VERIT
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֵינוּ זְקֵינֵינוּ וְכָל יֹשְׁבֵי אַרְצֵנוּ לֵאמֹר קְחוּ בְיֶדְכֶם צֵידָה לַדֶּרֶךְ וּלְכוּ לִקְרָאתָם וַאֲמַרְתֶּם אֲלֵיהֶם עַבְדֵיכֶם אֲנַחְנוּ וְעַתָּה כִּרְתוּ לָנוּ בְרִית
BN: "And our elders, and all the inhabitants of our country, spoke to us, saying: Take provisions with you for the journey, and go to meet them, and say to them: We are your servants: let us form a league together.
Ah, the temptation to translate this as "we have come in hope of developing a 'special relationship' with you"!
9:12 ZEH LACHMENU CHAM HITSTAYADNU OTO MI BATEYNU BE YOM TSE'TENU LALECHET ALEYCHEM VE ATAH HINEH YAVESH VE HAYAH NIKUDIM
זֶה לַחְמֵנוּ חָם הִצְטַיַּדְנוּ אֹתֹו מִבָּתֵּינוּ בְּיֹום צֵאתֵנוּ לָלֶכֶת אֲלֵיכֶם וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה יָבֵשׁ וְהָיָה נִקֻּדִים
BN: "This is our bread; we took it hot for our provisions when we left our houses on the day that we set out to come to you; and now, as you can see, it's dry and mouldy...
HITSTAYADNU: Nothing of deep significance to note here; simply another example of the switch from Tav (ת) to Tet (ט) in the Hitpa'el (see verse 4).
9:13 VE ELEH NO'DOT HA YAYIN ASHER MILE'NU CHADASHIM VE HINEH HITBAKA'U VE ELEH SALMOTEYNU U NE'ALEYNU BALU ME ROV HA DERECH ME'OD
וְאֵלֶּה נֹאדֹות הַיַּיִן אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּאנוּ חֲדָשִׁים וְהִנֵּה הִתְבַּקָּעוּ וְאֵלֶּה שַׂלְמֹותֵינוּ וּנְעָלֵינוּ בָּלוּ מֵרֹב הַדֶּרֶךְ מְאֹד
BN: "And these flagons of wine, which we filled, were brand-new; and now look, they are falling apart; and these our clothes, and our shoes, have become old as a consequence of such a very long journey.
NO'DOT HA YAYIN: There are times when the errors of translation simply bewilder. "Bottles of wine". A Beaujolais and a Zinfandel, perhaps, or a couple of Chardonnays (that would be Chardonnayim in modern Ivrit) and a Shiraz? The latter, if they have come from the east, these wise men. As it happens (click here), there is archeological evidence of glass bottles being used, as early as this time, and in Mesopotamia; but the King James translators cannot have known that. And besides, when glass bottles become old they may crack, or get dents, or simply break, but they cannot be "rent", which is to say "torn". These would have been leather flagons.
If the journey was by camel or donkey, it would have had no impact on the shoes, so they must have been walking; and if they came "from a far distant land", far enough for their shoes to fall apart en route, then the hot bread would not simply have gone mouldy. It would, by now, have been entirely blue, fungoid, and the impact on general health sufficient that they really should have thrown it away weeks ago, and not do what the next verse implies.
9:14 VA YIKCHU HA ANASHIM MI TSEYDAM VE ET PI YHVH LO SHA'ALU
וַיִּקְחוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מִצֵּידָם וְאֶת פִּי יְהוָה לֹא שָׁאָלוּ
KJ: And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD.
BN: And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of YHVH.
Meaning what? That they undermined their tale by not going to perform the proper rites in front of YHVH, or saying grace before meals? Or is it word-play on PI YHVH: that they ate their own food, rather than asking for the Beney Yisra-El to feed them? And if so, given its condition, why? (And if they knew so much about the miracles performed by YHVH in Mitsrayim, as per verse 9, why did they pack bread anyway, when matzah makes so much more sense for a desert crossing? it's the leaven, after all, that rots quickest).
But wait a minute - there is a give-away in the text that gets missed in the translation. "ET PI YHVH... LO SHA'ALU". LO SHA'ALU! See my notes at verse 3. Tying in with that oddity of phrasing at 2 Samuel 21:6, BECHIR YHVH, the "chosen one of YHVH", who looks from the text like he is himself Sha'ul - in the way that Osher and Set (the grandsons of Geb) shared the Underworld and Overworld for half a year each in the Egyptian Tanist equivalent.
9:15 VA YA'AS LAHEM YEHOSHU'A SHALOM VA YICHROT LAHEM BERIT LE CHAYOTAM VA YISHAV'U LAHEM NESIYEY HA EDAH
9:15 VA YA'AS LAHEM YEHOSHU'A SHALOM VA YICHROT LAHEM BERIT LE CHAYOTAM VA YISHAV'U LAHEM NESIYEY HA EDAH
וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם יְהֹושֻׁעַ שָׁלֹום וַיִּכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית לְחַיֹּותָם וַיִּשָּׁבְעוּ לָהֶם נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה
BN: So Yehoshua made peace with them, and formed a lifelong league with them, and the princes of the congregation made oaths of allegiance to them.
LE CHAYOTAM: Either translation is viable from the words; it depends, and we have witnessed this problem repeatedly in these scriptures, whether we regard LE as meaning "to" or "for"; it seems to oscillate between the two. I presume that the KJ translation is based on the reappearance of the word, in a slightly different form (HACHAYEH OTAM), in verse 20.
As noted at verse 6, the outcome of this fraud will be recounted in 2 Samuel 21; but there is a preview of that outcome in the next several verses. And in the meanwhile, cult by cult, one more shrine has been taken over and absorbed.
9:16 VA YEHI MI KETSEH SHELOSHET YAMIM ACHAREY ASHER KARTU LAHEM BERIT VA YISHME'U KI KEROVIM HEM ELAV U VE KIRBO HEM YOSHVIM
9:16 VA YEHI MI KETSEH SHELOSHET YAMIM ACHAREY ASHER KARTU LAHEM BERIT VA YISHME'U KI KEROVIM HEM ELAV U VE KIRBO HEM YOSHVIM
וַיְהִי מִקְצֵה שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר כָּרְתוּ לָהֶם בְּרִית וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ כִּי קְרֹבִים הֵם אֵלָיו וּבְקִרְבֹּו הֵם יֹשְׁבִים
KJ: And it came to pass at the end of three days after they had made a league with them, that they heard that they were their neighbours, and that they dwelt among them.
BN: But it fell out that, just three days after they formed this league with them, they found out that they were their neighbours, and that they lived among them.
SHELOSHET YAMIM: "Three days" always has a mythological connotation, but especially in this Book of Yehosu'a, where every tale appears to have some lunar connection. The three days - the time that Christian Jesus spent in the underworld, before "rising again" - is the period of darkness and apparent absence of the moon, between the 28th and 30th of every lunar month (and just for the interest, because of course the ancients couldn't have known this: planet Earth waxes and wanes in exactly the same way, but inverted, because it reflects sunlight in exactly the same way, but inverted, when seen from the moon - click here).
9:17 VA YIS'U VENEY YISRA-EL VA YAVO'U EL AREYHEM BA YOM HA SHELIYSHI VE AREYHEM GIV-ON VE HA KEPHIYRAH U VE'EROT VE KIRYAT YE'ARIM
וַיִּסְעוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל עָרֵיהֶם בַּיֹּום הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְעָרֵיהֶם גִּבְעֹון וְהַכְּפִירָה וּבְאֵרֹות וְקִרְיַת יְעָרִים
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El set out, and came to their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Giv-On, and Ha Kephiyrah, and Be'erot, and Kiryat Ye'arim.
YOM HA SHELIYSHI: Again three days. The next verse appears to suggest that they set out for the next stage of their journey, which took them to these neighbouring towns, andit was when they arrived there that the deceit became clear.
HA KEPHIYRAH: A Kfar (or Kphar) is simply a village, usually small enough that it might even be a hamlet. Odd coincidence though that the same triplet of letters also yields Kippur = atonement.
BE'EROT: The name means "wells", so plenty of opportunities to fill their replacement flagons.
KIRYAT YE'ARIM: Where a Kfar is a village tending towards a hamlet, a Kerayah is a village growing towards becoming a town. Any Jew who came from such a place might be known as Judas (Yehudah), "a man from one of the Kerayot" (Ish ha Kerayot = Iscariot). The Ye'arim are "woods".
But back to our David and Sha'ul tale, and why the Beney Giv-On are so important that they need inclusion as early as this: this is where the Ark would be kept later on, after it had been captured in battle by the Pelishtim, and then returned (1 Samuel 7:1), and needed somewhere to be safely kept until Shemu-El and the joint high priests could determine what to do with it; which would end, twenty years later, with the disastrous failure by David to take it to Yeru-Shala'im (2 Samuel 6:1-9). Which means the Harijan, sorry Dalit, the Untouchable Caste, will have the honour of looking after the Harijan, sorry Dalit, sorry Untouchable Ark - and if you wonder why I am drawing out this holy comparison so precisely, take another look at 2 Samuel 6, and particularly verse 6. No question that these three tales, the Yehoshu'a here, the Sha'ul famine, and the Davidic later on, are all parts of the same mythology-liturgy, and should be read as such.
9:18 VE LO HIKUM BENEY YISRA-EL KI NISHBE'U LAHEM NESIY'EY HA EDAH BA YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL VA YILONU CHOL HA EDAH AL HA NESIY'IM
וְלֹא הִכּוּם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי נִשְׁבְּעוּ לָהֶם נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה בַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּלֹּנוּ כָל הָעֵדָה עַל הַנְּשִׂיאִים
BN: But the Beney Yisra-El did not attack them, because the heads of the congregation had made an oath of allegiance to them in the name of YHVH the god of Yisra-El. And all the congregation murmured against the princes.
NESIY'EY HA EDAH: "Princes" does not work for me as a translation, though NESIY'EY is the word that would be used, if "princes" was intended; and while I would like to use "sheikh", because I think that is much closer, it is not a word that has ever been used amongst the Jews, even the Mizrachi Jews, insofar as I am aware. There is no aristocracy of the European princely sort in place here, as far as we know from any of the texts, nor will there be at any point of proto-Jewish history until the Maccabees. These men are the "heads" of their tribes, or their clans, or, given that the EDAH (the religious congregation) rather than the BENEY (the tribe) is stated here, perhaps a separate group of religious leaders altogether, neither tribal nor secular, but a clerical body. The modern word for the political President is also NASI.
YILONU: And understandably, because a contract drawn up deceitfully has no moral standing, so it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Beney Yisra-El to tear it up, and then express their anger in the normal barbaric manner.
9:19 VA YOMRU CHOL HA NESIY'IM EL KOL HA EDAH ANACHNU NISHBA'NU LAHEM BA YHVH ELOHEY YISRA'EL VE ATAH LO NUCHAL LINGO'A BA HEM
וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָל הַנְּשִׂיאִים אֶל כָּל הָעֵדָה אֲנַחְנוּ נִשְׁבַּעְנוּ לָהֶם בַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַתָּה לֹא נוּכַל לִנְגֹּעַ בָּהֶם
BN: But all the heads said to all the congregation: "We have sworn to them by YHVH the god of Yisra-El: now therefore we may not touch them...
HA NESIYIM: Is Yehoshu'a a leader who delegates, unlike his predecessor, and that is why it is the princes who receive the complaints and provide the rebuttal? Or is this simply the standard Mosaic response, of passing on the blame or responsibility to the next rank in the hierarchy, but taking all the credit when things go well?
LINGO'A: How useful that this word has turned up here; see my note to Joshua 8:15.
9:20 ZOT NA'ASEH LAHEM VE HACHAYEH OTAM VE LO YIHEYEH ALEYNU KETSEPH AL HA SHEVU'AH ASHER NISHBA'NU LAHEM
זֹאת נַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם וְהַחֲיֵה אֹותָם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עָלֵינוּ קֶצֶף עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְנוּ לָהֶם
BN: "This is what we shall do to them. We will let them live, and that way there will be no anger against us on account of the oath that we swore to them."
Pragmatism. We have to live among these people. If we wipe them out, going against our sworn treaty, it will become part of history, remembered by future generations, a permanent complaint against us, and a source of reluctance ever to believe or trust us again.
9:21 VA YOMRU ALEYHEM HA NESIY'IM YICHEYU VA YIHEYU CHOTVEY ETSIM VE SHO'AVEY MAYIM LE CHOL H EDAH KA ASHER DIBRU LAHEM HA NESIY'IM
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵיהֶם הַנְּשִׂיאִים יִחְיוּ וַיִּהְיוּ חֹטְבֵי עֵצִים וְשֹׁאֲבֵי מַיִם לְכָל הָעֵדָה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבְּרוּ לָהֶם הַנְּשִׂיאִים
KJ: And the princes said unto them, Let them live; but let them be hewers of wood and drawers of water unto all the congregation; as the princes had promised them.
BN: And the princes said to them: Let them live; but let them live as hewers of wood and drawers of water for all the congregation, as the princes agreed with them.
YICHEYU VA YIHEYU: The translation needs to keep the witty play on words. In Yehudit there are two verbs for being and existence, LEHIYOT (להיות) with a Hey, and LECHIYOT (לחיות) with a Chet, the former yielding the name YHVH (essence), the latter his spouse CHAVAH (Eve- existence).
Confirming our conclusion above, that this entire story exists to explain how they came to be the Harijan, or Dalit, and were therefore considered holy enough (KADOSH means "holy", because to be holy is to be "set apart", which you are if you are decared "untouchable") to take charge of the "untouchable" Ark later on.
And that being the case: do we assume the whole thing was made up by the Beney Yisra-El later on, that they didn't come in rags with this tale of being foreigners etc, but were conquered, and reduced to rags, and spared from annihilation by accepting this new status? It sure makes a better self-justification by the perpetrators, given that this countermands HE GER ASHER BE SHE'ARECHA (and you shall treat the stranger who lives within your gates..." in every aspect?
KA ASHER...NESIY'IM: This last phrase makes no sense. If the princes are speaking, then it should say "we" not "they"? And when was this promise made? Was it in fact the terms of the original "league"? When they stated "we are your servants" in verse 8, were they in fact offering themselves for hire in precisely this capacity?
9:22 VA YIKRA LAHEM YEHOSHU'A VA YEDABER ALEYHEM LEMOR LAMAH RIMIYTEM OTANU LEMOR RECHOKIM ANACHNU MI KEM ME'OD VE ATEM BE KIRBEYNU YOSHVIM
KA ASHER...NESIY'IM: This last phrase makes no sense. If the princes are speaking, then it should say "we" not "they"? And when was this promise made? Was it in fact the terms of the original "league"? When they stated "we are your servants" in verse 8, were they in fact offering themselves for hire in precisely this capacity?
9:22 VA YIKRA LAHEM YEHOSHU'A VA YEDABER ALEYHEM LEMOR LAMAH RIMIYTEM OTANU LEMOR RECHOKIM ANACHNU MI KEM ME'OD VE ATEM BE KIRBEYNU YOSHVIM
וַיִּקְרָא לָהֶם יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר לָמָּה רִמִּיתֶם אֹתָנוּ לֵאמֹר רְחֹוקִים אֲנַחְנוּ מִכֶּם מְאֹד וְאַתֶּם בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ יֹשְׁבִים
BN: Then Yehoshu'a summoned them, and spoke to them, saying: "Why have you cheated us, saying: 'We live a long way from you', when in fact you dwell among us?..
9:23 VE ATAH ARURIM ATEM VE LO YIKARET MI KEM EVED VE CHOTVEY ETSIM VE SHO'AVEY MAYIM LE VEIT ELOHAY
וְעַתָּה אֲרוּרִים אַתֶּם וְלֹא יִכָּרֵת מִכֶּם עֶבֶד וְחֹטְבֵי עֵצִים וְשֹׁאֲבֵי מַיִם לְבֵית אֱלֹהָי
BN: Now therefore you are cursed, and none of you shall be freed from serving as bondsmen, as hewers of wood and as drawers of water for the shrine of my god.
VE ATAH ARURIM ATEM: A very precise and specific word, and not the one used for the curses, as opposed to the blessings, of Mounts Eyval and Gerizim (Deuteronomy 11:26); it alludes to Genesis 3, where the cursing of the serpent, like the cursing of Kayin soon afterwards, renders him - well, actually, if you look at the Kayin story, it renders him "untouchable", as Lamech will discover: Genesis 4:15 is the key to this; see my notes there. And then go back to the David story (2 Samuel 21), when the Beney Giv-On demand seven offspring of Sha'ul as their redemotion.
So YHVH said to him, "Therefore whoever slays Kayin, vengeance shall be taken on him seven times sevenfold." And YHVH branded a mark on Kayin, so that anyone who found him would know not to smite him.
All of which makes for a very odd coincidence immediately after that piece of clever word-play which invoked Chavah!
The tale may also be a way of validating-justifying what becomes a caste system, with this lowest caste "deservedly" so. The process of "inferiorisation" which every coloniser and empire-builder, religious, political and economic, has always found necessary to justify their "conquest".
VEIT ELOHAY:We have seen BEIT YHVH earlier. The need for specific terms to differentiate a local, wayside shrine from the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im, but also a need for a clear distinction between the earlier, polytheistic religion of the Beney Yisra-El, which Chavah belonged to, and the patriarchal-monothesitic cult of the Ezraic and Hasmonean epochs, until now.
9:24 VA YA'ANU ET YEHOSHU'A VA YOMRU KI HUGAD HUGAD LA AVADEYCHA ET ASHER TSIVA YHVH ELOHEYCHA ET MOSHEH AVDO LATET LACHEM ET KOL HA ARETS U LEHASHMID ET KOL YOSHVEY HA ARETS MI PENEYCHEM VE NIYRA ME'OD LE NAPHSHOTEYNU MI PENEYCHEM VA NA'ASEH ET HA DAVAR HA ZEH
The tale may also be a way of validating-justifying what becomes a caste system, with this lowest caste "deservedly" so. The process of "inferiorisation" which every coloniser and empire-builder, religious, political and economic, has always found necessary to justify their "conquest".
VEIT ELOHAY:We have seen BEIT YHVH earlier. The need for specific terms to differentiate a local, wayside shrine from the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im, but also a need for a clear distinction between the earlier, polytheistic religion of the Beney Yisra-El, which Chavah belonged to, and the patriarchal-monothesitic cult of the Ezraic and Hasmonean epochs, until now.
9:24 VA YA'ANU ET YEHOSHU'A VA YOMRU KI HUGAD HUGAD LA AVADEYCHA ET ASHER TSIVA YHVH ELOHEYCHA ET MOSHEH AVDO LATET LACHEM ET KOL HA ARETS U LEHASHMID ET KOL YOSHVEY HA ARETS MI PENEYCHEM VE NIYRA ME'OD LE NAPHSHOTEYNU MI PENEYCHEM VA NA'ASEH ET HA DAVAR HA ZEH
וַיַּעֲנוּ אֶת יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמְרוּ כִּי הֻגֵּד הֻגַּד לַעֲבָדֶיךָ אֵת אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדֹּו לָתֵת לָכֶם אֶת כָּל הָאָרֶץ וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶת כָּל יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵיכֶם וַנִּירָא מְאֹד לְנַפְשֹׁתֵינוּ מִפְּנֵיכֶם וַנַּעֲשֵׂה אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה
BN: And they replied to Yehoshu'a, and said: "Because it was told and told to your servants, how YHVH your god had commanded his servant Mosheh to give you all the land, and to destroy all the inhabitants of the land who were there before you. And we were terrified for our very lives because of you, and so we did this thing...
9:25 VE ATAH HINENU VE YADECHA KA TOV VE CHA YASHAR BE EYNEYCHA LA'ASOT LANU ASEH
וְעַתָּה הִנְנוּ בְיָדֶךָ כַּטֹּוב וְכַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֶיךָ לַעֲשֹׂות לָנוּ עֲשֵׂה
BN: "And now, behold, we are in your hand. Whatever seems good and right to you to do to us, do it."
KA TOV VE CHA YASHAR BE EYNEYCHA: The phrase neatly sets up what will become the normal state of play - or anarchy, to be more precise - and the common description of that state, throughout the Book of Judges. "And they did as they saw fit in their own eyes". We would call it "liberal democacy".
But it also sets up the moral conflict which is central to life in modern Israel. The Mosaic laws state and re-state "avadim hayinu be Mitsrayim", "because we were slaves in Egypt", and lays down statutes of ethical and moral absolutism which are all very well in theory, but fall apart in practice: KA EZRACH KA GER, for example, which insists that there shall be one law for everyone, no special respect or otherwise because of who a person is and regardless of whether they are Jew or Nachri. And just as the logic of verse 20 applied there, so, here, there should be the same logic: the recognition that future generations of the Beney Giv-On will one day seek their freedom, and make their laws on the principle AVADIM HAYINU BE YISRA-EL.
But as far as the Beney Giv-On are concerned, Yericho and Ai have been annihilated, people and place, but they are a) still alive, b) their towns and villages are in tact, and c) they have just been made a protected species. Not a great position, but it definitely would have been worse.
9:26 VA YA'AS LAHEM KEN VA YATSEL OTAM MI YAD BENEY YISRA-EL VE LO HARAGUM
9:26 VA YA'AS LAHEM KEN VA YATSEL OTAM MI YAD BENEY YISRA-EL VE LO HARAGUM
וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם כֵּן וַיַּצֵּל אֹותָם מִיַּד בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא הֲרָגוּם
KJ: And so did he unto them, and delivered them out of the hand of the children of Israel, that they slew them not.
BN: And that was what he did to them, delivering them out of the hands of the Beney Yisra-El, and not putting them to death.
The inference here, and it was at least hinted in verses 18-20, is that the people were in lynch-mob mode, and had to be restrained from carrying out another massacre.
9:27 VA YITNEM YEHOSHU'A BA YOM HA HU CHOTVEY ETSIM VE SHO'AVEY MAYIM LA EDAH U LE MIZBACH YHVH AD HAYOM HA ZEH EL HA MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR
BN: And that was what he did to them, delivering them out of the hands of the Beney Yisra-El, and not putting them to death.
The inference here, and it was at least hinted in verses 18-20, is that the people were in lynch-mob mode, and had to be restrained from carrying out another massacre.
9:27 VA YITNEM YEHOSHU'A BA YOM HA HU CHOTVEY ETSIM VE SHO'AVEY MAYIM LA EDAH U LE MIZBACH YHVH AD HAYOM HA ZEH EL HA MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR
וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהֹושֻׁעַ בַּיֹּום הַהוּא חֹטְבֵי עֵצִים וְשֹׁאֲבֵי מַיִם לָעֵדָה וּלְמִזְבַּח יְהוָה עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה אֶל הַמָּקֹום אֲשֶׁר יִבְחָר
KJ: And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.
BN: And that day Yehoshu'a made them hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of YHVH, even until this day, in the place which he should choose.
AD HA YOM HA ZEH also helps date the tale, because after David's revenge they no longer had this caste status; but it is also a double-anachronism, "even until this day" being the time of writing this down, but "the place which he should choose" being a pretence of Yehoshu'a's time, because by David's time the writer knew perfectly well that it would be Yeru-Shala'im.
pey break
No comments:
Post a Comment