14:1 VA YERED SHIMSHON TIMNATAH VA YAR ISHAH BE TIMNATAH MI BENOT PELISHTIM
וַיֵּרֶד שִׁמְשֹׁון תִּמְנָתָה וַיַּרְא אִשָּׁה בְּתִמְנָתָה מִבְּנֹות פְּלִשְׁתִּים
BN (BibleNet translation): And Shimshon went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Pelishtim.
Let the battle of light and darkness commence! But before you take your ring-side seat in this theatre in the round, take a look at my notes to Timnah in the Dictionary of Names, where you will see that there are two spellings of Timna, one with an Ayin (ע) for its final letter, the other with an implied Hey (ה - implied because it always appears in the dative, as Timnatah, as it does in this verse), as in the Yehudah and Tamar story in Genesis 36.
Let the battle of light and darkness commence! But before you take your ring-side seat in this theatre in the round, take a look at my notes to Timnah in the Dictionary of Names, where you will see that there are two spellings of Timna, one with an Ayin (ע) for its final letter, the other with an implied Hey (ה - implied because it always appears in the dative, as Timnatah, as it does in this verse), as in the Yehudah and Tamar story in Genesis 36.
But even more significant to this tale, see my notes to Timnat Serach at Joshua 19:50. Just as Yehoshu'a was being taken up into the mountain-home of the gods in that verse, so Shimshon here is descending from his home in the sky to the Earth, by way of the mountain-home of the gods.
VA YERED: Shimshon goes down into the territory of the woman - the language is very deliberate; as the sun "goes down" into the territory of night, and is ruled there by her.
TIMNAH: English translations usually give Timnath, which is an error; however the error is already there in the Yehudit where the first occurrence gives Timnatah (correctly in the dative) but then continues with Timnatah even when it is not in the dative. There is a very famous Timna in today's Israel, known as its answer to the Grand Canyon - but that is a different Timna, much further south towards the Red Sea, much further south than the territory that the Biblical Pelishtim ever reached, and also spelled with an Ayin (ע). Note that this story has moved out of Danite, and into Philistine, territory from verse 1.
 |
| Albrecht Durer, "Samson and the Lion" |
TIMNAH: English translations usually give Timnath, which is an error; however the error is already there in the Yehudit where the first occurrence gives Timnatah (correctly in the dative) but then continues with Timnatah even when it is not in the dative. There is a very famous Timna in today's Israel, known as its answer to the Grand Canyon - but that is a different Timna, much further south towards the Red Sea, much further south than the territory that the Biblical Pelishtim ever reached, and also spelled with an Ayin (ע). Note that this story has moved out of Danite, and into Philistine, territory from verse 1.
This woman is not the one named Delilah; but is there anything in the tale to suggest that she was a variation of the tale of Delilah?
A more poetical, but still strictly accurate translation of this verse might read:
KJ: And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife.
A more poetical, but still strictly accurate translation of this verse might read:
The man named Sun went down to the village of Sunrise, where he met Dawn, a daughter of the Pelishtim.
14:2 VA YA'AL VA YAGED LE AVIV U LE IMO VA YOMER ISHAH RA'IYTI VE TIMNATAH MI BENOT PELISHTIM VE ATAH KECHU OTAH LI LE ISHAH
וַיַּעַל וַיַּגֵּד לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמֹּו וַיֹּאמֶר אִשָּׁה רָאִיתִי בְתִמְנָתָה מִבְּנֹות פְּלִשְׁתִּים וְעַתָּה קְחוּ אֹותָהּ לִּי לְאִשָּׁה
BN: And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said: "I have seen a woman in Timnah, among the daughters of the Pelishtim; now therefore get her for me for my wife."
In the first verse he "went down"; this time he "comes up". We have discussed this previously, but here it has a new and deeper level of significance, because Shimshon is the sun-hero, and going down and coming up is what the sun does best.
This is not an issue of a shy boy who can't talk to a fair maiden. The custom was for marriages to be agreed between the fathers, most especially the bride price. But the tone is also significant: this is an alpha male, who makes demands and expects, a daddy's-boy, not a mummy's boy.
14:3 VA YOMER LO AVIV VE IMO HA EYN BIVNOT ACHEYCHA U VE CHOL AMI ISHAH KI ATAH HOLECH LAKACHAT ISHAH MI PELISHTIM HA ARELIM VA YOMER SHIMSHON EL AVIV OTAH KACH LI KI HI YASHRA VE EYNAY
KJ: Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.
In the first verse he "went down"; this time he "comes up". We have discussed this previously, but here it has a new and deeper level of significance, because Shimshon is the sun-hero, and going down and coming up is what the sun does best.
This is not an issue of a shy boy who can't talk to a fair maiden. The custom was for marriages to be agreed between the fathers, most especially the bride price. But the tone is also significant: this is an alpha male, who makes demands and expects, a daddy's-boy, not a mummy's boy.
14:3 VA YOMER LO AVIV VE IMO HA EYN BIVNOT ACHEYCHA U VE CHOL AMI ISHAH KI ATAH HOLECH LAKACHAT ISHAH MI PELISHTIM HA ARELIM VA YOMER SHIMSHON EL AVIV OTAH KACH LI KI HI YASHRA VE EYNAY
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו אָבִיו וְאִמֹּו הַאֵין בִּבְנֹות אַחֶיךָ וּבְכָל עַמִּי אִשָּׁה כִּי אַתָּה הֹולֵךְ לָקַחַת אִשָּׁה מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים הָעֲרֵלִים וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשֹׁון אֶל אָבִיו אֹותָהּ קַח לִי כִּי הִיא יָשְׁרָה בְעֵינָי
BN: Then his father and his mother said to him: "Is there not a woman for you among the daughters of your kinsmen, or among all my people, that you go and take a wife among the uncircumcised Pelishtim?" And Shimshon said to his father: "Get her for me; I like what I see".
ACHEYCHA U VE CHOL AMI: "Your kinsmen... my people" is an ungrammatical sentence, because it switches narrator with these two phrases; it implies that Mano'ach and his wife come from different tribal/cultural backgrounds. Is this a pragmatic way of trying to make out that the tale belonged to the Beney Yisra-El?
And which is which, because the narrative does not give us sufficient detail to deduce it? (Why does it matter? Refer back to the discussion throughout Genesis about matrilocal and patrilocal traditions in the various tribes and cults. The sun cult is always patrilocal, which is why Kayin and Esav are daddy's boys but Havel, Ya'akov, Yoseph and Bin-Yamin are mummy's boys who nonetheless leave home to marry.)
We have to sympathise with the Redactor sometimes; he has been given the task of gathering all the best Kena'ani stories into a collection, and making them appear to have been Yisra-Eli stories all along; overthrowing all pagan shrines and assimilating all legends in the process. But people have cultural memories. Try writing a history of England in which William the Conqueror was a Surrey man all along (why not? Don Pader of Ireland, the Celtic sun-god, was reduced by the Catholics to Saint Patrick, and then reduced by Elizabethan-Protestant historians to an Englishman from Banwell in Somerset); try writing a history of America in which Sitting Bull came on the Mayflower (apparently there is a replica ship which does tourist cruises around Manhattan Island, and has cabins named after all the earliest key figures, including Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Red Cloud and Sitting Bull)*.
* I may have made up some, or even all, of one, or even both, of those parentheses. Class exercise - finish it for homework: which bits?
Timnah was Edomite, Shimshon Danite, which is to say Philistine/Phoenician, just as William the Conqueror was Norman and Sitting Bull a Sioux. But Shimshon had entered Beney Yisra-El mythology as one of their heroes, in the same way that Persian Ishtar would later enter transformed into Queen Ester (just as the original World Tree from the Icelandic Garden of Eden now sits by your Christmas fireplace, crowned with a plastic fairy and wrapped around with tinsel); and the Pelishtim were the ultimate enemy, then as now. Also Dan, Shimshon's tribe, had become a Yisra-Eli tribe, after its move to La'ish (not yet, in Judges, but by the time of the Redactor), which actually made him as much Philistine as it did Yisra-Eli. So the Philistine marriage in this verse, and what might best be called "Turin Shroud Syndrome" in the next - making reality fit your needs, not by cognitive dissonance but by ascribing it miraculously and/or intentionally to the god.
KJ: But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.
ACHEYCHA U VE CHOL AMI: "Your kinsmen... my people" is an ungrammatical sentence, because it switches narrator with these two phrases; it implies that Mano'ach and his wife come from different tribal/cultural backgrounds. Is this a pragmatic way of trying to make out that the tale belonged to the Beney Yisra-El?
And which is which, because the narrative does not give us sufficient detail to deduce it? (Why does it matter? Refer back to the discussion throughout Genesis about matrilocal and patrilocal traditions in the various tribes and cults. The sun cult is always patrilocal, which is why Kayin and Esav are daddy's boys but Havel, Ya'akov, Yoseph and Bin-Yamin are mummy's boys who nonetheless leave home to marry.)
We have to sympathise with the Redactor sometimes; he has been given the task of gathering all the best Kena'ani stories into a collection, and making them appear to have been Yisra-Eli stories all along; overthrowing all pagan shrines and assimilating all legends in the process. But people have cultural memories. Try writing a history of England in which William the Conqueror was a Surrey man all along (why not? Don Pader of Ireland, the Celtic sun-god, was reduced by the Catholics to Saint Patrick, and then reduced by Elizabethan-Protestant historians to an Englishman from Banwell in Somerset); try writing a history of America in which Sitting Bull came on the Mayflower (apparently there is a replica ship which does tourist cruises around Manhattan Island, and has cabins named after all the earliest key figures, including Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Red Cloud and Sitting Bull)*.
* I may have made up some, or even all, of one, or even both, of those parentheses. Class exercise - finish it for homework: which bits?
14:4 VE AVIV VE IMO LO YAD'U KI ME YHVH HI KI TO'ANAH HU MEVAKESH MI PELISHTIM U VA ET HA HI PELISHTIM MOSHLIM BE YISRA-EL
וְאָבִיו וְאִמֹּו לֹא יָדְעוּ כִּי מֵיְהוָה הִיא כִּי תֹאֲנָה הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים וּבָעֵת הַהִיא פְּלִשְׁתִּים מֹשְׁלִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: But his father and his mother did not know that this came from YHVH, that he was seeking a pretext against the Pelishtim; for at that time the Pelishtim had power over Yisra-El.
LO YAD'U: When you have no other argument or evidence to offer, "fate and destiny" and "the gods work in mysterious ways" are always available!
Historians insists that there was never a time when the Pelishtim had dominion; the statement is propaganda, not historical accuracy.
But also, look back at the previous chapter, where Mano'ach asked the "messenger" very explicitly what the child's fate and destiny were (13:12), but the "messenger" avoided answering re the future.
pey break
14:5 VA YERED SHIMSHON VE AVIV VE IMO TIMNATAH VA YAVO'U AD KARMEY TIMNATAH VE HINEH KEPHIR ARAYOT SHO'EG LIKRA'TO
KJ: Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared against him.
LO YAD'U: When you have no other argument or evidence to offer, "fate and destiny" and "the gods work in mysterious ways" are always available!
Historians insists that there was never a time when the Pelishtim had dominion; the statement is propaganda, not historical accuracy.
But also, look back at the previous chapter, where Mano'ach asked the "messenger" very explicitly what the child's fate and destiny were (13:12), but the "messenger" avoided answering re the future.
pey break
14:5 VA YERED SHIMSHON VE AVIV VE IMO TIMNATAH VA YAVO'U AD KARMEY TIMNATAH VE HINEH KEPHIR ARAYOT SHO'EG LIKRA'TO
וַיֵּרֶד שִׁמְשֹׁון וְאָבִיו וְאִמֹּו תִּמְנָתָה וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד כַּרְמֵי תִמְנָתָה וְהִנֵּה כְּפִיר אֲרָיֹות שֹׁאֵג לִקְרָאתֹו
BN: Then Shimshon went down, with his father and his mother, to Timnah, and came to the vineyards of Timnah; and, behold, a young lion roared at him.
VA YERED: as per my note to verse 1.
TIMNATAH: ditto - the inconsistent dative yet again in use correctly.
KARMEY: Vineyards again - but vineyards here is Karmey (כרמי) which can mean vineyards, but could as easily mean any fruit orchard or cultivated field. Are we again in wine territory? Check the previous references and see what word was used there. And if we are in wine territory, how does this relate to the "messenger's" instruction to stay away from vines (13:5)?
Lions in Kena'an at that time? The same tale is told of the young David, when he too was performing his twelve labours for Sha'ul (1 Samuel 17:34 ff). In the Hera-Kles version, this was also the first labour - click here. There too Hera-Kles killed the beast with his bare hands.
The fact that he is performing his first labour in the presence of his parents suggests that they are themselves the Ba'al and Anat of this tale. But that does not fit the previous part, or what will follow. More likely the Redactor was anxious to keep the legendary tales, but tried to expurgate the symbolism of the labours, so he moved this one up.
14:6 VA TITSLACH ALAV RU'ACH YHVH VA YESHAS'EHU KE SHAS'A HA GEDI U ME'UMAH EYN BE YADO VE LO HIGID LE AVIV U LE IMO ET ASHER ASAH
KJ: And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand: but he told not his father or his mother what he had done.
 |
| Pieter Paul Rubens, "Samson and the Lion" |
TIMNATAH: ditto - the inconsistent dative yet again in use correctly.
KARMEY: Vineyards again - but vineyards here is Karmey (כרמי) which can mean vineyards, but could as easily mean any fruit orchard or cultivated field. Are we again in wine territory? Check the previous references and see what word was used there. And if we are in wine territory, how does this relate to the "messenger's" instruction to stay away from vines (13:5)?
Lions in Kena'an at that time? The same tale is told of the young David, when he too was performing his twelve labours for Sha'ul (1 Samuel 17:34 ff). In the Hera-Kles version, this was also the first labour - click here. There too Hera-Kles killed the beast with his bare hands.
The fact that he is performing his first labour in the presence of his parents suggests that they are themselves the Ba'al and Anat of this tale. But that does not fit the previous part, or what will follow. More likely the Redactor was anxious to keep the legendary tales, but tried to expurgate the symbolism of the labours, so he moved this one up.
14:6 VA TITSLACH ALAV RU'ACH YHVH VA YESHAS'EHU KE SHAS'A HA GEDI U ME'UMAH EYN BE YADO VE LO HIGID LE AVIV U LE IMO ET ASHER ASAH
וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ יְהוָה וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ כְּשַׁסַּע הַגְּדִי וּמְאוּמָה אֵין בְּיָדֹו וְלֹא הִגִּיד לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמֹּו אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה
BN: And the spirit of YHVH came mightily upon him, and he tore him apart as he would have torn a kid apart, and he had nothing in his hand: but he did not tell his father or his mother what he had done.
The spirit of YHVH is an emendation by the Redactor. We have several previous instances of this in Judges (3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 13:25) - but TITSLACH was not the verb on any of those occasions (TEHI in 3:10 and 11:29, LAVSHAH in 6:34, TACHEL in 13:25). And clearly the inspirer wasn't YHVH until this Redacted version. TITSLACH will however be the verb when the phrase is used again at 15:14.
The spirit of YHVH is an emendation by the Redactor. We have several previous instances of this in Judges (3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 13:25) - but TITSLACH was not the verb on any of those occasions (TEHI in 3:10 and 11:29, LAVSHAH in 6:34, TACHEL in 13:25). And clearly the inspirer wasn't YHVH until this Redacted version. TITSLACH will however be the verb when the phrase is used again at 15:14.
Why would the tale mention the inclusion of his parents, but then exclude them?
KJ: And he went down, and talked with the woman; and she pleased Samson well.
14:7 VA YERED VA YEDABER LA ISHAH VA TIYSHAR BE EYNEY SHIMSHON
וַיֵּרֶד וַיְדַבֵּר לָאִשָּׁה וַתִּישַׁר בְּעֵינֵי שִׁמְשֹׁון
BN: And he went down, and talked with the woman; and she pleased Shimshon well.
VA YERED: Again. And yet again. Daily, in fact.
KJ: And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion.
VA YERED: Again. And yet again. Daily, in fact.
14:8 VA YASHAV MI YAMIM LEKACHTAH VA YASAR LIR'OT ET MAPELET HA ARYEH VE HINEH ADAT DEVORIM BIGVIYAT HA ARYEH U DVASH
וַיָּשָׁב מִיָּמִים לְקַחְתָּהּ וַיָּסַר לִרְאֹות אֵת מַפֶּלֶת הָאַרְיֵה וְהִנֵּה עֲדַת דְּבֹורִים בִּגְוִיַּת הָאַרְיֵה וּדְבָשׁ
BN: And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion.
The bees (Devorim) link the woman to the underworld goddess Devorah, which we would expect, because both are realms of darkness; Delilah means "night" (and no, I know that this woman is not named as Delilah, and is presented as a different woman; in fact, mythologically, she is the same woman, and her name is Delilah). All the Herculean labours are moon labours (Hera-Kles promised to kill the lion within the month; Eurystheus was Lord of the Underworld). The honey on the other hand belongs to the sun, with which it shares a colour, and because it is sweet, and eaten raw - Yisra-El was called "the land of milk and honey", and it is said that they are the only two natural foods in the world that are eaten raw yet taste cooked. The taking of the honey is repeated in the Yah-Natan (Jonathan) story in 1 Samuel 14:24-48, which is also conncted to David's harrowing of the Underworld. Which is more important here, the honey or the bees? The shrine at the vineyard would have been understood as an entrance to the Underworld, just as the beehive tomb - a tholos in the Greek - led that way.
KJ: And he took thereof in his hands, and went on eating, and came to his father and mother, and he gave them, and they did eat: but he told not them that he had taken the honey out of the carcase of the lion.
 |
| Beehive tombs in Harran, Turkey |
The bees (Devorim) link the woman to the underworld goddess Devorah, which we would expect, because both are realms of darkness; Delilah means "night" (and no, I know that this woman is not named as Delilah, and is presented as a different woman; in fact, mythologically, she is the same woman, and her name is Delilah). All the Herculean labours are moon labours (Hera-Kles promised to kill the lion within the month; Eurystheus was Lord of the Underworld). The honey on the other hand belongs to the sun, with which it shares a colour, and because it is sweet, and eaten raw - Yisra-El was called "the land of milk and honey", and it is said that they are the only two natural foods in the world that are eaten raw yet taste cooked. The taking of the honey is repeated in the Yah-Natan (Jonathan) story in 1 Samuel 14:24-48, which is also conncted to David's harrowing of the Underworld. Which is more important here, the honey or the bees? The shrine at the vineyard would have been understood as an entrance to the Underworld, just as the beehive tomb - a tholos in the Greek - led that way.
14:9 VA YIRDEHU EL KAPAV VA YELECH HALOCH VE ACHAL VA YELECH EL AVIV VE EL IMO VA YITEN LAHEM VA YO'CHELU VE LO HIGID LAHEM KI MIGVIYAT HA ARYEH RADAH HA DVASH
וַיִּרְדֵּהוּ אֶל כַּפָּיו וַיֵּלֶךְ הָלֹוךְ וְאָכֹל וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל אָבִיו וְאֶל אִמֹּו וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם וַיֹּאכֵלוּ וְלֹא הִגִּיד לָהֶם כִּי מִגְּוִיַּת הָאַרְיֵה רָדָה הַדְּבָשׁ
BN: And he took some of it in his hands, and went on his way, still eating. And he came to his father and mother, and he gave some to them, and they too ate; but he did not tell them that he had taken the honey out of the carcase of the lion.
VA YIRDEHU...RADAH: Not the verb that we would expect for taking, or scraping, the honey; from itcomes the verb - guess what! - LAREDET, "to go down". Clearly the author is seeking every available opportunity to fit the key words in.
Why will he not tell his parents? Partly, as with the killing, because he doesn't want them to know his powers. But with the honey, which comes from the cadaver of a dead creature, it would have been treyf - forbidden (again cf 1 Samuel 24, but also click here). By eating it, is he also consuming the sacrifice intended for the god, and thereby stating that he is now the "god"? That would not work in the Yisra-Eli cult, but does in the Greek, where the concept of "hero" could do that. In the Hera-Kles legend, this is precsely what happens - Hera-Kles instructs Molorchus to make a sacrifice to Dead Hera-Kles if he fails to kill the lion; when he succeeds, they sacrifice together to Zeus.
14:10 VA YERED AVIYHU EL HA ISHAH VA YA'AS SHAM SHIMSHON MISHTEH KI KEN YA'ASU HA BACHURIM
KJ: So his father went down unto the woman: and Samson made there a feast; for so used the young men to do.
VA YIRDEHU...RADAH: Not the verb that we would expect for taking, or scraping, the honey; from itcomes the verb - guess what! - LAREDET, "to go down". Clearly the author is seeking every available opportunity to fit the key words in.
Why will he not tell his parents? Partly, as with the killing, because he doesn't want them to know his powers. But with the honey, which comes from the cadaver of a dead creature, it would have been treyf - forbidden (again cf 1 Samuel 24, but also click here). By eating it, is he also consuming the sacrifice intended for the god, and thereby stating that he is now the "god"? That would not work in the Yisra-Eli cult, but does in the Greek, where the concept of "hero" could do that. In the Hera-Kles legend, this is precsely what happens - Hera-Kles instructs Molorchus to make a sacrifice to Dead Hera-Kles if he fails to kill the lion; when he succeeds, they sacrifice together to Zeus.
14:10 VA YERED AVIYHU EL HA ISHAH VA YA'AS SHAM SHIMSHON MISHTEH KI KEN YA'ASU HA BACHURIM
וַיֵּרֶד אָבִיהוּ אֶל הָאִשָּׁה וַיַּעַשׂ שָׁם שִׁמְשֹׁון מִשְׁתֶּה כִּי כֵּן יַעֲשׂוּ הַבַּחוּרִים
BN: So his father went down to the woman; and Shimshon made a feast there; for so used the young men to do.
Now the father is "going down" to ask for her in marriage to his son; the feast is the wedding. But they are already married: Shimshon was on his way "to take her" when he stopped to fight the lion. See verse 15 where she is now his wife.
Or perhaps the Redactor is regarding verse 15 as Kiddushin, and this is now the Nisu'in, and the 30-day period which is no longer regarded as necessary did indeed apply then? Given the monthly nature of the Herculean labours...
MISHTEH: LISHTOT means "to drink", so the choice of words makes this rather more of a beerfest than a slap-up in a fancy restaurant. And yet he is prohibited from wine, as he is prohibited from treyf - so both of the angelic requirements have been broken. And no consequence! Can we now regard the Nazirut as an addition by the Redactor, as part of the attempt to make him a Yisra-Eli "judge"?
KJ: And it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him.
Now the father is "going down" to ask for her in marriage to his son; the feast is the wedding. But they are already married: Shimshon was on his way "to take her" when he stopped to fight the lion. See verse 15 where she is now his wife.
Or perhaps the Redactor is regarding verse 15 as Kiddushin, and this is now the Nisu'in, and the 30-day period which is no longer regarded as necessary did indeed apply then? Given the monthly nature of the Herculean labours...
MISHTEH: LISHTOT means "to drink", so the choice of words makes this rather more of a beerfest than a slap-up in a fancy restaurant. And yet he is prohibited from wine, as he is prohibited from treyf - so both of the angelic requirements have been broken. And no consequence! Can we now regard the Nazirut as an addition by the Redactor, as part of the attempt to make him a Yisra-Eli "judge"?
14:11 VA YEHI KIR'OTAM OTO VA YIKCHU SHELOSHIM ME RE'IM VA YIHEYU ITO
וַיְהִי כִּרְאֹותָם אֹותֹו וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים מֵרֵעִים וַיִּהְיוּ אִתֹּו
BN: And it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him.
The men are ostensibly groom-companions, a tradition throughout the Middle East.
One for each day of the lunar month; and we have also seen that 30 is the number of "sons" and/or "daughters" at each moon-shrine. For those of you who have been wondering why this number 30 keeps coming up again and again, the Yisra-Eli lunar month always has 30 days, unlike the solar calendar, which varies. The full moon is on the 15th, which is written Yud-Hey (יה), which spells the name of the moon goddess of Chevron, sister-wife of Ephron the Chiti (Hittite), from whom Av-Raham acquired the shrine to bury Sarah. Yah.
The men are ostensibly groom-companions, a tradition throughout the Middle East.
One for each day of the lunar month; and we have also seen that 30 is the number of "sons" and/or "daughters" at each moon-shrine. For those of you who have been wondering why this number 30 keeps coming up again and again, the Yisra-Eli lunar month always has 30 days, unlike the solar calendar, which varies. The full moon is on the 15th, which is written Yud-Hey (יה), which spells the name of the moon goddess of Chevron, sister-wife of Ephron the Chiti (Hittite), from whom Av-Raham acquired the shrine to bury Sarah. Yah.
14:12 VA YOMER LAHEM SHIMSHON ACHUDAH NA LACHEM CHIYDAH IM HAGED TAGIYDU OTAH LI SHIV'AT YEMEY HA MISHTEH U METSA'TEM VE NATATI LACHEM SHELOSHIM SEDIYNIM U SHELOSHIM CHALIPHOT BEGADIM
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְשֹׁון אָחוּדָה נָּא לָכֶם חִידָה אִם הַגֵּד תַּגִּידוּ אֹותָהּ לִי שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וּמְצָאתֶם וְנָתַתִּי לָכֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִפֹת בְּגָדִים
BN: And Shimshon said to them: "I shall now give you a riddle; if you are able to tell me its solution within the seven days of the feast - if you can find it - then I will give you thirty linen tunics and thirty changes of garment...
The power of the riddle is an ancient virtue of the shaman, the druid, the prophet, the oracle-giver. We witnessed this with Yoseph in prison and the testing of Mosheh by Pharaoh.
Note that the feast is to last seven days - so we have the sun, the moon, the seven planetary deities who govern the week, thirty bride companions...the full cosmology.
CHALIPHOT: This word is about the change, rather than the garment - cf 2 Kings 5:5 - but presumably he is doubling the number of Sediynim, two for each of the thirty bridegrooms.
The power of the riddle is an ancient virtue of the shaman, the druid, the prophet, the oracle-giver. We witnessed this with Yoseph in prison and the testing of Mosheh by Pharaoh.
Note that the feast is to last seven days - so we have the sun, the moon, the seven planetary deities who govern the week, thirty bride companions...the full cosmology.
SEDIYNIM: A full body-garment, from the neck to the shins, the Romans called it an "indusium", and wore it under the toga (cf Isaiah 3:23, Proverbs 31:24). In the Yehudit world it was probably a tunic, and as such an over- rather than an under-garment.
CHALIPHOT: This word is about the change, rather than the garment - cf 2 Kings 5:5 - but presumably he is doubling the number of Sediynim, two for each of the thirty bridegrooms.
14:13 VE IM LO TUCHLU LEHAGID LI U NETATEM ATEM LI SHELOSHIM SEDIYNIM U SHELOSHIM CHALIPHOT BEGADIM VA YOMRU LO CHUDAH CHIDAT'CHA VE NISHMA'ENU
וְאִם לֹא תוּכְלוּ לְהַגִּיד לִי וּנְתַתֶּם אַתֶּם לִי שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִיפֹות בְּגָדִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו חוּדָה חִידָתְךָ וְנִשְׁמָעֶנָּה
BN: "But if you are unable to tell me, then you shall give me thirty linen tunics and thirty changes of garment." And they said to him: "Tell us your riddle, that we may hear it".
Hardly world series poker level of betting. What is the significance? The answer lies in the numbers, as above, but also in the cost of linen, which was a priestly or royal garment; ordinary folk would not have been able to afford byssus or retted linen, but only the cheapest sort of hemp or cotton clothing. But there is also an inference of dominion at the shrine: as with verse 9 above, who is now to be worshipped, who is now to be king?
KJ: And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days expound the riddle.
Hardly world series poker level of betting. What is the significance? The answer lies in the numbers, as above, but also in the cost of linen, which was a priestly or royal garment; ordinary folk would not have been able to afford byssus or retted linen, but only the cheapest sort of hemp or cotton clothing. But there is also an inference of dominion at the shrine: as with verse 9 above, who is now to be worshipped, who is now to be king?
14:14 VA YOMER LAHEM ME HA OCHEL YATSA MA'ACHAL U ME'AZ YATS'A MATOK VE LO YACHLU LEHAGID HA CHIYDAH SHELOSHET YAMIM
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם מֵהָאֹכֵל יָצָא מַאֲכָל וּמֵעַז יָצָא מָתֹוק וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לְהַגִּיד הַחִידָה שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים
BN: And he said to them: "Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness". And after three days they still could not explain the riddle.
Cryptic crosswords, Biblical style! "Once it almost half shimmered, then it almost fully shone, for a Philistine hero - eight letters". Three days represents the time when the moon is not visible in the sky, between waning and new moon. In other words, without the presence of the moon, represented here by the woman of Timnah, there is no light of illumination for this riddle.
Wonderful use of dramatic irony here - because we of course do know the answer; and because we know it, we can also read more deeply into the riddle, which is expressing the nature of the sun-god through what is now an analogy but was previously just a superhero story. Because symbolically Shimshon has now become the lion (which is itself honey-coloured) and the honey - the lion, incidentally, as C.S. Lewis understood when he created Aslan in the Narnia stories (Aslan is the Turkish word for "lion"), is always a symbol of the sun. Leo, in the horoscope. Ari ben Aaron, "the lion of Judah", in my novel "A Little Oil & Root".
KJ: And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so?
Cryptic crosswords, Biblical style! "Once it almost half shimmered, then it almost fully shone, for a Philistine hero - eight letters". Three days represents the time when the moon is not visible in the sky, between waning and new moon. In other words, without the presence of the moon, represented here by the woman of Timnah, there is no light of illumination for this riddle.
Wonderful use of dramatic irony here - because we of course do know the answer; and because we know it, we can also read more deeply into the riddle, which is expressing the nature of the sun-god through what is now an analogy but was previously just a superhero story. Because symbolically Shimshon has now become the lion (which is itself honey-coloured) and the honey - the lion, incidentally, as C.S. Lewis understood when he created Aslan in the Narnia stories (Aslan is the Turkish word for "lion"), is always a symbol of the sun. Leo, in the horoscope. Ari ben Aaron, "the lion of Judah", in my novel "A Little Oil & Root".
14:15 VA YEHI BA YOM HA SHEVIY'I VA YOMRU LE ESHET SHIMSHON PATI ET IYSHECHA VE YAGED LANU ET HA CHIYDAH PEN NISROPH OTACH VE ET BEIT AVIYCHA BA ESH HA LEYARSHENU KERA'TEM LANU HA LO
וַיְהִי בַּיֹּום הַשְּׁבִיעִי וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְאֵשֶׁת שִׁמְשֹׁון פַּתִּי אֶת אִישֵׁךְ וְיַגֶּד לָנוּ אֶת הַחִידָה פֶּן נִשְׂרֹף אֹותָךְ וְאֶת בֵּית אָבִיךְ בָּאֵשׁ הַלְיָרְשֵׁנוּ קְרָאתֶם לָנוּ הֲלֹא
BN: And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said to Shimshon's wife: "Entice your husband. Get him to reveal his riddle to us. If not, we shall set you and your father's house on fire. Have you called us to take what we have? Is it not so?"
YOM HA SHEVIY'I: Three days for the moon, seven for the sun - these tales have become entirely predictable!
Compare the Shechem story earlier, especially the intention of burning down the house, which of course requires fire - we are continually in the realm of fire, and never more so than with Shimshon. The story cannot be treated literally however, and is only just plausible metaphorically. The groom sets his wedding-guests a riddle, and they threaten to burn his house down if the bride doesn't entice him to explain it. There can only be a mythological explanation to such a tale.
Just as with the other Delilah later, it is the wife who is prevailed upon to be his nemesa (is there such a word or have I just invented it? but nemesis is masculine); because this is the war of the sun and the moon for authority over the heavens. And based on this verse, can we read several of the other verses in this tale as also being attempts to set/resolve riddles?
To read a horoscope, to read a palm, to read a set of Tarot cards, to read a psyche, to read a genome, to read a Biblical text ... all of them the same human process of trying to resolve the riddle of life.
KJ: And Samson's wife wept before him, and said, Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not: thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and hast not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell it thee?
YOM HA SHEVIY'I: Three days for the moon, seven for the sun - these tales have become entirely predictable!
Compare the Shechem story earlier, especially the intention of burning down the house, which of course requires fire - we are continually in the realm of fire, and never more so than with Shimshon. The story cannot be treated literally however, and is only just plausible metaphorically. The groom sets his wedding-guests a riddle, and they threaten to burn his house down if the bride doesn't entice him to explain it. There can only be a mythological explanation to such a tale.
Just as with the other Delilah later, it is the wife who is prevailed upon to be his nemesa (is there such a word or have I just invented it? but nemesis is masculine); because this is the war of the sun and the moon for authority over the heavens. And based on this verse, can we read several of the other verses in this tale as also being attempts to set/resolve riddles?
To read a horoscope, to read a palm, to read a set of Tarot cards, to read a psyche, to read a genome, to read a Biblical text ... all of them the same human process of trying to resolve the riddle of life.
14:16 VA TEVCH ESHET SHIMSHON ALAV VA TOMER RAK SENE'TANI VE LO AHAVTANI HACHIYDAH CHADETA LIVNEY AMI VE LI LO HIGADETAH VA YOMER LAH HINEH LE AVI U LE IMI LO HIGADETI VE LACH AGID
וַתֵּבְךְּ אֵשֶׁת שִׁמְשֹׁון עָלָיו וַתֹּאמֶר רַק שְׂנֵאתַנִי וְלֹא אֲהַבְתָּנִי הַחִידָה חַדְתָּ לִבְנֵי עַמִּי וְלִי לֹא הִגַּדְתָּה וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ הִנֵּה לְאָבִי וּלְאִמִּי לֹא הִגַּדְתִּי וְלָךְ אַגִּיד
BN: And Shimshon's wife wept before him, and said: "You hate me, you don't love me; you have set a riddle for the children of my people, and have not told it to me". And he said to her: "So what? I haven't told it to my father or my mother either, so why should I tell it to you?"
In 14:12 Shimshon gave them the seven days of the feast or they lose. In 14:15 the seven days were up. So they have lost. And it was on that seventh day that they went to the wife. Now read on.
14:17 VA TEVCH ALAV SHIV'AT HA YAMIM ASHER HAYAH LAHEM HA MISHTEH VA YEHI BA YOM HA SHEVIY'I VA YEGED LAH KI HETSIYKAT'HU VE TAGED HA CHIYDAH LIVNEY AMAH
In 14:12 Shimshon gave them the seven days of the feast or they lose. In 14:15 the seven days were up. So they have lost. And it was on that seventh day that they went to the wife. Now read on.
 |
| Jose Echenagusia – Samson and Delilah, 1887 |
וַתֵּבְךְּ עָלָיו שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר הָיָה לָהֶם הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וַיְהִי בַּיֹּום הַשְּׁבִיעִי וַיַּגֶּד לָהּ כִּי הֱצִיקַתְהוּ וַתַּגֵּד הַחִידָה לִבְנֵי עַמָּהּ
KJ: And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day that he told her, because her nagging was driving him crazy: and she told the riddle to the children of her people.
BN: And she wept before him the whole seven days that their feast lasted: and it happened that he told her on the seventh day, because she nagged and pestered him till he could take no more: and she shared the solution with the children of her people.
Did you notice the error in the verse? In 14:15 they came to her on the 7th day to get her to find out the answer; but here she started asking him on the very first day.
Did you notice the error in the verse? In 14:15 they came to her on the 7th day to get her to find out the answer; but here she started asking him on the very first day.
14:18 VA YOMRU LO ANSHEY HA IR BA YOM HA SHEVIYI BE TEREM YAVO HA CHARSAH MAH MATOK MI DVASH U MEH AZ ME ARI VA YOMER LAHEM LUL'E CHARASHTEM BE EGLATI LO METSA'TEM CHIYDATI
וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר בַּיֹּום הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּטֶרֶם יָבֹא הַחַרְסָה מַה מָּתֹוק מִדְּבַשׁ וּמֶה עַז מֵאֲרִי וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם לוּלֵא חֲרַשְׁתֶּם בְּעֶגְלָתִי לֹא מְצָאתֶם חִידָתִי
BN: And the men of the city said to him, on the seventh day before the sun went down: "What is sweeter than honey? And what is stronger than a lion?" And he said to them: "If you had not ploughed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle".
BE TEREM YAVO HA CHARSAH: In the battle for power, Night has killed Day. As she does every day. And note the precise time at which they came to defeat him: at the very moment of the last day of the week, the instant before the completion of Creation, just as the sun is about to set.
EGLATI: Why does Shimshon choose this analogy? Because it's powerful, yes, and meaningful to their life experience. But the EGLAH was also the Golden Calf, the symbol of the sun god (Exodus 32).
In answering the riddle, they are also acknowledging the might of Shimshon. There is more to this than meets the eye (that statement is a cyptic riddle too - I couldn't resist). Remember that he is not a man, he is an allegorical sun-hero, the metaphor of an aspect of the heavens represented as a priest or prophet or as the sun-god's son himself. So is the whole story oracular, and the riddle merely the part of the oracle which the Redactor left behind? (three letters, or five if you are a Christian).
14:19 VA TITSLACH ALAV RU'ACH YHVH VA YERED ASHKELON VA YACH ME HEM SHELOSHIM ISH VA YIKACH ET CHALIYTSOTAM VA YITEN HA CHALIYPHOT LE MAGIYDEY HA CHIYDAH VA YICHAR APHO VA YA'AL BEIT AVIHU
KJ: And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father's house.
KJ: But Samson's wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend.
וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ יְהוָה וַיֵּרֶד אַשְׁקְלֹון וַיַּךְ מֵהֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים אִישׁ וַיִּקַּח אֶת חֲלִיצֹותָם וַיִּתֵּן הַחֲלִיפֹות לְמַגִּידֵי הַחִידָה וַיִּחַר אַפֹּו וַיַּעַל בֵּית אָבִיהוּ
BN: And the spirit of YHVH came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments to those who had explained the riddle. But his nostrils were inflamed, and he went up to his father's house.
That RU'ACH YHVH yet again, but self-evidently it has been added by the Redactor to try to make a Yisra-Eli tale out of it.
That RU'ACH YHVH yet again, but self-evidently it has been added by the Redactor to try to make a Yisra-Eli tale out of it.
SHELOSHIM ISH: The month is done, the labour is complete, the lord of the Underworld has been placated - so the thirty days that made up that month can be placed in oblivion, and a new thirty can step forward, renewed, ready for the next month, the next labour; so also the queen of the month (see next verse), the moon goddess, the lady of the night. E=MC² (sorry, that should have read QED - shouldn't it? - but I get my Latin expressions mixed up!).
As the Shimshon legend continues, we lose sight of Hera-Kles' other labours, and find this instead, a variation of the previous verses, though the number 30 prevalent again. The only reason for Shimshon to do what he did in Ashkelon is to pay the debt he now owes to the people of Timnah - and incidentally, the marriage taking place at Timnah, not at Tsar'ah, confirms that the Philistines were matriarchal: normally, in our patrilocal world, the wife goes to live with her husband.
ASHKELON (אשקלון): there appears to be no significance in the name; merely a geographical location within the Philistine enclave; but this would be unprecedented in the Bible. The name means "migration" and was presumably a description of the town established by the Philistine migrants. But the way it is described, with Shimshon again "going down", it becomes a metaphor for the Underworld. As does what he does there!
VA YICHAR APH: The phrase normally reserved for YHVH when he is angry; the symbolism of the phrase again takes us to the EGLAH, or in this case its father, the big angry bull, whose nostrils expand and dilate when he is angry.
pey break
As the Shimshon legend continues, we lose sight of Hera-Kles' other labours, and find this instead, a variation of the previous verses, though the number 30 prevalent again. The only reason for Shimshon to do what he did in Ashkelon is to pay the debt he now owes to the people of Timnah - and incidentally, the marriage taking place at Timnah, not at Tsar'ah, confirms that the Philistines were matriarchal: normally, in our patrilocal world, the wife goes to live with her husband.
ASHKELON (אשקלון): there appears to be no significance in the name; merely a geographical location within the Philistine enclave; but this would be unprecedented in the Bible. The name means "migration" and was presumably a description of the town established by the Philistine migrants. But the way it is described, with Shimshon again "going down", it becomes a metaphor for the Underworld. As does what he does there!
VA YICHAR APH: The phrase normally reserved for YHVH when he is angry; the symbolism of the phrase again takes us to the EGLAH, or in this case its father, the big angry bull, whose nostrils expand and dilate when he is angry.
pey break
14:20 VA TEHI ESHET SHIMSHON LE MERE'EHU ASHER RE'AH LO
וַתְּהִי אֵשֶׁת שִׁמְשֹׁון לְמֵרֵעֵהוּ אֲשֶׁר רֵעָה לֹו
BN: But Shimshon's wife was given to his companion, the one who had been the best man at the wedding.
Just as he honoured his promise by providing the thirty pieces of linen and the thirty changes of garment (honoured, though we might question the means of obtaining the cloth, and we might even wonder if he paid a single piece of silver for each one of them), so he has also - assuming that this was a Yisra-Eli story - done the right thing by his wife, not just divorcing her, but giving her a "Get", a formal document of release, so that she is not "Agunah" ("chained", as he will be, in the temple of Dagon later on), but free to marry again. Good on ya, Shimmo - alas not every Jewish man does the same thing, to this day. (Or am I being over-optimistic in my reading of this verse? We shall see in the next chapter.)
Abandoning his wife after thirty days - the end of the moon month, in which Delilah always dies, in order to be reborn the next month. In the myth Shimshon has to remarry her on the first of every month.
Who was this companion? In the Hera-Kles version it was Molorchus (see my note to verse 9). The word "companion" (מרע) becomes hugely significant in the story of Sha'ul and David, the Yisra-Eli equivalent of the hero's pursuit by and labours for the king of the Underworld; Sha'ul is repeatedly told that he will lose his kingdom, which will be given to his "companion" - רֵעֲךָ֖ - REYACHA, the same word that is used here (1 Samuel 15:28).
And then, given the number of overlaps between the two tales, can we reckon the name of the "companion" in Shimshon's case was a translation into the Philistine language of the Adul-Ami name Chirah (Genesis 38:1), Yehudah's "companion" in his Timna tale?
We can safely deduce that this last verse was added by the Redactor to make a good story and to vilify a woman. Though unnamed, she is clearly Delilah, mythologically even if not actually.
Having said all of which, now see Judges 15:2.
Just as he honoured his promise by providing the thirty pieces of linen and the thirty changes of garment (honoured, though we might question the means of obtaining the cloth, and we might even wonder if he paid a single piece of silver for each one of them), so he has also - assuming that this was a Yisra-Eli story - done the right thing by his wife, not just divorcing her, but giving her a "Get", a formal document of release, so that she is not "Agunah" ("chained", as he will be, in the temple of Dagon later on), but free to marry again. Good on ya, Shimmo - alas not every Jewish man does the same thing, to this day. (Or am I being over-optimistic in my reading of this verse? We shall see in the next chapter.)
Abandoning his wife after thirty days - the end of the moon month, in which Delilah always dies, in order to be reborn the next month. In the myth Shimshon has to remarry her on the first of every month.
Who was this companion? In the Hera-Kles version it was Molorchus (see my note to verse 9). The word "companion" (מרע) becomes hugely significant in the story of Sha'ul and David, the Yisra-Eli equivalent of the hero's pursuit by and labours for the king of the Underworld; Sha'ul is repeatedly told that he will lose his kingdom, which will be given to his "companion" - רֵעֲךָ֖ - REYACHA, the same word that is used here (1 Samuel 15:28).
And then, given the number of overlaps between the two tales, can we reckon the name of the "companion" in Shimshon's case was a translation into the Philistine language of the Adul-Ami name Chirah (Genesis 38:1), Yehudah's "companion" in his Timna tale?
We can safely deduce that this last verse was added by the Redactor to make a good story and to vilify a woman. Though unnamed, she is clearly Delilah, mythologically even if not actually.
Having said all of which, now see Judges 15:2.
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment