At the end of the Book of Joshua I posed the question, based on the phrased used in verse 24:"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." That question obviously carries forward to the text we are about to study, and I will return to it as the text provides reason to do so. Rather than offering an introduction here, please go to my extensive notes on Wellhausen's extended notes on the subject, at Joshua 1:1.
Chapter One
1:1 VA YEHI ACHAREY MOT YEHOSHU'A VA YISH'ALU BENEY YISRA-EL BE YHVH LEMOR MI YA'ALEH LANU EL HA KENA'ANI BAT'CHILAH LEHILACHEM BO
KJ (King James translation): Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the LORD, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them?
Or is the question less about tribal status and precedence, and more a first expression of the aspiration for a king: who will lead us, as Mosheh and Yehoshu'a led us?
And then, if the latter is correct, remember that Yehoshu'a was of the tribe of Yehudah, that Yehudah has "inherited" the best and most central of the tribal "portions", and that, by the time this Book of Judges is being written for, or perhaps simply included in, the Tanach, Yehudah is the only tribe that is left, with Shim'on and Bin-Yamin long ago absorbed, and the rest vanished into history two hundred years before. And now read the next verse.
1:2 VA YOMER YHVH YEHUDAH YA'ALEH HINEH NATATI ET HA ARETS BE YADO
KJ: And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand.
1:1 VA YEHI ACHAREY MOT YEHOSHU'A VA YISH'ALU BENEY YISRA-EL BE YHVH LEMOR MI YA'ALEH LANU EL HA KENA'ANI BAT'CHILAH LEHILACHEM BO
וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מֹות יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּיהוָה לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲלֶה לָּנוּ אֶל הַכְּנַעֲנִי בַּתְּחִלָּה לְהִלָּחֶם בֹּו
BN (BibleNet translation): Now after the death of Yehoshu'a it came to pass that the Beney Yisra-El asked YHVH, saying, "Who shall lead us against the Kena'ani, when we go to war with them?"
ACHAREY MOT YEHOSHU'A: Which was described at the very end of the Book of Joshua, and so allows us to date the Judges from that point; however, see Judges 2:6 where Yehoshu'a is still very much alive - well, not that much, because he will indeed die soon afterwards (see 2:8).
In what manner did they ask? Through prayer? But we have been given very little evidence that petition in the form of prayer was yet in place. Through propitiation, by means of sacrifice? (And if so, where: Shechem, Shiloh, Gil-Gal, Mitspeh - see my note to Joshua 24:25? I ask, because chapter 2 will place this in Ha Bochim, but the telling of the story is remarkably similar to the Shechem gathering at the end of the Book of Joshua; and who has ever heard of a place named Ha Bochim anyway?) Or simply by asking the tribal elders, the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) - in which case was the answer a matter of strategic planning (the elders), or of doing whatever it was that the Kohen Gadol did with the Urim and Tumim, the glass beads in his breastplate? The question matters, not simply for its literary or historic interest, but because it defines the way in which national matters were determined at a time when no successor had been appointed by or for Yehoshu'a, when there was no king, and the tribes appeared to have gone very much their own ways. Whence the yearning for a king that will emerge shortly, and then repeatedly.
BAT'CHILAH: If this is to be a national war, why would any tribe go up first, rather than all the tribes going up together, and in the order clearly laid down by Mosheh in Numbers 10? Are they then, rather, determining which local area of still-unconquered Kena'an should be picked off first, to which the answer may well lie in the weakness of the local Kena'ani as much as in the strength of the local tribe. But still: why not go up en masse, as they did under Mosheh and Yehoshu'a?
Or is the question less about tribal status and precedence, and more a first expression of the aspiration for a king: who will lead us, as Mosheh and Yehoshu'a led us?
And then, if the latter is correct, remember that Yehoshu'a was of the tribe of Yehudah, that Yehudah has "inherited" the best and most central of the tribal "portions", and that, by the time this Book of Judges is being written for, or perhaps simply included in, the Tanach, Yehudah is the only tribe that is left, with Shim'on and Bin-Yamin long ago absorbed, and the rest vanished into history two hundred years before. And now read the next verse.
1:2 VA YOMER YHVH YEHUDAH YA'ALEH HINEH NATATI ET HA ARETS BE YADO
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה יְהוּדָה יַעֲלֶה הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ בְּיָדֹו
KJ: And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand.
BN: And YHVH said, "Yehudah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand."
Why Yehudah? In this version, because the text is written by the later Beney Yehudah, and so they wish to formalise their supremacy. Yehoshu'a was himself of the Beney Yehudah, so perhaps it was just their further assertion of their leadership at the time. Would versions of history told by the other tribes have placed themselves first, rather than Yehudah?
1:3 VA YOMER YEHUDAH LE SHIM'ON ACHIV ALEH ITI VE GORALI VE NILACHAMAH BA KENA'ANI VE HALACHTI GAM ANI IT'CHA BE GORALECHA VA YELECH ITO SHIM'ON
This is presented as though Yehudah and Shim'on were still living individuals, the eponymous tribal founders, rather than two tribes in confederation; and also as though the two tribal areas were separate, but now confederating. But we know from Joshua 19:9 that the "portion" "allotted" to Shim'on was entirely inside Yehudah from the outset, rendering Shim'on subordinate and beholden. So is this simply a way of trying to justify how come Shim'on's territory was geographically inside Yehudah's and of corroborating its continued existence inside the newly re-established land of Yehudah at the time of the Redaction? If so, a second classic example of the re-writing of history to suit later interests (Yehudah being appointed as "first" in the previous verse being the other).
KJ: And Judah went up; and the LORD delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men.
1:10 VA YELECH YEHUDAH EL HA KENA'ANI HA YOSHEV BE CHEVRON VE SHEM CHEVRON LEPHANIM KIRYAT ARBA VA YAKU ET SHESHAI VE ET ACHIYMAN VE ET TALMAI
KJ: And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron: (now the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba:) and they slew Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai.
KJ: And from thence he went against the inhabitants of Debir: and the name of Debir before was Kirjathsepher:
KJ: And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjathsepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.
1:13 VA YILKEDAH ATNI-EL BEN KENAZ ACHI CHALEV HA KATON MIMENU VA YITEN LO ET ACHSAH VITO LE ISHAH
KJ: And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife.
1:14 VA YEHI BE VO'AH VA TESIYTEHU LISH'OL ME ET AVIYHA HA SADEH VA TITSNACH ME AL HA CHAMOR VA YOMER LA KALEV MAH LACH
KJ: And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou?
BN: And it fell out, when she came to him, that she encouraged him to ask her father for the field, and she got down from her ass; and Kalev said to her: "What would you?"
KJ: And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.
KJ: And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
KJ: Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
KJ: And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
1:20 VA YITNU LE CHALEV ET CHEVRON KA ASHER DIBER MOSHEH VA YORESH MI SHAM ET SHELOSHAH BENEY HA ANAK
KJ: And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.
KJ: And the house of Joseph, they also went up against Bethel: and the LORD was with them.
And note the order of precedence in recounting the tribal histories after the death of Yehoshu'a: we began with Yehudah, as explained above. Shim'on and Bin-Yamin alongside them, because they were the remanant at the time of the Redaction, and absorbed into Yehudah; and then the sons of Yoseph. Exactly the same in the Book of Joshua. And why would it be otherwise, in an account of history written down in Yehudah in the middle of the 5th century BCE? Imagine a history of the United Kingdom, written in London in the 21st century, which included the kings of Ireland and Scotland, the literature of Wales?
1:23 VA YATIYRU VEIT YOSEPH BE VEIT-EL VE SHEM HA IR LEPHANIM LUZ
KJ: And the house of Joseph sent to descry Bethel. (Now the name of the city before was Luz.)
KJ: And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Shew us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will shew thee mercy.
KJ: And when he shewed them the entrance into the city, they smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let go the man and all his family.
KJ: And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built a city, and called the name thereof Luz: which is the name thereof unto this day.
1:27 VE LO HORISH MENASHEH ET BEIT SHE'AN VE ET BENOTEYHA VE ET TA'NACH VE ET BENOTEYHA VE ET YOSHVEY DOR VE ET BENOTEYHA VE ET YOSHVEY YIVLE'AM VE ET BENOTEYHA VE ET YOSHVEY MEGIDO VE ET BENOTEYHA VA YO'EL HA KENA'ANI LASHEVET BA ARETS HA ZOT
KJ: Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
1:28 VA YEHI KI CHAZAK YISRA'EL VA YASEM ET HA KENA'ANI LA MAS VE HOREYSH LO HORIYSHO
KJ: And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out.
1:29 VE EPHRAYIM LO HORISH ET HA KENA'ANI HA YOSHEV BE GAZER VA YESHEV HA KENA'ANI BE KIRBO BE GAZER
KJ: Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them.
1:30 ZEVULUN LO HORISH ET YOSHVEY KITRON VE ET YOSHVEY NAHALOL VE YESHEV HA KENA'ANI BE KIRBO VA YIHEYU LA MAS
KJ: Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries.
samech break
ACHZIV (אכזיב) is mentioned in Joshua 19:29 and it is situated just north of today's Nahariya, just south of Rosh ha-Nikra, which is today's coastal border-crossing into Lebanon. There are two possible meanings, the one with the Aramaic Aleph (א), which would connect it to CHAZAV = "to lie" or "deceive", for which there is a place, Chozeva, in 1 Chronicles 4:22 - the Aleph on that occasion a suffix. Alternately Achi-Ze'ev = "my brother is a wolf", which reveals a totem clan; and links to the blessing of "the ravening wolf" in Genesis 49:27; a reference in that case to Bin-Yamin where this town is in Asher, and therefore less likely.
APHIK - is that the royal Kena'ani city named as Aphek in 1 Samuel 4 and 29?
KJ: But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out.
1:33 NAPHTALI LO HORISH ET YOSHVEY VEIT SHEMESH VE ET YOSHVEY VEIT ANAT VA YESHEV BE KEREV HA KENA'ANI YOSHVEY HA ARETS VE YOSHVEY VEIT SHEMESH U VEIT ANAT HAYU LAHEM LA MAS
KJ: Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Bethshemesh and of Bethanath became tributaries unto them.
1:34 VA YILCHATSU HE EMORI ET BENEY DAN HA HARAH KI LO NETANO LAREDET LA EMEK
KJ: And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley
KJ: But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries.
MOUNT CHERES (חרס): Deuteronomy 28:27 uses CHARAS to mean "an itch", as well as the act of scratching it; but Job 9:7, Judges 8:13 and 14:18 have CHARSA as a form of heat that seems to infer the sun-disc, which was previously an Egyptian cult at the time of Akhenaten. Depictions of Mosheh (Moses) with "horns" of light are probably connected; in Akhenaten's cosmology, which in the end is yet another variation of the Trinity. Can we presume then that Mount Cheres was another type of Beit Shemesh, and that, yet again, it is the overthrow of the idolatrous cults that is being recorded here?
The fact that Mount Cheres is in Ayalon (אילון) supports this, because it was at Ayalon that Yehoshu'a made the moon stand still (Joshua 10:11-14) - presumably a description of an eclipse, as was the previous description of the sun - and Ayalon came to be known as Giv-Yah (Gibeah), an amalgamation of the Egyptian Geb with the Hittite Yah. Several towns named Ayalon are mentioned. A Levitical town in Dan in Joshua 10:12, 19:42 and 21:24; another in Zevulun according to Judges 12:12.
Why Yehudah? In this version, because the text is written by the later Beney Yehudah, and so they wish to formalise their supremacy. Yehoshu'a was himself of the Beney Yehudah, so perhaps it was just their further assertion of their leadership at the time. Would versions of history told by the other tribes have placed themselves first, rather than Yehudah?
1:3 VA YOMER YEHUDAH LE SHIM'ON ACHIV ALEH ITI VE GORALI VE NILACHAMAH BA KENA'ANI VE HALACHTI GAM ANI IT'CHA BE GORALECHA VA YELECH ITO SHIM'ON
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה לְשִׁמְעֹון אָחִיו עֲלֵה אִתִּי בְגֹורָלִי וְנִלָּחֲמָה בַּכְּנַעֲנִי וְהָלַכְתִּי גַם אֲנִי אִתְּךָ בְּגֹורָלֶךָ וַיֵּלֶךְ אִתֹּו שִׁמְעֹון
KJ: And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him.
BN: And Yehudah said to Shim'on his brother, "Come up with me into my portion, that we may fight against the Kena'ani; and I will likewise go with you into your portion." So Shim'on went with him.
This is presented as though Yehudah and Shim'on were still living individuals, the eponymous tribal founders, rather than two tribes in confederation; and also as though the two tribal areas were separate, but now confederating. But we know from Joshua 19:9 that the "portion" "allotted" to Shim'on was entirely inside Yehudah from the outset, rendering Shim'on subordinate and beholden. So is this simply a way of trying to justify how come Shim'on's territory was geographically inside Yehudah's and of corroborating its continued existence inside the newly re-established land of Yehudah at the time of the Redaction? If so, a second classic example of the re-writing of history to suit later interests (Yehudah being appointed as "first" in the previous verse being the other).
What does this business of portions (usually translated as "lots") mean in this context? I will help you clear out your Kena'ani indigenes if you will help me clear out mine? Mutuality of ethnic cleansing!
1:4 VA YA'AL YEHUDAH VA YITEN YHVH ET HA KENA'ANI VE HA PERIZI BE YADAM VA YAKUM BE VEZEK ASERET ALAPHIM ISH
1:4 VA YA'AL YEHUDAH VA YITEN YHVH ET HA KENA'ANI VE HA PERIZI BE YADAM VA YAKUM BE VEZEK ASERET ALAPHIM ISH
וַיַּעַל יְהוּדָה וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי בְּיָדָם וַיַּכּוּם בְּבֶזֶק עֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ
BN: And Yehudah went up; and YHVH delivered the Kena'ani and the Perizi into their hand: and they slew ten thousand of their men in Bezek.
Yehudah singular, but YADAM plural; and then plural again in the next verse; presumably because "they" is Yehudah and Shim'on... and sorry Shim'on, but we forgot to include you by name. Sloppy! Not really - by the time this was written Shim'on had long ago disappeared as a tribe in any meaningful sense beyond the name and the misremembered history, absorbed entirely into Yehudah, or taken over by colonies of Pelishtim. But it confirms that we are talking tribes, not individuals.
BEZEK: Note that the king and the place have the same name, so presume it was a god-name. Adoni-Bezek in the next verse confirms this. As to the name, Ezekiel 1:14 uses it as a simile for creatures dashing and darting about "like flashes of lightning", but it is really the dashing and darting, not the lightning, which is the root-meaning. King Sha'ul also mustered the armies at Bezek in 1 Samuel 11:8.
Yehudah singular, but YADAM plural; and then plural again in the next verse; presumably because "they" is Yehudah and Shim'on... and sorry Shim'on, but we forgot to include you by name. Sloppy! Not really - by the time this was written Shim'on had long ago disappeared as a tribe in any meaningful sense beyond the name and the misremembered history, absorbed entirely into Yehudah, or taken over by colonies of Pelishtim. But it confirms that we are talking tribes, not individuals.
BEZEK: Note that the king and the place have the same name, so presume it was a god-name. Adoni-Bezek in the next verse confirms this. As to the name, Ezekiel 1:14 uses it as a simile for creatures dashing and darting about "like flashes of lightning", but it is really the dashing and darting, not the lightning, which is the root-meaning. King Sha'ul also mustered the armies at Bezek in 1 Samuel 11:8.
All of which leads me to state, for the first but by no means the last time, that every one of the tales in the first eight books of the Tanach, up until the time of King Shelomoh (Solomon), were probably mythological fables rather than accounts of history, in their original forms, but transformed into pseudo-history by the Ezraic redactor when all this was written down in the 5th century BCE. A mythological fable is a story told to explain some aspect of the workings of Nature and the Cosmos, using human parallels, which obviously require a historical context. The Book of Judges is probably the most obviously mythological of all the books; I shall endeavour to explore and explain these aspects as we go along.
1:5 VA YIMTSE'U ET ADONI VEZEK BE VEZEK VA YILACHAMU BO VA YAKU ET HA KENA'ANI VE ET HA PERIZI
KJ: And they found Adonibezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, and they slew the Canaanites and the Perizzites.
1:6 VA YANAS ADONI VEZEK VA YIRDEPHU ACHARAV VA YO'CHAZU OTO VA YEKATSETSU ET BEHONOT YADAV VE RAGLAV
KJ: But Adonibezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.
1:7 VA YOMER ADONI VEZEK SHIV'IM MELACHIM BEHONOT YEDEYHEM VE RAGLEYHEM MEKUTSATSIM HAYU MELAKTIM TACHAT SHULCHANI KA ASHER ASIYTI KEN SHILAM LI ELOHIM YA YEVIY'UHU YERU-SHALA'IM VA YAMAT SHAM
KJ: And Adonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.
1:8 VA YILACHAMU VENEY YISRA-EL BIYRU-SHALA'IM VA YILKEDU OTAH VA YAKU'HA LE PHI CHAREV VE ET HA IR SHILCHU VA ESH
KJ: Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.
KJ: And afterward the children of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites, that dwelt in the mountain, and in the south, and in the valley.
And did Shim'on take part in these skirmishes as well, given that the south was their territory? Probably, but they've been mentioned once, which is quite enough for political correctness, and this is a book written in Yehudah, for Yehudah.
1:5 VA YIMTSE'U ET ADONI VEZEK BE VEZEK VA YILACHAMU BO VA YAKU ET HA KENA'ANI VE ET HA PERIZI
וַיִּמְצְאוּ אֶת אֲדֹנִי בֶזֶק בְּבֶזֶק וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ בֹּו וַיַּכּוּ אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְאֶת הַפְּרִזִּי
BN: And they found Adoni-Bezek in Bezek, and they fought against him, and they slew the Kena'ani and the Perizi.
ADONI BEZEK: "My Lord of Bezek" is a title, rather than an individual's name. Or is it an ironic insult, given that he too will dash and dart away as fast as lightning, as per the next verse?
PERIZI: See the link.
ADONI BEZEK: "My Lord of Bezek" is a title, rather than an individual's name. Or is it an ironic insult, given that he too will dash and dart away as fast as lightning, as per the next verse?
PERIZI: See the link.
1:6 VA YANAS ADONI VEZEK VA YIRDEPHU ACHARAV VA YO'CHAZU OTO VA YEKATSETSU ET BEHONOT YADAV VE RAGLAV
וַיָּנָס אֲדֹנִי בֶזֶק וַיִּרְדְּפוּ אַחֲרָיו וַיֹּאחֲזוּ אֹתֹו וַיְקַצְּצוּ אֶת בְּהֹנֹות יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו
KJ: But Adonibezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.
BN: But Adoni Bezek fled; and they chased after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his big toes.
Nice people! Followers of the instructions of a just and compassionate and merciful God. Charles Taylor of Liberia was sentenced to fifty years in jail as a war criminal in 2013, and amongst his crimes - that he supported a terrorist paramilitary that used amputation as a means of subduing the people.
BEHONOT YADAV VE RAGLAV: The way this is phrased, it could be thumbs and big toes, or it could be thumbs and legs; but the phrasing is conventional, Yad follows Behon for the thumb, Regel for the foot (cf Leviticus 8:23 and 14:14, et al).
Nice people! Followers of the instructions of a just and compassionate and merciful God. Charles Taylor of Liberia was sentenced to fifty years in jail as a war criminal in 2013, and amongst his crimes - that he supported a terrorist paramilitary that used amputation as a means of subduing the people.
BEHONOT YADAV VE RAGLAV: The way this is phrased, it could be thumbs and big toes, or it could be thumbs and legs; but the phrasing is conventional, Yad follows Behon for the thumb, Regel for the foot (cf Leviticus 8:23 and 14:14, et al).
1:7 VA YOMER ADONI VEZEK SHIV'IM MELACHIM BEHONOT YEDEYHEM VE RAGLEYHEM MEKUTSATSIM HAYU MELAKTIM TACHAT SHULCHANI KA ASHER ASIYTI KEN SHILAM LI ELOHIM YA YEVIY'UHU YERU-SHALA'IM VA YAMAT SHAM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנִי בֶזֶק שִׁבְעִים מְלָכִים בְּהֹנֹות יְדֵיהֶם וְרַגְלֵיהֶם מְקֻצָּצִים הָיוּ מְלַקְּטִים תַּחַת שֻׁלְחָנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי כֵּן שִׁלַּם לִי אֱלֹהִים וַיְבִיאֻהוּ יְרוּשָׁלִַם וַיָּמָת שָׁם
BN: And Adoni-Bezek said, "Seventy kings, with their thumbs and their big toes cut off, used to eat the scraps of meat that gathered under my table: as I have done, so Elohim has requited me." And they brought him to Yeru-Shala'im, and there he died.
The Yehudit text is full of puns which suggest that there is more to this than meets the confused eye. The confused ear, even more. Was this some ancient proverb which the Redactor looked for an excuse to include in the text? It feels rather more proverbial than historic - and if Adoni-Bezek did say it, what on Earth - unless it was just an ironic expression of surrender - did he mean? That he had used the same methodology of control himself, no less than seventy kings coming "under his thumb" (and his big toe) in this manner, and now he was getting back what he had given?
As to the puns: Melachim and Melaktim for example. As a homophone, Melachim might be "kings", or "mal'achim", which are angels/messengers.
Who are the 70 - and why that highly symbolic number? Click here for the mystical, and other, answers to that question.
ELOHIM: He speaks of Elohim, but they speak of YHVH.
Brought him to Yeru-Shala'im? Not if they were YHVH-worshipping Beney Yisra-El they didn't; the Beney Yisra-El had no access of any kind to anything that could remotely be called Yeru-Shala'im until King David took it (see verse 21, below); only after David took it, and conurbated the towns on the seven hills, does the concept of a single Yeru-Shala'im enter history. On the other hand (or on the other foot, in this case), if they were followers of Moloch they might well have done; though it would have been Shalem (Salem), which was just one of the seven towns. Iru-Shalam appears to be the rendition here; which may have been Shalem in its original name, before the later Beney Yehudah made it a multiple plural. We already encountered it as such in Yehoshu'a. But see verse 8 below; perhaps they took him to the battle as a way of frightening the enemy.
VA YAMAT: presumably from gangrene or septicemia as a consequence of those wounds.
pey break
The Yehudit text is full of puns which suggest that there is more to this than meets the confused eye. The confused ear, even more. Was this some ancient proverb which the Redactor looked for an excuse to include in the text? It feels rather more proverbial than historic - and if Adoni-Bezek did say it, what on Earth - unless it was just an ironic expression of surrender - did he mean? That he had used the same methodology of control himself, no less than seventy kings coming "under his thumb" (and his big toe) in this manner, and now he was getting back what he had given?
As to the puns: Melachim and Melaktim for example. As a homophone, Melachim might be "kings", or "mal'achim", which are angels/messengers.
Who are the 70 - and why that highly symbolic number? Click here for the mystical, and other, answers to that question.
ELOHIM: He speaks of Elohim, but they speak of YHVH.
Brought him to Yeru-Shala'im? Not if they were YHVH-worshipping Beney Yisra-El they didn't; the Beney Yisra-El had no access of any kind to anything that could remotely be called Yeru-Shala'im until King David took it (see verse 21, below); only after David took it, and conurbated the towns on the seven hills, does the concept of a single Yeru-Shala'im enter history. On the other hand (or on the other foot, in this case), if they were followers of Moloch they might well have done; though it would have been Shalem (Salem), which was just one of the seven towns. Iru-Shalam appears to be the rendition here; which may have been Shalem in its original name, before the later Beney Yehudah made it a multiple plural. We already encountered it as such in Yehoshu'a. But see verse 8 below; perhaps they took him to the battle as a way of frightening the enemy.
VA YAMAT: presumably from gangrene or septicemia as a consequence of those wounds.
pey break
1:8 VA YILACHAMU VENEY YISRA-EL BIYRU-SHALA'IM VA YILKEDU OTAH VA YAKU'HA LE PHI CHAREV VE ET HA IR SHILCHU VA ESH
וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ בְנֵי יְהוּדָה בִּירוּשָׁלִַם וַיִּלְכְּדוּ אֹותָהּ וַיַּכּוּהָ לְפִי חָרֶב וְאֶת הָעִיר שִׁלְּחוּ בָאֵשׁ
BN: Now the Beney Yehudah had fought against Yeru-Shala'im, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.
No archaeological evidence of this, nor anything elsewhere in the Bible that so much as remembers it; and it conflicts with the portrait of a never-conquered city painted in Samuel and Kings. Anachronism and invention? And if true, why is it not remembered, ever, especially after it has become the capital both politically and religiously?
And now see verse 21.
1:9 VE ACHAR YARDU BENEY YEHUDAH LEHILACHEM BA KENA'ANI YOSHEV HA HAR VE HA NEGEV VE HA SHEPHELAH
No archaeological evidence of this, nor anything elsewhere in the Bible that so much as remembers it; and it conflicts with the portrait of a never-conquered city painted in Samuel and Kings. Anachronism and invention? And if true, why is it not remembered, ever, especially after it has become the capital both politically and religiously?
And now see verse 21.
1:9 VE ACHAR YARDU BENEY YEHUDAH LEHILACHEM BA KENA'ANI YOSHEV HA HAR VE HA NEGEV VE HA SHEPHELAH
וְאַחַר יָרְדוּ בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה לְהִלָּחֵם בַּכְּנַעֲנִי יֹושֵׁב הָהָר וְהַנֶּגֶב וְהַשְּׁפֵלָה
BN: And afterwards the Beney Yehudah went down to fight against the Kena'ani who dwelt in the mountains, and in the south, and in the valley.
Which is almost certainly using the name Kena'ani generically, because we are told elsewhere that the Kena'ani inhabited the coastal region, but quite different tribes/peoples lived in the various mountains and valleys, and in the south, where Shim'on was based.
Which is almost certainly using the name Kena'ani generically, because we are told elsewhere that the Kena'ani inhabited the coastal region, but quite different tribes/peoples lived in the various mountains and valleys, and in the south, where Shim'on was based.
1:10 VA YELECH YEHUDAH EL HA KENA'ANI HA YOSHEV BE CHEVRON VE SHEM CHEVRON LEPHANIM KIRYAT ARBA VA YAKU ET SHESHAI VE ET ACHIYMAN VE ET TALMAI
וַיֵּלֶךְ יְהוּדָה אֶל הַכְּנַעֲנִי הַיֹּושֵׁב בְּחֶבְרֹון וְשֵׁם חֶבְרֹון לְפָנִים קִרְיַת אַרְבַּע וַיַּכּוּ אֶת שֵׁשַׁי וְאֶת אֲחִימַן וְאֶת תַּלְמָי
BN: And Yehudah fought against the Kena'ani who dwelt in Chevron: (now the name of Chevron before this was Kiryat Arba:) and they slew Sheshai, and Achiman, and Talmai.
The whole of the tale that now follows has already been told, including the marriage of Kalev's daughter, in Joshua 15. See my notes there.
SHESHAI: Shesh (שש) is the number six, but also "white". It is six because the sixth day is Fria's day (or Frigg, or Freya), and she is the white goddess. In fact, Shesh means "white" before it is the number six, from the root Shush. Esther 1:6 uses it for white marble, as does Song of Songs 5:15 (16 in some versions). The fabric known as sea silk, or byssus (from the Yehudit word Buts - בוץ - ironically: Bots is mud), is also called Shesh in Yehudit, as in Genesis 41:42, Exodus 26:1, 27:9 et al. This overlap may also have to do with the Persian name Susa, one of its most important towns at the time of the Redaction, and the source of the name of the Tunisian town of Sousse; it also gave the Jews the name Shoshannah, as a girl's name and also a type of lily: in English Susan.
SHESHAI as the name of one of the Anakim also appears in Numbers 13:22 and Joshua 15:14.
ACHIMAN likewise appears in Numbers 13:22 and Joshua 15:14, and also in 1 Chronicles 9:17. Achi means "my brother"; "man" is the root of "manna" and means "a portion" though there is also the "minim", a stringed musical instrument referred to in Psalm 45:8 (9 in some versions) and 150:4.
TALMAI is particularly fascinating: a variant of Shelomoh (Solomon), which of course is itself connected to the city of Yeru-Shala'im - we have seen that Aramaic regularly uses a Tav (ת) where Yehudit uses a Sheen (ש). The Greek Ptolemy comes from the same source. 2 Samuel 3:3 and 13:37 have Talmai king of Geshur as David's father in law. The Talmai mentioned here also appears in Numbers 13:22 and Joshua 15:14. But the substitution of Sheen and Tav that we have seen so often in Babylonian and Yehudit dialects applies here; Talmai becomes another of the Salm names associated with Yeru-Shala'im. Though here the association is with Chevron.
1:11 VA YELECH MI SHAM EL YOSHVEY DEVIR VE SHEM DEVIR LEPHANIM KIRYAT SEPHER
The whole of the tale that now follows has already been told, including the marriage of Kalev's daughter, in Joshua 15. See my notes there.
SHESHAI: Shesh (שש) is the number six, but also "white". It is six because the sixth day is Fria's day (or Frigg, or Freya), and she is the white goddess. In fact, Shesh means "white" before it is the number six, from the root Shush. Esther 1:6 uses it for white marble, as does Song of Songs 5:15 (16 in some versions). The fabric known as sea silk, or byssus (from the Yehudit word Buts - בוץ - ironically: Bots is mud), is also called Shesh in Yehudit, as in Genesis 41:42, Exodus 26:1, 27:9 et al. This overlap may also have to do with the Persian name Susa, one of its most important towns at the time of the Redaction, and the source of the name of the Tunisian town of Sousse; it also gave the Jews the name Shoshannah, as a girl's name and also a type of lily: in English Susan.
SHESHAI as the name of one of the Anakim also appears in Numbers 13:22 and Joshua 15:14.
ACHIMAN likewise appears in Numbers 13:22 and Joshua 15:14, and also in 1 Chronicles 9:17. Achi means "my brother"; "man" is the root of "manna" and means "a portion" though there is also the "minim", a stringed musical instrument referred to in Psalm 45:8 (9 in some versions) and 150:4.
TALMAI is particularly fascinating: a variant of Shelomoh (Solomon), which of course is itself connected to the city of Yeru-Shala'im - we have seen that Aramaic regularly uses a Tav (ת) where Yehudit uses a Sheen (ש). The Greek Ptolemy comes from the same source. 2 Samuel 3:3 and 13:37 have Talmai king of Geshur as David's father in law. The Talmai mentioned here also appears in Numbers 13:22 and Joshua 15:14. But the substitution of Sheen and Tav that we have seen so often in Babylonian and Yehudit dialects applies here; Talmai becomes another of the Salm names associated with Yeru-Shala'im. Though here the association is with Chevron.
1:11 VA YELECH MI SHAM EL YOSHVEY DEVIR VE SHEM DEVIR LEPHANIM KIRYAT SEPHER
וַיֵּלֶךְ מִשָּׁם אֶל יֹושְׁבֵי דְּבִיר וְשֵׁם דְּבִיר לְפָנִים קִרְיַת סֵפֶר
BN: And from there he went out to fight against the inhabitants of Devir, and the previous name of Devir was Kiryat Sepher.
DEVIR: See my note to Joshua 10:3, and also 10:38, 11:21, 12:13, 13:26, 15:5 and 15:15, the latter of which also confirms the original name as Kiryat Sepher.
The word DEVIR at the time of the redactor would automatically have conjured up the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the Yeru-Shala'im Temple, with its two giant Keruvim and the curtain separating it from the outer courtyard; just as the three Anakim in the previous verse recalled ceremonies there, and the previous verse claims to have destroyed the city. As to Kiryat Sepher - "Village of the Book" - the root SAPHAR originally meant "to inscribe on stone", as Yehoshu'a did with the laws of Mosheh at Shechem (Joshua 24:26), before paper and alphabet were invented; so the name is not intrinsically anachronistic, but again the word brings to mind with great immediacy the Sepher Torah itself, which was of course housed in the Temple, adjacent to the Devir.
Why do so many of these places undergo name-changes? Brian Friel has written about this, in relation to his native Ireland, in his play "Translations", detailing the conquest of Eireland by language, after it had first been conquered by gun and sword. The play is set in Smalltown, which at first is known as Ballybeg, an English pronunication of Baile Beag. Similarly Druim Dubh, which means "black shoulder" in Irish, becomes Dromduff in English, and Poll na gCaorach, which means "sheepfold" in Irish, becomes Poolkerry. Gradually every name, of hills and woods and rivers as well as towns and villages, loses its Eirish identity by being mispronounced in English, and then translated into its English equivalent, or quite simply renamed. When the Eirish language is then officially prohibited, the deracination of the native people is complete. Conquest by language: a cutting off of the cerebral thumbs and big toes - far more effective than conquest by army, though it needs the first to be able to achieve the latter.
1:12 VA YOMER KALEV ASHER YAKEH ET KIRYAT SEPHER U LECHADAH VE NATATI LO ET ACHSAH VITI LE ISHAH
DEVIR: See my note to Joshua 10:3, and also 10:38, 11:21, 12:13, 13:26, 15:5 and 15:15, the latter of which also confirms the original name as Kiryat Sepher.
The word DEVIR at the time of the redactor would automatically have conjured up the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the Yeru-Shala'im Temple, with its two giant Keruvim and the curtain separating it from the outer courtyard; just as the three Anakim in the previous verse recalled ceremonies there, and the previous verse claims to have destroyed the city. As to Kiryat Sepher - "Village of the Book" - the root SAPHAR originally meant "to inscribe on stone", as Yehoshu'a did with the laws of Mosheh at Shechem (Joshua 24:26), before paper and alphabet were invented; so the name is not intrinsically anachronistic, but again the word brings to mind with great immediacy the Sepher Torah itself, which was of course housed in the Temple, adjacent to the Devir.
Why do so many of these places undergo name-changes? Brian Friel has written about this, in relation to his native Ireland, in his play "Translations", detailing the conquest of Eireland by language, after it had first been conquered by gun and sword. The play is set in Smalltown, which at first is known as Ballybeg, an English pronunication of Baile Beag. Similarly Druim Dubh, which means "black shoulder" in Irish, becomes Dromduff in English, and Poll na gCaorach, which means "sheepfold" in Irish, becomes Poolkerry. Gradually every name, of hills and woods and rivers as well as towns and villages, loses its Eirish identity by being mispronounced in English, and then translated into its English equivalent, or quite simply renamed. When the Eirish language is then officially prohibited, the deracination of the native people is complete. Conquest by language: a cutting off of the cerebral thumbs and big toes - far more effective than conquest by army, though it needs the first to be able to achieve the latter.
1:12 VA YOMER KALEV ASHER YAKEH ET KIRYAT SEPHER U LECHADAH VE NATATI LO ET ACHSAH VITI LE ISHAH
וַיֹּאמֶר כָּלֵב אֲשֶׁר יַכֶּה אֶת קִרְיַת סֵפֶר וּלְכָדָהּ וְנָתַתִּי לֹו אֶת עַכְסָה בִתִּי לְאִשָּׁה
BN: And Kalev said, "Anyone who attacks Kiryat Sepher, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as his wife."
KALEV (Caleb) - see also Joshua 14 and 15. The repetition of this story throws open a question about all these conquests: are they simply re-tellings, or did they happen later than was told in the Book of Joshua?
ACHSAH (עכסה): the name means "to bind", and is used in Arabic for the rope attached to a camel's foot to guide it. But in the Pi'el form it is used for "an ankle bracelet" or for a prisoner's "fetters". Here presumably the ankle bracelet is intended, and it is odd that a man would name his daughter after the very object that her future groom will clasp to her body as the formal means of taking possession of her - the equivalent of naming one's daughter today "Wedding Ring". As a general rule Yehudit words only have a samech (ס) if they have been absorbed from a foreign language.
KALEV (Caleb) - see also Joshua 14 and 15. The repetition of this story throws open a question about all these conquests: are they simply re-tellings, or did they happen later than was told in the Book of Joshua?
ACHSAH (עכסה): the name means "to bind", and is used in Arabic for the rope attached to a camel's foot to guide it. But in the Pi'el form it is used for "an ankle bracelet" or for a prisoner's "fetters". Here presumably the ankle bracelet is intended, and it is odd that a man would name his daughter after the very object that her future groom will clasp to her body as the formal means of taking possession of her - the equivalent of naming one's daughter today "Wedding Ring". As a general rule Yehudit words only have a samech (ס) if they have been absorbed from a foreign language.
1:13 VA YILKEDAH ATNI-EL BEN KENAZ ACHI CHALEV HA KATON MIMENU VA YITEN LO ET ACHSAH VITO LE ISHAH
וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן קְנַז אֲחִי כָלֵב הַקָּטֹן מִמֶּנּוּ וַיִּתֶּן לֹו אֶת עַכְסָה בִתֹּו לְאִשָּׁה
BN: Then Atni-El ben Kenaz, a kinsman of Kalev, took it, and he gave him Achsah his daughter as his wife.
OTNI-EL in most English versions (עתניאל), but it should be pronounced Atni-El, as above. It comes from the rarely used word for a lion, ATAN. It appears in 1 Chronicles 26:7, and will appear again in Judges 3:9 and 1 Chronicles 4:13 as Atni-El the Judge. What is notable is that, with the god-name suffixed, it makes him "lion of El"', which is also the epithet given to Yehudah in Ya'akov's blessings (Genesis 49:9). See also my note at Joshua 15:17, which picks up an entirely different interpretation of its meaning.
KENAZ: See my note on this, and on the question of whether uncle-niece marriage is permitted in Mosaic law, at Joshua 15:17?
OTNI-EL in most English versions (עתניאל), but it should be pronounced Atni-El, as above. It comes from the rarely used word for a lion, ATAN. It appears in 1 Chronicles 26:7, and will appear again in Judges 3:9 and 1 Chronicles 4:13 as Atni-El the Judge. What is notable is that, with the god-name suffixed, it makes him "lion of El"', which is also the epithet given to Yehudah in Ya'akov's blessings (Genesis 49:9). See also my note at Joshua 15:17, which picks up an entirely different interpretation of its meaning.
KENAZ: See my note on this, and on the question of whether uncle-niece marriage is permitted in Mosaic law, at Joshua 15:17?
1:14 VA YEHI BE VO'AH VA TESIYTEHU LISH'OL ME ET AVIYHA HA SADEH VA TITSNACH ME AL HA CHAMOR VA YOMER LA KALEV MAH LACH
וַיְהִי בְּבֹואָהּ וַתְּסִיתֵהוּ לִשְׁאֹול מֵאֵת אָבִיהָ הַשָּׂדֶה וַתִּצְנַח מֵעַל הַחֲמֹור וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ כָּלֵב מַה לָּךְ
HA SADEH: Why the definite article here? In the previous version (Joshua 15:18) there is no article. For the rest the text is identical, so I shall not repeat the lengthy commentary which you can find there.
1:15 VA TOMER LO HAVAH LI VERACHAH KI ERETS HA NEGEV NETATANI VE NETATAH LI GULOT MAYIM VA YITEN LAH KALEV ET GULOT ILIT VE ET GULOT TACHTIT
1:15 VA TOMER LO HAVAH LI VERACHAH KI ERETS HA NEGEV NETATANI VE NETATAH LI GULOT MAYIM VA YITEN LAH KALEV ET GULOT ILIT VE ET GULOT TACHTIT
וַתֹּאמֶר לֹו הָבָה לִּי בְרָכָה כִּי אֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב נְתַתָּנִי וְנָתַתָּה לִי גֻּלֹּת מָיִם וַיִּתֶּן לָהּ כָּלֵב אֵת גֻּלֹּת עִלִּית וְאֵת גֻּלֹּת תַּחְתִּית
KJ: And she said unto him, Give me a blessing: for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs.
BN: And she answered: "Give me a blessing. You have given me land that faces south; now give me springs of water as well. And he gave her the upper springs, and the lower springs."
HAVAH LI: The previous version had TENAH LI, a negligible difference; the rest is identical. Again, see my notes on this in Joshua 15.
pey break
HAVAH LI: The previous version had TENAH LI, a negligible difference; the rest is identical. Again, see my notes on this in Joshua 15.
pey break
1:16 U VENEY KEYNI CHOTEN MOSHEH ALU ME IR HA TEMARIM ET BENEY YEHUDAH MIDBAR YEHIDAH ASHER BE NEGEV ARAD VA YELECH VA YESHEV ET HA AM
וּבְנֵי קֵינִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה עָלוּ מֵעִיר הַתְּמָרִים אֶת בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה אֲשֶׁר בְּנֶגֶב עֲרָד וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיֵּשֶׁב אֶת הָעָם
BN: And the Beney Keyni, Mosheh's father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the Beney Yehudah into the wilderness of Yehudah, which lies in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.
BENEY KEYNI: is an unusual construction. We have seen many variations, but never this one. See my notes for Kenites, and then please tell me, which of his fathers-in-law was a Kenite? He will eventually have seven names (or Mosheh will eventually have seven fathers-in-law, as he had seven handmaidens at his discovery in the bulrushes, and seven shepherdesses when he first came to the well in Midyan): Re'u-El (Exodus 2), Yeter, Yitro (Exodus 3), Keni (here, but nowhere else), Chovav (though Numbers 10:29 makes him Re'u-El's son), Chever (which links him to Chevron), and Puti-El, the latter according to Michilta, Yithro 1:1.
Which was the "city of palm trees"? Yericho, according to Deuteronomy 34:3.
BENEY KEYNI: is an unusual construction. We have seen many variations, but never this one. See my notes for Kenites, and then please tell me, which of his fathers-in-law was a Kenite? He will eventually have seven names (or Mosheh will eventually have seven fathers-in-law, as he had seven handmaidens at his discovery in the bulrushes, and seven shepherdesses when he first came to the well in Midyan): Re'u-El (Exodus 2), Yeter, Yitro (Exodus 3), Keni (here, but nowhere else), Chovav (though Numbers 10:29 makes him Re'u-El's son), Chever (which links him to Chevron), and Puti-El, the latter according to Michilta, Yithro 1:1.
Which was the "city of palm trees"? Yericho, according to Deuteronomy 34:3.
ARAD: See the link.
The verse is inconclusive. Is it simply telling us that they moved there?
1:17 VA YELECH YEHUDAH ET SHIM'ON ACHIV VA YAKU ET HA KENA'ANI YOSHEV TSEPHAT VA YACHARIYMU OTAH VA YIKRA ET SHEM HA IR CHARMAH
The verse is inconclusive. Is it simply telling us that they moved there?
1:17 VA YELECH YEHUDAH ET SHIM'ON ACHIV VA YAKU ET HA KENA'ANI YOSHEV TSEPHAT VA YACHARIYMU OTAH VA YIKRA ET SHEM HA IR CHARMAH
וַיֵּלֶךְ יְהוּדָה אֶת שִׁמְעֹון אָחִיו וַיַּכּוּ אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי יֹושֵׁב צְפַת וַיַּחֲרִימוּ אֹותָהּ וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שֵׁם הָעִיר חָרְמָה
BN: And Yehudah went with Shim'on his brother, and they slew the Kena'ani who inhabited Tsephat, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Chormah.
TSEPHAT (צפת), or Zefat, or Safed, is one of the most beautiful towns in modern Israel, developed in the middle ages as the centre of Cabbalistic mysticism, and now an artists' colony as well. High up in the mountains above the Sea of Galilee, and a long way from either Chevron or Yeru-Shala'im, and way out of territory for both Yehudah and Shim'on; so clearly it is not that Tsephat. A TSEPHAT was "a watchtower", similar to, and from the same root as, a MITSPEH; also similar to a MIGDAL, though one would have been a military tower, and the other for the purpose of star-gazing. A valley named Tsephatah, near Mareshah, is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 14:9 (14:10 in some versions).
CHORMAH: The verb for "to utterly destroy" in this verse is "va-yacharimu - ויחרימו", which is then repeated in the name of the town, Chormah (חרמה). There are other verbs for "to destroy", such as LE-HASHMID, but this is very specific: CHARAM implies consecration, a killing for religious purposes, whence the CHEREM, the issuing of a death sentence, the announcement of a blood feud or, in mediaeval times, excommunication. The verb is used repeatedly (Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, 7:2, 20:17; Joshua 8:26, 10:28; 1 Samuel 15:3; Isaiah 34:2, 37:11 and many others). Malachi 3:24 and Zecheriah 14:11 extend its meaning to include destruction of anything at all for religious purposes. 1 Kings 20:42 and Isaiah 34:5 extend its meaning still further. Joshua 19:38 refers to Charem, a town in Naphtali, which though it isn't stated we can presume must have been a shrine; and of course Mount Hermon itself is properly Chermon, because its summit was sacred to ha-Lavanah, the white moon-goddess, who appears in Genesis, masculinised into Laban. But all these names keep drawing us back to the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im, and it is there that we find the CHARAM (from which the word "harem" is derived), the women's court, likewise dedicated to the white moon-goddess (Yah, Isis etc).
There is also a note on this town at Joshua 12:14.
All the towns mentioned so far turn out to have two names, though on this occasion it may actually be an idiom, and we should read VA YIKRA ET SHEM HA IR CHARMAH as "the name of the town was destroyed", rather than "the name of the town was Chormah". Conquest by language, as I have observed many times before!
1:18 VA YILKOD YEHUDAH ET AZAH VE ET GEVULAH VE ET ASHKELON VE ET GEVULAH VE ET EKRON VE ET GEVULAH
TSEPHAT (צפת), or Zefat, or Safed, is one of the most beautiful towns in modern Israel, developed in the middle ages as the centre of Cabbalistic mysticism, and now an artists' colony as well. High up in the mountains above the Sea of Galilee, and a long way from either Chevron or Yeru-Shala'im, and way out of territory for both Yehudah and Shim'on; so clearly it is not that Tsephat. A TSEPHAT was "a watchtower", similar to, and from the same root as, a MITSPEH; also similar to a MIGDAL, though one would have been a military tower, and the other for the purpose of star-gazing. A valley named Tsephatah, near Mareshah, is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 14:9 (14:10 in some versions).
CHORMAH: The verb for "to utterly destroy" in this verse is "va-yacharimu - ויחרימו", which is then repeated in the name of the town, Chormah (חרמה). There are other verbs for "to destroy", such as LE-HASHMID, but this is very specific: CHARAM implies consecration, a killing for religious purposes, whence the CHEREM, the issuing of a death sentence, the announcement of a blood feud or, in mediaeval times, excommunication. The verb is used repeatedly (Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, 7:2, 20:17; Joshua 8:26, 10:28; 1 Samuel 15:3; Isaiah 34:2, 37:11 and many others). Malachi 3:24 and Zecheriah 14:11 extend its meaning to include destruction of anything at all for religious purposes. 1 Kings 20:42 and Isaiah 34:5 extend its meaning still further. Joshua 19:38 refers to Charem, a town in Naphtali, which though it isn't stated we can presume must have been a shrine; and of course Mount Hermon itself is properly Chermon, because its summit was sacred to ha-Lavanah, the white moon-goddess, who appears in Genesis, masculinised into Laban. But all these names keep drawing us back to the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im, and it is there that we find the CHARAM (from which the word "harem" is derived), the women's court, likewise dedicated to the white moon-goddess (Yah, Isis etc).
There is also a note on this town at Joshua 12:14.
All the towns mentioned so far turn out to have two names, though on this occasion it may actually be an idiom, and we should read VA YIKRA ET SHEM HA IR CHARMAH as "the name of the town was destroyed", rather than "the name of the town was Chormah". Conquest by language, as I have observed many times before!
1:18 VA YILKOD YEHUDAH ET AZAH VE ET GEVULAH VE ET ASHKELON VE ET GEVULAH VE ET EKRON VE ET GEVULAH
וַיִּלְכֹּד יְהוּדָה אֶת עַזָּה וְאֶת גְּבוּלָהּ וְאֶת אַשְׁקְלֹון וְאֶת גְּבוּלָהּ וְאֶת עֶקְרֹון וְאֶת גְּבוּלָהּ
BN: Also Yehudah took Azah with its coast, and Ashkelon with its coast, and Ekron with its coast.
For Azah, Ashkelon and Ekron see the links.
Was this before the Pelishtim arrived, or after? If before, then clearing out those cities would have left them ripe for colonisation, in which case it served them right when the invaders came! If the Pelishtim were in fact part of the Hyksos invasion, then it was after, and we can re-examine the Avi-Melech stories of Av-Raham and Yitschak; but the Pelishtim were not themselves Hyksos.
Nowhere else in the Tanach is there any sense of either Yehudah or Shim'on having possession of these cities; indeed, all the tales told about them, or even referring to them, are very clear that these were never Beney Yisra-Eli territory.
If our conclusion in the Book of Joshua was correct, that *TOWN* + CHATSREYHEN meant an early form of city-state, then we should be translating GEVUL as "borders", and not as "coasts", even though the Mediterranean coast would, in each of these cases, have been their western border.
1:19 VA YEHI YHVH ET YEHUDAH VA YORESH ET HA HAR KI LO LEHORISH ET YOSHVEY HA EMEK KI RECHEV BARZEL LAHEM
Was this before the Pelishtim arrived, or after? If before, then clearing out those cities would have left them ripe for colonisation, in which case it served them right when the invaders came! If the Pelishtim were in fact part of the Hyksos invasion, then it was after, and we can re-examine the Avi-Melech stories of Av-Raham and Yitschak; but the Pelishtim were not themselves Hyksos.
Nowhere else in the Tanach is there any sense of either Yehudah or Shim'on having possession of these cities; indeed, all the tales told about them, or even referring to them, are very clear that these were never Beney Yisra-Eli territory.
If our conclusion in the Book of Joshua was correct, that *TOWN* + CHATSREYHEN meant an early form of city-state, then we should be translating GEVUL as "borders", and not as "coasts", even though the Mediterranean coast would, in each of these cases, have been their western border.
1:19 VA YEHI YHVH ET YEHUDAH VA YORESH ET HA HAR KI LO LEHORISH ET YOSHVEY HA EMEK KI RECHEV BARZEL LAHEM
וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶת יְהוּדָה וַיֹּרֶשׁ אֶת הָהָר כִּי לֹא לְהֹורִישׁ אֶת יֹשְׁבֵי הָעֵמֶק כִּי רֶכֶב בַּרְזֶל לָהֶם
BN: And YHVH was with Yehudah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Anachronism? This is certainly problematic. There is a story in the Book of Samuel about the first Pelishtim arriving on ships with helmeted prows and bringing iron weaponry, including spiked wheels. Every version of the first arrival of iron cannot be correct, though this is definitely the epoch when iron first came.
Anachronism? This is certainly problematic. There is a story in the Book of Samuel about the first Pelishtim arriving on ships with helmeted prows and bringing iron weaponry, including spiked wheels. Every version of the first arrival of iron cannot be correct, though this is definitely the epoch when iron first came.
1:20 VA YITNU LE CHALEV ET CHEVRON KA ASHER DIBER MOSHEH VA YORESH MI SHAM ET SHELOSHAH BENEY HA ANAK
וַיִּתְּנוּ לְכָלֵב אֶת חֶבְרֹון כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּורֶשׁ מִשָּׁם אֶת שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי הָעֲנָק
BN: And they gave Chevron to Kalev, as Mosheh had agreed; and he expelled from there the three sons of Anak.
The three sons of Anak were Sheshai, Achiman, and Talmai, who Yehudah already wiped out in verse 10. Given that they lived at Kiryat Arba, which means "village of the four", we can assume that Anak himself was one of that foursome; but elsewhere we were told that these were the ancient peoples, and ancient meant long, long ago. Does this, alongside the Luz reference, and others, provide evidence that the Biblical chronology is artificial, and in fact the period of Yehoshu'a and the Judges parallels that of Genesis, rather than following it? We will see many other instances in this book which endorse the validity of that speculation (which is to say, they don't prove it, because it isn't provable, but they certainly add weight to its plausibility).
The other three were probably not sons at all, but daughters, in precisely the same way that the three daughters of al-Lah were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the three graces, or three phases of the moon (new, full and waning; spring, summer, autumn). Just as Av-Raham "purchased" the cave of Machpelah at Chevron from Ephron the Beney Chet (Hittite), so we can assume a cultic take-over is being described here. As the Anakim were the original inhabitants, was it in fact the Beney Chet taking over the shrine that is being remembered, or was there another phase, perhaps during the exile in Mitsrayim, when the Anakim took over the shrine from the Beney Av-Raham.
One other significant note: Anak (ענק) means "to adorn with a necklace" and is also used for a convict's neck-chain and a dog's collar - not the same as Kalev's daughter Achsah in verse 13, yet how odd that two such similar names should be connected, in the same tale, to the same place. It appears in the famous derogatory phrase of YHVH about his "stiff-necked" people (Exodus 32:9). So we have ACHSAH and ANAK in virtually consecutive verses, the one an ankle bracelet, the other a necklace. The Redactor appears to be indulging in what I call "Guy Fawkes Syndrome" here, which is to say: Guy Fawkes is a bad English pronunciation of the Norman French Guy Faux, an artificial man, or straw man; the traditional English burning of the corn stubble in the form of an effigy of the corn god, associated with Halloween on October 31st until calendar reforms moved it to November 5th, and the Catholic redactor exploited the convenience of a gunpowder plot to turn the corn-god into a political human and thereby remove the pagan cult. In all these verses we are clearly witnessing the false establishment of Yeru-Shala'im and its cultic practices as the predominant cult of the land, and doing so by reducing all pagan shrines and practices and deities to dust, or human conquests, or mere fairy-stories - this latter being the other traditional methodology of "conquest by language".
The three sons of Anak were Sheshai, Achiman, and Talmai, who Yehudah already wiped out in verse 10. Given that they lived at Kiryat Arba, which means "village of the four", we can assume that Anak himself was one of that foursome; but elsewhere we were told that these were the ancient peoples, and ancient meant long, long ago. Does this, alongside the Luz reference, and others, provide evidence that the Biblical chronology is artificial, and in fact the period of Yehoshu'a and the Judges parallels that of Genesis, rather than following it? We will see many other instances in this book which endorse the validity of that speculation (which is to say, they don't prove it, because it isn't provable, but they certainly add weight to its plausibility).
The other three were probably not sons at all, but daughters, in precisely the same way that the three daughters of al-Lah were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the three graces, or three phases of the moon (new, full and waning; spring, summer, autumn). Just as Av-Raham "purchased" the cave of Machpelah at Chevron from Ephron the Beney Chet (Hittite), so we can assume a cultic take-over is being described here. As the Anakim were the original inhabitants, was it in fact the Beney Chet taking over the shrine that is being remembered, or was there another phase, perhaps during the exile in Mitsrayim, when the Anakim took over the shrine from the Beney Av-Raham.
One other significant note: Anak (ענק) means "to adorn with a necklace" and is also used for a convict's neck-chain and a dog's collar - not the same as Kalev's daughter Achsah in verse 13, yet how odd that two such similar names should be connected, in the same tale, to the same place. It appears in the famous derogatory phrase of YHVH about his "stiff-necked" people (Exodus 32:9). So we have ACHSAH and ANAK in virtually consecutive verses, the one an ankle bracelet, the other a necklace. The Redactor appears to be indulging in what I call "Guy Fawkes Syndrome" here, which is to say: Guy Fawkes is a bad English pronunciation of the Norman French Guy Faux, an artificial man, or straw man; the traditional English burning of the corn stubble in the form of an effigy of the corn god, associated with Halloween on October 31st until calendar reforms moved it to November 5th, and the Catholic redactor exploited the convenience of a gunpowder plot to turn the corn-god into a political human and thereby remove the pagan cult. In all these verses we are clearly witnessing the false establishment of Yeru-Shala'im and its cultic practices as the predominant cult of the land, and doing so by reducing all pagan shrines and practices and deities to dust, or human conquests, or mere fairy-stories - this latter being the other traditional methodology of "conquest by language".
1:21 VE ET HA YEVUSI YOSHEV YERU-SHALA'IM LO HORIYSHU BENEY VIN-YAMIN VA YESHEV HA YEVUSI ET BENEY VIN-YAMIN BIYRU-SHALA'IM AD HA YOM HA ZEH
KJ: And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.
וְאֶת הַיְבוּסִי יֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם לֹא הֹורִישׁוּ בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן וַיֵּשֶׁב הַיְבוּסִי אֶת בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן בִּירוּשָׁלִַם עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה
KJ: And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.
BN: But the Beney Bin-Yamin did not drive out the Yevusi who inhabited Yeru-Shala'im; but the Yevusi dwell with the Beney Bin-Yamin in Yeru-Shala'im to this day.
So much for the destruction of Yeru-Shala'im in verse 8! The Yevusi occupied a town called Yevus, which was on a hill adjacent to Shalem, which was on a hill adjacent to Nov: in total seven hills, all with villages. Is the name Yeru-Shala'im then a conurbation, in the way that we speak of New York both as a state and a city? If it was, then we can easily understand how the name Yeru-Shala'im came into being - when the towns of the conurbation were autonomous they were Iru-Shalam, but once unified as a single city the multiple plural kicks in, and they become Yeru-Shala'im.
So much for the destruction of Yeru-Shala'im in verse 8! The Yevusi occupied a town called Yevus, which was on a hill adjacent to Shalem, which was on a hill adjacent to Nov: in total seven hills, all with villages. Is the name Yeru-Shala'im then a conurbation, in the way that we speak of New York both as a state and a city? If it was, then we can easily understand how the name Yeru-Shala'im came into being - when the towns of the conurbation were autonomous they were Iru-Shalam, but once unified as a single city the multiple plural kicks in, and they become Yeru-Shala'im.
samech break
1:22 VA YA'ALU VEIT YOSEPH GAM HEM BEIT-EL VA YHVH IMAM
וַיַּעֲלוּ בֵית יֹוסֵף גַּם הֵם בֵּית אֵל וַיהוָה עִמָּם
BN: And the house of Yoseph too went up against Beit-El; and YHVH was with them.
Intriguing to discover that Menasheh and Ephrayim are still functioning as the House of Yoseph, even though he has no inheritance and they are now acknowledged as two separate tribes - or three really, with Menasheh split on either side of the Yarden.
Beit-El (Bethel) was key of course, in the centralisation of the cult, because Beit-El was both Av-Raham and Ya'akov's shrine; very difficult to subdue worship at places identified with the patriarchs, but necessary, if centralisation was to succeed. Imagine the Pope declaring that Christian worship was forbidden everywhere except in Rome: he would have to close down Lourdes, Santiago di Compostella...
Intriguing to discover that Menasheh and Ephrayim are still functioning as the House of Yoseph, even though he has no inheritance and they are now acknowledged as two separate tribes - or three really, with Menasheh split on either side of the Yarden.
Beit-El (Bethel) was key of course, in the centralisation of the cult, because Beit-El was both Av-Raham and Ya'akov's shrine; very difficult to subdue worship at places identified with the patriarchs, but necessary, if centralisation was to succeed. Imagine the Pope declaring that Christian worship was forbidden everywhere except in Rome: he would have to close down Lourdes, Santiago di Compostella...
And note the order of precedence in recounting the tribal histories after the death of Yehoshu'a: we began with Yehudah, as explained above. Shim'on and Bin-Yamin alongside them, because they were the remanant at the time of the Redaction, and absorbed into Yehudah; and then the sons of Yoseph. Exactly the same in the Book of Joshua. And why would it be otherwise, in an account of history written down in Yehudah in the middle of the 5th century BCE? Imagine a history of the United Kingdom, written in London in the 21st century, which included the kings of Ireland and Scotland, the literature of Wales?
1:23 VA YATIYRU VEIT YOSEPH BE VEIT-EL VE SHEM HA IR LEPHANIM LUZ
וַיָּתִירוּ בֵית יֹוסֵף בְּבֵית אֵל וְשֵׁם הָעִיר לְפָנִים לוּז
BN: And they sent men from the house of Yoseph to spy out Beit-El (now the name of the city before this time was Luz).
YATIYRU: At some point, probably modern, the meaning of this verb shifted: today LEHATIR is used for "to disentangle", "to loosen", even "to leave". But the text of the next verse confirms that these are spies.
This confusion of names is dealt with in my notes to Genesis 28:19. See also my separate notes to Luz.
1:24 VA YIR'U HA SHOMRIM ISH YOTS'E MIN HA IR VA YOMRU LO HAR'ENU NA ET MEVO HA IR VE ASIYNU IMCHA CHASED
YATIYRU: At some point, probably modern, the meaning of this verb shifted: today LEHATIR is used for "to disentangle", "to loosen", even "to leave". But the text of the next verse confirms that these are spies.
This confusion of names is dealt with in my notes to Genesis 28:19. See also my separate notes to Luz.
1:24 VA YIR'U HA SHOMRIM ISH YOTS'E MIN HA IR VA YOMRU LO HAR'ENU NA ET MEVO HA IR VE ASIYNU IMCHA CHASED
וַיִּרְאוּ הַשֹּׁמְרִים אִישׁ יֹוצֵא מִן הָעִיר וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו הַרְאֵנוּ נָא אֶת מְבֹוא הָעִיר וְעָשִׂינוּ עִמְּךָ חָסֶד
BN: And the spies saw a man coming out of the city, and they said to him, "Why don't you show us a back-way into the city, and that will give us the opportunity to demonstrate the quality of our mercy?"
NA: The most courteous expression in the Yehudit language, used at the beginning of this sentence strategically, and then transformed into an unimplied threat at the end. Generally in the Tanach it gets translated as "we pray you", which is not something anyone would ever say in English, unless perhaps in Shakespeare. "Please would you...". But here, because of the threat... and speaking of Shakespeare, I have translated IMCHAH CHESED the way I have, thinking of Portia's speech in Act 4 Scene 1 of "The Merchant of Venice", which Shakespeare sourced in Deuteronomy 32.
MEVO: There is no definite article here, so it is not "the" entrance, but "an entrance". Nor is MEVO a common word, like "gate", for a way into a city. LAVO is the verb for "to come", and this is a gerund derived from the Pi'el - so it is "a way into the city" that the spies are seeking, a back door, an underground cave, a breach in the wall behind the slum quarter, through which they can sneak. If they only wanted the public entrance, all they would have needed was to follow the road to the city gate.
1:25 VA YAREM ET MEVO HA IR VA YAKU ET HA IR LE PHI CHAREV VE ET HA ISH VE ET KOL MISHPACHTO SHILECHU
NA: The most courteous expression in the Yehudit language, used at the beginning of this sentence strategically, and then transformed into an unimplied threat at the end. Generally in the Tanach it gets translated as "we pray you", which is not something anyone would ever say in English, unless perhaps in Shakespeare. "Please would you...". But here, because of the threat... and speaking of Shakespeare, I have translated IMCHAH CHESED the way I have, thinking of Portia's speech in Act 4 Scene 1 of "The Merchant of Venice", which Shakespeare sourced in Deuteronomy 32.
MEVO: There is no definite article here, so it is not "the" entrance, but "an entrance". Nor is MEVO a common word, like "gate", for a way into a city. LAVO is the verb for "to come", and this is a gerund derived from the Pi'el - so it is "a way into the city" that the spies are seeking, a back door, an underground cave, a breach in the wall behind the slum quarter, through which they can sneak. If they only wanted the public entrance, all they would have needed was to follow the road to the city gate.
1:25 VA YAREM ET MEVO HA IR VA YAKU ET HA IR LE PHI CHAREV VE ET HA ISH VE ET KOL MISHPACHTO SHILECHU
וַיַּרְאֵם אֶת מְבֹוא הָעִיר וַיַּכּוּ אֶת הָעִיר לְפִי חָרֶב וְאֶת הָאִישׁ וְאֶת כָּל מִשְׁפַּחְתֹּו שִׁלֵּחוּ
BN: And when he showed them a way into the city, they smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let go the man and all his family.
For which much praise is due. How nice of them. How decent and moral.
But did the spies really slaughter the entire city single-handed, or has the scribe simply not bothered with even one more verse to fill the detail in?
And did the Beney Yisra-El not conquer Beit-El when they conquered Ai, in Joshua 7 and 8; Joshua 12:9 and 16 confirm it. It was their second major victory, following Yeriycho (Jericho), and we were left with the very clear impression that this entire stretch of land was in their hands, and the speed and scale of their scussess the reason why the other kings formed an alliance to counter them, and the elders of Giv-On played their little trick (Joshua 9:3). Are we then re-reading those victories, but told by a different historian in a different history book? We have questioned this once already in this chapter. It certainly seems, yet again, that the texts contradict each other.
For which much praise is due. How nice of them. How decent and moral.
But did the spies really slaughter the entire city single-handed, or has the scribe simply not bothered with even one more verse to fill the detail in?
And did the Beney Yisra-El not conquer Beit-El when they conquered Ai, in Joshua 7 and 8; Joshua 12:9 and 16 confirm it. It was their second major victory, following Yeriycho (Jericho), and we were left with the very clear impression that this entire stretch of land was in their hands, and the speed and scale of their scussess the reason why the other kings formed an alliance to counter them, and the elders of Giv-On played their little trick (Joshua 9:3). Are we then re-reading those victories, but told by a different historian in a different history book? We have questioned this once already in this chapter. It certainly seems, yet again, that the texts contradict each other.
1:26 VA YELECH HA ISH ERETS HA CHITIM VA YIVEN IR VA YIKRA SHEMAH LUZ HU SHEMAH AD HA YOM HA ZEH
וַיֵּלֶךְ הָאִישׁ אֶרֶץ הַחִתִּים וַיִּבֶן עִיר וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ לוּז הוּא שְׁמָהּ עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה
BN: And the man went to the land of the Chitim, and built a city, and called it by the name of Luz: which is its name to this day.
This really doesn't work. The text just told us that Beit-El was previously called Luz, and that they just sacked it. So did he go rebuild it elsewhere, or is this just a failed attempt to further explain the change from Beit-El? And if this is aetiology, and it belongs to the post-Joshuaic period, how does it get to be part of the Av-Raham legends, a supposed half-millennium earlier (see my comment at verse 20).
How do you "build a city" anyway? Gaudi in Barcelona or Wren in London or Hausmann in Paris built large swathes of a city; but not the city itself. I have a feeling that we may have been misunderstanding the word IR throughout these texts (I have said this before, on several occasions). Perhaps he built himself a home, a farmhouse even, a settlement for his clan with several cottages and a barn or two, which later grew into a hamlet, a village, a town, eventually a city.
pey break
This really doesn't work. The text just told us that Beit-El was previously called Luz, and that they just sacked it. So did he go rebuild it elsewhere, or is this just a failed attempt to further explain the change from Beit-El? And if this is aetiology, and it belongs to the post-Joshuaic period, how does it get to be part of the Av-Raham legends, a supposed half-millennium earlier (see my comment at verse 20).
How do you "build a city" anyway? Gaudi in Barcelona or Wren in London or Hausmann in Paris built large swathes of a city; but not the city itself. I have a feeling that we may have been misunderstanding the word IR throughout these texts (I have said this before, on several occasions). Perhaps he built himself a home, a farmhouse even, a settlement for his clan with several cottages and a barn or two, which later grew into a hamlet, a village, a town, eventually a city.
pey break
1:27 VE LO HORISH MENASHEH ET BEIT SHE'AN VE ET BENOTEYHA VE ET TA'NACH VE ET BENOTEYHA VE ET YOSHVEY DOR VE ET BENOTEYHA VE ET YOSHVEY YIVLE'AM VE ET BENOTEYHA VE ET YOSHVEY MEGIDO VE ET BENOTEYHA VA YO'EL HA KENA'ANI LASHEVET BA ARETS HA ZOT
וְלֹא הֹורִישׁ מְנַשֶּׁה אֶת בֵּית שְׁאָן וְאֶת בְּנֹותֶיהָ וְאֶת תַּעְנַךְ וְאֶת בְּנֹתֶיהָ וְאֶת [יֹשֵׁב כ] (יֹשְׁבֵי ק) דֹור וְאֶת בְּנֹותֶיהָ וְאֶת יֹושְׁבֵי יִבְלְעָם וְאֶת בְּנֹתֶיהָ וְאֶת יֹושְׁבֵי מְגִדֹּו וְאֶת בְּנֹותֶיהָ וַיֹּואֶל הַכְּנַעֲנִי לָשֶׁבֶת בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת
BN: Neither did Menasheh drive out the inhabitants of Beit She'an and her surrounding villages, nor Ta'nach and her surrounding villages, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her surrounding villages, nor the inhabitants of Yivle'am and her surrounding villages, nor the inhabitants of Megido and her surrounding villages: but the Kena'ani continued to dwell in that land.
BEIT SHE'AN (בית שאן) means "house of rest". Mentioned in Joshua 17:11 and 16, as Beit Shan (שן) in 1 Samuel 31:10 (King Sha'ul's body was hung there after his death) and 2 Samuel 21:12 (where David retrieves the bones and gives them a proper burial).
TA'NACH (תענך) - not to be confused with the acronym TANACH for the Yehudi Bible - the word means "sandy soil". Mentioned in Joshua 12:21 as a royal city of the Kena'ani; also in Judges 5:19 and 1 Kings 4:12. Situated in Yisaschar but allotted to Menasheh.
BEIT SHE'AN (בית שאן) means "house of rest". Mentioned in Joshua 17:11 and 16, as Beit Shan (שן) in 1 Samuel 31:10 (King Sha'ul's body was hung there after his death) and 2 Samuel 21:12 (where David retrieves the bones and gives them a proper burial).
TA'NACH (תענך) - not to be confused with the acronym TANACH for the Yehudi Bible - the word means "sandy soil". Mentioned in Joshua 12:21 as a royal city of the Kena'ani; also in Judges 5:19 and 1 Kings 4:12. Situated in Yisaschar but allotted to Menasheh.
DOR: A Phoenician word for "town", it should probably be spelled with an Aleph - דאר. Though actually the cuneiform, which is likely to have been an even earlier source, renders it as DURU.
YIVLE'AM: Given its location, should be wondering if the root is the same as Bil'am? The spelling is identical.
MEGIDO: HAR MEGIDO (different link) is the source of the word Armageddon.
So much for the description of Yehoshu'a's achievement as the "conquest" of Kena'an!
So much for the description of Yehoshu'a's achievement as the "conquest" of Kena'an!
1:28 VA YEHI KI CHAZAK YISRA'EL VA YASEM ET HA KENA'ANI LA MAS VE HOREYSH LO HORIYSHO
וַיְהִי כִּי חָזַק יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי לָמַס וְהֹורֵישׁ לֹא הֹורִישֹׁו
BN: And it came to pass, when Yisra-El was strong, that they put the Kena'ani to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out.
This reads like positive propaganda, though it is hard to tell if it is internal religious propaganda or external political propaganda. Either way disingenuous. Either way the intended message is very clear, and has been stated previously in the Book of Joshua several times: we follow the laws of Mosheh and treat our fellow humans decently, not like the Egyptians who made us slaves. Nonetheless it feels remarkably like the sort of statement that might be issued from Prime Minister Netanyahu's office: "The Palestinians are a conquered people, and under international law they have no rights or future claims; we have provided them with schools and hospitals, and there are even members of our Parliament; we should be applauded, not criticised." The problem is not the defense, but the act of conquest. The phrasing would be identical, if the Anglo-Saxons were speaking about the Aboriginals of Australia or the Iroquois of North America.
LA MAS:Well worth looking at Gesenius' commentary on this; he is quite certain that the form of tribute, in relation to this word, is "servile work" rather than taxes or tithes, and he references 1 Kings 9:21 and 2 Chronicles 8:8, as well as several other examples. The Kings reference however is quite specific in stating MAS-OVED, which appears to differentiate one form of MAS from another; but as a however to that however, the Chronicles reference is exactly the same piece of Solomonic history, word by word, save only one word - MAS does not on that occasion have the hyphenated OVED, though the verse that follows in both cases makes clear that it was bondage.
And if it was "bondage", "slavery", "servile work", would that have been on the same terms that the Habiru were AVADIM BE MITSRAYIM, slaves in Egypt? So much then for the Mosaic laws, now at the time of the Book of Judges, and still, according to those two references, at the time of Shelomoh too.
samech break
This reads like positive propaganda, though it is hard to tell if it is internal religious propaganda or external political propaganda. Either way disingenuous. Either way the intended message is very clear, and has been stated previously in the Book of Joshua several times: we follow the laws of Mosheh and treat our fellow humans decently, not like the Egyptians who made us slaves. Nonetheless it feels remarkably like the sort of statement that might be issued from Prime Minister Netanyahu's office: "The Palestinians are a conquered people, and under international law they have no rights or future claims; we have provided them with schools and hospitals, and there are even members of our Parliament; we should be applauded, not criticised." The problem is not the defense, but the act of conquest. The phrasing would be identical, if the Anglo-Saxons were speaking about the Aboriginals of Australia or the Iroquois of North America.
LA MAS:Well worth looking at Gesenius' commentary on this; he is quite certain that the form of tribute, in relation to this word, is "servile work" rather than taxes or tithes, and he references 1 Kings 9:21 and 2 Chronicles 8:8, as well as several other examples. The Kings reference however is quite specific in stating MAS-OVED, which appears to differentiate one form of MAS from another; but as a however to that however, the Chronicles reference is exactly the same piece of Solomonic history, word by word, save only one word - MAS does not on that occasion have the hyphenated OVED, though the verse that follows in both cases makes clear that it was bondage.
And if it was "bondage", "slavery", "servile work", would that have been on the same terms that the Habiru were AVADIM BE MITSRAYIM, slaves in Egypt? So much then for the Mosaic laws, now at the time of the Book of Judges, and still, according to those two references, at the time of Shelomoh too.
samech break
1:29 VE EPHRAYIM LO HORISH ET HA KENA'ANI HA YOSHEV BE GAZER VA YESHEV HA KENA'ANI BE KIRBO BE GAZER
וְאֶפְרַיִם לֹא הֹורִישׁ אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי הַיֹּושֵׁב בְּגָזֶר וַיֵּשֶׁב הַכְּנַעֲנִי בְּקִרְבֹּו בְּגָזֶר
BN: Neither did Ephrayim drive out the Kena'ani who dwelt in Gezer; but the Kena'ani dwelt in Gezer among them.
GEZER: (גזר) comes from a complex root whose meanings all have to do with things being cut away, so probably it was descriptive of the town as being isolated. Joshua 10:33 and 12:12 name it as an ancient royal city of the Kena'ani located now in Ephrayim, but allotted to the Leviyim as a refuge city (Joshua 21:21). It was later laid waste by the Egyptians and restored by King Solomon (1 Kings 9:15-17).
A theological controversy raises its head at this verse. At the end of the Book of Joshua we were told repeatedly that YHVH had fulfilled his promise, that he had led the armies and given his people the land he had promised them. The divine mission was fulfilled, and be grateful to YHVH for ever more. And then we hear, verse after verse, that they did not manage to drive these out, and those out, and more in this place, and more in that, and they are all still here even now. So who exactly did YHVH drive out? And what percentage short of 100 counts as complete fulfillment, especially when you are a god who claims the right to unique worship because of what you have done? It seems that YHVH in fact failed to fulfill his covenant, and therefore does not merit worship. This was likely the view of many Beney Yisra-El at the time, and one major reason why so many of them turned so quickly to the groves and asherim.
pey break
GEZER: (גזר) comes from a complex root whose meanings all have to do with things being cut away, so probably it was descriptive of the town as being isolated. Joshua 10:33 and 12:12 name it as an ancient royal city of the Kena'ani located now in Ephrayim, but allotted to the Leviyim as a refuge city (Joshua 21:21). It was later laid waste by the Egyptians and restored by King Solomon (1 Kings 9:15-17).
A theological controversy raises its head at this verse. At the end of the Book of Joshua we were told repeatedly that YHVH had fulfilled his promise, that he had led the armies and given his people the land he had promised them. The divine mission was fulfilled, and be grateful to YHVH for ever more. And then we hear, verse after verse, that they did not manage to drive these out, and those out, and more in this place, and more in that, and they are all still here even now. So who exactly did YHVH drive out? And what percentage short of 100 counts as complete fulfillment, especially when you are a god who claims the right to unique worship because of what you have done? It seems that YHVH in fact failed to fulfill his covenant, and therefore does not merit worship. This was likely the view of many Beney Yisra-El at the time, and one major reason why so many of them turned so quickly to the groves and asherim.
pey break
1:30 ZEVULUN LO HORISH ET YOSHVEY KITRON VE ET YOSHVEY NAHALOL VE YESHEV HA KENA'ANI BE KIRBO VA YIHEYU LA MAS
זְבוּלֻן לֹא הֹורִישׁ אֶת יֹושְׁבֵי קִטְרֹון וְאֶת יֹושְׁבֵי נַהֲלֹל וַיֵּשֶׁב הַכְּנַעֲנִי בְּקִרְבֹּו וַיִּהְיוּ לָמַס
BN: Neither did Zevulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Kena'ani dwelt among them, and became tributaries.
KITRON (קטרון) appears to suggest that the reclaiming of cultic practices was still going on. The root is KATAR, which means "to burn incense"; cf Jeremiah 1:16, 7:9, 11:13, in each case a reference to idolatrous practices, and specifically the inappropriate burning of incense (or possibly the burning of inappropriate incense). MEKATROT (2 Chronicles 30:14) were the altars on which the incense was burned. There are further instances in Exodus 29:18, Leviticus 1:9 and 17, and 2:2 and 16, all of these perfectly legitimate because they were burned for YHVH; in each of these an animal is sacrificed, with incense to create the "sweet savour" that YHVH so likes. The problem in the Jeremiah references is neither the sacrifice, nor the incense, but either the time, the place, the method, the priest, or most importantly the deity, but quite probably all of these.
NAHALOL (נהלל) is called Nahalal in Joshua 19:15; the word means "pasture".
KITRON (קטרון) appears to suggest that the reclaiming of cultic practices was still going on. The root is KATAR, which means "to burn incense"; cf Jeremiah 1:16, 7:9, 11:13, in each case a reference to idolatrous practices, and specifically the inappropriate burning of incense (or possibly the burning of inappropriate incense). MEKATROT (2 Chronicles 30:14) were the altars on which the incense was burned. There are further instances in Exodus 29:18, Leviticus 1:9 and 17, and 2:2 and 16, all of these perfectly legitimate because they were burned for YHVH; in each of these an animal is sacrificed, with incense to create the "sweet savour" that YHVH so likes. The problem in the Jeremiah references is neither the sacrifice, nor the incense, but either the time, the place, the method, the priest, or most importantly the deity, but quite probably all of these.
NAHALOL (נהלל) is called Nahalal in Joshua 19:15; the word means "pasture".
samech break
1:31 ASHER LO HORISH ET YOSHVEY ACCO VE ET YOSHVEY TSIDON VE ET ACHLAV VE ET ACHZIV VE ET CHELBAH VE ET APHIK VE ET RECHOV
KJ: Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob:
אָשֵׁר לֹא הֹורִישׁ אֶת יֹשְׁבֵי עַכֹּו וְאֶת יֹושְׁבֵי צִידֹון וְאֶת אַחְלָב וְאֶת אַכְזִיב וְאֶת חֶלְבָּה וְאֶת אֲפִיק וְאֶת רְחֹב
BN: Nor did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Acco, nor the inhabitants of Tsidon, nor of Achalav, nor of Achziv, nor of Chelvah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rechov.
ACCO (עכו), which the Crusaders called St Jean d'Acre, and is simply Acre today, in English. The name means "made hot by the sun".
TSIDON is Sidon, in southern Lebanon.
ACHLAV (אחלב) with its Aleph initial, may be an Aramaic name, and therefore an anachronism here; a variation upon CHALAV = "fat", and used for milk (this is the traditional scholarly reading). More likely though the name was Achi-Lev, the Achi as always denoting a shrine to a male deity. With all the names in this and the previous verse, we appear once again to be picking off (or failing to pick off) the important aboriginal towns, some of which were also shrines, some not.
ACCO (עכו), which the Crusaders called St Jean d'Acre, and is simply Acre today, in English. The name means "made hot by the sun".
TSIDON is Sidon, in southern Lebanon.
ACHLAV (אחלב) with its Aleph initial, may be an Aramaic name, and therefore an anachronism here; a variation upon CHALAV = "fat", and used for milk (this is the traditional scholarly reading). More likely though the name was Achi-Lev, the Achi as always denoting a shrine to a male deity. With all the names in this and the previous verse, we appear once again to be picking off (or failing to pick off) the important aboriginal towns, some of which were also shrines, some not.
ACHZIV (אכזיב) is mentioned in Joshua 19:29 and it is situated just north of today's Nahariya, just south of Rosh ha-Nikra, which is today's coastal border-crossing into Lebanon. There are two possible meanings, the one with the Aramaic Aleph (א), which would connect it to CHAZAV = "to lie" or "deceive", for which there is a place, Chozeva, in 1 Chronicles 4:22 - the Aleph on that occasion a suffix. Alternately Achi-Ze'ev = "my brother is a wolf", which reveals a totem clan; and links to the blessing of "the ravening wolf" in Genesis 49:27; a reference in that case to Bin-Yamin where this town is in Asher, and therefore less likely.
APHIK - is that the royal Kena'ani city named as Aphek in 1 Samuel 4 and 29?
1:32 VA YESHEV HA ASHERI BE KEREV HA KENA'ANI YOSHVEY HA ARETS KI LO HORIYSHO
וַיֵּשֶׁב הָאָשֵׁרִי בְּקֶרֶב הַכְּנַעֲנִי יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ כִּי לֹא הֹורִישֹׁו
BN: But the Asherites dwelt among the Kena'ani, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out.
Previous occasions had the KEREV in the favour of the Beney Yisra-El; here it's the other way around; the Beney Asher live in the Kena'ani domain - and this will remain the case right through to Solomonic times, when it was part of the domain of King Hu-Ram of Tsur, the provider of wood and craftsmen for the First Temple.
Based on the verses above, we can say that - with one or two exceptions, mostly connected with Yeru-Shala'im and Chevron - Judges is using the name Kena'ani generically, to describe any group of people living in the land who are not of the twelve tribes, in the way that a Norman historian of the Middle Ages would speak of the English (or probably the Aenglish), without making the distinctions of Angles, Saxons, Friesians, Jutes, Celts, Vikings, Norse, Franks, etc etc...
samech break
Previous occasions had the KEREV in the favour of the Beney Yisra-El; here it's the other way around; the Beney Asher live in the Kena'ani domain - and this will remain the case right through to Solomonic times, when it was part of the domain of King Hu-Ram of Tsur, the provider of wood and craftsmen for the First Temple.
Based on the verses above, we can say that - with one or two exceptions, mostly connected with Yeru-Shala'im and Chevron - Judges is using the name Kena'ani generically, to describe any group of people living in the land who are not of the twelve tribes, in the way that a Norman historian of the Middle Ages would speak of the English (or probably the Aenglish), without making the distinctions of Angles, Saxons, Friesians, Jutes, Celts, Vikings, Norse, Franks, etc etc...
samech break
1:33 NAPHTALI LO HORISH ET YOSHVEY VEIT SHEMESH VE ET YOSHVEY VEIT ANAT VA YESHEV BE KEREV HA KENA'ANI YOSHVEY HA ARETS VE YOSHVEY VEIT SHEMESH U VEIT ANAT HAYU LAHEM LA MAS
נַפְתָּלִי לֹא הֹורִישׁ אֶת יֹשְׁבֵי בֵית שֶׁמֶשׁ וְאֶת יֹשְׁבֵי בֵית עֲנָת וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּקֶרֶב הַכְּנַעֲנִי יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ וְיֹשְׁבֵי בֵית שֶׁמֶשׁ וּבֵית עֲנָת הָיוּ לָהֶם לָמַס
BN: Nor did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beit Shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beit Anat; but he dwelt among the Kena'ani, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beit Shemesh and of Beit Anat became tributaries unto them.
BEIT SHEMESH is clearly a shrine to the sun god, and has hints of both Shimshon (Samson) and Tammuz. A Levitical refuge city according to Joshua 21:16, it bordered Dan, Yehudah and Philistine territory, enabling us to deduce Shimshon (Samson), the sun hero, rather than Tammuz, the moon hero. It recurs in 1 Samuel 6:12 and 2 Chronicles 28:18, 1 Kings 4:9, 2 Kings 14:11. Today it is called Ayn Shemesh, which refers to a well, though it is unclear whether the well is the ancient shrine or a later addition. Joshua 19:38 suggests there was another shrine of the same name in Naphtali, and Joshua 19:22 yet another in Yisaschar. On, or Heliopolis, in Mitsrayim (Egypt), which was Yoseph's shrine, also means "a temple to the sun".
BEIT ANAT (בית ענת) is referred to in Joshua 19:38, and there is also a Beit Anot in Joshua 15:59. Beit Anat here is in Naphtali; Beit Anot in Yehudah is presumably Anatot, where Yirme-Yah's (Jeremiah's) father was a priest. Anat was the wife of Ba'al, who gave her name to Hittite Anatolia. At what point, and why, did the name change from the singular to the plural?
We could read this differently, not as a failure to drive them out, but as a deliberate decision not to, because they needed farm labourers, and nannies, and valets to park their donkeys for them to save them walking to their tents. Unfortunately this does not work, because the instruction from YHVH, throughout Yehoshu'a, was unequivocal, and especially in his final speech at Shechem: drive them out.
And indeed, we unfortunately have to include this note: that YHVH (Elohim) made very clear that he would drive out all these peoples, and that this was was the second principal reason (getting them out of Mitsrayim was the first) why the Beney Yisra-El should worship him. The scale of his failure, as described in this chapter, does not substantiate his claims.
VA YESHEV: As in the previous verse, it is a whole tribe that is being discussed, and yet the singular is used: "he", not "they".
samech break
BEIT SHEMESH is clearly a shrine to the sun god, and has hints of both Shimshon (Samson) and Tammuz. A Levitical refuge city according to Joshua 21:16, it bordered Dan, Yehudah and Philistine territory, enabling us to deduce Shimshon (Samson), the sun hero, rather than Tammuz, the moon hero. It recurs in 1 Samuel 6:12 and 2 Chronicles 28:18, 1 Kings 4:9, 2 Kings 14:11. Today it is called Ayn Shemesh, which refers to a well, though it is unclear whether the well is the ancient shrine or a later addition. Joshua 19:38 suggests there was another shrine of the same name in Naphtali, and Joshua 19:22 yet another in Yisaschar. On, or Heliopolis, in Mitsrayim (Egypt), which was Yoseph's shrine, also means "a temple to the sun".
BEIT ANAT (בית ענת) is referred to in Joshua 19:38, and there is also a Beit Anot in Joshua 15:59. Beit Anat here is in Naphtali; Beit Anot in Yehudah is presumably Anatot, where Yirme-Yah's (Jeremiah's) father was a priest. Anat was the wife of Ba'al, who gave her name to Hittite Anatolia. At what point, and why, did the name change from the singular to the plural?
We could read this differently, not as a failure to drive them out, but as a deliberate decision not to, because they needed farm labourers, and nannies, and valets to park their donkeys for them to save them walking to their tents. Unfortunately this does not work, because the instruction from YHVH, throughout Yehoshu'a, was unequivocal, and especially in his final speech at Shechem: drive them out.
And indeed, we unfortunately have to include this note: that YHVH (Elohim) made very clear that he would drive out all these peoples, and that this was was the second principal reason (getting them out of Mitsrayim was the first) why the Beney Yisra-El should worship him. The scale of his failure, as described in this chapter, does not substantiate his claims.
VA YESHEV: As in the previous verse, it is a whole tribe that is being discussed, and yet the singular is used: "he", not "they".
samech break
1:34 VA YILCHATSU HE EMORI ET BENEY DAN HA HARAH KI LO NETANO LAREDET LA EMEK
וַיִּלְחֲצוּ הָאֱמֹרִי אֶת בְּנֵי דָן הָהָרָה כִּי לֹא נְתָנֹו לָרֶדֶת לָעֵמֶק
BN: And the Emori forced the Beney Dan into the mountain: for they would not permit them to come down to the valley.
EMORI: The Emori lived on the Golan and Mount Chermon, and east into Ashur (Assyria), so this must be after the Pelishtim had already driven them out of their coastal inheritance and they had moved to La'ish; previously it was the Pelishtim establishing their colonies on the Mediterranean coast in the aftermath of their flight from Cheret (Crete), who forced Dan to move. Clearly this tribe of Danites was small, weak and easily over-powered, which can only mean that they failed to worship YHVH properly and so he withdrew his strong hand and turned his face away from shining on them.
EMORI: The Emori lived on the Golan and Mount Chermon, and east into Ashur (Assyria), so this must be after the Pelishtim had already driven them out of their coastal inheritance and they had moved to La'ish; previously it was the Pelishtim establishing their colonies on the Mediterranean coast in the aftermath of their flight from Cheret (Crete), who forced Dan to move. Clearly this tribe of Danites was small, weak and easily over-powered, which can only mean that they failed to worship YHVH properly and so he withdrew his strong hand and turned his face away from shining on them.
1:35 VA YO'EL HA EMORI LASHEVET BE HAR CHERES BA AYALON U VE SHA'ALVIM VA TICHBAD YAD BEIT YOSEPH VA YIHEYU LA MAS
וַיֹּואֶל הָאֱמֹרִי לָשֶׁבֶת בְּהַר חֶרֶס בְּאַיָּלֹון וּבְשַׁעַלְבִים וַתִּכְבַּד יַד בֵּית יֹוסֵף וַיִּהְיוּ לָמַס
BN: But the Emori would dwell on Mount Cheres in Ayalon, and in Sha'alvim: yet the hand of the house of Yoseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries.
The fact that Mount Cheres is in Ayalon (אילון) supports this, because it was at Ayalon that Yehoshu'a made the moon stand still (Joshua 10:11-14) - presumably a description of an eclipse, as was the previous description of the sun - and Ayalon came to be known as Giv-Yah (Gibeah), an amalgamation of the Egyptian Geb with the Hittite Yah. Several towns named Ayalon are mentioned. A Levitical town in Dan in Joshua 10:12, 19:42 and 21:24; another in Zevulun according to Judges 12:12.
Its meaning is hard to decipher however, because there are several roots that lead to the same name. Ayal is "a stag" or "hart" in Deuteronomy 12:15, 14:5, Isaiah 35:6 and Song of Songs 2:9 and 17, but quite probably the ancients could not tell a deer from a goat or a sheep, because Ayil is also sometimes a ram and Ayalah a she-goat. Eyal means "strength", which is probably the reason for this apparent anomaly; it occurs in Exodus 15:15, Ezekiel 17:13, and 2 Kings 24:15, and elsewhere, where it is used to mean "mighty ones", as in leaders or nobles; in Genesis 14:6 it comes to mean "a strong..." - or at least a robust... "tree"; at which point Ayalon becomes confused with Elon, "an oak tree", though this is not totally surprising, given the robust nature of oak trees. So is Ayal-on "the place of the deer", "of the stag", "of the goat", "of the ram" or "of the oak tree". The "mighty one" in any case, however he is depicted totemically, remains the sun god.
Finally, we need to note that Yehoshu'a was himself granted land, at Timnat Serach according to Joshua 19:50, and buried there, according to Joshua 24:30. But as per my note to that latter reference, Timnat Serach is probably an error for Timnat Cheres, which is the name it is about to be given at the start of the next chapter (Judges 2:9). Is the Redactor trying to avoid the obvious inference, that even Yehoshu'a's own inheritance was never fully conquered?
SHA'ALVIM (שעלבים) appears in Joshua 19:42 as Sha'alabin, but in 1 Kings 4:9 retains the final mem (ם), as it does in 2 Samuel 23:32 and 1 Chronicles 11:33. No connection with Sha'ul (Saul), who has an Aleph (א) not an Ayin (ע). Sha'al means "hollowness", and is used for the palm of the hand when cupped, as well as for "a handful" (1 Kings 20:10, Ezekiel 13:19). A shu'al is a fox, and scholars generally translate Sha'alvim to mean "a region of foxes", though there is absolutely no etymo-logic behind this. The original word simply was not Yehudit anyway, which rarely has four-letter roots.
1:36 U GEVUL HA EMORI MI MA'ALEH AKRABIM ME HA SELA VA MA'LAH
KJ: And the coast of the Amorites was from the going up to Akrabbim, from the rock, and upward.
pey break
1:36 U GEVUL HA EMORI MI MA'ALEH AKRABIM ME HA SELA VA MA'LAH
וּגְבוּל הָאֱמֹרִי מִמַּעֲלֵה עַקְרַבִּים מֵהַסֶּלַע וָמָעְלָה
BN: And the border of the Emori ran from the ascent into Akrabim, from the rock, and upward.
AKRABIM (עקרבים). The map at the link confirms my insistence, at verse 18, that GEVUL is a border, not a coast.
The name, however, does lend some support to the fox theory above. Akrav is a scorpion, and we know the scorpion was a zodiacal totem of the Trinity; was the fox once too? Alas, it is more likely that the Redactor is simply being ironic here, stating poetically that the Emori inhabited a region that encompassed "a nest of scorpions" and "a den of foxes"; and then adding, even more ironically, that it didn't help them, because "the hand of the house of Yoseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries."
As this chapter goes on, continually undermining the claim that YHVH had fulfilled his promise by giving the entire land, or the secular claim that Yehoshu'a and the tribes had conquered all of it, I find myself increasingly wondering why the Redactor would include such a detailed list of failures. And, as always with such questions, I assume the answer lies in the day of the Redaction, not in the days of the events - so the question raises itself: were Ezra and Nechem-Yah under pressure from the Beney Yehudah, to drive out the Beney Kena'an at that time, and they needed this historical precedent to be able to say, "Yehoshu'a never did, and it wasn't a problem, we lived together amicably for hundreds of years, and we can now"? Not that they did live all that amicably side by side, but politicians' points are politicians' points.
AKRABIM (עקרבים). The map at the link confirms my insistence, at verse 18, that GEVUL is a border, not a coast.
The name, however, does lend some support to the fox theory above. Akrav is a scorpion, and we know the scorpion was a zodiacal totem of the Trinity; was the fox once too? Alas, it is more likely that the Redactor is simply being ironic here, stating poetically that the Emori inhabited a region that encompassed "a nest of scorpions" and "a den of foxes"; and then adding, even more ironically, that it didn't help them, because "the hand of the house of Yoseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries."
As this chapter goes on, continually undermining the claim that YHVH had fulfilled his promise by giving the entire land, or the secular claim that Yehoshu'a and the tribes had conquered all of it, I find myself increasingly wondering why the Redactor would include such a detailed list of failures. And, as always with such questions, I assume the answer lies in the day of the Redaction, not in the days of the events - so the question raises itself: were Ezra and Nechem-Yah under pressure from the Beney Yehudah, to drive out the Beney Kena'an at that time, and they needed this historical precedent to be able to say, "Yehoshu'a never did, and it wasn't a problem, we lived together amicably for hundreds of years, and we can now"? Not that they did live all that amicably side by side, but politicians' points are politicians' points.
pey break
No comments:
Post a Comment