24:1 VA YE'ESOPH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL SHIVTEY YISRA-EL SHECHEMAH VA YIKRA LE ZIKNEY YISRA-EL U LE RA'SHAV U LE SHOPHTAV U LE SHOTRAV VA YITYATSVU LIPHNEY HA ELOHIM
וַיֶּאֶסֹף יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת כָּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁכֶמָה וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְרָאשָׁיו וּלְשֹׁפְטָיו וּלְשֹׁטְרָיו וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים
BN (BibleNet translation): And Yehoshua gathered all the tribes of Yisra-El together at Shechem, and summoned the elders of Yisra-El, and their tribal chieftains, and their judges, and their magistrates; and they presented themselves before the gods.
Why Shechem now, not Shiloh, or Gil-Gal?
Why Ha Elohim now, when it was YHVH until the last chapter? Indeed, only these very last chapters have mentioned Elohim at all; the remainder of the book, like most of Va Yera (Leviticus) and Ba Midbar (Numbers), has been YHVH. And this is Ha Elohim, not even simple Elohim: the entire pantheon.
SHOTRAV: From the root, SHATAR, this should really be translated as "scribes", which may be the source of the Secretary of State in the modern world (though Hillary Clinton seemed to think that role was all about doing the Presidents' emails on her home computer). Given the fact that literacy was a scarce commodity in Joshuaic times, anyone who could write - which either meant carving in stone or scratching in wax tablet - was likely to be regarded as brainy, and therefore included in the councils; but there is also a possibility, drawn from the use of the word in various texts (Numbers 11:16, Deuteronomy 16:18, 1 Chronicles 23:4 et al) that the SHOPHET was a Judge, but a SHOTAR was a Magistrate; and the surprising further evidence for this comes from Norman England, where the Jews were permitted to have their own court - the Beit Din - to determine legal matters within the community, and it was known as the Chamber of the Shetars; later, when the Jews had been expelled, the name was retained, as the Star Chamber.
24:2 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A EL KOL HA AM KOH AMAR YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL BE EVER HA NAHAR YASHVU AVOTEYCHEM ME OLAM TERACH AVI AV-RAHAM VA AVI NACHOR VA YA'AVDU ELOHIM ACHERIM
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל כָּל הָעָם כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר יָשְׁבוּ אֲבֹותֵיכֶם מֵעֹולָם תֶּרַח אֲבִי אַבְרָהָם וַאֲבִי נָחֹור וַיַּעַבְדוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים
BN: And Yehoshu'a said to all the people: "Thus says YHVH, the god of Yisra-El: 'Your fathers dwelt on the far side of the river in ancient times, even Terach, the father of Av-Raham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods...
This is a HUGE statement. Av-Raham's people worshipped other gods; which means that Av-Raham was brought up worshipping other gods. So was "Lech Lecha" his old god, or his new one? We know that he worshipped El Shadai (and may even have been El Shadai himself in the earliest versions of the myth; at the very least his sacred priest-king).
HA NAHAR: Why does KJ translate this as "flood", which was the MABUL, where this is NAHAR, which it has translated hundreds of times, eprfectly correctly, as "river"?
TERACH: See the link.
NACHOR: See the link.
24:3 VA EKACH ET AVIYCHEM ET AV-RAHAM ME EVER HA NAHAR VA OLECH OTO BE CHOL ERETS KENA'AN VE ARBEH ET ZARO VE ETEN LO ET YITSCHAK
וָאֶקַּח אֶת אֲבִיכֶם אֶת אַבְרָהָם מֵעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וָאֹולֵךְ אֹותֹו בְּכָל אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן [וָאֶרֶב כ] (וָאַרְבֶּה ק) אֶת זַרְעֹו וָאֶתֶּן לֹו אֶת יִצְחָק
BN: "'And I took your forefather Av-Raham from the other side of the river, and led him through all the land of Kena'an, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Yitschak...
AV-RAHAM: Actually he took Av-Ram (Genesis 12); his name is only changed to Av-Raham at the time of their formal covenant, in Genesis 17, specifically verse 5.
ARBEH: "Multiplied" may be overstating. Two sons - unless this intends the inclusion of what are now Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, which is implicit in the account of his fathering numerous sons on Keturah in his extreme old age (Genesis 25).
YITSCHAK: And Yishma-El too, but this tends to be forgotten in the Jewish world.
Speaking of Av-Raham - Yehoshua's life is rather sad: begun in slavery in Mitsrayim (Egypt), 40 years of crossing the desert, and then wars until his death. And what has been achieved at the end of it? A return to precisely where Av-Raham was, centuries earlier, an unwanted foreign power, accepted only because of his military muscle, limited in the areas he can inhabit, in a land of other gods. Just like today.
24:4 VE ETEN LE YITSCHAK ET YA'AKOV VE ET ESAV VE ETEN LE ESAV ET HAR SE'IR LARESHET OTO VE YA'AKOV U VANAV YARDU MITSRAYIM
Speaking of Av-Raham - Yehoshua's life is rather sad: begun in slavery in Mitsrayim (Egypt), 40 years of crossing the desert, and then wars until his death. And what has been achieved at the end of it? A return to precisely where Av-Raham was, centuries earlier, an unwanted foreign power, accepted only because of his military muscle, limited in the areas he can inhabit, in a land of other gods. Just like today.
24:4 VE ETEN LE YITSCHAK ET YA'AKOV VE ET ESAV VE ETEN LE ESAV ET HAR SE'IR LARESHET OTO VE YA'AKOV U VANAV YARDU MITSRAYIM
וָאֶתֵּן לְיִצְחָק אֶת יַעֲקֹב וְאֶת עֵשָׂו וָאֶתֵּן לְעֵשָׂו אֶת הַר שֵׂעִיר לָרֶשֶׁת אֹותֹו וְיַעֲקֹב וּבָנָיו יָרְדוּ מִצְרָיִם
BN: "'And I gave Ya'akov and Esav to Yitschak; and I gave Mount Se'ir to Esav as a possession; but Ya'akov and his children went down into Mitsrayim.
YA'AKOV: See the link.
ESAV: See the link.
MOUNT SE'IR: See the link.
MITSRAYIM: Egypt. Why is there not a dative suffix? "To Egypt" should be MITSRAYEMAH.
24:5 VE ESHLACH ET MOSHEH VE ET AHARON VA EGOPH ET MITSRAYIM KA ASHER ASIYTI BE KIRBO VE ACHAR HOTSE'TI ET'CHEM
וָאֶשְׁלַח אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְאֶת אַהֲרֹן וָאֶגֹּף אֶת מִצְרַיִם כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי בְּקִרְבֹּו וְאַחַר הֹוצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם
BN: "'Then I sent Mosheh and Aharon, and I plagued Mitsrayim with all the things that I did to them: and afterwards I brought you out.
24:6 VA OTSIY ET AVOTEYCHEM MI MITSRAYIM VA TAVO'U HA YAMAH VA YIRDEPHU MITSRAYIM ACHAREY AVOTEYCHEM BE RECHEV U VE PHARASHIM YAM SUPH
וָאוֹצִיא אֶת אֲבֹותֵיכֶם מִמִּצְרַיִם וַתָּבֹאוּ הַיָּמָּה וַיִּרְדְּפוּ מִצְרַיִם אַחֲרֵי אֲבֹותֵיכֶם בְּרֶכֶב וּבְפָרָשִׁים יַם סוּף
BN: "'And I brought your ancestors out of Mitsrayim: and you came to the sea; and Mitsrayim pursued after your forebears with chariots and horsemen, all the way across the Sea of Reeds.
AVOTEYCHEM: Given that we are only about fifty years from the events, "grandparents" may be a better translation than either "fathers", "forebears" or "ancestors".
YAMAH: Yes, but which sea? Legend has them crossing the Red Sea, but see my notes throughout the Book of Exodus discrediting that impossibility. YAM SUPH means "the sea at the end", and infers the bourning of a river - there isn't one from the desert into the Red Sea until you reach the Yarden, and that dried up thousands of years ago, probably at the time that the volcano erupted, wiping out the Cities of the Plain, creating the Yam Ha Melach (Dead Sea), and thereby preventing the Yarden from continuing its journey southwards. But the wilderness journey started in Goshen, which is the Nile Delta, which is precisely the bourning of the river, into the Mediterranean, and the Egyptians knew it as the "Sea of Reeds" from the vast amounts of bulrushes of multiple species that flourished there. At the end of the wilderness journey the Beney Yisra-El spent several years based around the Yam Ha Melach (Dead Sea), but it is clearly not that which is intended here.
24:7 VA YITS'AKU EL YHVH VA YASEM MA'APHEL BEYNEYCHEM U VEYN HA MITSRIM VA YAV'E ALAV ET HA YAM VA YECHASEHU VA TIR'EYNAH EYNEYCHEM ET ASHER ASIYTI BE MITSRAYIM VA TESHVU VA MIDBAR YAMIM RABIM
וַיִּצְעֲקוּ אֶל יְהוָה וַיָּשֶׂם מַאֲפֵל בֵּינֵיכֶם וּבֵין הַמִּצְרִים וַיָּבֵא עָלָיו אֶת הַיָּם וַיְכַסֵּהוּ וַתִּרְאֶינָה עֵינֵיכֶם אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי בְּמִצְרָיִם וַתֵּשְׁבוּ בַמִּדְבָּר יָמִים רַבִּים
KJ: And when they cried unto the LORD, he put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon them, and covered them; and your eyes have seen what I have done in Egypt: and ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season.
BN: "'And when they cried out to YHVH, he put darkness between you and the Mitsrim, and brought the sea upon them, and covered them; and your eyes have seen what I have done in Mitsrayim; and you dwelt in the wilderness for many days...
VA YASEM MA'APHEL: Why the sudden change to the 3rd person when YHVH is saying all this in the 1st person? And then an equally odd change back.
24:8 VA AVI'AH ET'CHEM EL ERETS HA EMORI HA YOSHEV BE EVER HA YARDEN VA YILACHAMU IT'CHEM VE ETEN OTAM BE YEDCHEM VA TIRSHU ET ARTSAM VA ASHMIDEM MIPENEYCHEM
וָאָבִאָה כ] (וָאָבִיא ק) אֶתְכֶם אֶל אֶרֶץ הָאֱמֹרִי הַיֹּושֵׁב בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ אִתְּכֶם וָאֶתֵּן אֹותָם בְּיֶדְכֶם וַתִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצָם וָאַשְׁמִידֵם מִפְּנֵיכֶם
BN: "'And I brought you into the land of the Emori, who dwelt on the far side of the Yarden; and they fought with you, and I gave them into your hand, that you might possess their land; and I destroyed them from before you...
How strange that he jumps from the Sea of Reeds to the land of the Emori, and nothing of the 40-year journey, nothing of the Ten Commandments and the giving of the Law and the making of the Mishkan; none of the negative either, but surely he would want to remind them of the most important, the Sinaitic moments? (Or maybe he was very young when they came out of Mitsrayim, became one of Mosheh's "ministers", like David for Sha'ul, as a teenager, after Sinai, and therefore the events at Sinai weren't something he was really aware of, just stuff his parents were involved with, while he was confined to his tent. Whereas, what happened later was personal involvement... though, even if that is the explanation, still surprising that he doesn't reminisce about his spying trip to Kena'an).
So it is not exactly like Mosheh in his final discourse, because Mosheh goes for the jugular of the negatives without respite; but the core purpose, the need to tell them what they should already know, in order to reiterate it, to reinforce it, to make it matter one last time, that is the same. But it is also, for the creator of this text, a vital literary device - the means by which a much later writer can inform a much later generation of its history, while making it feel personal. And given that alphabetic writing had not yet been invented, and the concept of a "Book of Joshua", ike the five books of Torah preceding it, can at best have been a few clay tablets and a lot of oral tradition which the bardic priests and prophets learned by heart and recited at every opportunity, this repetition of the core elements of "history" becomes essential to the establishment of theology at any given moment. And the beauty of oral tradition, rather than a written document like the Tanach, is the same as the difference between a Democracy like the United Kingdom and a Republic like the United States. The oral tradition is whatever you recite now, and can be adapted to present needs and circumstances; the written text becomes a Constitution, and exists to be upheld forever, immuatble and unchanging. From Yehoshu'a's time, until Ezra's fully a thousand years later, there appears to have been very little written tradition, other than the writing down of liturgy for the purpose of orchestration, and everything else, fables, histories, poems, plays, even the laws, were learned by heart and passed on from generation to generation in that manner; so deeply embedded was the convention, it took the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE for the leadership to finally accept that a written tradition was now essential; click here for a fuller account of all this.
24:9 VA YAKAM BALAK BEN TSIPOR MELECH MO-AV VA YILACHEM BE YISRA-EL VA YISHLACH VA YIKRA LE VIL'AM BEN BE'OR LEKALEL ET'CHEM
וַיָּקָם בָּלָק בֶּן צִפֹּור מֶלֶךְ מֹואָב וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּשְׁלַח וַיִּקְרָא לְבִלְעָם בֶּן בְּעֹור לְקַלֵּל אֶתְכֶם
BN: "'Then Balak ben Tsipor, king of Mo-Av, arose and made war against Yisra-El, and sent for Bil'am ben Be'or to curse you.
BALAK BEN TSIPOR: See Numbers 22:2–25:9. For the meaning of his name, see my notes to Numbers 22:2.
MO'AV: See the link.
VIL'AM BEN BE'OR: Vil'am is really Bil'am (Balaam), but the Bet is softened to a Vet after the prefictual preposition LE ("to"). For the meaning of his name, see my notes to Numbers 22:5.
24:10 VE LO AVIYTI LISHMO'A LE VIL'AM VA YEVARECH BARUCH ET'CHEM VA ATSIL ET'CHEM MI YADO
וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם וַיְבָרֶךְ בָּרֹוךְ אֶתְכֶם וָאַצִּל אֶתְכֶם מִיָּדֹו
BN: "'But I refused to listen to Bil'am; and I made him bless you with blessings. So I delivered you out of his hand.
24:11 VA TA'AVRU ET HA YARDEN VA TAVO'U EL YERIYCHO VA YILACHAMU VACHEM BA'ALEY YERIYCHO HA EMORI VE HA PERIZI VE HA KENA'ANI VE HA CHITI VE HA GIRGASHI HA CHIVI VE HA YEVUSI VA ETEN OTAM BE YEDCHEM
וַתַּעַבְרוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן וַתָּבֹאוּ אֶל יְרִיחֹו וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ בָכֶם בַּעֲלֵי יְרִיחֹו הָאֱמֹרִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי וָאֶתֵּן אֹותָם בְּיֶדְכֶם
BN: "'And you went over the Yarden, and came to Yeriycho: and the men of Yeriycho fought against you, the Emori, and the Perizi, and the Kena'ani, and the Chiti, and the Girgashi, the Chivi, and the Yevusi; and I delivered them into your hand.
And they thought it was Yehoshu'a, their leader, and themselves, with their heroic valour and careful planning; but no, they did nothing; it was all because YHVH sided with them. The next verse makes it even clearer.
Details on all these tribes cane be found in the Dictionary of Names on SurfTheSite.
24:12 VA ESHLACH LIPHNEYCHEM ET HA TSIR'AH VA TEGARESH OTAM MIPNEYCHEM SHENEY MALCHEY HA EMORI LO VE CHARBECHA VE LO VE KASHTECHA
וָאֶשְׁלַח לִפְנֵיכֶם אֶת הַצִּרְעָה וַתְּגָרֶשׁ אֹותָם מִפְּנֵיכֶם שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי לֹא בְחַרְבְּךָ וְלֹא בְקַשְׁתֶּךָ
BN: "'And I sent the hornet before you, which drove them out from before you, even the two kings of the Emori; but not with your sword, nor with your bow.
This hornet has occurred in the Biblical texts before, most obviously in Exodus 23:28 (see my notes there, which will also redirect you to Judges 13), and always leaving behind questions as to what exactly it is, or represents. What we can say is that, like other of YHVH's interventions, it is a natural not a miraculous phenomenon (and slightly surprising, given their repeatedness and their success, that modern Israel's fighter planes are not known as Tsirah jets). Not be confused with the bumble bee (Devorah), a similar creature in nature, but entirely different in mythology.
The root, TSAR'A, has the sense of a scourge, or something being struck, even strick down. In my note to Exodus 23:28, which is the source of Yehoshu'a's comment in this verse, I have suggested that the root may be TSARAR... you can follow the hypothesis through there... and the word in the text therefore a scribal error. The scourge, however, is endorsed by 23:29, which describes the effect of the TSIR'AH in much the manner of the Ten Plagues, and especially the locusts. Deuteronomy 7:20 also makes reference to the Exodus incident.
There is also a town named Tsar'ah (see my notes there), in Yehudah but inhabited by Beney Dan, in Joshua 15:33 and 19:41, with further mentions in Judges 13:2 (where it turns out to Shimshon's home-town: and no surprise at that, the yellow hornet at the home of the sun-god), 1 Chronicles 2:53 and 4:2.
An interesting side-note to this, which also endorses the "scourge" hypothesis, is TSARA'AT, from the same root; this the word used to describe whatever it was that happened to Mir-Yam in Numbers 12, described as a punishment for her criticism of Mosheh's choice of wife, described physically as YHVH coming down from his pillar of cloud to talk to Mir-Yam and Aharon in verse 5, and Mir-Yam being left with her skin coated white (verse 10) - YHVH at that time is clearly a volcanic eruption taking place, and the whiteness is the dust-cloud, but the ancients had no understanding of this, and TSARA'AT is invariably regarded as "leprosy" (the speed of her recovery is evidence sufficient that it cannot have been that incurable disease).
24:13 VA ETEN LACHEM ERETS ASHER LO YAGA'TA BAH VE ARIM ASHER LO VENIYTEM VA TESHVU BA HEM KERAMIM VE ZEYTIM ASHER LO NETA'TEM ATEM OCHLIM
וָאֶתֵּן לָכֶם אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָגַעְתָּ בָּהּ וְעָרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא בְנִיתֶם וַתֵּשְׁבוּ בָּהֶם כְּרָמִים וְזֵיתִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא נְטַעְתֶּם אַתֶּם אֹכְלִים
BN: "'And I have given you a land for which you did not labour, and cities which you did not build, and you dwell in them; and you eat from the vineyards and oliveyards which you did not plant'...
This appears to end in mid-sentence; if you jump to the next verse, that has to be Yehoshu'a himself speaking, rather than reciting in the name of the deity.
The verse invites several difficult questions: a) why did he (YHVH or Yehoshu'a as you please) destroy those early cities so completely, but then stop? b) why does the text repeatedly tell us that they did build these cities? c) is this simply an early example of "manifest destiny". What it mostly does is to provide yet one more example of the normal modus operandi of the human race: conquest, justified in the name of an imaginary deity; but of course what you won in war was probably only theirs because they conquered someone else in order to acquire it, and it will only belong to you until someone takes it away from you by the same means. Both of which statements are central to Yehoshu'a's speech now, and Mosheh at the end of Deuteronomy. What a ridiculously stupid way of running human affairs.
24:14 VE ATAH YER'U ET YHVH VE IVDU OTO BE TAMIM U VE EMET VE HASIYRU ET ELOHIM ASHER AVDU AVOTEYCHEM BE EVER HA NAHAR U VE MITSRAYIM VE IVDU ET YHVH
The verse invites several difficult questions: a) why did he (YHVH or Yehoshu'a as you please) destroy those early cities so completely, but then stop? b) why does the text repeatedly tell us that they did build these cities? c) is this simply an early example of "manifest destiny". What it mostly does is to provide yet one more example of the normal modus operandi of the human race: conquest, justified in the name of an imaginary deity; but of course what you won in war was probably only theirs because they conquered someone else in order to acquire it, and it will only belong to you until someone takes it away from you by the same means. Both of which statements are central to Yehoshu'a's speech now, and Mosheh at the end of Deuteronomy. What a ridiculously stupid way of running human affairs.
24:14 VE ATAH YER'U ET YHVH VE IVDU OTO BE TAMIM U VE EMET VE HASIYRU ET ELOHIM ASHER AVDU AVOTEYCHEM BE EVER HA NAHAR U VE MITSRAYIM VE IVDU ET YHVH
וְעַתָּה יְראוּ אֶת יְהוָה וְעִבְדוּ אֹתֹו בְּתָמִים וּבֶאֱמֶת וְהָסִירוּ אֶת אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ אֲבֹותֵיכֶם בְּעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וּבְמִצְרַיִם וְעִבְדוּ אֶת יְהוָה
BN: "Now therefore fear YHVH, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your forefathers served on the other side of the river, and in Mitsrayim; and serve YHVH...
There is now so much J and E intermixed, it almost reads as if Elohim is telling the Beney Yisra-El to worship YHVH.
24:15 VE IM RA BE EYNEYCHEM LA'AVOD ET YHVH BACHARU LACHEM HAYOM ET MI TA'AVODUN IM ET ELOHIM ASHER AVDU AVOTEYCHEM ASHER BE EVER HA NAHAR VE IM ET ELOHEY HA EMORI ASHER ATEM YOSHVIM BE ARTSAM VE ANOCHI U VEITI NA'AVOD ET YHVH
וְאִם רַע בְּעֵינֵיכֶם לַעֲבֹד אֶת יְהוָה בַּחֲרוּ לָכֶם הַיֹּום אֶת מִי תַעֲבֹדוּן אִם אֶת אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ אֲבֹותֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר [בְּעֵבֶר כ] (מֵעֵבֶר ק) הַנָּהָר וְאִם אֶת אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹשְׁבִים בְּאַרְצָם וְאָנֹכִי וּבֵיתִי נַעֲבֹד אֶת יְהוָה
BN: And if it seems bad in your eyes to worship YHVH, choose today who it is that you will worship; whether it be the gods whom your ancestors worshipped on the other side of the river, or the gods of the Emori, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will worship YHVH.
This verse is unquestionably Yehoshu'a. It makes a very clear distinction between ELOHIM ASHER AVDU AVOTEYCHEM, as "the gods whom your ancestors worshipped", ELOHEY HA EMORI, as "the gods of the Emori", and YHVH, as the specific god of Yisra-El. But on which HAR are they supposed to worship him? It is going to be Mor-Yah eventually, but that is not the mountain of YHVH at this epoch. Indeed, based on the curses and blessings in both the Mosaic and Yehoshu'aic stories, and the fact that this is taking place at Shechem, we can construe that the holy mountain at this time was the pairing of Eyval and Gerizim - a conclusion confirmed in the later verses of this chapter (cf especially verse 32).
LA'AVOD: We have explored the strange ambivalence of this word many times, but it has never been so doubly explicit as this before: "serve" and "worship" equally legitimate translations.
HA EMORI: Then they are not themselves Emori (Amorites), despite the claim in Ezekiel 16:2-3: "Son of man, confront Yeru-Shala'im with her abominations and tell her this is what the Lord YHVH says to Yeru-Shala'im: 'Your origin and your birth were in the land of the Kena'ani. Your father was an Emori and your mother a Chiti."
pey break
24:16 VA YA'AN HA AM VA YOMER CHALIYLAH LANU ME AZOV ET YHVH LA'AVOD ELOHIM ACHERIM
וַיַּעַן הָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר חָלִילָה לָּנוּ מֵעֲזֹב אֶת יְהוָה לַעֲבֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים
BN: And the people answered and said: "YHVH forbid that we should forsake YHVH, to serve other gods...
Once again we have the wonderful expression CHALIYLAH, which is sometimes rendered even more strongly as CHAS VE CHALILAH. See my note at Joshua 22:29, where the root and meaning are explained more fully, and where the three tribes across the Yarden make their oath of loyalty in exactly the same words. On this occasion "God forbid" is a near-perfect translation, "near", because the word "God" is unacceptable, because the Germanic deity who represents Zoroastrian dualism is precisely on the list of those deities whom Yehoshu'a is calling on them now to reject."YHVH forbid" - because actually, yes, he did.
24:17 KI YHVH ELOHEYNU HU HA MA'ALEH OTANU VE ET AVOTEYNU MEY ERETS MITSRAYIM MI BEIT AVADIM VA ASHER ASAH LE EYNEYNU ET HA OTOT HA GEDOLOT HA ELEH VA YISHMEREYNU BE CHOL HA DERECH ASHER HALACHNU BAH U VE CHOL HA AMIM ASHER AVARNU BE KIRBAM
כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ הוּא הַמַּעֲלֶה אֹתָנוּ וְאֶת אֲבֹותֵינוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים וַאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְעֵינֵינוּ אֶת הָאֹתֹות הַגְּדֹלֹות הָאֵלֶּה וַיִּשְׁמְרֵנוּ בְּכָל הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר הָלַכְנוּ בָהּ וּבְכֹל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בְּקִרְבָּם
BN: "For YHVH our god, he it was who brought us and our ancestors out of the land of Mitsrayim, from the house of bondage, and who performed those great miracles in our sight, and preserved us along the road that we travelled, and among all the people through whose lands we passed.
Yet more play on the word AVAD, this time between AVAD as slavery and AVAD as worship.
And yet again the play on the word MA'AL, so significant to the Mizbe'ach and Mizbach issue with the three tribes in chapter 22.
(All this, of course, is pure Ezraic propaganda: a means of acculturating religious as well as nationalistic patriotism in the returnees who are building the new Yisra-El, by identifying them with their great ancestors.)
24:18 VA YEGARESH YHVH ET KOL HA AMIM VE ET HA EMORI YOSHEV HA ARETS MI PANEYNU GAM ANACHNU NA'AVOD ET YHVH KI HU ELOHIM
וַיְגָרֶשׁ יְהוָה אֶת כָּל הָעַמִּים וְאֶת הָאֱמֹרִי יֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ מִפָּנֵינוּ גַּם אֲנַחְנוּ נַעֲבֹד אֶת יְהוָה כִּי הוּא אֱלֹהֵינוּ
BN: "And YHVH drove out from before us all the people, even the Emori who dwelt in the land; therefore will we also serve YHVH; for he is our god."
Effectively, though it is unstated, this is yet another ceremony of covenant renewal. See verses 21 and 25 especially.
samech break
24:19 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A EL HA AM LO TUCHLU LA'AVOD ET YHVH KI ELOHIM KEDOSHIM HU EL KANO HU LO YISA LE PHISH'ACHEM U LE CHAT'OTEYCHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל הָעָם לֹא תוּכְלוּ לַעֲבֹד אֶת יְהוָה כִּי אֱלֹהִים קְדֹשִׁים הוּא אֵל קַנֹּוא הוּא לֹא יִשָּׂא לְפִשְׁעֲכֶם וּלְחַטֹּאותֵיכֶם
BN: And Yehoshu'a said to the people: "You will not have the ability to serve YHVH, for he is set apart as a holy god; he is a jealous god; he will not forgive your transgressions, nor your sins...
A moment of irony in the Bible! It has to be irony, because otherwise he is prohibiting them, and clearly that is not his intention. But "you cannot" is imprecise, ambiguous, and this is a presumption of human failings, not a statement of divine interdiction, hence my translation.
YHVH...ELOHIM: A thought, at the very end of these commentaries: is it poossible that YHVH - not in the Mosaic era, when he was the volcanic mountain range of Sinai, but later, in the Ezraic era, when the neighbouring Greeks talked of their pantheon as Olympus - that Elohim was simply the compound name for the Beney Yisra-Eli pantheon, and that the concept of the "god" to these people was still the natural "forces of life", the "kinetic and dynamic impulses" of modern science? Not a superhuman creature at all, but simply a metaphor.
And if so, can we trace the three phases of human intellectual development by formula, Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 in the language of education, Id, Ego and SuperEgo in the language of Freudian psychology, or, following Auguste Comte, the founder of modern Sociology:
The mythological (E = Elohim) [the whole of ancient time]
The metaphysical (E = Ethics) [commenced around the 6th century BCE)
The phenomenological (E = MC²) [still getting started]
The E being, consistently through all these, the Energies that propel Life. See my notes, particularly the concluding note, at Genesis 1:1.
24:20 KI TA'AZVU ET YHVH VA AVADETEM ELOHEY NECHER VE SHAV VE HER'A LACHEM VE CHILAH ET'CHEM ACHAREY ASHER HEYTIV LACHEM
כִּי תַעַזְבוּ אֶת יְהוָה וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֱלֹהֵי נֵכָר וְשָׁב וְהֵרַע לָכֶם וְכִלָּה אֶתְכֶם אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֵיטִיב לָכֶם
KJ: If ye forsake the LORD, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good.
BN: "If you abandon YHVH, and serve other gods, then he will turn on you, and do you harm, and destroy you, even after all the good that he has done for you."
24:21 VA YOMER HA AM EL YEHOSHU'A LO KI ET YHVH NA'AVOD
וַיֹּאמֶר הָעָם אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ לֹא כִּי אֶת יְהוָה נַעֲבֹד
BN: And the people said to Yehoshu'a: "No, we will serve YHVH".
24:22 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A EL HA AM EDIM ATEM BACHEM KI ATEM BECHARTEM LACHEM ET YHVH LA'AVOD OTO VA YOMRU EDIM
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל הָעָם עֵדִים אַתֶּם בָּכֶם כִּי אַתֶּם בְּחַרְתֶּם לָכֶם אֶת יְהוָה לַעֲבֹד אֹותֹו וַיֹּאמְרוּ עֵדִים
BN: And Yehoshu'a said to the people: "You are your own witnesses that you have chosen YHVH for yourselves, to serve and worship him". And they said: "We are witnesses".
LA'AVOD: As per my note at verse 15, I have effectively translated this word twice, because it seems to me that this is the point at which the two meanings of LA'AVOD converge, and we can see why there is one word for what seem like two very different things.
EDIM: Given what happened in the previous chapter, Yehoshua's choice of word here is hugely significant. The altar of the three tribes was precisely this: an ED, a witness (Joshua 22:27).
Once again the tone and form as well as the language suggest that this is not death-bed nostalgia, as we previously thought, but a formal ceremony, perhaps Yehoshu'a's stepping-down ceremony.
And if so, who is appointed as his successor? An important question, because after him comes anarchy, the epoch of the Judges. Did he really fail to provide a successor, a continuity? And if so, does that inform the argument that there never was a Yehoshu'a, that all this Book is pure analogy?
BACHEM: Why "against" and not "for"? "Against" would be "NEGED" but this is "BA", which really means "in" or "at", and therefore needs to be translated positively.
24:23 VE ATAH HASIYRU ET ELOHEY HA NECHAR ASHER BE KIRBECHEM VE HATU ET LEVAVECHEM EL YHVH ELOHEY YISRA'EL
Once again the tone and form as well as the language suggest that this is not death-bed nostalgia, as we previously thought, but a formal ceremony, perhaps Yehoshu'a's stepping-down ceremony.
And if so, who is appointed as his successor? An important question, because after him comes anarchy, the epoch of the Judges. Did he really fail to provide a successor, a continuity? And if so, does that inform the argument that there never was a Yehoshu'a, that all this Book is pure analogy?
BACHEM: Why "against" and not "for"? "Against" would be "NEGED" but this is "BA", which really means "in" or "at", and therefore needs to be translated positively.
24:23 VE ATAH HASIYRU ET ELOHEY HA NECHAR ASHER BE KIRBECHEM VE HATU ET LEVAVECHEM EL YHVH ELOHEY YISRA'EL
וְעַתָּה הָסִירוּ אֶת אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְהַטּוּ אֶת לְבַבְכֶם אֶל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: "Now therefore put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to YHVH the god of Yisra-El."
Two possible readings of this: a) that there are still "strange gods" being worshipped among them; b) that he is instructing them to go out and proselytise among the other, non Yisra-Eli tribes. The latter, given Jewish traditions in this regard, is the less likely. Either way, this is not a confirmation ceremony, but a consecration ceremony.
Some English versions add "said Yehoshua" or "said he" after "now therefore put away"; it is not in the Yehudit text.
24:24 VA YOMRU HA AM EL YEHOSHU'A ET YHVH ELOHEYNU NA'AVOD U VE KOLO NISHM'A
וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָעָם אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ נַעֲבֹד וּבְקֹולֹו נִשְׁמָע
BN: And the people said to Yehoshu'a: "We will serve YHVH our god, and we will obey his voice."
KOLO: Which voice though? The one thundering in the storm of destruction, in the volcano, the earthquake, or the still, small voice of calm? In Christianity, that question would define the distinction between Good and Evil, God and Satan; in Judaism it is both, because YHVH is One.
24:25 VA YICHROT YEHOSHU'A BRIT LA AM BA YOM HA HU VA YASEM LO CHOK U MISHPAT BI SHECHEM
וַיִּכְרֹת יְהֹושֻׁעַ בְּרִית לָעָם בַּיֹּום הַהוּא וַיָּשֶׂם לֹו חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט בִּשְׁכֶם
KJ: So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.
BN: So Yehoshu'a made a covenant with the people that day, and established it as a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.
For reasons that remain unclear (to me), this is not usually counted among the list of covenants; and yet, as noted above and now confirmed here, the covenant is being affirmed ceremonially right now. Is that because it is understood as "covenant renewal", rather than "original covenant"?
And now that it has been officially confirmed that this was indeed a formal covenant ceremony, and knowing the history of Shechem from Genesis, and the role that the city will come to play in the future, can we distinguish Gil-Gal from Shechem from Mitspeh from Yeru-Shala'im in their roles - as we might distinguish the roles of Canterbury Cathedral (purely religious), versus Westminster Abbey (religious but also ceremonial and secular), versus Salisbury Plain (secular and military, but chosen because it was once religious and hosts important religious sites), versus Buckingham Palace (purely secular)?
24:26 VA YICHTOV YEHOSHU'A ET HA DEVARIM HA ELEH BE SEPHER TORAT ELOHIM VAYIKACH EVEN GEDOLAH VA YEKIYMEYHA SHAM TACHAT HA ALAH ASHER BE MIKDASH YHVH
וַיִּכְתֹּב יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּסֵפֶר תֹּורַת אֱלֹהִים וַיִּקַּח אֶבֶן גְּדֹולָה וַיְקִימֶהָ שָּׁם תַּחַת הָאַלָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּמִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה
BN: And Yehoshu'a wrote these words in the book of the law of Elohim, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, which stood at the side of the shrine to YHVH.
VA YICHTOV: By hand, on parchment, or papyrus? And in what language - remember that the Yehudit of this Book of Joshua does not yet exist.
BE SEPHER TORAT ELOHIM: Does that mean the Book of Joshua is a continuation, and we should therefore regard the Torah as the 6 books, not the 5? Many scholars now do, and as such it is known as the Hexateuch; however, there are also those who would include Judges as well, making what is called the Heptateuch.
EVEN GEDOLAH: A stele then, with the text carved upon it? This, rather than papyrus? The Luchot ha Brit - the Ten Commandments - were on stone after all. If it was on parchment, and buried in this manner, the site would have constituted a genizah; and anyway the text would not survive.
Under an oak, which signifies El - so much for "strange" or "foreign" gods. And yet another megalith to confirm it: "our god is not of stone..." in Leviticus 26:1, which infers that this was not originally YHVH anyway - we might have guessed that from the use of Elohim for the name of the Scroll - but presumably changed to YHVH by the Ezraic Redactor.
And would this oak and shrine happen to be the same patch of ground on which Yoseph's bones will be buried, at the end of this chapter? It would make a splendid completion if it was.
samech break
24:27 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A EL KOL HA AM HINEH HA EVEN HA ZOT TIHEYEH BANU LE EDAH KI HI SHAM'AH ET KOL IMREY YHVH ASHER DIBER IMANU VE HAYETAH VACHEM LE EDAH PEN TECHACHASHUN BE ELOHEYCHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל כָּל הָעָם הִנֵּה הָאֶבֶן הַזֹּאת תִּהְיֶה בָּנוּ לְעֵדָה כִּי הִיא שָׁמְעָה אֵת כָּל אִמְרֵי יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר עִמָּנוּ וְהָיְתָה בָכֶם לְעֵדָה פֶּן תְּכַחֲשׁוּן בֵּאלֹהֵיכֶם
BN: And Yehoshu'a said to all the people: "Behold, this stone shall be our witness; for it has heard all the words which YHVH has spoken to us. It shall therefore be a witness to you, lest you deny your god."
The point about the god not being of stone is, surely, that stone is inanimate, and so the stele, or baetyl, or memorial cairn, or dolmen, or menhir, or ka'aba, or whatever this piece of stone may be, can only have a metaphorical function. So it is somewhat surprising to hear Yehoshu'a pretend that the stone has actually heard the anyway unspoken words of YHVH. Its function is thus the same as the World War I memorials all over modern Britain - see it and remember: as such it provides a witness. The same for Lavan and Ya'akov when they make their formal agreement of separation in Genesis 31:45. The same for the three tribes with their "altar" in Joshua 22.
EDAH: From ED = "witness" to EDAH = "congregation" is no great distance, and yes from the same root, and yes, this is the word throughout the Tanach for the assembled worshippers of Yisra-El, and still is, throughout the Jewish world today.
24:28 VA YESHALACH YEHOSHU'A ET HA AM ISH LE NACHALATO
וַיְשַׁלַּח יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת הָעָם אִישׁ לְנַחֲלָתֹו
BN: So Yehoshu'a sent the people away, each man to his own inheritance.
VA YESHALACH: The root means "to send"; the form is Pi'el, which is intensive: this cannot be translated in the way that KJ has done; even "sent the people away" is not really strong enough: "he dismissed them".
pey break
24:29 VA YEHI ACHAREY HA DEVARIM HA ELEH VA YAMAT YEHOSHU'A BIN NUN EVED YHVH BEN ME'AH VE ESER SHANIM
וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיָּמָת יְהֹושֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן עֶבֶד יְהוָה בֶּן מֵאָה וָעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים
BN: And it came to pass after these events, that Yehoshu'a bin Nun, the servant of YHVH, died, being a hundred and ten years old.
What numbering system is this using? Click here.
24:30 VA YIKBERU OTO BIGVUL NACHALATO BE TIMNAT SERACH ASHER BE HAR EPHRAYIM MI TSEPHON LE HAR GA'ASH
וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֹתֹו בִּגְבוּל נַחֲלָתֹו בְּתִמְנַת סֶרַח אֲשֶׁר בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם מִצְּפֹון לְהַר גָּעַשׁ
BN: And they buried him on the border of his inheritance, in Timnat Serach, which is on Mount Ephrayim, on the north side of the hill of Ga'ash.
TIMNAT SERACH...MOUNT EPHRAYIM: See my notes to Joshua 19:50 (and especially my "revised" translation of the verse). Judges 2:9 names the place as Timnat Cheres (תִמְנַת־חֶ֖רֶס); so clearly, surely, one of the two has to be incorrect - though actually, if you look at my note there, it is entirely plausible that both names were in use, both being sobriquets, symbolic nicknames, not location-names.
GA'ASH: There are many scholars who disdain my contention that there are volcanic eruptions and earthquakes among the early Biblical tales - Sedom and Amorah and the Mosaic visits to Mount Sinai in particular. The geological and biological evidence suggests that the Dead Sea is the remains of a vast volcanic eruption, and probably the Sedom and Amorah story reflects this, maybe hundreds of thousands of years of telling and re-telling later. The name Ga'ash provides further evidence. This is the Yehudit word for an "earthquake", and the root yields Yehudit equivalents of "rumbling", "shaking" and "growling". Why else would a place acquire such a name?
24:31 VA YA'AVOD YISRA-EL ET YHVH KOL YEMEY YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YEMEY HAZKENIM ASHER HE'ERIYCHU YAMIM ACHAREY YEHOSHU'A VA ASHER YAD'U ET KOL MA'ASEH YHVH ASHER ASAH LE YISRA-EL
וַיַּעֲבֹד יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת יְהוָה כֹּל יְמֵי יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכֹל יְמֵי הַזְּקֵנִים אֲשֶׁר הֶאֱרִיכוּ יָמִים אַחֲרֵי יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַאֲשֶׁר יָדְעוּ אֵת כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And Yisra-El served YHVH all the days of Yehoshu'a, and all the days of the elders who outlived Yehoshu'a, and who had known all the works that YHVH had done for Yisra-El.
HAZKENIM: Confirmation that there was to be no national successor, but only a tribal structure, each led either autonomously or independently by its elders, and each sub-divided into clans and then families - a perfect recipe for the anarchy of the epoch of the Judges, because it provides, something in the manner of a modern "Liberal Democracy", ample space for each tribe-clan-family to follow or not follow whichever gods it pleases, marrying in or out, setting its own local taxes and bye-laws, et cetera - much the same problem that the USA has, with a theoretical Federal system, but autonomous/semi-independent states within it, or Britain with its central Parliament, but national assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and county administrations, and town or borough councils - oh, wait, but that's a really good system, isn't it? And we all thought the ancient Greeks invented it!
Can we assume that trans-tribal matters, and national matters, were dealt with through some kind of regular assembly of the elders? Among the Druze, for many centuries, there has been the "Kalweh"; rather secretive, but perhaps it provides us with a living model of the way Yisra-Eli society was run for probably four hundred years.
24:32 VE ET ATSMOT YOSEPH ASHER HE'ELU VENEY YISRA-EL MI MITSRAYIM KAVRU VISHCHEM BE CHELKAT HA SADEH ASHER KANAH YA'AKOV ME ET BENEY CHAMOR AVI SHECHEM BE ME'AH KESIYTAH VA YIHEYU LIVNEY YOSEPH LE NACHALAH
וְאֶת עַצְמֹות יֹוסֵף אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם קָבְרוּ בִשְׁכֶם בְּחֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה יַעֲקֹב מֵאֵת בְּנֵי חֲמֹור אֲבִי שְׁכֶם בְּמֵאָה קְשִׂיטָה וַיִּהְיוּ לִבְנֵי יֹוסֵף לְנַחֲלָה
BN: And the bones of Yoseph, which the children of Yisra-had El brought with them from Mitsrayim, they buried in Shechem, in a patch of ground which Ya'akov bought from the sons of Chamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of silver, and it became the inheritance of the Beney Yoseph.
Is this an accurate account of what happened? There are various legends concerning Yoseph's burial, for which see the various notes in the latter chapters of Genesis. Burial at Shechem would give that city a significance it had never had, and would also be an immense irony, given what Yoseph's "brothers" Shim'on and Levi did to it previously (Genesis 34). We asked earlier why Shechem had become central, seeming to replace Shiloh; the answer may well lie in its being located between Mounts Eyval and Gerizim, for which see the tale of the blessings and the cursings in Deuteronomy 11:29 and Joshua 8:30-35.
The notion that Ya'akov "bought" this land needs further consideration, in the light of the tale told in Genesis 34. Shechem is today's Nablus; I wonder if, had Ya'akov "acquired" the site, it would have been regarded by the locals as an illegal settlement on occupied land?
And why are they burying the bones now, and not earlier? It would have made sense to do it as part of the covenant ceremony. But this appears to be happening at or around the same time as Yehoshu'a's death. Did they go back to Shechem for another congregation, and do it then? Or are we in fact talking about a mythological rather than a historical event: the equivalent of a Purimspiel or a Nativity play? And if they did bring the bones with, can we assume they must have been mummified for preservation? Which would run counter to the laws regarding death and burial in the Torah, and would therefore add another reason why Yoseph did not get his own tribal lands, but inherited through his sons, the elder not being disinherited and sent away, as elder sons always were - cf Kayin, Yishma-El, Esav...
Or maybe the Ezraic scribe simply needed to tie up a loose thread because - I am guessing - in those days of the return from Babylonian exile the "tomb of Yoseph" was extremely useful as a device for engendering patriotism and inculcating the newly invented national history; even if it was really pseudo-history.
24:33 VE EL-AZAR BEN AHARON MET VA YIKBERU OTO BE GIV'AT PINCHAS BENO ASHER NITAN LO BE HAR EPHRAYIM
וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן מֵת וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֹתֹו בְּגִבְעַת פִּינְחָס בְּנֹו אֲשֶׁר נִתַּן לֹו בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם
BN: And El-Azar ben Aharon died; and they buried him on a hill that belonged to Pinchas his son, which had been given to him on Mount Ephrayim.
EL-AZAR BEN AHARON: See the link.
Is there something ironic about him being buried on a mountain of that name?
Is there something deeply significant that the order of burial should be Yehoshu'a, then Yoseph, then El-Azar: the military-political, the ancestry, the priestood?
No comments:
Post a Comment