19:1 VA YEHI BA YAMIM HA HEM U MELECH EYN BE YISRA-EL VA YEHI ISH LEVI GAR BE YARKETEY HAR EPHRAYIM VA YIKACH LO ISHAH PHIYLEGESH MI BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH
וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וּמֶלֶךְ אֵין בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיְהִי אִישׁ לֵוִי גָּר בְּיַרְכְּתֵי הַר אֶפְרַיִם וַיִּקַּח לֹו אִשָּׁה פִילֶגֶשׁ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה
BN (BibleNet translation): And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Yisra-El, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of Mount Ephrayim, who took for himself a concubine out of Beit Lechem Yehudah.
Two chapters in a row that begin with that same statement: clearly the longing for vassail-like subjugation to a despotic ruler was as endemic in the human race then as it still remains today.
The same Levite or a different one - see Judges 17:7 where our still-unnamed Levi-Kohen, or possibly he was called Yehonotan (Judges 18:30), also came from Beit Lechem Yehudah? Previously we wondered if Beit Lechem Yehudah might be the same as Beit Lechem Ephratah, or if one had the Yehudah added, the other Ephratah, specifically to differentiate them - now we can state for certain that it was the latter. We are yet again on Har Ephrayim (some scholars believe that Mount Ephrayim is the later name for Mount Eyval; or that Ephrayim was the range and that it included Eyval as one of its heights), and it seems again as if there is a continuity between these stories which the Redactor may not have intended, but which we can identify from the sub-text.
KJ: And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.
19:3 VA YAKAM IYSHAH VA YELECH ACHAREYHA LEDABER AL LIBAH LAHASHIYVAH VE NA'ARO IMO VE TSEMED CHAMORIM VA TEVIY'EHU BEIT AVIYHA VA YIR'EHU AVI HA NA'ARAH VA YISMACH LIKRA'TO
KJ: And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.
KJ: And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there.
KJ: And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.
19:9 VA YAKAM HA ISH LALECHET HU U PHIYLAGSHO VE NA'ARO VA YOMER LO CHOTNO AVI HA NA'ARAH HINEH NA RAPHAH HAYOM LA AROV LIYNU NA HINEH CHANOT HAYOM LIYN POH VE YIYTAV LEVAVECHA VE HISHKAMTEM MACHAR LE DARKEHEM VE HALACHTA LE OHALECHA
KJ: And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.
KJ: And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin.
ALEYHEM...AL'EHEM: I have made this complaint so many times before, but it is necessary to remake it, on each occasion that it arises, because we are trying to unravel a complex text, and it is not helpful that a major group of scholars, undertaking similar work, did their job so very badly. The culprits are the Masoretic "pointers", the men who added the Nekudot to aide pronunication. So they have the identical word, identical in grammar as well as spelling, in the same sentence, but on the first occasion they add a Yud, and on the second occasion they don't. Why? Their incompetence? Or am I missing something?
KJ: Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
KJ: But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
But there is also a liturgical level. What she has been participating in was not a gang-bang by a gang of Hell's Angels, though that term is partially apt; she has been trained and prepared for the sacred marriage. Though the Redactor has manipulated the story, we can assume that she spent the night with just one man, and it was the old man in whose house they were staying. The men who came to call, and are alleged here to have been the "rapists", are in fact the angels of the piece, come to announce the sacred marriage and ensure its proper ceremonial enactment. An audience rather than participants.
KJ: And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
But actually this tale has not yet reached its conclusion. Read on.
ISHAH PHIYLEGESH: For the moment, I simply note that this is how she is described. ISHAH means a woman, and the term was only applied after a female has "fulfilled" her womanhood by mothering a child. PHIYLEGESH denotes a concubine, and generally Yisra-Eli women did not become concubines to Yisra-Eli men; marriage or nothing.
19:2 VA TIZNEH ALAV PILAGSHO VA TELECH ME ITO EL BEIT AVIYHA EL BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH VA TEHI SHAM YAMIM ARBA'AH CHADASHIM
וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו פִּילַגְשֹׁו וַתֵּלֶךְ מֵאִתֹּו אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ אֶל בֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וַתְּהִי שָׁם יָמִים אַרְבָּעָה חֳדָשִׁים
BN: And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him to her father's house, to Beit Lechem Yehudah, and was there four whole months.
As before, playing the whore is not necessarily what we mean by it today - especially as she went to "her father's house" (the English word Abbot, incidentally, is derived from the Yehudit AV = "father"), which would make this a case of either incest or pimping if it were true: the "house", as we have seen so often, is a shrine, the "father" is the deity, and the "whoring" is the female Nazirut, serving as a priestess or hierodule or preparing for the role of May-Queen - though Yiphtach's daughter only required two months (Judges 11:37); but the Redactor needs to expurgate all this in order to make the text Yisra-Eli. If he was a Levite according to the tenets of Mosaic Law, then it is unlikely he would have taken a concubine anyway, Yisra-Eli or otherwise. We have to read this as a non-Yisra-Eli temple administrator, or possibly a priest, in a temple to a polytheistic deity, who sent one of his priestesses to the shrine at Beit Lechem to serve a Mishmeret, a four-month period of either training or service, probably in preparation for playing the surrogate-goddess at the spring festival, though we cannot know that yet.
As before, playing the whore is not necessarily what we mean by it today - especially as she went to "her father's house" (the English word Abbot, incidentally, is derived from the Yehudit AV = "father"), which would make this a case of either incest or pimping if it were true: the "house", as we have seen so often, is a shrine, the "father" is the deity, and the "whoring" is the female Nazirut, serving as a priestess or hierodule or preparing for the role of May-Queen - though Yiphtach's daughter only required two months (Judges 11:37); but the Redactor needs to expurgate all this in order to make the text Yisra-Eli. If he was a Levite according to the tenets of Mosaic Law, then it is unlikely he would have taken a concubine anyway, Yisra-Eli or otherwise. We have to read this as a non-Yisra-Eli temple administrator, or possibly a priest, in a temple to a polytheistic deity, who sent one of his priestesses to the shrine at Beit Lechem to serve a Mishmeret, a four-month period of either training or service, probably in preparation for playing the surrogate-goddess at the spring festival, though we cannot know that yet.
19:3 VA YAKAM IYSHAH VA YELECH ACHAREYHA LEDABER AL LIBAH LAHASHIYVAH VE NA'ARO IMO VE TSEMED CHAMORIM VA TEVIY'EHU BEIT AVIYHA VA YIR'EHU AVI HA NA'ARAH VA YISMACH LIKRA'TO
וַיָּקָם אִישָׁהּ וַיֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ לְדַבֵּר עַל לִבָּהּ [לַהֲשִׁיבֹו כ] (לַהֲשִׁיבָהּ ק) וְנַעֲרֹו עִמֹּו וְצֶמֶד חֲמֹרִים וַתְּבִיאֵהוּ בֵּית אָבִיהָ וַיִּרְאֵהוּ אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וַיִּשְׂמַח לִקְרָאתֹו
BN: And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendlily to her, and to bring her back, having his servant with him, and a couple of donkeys: and she brought him to her father's house: and when the girl's father saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.
If she really had gone whoring, is it likely that she would have gone home to do it? And if she was doing it from home, her father would have been decidedly unpleased to have the husband knocking at the door!
If she really had gone whoring, is it likely that she would have gone home to do it? And if she was doing it from home, her father would have been decidedly unpleased to have the husband knocking at the door!
Why the need to mention the servant and the donkeys? We have to try to discern the parts the Redactor expurgated, from the mistakes he made in doing so. If he is bringing her back, now trained as the goddess-surrogate, she would return in style, and the road in front of the donkey lined with palm-leaves... though of course, it may be just a means of transport and the need for a servant. And BEIT AVIHA may well be her dad's house, rather than a shrine; and her dad a mortal dad and not an epithet for the god, and her whoring genuinely whoring...we shall have to wait and see.
But in the meanwhile we can look at another tale that has many similarities, that of Yehudah and Tamar in Genesis 38.
NA'ARAH: At verse 1 I simply noted that she was described as ISHAH PHIYLEGESH, a mature woman, a "fulfilled" mother, but also a concubine. Here, however, she has retreated many years and many stages of development, and is now a NA'ARAH, which is a young girl, older than a TINOKET or a YALDAH or a BACHURAH, though still pre-pubescent; not yet old enough to need to denote her as a BETULAH (virgin), nor as a NIS'UAH (betrothed but not yet married), and certainly not an ALMAH (married, but not yet "fulfilled").
NA'ARAH: At verse 1 I simply noted that she was described as ISHAH PHIYLEGESH, a mature woman, a "fulfilled" mother, but also a concubine. Here, however, she has retreated many years and many stages of development, and is now a NA'ARAH, which is a young girl, older than a TINOKET or a YALDAH or a BACHURAH, though still pre-pubescent; not yet old enough to need to denote her as a BETULAH (virgin), nor as a NIS'UAH (betrothed but not yet married), and certainly not an ALMAH (married, but not yet "fulfilled").
19:4 VA YECHEZAK BO CHOTNO AVI HA NA'ARAH VA YESHEV ITO SHELOSHET YAMIM VA YO'CHLU VA YISHTU VA YALIYNU SHAM
וַיֶּחֱזַק בֹּו חֹתְנֹו אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וַיֵּשֶׁב אִתֹּו שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ וַיָּלִינוּ שָׁם
BN: And his father-in-law, the girl's father, retained him; and he stayed with him for three days: so they ate and drank, and he lodged there.
And of course the three days may just have been the length of time he stayed, but three days is always a significant number in these tales. And perhaps they just spent the time drinking and feasting and it wasn't actually a formal festival at all, but simply an extended party. Or maybe all this board and lodging was just Xenia, hospitality, Biblical BnB. But in these tales, it never is...
And of course the three days may just have been the length of time he stayed, but three days is always a significant number in these tales. And perhaps they just spent the time drinking and feasting and it wasn't actually a formal festival at all, but simply an extended party. Or maybe all this board and lodging was just Xenia, hospitality, Biblical BnB. But in these tales, it never is...
Though why, given that he was a Levite and she was a whore, he didn't spend the time stoning her to death as an adulteress - perhaps adultery only applied to a formal wife, and not to a mere concubine (see Leviticus 20:10).
But wait, the very next verse will change her descriptor yet again, informing us that she is indeed his wife (maybe those three days were the marriage-feast).
KJ: And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.
19:5 VA YEHI BA YOM HA REVIYI VA YASHKIYMU VA BOKER VA YAKAM LALECHET VA YOMER AVI HA NA'ARAH EL CHATANO SE'AD LIBCHA PAT LECHEM VE ACHAR TELCHU
וַיְהִי בַּיֹּום הָרְבִיעִי וַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ בַבֹּקֶר וַיָּקָם לָלֶכֶת וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל חֲתָנֹו סְעָד לִבְּךָ פַּת לֶחֶם וְאַחַר תֵּלֵכוּ
BN: And it came to pass on the fourth day, that they got up early in the morning, and started to make their departure; but the girl's father said to his son-in-law: "Why not enjoy some of this freshly-baked bread, and then go on your way."
CHATANO: Son-in-law, not "daughter's boyfriend", let alone "sugar-daddy", "pimp" or "customer"; she is his wife, not just his concubine (so highly likely that the four months were the Nazirut, the three days the wedding-feast but also the spring festival, and the relationship May King to May Queen - which is why I suggested looking at Genesis 38).
CHATANO: Son-in-law, not "daughter's boyfriend", let alone "sugar-daddy", "pimp" or "customer"; she is his wife, not just his concubine (so highly likely that the four months were the Nazirut, the three days the wedding-feast but also the spring festival, and the relationship May King to May Queen - which is why I suggested looking at Genesis 38).
SE'AD LIBCHA: Why does he need to "comfort his heart"? He is about to leave with his newly-married wife; that should be all the comfort he requires. No? Or is it because she is not going with him? But in verse 10 she has gone with him. Is it then the father's heart that needs comforting, because his teenage daughter just got married, and is leaving the parental home (in a patrilocal marriage the woman joins her husband's clan; vice-versa in a matrilocal; in Biblical Kena'an, only the Beney Yisra-El practiced patrilocal marriage).
KJ: And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry.
19:6 VA YESHVU VA YO'CHLU SHENEYHEM YACHDAV VA YISHTU VA YOMER AVI HA NA'ARAH EL HA ISH HO'EL NA VE LIN VE YITAV LIBCHA
וַיֵּשְׁבוּ וַיֹּאכְלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם יַחְדָּו וַיִּשְׁתּוּ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל הָאִישׁ הֹואֶל נָא וְלִין וְיִטַב לִבֶּךָ
BN: And they sat down, and ate and drank, the two of them together, for the girl's father had said to the man: "Enjoy yourself, please, at my expense. Stay the night. This is a celebration."
And dad doesn't want to give up his daughter. Understandable. It's one of the many reasons why matrilocal marriage is a much better system than patrilocal (the main one is: what happens to a woman when the husband dies - which is also the whole point of the Yehudah and Tamar story: think of Avi-Gayil and Naval in the David story in 1 Samuel 25, or several of Muhammad's wives, married as an act of compassion for an abandoned widow).
And dad doesn't want to give up his daughter. Understandable. It's one of the many reasons why matrilocal marriage is a much better system than patrilocal (the main one is: what happens to a woman when the husband dies - which is also the whole point of the Yehudah and Tamar story: think of Avi-Gayil and Naval in the David story in 1 Samuel 25, or several of Muhammad's wives, married as an act of compassion for an abandoned widow).
VA YITAV LIBCHA: Some pointed versions render it as LIBECHA, which is an odd variation. But the following verse will have yet a third variation, so maybe there is something intentional here.
19:7 VA YAKAM HA ISH LALECHET VA YIPHTSAR BO CHOTNO VA YASHAH VA YALEN SHAM
וַיָּקָם הָאִישׁ לָלֶכֶת וַיִּפְצַר בֹּו חֹתְנֹו וַיָּשָׁב וַיָּלֶן שָׁם
BN: And when the man got up to leave, his father-in-law urged him; so he stayed for still one more night.
19:8 VA YASHKEM BA BOKER BA YOM HA CHAMIYSHI LALECHET VA YOMER AVI HA NA'ARAH SE'AD NA LEVAVECHA VE HITMAHMEHU AD NETOT HA YOM VA YOCHLU SHNEYHEM
KJ: And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them.
19:8 VA YASHKEM BA BOKER BA YOM HA CHAMIYSHI LALECHET VA YOMER AVI HA NA'ARAH SE'AD NA LEVAVECHA VE HITMAHMEHU AD NETOT HA YOM VA YOCHLU SHNEYHEM
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם בַּבֹּקֶר בַּיֹּום הַחֲמִישִׁי לָלֶכֶת וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה סְעָד נָא לְבָבְךָ וְהִתְמַהְמְהוּ עַד נְטֹות הַיֹּום וַיֹּאכְלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם
BN: And he got up early on the morning of the fifth day, intending to depart; and the girl's father said: "Sit down and relax already". And they stayed until the afternoon, and both of them ate.
CHAMIYSHI: Elsewhere in the Tanach we read that the nuptials in those days lasted seven nights; much as a honeymoon does in our epoch. And yet the narrator insists on still describing her as a NA'ARAH (at least he hasn't mentioned the ISHAH PHIYLEGESH again; that was very [deliberately?] misleading at the top of the story!.. oh, but then he does, in the very next verse, and still calls her a NA'ARAH, in the same breath - so we are talking about a teenage bride, probably thirteen or fourteen - just like the Virgin Mary in the Jesus story, as it happens).
LEVAVECHA: the third variation mentioned above. This one is familiar to us from the Shema.
HITMAHMEHU: See my note to Judges 3:26.
CHAMIYSHI: Elsewhere in the Tanach we read that the nuptials in those days lasted seven nights; much as a honeymoon does in our epoch. And yet the narrator insists on still describing her as a NA'ARAH (at least he hasn't mentioned the ISHAH PHIYLEGESH again; that was very [deliberately?] misleading at the top of the story!.. oh, but then he does, in the very next verse, and still calls her a NA'ARAH, in the same breath - so we are talking about a teenage bride, probably thirteen or fourteen - just like the Virgin Mary in the Jesus story, as it happens).
LEVAVECHA: the third variation mentioned above. This one is familiar to us from the Shema.
HITMAHMEHU: See my note to Judges 3:26.
19:9 VA YAKAM HA ISH LALECHET HU U PHIYLAGSHO VE NA'ARO VA YOMER LO CHOTNO AVI HA NA'ARAH HINEH NA RAPHAH HAYOM LA AROV LIYNU NA HINEH CHANOT HAYOM LIYN POH VE YIYTAV LEVAVECHA VE HISHKAMTEM MACHAR LE DARKEHEM VE HALACHTA LE OHALECHA
וַיָּקָם הָאִישׁ לָלֶכֶת הוּא וּפִילַגְשֹׁו וְנַעֲרֹו וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו חֹתְנֹו אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה הִנֵּה נָא רָפָה הַיֹּום לַעֲרֹב לִינוּ נָא הִנֵּה חֲנֹות הַיֹּום לִין פֹּה וְיִיטַב לְבָבֶךָ וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּם מָחָר לְדַרְכְּכֶם וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶךָ
BN: And when the man got up to leave - he, and his concubine, and his servant - his father-in-law, the girl's father, said to him: "Look, it's practically evening already. Please, stay one more night. No, seriously, look, it's dusk already, stay one more night, we can go on celebrating; and tomorrow you'll get up early and set off for your tent."
Word-order here is simply bizarre. The first HINEH causes most of the problem. Or better: the most HINEH of the first problem causes - this is something like the nature of this verse. A matter of syntax, finally.
Word-order here is simply bizarre. The first HINEH causes most of the problem. Or better: the most HINEH of the first problem causes - this is something like the nature of this verse. A matter of syntax, finally.
LE OHALECHA: Ohel is a tent. At the top of the story we were told he was a Levite sojourning on the extremities of Mount Ephrayim, and we didn't bother to ask what a Levite, who has temple duties, was doing in an out-of-the-way place like that, and now we know just how out-of-the-way, because there isn't even a village let alone a shrine; and he isn't on a camping holiday either. He is part of a nomadic group that lives in the hills. No wonder dad doesn't want his daughter to leave! (Or does the OHEL infer the shrine, as in OHEL MO'ED?)
KJ: But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him.
19:10 VE LO AVAH HA ISH LALUN VA YAKAM VA YELECH VA YAV'O AD NOCHACH YEVUS HI YERU-SHALA'IM VE IMO TSEMED CHAMORIM CHAVUSHIM U PHIYLAGSHO IMO
וְלֹא אָבָה הָאִישׁ לָלוּן וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיָּבֹא עַד נֹכַח יְבוּס הִיא יְרוּשָׁלִָם וְעִמֹּו צֶמֶד חֲמֹורִים חֲבוּשִׁים וּפִילַגְשֹׁו עִמֹּו
KJ: But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him.
BN: But the man did not wish to tarry yet another night; instead he got up and left, and came to Yevus, which is Yeru-Shala'im; and he had with him two saddled donkeys, and also his concubine.
YEVUS: One of the seven hillside towns that will eventually be conurbated by King David to form Yeru-Shala'im.
KJ: And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it.
YEVUS: One of the seven hillside towns that will eventually be conurbated by King David to form Yeru-Shala'im.
19:11 HEM IM YEVUS VE HA YOM RAD ME'OD VA YOMER HA NA'AR EL ADONAV LECHAH NA VA NASURAH EL IR HA YEVUSI HA ZOT VE NALIN BAH
הֵם עִם יְבוּס וְהַיֹּום רַד מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר הַנַּעַר אֶל אֲדֹנָיו לְכָה נָּא וְנָסוּרָה אֶל עִיר הַיְבוּסִי הַזֹּאת וְנָלִין בָּהּ
BN: By the time they reached Yevus, the day was fully done, and the young man said to his master: "Come, I pray you, let us turn in to this city of the Yevusim, and find a lodging in it."
A YEVUS is a threshing-floor, where the corn is taken to be turned into bread, or the barley to be turned into beer. Straw on the floor makes a manger, which is not a bad choice for a night's lodging, for a newly-married man and his teenage bride, who may or may not be pregnant. (But no, my mentioning of the Virgin Mary just before must have carried away my imagination. They are not going to sop in Yevus.)
19:12 VA YOMER ELAV ADONAV LO NASUR EL IR NACHRI ASHER LO MIBNEY YISRA-EL HENAH VE AVARNU AD GIV'AH
KJ: And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel; we will pass over to Gibeah.
A YEVUS is a threshing-floor, where the corn is taken to be turned into bread, or the barley to be turned into beer. Straw on the floor makes a manger, which is not a bad choice for a night's lodging, for a newly-married man and his teenage bride, who may or may not be pregnant. (But no, my mentioning of the Virgin Mary just before must have carried away my imagination. They are not going to sop in Yevus.)
19:12 VA YOMER ELAV ADONAV LO NASUR EL IR NACHRI ASHER LO MIBNEY YISRA-EL HENAH VE AVARNU AD GIV'AH
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲדֹנָיו לֹא נָסוּר אֶל עִיר נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵנָּה וְעָבַרְנוּ עַד גִּבְעָה
BN: And his master said to him: "We shall not be going into a city of heathens, who are not even Beney Yisra-El; we shall go on to Giv'ah".
GIV'AH (גבעה): Generally rendered in English as Gibeah, it simply means a hill, though every reference in the Bible (too many to list) associates Giv'ah with a shrine, and the shrines are to the Egyptian deity Geb. It is located about three miles north of Yevus.
Probably the name was an amalgamation of GEB, the Egyptian god of the earth, and YAH, the Hittite goddess of the moon; though the YAH part is questionable on this occasion. Depicted as a ram, bull and crocodile, GEB is most closely associated with the snake (his name in Egyptian means "snake") and was regarded in some versions of the myth as the father of Osher (Osiris) and grandfather of Horus. His centre of worship was On (Heliopolis), where Yoseph was based. Heliopolis was ruled by an "Olympus" of nine gods, known as the Ennead, and including Geb, his wife Nut the sky, Shu the emptiness which in Babylon was Tohu (the sheen - ש - and tav - ת - again interchanged), as well as Osher (Osiris), Set, Eshet (Isis) and Nephthys (at different epochs Horus was named Atum and Nephthys Tefnut). As a fertility god, Geb was believed to have originally been engaged in eternal sex with Nut, but separated from her by Shu, much as Ouranos was castrated for engaging in permanent sex with Gaia. Geb (the supine green figure in the illustration) is generally depicted lying down, but with his erect phallus pointed skywards, towards Nut (the white figure filled with blue stars in the illustration).
GIV'AH (גבעה): Generally rendered in English as Gibeah, it simply means a hill, though every reference in the Bible (too many to list) associates Giv'ah with a shrine, and the shrines are to the Egyptian deity Geb. It is located about three miles north of Yevus.
Probably the name was an amalgamation of GEB, the Egyptian god of the earth, and YAH, the Hittite goddess of the moon; though the YAH part is questionable on this occasion. Depicted as a ram, bull and crocodile, GEB is most closely associated with the snake (his name in Egyptian means "snake") and was regarded in some versions of the myth as the father of Osher (Osiris) and grandfather of Horus. His centre of worship was On (Heliopolis), where Yoseph was based. Heliopolis was ruled by an "Olympus" of nine gods, known as the Ennead, and including Geb, his wife Nut the sky, Shu the emptiness which in Babylon was Tohu (the sheen - ש - and tav - ת - again interchanged), as well as Osher (Osiris), Set, Eshet (Isis) and Nephthys (at different epochs Horus was named Atum and Nephthys Tefnut). As a fertility god, Geb was believed to have originally been engaged in eternal sex with Nut, but separated from her by Shu, much as Ouranos was castrated for engaging in permanent sex with Gaia. Geb (the supine green figure in the illustration) is generally depicted lying down, but with his erect phallus pointed skywards, towards Nut (the white figure filled with blue stars in the illustration).
It was from Giv'ah that Sha'ul ruled for thirty-eight years. The Romans made their camp there in 70 CE in preparation for the assault on Yeru-Shala'im. The place is also mentioned in Hosea 5:8, 9:9, 10:9 and Isaiah 10:29.
KJ: And he said unto his servant, Come, and let us draw near to one of these places to lodge all night, in Gibeah, or in Ramah.
19:13 VA YOMER LE NA'ARO LECHA VE NIKREVAH BE ACHAD HA MEKOMOT VE LANU VA GIV'AH O VA RAMAH
וַיֹּאמֶר לְנַעֲרֹו לְךָ וְנִקְרְבָה בְּאַחַד הַמְּקֹמֹות וְלַנּוּ בַגִּבְעָה אֹו בָרָמָה
BN: And he said to his servant: "Go and enquire in one of those places if there is somewhere to lodge for the night, in Giv'ah, or in Ramah".
This needs a stage direction before he speaks: "pointing at the two villages on the nearby hills".
RAMAH (רמה) like Giv'ah, it means "a high place", and is likewise associated with hill shrines. A traveller on the road needing a bed for the night would have known he could find one in any of the larger shrines.
Is he, as Sha'ul would do later, making a procession of the shrines associated with his cult, prior to the coronation and sacrifice of the virgin hierodule?
19:14 VA YA'AVRU VA YELECHU VA TAVO LAHEM HA SHEMESH ETSEL HA GIV'AH ASHER LE VIN-YAMIN
וַיַּעַבְרוּ וַיֵּלֵכוּ וַתָּבֹא לָהֶם הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֵצֶל הַגִּבְעָה אֲשֶׁר לְבִנְיָמִן
BN: And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Giv'ah, which belongs to Bin-Yamin.
VA YA'AVRU: The technique begins to irritate after a while: and he sat and he stood and he got up and he sat down again... to some degree it is standard Biblical technique, and there are other occasions when it goes overboard to this degree, and it is tied in with the Vav Consecutive, and no doubt it matches the oral style and... but it is also the same technique that was used in the Shimshon and Delilah tale; and then note that, on each of the days with his father-in-law, he got up at the crack of dawn to leave, but it was always at the onset of evening that he was persauded to stay another night, and seven nights, and three days in verse 4 that would have become seven nights...
19:15 VA YASURU SHAM LAVO LALUN BA GIV'AH VA YAVO VA YESHEV BI RECHOV HA IR VE EYN ISH ME'ASEPH OTAM HABAYITAH LALUN
KJ: And they turned aside thither, to go in and to lodge in Gibeah: and when he went in, he sat him down in a street of the city: for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging.
VA YA'AVRU: The technique begins to irritate after a while: and he sat and he stood and he got up and he sat down again... to some degree it is standard Biblical technique, and there are other occasions when it goes overboard to this degree, and it is tied in with the Vav Consecutive, and no doubt it matches the oral style and... but it is also the same technique that was used in the Shimshon and Delilah tale; and then note that, on each of the days with his father-in-law, he got up at the crack of dawn to leave, but it was always at the onset of evening that he was persauded to stay another night, and seven nights, and three days in verse 4 that would have become seven nights...
19:15 VA YASURU SHAM LAVO LALUN BA GIV'AH VA YAVO VA YESHEV BI RECHOV HA IR VE EYN ISH ME'ASEPH OTAM HABAYITAH LALUN
וַיָּסֻרוּ שָׁם לָבֹוא לָלוּן בַּגִּבְעָה וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב בִּרְחֹוב הָעִיר וְאֵין אִישׁ מְאַסֵּף אֹותָם הַבַּיְתָה לָלוּן
BN: And they left the main road there, to go and find a bed for the night in Giv'ah: but when he came into the town, he sat down in the main square, but nobody offered them a lodging for the night.
RECHOV: Not to be confused with the same word, RECHOV, when it is used to mean a "street". The root means "broad place", and it described the large square immediately inside the main gate of every city at that time; the place where the judges and elders held their public sessions, where Prophets delivered their fire-and-brimstone sermons, and where the market was set up on Mondays and Thursdays (a fact which we know because Ezra instituted the reading of the law in the Rechov on market-days - Nehemiah 8 - and to this day those readings still take place, albeit in synagogue now, on those same Mondays and Thursdays). See also Judges 18:28 and my page on Rechovot.
19:16 VE HINEH ISH ZAKEN BA MIN MA'ASEHU MIN HA SADEH BA EREV VE HA ISH ME HAR EPHRAYIM VE HU GAR BA GIV'AH VE ANSHEY HA MAKOM BENEY YEMINI
KJ: And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites.
RECHOV: Not to be confused with the same word, RECHOV, when it is used to mean a "street". The root means "broad place", and it described the large square immediately inside the main gate of every city at that time; the place where the judges and elders held their public sessions, where Prophets delivered their fire-and-brimstone sermons, and where the market was set up on Mondays and Thursdays (a fact which we know because Ezra instituted the reading of the law in the Rechov on market-days - Nehemiah 8 - and to this day those readings still take place, albeit in synagogue now, on those same Mondays and Thursdays). See also Judges 18:28 and my page on Rechovot.
19:16 VE HINEH ISH ZAKEN BA MIN MA'ASEHU MIN HA SADEH BA EREV VE HA ISH ME HAR EPHRAYIM VE HU GAR BA GIV'AH VE ANSHEY HA MAKOM BENEY YEMINI
וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ זָקֵן בָּא מִן מַעֲשֵׂהוּ מִן הַשָּׂדֶה בָּעֶרֶב וְהָאִישׁ מֵהַר אֶפְרַיִם וְהוּא גָר בַּגִּבְעָה וְאַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקֹום בְּנֵי יְמִינִי
BN: But then, in the evening, an old man came from his work in the field, and this old man was also from Mount Ephrayim, though he was living in Giv'ah: but the men of the place were Beney Yemini.
KJ: And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?
19:17 VA YISA EYNAV VA YAR ET HA ISH HA OREYACH BI RECHIV HA IR VA YOMER HA ISH HA ZAKEN ANAH TELECH U MEY AYIN TAVO
וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת הָאִישׁ הָאֹרֵחַ בִּרְחֹב הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר הָאִישׁ הַזָּקֵן אָנָה תֵלֵךְ וּמֵאַיִן תָּבֹוא
BN: And when he looked up, he saw the man who was looking for a guest-house, in the main square of the city, and the old man said: "Where are you going?", and "Where do you come from?".
19:18 VA YOMER ELAV OVRIM ANACHNU MI BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH AD YARKETEY HAR EPHRAYIM MI SHAM ANOCHI VA ELECH AD BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH VE ET BEIT YHVH ANI HOLECH VE EYN ISH ME'ASEPH OTI HABAYITAH...
KJ: And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehemjudah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Bethlehemjudah, but I am now going to the house of the LORD; and there is no man that receiveth me to house.
19:18 VA YOMER ELAV OVRIM ANACHNU MI BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH AD YARKETEY HAR EPHRAYIM MI SHAM ANOCHI VA ELECH AD BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH VE ET BEIT YHVH ANI HOLECH VE EYN ISH ME'ASEPH OTI HABAYITAH...
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו עֹבְרִים אֲנַחְנוּ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה עַד יַרְכְּתֵי הַר אֶפְרַיִם מִשָּׁם אָנֹכִי וָאֵלֵךְ עַד בֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וְאֶת בֵּית יְהוָה אֲנִי הֹלֵךְ וְאֵין אִישׁ מְאַסֵּף אֹותִי הַבָּיְתָה
BN: And he told him: "We are travelling from Beit Lechem Yehudah to the side of Mount Ephrayim; that's where I come from. I went to Beit Lechem Yehudah, but now I am going to the shrine of YHVH; and nobody here has offered me a lodging in his house...
OVRIM: Or quite possibly IVRIM! So many occasions when this word seems to be introduced deliberately to make a pun.
OVRIM: Or quite possibly IVRIM! So many occasions when this word seems to be introduced deliberately to make a pun.
Interesting to see the inference of this part of the tale, that a visitor to a town expects to be offered a lodging for the night, albeit that he is a stranger, an anonymous anybody without references or any means of verification. Thinking of parallel texts from the same epoch, this might well have been the case for somebody arriving at Ithaca, when Peneleope was in charge, or at Nestor's palace, but I doubt that Polyphemus would have been so welcoming. In Homer the concept was called Xenia, pronounced "zenia", whence its opposite, the "fear of being hospitable", or xenophobia. Lot's experience at Sedom is also worth comparing.
KJ: Yet there is both straw and provender for our donkeys; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing.
19:19 VE GAM TEVEN GAM MISP'O YESH LA CHAMOREYNU VE GAM LECHEM VA YAYIN YESH LI VE LA AMATECHA VE LA NA'AR IM AVADEYCHA EYN MACHSOR KOL DAVAR
וְגַם תֶּבֶן גַּם מִסְפֹּוא יֵשׁ לַחֲמֹורֵינוּ וְגַם לֶחֶם וָיַיִן יֶשׁ לִי וְלַאֲמָתֶךָ וְלַנַּעַר עִם עֲבָדֶיךָ אֵין מַחְסֹור כָּל דָּבָר
BN: "Yet there is both straw and fodder for our donkeys; and I have bread and wine also for me"... "and for your handmaid, and for the young man who is with your servants: there is no want of any thing".
The structure of the two verses makes it sound like 19 is simply a continuation of 18, but the grammar contradicts this, and most obviously CHAMOEREYNU ("our donkeys"), which is still our protagonist, but AMATECHA ("your handmaid") is 2nd person singular, so the rest of the verse can only be the old man interrupting and finishing the sentence.
19:20 VA YOMER HA ISH HA ZAKEN SHALOM LACH RAK KOL MACHSORCHA ALAY RAK BA RECHOV AL TALAN
KJ: And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
The structure of the two verses makes it sound like 19 is simply a continuation of 18, but the grammar contradicts this, and most obviously CHAMOEREYNU ("our donkeys"), which is still our protagonist, but AMATECHA ("your handmaid") is 2nd person singular, so the rest of the verse can only be the old man interrupting and finishing the sentence.
19:20 VA YOMER HA ISH HA ZAKEN SHALOM LACH RAK KOL MACHSORCHA ALAY RAK BA RECHOV AL TALAN
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאִישׁ הַזָּקֵן שָׁלֹום לָךְ רַק כָּל מַחְסֹורְךָ עָלָי רַק בָּרְחֹוב אַל תָּלַן
BN: And the old man said, "Calm down, my friend. Let me take charge of all your needs. Just don't spend the night in the town square."
SHALOM LACH: Which I have translated as "Calm down, my friend", but it isn't really that. In Arabic he would have said "Sala'am aleykum", and the man would have responded "aleykum sala'am"; this is the Yisra-Eli equivalent.
SHALOM LACH: Which I have translated as "Calm down, my friend", but it isn't really that. In Arabic he would have said "Sala'am aleykum", and the man would have responded "aleykum sala'am"; this is the Yisra-Eli equivalent.
I am intrigued that those who added the "nekudot", the system of pointing to create vowels were Yehudit has none, rendered this is as LACH, which is feminine, and not as LECHA, which is masculine. Did Yehudit grammar change at some point?
For those of us who have been wondering what the point of all this tale might be, and indeed if we are ever going to get there, the sagas of Homer were being told, and eventually written down, in much the same epoch, and in the second of his two great works, "The Odyssey", the central theme may appear to be Odysseus' circuitous route home from the war in Troy, but is in fact Homer taking us on a grand tour of all the different forms of Xenia extant in the world at that time; some of them, like Polyphemus' cannibalism or the Sirens' licentious driving of their visitors onto the rocks, counted among the more barbaric; others, like Nestor's love of feasting and story-telling, and Penelope's over-generous free-hotel, civilisation at the other extreme. So our protagonist, likewise wandering homewards rather circuitously, encounters the generosity of Xenia through the old man; and its opposite, Xenophobia, the irrational fear of strangers, will inexorably follow.
KJ: So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
19:21 VA YEVIY'EHU LE VEITO VA YAVAL LA CHAMORIM VA YIRCHATSU RAGLEYHEM VA YO'CHLU VA YISHTU
וַיְבִיאֵהוּ לְבֵיתֹו [וַיִּבֹּול כ] (וַיָּבָל ק) לַחֲמֹורִים וַיִּרְחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיהֶם וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ
BN: So he brought him to his house, and gave fodder to the donkeys: and they washed their feet, and ate, and drank.
19:22 HEMAH MEYTIYVIM ET LIBAM VE HINEH ANSHEY HA IR ANSHEY VENEY VELIYA'AL NASABU ET HA BAYIT MITDAPKIM AL HA DELET VA YOMRU EL HA ISH BA'AL HA BAYIT HA ZAKEN LEMOR HOTS'E ET HA ISH ASHER BAH EL BEIT'CHA VE NEDA'ENU
KJ: Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
19:22 HEMAH MEYTIYVIM ET LIBAM VE HINEH ANSHEY HA IR ANSHEY VENEY VELIYA'AL NASABU ET HA BAYIT MITDAPKIM AL HA DELET VA YOMRU EL HA ISH BA'AL HA BAYIT HA ZAKEN LEMOR HOTS'E ET HA ISH ASHER BAH EL BEIT'CHA VE NEDA'ENU
הֵמָּה מֵיטִיבִים אֶת לִבָּם וְהִנֵּה אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי בְנֵי בְלִיַּעַל נָסַבּוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת מִתְדַּפְּקִים עַל הַדָּלֶת וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל הָאִישׁ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַזָּקֵן לֵאמֹר הֹוצֵא אֶת הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּא אֶל בֵּיתְךָ וְנֵדָעֶנּוּ
BN: Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, some men of the city, atheists every one of them, gathered around the outside of the house, and beat on the door, and spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying: "Bring out the man that came into your house, so that we may know him".
VELIYA'AL: The initial Vet (ב) is a grammatical consequence of the hyphenisation Veney-Veli'a'al. The truth is, scholars have wrestled with this one for centuries, and no one, neither atheist Bible scholars nor orthodox theologians, really have a clue, even how to pronounce it correctly. The way it is written here looks like an elision, possibly from Beli Ya'al, but that doesn't really mean anything: Beli means "without", as in "not having any"; "ya'al" may come from "la'alot = to go up", and could then suggest people who never go to temple or at least have never made an offering. Belial (בליעל) - Be, pronounced as in "to be", + Liyal - has come to be the standard English pronunciation, though this is definitely not correct. The word is used to mean "wickedness" or "destruction", which leads me to think it may have originally been Bli-El, "a man without god", in other words a follower of no religion or cult at all, neither the Yisra-Eli nor the "pagan"; with the Ayin (ע) substituted for the Aleph (א), presumably because the Redactor could not accept the concept of atheism, which was even worse than following the wrong gods. If we take it at face value, it is another of the Redactor's pejoratives for those who do follow the wrong gods.
And as to the tale: are we about to have a re-run of Lot at Sedom (Genesis 19, where the "angels" have the same experience as the "protagonist" here); and Rachav (Rahab) at Yericho (Joshua 2)?
VE NED'AENU: But maybe they heard what the Beney Dan did in the last chapter to their neighbouring villagers at Kiryat Ye'arim, and then to the peaceful citizens of La'ish, and they are justifiably scared that this unknown visitor is one of their spies.
KJ: And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
BN: And the man, the owner of the house, went out to them, and said to them: "No, my good friends, no. Do not even think about it. This man is a guest in my house. Do not do this folly...
VELIYA'AL: The initial Vet (ב) is a grammatical consequence of the hyphenisation Veney-Veli'a'al. The truth is, scholars have wrestled with this one for centuries, and no one, neither atheist Bible scholars nor orthodox theologians, really have a clue, even how to pronounce it correctly. The way it is written here looks like an elision, possibly from Beli Ya'al, but that doesn't really mean anything: Beli means "without", as in "not having any"; "ya'al" may come from "la'alot = to go up", and could then suggest people who never go to temple or at least have never made an offering. Belial (בליעל) - Be, pronounced as in "to be", + Liyal - has come to be the standard English pronunciation, though this is definitely not correct. The word is used to mean "wickedness" or "destruction", which leads me to think it may have originally been Bli-El, "a man without god", in other words a follower of no religion or cult at all, neither the Yisra-Eli nor the "pagan"; with the Ayin (ע) substituted for the Aleph (א), presumably because the Redactor could not accept the concept of atheism, which was even worse than following the wrong gods. If we take it at face value, it is another of the Redactor's pejoratives for those who do follow the wrong gods.
And as to the tale: are we about to have a re-run of Lot at Sedom (Genesis 19, where the "angels" have the same experience as the "protagonist" here); and Rachav (Rahab) at Yericho (Joshua 2)?
VE NED'AENU: But maybe they heard what the Beney Dan did in the last chapter to their neighbouring villagers at Kiryat Ye'arim, and then to the peaceful citizens of La'ish, and they are justifiably scared that this unknown visitor is one of their spies.
19:23 VA YETS'E ALEYHEM HA ISH BA'AL HA BAYIT VA YOMER ALEYHEM AL ACHAY AL TAREYU NA ACHAREY ASHER BA HA ISH HA ZEH EL BEITI AL TA'ASU ET HA NEVALAH HA ZOT
וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַל אַחַי אַל תָּרֵעוּ נָא אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר בָּא הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה אַל בֵּיתִי אַל תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת
BN: And the man, the owner of the house, went out to them, and said to them: "No, my good friends, no. Do not even think about it. This man is a guest in my house. Do not do this folly...
ALEYHEM...AL'EHEM: I have made this complaint so many times before, but it is necessary to remake it, on each occasion that it arises, because we are trying to unravel a complex text, and it is not helpful that a major group of scholars, undertaking similar work, did their job so very badly. The culprits are the Masoretic "pointers", the men who added the Nekudot to aide pronunication. So they have the identical word, identical in grammar as well as spelling, in the same sentence, but on the first occasion they add a Yud, and on the second occasion they don't. Why? Their incompetence? Or am I missing something?
NEVALAH: Wickedness or folly (I mentioned at verse 6 the tale of David and Avi-Gayil and her "foolish" husband Naval - the same root; see 1 Samuel 25); the old man assumes that they are up to mischief, though they haven't made a specific threat. But given that he suspects mischief, isn't what he offers in the next verse rather foolish? How else can we read it? To which the answer is: didn't the same thing exactly happen once before in the Bible? In Genesis 19 to be precise, when Lot was at Sedom (Sodom) before its destruction, and two men who turned out to be angels came to town, and they too insisted on spending the night in the square, they too got invited home and had their feet washed, they too got summoned out by the local yobs, and there too two women were offered for the pleasure of the mob. You can read the rest yourself, and the variation that is Joshua 2, and draw your own conclusions, but this is clearly a second, or even a third, version of the same tale. Minus the volcanic eruption of Sedom, or the earthquake of Yericho.
19:24 HINEH VITI HA BETULAH U PHIYLAGSHEHU OTSIY'AH NA OTAM VE ANU OTAM VA ASU LAHEM HA TOV BE EYNEYCHEM VE LA ISH HA ZEH LO TA'ASU DEVAR HA NEVALAH HA ZOT
הִנֵּה בִתִּי הַבְּתוּלָה וּפִילַגְשֵׁהוּ אֹוצִיאָה נָּא אֹותָם וְעַנּוּ אֹותָם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם הַטֹּוב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם וְלָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ דְּבַר הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת
BN: Behold, here is my daughter, who is a virgin, and his concubine; I will bring them out now, and you can humble them, and do as you please with them; but do not do such a vile thing to this man.
This whole story, until now, has had no point. But suddenly it comes together, and we can begin to deduce the parts the Redactor must have removed. After all, we can't possibly accept this at face-value: a father offering his virgin daughter and his guest's girlfriend for a gang-bang to a group of thugs intent on beating to death a stranger: other than the satirical cave-man barbarism of Polyphemus, even Homer's "Odyssey" does not descend to quite this level. So there must be something else going on, and it seems to me that this is somewhat equivalent to the "Blood Libel".
This whole story, until now, has had no point. But suddenly it comes together, and we can begin to deduce the parts the Redactor must have removed. After all, we can't possibly accept this at face-value: a father offering his virgin daughter and his guest's girlfriend for a gang-bang to a group of thugs intent on beating to death a stranger: other than the satirical cave-man barbarism of Polyphemus, even Homer's "Odyssey" does not descend to quite this level. So there must be something else going on, and it seems to me that this is somewhat equivalent to the "Blood Libel".
What the Redactor is doing is to take a ceremony of Asherah and reduce it to an act of violence and human depravity in order to derogate the cult. We need to ask what the NEVALAH, the "foolishness", might have been: crucifixion of some sort, perhaps, or burning to death? In the most ancient of rituals, back in palaeolithic times, the male and female surrogates for the divinity in the sacred marriage would have had intercourse publicly, the blood from the girl's lost virginity would have been shown on a soiled sheet, and then the two would have had their throats cut, the blood being used for the next set of rituals (you really don't want to hear about those; suffice it to say they included drinking the blood from these or previous severed skulls - the earliest form of the kiddush or eucharist; yes, and then the flesh).
19:25 VE LO AVU HA ANASHIM LISHMO'A LO VA YACHAZEK HA ISH BE PHIYLAGSHO VA YOTS'E ALEYHEM HACHUTS VA YED'U OTAH VA YITALELU VAH KOL HA LAILAH AD HA BOKER VA YESHALCHUHA KA ALOT HA SHACHAR
וְלֹא אָבוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים לִשְׁמֹעַ לֹו וַיַּחֲזֵק הָאִישׁ בְּפִילַגְשֹׁו וַיֹּצֵא אֲלֵיהֶם הַחוּץ וַיֵּדְעוּ אֹותָהּ וַיִּתְעַלְּלוּ בָהּ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה עַד הַבֹּקֶר וַיְשַׁלְּחוּהָ [בַּעֲלֹות כ] (כַּעֲלֹות ק) הַשָּׁחַר
BN: But the men would not listen to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her out to them; and they gang-raped her, and abused her, the entire night until the morning: only when the day began to break did they let her go.
As with Sedom, we are in a metaphorical Hell or Hades or Land of the Evil One, which is always identified with the night. We need to go back a few verses now, and look again at the way the man was kept night after night; his journey had in fact taken him metaphorically to the home of the Lord of the Underworld, who has trapped him there. Compare the tales of Persephone and Proserpina, Greek and Roman variations on the same descent of the maiden into the Underworld; and of course the connections with Lot and Rachav that we have already noticed, because Lot's wife turning to salt parallels Eurydice turning to stone in the legend of Orpheus' attempt to rescue her from the underworld; and Orpheus with his lyre parallels King David at every point of their stories. The use of the phrase BA'ALOT HA SHACHAR adds certainty to this; it is not simply the dawn that is being described, but quite specifically the rise of the morning star, who is this same maiden in her cosmological form.
As with Sedom, we are in a metaphorical Hell or Hades or Land of the Evil One, which is always identified with the night. We need to go back a few verses now, and look again at the way the man was kept night after night; his journey had in fact taken him metaphorically to the home of the Lord of the Underworld, who has trapped him there. Compare the tales of Persephone and Proserpina, Greek and Roman variations on the same descent of the maiden into the Underworld; and of course the connections with Lot and Rachav that we have already noticed, because Lot's wife turning to salt parallels Eurydice turning to stone in the legend of Orpheus' attempt to rescue her from the underworld; and Orpheus with his lyre parallels King David at every point of their stories. The use of the phrase BA'ALOT HA SHACHAR adds certainty to this; it is not simply the dawn that is being described, but quite specifically the rise of the morning star, who is this same maiden in her cosmological form.
So the sun has brought the woman who is his virgin daughter (new moon), his wife (full moon), and his concubine (waning moon) into the dark underworld which is the night sky, and the neighbouring stars don't want him there, because this is not his natural place... you can fill in the rest easily enough for yourself. Cosmology. Always, albeit primitive, cosmology.
And why is this the tale told immediately after Shimshon and Delilah? That too you should now be able to answer for yourself.
KJ: Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
19:26 VA TAV'O HA ISHAH LIPHNOT HA BOKER VA TIPOL PETACH BEIT HA ISH ASHER ADONEYHA SHAM AD HA OR
וַתָּבֹא הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֹות הַבֹּקֶר וַתִּפֹּל פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֲדֹונֶיהָ שָּׁם עַד הָאֹור
KJ: Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
BN: And when dawn broke the woman came, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
LIPHNOT HA BOKER: this is not the common idiom for dawn, daybreak or sunrise, so we have to ask why it has been chosen. LIPHNOT connects to PANIM, "the face". And where have we seen that as the central piece of the lexicon? At Penu-El, where it was Ya'akov who wrestled all night... Ya'akov who imagined this very Milky Way as the "ladder of the angels" at Beit-El (Genesis 28:12).
LIPHNOT HA BOKER: this is not the common idiom for dawn, daybreak or sunrise, so we have to ask why it has been chosen. LIPHNOT connects to PANIM, "the face". And where have we seen that as the central piece of the lexicon? At Penu-El, where it was Ya'akov who wrestled all night... Ya'akov who imagined this very Milky Way as the "ladder of the angels" at Beit-El (Genesis 28:12).
But there is also a liturgical level. What she has been participating in was not a gang-bang by a gang of Hell's Angels, though that term is partially apt; she has been trained and prepared for the sacred marriage. Though the Redactor has manipulated the story, we can assume that she spent the night with just one man, and it was the old man in whose house they were staying. The men who came to call, and are alleged here to have been the "rapists", are in fact the angels of the piece, come to announce the sacred marriage and ensure its proper ceremonial enactment. An audience rather than participants.
And for the Delilah parallel, this description of her seems to fit perfectly our final image of Shimshon, broken by the collapsing roof of the Temple, likewise prostrate between the pillars of its doors. The two are equal in their glory, and equal in their defeats.
ADONEYHA: Her Lord. For the man in her life, whether husband or whatever a male concubine might be called, the correct Yehudit term should be Ba'al; the Redactor has chosen not to use it, and we can easily understand why! Use this second link if you need assistance.
ADONEYHA: Her Lord. For the man in her life, whether husband or whatever a male concubine might be called, the correct Yehudit term should be Ba'al; the Redactor has chosen not to use it, and we can easily understand why! Use this second link if you need assistance.
19:27 VA YAKAM ADONEYHA BA BOKER VA YIPHTACH DALETOT HA BAYIT VA YETS'E LALECHET LE DARKO VE HINEH HA ISHAH PHIYLAGSHO NOPHELET PETACH HA BAYIT VE YADEYHA AL HA SAPH
וַיָּקָם אֲדֹנֶיהָ בַּבֹּקֶר וַיִּפְתַּח דַּלְתֹות הַבַּיִת וַיֵּצֵא לָלֶכֶת לְדַרְכֹּו וְהִנֵּה הָאִשָּׁה פִילַגְשֹׁו נֹפֶלֶת פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת וְיָדֶיהָ עַל הַסַּף
BN: And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
Again we need to read this at both its mythological and its liturgical levels.
First the latter: The man just went all the way to Beit Lechem to fetch her back from "whoring", and now, while she is supposedly being gang-raped, and he knows what she is doing, he has gone to bed, and gets up in the morning to leave. This is simply not credible, at any level. No, he has brought her from her preparation in Beit Lechem to the ceremony here, and has waited for it to end before going to collect her. But collect her for what? Her initiation (the term is entirely apt) as a shrine-priestess. She is now the May Queen. And presumably he was simply the priest who trained her, took her to the temple for a blessing, brought her back for the ceremony, and can now go home.
And for the former: the man opening the doors is paralleled in No'ach opening the windows of the Ark - a poetical metaphor for the curtains of darkness being flung open in the morning (the "darkness of the night", incidentally, in Greek, is Orpheus). And from the perspecive of the now-risen sun, what else does the setting moon look like, if not a bedraggled, lightless...
It might be interesting to take a well-known modern or historical incident of total innocence, and see if each detail can be presented in such a way that it turns into something equally monstrous. The tale of William of Norwich, for example.
KJ: And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
Again we need to read this at both its mythological and its liturgical levels.
First the latter: The man just went all the way to Beit Lechem to fetch her back from "whoring", and now, while she is supposedly being gang-raped, and he knows what she is doing, he has gone to bed, and gets up in the morning to leave. This is simply not credible, at any level. No, he has brought her from her preparation in Beit Lechem to the ceremony here, and has waited for it to end before going to collect her. But collect her for what? Her initiation (the term is entirely apt) as a shrine-priestess. She is now the May Queen. And presumably he was simply the priest who trained her, took her to the temple for a blessing, brought her back for the ceremony, and can now go home.
And for the former: the man opening the doors is paralleled in No'ach opening the windows of the Ark - a poetical metaphor for the curtains of darkness being flung open in the morning (the "darkness of the night", incidentally, in Greek, is Orpheus). And from the perspecive of the now-risen sun, what else does the setting moon look like, if not a bedraggled, lightless...
It might be interesting to take a well-known modern or historical incident of total innocence, and see if each detail can be presented in such a way that it turns into something equally monstrous. The tale of William of Norwich, for example.
19:28 VA YOMER ELEYHA KUMI VE NELCHAH VE EYN ONEH VA YIKACHEHA AL HA CHAMOR VA YAKAM HA ISH VA YELECH LIMKOMO
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ קוּמִי וְנֵלֵכָה וְאֵין עֹנֶה וַיִּקָּחֶהָ עַל הַחֲמֹור וַיָּקָם הָאִישׁ וַיֵּלֶךְ לִמְקֹמֹו
BN: And he said to her: "Get up, it's time to go". But she gave no answer. Then the man lifted her up onto the donkey, and the man rose up, and went home.
The repetition of the donkey hints at the nature of the orgiastic ceremony. This is the Set part of the worship.
KJ: And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
19:29 VA YAVO EL BEITO VA YIKACH ET HA MA'ACHELET VA YACHAZEK BE PHILAGSHO VA YENAT'CHEYHA LA ATSAMEYHA LI SHNEYM ASAR NETACHIM VA YESHCHEYHA BE CHOL GEVUL YISRA'EL
וַיָּבֹא אֶל בֵּיתֹו וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת וַיַּחֲזֵק בְּפִילַגְשֹׁו וַיְנַתְּחֶהָ לַעֲצָמֶיהָ לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר נְתָחִים וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ בְּכֹל גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And when he came to his house, he took a knife, and laid hold of his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent a piece to each of the tribal regions of Yisra-El.
A moon for every month, and in each of its three phases!
MA'ACHELET: From ACHAL = "to eat", so the sense of this being a kitchen knife, and not the MACHALAPH that we encountered with Shimshon in Judges 16:13; which to be honest is surprising, because what he is doing is definitely sacrificial - but then, if you are creating a blood libel, the cannibalistic element adds weight and flavour!
Is this last is a version of the death of Osher (Osiris) - it would certainly confirm the Set-worship? Except that it it is a female version. We have very little knowledge of the rites and ceremonies of the Set priests. We know that they practiced ritual homosexuality, and that Set was the murderer of Osher. Is it plausible that the girl here is in fact a man, dressed up as a woman, for the purpose of mocking the conventional fertility rites and thereby asserting the superiority of Set over Osher? Or are the constant Delilah and Rachav allusions, the hints of Lot's wife and the "angel" of Penu-El, the real clues: our patriarchal world long ago removed the female heroines, or reduced them, like this tale, to whores and concubines and wicked stepmothers and Snow Queens. Was there a time when the moon too was depicted in heroine-sagas, her twelve labours (or would there have been thirty labours?), her journey through the white light of the Overworld until she rose to become the Queen of Night - and in so doing humbled those "neighbours", and took her vengeance on them for their sexual abuse of her? Is there an entire matriarchal literature that has simply been erased? I suspect there is, and this tale is the residue of its expurgation.
One last thought: the Egyptian version of Osher has him cut into fourteen pieces, but that is a reflection of Egyptian cosmology; a Babylonian version would have required fully sixty pieces, whereas the Yisra-Eli, like the Greek, and the Arthurian, if there is one, will always be twelve.
The sacrifice of course also recalls Yiphtach, and leaves us wondering what was missing from that tale (Judges 11).
19:30 VE HAYAH CHOL HA RO'EH VE AMAR LO NIHYETAH VE LO NIR'ATA KA ZOT LE MI YOM ALOT BENEY YISRA'EL ME ERETS MITSRAYIM AD HA YOM HA ZEH SIYMU LACHEM ALEYHA UTSU VE DABERU
KJ: And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.
A moon for every month, and in each of its three phases!
MA'ACHELET: From ACHAL = "to eat", so the sense of this being a kitchen knife, and not the MACHALAPH that we encountered with Shimshon in Judges 16:13; which to be honest is surprising, because what he is doing is definitely sacrificial - but then, if you are creating a blood libel, the cannibalistic element adds weight and flavour!
Is this last is a version of the death of Osher (Osiris) - it would certainly confirm the Set-worship? Except that it it is a female version. We have very little knowledge of the rites and ceremonies of the Set priests. We know that they practiced ritual homosexuality, and that Set was the murderer of Osher. Is it plausible that the girl here is in fact a man, dressed up as a woman, for the purpose of mocking the conventional fertility rites and thereby asserting the superiority of Set over Osher? Or are the constant Delilah and Rachav allusions, the hints of Lot's wife and the "angel" of Penu-El, the real clues: our patriarchal world long ago removed the female heroines, or reduced them, like this tale, to whores and concubines and wicked stepmothers and Snow Queens. Was there a time when the moon too was depicted in heroine-sagas, her twelve labours (or would there have been thirty labours?), her journey through the white light of the Overworld until she rose to become the Queen of Night - and in so doing humbled those "neighbours", and took her vengeance on them for their sexual abuse of her? Is there an entire matriarchal literature that has simply been erased? I suspect there is, and this tale is the residue of its expurgation.
One last thought: the Egyptian version of Osher has him cut into fourteen pieces, but that is a reflection of Egyptian cosmology; a Babylonian version would have required fully sixty pieces, whereas the Yisra-Eli, like the Greek, and the Arthurian, if there is one, will always be twelve.
The sacrifice of course also recalls Yiphtach, and leaves us wondering what was missing from that tale (Judges 11).
19:30 VE HAYAH CHOL HA RO'EH VE AMAR LO NIHYETAH VE LO NIR'ATA KA ZOT LE MI YOM ALOT BENEY YISRA'EL ME ERETS MITSRAYIM AD HA YOM HA ZEH SIYMU LACHEM ALEYHA UTSU VE DABERU
וְהָיָה כָל הָרֹאֶה וְאָמַר לֹא נִהְיְתָה וְלֹא נִרְאֲתָה כָּזֹאת לְמִיֹּום עֲלֹות בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה שִׂימוּ לָכֶם עָלֶיהָ עֻצוּ וְדַבֵּרוּ
BN: And so it fell out that everyone who saw it said: "No such deed has ever been done or seen, from the day that the Beney Yisra-El came up out of the land of Egypt until today: consider it, take advice, and speak your minds".
And the moral purpose of the whole story now revealed, even though its detail has been messed around with to give it a contemporary feel and narrative: do not follow the practices of the worshippers of Set and Osher. Follow YHVH.
And the moral purpose of the whole story now revealed, even though its detail has been messed around with to give it a contemporary feel and narrative: do not follow the practices of the worshippers of Set and Osher. Follow YHVH.
No comments:
Post a Comment