2:1 VA YA'AL MAL'ACH YHVH MIN HA GIL-GAL EL HA BOCHIM VA YOMER A'ALEH ET'CHEM MI MITSRAYIM VA AVI ET'CHEM EL HA ARETS ASHER NISHBA'TI LA AVOTEYCHEM VA OMAR LO APHER BERIYTI IT'CHEM LE OLAM
וַיַּעַל מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה מִן הַגִּלְגָּל אֶל הַבֹּכִים (פ) וַיֹּאמֶר אַעֲלֶה אֶתְכֶם מִמִּצְרַיִם וָאָבִיא אֶתְכֶם אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם וָאֹמַר לֹא אָפֵר בְּרִיתִי אִתְּכֶם לְעֹולָם
BN: And a messenger of YHVH came up from Ha Gil-Gal to Ha Bochim, and said, "I took you out of Mitsrayim, and brought you to this land which I promised to your ancestors; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you...
MAL'ACH: As noted previously (click here), the concept of angels does not enter the cult of the Beney Yisra-El until they encounter them under the Medes (Persians), in the 6th century BCE, centuries after the epoch of the Judges. So it would have been meaningful to those writing and hearing this tale in Ezra's time, but not to the people of Ha Bochim at the historical time of the tale. A MAL'ACH is a messenger, from the root LA'ACH which also gives the root MEL'ACHA (מְלָאכָה) = "work", in the sense of the 39 Melachot, the forms of work prohibited on the Sabbath: an interesting challenge for a Bible or an Ivrit class, to work out how those two very different concepts derive from the same root.
Mostly, when we encounter "angels", it is the light from the horoscopal constellations being interpreted as "fate and destiny" and then anthropomorphised to make a better story. But on this occasion I think we can assume that "a messenger of YHVH" was simply a junior clerk from the office of the High Priest, who may well have been based at Gil-Gal at this time (Shechem, Shiloh and Mitspeh being the other possibilities), and perhaps brought this message on behalf of the High Priest, who was too sick to attend in person. And no, I am not being satirical, nor even ironic.
MAL'ACH: As noted previously (click here), the concept of angels does not enter the cult of the Beney Yisra-El until they encounter them under the Medes (Persians), in the 6th century BCE, centuries after the epoch of the Judges. So it would have been meaningful to those writing and hearing this tale in Ezra's time, but not to the people of Ha Bochim at the historical time of the tale. A MAL'ACH is a messenger, from the root LA'ACH which also gives the root MEL'ACHA (מְלָאכָה) = "work", in the sense of the 39 Melachot, the forms of work prohibited on the Sabbath: an interesting challenge for a Bible or an Ivrit class, to work out how those two very different concepts derive from the same root.
Mostly, when we encounter "angels", it is the light from the horoscopal constellations being interpreted as "fate and destiny" and then anthropomorphised to make a better story. But on this occasion I think we can assume that "a messenger of YHVH" was simply a junior clerk from the office of the High Priest, who may well have been based at Gil-Gal at this time (Shechem, Shiloh and Mitspeh being the other possibilities), and perhaps brought this message on behalf of the High Priest, who was too sick to attend in person. And no, I am not being satirical, nor even ironic.
HA GIL-GAL: Mostly we have encountered it without a definite article, but that was before Yehoshu'a erected the monument there (Joshua 4). It will however revert to being Gil-Gal without the definite article later on.
HA BOCHIM: (בכים) likewise with a definite article; it means "weepers" and refers to the wailing for the Risen Lord, usually a female activity, as evidenced in Ezekiel 8:14, though men were never excluded (nor even offered exemption on the grounds that it was a time-bound commandment). Most likely this has been masculinised by the Redactor, and in the original the complaint was to the men who were allowing their women to do this, presumably in the "women's court" at Beit-El (Bethel), or at an adjacent burial ground.
And given that the place is being named here for the ceremony of weeping, can we assume that the place actually had a different name; and then wonder where this ceremony of wailing was taking place?
And yes, that was a pey break indicator after HA BOCHIM - a very odd place to find it, after only one phrase, and in mid-verse; but remember that the chapter breaks are not in the original parchment, but added many centuries later, so the real oddity is that some versions have a Pey break, but others a Samech break (click here), and I cannot offer an explanation for either, or for the variation.
And yes, that was a pey break indicator after HA BOCHIM - a very odd place to find it, after only one phrase, and in mid-verse; but remember that the chapter breaks are not in the original parchment, but added many centuries later, so the real oddity is that some versions have a Pey break, but others a Samech break (click here), and I cannot offer an explanation for either, or for the variation.
2:2 VE ATEM LO TICHRETU VERIT LE YOSHVEY HA ARETS HA ZOT MIZBECHOTEYHEN TITOTSUN VE LO SHEMA'TEM BE KOLI MAH ZOT ASITEM
וְאַתֶּם לֹא תִכְרְתוּ בְרִית לְיֹושְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת מִזְבְּחֹותֵיהֶם תִּתֹּצוּן וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹלִי מַה זֹּאת עֲשִׂיתֶם
BN: "And you shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; you shall throw down their altars. But you have not obeyed my voice; why have you done this?..
Confirming my comments at the end of Chapter One: YHVH is angry because the process of conquest has not been completed; and not only because there are still pagan altars in use, but specifically angry with those at Ha Bochim because they are now participating in these pagan practices. And in doing so he confirms my explanation of what was happening at Ha Bochim. (And in this being the case, maybe the absence of the High Priest and the need for a messenger is because he refuses to attend a ceremony at which the women are wailing for the Risen Lord - for which, see Ezekiel 8:14, because it was still the case those several centuries later; or see Luke 23:27ff, where it was still the case, even more centuries later).
KJ: Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.
Confirming my comments at the end of Chapter One: YHVH is angry because the process of conquest has not been completed; and not only because there are still pagan altars in use, but specifically angry with those at Ha Bochim because they are now participating in these pagan practices. And in doing so he confirms my explanation of what was happening at Ha Bochim. (And in this being the case, maybe the absence of the High Priest and the need for a messenger is because he refuses to attend a ceremony at which the women are wailing for the Risen Lord - for which, see Ezekiel 8:14, because it was still the case those several centuries later; or see Luke 23:27ff, where it was still the case, even more centuries later).
2:3 VE GAM AMARTI LO AGARESH OTAM MIPNEYCHEM VE HAYU LACHEM LE TSIDIM VE ELOHEYHEM YIHEYU LACHEM LE MOKESH
וְגַם אָמַרְתִּי לֹא אֲגָרֵשׁ אֹותָם מִפְּנֵיכֶם וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לְצִדִּים וֵאלֹהֵיהֶם יִהְיוּ לָכֶם לְמֹוקֵשׁ
BN: "Which is why I also said that I would not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you."
2:4 VA YEHI KE DABER MAL'ACH YHVH ET HA DEVARIM HA ELEH EL KOL BENEY YISRA-EL VA YIS'U HA AM ETKO LAM VA YIVCHU
KJ: And it came to pass, when the angel of the LORD spake these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept.
2:4 VA YEHI KE DABER MAL'ACH YHVH ET HA DEVARIM HA ELEH EL KOL BENEY YISRA-EL VA YIS'U HA AM ETKO LAM VA YIVCHU
וַיְהִי כְּדַבֵּר מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּשְׂאוּ הָעָם אֶת קֹולָם וַיִּבְכּוּ
BN: And it came to pass, when the messenger of YHVH spoke these words to all the Beney Yisra-El, that the people lifted up their voices, and wept.
Conquest by language, yet again! The place was already called HA BOCHIM when the messenger went there to complain about their weeping, so this must be read as another attempt to transfer the aetiology - in exactly the same way that Christianity in Europe absorbed the ancient gods and goddesses and tribal heroes by transforming them into Christian saints or fairy tales; the place is now called HA BOCHIM because the Beney Yisra-El wept there for their sins - for the sin of weeping, but that belongs to the transformed past; and the original reason can thus be forgotten in time. This is the traditional method of conquest - in exactly the same way Muhammad attempted to claim Yeru-Shala'im by inventing a story of a night-visit on a winged, talking horse (the Isra, or the Lailat al Miraj, on the 27th of Rajab), English Guinevere was magically transformed into the made-up St Margaret of Antioch, and the Guy Faux which was the straw effigy of the Risen Lord in his autumnal manifestation, was apparently one of Catesby's co-conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot.
Conquest by language, yet again! The place was already called HA BOCHIM when the messenger went there to complain about their weeping, so this must be read as another attempt to transfer the aetiology - in exactly the same way that Christianity in Europe absorbed the ancient gods and goddesses and tribal heroes by transforming them into Christian saints or fairy tales; the place is now called HA BOCHIM because the Beney Yisra-El wept there for their sins - for the sin of weeping, but that belongs to the transformed past; and the original reason can thus be forgotten in time. This is the traditional method of conquest - in exactly the same way Muhammad attempted to claim Yeru-Shala'im by inventing a story of a night-visit on a winged, talking horse (the Isra, or the Lailat al Miraj, on the 27th of Rajab), English Guinevere was magically transformed into the made-up St Margaret of Antioch, and the Guy Faux which was the straw effigy of the Risen Lord in his autumnal manifestation, was apparently one of Catesby's co-conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot.
2:5 VA YIKRE'U SHEM HA MAKOM HA HU BOCHIM VA YIZBECHU SHAM LA YHVH
וַיִּקְרְאוּ שֵׁם הַמָּקֹום הַהוּא בֹּכִים וַיִּזְבְּחוּ שָׁם לַיהוָה
BN: And they called the name of that place Bochim: and they sacrificed there to YHVH.
BOCHIM: Which either confirms that this wasn't actually the place's name beforehand, but the name has been bestowed now; or that it was, but the aetiology having been shifted, the understanding of the meaning has shifted too, and so it is effectively a new name. And now that its raison d'être has changed, it becomes a mere town-name, Bochim, and no longer a place of pilgrimage to the Risen Lord, Ha Bochim. As explained above, the aetiology is the story, rather than the story being the story. The act of weeping itself, and the real nature of the messenger, is best explained by Ezekiel 8:14 and a better understanding of the cult of Tammuz, later revived as the cult of David, later still as the cult of Jesus.
pey break
KJ: And when Joshua had let the people go, the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the land.
BOCHIM: Which either confirms that this wasn't actually the place's name beforehand, but the name has been bestowed now; or that it was, but the aetiology having been shifted, the understanding of the meaning has shifted too, and so it is effectively a new name. And now that its raison d'être has changed, it becomes a mere town-name, Bochim, and no longer a place of pilgrimage to the Risen Lord, Ha Bochim. As explained above, the aetiology is the story, rather than the story being the story. The act of weeping itself, and the real nature of the messenger, is best explained by Ezekiel 8:14 and a better understanding of the cult of Tammuz, later revived as the cult of David, later still as the cult of Jesus.
pey break
2:6 VA YESHALACH YEHOSHU'A ET HA AM VA YELCHU VENEY YISRA-EL ISH LE NACHALATO LARESHET ET HA ARETS
וַיְשַׁלַּח יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת הָעָם וַיֵּלְכוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ לְנַחֲלָתֹו לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאָרֶץ
BN: And when Yehoshu'a had let the people go, every man of the Beney Yisra-El went to his inheritance, and took possession of the land.
It appears that all this has been taking place back in Yehoshu'a's time: Joshua 24, the last chapter of that book, had him assembing the people (24:1) in Shechem, and then "sent the people away, each man to his own inheritance" in 24:28; all of which infers that HA BOCHIM is in fact Shechem. BUT: Judges 1:1 clearly marked Yehoshu'a's death. BUT: now see verse 8 below.
It appears that all this has been taking place back in Yehoshu'a's time: Joshua 24, the last chapter of that book, had him assembing the people (24:1) in Shechem, and then "sent the people away, each man to his own inheritance" in 24:28; all of which infers that HA BOCHIM is in fact Shechem. BUT: Judges 1:1 clearly marked Yehoshu'a's death. BUT: now see verse 8 below.
2:7 VA YA'AVDU HA AM ET YHVH KOL YEMEY YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL YEMEY HA ZEKENIM ASHER HE'ERIYCHU YAMIM ACHAREY YEHOSHU'A ASHER RA'U ET KOL MA'ASEH YHVH HA GADOL ASHER ASAH LE YISRA-EL
וַיַּעַבְדוּ הָעָם אֶת יְהוָה כֹּל יְמֵי יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכֹל יְמֵי הַזְּקֵנִים אֲשֶׁר הֶאֱרִיכוּ יָמִים אַחֲרֵי יְהֹושׁוּעַ אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ אֵת כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה יְהוָה הַגָּדֹול אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And the people served YHVH throughout the days of Yehoshu'a, and throughout the days of the elders who survived Yehoshu'a, who had seen all the great works that YHVH did for Yisra-El.
HA GADOL ("the great") goes with the MA'ASEH ("deeds") and not with YHVH, though the syntax is peculiar. "God the great" is a relative term, distinguishing one from another, as in Alexander the Great or Catherine the Great, as opposed to Ethelred the Unready or Pliny the Elder or Barack the Indecisive; a monotheistic deity cannot be the beneficiary of such a sobriquet, because there is no other deity for him/her/it/them to be relative to.
2:8 VA YAMAT YEHOSHU'A BIN NUN EVED YHVH BEN ME'AH VA ESER SHANIM
KJ: And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died, being an hundred and ten years old.
HA GADOL ("the great") goes with the MA'ASEH ("deeds") and not with YHVH, though the syntax is peculiar. "God the great" is a relative term, distinguishing one from another, as in Alexander the Great or Catherine the Great, as opposed to Ethelred the Unready or Pliny the Elder or Barack the Indecisive; a monotheistic deity cannot be the beneficiary of such a sobriquet, because there is no other deity for him/her/it/them to be relative to.
2:8 VA YAMAT YEHOSHU'A BIN NUN EVED YHVH BEN ME'AH VA ESER SHANIM
וַיָּמָת יְהֹושֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן עֶבֶד יְהוָה בֶּן מֵאָה וָעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים
BN: And Yehoshu'a bin Nun, the servant of YHVH, died, being a hundred and ten years old.
This is an almost exact quotation from the end of Yehoshu'a's book. Does this infer that the first chapter and a half of Yehoshu'a are a reiteration, and not a sequel? We keep on finding evidence of this - the repetition of the tale of Achsah, for example, in Joshua 15 and again in Judges 1.
This is an almost exact quotation from the end of Yehoshu'a's book. Does this infer that the first chapter and a half of Yehoshu'a are a reiteration, and not a sequel? We keep on finding evidence of this - the repetition of the tale of Achsah, for example, in Joshua 15 and again in Judges 1.
2:9 VA YIKBERU OTO BIGVUL NACHALATO BE TIMNAT CHERES BE HAR EPHRAYIM MI TSEPHON LE HAR GA'ASH
וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֹותֹו בִּגְבוּל נַחֲלָתֹו בְּתִמְנַת חֶרֶס בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם מִצְּפֹון לְהַר גָּעַשׁ
BN: And they buried him on the border of his inheritance, in Timnat Cheres, on Mount Ephrayim, on the north side of Ga'ash Hill.
TIMNAT CHERES (תמנת-חרס) confirms what was noted about Cheres previously (see my note to Judges 1:35, and also Joshua 19:50 and 24:30), and may also clarify a question about Timna in the Book of Joshua (15:10). It also allows us to see precisely what divinity and cult Yehoshu'a really belonged to. Timna should be spelled with a final Ayin (ע), and has the connotation of restraint from sexual intercourse, which is to say fertility, and as such it can be read as a euphemism for a burial ground. Timnat Cheres thus becomes "the burial ground of the sun god", and enables us to see Yehoshu'a not so much as the successor to Mosheh, but simply as another name for the same Risen Lord previously worshipped as Mosheh, who likewise went to his burial at the summit of a sacred mountain, Mount Nevo in his case, Mount Ephrayim in Yehoshua's.
GA'ASH (געש): means "to shake" and is generally used of earthquakes. See my notes at Joshua 24:30.
2:10 VE GAM KOL HA DOR HA HU NE'ESPHU EL AVOTAV VA YAKAM DOR ACHER ACHAREYHEM ASHER LO YAD'U ET YHVH VE GAM ET HA MA'ASEH ASHER ASAH LE YISRA-EL
KJ: And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.
TIMNAT CHERES (תמנת-חרס) confirms what was noted about Cheres previously (see my note to Judges 1:35, and also Joshua 19:50 and 24:30), and may also clarify a question about Timna in the Book of Joshua (15:10). It also allows us to see precisely what divinity and cult Yehoshu'a really belonged to. Timna should be spelled with a final Ayin (ע), and has the connotation of restraint from sexual intercourse, which is to say fertility, and as such it can be read as a euphemism for a burial ground. Timnat Cheres thus becomes "the burial ground of the sun god", and enables us to see Yehoshu'a not so much as the successor to Mosheh, but simply as another name for the same Risen Lord previously worshipped as Mosheh, who likewise went to his burial at the summit of a sacred mountain, Mount Nevo in his case, Mount Ephrayim in Yehoshua's.
GA'ASH (געש): means "to shake" and is generally used of earthquakes. See my notes at Joshua 24:30.
2:10 VE GAM KOL HA DOR HA HU NE'ESPHU EL AVOTAV VA YAKAM DOR ACHER ACHAREYHEM ASHER LO YAD'U ET YHVH VE GAM ET HA MA'ASEH ASHER ASAH LE YISRA-EL
וְגַם כָּל הַדֹּור הַהוּא נֶאֶסְפוּ אֶל אֲבֹותָיו וַיָּקָם דֹּור אַחֵר אַחֲרֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ אֶת יְהוָה וְגַם אֶת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And all that generation were also gathered to their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which did not know YHVH, nor yet the works which he had done for Yisra-El.
So our story leaps forward twenty years, and the covenant of eternal loyalty sworn by the people at Shechem, at the end of the Book of Joshua, proves to have been as worthless and meaningless as the cynics among us suspected it would be at the time. So, once again, the Redactor makes clear his purpose: to enlighten the "new Jews" about the monotheistic religion of YHVH, which clearly wasn't the religion that they made covenant with anyway, as evidenced by all the Risen Lord associations identified in just these last one-and-a-quarter chapters, let alone what is going to follow in the remainder of this book (the Tanach, I mean, not just the Book of Judges). They would, of course, have been fully aware that the overthrow of the pagan cults had not been achieved. But the struggle must go on!
What, however, is strange about this statement is the assumption that a generation can grow up with no knowledge of something, despite being the children of a generation deeply embedded in it. What, they didn't circumcise the boys, they didn't keep kosher at home, they didn't take the kids with to the worship ceremonies and annual gatherings, they didn't tell bedtime stories about No'ach's Ark or Ya'akov and Rachel, they didn't have some equivalent of Bar Mitzvah, they didn't "teach their children" as per the instructions in the Shema? Then they weren't a generation who knew YHVH and followed his covenant faithfully either.
So our story leaps forward twenty years, and the covenant of eternal loyalty sworn by the people at Shechem, at the end of the Book of Joshua, proves to have been as worthless and meaningless as the cynics among us suspected it would be at the time. So, once again, the Redactor makes clear his purpose: to enlighten the "new Jews" about the monotheistic religion of YHVH, which clearly wasn't the religion that they made covenant with anyway, as evidenced by all the Risen Lord associations identified in just these last one-and-a-quarter chapters, let alone what is going to follow in the remainder of this book (the Tanach, I mean, not just the Book of Judges). They would, of course, have been fully aware that the overthrow of the pagan cults had not been achieved. But the struggle must go on!
What, however, is strange about this statement is the assumption that a generation can grow up with no knowledge of something, despite being the children of a generation deeply embedded in it. What, they didn't circumcise the boys, they didn't keep kosher at home, they didn't take the kids with to the worship ceremonies and annual gatherings, they didn't tell bedtime stories about No'ach's Ark or Ya'akov and Rachel, they didn't have some equivalent of Bar Mitzvah, they didn't "teach their children" as per the instructions in the Shema? Then they weren't a generation who knew YHVH and followed his covenant faithfully either.
Or should we translate YAD'U as "didn't know YHVH in their hearts and actions"? Which of course will be the principal complaint of the religious leaders, from the Biblical Prophets to the contemporary Chief Rabbis.
samech break
2:11 VA YA'ASU VENEY YISRA-EL ET HA RA BE EYNEY YHVH VA YA'AVDU ET HA BE'ALIM
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה וַיַּעַבְדוּ אֶת הַבְּעָלִים
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El did what was evil in the eyes of YHVH, by serving Ba'alim
Just as their parents did at Ha Bochim a half a dozen verses ago, and their great-grandparents with the Golden Calf not sixty years before that.
KJ: And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger.
Just as their parents did at Ha Bochim a half a dozen verses ago, and their great-grandparents with the Golden Calf not sixty years before that.
2:12 VA YA'AZVU ET YHVH ELOHEY AVOTAM HA MOTSIY OTAM ME ERETS MITSRAYIM VA YELCHU ACHAREY ELOHIM ACHERIM ME ELOHEY HA AMIM ASHER SEVIYVOTEYHEN VA YISHTACHAVU LAHEM VA YACH'ISU ET YHVH
וַיַּעַזְבוּ אֶת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹותָם הַמֹּוצִיא אֹותָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹותֵיהֶם וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לָהֶם וַיַּכְעִסוּ אֶת יְהוָה
BN: And they abandoned YHVH, the god of their ancestors, who had brought them out of the land of Mitsrayim, and followed other gods, the gods of the people who lived around and about them, and they prostrated themselves before them, and provoked YHVH to anger.
Elohim here used to mean "gods", but Elohey adjectivally as a single god.
ME ELOHIM: appears to be a scribal error, or at least an unnecessary addition.
KJ: And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
Elohim here used to mean "gods", but Elohey adjectivally as a single god.
ME ELOHIM: appears to be a scribal error, or at least an unnecessary addition.
2:13 VA YA'AZVU ET YHVH VA YA'AVDU LA BA'AL VE LA ASHTAROT
וַיַּעַזְבוּ אֶת יְהוָה וַיַּעַבְדוּ לַבַּעַל וְלָעַשְׁתָּרֹות
BN: And they abandoned YHVH, and worshiped Ba'al and Ashtarot.
LA BA'AL: See notes for Ba'al and Ashterot. The phrasing is odd - the "LA" here much like the "ME" in the previous verse - and suggests that the practice was not alive at the time of the Redaction, and so the Redactor did not really know what he was describing: Ba'al and Anat would be correct, with the Ashtarot (or more accurately Ashterot) as items in the ritual rather than the gods themselves. See my note to Judges 3:7.
KJ: And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.
LA BA'AL: See notes for Ba'al and Ashterot. The phrasing is odd - the "LA" here much like the "ME" in the previous verse - and suggests that the practice was not alive at the time of the Redaction, and so the Redactor did not really know what he was describing: Ba'al and Anat would be correct, with the Ashtarot (or more accurately Ashterot) as items in the ritual rather than the gods themselves. See my note to Judges 3:7.
2:14 VA YICHAR APH YHVH BE YISRA-EL VA YITNEM BE YAD SHOSIM VA YASHOSU OTAM VA YIMKEREM BE YAD OYEVEYHEM MI SAVIV VE LO YACHLU OD LA'AMOD LIPHNEY OYEVEYHEM
וַיִּחַר אַף יְהוָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתְּנֵם בְּיַד שֹׁסִים וַיָּשֹׁסּוּ אֹותָם וַיִּמְכְּרֵם בְּיַד אֹויְבֵיהֶם מִסָּבִיב וְלֹא יָכְלוּ עֹוד לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי אֹויְבֵיהֶם
BN: And the nostrils of YHVH flared up against Yisra-El, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers, who spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their neighbour-enemies, so that they could no longer stand up to their enemies.
VA YICHAR APH: The old bull-god version of YHVH, one of his earliest manifestations (and really it was the manifestation of Kena'ani EL, or Egyptian HOR, not YHVH, but ascribed to YHVH later on when he became the Omnideity), but one that we have not encountered for some time. Genesis 18:30 was its first use, but it is mostly in the tales of Mosheh that we witness it, the first time at Exodus 4:14. Very much the case in Joshua 7:1 as well, which I mention only because of SHOSIM.
SHOSIM: Sheen (ש) followed by Samech (ס) is a surprise, but the root is genuine: SHASAH (שסה). It occurs in Psalm 44:11, 1 Samuel 23:1 and Hosea 13:15, on each occasion with the meaning "plunder". My mentioning of Joshua 7 in the above note is because "the accursed thing" which Achan took, and which so inflamed the nostrils of the bull-god, will turn out to be "plunder", but SHASAH is not used in verse 11, when the detail of the Cherem is first stated; Achan refers to it as SHALAL (שָּׁלָל) in his confession in verse 21, and it continues to be SHALAL on every future occasion that "spoils" are taken (Joshua 8:27 for example). There is therefore a difference between "plunder" and "spoils" which renders one a Cherem - a forbidden act for which the death penalty applies - and the other perfectly legitimate. In Achan's case it was the dedication of all the "booty" to the priestly treasury which he violated.
KJ: Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.
VA YICHAR APH: The old bull-god version of YHVH, one of his earliest manifestations (and really it was the manifestation of Kena'ani EL, or Egyptian HOR, not YHVH, but ascribed to YHVH later on when he became the Omnideity), but one that we have not encountered for some time. Genesis 18:30 was its first use, but it is mostly in the tales of Mosheh that we witness it, the first time at Exodus 4:14. Very much the case in Joshua 7:1 as well, which I mention only because of SHOSIM.
SHOSIM: Sheen (ש) followed by Samech (ס) is a surprise, but the root is genuine: SHASAH (שסה). It occurs in Psalm 44:11, 1 Samuel 23:1 and Hosea 13:15, on each occasion with the meaning "plunder". My mentioning of Joshua 7 in the above note is because "the accursed thing" which Achan took, and which so inflamed the nostrils of the bull-god, will turn out to be "plunder", but SHASAH is not used in verse 11, when the detail of the Cherem is first stated; Achan refers to it as SHALAL (שָּׁלָל) in his confession in verse 21, and it continues to be SHALAL on every future occasion that "spoils" are taken (Joshua 8:27 for example). There is therefore a difference between "plunder" and "spoils" which renders one a Cherem - a forbidden act for which the death penalty applies - and the other perfectly legitimate. In Achan's case it was the dedication of all the "booty" to the priestly treasury which he violated.
2:15 BE CHOL ASHER YATS'U YAD YHVH HAYETAH BAM LE RA'AH KA ASHER DIBER YHVH VE CHA ASHER NISHB'A YHVH LAHEM VA YETSER LAHEM ME'OD
בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ יַד יְהוָה הָיְתָה בָּם לְרָעָה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה וְכַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לָהֶם וַיֵּצֶר לָהֶם מְאֹד
BN: Whatever they tried to do, the hand of YHVH was against them to make it fail, as YHVH had said he would, and as YHVH had promised to do to them. And they were greatly distressed.
YETSER: Is this the same yetser that has a tov and a ra? If so, and I certainly believe that it is, then we need to rethink the translation of this radically, though the meaning will probably come out more or less the same (the distinction is between Good and Evil as nouns, and "good" and "evil" as adjectives, the former exculpating Man, the latter bestowing upon him full responsibility - see my essay on Hannah Arendt in "The Book of Days").
KJ: Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.
YETSER: Is this the same yetser that has a tov and a ra? If so, and I certainly believe that it is, then we need to rethink the translation of this radically, though the meaning will probably come out more or less the same (the distinction is between Good and Evil as nouns, and "good" and "evil" as adjectives, the former exculpating Man, the latter bestowing upon him full responsibility - see my essay on Hannah Arendt in "The Book of Days").
2:16 VA YAKEM YHVH SHOPHTIM VE YOSHIY'UM MI YAD SHOSEYHEM
וַיָּקֶם יְהוָה שֹׁפְטִים וַיֹּושִׁיעוּם מִיַּד שֹׁסֵיהֶם
BN: Nevertheless YHVH raised up judges, who delivered them out of the hand of those who spoiled them.
YAKEM and YAKEM are homonyms and homophones, but have different meanings. This one has a Kuph (קֶ), the other a Kaf (כִּ); it is impossible to render them differently in English because we only have one sound and the distinction in Yehudit is minuscule; nonetheless they are two different verbs.
YOSHIY'UM: our first significant encounter with a term that will haunt humanity until today, and probably long into the future. Yehoshu'a's own name came from the same root, as will Yesha-Yah (Isaiah) later on, and Yishai (Jesse) the father of the Beloved Son Yedid-Yah (David), who will himself re-emerge, transformed into Yeshu (Jesus). The concept of a Saviour, which is not the same as the concept of a Redeemer (that is a Go'el; for which start at my notes at Joshua 20:3), and even more importantly not the same as the concept of Messiah, which I now need to explain.
There are, in fact, two very similar-looking but actually quite different roots, one which gives MASHIYACH (משיע), and the other MOSHI'A (משיה) - the former means "anointed", and this was the means by which Biblical kings were "crowned", while the latter means "saviour" and is repeatedly stated by YHVH as his role in relation to the Beney Yisra-El. When orthodox Jews speak of "Messiah Now", they are calling for a return of the sacred priest-king, a monarch to rule Israel, and they say Mashiyach; when orthodox Christians speak of the Messiah, they are calling for the return of a purely spiritual leader, and they are employing Moshi'a.
KJ: And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.
YAKEM and YAKEM are homonyms and homophones, but have different meanings. This one has a Kuph (קֶ), the other a Kaf (כִּ); it is impossible to render them differently in English because we only have one sound and the distinction in Yehudit is minuscule; nonetheless they are two different verbs.
YOSHIY'UM: our first significant encounter with a term that will haunt humanity until today, and probably long into the future. Yehoshu'a's own name came from the same root, as will Yesha-Yah (Isaiah) later on, and Yishai (Jesse) the father of the Beloved Son Yedid-Yah (David), who will himself re-emerge, transformed into Yeshu (Jesus). The concept of a Saviour, which is not the same as the concept of a Redeemer (that is a Go'el; for which start at my notes at Joshua 20:3), and even more importantly not the same as the concept of Messiah, which I now need to explain.
There are, in fact, two very similar-looking but actually quite different roots, one which gives MASHIYACH (משיע), and the other MOSHI'A (משיה) - the former means "anointed", and this was the means by which Biblical kings were "crowned", while the latter means "saviour" and is repeatedly stated by YHVH as his role in relation to the Beney Yisra-El. When orthodox Jews speak of "Messiah Now", they are calling for a return of the sacred priest-king, a monarch to rule Israel, and they say Mashiyach; when orthodox Christians speak of the Messiah, they are calling for the return of a purely spiritual leader, and they are employing Moshi'a.
But we need to be absolutely clear: it is the role of Moshi'a, not Mashiyach, which is being imputed to the "Judges".
2:17 VE GAM EL SHOPHTEYHEM LO SHAM'U KI ZANU ACHAREY ELOHIM ACHERIM VA YISHTACHAVU LAHEM SARU MAHER MIN HA DERECH ASHER HALCHU AVOTAM LISHMO'A MITSVOT YHVH LO ASU CHEN
וְגַם אֶל שֹׁפְטֵיהֶם לֹא שָׁמֵעוּ כִּי זָנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לָהֶם סָרוּ מַהֵר מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אֲבֹותָם לִשְׁמֹעַ מִצְוֹת יְהוָה לֹא עָשׂוּ כֵן
BN: And yet they would not listen to their judges, but went whoring after other gods, and prostrated themselves before them, and quickly turned from the path that their ancestors had walked, who obeyed the commandments of YHVH; but they did not do so.
Yet more conquest by language! An attempt to make out that the Judges of this book - all of whom were presumably so central to the culture of Kena'an that they had to be included in some form - were all followers of YHVH; but, as we shall see, they were all, originally, precisely the priests and priestesses of those "Ba'alim and Ashterot" referred to above, in much the way that so many Christian saints began their lives as "pagan" gods and heroes. It is from this that I am inclined to wonder if the period of the Judges was not in fact simultaneous with the period of Genesis, and in saying that I would posit that the period of Genesis comes later, rather than the period of the Judges coming earlier.
ZANU: The choice of word is also highly deliberate, and it is the one that is used throughout the Tanach - we saw it for the first time in Genesis with Tamar (Genesis 38:15), and the Prophets will use it time after time. The point being that the pagan ceremonies were of a highly sexualised nature, especially the May Day ceremonies which, throughout the ancient world, involved the ritual coupling, in public, of the May King and May Queen, their fertility then regarded as symbolic of the attitude of the gods towards the people for that summer's harvest. The child born from the ceremony would be dedicated to the temple as a Nazir, and the woman regarded, for the purposes of marriage, as still being a virgin, because the coition had been surrogacy for the goddess. Similarly the man, if married, was not regarded as having committed adultery, as he was surrogating for the god. The terms hierodule and hierophant were used for this in the Greek world; we do not know what terms were used among the Beney Kena'an, as the only written accounts are those in the Tanach, and the women here are always described as Zonah (זוֹנָה), plural Zonot - "whores" or "harlots".
KJ: And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.
Yet more conquest by language! An attempt to make out that the Judges of this book - all of whom were presumably so central to the culture of Kena'an that they had to be included in some form - were all followers of YHVH; but, as we shall see, they were all, originally, precisely the priests and priestesses of those "Ba'alim and Ashterot" referred to above, in much the way that so many Christian saints began their lives as "pagan" gods and heroes. It is from this that I am inclined to wonder if the period of the Judges was not in fact simultaneous with the period of Genesis, and in saying that I would posit that the period of Genesis comes later, rather than the period of the Judges coming earlier.
ZANU: The choice of word is also highly deliberate, and it is the one that is used throughout the Tanach - we saw it for the first time in Genesis with Tamar (Genesis 38:15), and the Prophets will use it time after time. The point being that the pagan ceremonies were of a highly sexualised nature, especially the May Day ceremonies which, throughout the ancient world, involved the ritual coupling, in public, of the May King and May Queen, their fertility then regarded as symbolic of the attitude of the gods towards the people for that summer's harvest. The child born from the ceremony would be dedicated to the temple as a Nazir, and the woman regarded, for the purposes of marriage, as still being a virgin, because the coition had been surrogacy for the goddess. Similarly the man, if married, was not regarded as having committed adultery, as he was surrogating for the god. The terms hierodule and hierophant were used for this in the Greek world; we do not know what terms were used among the Beney Kena'an, as the only written accounts are those in the Tanach, and the women here are always described as Zonah (זוֹנָה), plural Zonot - "whores" or "harlots".
2:18 VE CHI HEKIM YHVH LAHEM SHOPHTIM VE HAYAH YHVH IM HA SHOPHET VE HOSHIY'AM MI YAD OYEVEYHEM KOL YEMEY HA SHOPHET KI YINACHEM YHVH MI NA'AKATAM MIPNEY LOCHATSEYHEM VE DOCHAKEYHEM
וְכִי הֵקִים יְהוָה לָהֶם שֹׁפְטִים וְהָיָה יְהוָה עִם הַשֹּׁפֵט וְהֹושִׁיעָם מִיַּד אֹיְבֵיהֶם כֹּל יְמֵי הַשֹּׁופֵט כִּי יִנָּחֵם יְהוָה מִנַּאֲקָתָם מִפְּנֵי לֹחֲצֵיהֶם וְדֹחֲקֵיהֶם
BN: And when YHVH raised up judges for them, then YHVH was with the judge, and he delivered them out of the hand of their enemies throughout the days of the judge: for YHVH felt sorry for them when they groaned about those who were oppressing them and treating them so badly.
From a historical perspective, we need to understand that all these "judges" were originally the heroes and gods and goddesses and titans of the various peoples who inhabited Kena'an, and that they had existed as cults for millennia, and were simultaneous. But now we (the Ezraic Redactor) need to absorb them (what you can't "drive out" has to be absorbed or the conquest fails), so they are transformed into "judges", their stories watered down or modified, and a linear chronology artificially imposed on them, and of course their "followers" must have been YHVH-worshippers all along, and them not gods but human "judges". In exactly the same way Phádraig, the great sun-hero of the Tuatha de Danann, who spliced in half the Cosmic Serpent wrapped around the Cosmic Egg in order to enable the Cosmic Egg to hatch, was turned by the Catholics into Saint Patrick, and Saint Patrick, after the Reformation and the English conquest, turned out in the same way to have been English all along - some bloke from Banwell in Somerset who had some troubles with some worms in his garden, and ended up in Eireland. Cultural conquest! As true of the Tanach as it is of Geoffery of Monmouth. The transformation of the Persian spring festival (which is also the tale of the Cosmic Egg), into Purim, and later into Easter, happened in the same manner.
From a historical perspective, we need to understand that all these "judges" were originally the heroes and gods and goddesses and titans of the various peoples who inhabited Kena'an, and that they had existed as cults for millennia, and were simultaneous. But now we (the Ezraic Redactor) need to absorb them (what you can't "drive out" has to be absorbed or the conquest fails), so they are transformed into "judges", their stories watered down or modified, and a linear chronology artificially imposed on them, and of course their "followers" must have been YHVH-worshippers all along, and them not gods but human "judges". In exactly the same way Phádraig, the great sun-hero of the Tuatha de Danann, who spliced in half the Cosmic Serpent wrapped around the Cosmic Egg in order to enable the Cosmic Egg to hatch, was turned by the Catholics into Saint Patrick, and Saint Patrick, after the Reformation and the English conquest, turned out in the same way to have been English all along - some bloke from Banwell in Somerset who had some troubles with some worms in his garden, and ended up in Eireland. Cultural conquest! As true of the Tanach as it is of Geoffery of Monmouth. The transformation of the Persian spring festival (which is also the tale of the Cosmic Egg), into Purim, and later into Easter, happened in the same manner.
2:19 VE HAYAH BE MOT HA SHOPHET YASHUVU VE HISHCHIYTU ME AVOTAM LALECHET ACHAREY ELOHIM ACHERIM LE'AVDAM U LEHISHTACHAVOT LAHEM LO HIPIYLU MI MA'ALELEYHEM U MI DARKAM HA KASHAH
וְהָיָה בְּמֹות הַשֹּׁופֵט יָשֻׁבוּ וְהִשְׁחִיתוּ מֵאֲבֹותָם לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לְעָבְדָם וּלְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לָהֶם לֹא הִפִּילוּ מִמַּעַלְלֵיהֶם וּמִדַּרְכָּם הַקָּשָׁה
BN: And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods, and worshipping them, and prostrating themselves before them; they did not give up their own self-willed beliefs and actions, nor their stubbornness in making this their way.
From the perspective of the Redactor: given that all these YHVH tales are simply a way of explaining why bad things and good things happen, those explanations being sin and good behaviour, divine wrath and divine pleasure respectively, can we paraphrase this statement as: "Men known as Judges, more than Prime Ministers but not quite Kings, and with something like that stature, ruled the Beney Yisra-El one after the next. Some were successful, and built the Beney Yisra-El up into the strong and dominant power in the region; their successors were not always as successful, and so other people predominated for a while. And all the while there were some who followed YHVH and some who followed other gods, but for the purposes of our version of history, we are saying that the successful Judges were all YHVH-followers, and the unsuccessful ones were not, and this is why you too should follow YHVH."
(Exactly the same principle of interpretation can be applied throughout the Books of Kings and Chronicles.)
Or can we simplify all this by saying: given the nature of human nature, the only way to make an ideology or theology successful is to impose it, by brute force if necessary? And now move on to the next set of verses for confirmation of that.
2:20 VA YICHAR APH YHVH BE YISRA-EL VA YOMER YA'AN ASHER AVRU HA GOY HA ZEH ET BERITI ASHER TSIVIYTI ET AVOTAM VE LO SHAM'U LE KOLI
וַיִּחַר אַף יְהוָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָבְרוּ הַגֹּוי הַזֶּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶת אֲבֹותָם וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ לְקֹולִי
BN: And YHVH's nostrils flared up against Yisra-El; and he said, "Because this people has transgressed my covenant, which I commanded their fathers, and has not listened to my voice....
There goes YHVH raging again! I have left TSIVIYTI as "commanded" on this occasion, rather than "instructed", which is my normal preference, because this captures the mood rather better. This is YHVH doing Super Id rather more than (though also including) Super Ego.
There goes YHVH raging again! I have left TSIVIYTI as "commanded" on this occasion, rather than "instructed", which is my normal preference, because this captures the mood rather better. This is YHVH doing Super Id rather more than (though also including) Super Ego.
2:21 GAM ANI LO OSIPH LEHORISH ISH MIPNEYHEM MIN HA GOYIM ASHER AZAV YEHOSHU'A VA YAMOT
גַּם אֲנִי לֹא אֹוסִיף לְהֹורִישׁ אִישׁ מִפְּנֵיהֶם מִן הַגֹּויִם אֲשֶׁר עָזַב יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיָּמֹת
BN: "So now I am not going to drive out from before them any of the nations that Yehoshu'a left when he died.
My translation here is not absolutely literal to the words, but absolutely literal to the tone and tenor of the words: YHVH raging, and sulking - which is how we have come to anticipate his behaviour (except that the sentence should end with something like "so there, yah, boo", and his thumb in his mouth).
And of course, this is also very hypocritical, because he accepted all the honours and praise when the Beney Yisra-El gathered at Shechem to praise the total conquest, with "YHVH has fulfilled all his promises" (see Joshua 23); and here he is, openly admitting that he hadn't. Or passing the blame to Yehoshu'a, as is typical of bad bosses.
KJ: That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.
My translation here is not absolutely literal to the words, but absolutely literal to the tone and tenor of the words: YHVH raging, and sulking - which is how we have come to anticipate his behaviour (except that the sentence should end with something like "so there, yah, boo", and his thumb in his mouth).
And of course, this is also very hypocritical, because he accepted all the honours and praise when the Beney Yisra-El gathered at Shechem to praise the total conquest, with "YHVH has fulfilled all his promises" (see Joshua 23); and here he is, openly admitting that he hadn't. Or passing the blame to Yehoshu'a, as is typical of bad bosses.
The threat is empty however, because at Shechem Yehoshu'a already told them that YHVH was not going to act for them any longer anyway; his part was fulfilled and it was now up to them - see Joshua 23:13.
2:22 LEMA'AN NASOT BAM ET YISRA-EL HA SHOMRIM HEM ET DERECH YHVH LALECHET BAM KA ASHER SHAMRU AVOTAM IM LO
לְמַעַן נַסֹּות בָּם אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲשֹׁמְרִים הֵם אֶת דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה לָלֶכֶת בָּם כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁמְרוּ אֲבֹותָם אִם לֹא
BN: That through them I may prove Yisra-El, whether they will keep the way of YHVH, and follow it, as their fathers kept it, or not.
If YHVH would actually put his helicopter away and leave the kids alone, stop hovering and checking up, and then interfering where he isn't needed (and where he promised he wouldn't), most of the problems of history would probably go away. God as the ultimate bad parent.
KJ: Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.
If YHVH would actually put his helicopter away and leave the kids alone, stop hovering and checking up, and then interfering where he isn't needed (and where he promised he wouldn't), most of the problems of history would probably go away. God as the ultimate bad parent.
2:23 VA YANACH YHVH ET HA GOYIM HA ELEH LE VILTI HORIYSHAM MAHER VE LO NETANAM BE YAD YEHOSHU'A
וַיַּנַּח יְהוָה אֶת הַגֹּויִם הָאֵלֶּה לְבִלְתִּי הֹורִישָׁם מַהֵר וְלֹא נְתָנָם בְּיַד יְהֹושֻׁעַ
BN: So YHVH left those nations in peace, without hurrying to drive them out; nor did he deliver them into the hand of Yehoshu'a.
A recognition of the inevitability of failure. The idols cannot finally be overthrown, and so it may be better to admit this and go on admonishing the idol-worshippers; better to have YHVH say "I kept the idols and the idol-worshippers alive as a reminder to you... to prove you..." Cognitive dissonance!
But also, as noted in the previous chapter, a need at the time of the Redactor, when all those nations were being accepted, absorbed, assimilated, into the newly-established mutli-cultural community of Yehudah. A retort to xenophobia!
pey break
A recognition of the inevitability of failure. The idols cannot finally be overthrown, and so it may be better to admit this and go on admonishing the idol-worshippers; better to have YHVH say "I kept the idols and the idol-worshippers alive as a reminder to you... to prove you..." Cognitive dissonance!
But also, as noted in the previous chapter, a need at the time of the Redactor, when all those nations were being accepted, absorbed, assimilated, into the newly-established mutli-cultural community of Yehudah. A retort to xenophobia!
pey break
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment