22:1 AZ YIKRA YEHOSHU'A LA RE'U-VENI VE LA GADI VE LA CHATSI MATEH MENASHEH
אָז יִקְרָא יְהֹושֻׁעַ לָראוּבֵנִי וְלַגָּדִי וְלַחֲצִי מַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה
KJ (King James translation): Then Joshua called the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh,
BN (BibleNet translation): Then Yehoshu'a called the Re'u-Veni, and the Gadi, and the half-tribe of Menasheh...
22:2 VA YOMER ALEYHEM ATEM SHEMARTEM ET KOL ASHER TSIVAH ET'CHEM MOSHEH EVED YHVH VA TISHME'U VE KOLI LE CHOL ASHER TSIVIYTI ET'CHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם אַתֶּם שְׁמַרְתֶּם אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֶתְכֶם מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד יְהוָה וַתִּשְׁמְעוּ בְקֹולִי לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶתְכֶם
KJ: And said unto them, Ye have kept all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, and have obeyed my voice in all that I commanded you,
BN: And said to them: "You have kept all that Mosheh the servant of YHVH instructed you, and have obeyed my voice in all that I commanded you...
The Mosaic part of this can be found at Numbers 32, the Joshuaic at Joshua 1.
22:3 LO AZAVTEM ET ACHEYCHEM ZEH YAMIM RABIM AD HA YOM HA ZEH U SHEMARTEM ET MISHMERET MITSVAT YHVH ELOHEYCHEM
לֹא עֲזַבְתֶּם אֶת אֲחֵיכֶם זֶה יָמִים רַבִּים עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת מִצְוַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
BN: "You did not abandon your kinsmen through the many days before today, but you fulfilled your responsibilities according to the instruction of YHVH your god...
Given Nechem-Yah's (Nehemiah's) comments in chapter 13 of his book (verse 7ff), made at the time of the Redaction, this verse may have been inserted to make a point, rather like the two closing verses of the previous chapter. Hyperbole in hot pursuit of rhetoric, and never mind the historical authenticity!
22:4 VE ATAH HENIYACH YHVH ELOHEYCHEM LA ACHEYCHEM KA ASHER DIBER LAHEM VE ATAH PENU U LECHU LACHEM LE AHALEYCHEM EL ERETS ACHUZAT'CHEM ASHER NATAN LACHEM MOSHEH EVED YHVH BE EVER HA YARDEN
וְעַתָּה הֵנִיחַ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לַאֲחֵיכֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָהֶם וְעַתָּה פְּנוּ וּלְכוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָכֶם מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד יְהוָה בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן
BN: "And now YHVH your god has created peace for your kinsmen, as he promised them. Now, therefore, go back, return to your tents, and to the land of your possession, which Mosheh the servant of YHVH gave you, on the far side of the Yarden...
"Go back to your tents." All this talk about cities, most of which were probably little more than villages, and we forget that they were a tent-dwelling people before they went down to Mitsrayim, and tent-dwellers again now, until they conquer the towns that will become their inheritance/portion.
For an explanation of this and the next verse, see Joshua 1:12ff.
22:5 RAK SHIMRU ME'OD LA'ASOT ET HA MITZVAH VE ET HA TORAH ASHER TSIVAH ET'CHEM MOSHE EVED YHVH LE AHAVAH ET YHVH ELOHEYCHEM VE LALECHET BE CHOL DERACHAV VE LISHMOR MITSVOTAV U LEDAVKAH BO U LE'AVDO BE CHOL LEVAVECHEM U VE CHOL NAPHSHECHEM
רַק שִׁמְרוּ מְאֹד לַעֲשֹׂות אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְאֶת הַתֹּורָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֶתְכֶם מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד יְהוָה לְאַהֲבָה אֶת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְלָלֶכֶת בְּכָל דְּרָכָיו וְלִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֹתָיו וּלְדָבְקָה בֹו וּלְעָבְדֹו בְּכָל לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁכֶם
BN: "Only be very fastidious in carrying out both the law and the teaching which Mosheh the servant of YHVH instructed you, to love YHVH your god, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to remain faithful to him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul."
Echoing the Shem'a, but leaving out ME'ODECHA - "all your power" or "all your strength" - which happens on almost every occasion that this line is quoted in the Tanach (the source for the original line is Deuteronomy 6:5).
A distinction is being made here between MITSVAH and TORAH, and this needs explaining; but it can only be explained within the larger picture:
1) TOROT are doctrines concerning YHVH, the world, humanity and Israel.
2) MISHPATIM require acting justly toward other humans.
3) CHUKIM demand showing justice toward plants, animals and our own selves.
4) MITVOT consist of the obligation to love all beings.
1) TOROT are doctrines concerning YHVH, the world, humanity and Israel.
2) MISHPATIM require acting justly toward other humans.
3) CHUKIM demand showing justice toward plants, animals and our own selves.
4) MITVOT consist of the obligation to love all beings.
5) EDOT are symbolic acts that convey essential truths and lessons.
6) AVODAH refers to commandments, such as prayer, that address our inner religious life.
But Yehoshu'a is stating this in relation to the Shem'a,and the Shem'a contains a very precisely detailed instruction on the subject of teaching; and that instruction comes immediately after the line just referenced by Yehoshu'a:
But Yehoshu'a is stating this in relation to the Shem'a,and the Shem'a contains a very precisely detailed instruction on the subject of teaching; and that instruction comes immediately after the line just referenced by Yehoshu'a:
"And these words that I instruct you today shall remain in your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall discuss them with them when you sit at home, and when you are walking along the street, even when you are getting ready for bed, and when you have just got up in the morning..."
So Yehoshu'a isn't simply congratulating them on their involvement in turning the past into the present, but mandating them to make sure they turn the present into the future.
22:6 VA YEVARCHEM YEHOSHU'A VA YESHALCHEM VA YELCHU EL AHALEYHEM
וַיְבָרְכֵם יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם וַיֵּלְכוּ אֶל אָהֳלֵיהֶם
BN: So Yehoshu'a blessed them, and sent them away; and they went to their tents.
samech break
22:7 VE LA CHATSI SHEVET HA MENASHEH NATAN MOSHEH BA BASHAN U LE CHETSYO NATAN YEHOSHU'A IM ACHEYHEM ME EVER HA YARDEN YAMAH VE GAM KI SHILCHAM YEHOSHU'A EL AHALEYHEM VA YEVARACHEM
וְלַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה נָתַן מֹשֶׁה בַּבָּשָׁן וּלְחֶצְיֹו נָתַן יְהֹושֻׁעַ עִם אֲחֵיהֶם [מֵעֵבֶר כ] (בְּעֵבֶר ק) הַיַּרְדֵּן יָמָּה וְגַם כִּי שִׁלְּחָם יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל אָהֳלֵיהֶם וַיְבָרֲכֵם
BN: Mosheh had given a possession in Ha Bashan to the half-tribe of Menasheh: now, Yehoshu'a gave [a possession] to the other half, among their kinsmen on the western side of the Yarden. And then Yehoshu'a sent them too away to their tents, and blessed them.
HA BASHAN: References in Joshua 9:10, 12:4, 13:11/12 and 30/31, 17:1 and 5, 20:8 21:6 and 21:27.
22:8 VA YOMER ALEYHEM LEMOR BINCHASIM RABIM SHUVU EL AHALEYCHEM U VI MIKNEH RAV ME'OD BE KESEPH U VE ZAHAV U VINCHOSHET U VE VARZEL U VISLAMOT HARBEH ME'OD CHILKU SHELAL OYEVEYCHEM IM ACHEYCHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר בִּנְכָסִים רַבִּים שׁוּבוּ אֶל אָהֳלֵיכֶם וּבְמִקְנֶה רַב מְאֹד בְּכֶסֶף וּבְזָהָב וּבִנְחֹשֶׁת וּבְבַרְזֶל וּבִשְׂלָמֹות הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד חִלְקוּ שְׁלַל אֹיְבֵיכֶם עִם אֲחֵיכֶם
BN: And he spoke to them, saying: Return with much treasure to your tents, and with very much cattle, with silver, and with gold, and with brass, and with iron, and with very much raiment: divide the spoil of your enemies with your kinsmen.
A very different form of blessing from the one Ya'akov gave his sons! (cf Genesis 49)
BINCHASIM RABIM...SHELAL: "Treasure"... "spoil". And what about the very clear instructions against taking booty, about booty being "the accursed thing", in Joshua 6:18, and "all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron" in 6:19 which "are sacred to YHVH; they shall come into the treasury for YHVH". Which led to the tale of Achan,in Joshua 7. Or does the changed instruction in Joshua 8:2 and again in 8:27 apply for all time - the ghost of Achan won't be too pleased if that turns out to be the case (I posed the same question in my note to 8:27). Joshua 11:14 certainly seems to confirm the perpetuity of the change, and we haven't heard mention of the subject between then and now.
BINCHASIM RABIM...SHELAL: "Treasure"... "spoil". And what about the very clear instructions against taking booty, about booty being "the accursed thing", in Joshua 6:18, and "all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron" in 6:19 which "are sacred to YHVH; they shall come into the treasury for YHVH". Which led to the tale of Achan,in Joshua 7. Or does the changed instruction in Joshua 8:2 and again in 8:27 apply for all time - the ghost of Achan won't be too pleased if that turns out to be the case (I posed the same question in my note to 8:27). Joshua 11:14 certainly seems to confirm the perpetuity of the change, and we haven't heard mention of the subject between then and now.
Do we have a sense that this has been more about marauding then conquering, building an empire in much the way that Drake and co did for Queen Elizabeth I, taking their ships out onto the high seas, waiting for Spanish galleons to come along bearing "riches" from the Americas, fire cannonshot at them, board them, murder the crew, empty the "riches" onto your galleon, sink the Spanish galleon, then take the "riches" home for storage in, what do they still call the place where the wealth is managed? oh yes - the Treasury.
pey break
22:9 VA YASHUVU VA YELCHU BENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD VA CHATSI SHEVET HA MENASHEH ME ET BENEY YISRA-EL MI SHILOH ASHER BE ERETS KENA'AN LALECHET EL ERETS HA GIL'AD EL ERETS ACHUZATAM ASHER NO'CHAZU VAH AL PI YHVH BE YAD MOSHEH
pey break
22:9 VA YASHUVU VA YELCHU BENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD VA CHATSI SHEVET HA MENASHEH ME ET BENEY YISRA-EL MI SHILOH ASHER BE ERETS KENA'AN LALECHET EL ERETS HA GIL'AD EL ERETS ACHUZATAM ASHER NO'CHAZU VAH AL PI YHVH BE YAD MOSHEH
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִשִּׁלֹה אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן לָלֶכֶת אֶל אֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזָּתָם אֲשֶׁר נֹאחֲזוּ בָהּ עַל פִּי יְהוָה בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה
BN: And the Beney Re'u-Ven and the Beney Gad and the half tribe of Menasheh went home, leaving the Beney Yisra-El at Shiloh, which is in the land of Kena'an, to go to the land of Gil'ad, to the land of their inheritance, which they possessed through the word of YHVH, by the hand of Mosheh.
SHILOH: See the link, but also my lengthy notes on the complexities of this name, at Joshua 18:1.
GIL'AD: See the link.
22:10 VA YAVO'U EL GELIYLOT HA YARDEN ASHER BE ERETS KENA'AN VA YIVNU VENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD VA CHATSI SHEVET HA MENASHEH SHAM MIZBE'ACH AL HA YARDEN MIZBE'ACH GADOL LE MAR'EH
וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל גְּלִילֹות הַיַּרְדֵּן אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וַיִּבְנוּ בְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ עַל הַיַּרְדֵּן מִזְבֵּחַ גָּדֹול לְמַרְאֶה
BN: And when they came to the banks of the Yarden, which are in the land of Kena'an, the Beney Re'u-Ven and the Beney Gad and the half tribe of Menasheh built an altar there, beside the Yarden, a vast altar to behold.
GELIYLOT: See my note to Joshua 13:2, where the word is used to mean "borders"; but also 18:7, where Geliylot is a specific place, close to Adumim, which is a little way west of the river Yarden (Jordan), and well inside the tribal territory of west Menasheh, not east Menasheh, who are the tribe involved in this story. The root also gives GALIL, which is the name of a region, exactly where the towns of Geliylot and Adumim are located. And of course the same root also gives one half of Gil-Gal, which was built where the waters of the Yarden eddy, just north of Yericho. So should this be translated as "And when they came to the weirs and waterfalls along the Yarden...", or perhaps "And when they came to the plains along the western banks of the Yarden...", or even "And when they came to Geliylot on the Yarden...? The next verse indicates that the altar was erected either at, or very close to Gil-Gal - which is an entirely logical thing for them to have done, if you think about it, with or even without Yehoshu'a's last instruction.
An altar to whom? Fine if it was YHVH. But if not...
22:11 VA YISHME'U VENEY YISRA-EL LEMOR HINEH VANU VENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD VA CHATSI SHEVET HA MENASHEH ET HA MIZBE'ACH AL MUL ERETS KENA'AN EL GELIYLOT HA YARDEN EL EVER BENEY YISRA-EL
וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה בָנוּ בְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶל מוּל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֶל גְּלִילֹות הַיַּרְדֵּן אֶל עֵבֶר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El heard it said: "Behold, the Beney Re'u-Ven and the Beney Gad and the half tribe of Menasheh have built an altar, facing the land of Kena'an, on the banks of the Yarden, at the point where the Beney Yisra-El crossed.
EL EVER: Have they torn down and replaced the altar that Yehoshu'a built, at Gil-Gal (see Joshua 4ff)? No, but Gil-Gal and Geliylot both contain the same letters (though the Gil in the former does not mean precisely the same as the Gelil in the latter), so there are bound to have been people who mis-heard, or mis-assumed (or got riled up to do so by politicians who saw an advantage to be gained from doing so, or broadsheet producers who saw advertising revenue looming from the headlines...). See verse 19.
22:12 VA YISHME'U BENEY YISRA-EL VA YIKAHALU KOL ADAT BENEY YISRA-EL SHILOH LA'ALOT ALEYHEM LA TSAVA
וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁלֹה לַעֲלֹות עֲלֵיהֶם לַצָּבָא
BN: And when the Beney Yisra-El heard about it, the entire congregation of the Beney Yisra-El gathered at Shiloh, to go to war against them.
Civil war, and civil holy war at that, within minutes of starting. Could Yehoshu'a not send an ambassador, and have him find out what was going on - he would presumably have come back with the answer that is given in verse... oh wait, that is exactly what he did do, in the very next verse. So this verse makes no sense. You don't gather for war before you hear the outcome; you wait for the outcome, and then, if necessary, you gather for war. The gathering at Shiloh probably had nothing to do with this, but was the annual gathering that was taking place anyway; though maybe word reached them about the altar while they were there, and the buzz spread, and the wannabe successors to soon-to-retire Yehoshu'a needed a cause they could lead...And anyway, why shouldn't the three tribes build an altar, if it is to YHVH? Indeed, they will need their own altar, for sacrifices, and worship - just as all the tribes will, because there is no central Temple yet.
pey break
22:13 VA YISHLECHU VENEY YISRA-EL EL BENEY RE'U-VEN VE EL BENEY GAD VE EL CHATSI SHEVET HA MENASHEH EL ERETS HA GIL'AD ET PINCHAS BEN EL-AZAR HA KOHEN
וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְאֶל בְּנֵי גָד וְאֶל חֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה אֶל אֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד אֶת פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El sent Pinchas ben El-Azar the Kohen to the Beney Re'u-Ven, and to the Beney Gad, and to the half tribe of Menasheh, in the land of Gil'ad...
An interesting moment of democracy this! I presume that it was really Yehoshu'a who sent them, with the full support of his electorate and his party!
PINCHAS BEN EL-AZAR: Aharon's grandson, and heir-apparent to the hereditary High Priesthood; see the link.
22:14 VA ASARAH NESIYIM IMO NASI ECHAD NASI ECHAD LE VEIT AV LE CHOL MATOT YISRA-EL VE ISH ROSH BEIT AVOTAM HEMAH LE ALPHEY YISRA-EL
22:14 VA ASARAH NESIYIM IMO NASI ECHAD NASI ECHAD LE VEIT AV LE CHOL MATOT YISRA-EL VE ISH ROSH BEIT AVOTAM HEMAH LE ALPHEY YISRA-EL
וַעֲשָׂרָה נְשִׂאִים עִמֹּו נָשִׂיא אֶחָד נָשִׂיא אֶחָד לְבֵית אָב לְכֹל מַטֹּות יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאִישׁ רֹאשׁ בֵּית אֲבֹותָם הֵמָּה לְאַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And with him ten princes, one prince from each ancestral house of the tribes of Yisra-El; and each one was an head of the house of their fathers among the thousands of Yisra-El.
Before war however, negotiation.
ASARAH NESIYIM: That doesn't sound comfortable to me. It says "BEIT AV" which infers the ancestral tribes, not the land-division, in which case Gad and Re'-u-Ven are obviously not included, because they are the other party in these talks. Levi is there, because the High Priest is a Levite. But what about Menasheh? Is west Menasheh represented on one side, and east Menasheh on the other? And is this not going to be rather difficult?
The phrasing of this verse makes four very strong statements; a) that the tribes shared a common ancestry, and that this was [seen to be] being challenged by [what were assumed to be] the separatists; b) that the delegation was as senior as it was possible to send; c) that it included the other half of Menasheh; d) that even despite their having just been honoured for keeping their part of the bargain in full (see the opening verses of this chapter), there is absolutely no trust or confidence in them continuing to do so, from Yehoshu'a, or any of the people. What a splendid base on which to build a country!
22:15 VA YAVO'U EL BENEY RE'U-VEN VE EL BENEY GAD VE EL CHATSI SHEVET MENASHEH EL ERETS HA GIL'AD VA YEDABRU ITAM LEMOR
The phrasing of this verse makes four very strong statements; a) that the tribes shared a common ancestry, and that this was [seen to be] being challenged by [what were assumed to be] the separatists; b) that the delegation was as senior as it was possible to send; c) that it included the other half of Menasheh; d) that even despite their having just been honoured for keeping their part of the bargain in full (see the opening verses of this chapter), there is absolutely no trust or confidence in them continuing to do so, from Yehoshu'a, or any of the people. What a splendid base on which to build a country!
22:15 VA YAVO'U EL BENEY RE'U-VEN VE EL BENEY GAD VE EL CHATSI SHEVET MENASHEH EL ERETS HA GIL'AD VA YEDABRU ITAM LEMOR
וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְאֶל בְּנֵי גָד וְאֶל חֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה אֶל אֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד וַיְדַבְּרוּ אִתָּם לֵאמֹר
BN: And they came to the Beney Re'u-Ven, and to the Beney Gad, and to the half tribe of Menasheh, to the land of Gil'ad, and they spoke with them, saying:
22:16 KOH AMRU KOL ADAT YHVH MAH HA MA'AL HA ZEH ASHER ME'ALTEM BELOHEY YISRA-EL LASHUV HAYOM ME ACHAREY YHVH BIVNOT'CHEM LACHEM MIZBE'ACH LIMRADCHEM HAYOM BA YHVH
כֹּה אָמְרוּ כֹּל עֲדַת יְהוָה מָה הַמַּעַל הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר מְעַלְתֶּם בֵּאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָשׁוּב הַיֹּום מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה בִּבְנֹותְכֶם לָכֶם מִזְבֵּחַ לִמְרָדְכֶם הַיֹּום בַּיהוָה
BN: Thus says the whole congregation of YHVH: "What trespass is this that you have committed against the gods of Yisra-El, to turn away this day from following YHVH, in that you have built an altar, that you might rebel this day against YHVH?
ELOHEY YISRA-EL: sounds decidely plural!
A good starting-point for a diplomatic conversation: straight in with the accusation. Why not: "the Beney Yisra-El gathered at Shiloh have sent us here to enquire about a rumour we have heard, that an altar has been erected at Geliylot"? No hostility, no accusation, just a polite enquiry. But it gets worse.
22:17 HA ME'AT LANU ET AVON PE'OR ASHER LO HITAHARNU MIMENU AD HA YOM HA ZEH VA YEHI HA NEGEPH BA ADAT YHVH
הַמְעַט לָנוּ אֶת עֲוֹן פְּעֹור אֲשֶׁר לֹא הִטַּהַרְנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה וַיְהִי הַנֶּגֶף בַּעֲדַת יְהוָה
BN: "Was the iniquity of Pe'or, from which we are still not cleansed even to this day, not sufficient for us, even though it caused plague in the congregation of YHVH?
The iniquity of Pe'or? See Numbers 25:1-18, 31:16, Deuteronomy 4:3. This is the Bil'am (Baalam) story, complete with "whoring after Mo-Avi gods". The land of Mo-Av is immediately to the south of the three tribes - though actually it is the northern part of Mo-Av which was given to Re'u-Ven - see the map at Joshua 13:3 - so there is some logic to the connection. The re is also a map of the eastern tribes, adjacent to verse 12, above, but essentially they are the pink section in the map on the right, from Jerash by the B of Bashan to the purple at Dibon.The phrasing is decidedly not diplomatic; it is angry and almost colloquial. I have not translated this verse in the full tone of its intent, but for the next verse I shall, because the word-order, the choice of vocabulary, the tone, require it.
22:18 VE ATEM TASHUVU HAYOM ME ACHAREY YHVH, VE HAYAH ATEM TIMREDU HAYOM BA YHVH U MACHAR EL KOL ADAT YISRA'EL YIKTSOPH
וְאַתֶּם תָּשֻׁבוּ הַיֹּום מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה וְהָיָה אַתֶּם תִּמְרְדוּ הַיֹּום בַּיהוָה וּמָחָר אֶל כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִקְצֹף
KJ: But that ye must turn away this day from following the LORD? and it will be, seeing ye rebel to day against the LORD, that to morrow he will be wroth with the whole congregation of Israel.
BN: "But no, you, already today you have turned away from following YHVH. And it's going to come to you. Today you rebel against YHVH, tomorrow he will take out his fury on the entire congregation of Yisra-El.
VE ATEM: Is a statement, not a question, as in the KJ.
VE HAYAH: uses the Vav Consecutive: "and it will be".
YIKTSOPH: Previously we have heard that YHVH KO'ES (כּוֹעֵס), or maybe "HAYAH RAV", and he frequently gets his nostrils inflated when he is angry, but this is much stronger. KATSAPH is used for foaming, frothing and even spuming, the full volcanic tantrum.
22:19 VE ACH IM TEM'E'AH ERETS ACHUZAT'CHEM IVRU LACHEM EL ERETS ACHUZAT YHVH ASHER SHACHAN SHAM MISHKAN YHVH VE HE'ACHAZU BETOCHENU U VA YHVH AL TIMRODU VE OTANU AL TIMRODU BIVNOT'CHEM LACHEM MIZBE'ACH MI BAL'ADEY MIZBACH YHVH ELOHEYNU
וְאַךְ אִם טְמֵאָה אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם עִבְרוּ לָכֶם אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּת יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר שָׁכַן שָׁם מִשְׁכַּן יְהוָה וְהֵאָחֲזוּ בְּתֹוכֵנוּ וּבַיהוָה אַל תִּמְרֹדוּ וְאֹתָנוּ אֶל תִּמְרֹדוּ בִּבְנֹתְכֶם לָכֶם מִזְבֵּחַ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ
BN: "But if the land of your inheritance is unclean, then come over into the land of the inheritance of YHVH, where the tabernacle of YHVH is housed, and take up an inheritance among us. But do not rebel against YHVH, nor rebel against us, by building an altar for yourselves next to the altar of YHVH our god.
A definite lowering of tone; not exactly conciliatory, but the pointing finger is no longer in the listener's face. Even a recognition that there must have been a good reason for building this altar - though surely asking rather than assuming would have been a wiser course. And is there, perhaps, also a hidden agenda behind this, that Yehoshu'a and the elders were never happy that Mosheh gave in to the two-and-a-half tribes, allowing them to settle outside the future Yisra-Eli borders, putting both faith and racial purity at risk; and here is an opportunity to persuade them to give up that foolishness and rejoin the main body?
And in what way unclean? Religiously unclean because the people of these lands do not follow YHVH? But that is true of the people of Kena'an as well, so it cannot be that. It would be so much easier if they just asked: "why have you built this altar anyway?"
And the threat of outright war, and the imposition of YHVH worship, is at the back as well. These are not "moderate Israelites".
MIZBE'ACH...MIZBACH: The three tribes' altar is called a MIZBE'ACH, whereas the one in "mainland" Yisra-El is a MIZBACH. Without the nekudot (pointing) we could not make this distinction, yet whoever put in the nekudot clearly believed it was necessary - two words apart is surely too close to have been a scribal error. So what is the difference between a MIZBE'ACH and a MIZBACH (and we have noted the variation on many occasions from Exodus through Deuteronomy)? I'm sorry, but I haven't a clue. Even after going to this link, and being informed that one represents the Absolute State and the other the Construct State, I still don't have a clue. Which is to say: I think I understand the grammar, what I don't understand is the theology.
22:20 HA LO ACHAN BEN ZERACH MA'AL MA'AL BA CHEREM VE AL KOL ADAT YISRA-EL HAYAH KATSEPH VE HU ISH ECHAD LO GAVA BA AVONO
MIZBE'ACH...MIZBACH: The three tribes' altar is called a MIZBE'ACH, whereas the one in "mainland" Yisra-El is a MIZBACH. Without the nekudot (pointing) we could not make this distinction, yet whoever put in the nekudot clearly believed it was necessary - two words apart is surely too close to have been a scribal error. So what is the difference between a MIZBE'ACH and a MIZBACH (and we have noted the variation on many occasions from Exodus through Deuteronomy)? I'm sorry, but I haven't a clue. Even after going to this link, and being informed that one represents the Absolute State and the other the Construct State, I still don't have a clue. Which is to say: I think I understand the grammar, what I don't understand is the theology.
22:20 HA LO ACHAN BEN ZERACH MA'AL MA'AL BA CHEREM VE AL KOL ADAT YISRA-EL HAYAH KATSEPH VE HU ISH ECHAD LO GAVA BA AVONO
הֲלֹוא עָכָן בֶּן זֶרַח מָעַל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם וְעַל כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה קָצֶף וְהוּא אִישׁ אֶחָד לֹא גָוַע בַּעֲוֹנֹו
KJ: Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? and that man perished not alone in his iniquity.
BN: "Did not Achan ben Zerach commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Yisra-El? That man did not perish alone in his iniquity."
Accusatory again; the finger is back in the face.
ACHAN: In Joshua 7 - and I too remembered him, and raised what he did, back at verse 9 of this chapter. But the sin of Achan had to do with the taking of booty, and nothing to do with the matter in hand here - or are the envoys offering that as a second supposition: that they have built this altar to sacrifice some of the booty, to make themselves clean in the matter of taking it? But Yehoshu'a told all the people very clearly, in verse 8 - "take your booty and go back to your tents"; so this supposition too must be false. And still they haven't given the two-and-a-half tribes the opportunity to explain the whats and wherefores.
pey break
22:21 VA YA'ANU BENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD VA CHATSI SHEVET HA MENASHEH VA YEDABRU ET RA'SHEY ALPHEY YISRA-EL
pey break
22:21 VA YA'ANU BENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD VA CHATSI SHEVET HA MENASHEH VA YEDABRU ET RA'SHEY ALPHEY YISRA-EL
וַיַּעֲנוּ בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֶת רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: Then the Beney Re'u-Ven and the Beney Gad and the half tribe of Menasheh answered, and said to the heads of the leadership of Yisra-El:
RA'SHEY ALPHEY YISRA-EL: verses 13 and 14 were very precise about who was in the delegation: led by Pinchas ben El-Azar, the High Priest, with ASARAH NESIYIM, ten "princes", which suggests clan sheikhs, where RA'SHEY ALPHEY YISRA-EL are usually reckoned to be battallion commanders. And it is entirely possible that the "princes" and the "battallion commanders" were the same people, changing roles as needed by circumstance, but the former would have come to the meeting in white bernous and keffiyeh, the latter in kilt and sword-belt. And it is in the response of the three tribes that they are being described this way, so clearly this was how the three tribes must have understood their presence, however they were dressed. (But - see verse 30, where the Ra'shey are included in the delegation, separately from the Nesiyim, even though they weren't mentioned in verses 13 and/or 14: sloppy writing! And if they are two different groups of people, the ten plus Pinchas named while the military escort somehow got overlooked, why is the response here directed at the military escorts, and not at the politicians? Maybe it isn't such sloppy writing after all!).
22:22 EL ELOHIM YHVH EL ELOHIM YHVH HU YODE'A VE YISRA-EL HU YODE'A IM BE MERED VE IM BE MA'AL BA YHVH AL TOSHI'EYNU HA YOM HA ZEH
אֵל אֱלֹהִים יְהוָה אֵל אֱלֹהִים יְהוָה הוּא יֹדֵעַ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא יֵדָע אִם בְּמֶרֶד וְאִם בְּמַעַל בַּיהוָה אַל תֹּושִׁיעֵנוּ הַיֹּום הַזֶּה
BN: "El Elohim YHVH, El Elohim YHVH knows, and Yisra-El knows; if this were a rebellion, or if this were a transgression against YHVH, do not spare us this day...
El Elohim YHVH: "The Lord god of gods" is a favoured translation... But see my pages on EL, ELOHIM and YHVH... this is an extraordinary statement of polytheism, even more than describing YHVH as YHVH TSEVA'OT, which is common throughout the Tanach. Until now, in the Book of Joshua, we have only heard of YHVH - try a word-search: the name Elohim has not even been used in connection with other nations (Eloheynu with a more general meaning has been used frequently). Yet here we have the Father of Fathers, so to speak, EL himself, and the full polytheon of gods and goddesses who are ELOHIM, as well as the volcano-god of Midyan, YHVH, who they have brought in symbolic form inside the Mishkan.
And they are starting their response by evoking these names - for what reason? Do they regard their brethren as having becoming idolators, because they have ceased worshipping the All and have begun worshipping the One? Are they then cleaning themselves from the impurity that has placed on them? We shall have to wait for the rest of their response to know.
As to the form and structure, the technique belongs to the Psalms, where the use of parallels and repetition is standard; but even so it remains an oddity, because this is a diplomatic exchange at the brink of war, and the form is that of a prayer or a hymn or a religious chant of some kind, and not at all what we - indeed they, the listeners - might have expected.
So is this a hostile riposte, a carefully phrased surrender, or at least withdrawal, or simply the clarification of a minunderstanding by the tribes east of the Yarden? The last phrase, indeed the tone of the entire verse, conveys deep anxiety, and a most definite assertion of innocence.
MA'AL: see verses 16 and 20, and again in verse 31.
22:23 LIVNOT LANU MIZBE'ACH LASHUV ME ACHAREY YHVH VE IM LEHA'ALOT ALAV OLAH U MINCHAH VE IM LA'ASOT ALAV ZIVCHEY SHELAMIM YHVH HU YEVAKESH
As to the form and structure, the technique belongs to the Psalms, where the use of parallels and repetition is standard; but even so it remains an oddity, because this is a diplomatic exchange at the brink of war, and the form is that of a prayer or a hymn or a religious chant of some kind, and not at all what we - indeed they, the listeners - might have expected.
So is this a hostile riposte, a carefully phrased surrender, or at least withdrawal, or simply the clarification of a minunderstanding by the tribes east of the Yarden? The last phrase, indeed the tone of the entire verse, conveys deep anxiety, and a most definite assertion of innocence.
MA'AL: see verses 16 and 20, and again in verse 31.
22:23 LIVNOT LANU MIZBE'ACH LASHUV ME ACHAREY YHVH VE IM LEHA'ALOT ALAV OLAH U MINCHAH VE IM LA'ASOT ALAV ZIVCHEY SHELAMIM YHVH HU YEVAKESH
לִבְנֹות לָנוּ מִזְבֵּחַ לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה וְאִם לְהַעֲלֹות עָלָיו עֹולָה וּמִנְחָה וְאִם לַעֲשֹׂות עָלָיו זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים יְהוָה הוּא יְבַקֵּשׁ
BN: "... if we have indeed built an altar for ourselves in order to turn away from following YHVH; but if it was done in order to offer on it burnt offerings and meat offerings, or if it was done in order to offer peace offerings, as YHVH himself requires...
MIZBE'ACH: Note that the three tribes use the Absolute, and not the Construct form (see verse 19); deliberately, we have to presume, to make a point (but what point: I think that, rather than the grammatical, the difference lies in the status of the altar, with the MIZBE'ACH being the true and proper altar, and anything else a mere MIZBACH; so for Pinchas to have called it a MIZBACH demeaned and diminished it, and for the responder to insist on MIZBE'ACH restored its dignity, in his side's eyes anyway.
IM LEHA'ALOT: "If it were..." does not actually tell anyone why they have built it. You're not going to ask us why we have built it, but just make hostile assumptions; fine; we're not going to tell you why you we've built it, but smply throw back at you a range of perfectly reasonable assumptions that you might have made. Don't you just love aggressive diplomacy!
22:24 VE IM LO MI DE'AGAH MI DAVAR ASIYNU ET ZOT LEMOR MACHAR YOMRU VENEYCHEM LE VANEYNU LEMOR MAH LACHEM VE LA YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL
22:24 VE IM LO MI DE'AGAH MI DAVAR ASIYNU ET ZOT LEMOR MACHAR YOMRU VENEYCHEM LE VANEYNU LEMOR MAH LACHEM VE LA YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL
וְאִם לֹא מִדְּאָגָה מִדָּבָר עָשִׂינוּ אֶת זֹאת לֵאמֹר מָחָר יֹאמְרוּ בְנֵיכֶם לְבָנֵינוּ לֵאמֹר מַה לָּכֶם וְלַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ: And if we have not rather done it for fear of this thing, saying, In time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What have ye to do with the LORD God of Israel?
BN: "... but what if, just maybe, we have done it for fear of this very thing, saying: 'In time to come your children might speak to our children, saying: “What have you to do with YHVH the god of Yisra-El?...
VE IM LO: Sarcasm? Almost condescending sarcasm. And now I am going to answer the question that you should have asked. And maybe, for the future, I will have taught you some diplomatic skills into the bargain.
22:25 U GEVUL NATAN YHVH BEYNENU U VEYNEYCHEM BENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD ET HA YARDEN EYN LACHEM CHELEK BA YHVH VE HISHBIYTU VENEYCHEM ET BANEYNU LE VILTI YER'O ET YHVH
וּגְבוּל נָתַן יְהוָה בֵּינֵנוּ וּבֵינֵיכֶם בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן אֵין לָכֶם חֵלֶק בַּיהוָה וְהִשְׁבִּיתוּ בְנֵיכֶם אֶת בָּנֵינוּ לְבִלְתִּי יְרֹא אֶת יְהוָה
BN: "'“For YHVH has made the Yarden a boundary between us and you, you Beney Re'u-Ven and Beney Gad; you have no part in YHVH. So shall your children make our children cease from fearing YHVH.'”
Odd that only Re'u-Ven and Gad get this accusation; presumably, among the many assumptions and presumptions in this conflict of words and accusations, there is a (probably false) assumption that the Yarden will not constitute a barrier for East Menasheh, because of the familial connection with West Menasheh...
Complicated punctuation, a man speaking, then quoting somebody who is quoting somebody: three layers of speech marks.
22:26 VA NOMER NA'ASEH NA LANU LIVNOT ET HA MIZBE'ACH LO LE OLAH VE LO LE ZAVACH
22:26 VA NOMER NA'ASEH NA LANU LIVNOT ET HA MIZBE'ACH LO LE OLAH VE LO LE ZAVACH
וַנֹּאמֶר נַעֲשֶׂה נָּא לָנוּ לִבְנֹות אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא לְעֹולָה וְלֹא לְזָבַח
BN: "Therefore we said: 'Let us now prepare to build ourselves an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice...
So the two "reasons", given as possible "assumptions" in verse 23, were not the "reasons" at all, as we suspected, but simply a way of responding to the outrageous hostility of the visiting emissaries.
22:27 KI ED HU BEYNEYNU U VEYNEYCHEM U VEYN DOROTEYNU ACHAREYNU LA'AVOD ET AVODAT YHVH LEPHANAV BE OLOTEYNU U VIZVACHEYNU U VISHLAMEYNU VE LO YOMRU VENEYCHEM MACHAR LE VANEYNU EYN LACHEM CHELEK BA YHVH
כִּי עֵד הוּא בֵּינֵינוּ וּבֵינֵיכֶם וּבֵין דֹּרֹותֵינוּ אַחֲרֵינוּ לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת יְהוָה לְפָנָיו בְּעֹלֹותֵינוּ וּבִזְבָחֵינוּ וּבִשְׁלָמֵינוּ וְלֹא יֹאמְרוּ בְנֵיכֶם מָחָר לְבָנֵינוּ אֵין לָכֶם חֵלֶק בַּיהוָה
BN: "'But that it may serve as a witness between us and you, and our descendants after us, that we might perform the service of YHVH before him with our burnt offerings, and with our sacrifices, and with our peace offerings; that your children may not say to our children in time to come: “You have no part in YHVH”'...
An interesting piece of socio-politics. There is an expectation that anyone living outside the borders will be regarded as aliens, which raises the question of where precisely those borders are, given the map-details of the last several chapters. And also the matter of those Beney Yisra-El who are doing so - the East Bank of the Yarden functioning for the three tribes much like the settlements in the West Bank today. The text clarifies that Beney Yisra-El are Beney Yisra-El, regardless of which side of the border they are living. "No part in YHVH" refers only to non-Beney Yisra-El.
And of course this would have been a matter of huge importance at the time of the Redaction, with far more Yehudim still living in Babylon-Persia than had returned from exile, or survived the expulsion.
But also a second important lesson. The first we have already extracted: ask before you make accusations. Now this: next time, let the other side know what you are doing, and invite them to the ribbon-cutting ceremony, and now be grateful that the princes are wearing their keffiyehs not their kilts.
And at the same time, not one but now two huge symbols of conquest, not the reason for putting them there of course, but being there they will also ensure that the descendants of the defeated never forget either, and in time use the reminder to overthrow their conquerors. Triumphal arches, cenotaphs, Holocaust memorials, all for the same purpose... to build a better future through the remembering of the past.
22:28 VA NOMER VE HAYAH KI YOMRU ELEYNU VE EL DOROTEYNU MACHAR VE AMARNU RE'U ET TAVNIT MIZBACH YHVH ASHER ASU AVOTEYNU LO LE OLAH VE LO LE ZEVACH KI ED HU BEYNEYNU U VEYNEYCHEM
וַנֹּאמֶר וְהָיָה כִּי יֹאמְרוּ אֵלֵינוּ וְאֶל דֹּרֹתֵינוּ מָחָר וְאָמַרְנוּ רְאוּ אֶת תַּבְנִית מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֲבֹותֵינוּ לֹא לְעֹולָה וְלֹא לְזֶבַח כִּי עֵד הוּא בֵּינֵינוּ וּבֵינֵיכֶם
BN: "Therefore we said that it shall be, when they should say thus to us or to our descendants in time to come, that we may say again: 'Look at the pattern of the altar of YHVH, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it is a witness between us and you...
TAVNIT: Pattern? Is the intention that the Beney Yisra-El had their own design, which was recognisably different from the altars of other cults? If so, what was that design? Have the archaeologists found any evidence of this?
MIZBACH: But when they talk about the future generations, they again call it a Mizbach. Oh, but I am totally bewildered by this one. (Might it be that it's a Mizbe'ach when they perform sacrifice on it, and a Mizbach when they don't? But ZEVACH means "sacrifice", so if they aren't going to sacrifice anything on it, surely it isn't then either a Mizbach or a Mizbe'ach? Utterly bewildered!).
Or is this functioning like the one that Ya'akov and Lavan established (Genesis 31:43 ff), a boundary-marker, but also a peace-treaty.
22:29 CHALIYLAH LANU MIMENU LIMROD BA YHVH VE LASHUV HAYOM ME ACHAREY YHVH LIVNOT MIZBE'ACH LE OLAH LE MINCHAH U LE ZAVACH MILVAD MIZBACH YHVH ELOHEYNU ASHER LIPHNEY MISHKANO
חָלִילָה לָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִמְרֹד בַּיהוָה וְלָשׁוּב הַיֹּום מֵאַחֲרֵי יְהוָה לִבְנֹות מִזְבֵּחַ לְעֹלָה לְמִנְחָה וּלְזָבַח מִלְּבַד מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכָּנֹו
BN: "'On our childrens' lives, why would we rebel against YHVH, and turn this day from following YHVH, to build an altar for burnt offerings, for meat offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of YHVH our god who stands before his tabernacle?'"
CHALILAH: simply cannot be translated as "God forbid", though this is precisely how it does get translated by most Jews today. But how, then? "YHVH forbid" maybe. But "God" - a dualistic Christian concept that has nothing to do with Judaism, then or now: absolutely not. I have gone for something rather more figurative, to convey the heartfelt intent.
And this time theirs is the Mizbe'ach, and the one back on the "mainland" the Mizbach. I leave this to others to explain.
The inference of the statement is that sacrificial altars are not permitted anywhere but centrally. But we know that this was not the case in Yisra-El until David brought the Ark to what would then become Yeru-Shala'im, and only remained so for the time of Shelomoh's reign, after which civil war split the kingdom and the north established its own central shrine. So this passage is anachronistic, an attempt to retroactively validate the centralisation of the Yisra-Elite cult upon the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im. The question that remains is: was this Davidic, which is to say First Temple, or Ezraic, which is to say Second Temple? Evidence elsewhere in this text favours the Davidic.
pey break
22:30 VA YISHM'A PINCHAS HA KOHEN U NESIYEY HA EDAH VE RA'SHEY ALPHEY YISRA-EL ASHER ITO ET HA DEVARIM ASHER DIBRU BENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD U VENEY MENASHEH VA YIYTAV BE EYNEYCHEM
וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר אִתֹּו אֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבְּרוּ בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם
BN: And when Pinchas the Kohen, and the princes of the congregation, and the battallion commanders of Yisra-El who were with him, heard the words that the Beney Re'u-Ven and the Beney Gad and the Beney Menasheh had spoken, it pleased them.
RA'SHEY ALPHEY YISRA-EL: See the parenthesis to my note to verse 21.
There is an irony to this of course, because these are the tribes that will disappear first, lost to Mo-Av and Edom and Amon long before the northern tribes were taken away and destroyed forever by Sennacherib. The scale of that irony is affected by our dating of the piece - was it before or after that event?
VA YIYTAV BE EYNEYCHEM: It did more than please them actually; it reinforced the core statement of the faith. How, because there are many ways of saying that it pleased them, of which this is not just the most poetical, but the one used for YHVH, on each evening that he looked back at the sum of the day's Creation; cf Genesis 1:4, 10, 12...
22:31 VA YOMER PINCHAS BEN EL-AZAR HA KOHEN EL BENEY RE'U-VEN VE EL BENEY GAD VE EL BENEY MENASHEH HAYOM YADA'NU KI VETOCHENU YHVH ASHER LO ME'ALTEM BA YHVH HA MA'AL HA ZEH AZ HITSALTEM ET BENEY YISRA'EL MI YAD YHVH
וַיֹּאמֶר פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְאֶל בְּנֵי גָד וְאֶל בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה הַיֹּום יָדַעְנוּ כִּי בְתֹוכֵנוּ יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא מְעַלְתֶּם בַּיהוָה הַמַּעַל הַזֶּה אָז הִצַּלְתֶּם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיַּד יְהוָה
BN: Then Pinchas ben El-Azar the Kohen said to the Beney Re'u-Ven, and to the Beney Gad, and to the Beney Menasheh: "Today we know that YHVH is among us, because you have not committed this trespass against YHVH; now you have delivered the Beney Yisra-El out of the hand of YHVH."
ME'ALTEM: And a further irony in the key word in these verses. Me'altem. From the same root that gives Olah, an offering, and Aliyah, and many another word connected with the central shrine and the worship thereat.
HITSALTEM: You have delivered the Beney Yisra-El out of the hand of YHVH. Yes, but only by delivering them up into the hand of YHVH. It cuts both ways.
22:32 VA YASHAV PINCHAS BEN EL-AZAR HA KOHEN VE HA NESIYIM ME ET BENEY RE'U-VEN U ME ET BENEY GAD ME ERETS HA GIL'AD EL ERETS KENA'AN EL BENEY YISRA-EL VA YASHIVU OTAM DAVAR
וַיָּשָׁב פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְהַנְּשִׂיאִים מֵאֵת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּמֵאֵת בְּנֵי גָד מֵאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּשִׁבוּ אֹותָם דָּבָר
BN: And Pinchas ben El-Azar the Kohen , and the princes, returned from the Beney Re'u-Ven, and from the Beney Gad, out of the land of Gil'ad, to the land of Kena'an, to the Beney Yisra-El, and brought back word to them.
The battallion commanders have been left out again - funny that they only got the one mention, and that at the point when the threats were being made. For the rest, a perfectly civilian diplomatic embassy.
22:33 VA YIYTAV HA DAVAR BE EYNEY BENEY YISRA-EL VA YEVARACHU ELOHIM BENEY YISRA-EL VE LO AMRU LA'ALOT ALEYHEM LA TSAVA LECHACHET ET HA ARETS ASHER BENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD YOSHVIM BAH
וַיִּיטַב הַדָּבָר בְּעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיְבָרֲכוּ אֱלֹהִים בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לַעֲלֹות עֲלֵיהֶם לַצָּבָא לְשַׁחֵת אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד יֹשְׁבִים בָּהּ
BN: And this news pleased the Beney Yisra-El; and Elohim blessed the Beney Yisra-El, and did not tell them to go up against them in battle, to destroy the land in which the Beney Re'u-Ven and Gad dwelt.
DAVAR: "Thing"! Surely the translators, who have seen this word in a dozen different usages, and translated it as "word" just four words ago, could have come up with something better than "thing"?
VA YEVARCHU ELOHIM BENEY YISRA-EL: Which way round is this? Most English translations have the Beney Yisra-El blessing Elohim, for having saved them from going to war; but the sense of the phrase that follows is that Elohim is blessing the Beney Yisra-El, for sending diplomats to talk peace rather than following the instinct expressed in verse 12; as a reward for which Elohim now does not tell them to go to war. The problem is twofold; first the missing ET (see my commentary in Genesis 1:1 for an explanation of this quaint but significant grammatical form): VA YEVARACHU ELOHIM ET BENEY YISRA-EL would be much clearer (though still not grammatically correct). Secondly the plural form of Elohim; if the phrase had YHVH instead of ELOHIM it would read VA YEVARECH YHVH ET BENEY YISRA-EL; or, if it read VA YEVARACHU YHVH BENEY YISRA-EL, the singular verb even without the ET would allow us to translate this as "the Beney Yisra-El blessed YHVH". As you can see above, I have chosen to translate this as Elohim giving the blessing and the reward, rather than the other way around. But it remains open to debate.
Note that Menasheh has once again been dropped from the phrasing. Re'u-Ven and Gad will disappear from Yisra-Eli history very quickly, absorbed and assimilated into Mo-Av and Amon, and ultimately Edom (Idumea, in the Roman period) just as has been predictable from the moment they asked to stay out, and endorsed by the disingenuities and equivocalities of the chapter we have justread; Menasheh, however, will remain in Yisra-El - or, at least, the half inside Yisra-El will.
Elohim again, not YHVH - has a second text been intermingled here?
Interesting how ready these religious fundamentalists were to turn against their own tribal brethren, as soon as they even heard a rumour of a breach of the religious cult.
22:34 VA YIKRE'U BENEY RE'U-VEN U VENEY GAD LA MIZBE'ACH KI ED HU BEYNOTEYNU KI YHVH HA ELOHIM
וַיִּקְרְאוּ בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כִּי עֵד הוּא בֵּינֹתֵינוּ כִּי יְהוָה הָאֱלֹהִים
BN: And the Beney Re'u-Ven and the Beney Gad named the altar Ed; for it shall be a witness between us that YHVH is god.
MIZBE'ACH: It was fairly clear from verse 19, that Mizbe'ach reflected the good and proper, while a Mizbach left behind some doubts and uncertainties. So calling it a Mizbe'ach now confirms that whatever they built has now been approved as kosher by all parties.
ED: The word means "witness", and presumably had the same connotation as a war memorial would have today. I made a connection (at verse 28) with the Matsevah ("pillar") that Ya'akov and Lavan erected to symbolise their covenant; Lavan described that pillar as an "Ed" in Genesis 31:44.
But which shrine was this? The inference is that this is why Gal-Ed was called Gal-Ed, and that it has been built just now; but (see the link) the place has had that name for a very long time before this. Were there more than one bearing the same name? Or is something key missing from the text - perhaps the name given here is an explanation of the name of the altar, not the actual place itself.
pey break
No comments:
Post a Comment