6:1 VA YA'ASU VENEY YISRA-EL HA RA BE EYNEY YHVH VA YITNEM YHVH BE YAD MIDYAN SHEV'A SHANIM
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהוָה בְּיַד מִדְיָן שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים
BN (BibleNet translation): And the Beney Yisra-El did what was evil in the eyes of YHVH, and YHVH delivered them into the hand of Midyan for seven years.
MIDYAN: See the link.
KJ: And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel: and because of the Midianites the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and caves, and strong holds.
MIDYAN: See the link.
6:2 VA TA'AZ YAD MIDYAN AL YISRA-EL MIPNEY MIDYAN ASU LAHEM BENEY YISRA-EL ET HA MINHAROT ASHER BE HARIM VE ET HA ME'AROT VE ET HA METSADOT
וַתָּעָז יַד מִדְיָן עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי מִדְיָן עָשׂוּ לָהֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַמִּנְהָרֹות אֲשֶׁר בֶּהָרִים וְאֶת הַמְּעָרֹות וְאֶת הַמְּצָדֹות
BN: And the hand of Midyan prevailed against Yisra-El. And because of the Midyanites the Beney Yisra-El made dens for themselves in the mountains, and caves, and strong holds.
6:3 VE HAYAH IM ZAR'A YISRA-EL VE ALAH MIDYAN VA AMALEK U VENEY KEDEM VE ALU ALAV
וְהָיָה אִם זָרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעָלָה מִדְיָן וַעֲמָלֵק וּבְנֵי קֶדֶם וְעָלוּ עָלָיו
BN: And so it was, when Yisra-El had finished sowing, that the Midyanites came up, and the Amalekites, and the Beney Kedem, they too came up against them.
AMALEKITES: See the link.
VENEY KEDEM: is not "children of the east" but a tribe called the Beney Kedem, though Kedem does indeed mean "east".
This is why bread and war are the same word - like Drake building the English "treasury" by stealing the gold from the Spanish ships returning from the Americas: you do the sowing, we'll do the harvesting!
6:4 VA YACHANU ALEYHEM VA YASH'CHIYTU ET YEVUL HA ARETS AD BOA'CHA AZAH VE LO YASH'IYRU MI CHEYAH BE YISRA-EL VE SEH VA SHOR VA CHAMOR
KJ: And they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance for Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass.
AMALEKITES: See the link.
VENEY KEDEM: is not "children of the east" but a tribe called the Beney Kedem, though Kedem does indeed mean "east".
This is why bread and war are the same word - like Drake building the English "treasury" by stealing the gold from the Spanish ships returning from the Americas: you do the sowing, we'll do the harvesting!
6:4 VA YACHANU ALEYHEM VA YASH'CHIYTU ET YEVUL HA ARETS AD BOA'CHA AZAH VE LO YASH'IYRU MI CHEYAH BE YISRA-EL VE SEH VA SHOR VA CHAMOR
וַיַּחֲנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם וַיַּשְׁחִיתוּ אֶת יְבוּל הָאָרֶץ עַד בֹּואֲךָ עַזָּה וְלֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִחְיָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֶׂה וָשֹׁור וַחֲמֹור
BN: And they made camp against them, and destroyed all the produce of the earth, as far as Azah, and left no sustenance for Yisra-El, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass.
AZAH: See the link.
Plundering, but also ruination as they moved on.
6:5 KI HEM U MIKNEYHEM YA'ALU VA AHALEYHEM YAVO'U CHEDEY ARBEH LA ROV VE LAHEM VE LIGMALEYHEM EYN MISPAR VA YAVO'U VA ARETS LESHACHATAH
KJ: For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as grasshoppers for multitude; for both they and their camels were without number: and they entered into the land to destroy it.
AZAH: See the link.
Plundering, but also ruination as they moved on.
6:5 KI HEM U MIKNEYHEM YA'ALU VA AHALEYHEM YAVO'U CHEDEY ARBEH LA ROV VE LAHEM VE LIGMALEYHEM EYN MISPAR VA YAVO'U VA ARETS LESHACHATAH
כִּי הֵם וּמִקְנֵיהֶם יַעֲלוּ וְאָהֳלֵיהֶם [יָבֹאוּ כ] (וּבָאוּ ק) כְדֵי אַרְבֶּה לָרֹב וְלָהֶם וְלִגְמַלֵּיהֶם אֵין מִסְפָּר וַיָּבֹאוּ בָאָרֶץ לְשַׁחֲתָהּ
BN: For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came like locusts for multitude; for both they and their camels were without number: and they came into the land with the intention of destroying it.
If these people have come with their cattle and their tents, they have come to find homes, and are only conquering in order not to be prevented from doing that. This is not a military invasion, though it becomes one. And is that not also a description of Mosheh and Yehsohu'a and their arrival in the land?
If these people have come with their cattle and their tents, they have come to find homes, and are only conquering in order not to be prevented from doing that. This is not a military invasion, though it becomes one. And is that not also a description of Mosheh and Yehsohu'a and their arrival in the land?
ARBEH first appeared in the Tanach in Exodus 10:4 (see my notes there for the full etymology), as one of the Ten Plagues, and they are always translated as "locusts", not "grasshoppers".
Note the use of SHECHITAH, not HASHMADAH, for destruction; like CHARAMTA elsewhere, SHECHITAH is a word from the religious lexicon, not the military.
Note the use of SHECHITAH, not HASHMADAH, for destruction; like CHARAMTA elsewhere, SHECHITAH is a word from the religious lexicon, not the military.
The parentheses here are the result of a Masoretic scholar recognising an error in the text. The alternatives offered in the brackets are YAVO'U and U VA'U, and it is the second of these which usually gets translated, because it is the one in the original text. YAVO'U is also the third-from-last word in the verse, and translated there. However, U VA'U is grammatically incorrect, because the U, which is the conjunction "and", clashes with the opening word of the verse, "KI", which means "for". BA'U would work, but not U VA'U. My translation is from YAVO'U.
However, all this being the case, why did the scholar not also pick up the very different grammatical error with YAVO'U, which is also the case with the fourth word in the verse, YA'ALU? They both imply the use of the Vav Consecutive, but the preposition, again, is KI not U, so YA'ALU should be ALU, as YAVO'U should be BA'U.
However, all this being the case, why did the scholar not also pick up the very different grammatical error with YAVO'U, which is also the case with the fourth word in the verse, YA'ALU? They both imply the use of the Vav Consecutive, but the preposition, again, is KI not U, so YA'ALU should be ALU, as YAVO'U should be BA'U.
GEMALEYHEM: The camels, alas, are an anachronism - click here.
6:6 VA YIDAL YISRA-EL ME'OD MIPNEY MIDYAN VA YIZ'AKU VENEY YISRA-EL EL YHVH
וַיִּדַּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מְאֹד מִפְּנֵי מִדְיָן וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל יְהוָה
BN: And Yisra-El was greatly impoverished because of the Midyanites; and the Beney Yisra-El cried out to YHVH.
6:7 VA YEHI KI ZA'AKU VENEY YISRA-EL EL YHVH AL ODOT MIDYAN
KJ: And it came to pass, when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD because of the Midianites
pey break
6:7 VA YEHI KI ZA'AKU VENEY YISRA-EL EL YHVH AL ODOT MIDYAN
וַיְהִי כִּי זָעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל יְהוָה עַל אֹדֹות מִדְיָן
BN: And it fell out that, when the Beney Yisra-El cried out to YHVH because of the Midyanites...
6:8 VA YISHLACH YHVH ISH NAVI EL BENEY YISRA-EL VA YOMER LAHEM KOH AMAR YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL ANOCHI HE'ELEYTI ET'CHEM MI MITSRAYIM VA OTS'IY ET'CHEM MI BEIT AVADIM
KJ: That the LORD sent a prophet unto the children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of bondage.
6:8 VA YISHLACH YHVH ISH NAVI EL BENEY YISRA-EL VA YOMER LAHEM KOH AMAR YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL ANOCHI HE'ELEYTI ET'CHEM MI MITSRAYIM VA OTS'IY ET'CHEM MI BEIT AVADIM
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוָה אִישׁ נָבִיא אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָנֹכִי הֶעֱלֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם מִמִּצְרַיִם וָאֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים
BN: That YHVH sent a prophet to the Beney Yisra-El, who said to them: "Thus says YHVH, god of Yisra-El: I brought you up from Mitsrayim, and brought you out of the house of bondage...
This time it is neither a SHOPHET nor a MOSHI'A but a NAVI, which is the term used for the later Prophets, such as Yirme-Yah (Jeremiah) and Yesha-Yah (Isaiah), an entirely different role in society from either the Shophet or the Moshi'a, or the Mashiyach - indeed, no Mashiyach ever ruled Yisra-El without the guiding hand of a Navi, from Shemu-El (Samuel) in King Sha'ul and King David's time, all the way to Malachi in the days of Ezra and Nechem-Yah (Nehemiah) (cf Merlin's role with Ar Thur in the Celtic legends).
And even more oddly, this Prophet is never named; or is he? He speaks in verses 9 and 10, but in verse 11 the tale will change entirely: an "angel", which is to say a "messenger of YHVH" appears, and addresses Gid'on (Gideon), hailing him as a "man of valour", and effectively raising him to the Prophetcy. Do those verses belong before these verses, and Gid'on is the Navi here?
6:9 VA ATSIL ET'CHEM MI YAD MITSRAYIM U MI YAD KOL LOCHATSEYCHEM VA AGARESH OTAM MIPNEYCHEM VE ETNAH LACHEM ET ARTSAM
KJ: And I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all that oppressed you, and drave them out from before you, and gave you their land
This time it is neither a SHOPHET nor a MOSHI'A but a NAVI, which is the term used for the later Prophets, such as Yirme-Yah (Jeremiah) and Yesha-Yah (Isaiah), an entirely different role in society from either the Shophet or the Moshi'a, or the Mashiyach - indeed, no Mashiyach ever ruled Yisra-El without the guiding hand of a Navi, from Shemu-El (Samuel) in King Sha'ul and King David's time, all the way to Malachi in the days of Ezra and Nechem-Yah (Nehemiah) (cf Merlin's role with Ar Thur in the Celtic legends).
And even more oddly, this Prophet is never named; or is he? He speaks in verses 9 and 10, but in verse 11 the tale will change entirely: an "angel", which is to say a "messenger of YHVH" appears, and addresses Gid'on (Gideon), hailing him as a "man of valour", and effectively raising him to the Prophetcy. Do those verses belong before these verses, and Gid'on is the Navi here?
6:9 VA ATSIL ET'CHEM MI YAD MITSRAYIM U MI YAD KOL LOCHATSEYCHEM VA AGARESH OTAM MIPNEYCHEM VE ETNAH LACHEM ET ARTSAM
וָאַצִּל אֶתְכֶם מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם וּמִיַּד כָּל לֹחֲצֵיכֶם וָאֲגָרֵשׁ אֹותָם מִפְּנֵיכֶם וָאֶתְּנָה לָכֶם אֶת אַרְצָם
BN: "And I delivered you out of the hand of Mitsrayim, and out of the hand of all who oppressed you, and drove them out from before you, and gave you their land...
Always the same message, in the same words - and the evidence in the Books of Joshua and Judges confirms that it simply isn't true; and always the failure to include the statement, made at the death of Yehoshu'a, and endorsed at the start of Devorah's song, that YHVH has ceased to interfere in human history (officially; he never actually does) and we humans have to take responsibility for ourselves (officially; we never actually do).
6:10 VE OMRAH LACHEM ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM LO TIYR'U ET ELOHEY HA EMORI ASHER ATEM YOSHVIM BE ARTSAM VE LO SHEMA'TEM BE KOLI
KJ: And I said unto you, I am the LORD your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but ye have not obeyed my voice.
Always the same message, in the same words - and the evidence in the Books of Joshua and Judges confirms that it simply isn't true; and always the failure to include the statement, made at the death of Yehoshu'a, and endorsed at the start of Devorah's song, that YHVH has ceased to interfere in human history (officially; he never actually does) and we humans have to take responsibility for ourselves (officially; we never actually do).
6:10 VE OMRAH LACHEM ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM LO TIYR'U ET ELOHEY HA EMORI ASHER ATEM YOSHVIM BE ARTSAM VE LO SHEMA'TEM BE KOLI
וָאֹמְרָה לָכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לֹא תִירְאוּ אֶת אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹושְׁבִים בְּאַרְצָם וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹולִי
BN: "And I said to you, 'I am YHVH your god, do not fear the gods of the Emori, in whose land you dwell'. But you have not obeyed my voice."
EMORI: Amorites.
The amazing thing is not that Man still has faith in God, but that God still has faith in Man. There is no proving evidence for the validity in either direction.
pey break
6:11 VA YAVO MAL'ACH YHVH VA YESHEV TACHAT HA ELAH ASHER BE APHRAH ASHER LE YO'ASH AVI HA EZRIY VE GID'ON BENO CHOVET CHITIM BA GAT LEHANIS MIPNEY MIDYAN
KJ: And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.
EMORI: Amorites.
The amazing thing is not that Man still has faith in God, but that God still has faith in Man. There is no proving evidence for the validity in either direction.
pey break
6:11 VA YAVO MAL'ACH YHVH VA YESHEV TACHAT HA ELAH ASHER BE APHRAH ASHER LE YO'ASH AVI HA EZRIY VE GID'ON BENO CHOVET CHITIM BA GAT LEHANIS MIPNEY MIDYAN
וַיָּבֹא מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה וַיֵּשֶׁב תַּחַת הָאֵלָה אֲשֶׁר בְּעָפְרָה אֲשֶׁר לְיֹואָשׁ אֲבִי הָעֶזְרִי וְגִדְעֹון בְּנֹו חֹבֵט חִטִּים בַּגַּת לְהָנִיס מִפְּנֵי מִדְיָן
BN: And there came a messenger of YHVH, and he sat under an oak tree that was in Aphrah, which belonged to Yo'ash the Avi-Ezrite: and his son Gid'on was threshing wheat beside the winepress, to hide it from the Midyanites.
MAL'ACH: I have commented many times before that a Mal'ach is not an "angel", in the fairy-sense that Christianity has always presented them. A Mal'ach is a "messenger", from the root LA'ACH, which means "to depute"or "delegate" - through which it creates a secondary word for "servants" and "service", which is where the 39 Mel'achot, the forms of work prohibited on the Shabat, get their name - see Genesis 2:2. And if the Priest sends someone to your home to remind you that tomorrow is the anniversary of your grandfather's burial, or if the king sends an envoy to a neighbouring king, or the greengrocer sends his boy to let you know the cucumbers you ordered have arrived, or the secret police send spies to scour the suburb, every one of these would be a Mal'ach too (though the latter might be REGALIM, if they were undercover). And if you still don't believe me, jump forward to verse 35.
"Sat under an oak" is the give-away here, reinforced by the wheat-threshing and the wine-press. Devorah, as noted in the last chapter Judges 4:5, sat under a weeping oak, or sometimes a palm-tree And this one likewise a sacred oak-tree; though wherever the ancients threshed corn or pressed wine they needed to be able to appease and propitiate the gods, and wherever they created shrines to do so, however small, priests were on hand to "judge"; which is to say to give oracles and intermediate with the gods.
APHRAH (עפרה), or OPHRAH in most English versions, means "a fawn", and yet again the enemies of Yisra-El appear to be animals, presumably totem clans. Epher, meaning calf, appears in Genesis 25:4 as a son of Midyan; also in 1 Chronicles 4:17 and 5:24. As Opher, specifically the calf of a deer, goat or gazelle, he appears in Song of Songs 2:9 and 17, 4:5, 7:4 and 8:14.
The town here, which is Aphrah, not Ophrah, in the Yehudit, is mentioned as a town in Bin-Yamin in Joshua 18:23, 1 Samuel 13:17 and Micah 1:10; another of the same name, in Menasheh, appears in Judges 8:27 and 9:5, as well as 1 Chronicles 4:14. There is also an Ephron in 2 Chronicles 13:19 (I have chosen this particular link because it includes the dispute over the name, which on this occasion may be Ephrayin) and a Har Ephron in Joshua 15:9. That last is especially significant because Ephron also appears, as Ephron ben Tsochar, in Genesis 23:8 and 25:9, in both cases recognisable as the Kena'ani (Canaanite) equivalent of Ephroneus, or Phoroneus, the sun god whose sister is Yah, and who is himself a variant of the Greek Orpheus; Tsochar means "white" and is therefore identifiable with Lavan, the white moon-god of the Ya'akov stories.
However, there is also APHAR, meaning dust... see notes to EPHER.
There is no connection to the tribe of Ephrayim, nor to Ophir, both of which are spelled with a first-letter Aleph (א), not Ayin (ע).
MAL'ACH: I have commented many times before that a Mal'ach is not an "angel", in the fairy-sense that Christianity has always presented them. A Mal'ach is a "messenger", from the root LA'ACH, which means "to depute"or "delegate" - through which it creates a secondary word for "servants" and "service", which is where the 39 Mel'achot, the forms of work prohibited on the Shabat, get their name - see Genesis 2:2. And if the Priest sends someone to your home to remind you that tomorrow is the anniversary of your grandfather's burial, or if the king sends an envoy to a neighbouring king, or the greengrocer sends his boy to let you know the cucumbers you ordered have arrived, or the secret police send spies to scour the suburb, every one of these would be a Mal'ach too (though the latter might be REGALIM, if they were undercover). And if you still don't believe me, jump forward to verse 35.
"Sat under an oak" is the give-away here, reinforced by the wheat-threshing and the wine-press. Devorah, as noted in the last chapter Judges 4:5, sat under a weeping oak, or sometimes a palm-tree And this one likewise a sacred oak-tree; though wherever the ancients threshed corn or pressed wine they needed to be able to appease and propitiate the gods, and wherever they created shrines to do so, however small, priests were on hand to "judge"; which is to say to give oracles and intermediate with the gods.
APHRAH (עפרה), or OPHRAH in most English versions, means "a fawn", and yet again the enemies of Yisra-El appear to be animals, presumably totem clans. Epher, meaning calf, appears in Genesis 25:4 as a son of Midyan; also in 1 Chronicles 4:17 and 5:24. As Opher, specifically the calf of a deer, goat or gazelle, he appears in Song of Songs 2:9 and 17, 4:5, 7:4 and 8:14.
The town here, which is Aphrah, not Ophrah, in the Yehudit, is mentioned as a town in Bin-Yamin in Joshua 18:23, 1 Samuel 13:17 and Micah 1:10; another of the same name, in Menasheh, appears in Judges 8:27 and 9:5, as well as 1 Chronicles 4:14. There is also an Ephron in 2 Chronicles 13:19 (I have chosen this particular link because it includes the dispute over the name, which on this occasion may be Ephrayin) and a Har Ephron in Joshua 15:9. That last is especially significant because Ephron also appears, as Ephron ben Tsochar, in Genesis 23:8 and 25:9, in both cases recognisable as the Kena'ani (Canaanite) equivalent of Ephroneus, or Phoroneus, the sun god whose sister is Yah, and who is himself a variant of the Greek Orpheus; Tsochar means "white" and is therefore identifiable with Lavan, the white moon-god of the Ya'akov stories.
However, there is also APHAR, meaning dust... see notes to EPHER.
There is no connection to the tribe of Ephrayim, nor to Ophir, both of which are spelled with a first-letter Aleph (א), not Ayin (ע).
YO'ASH (יואש): This is the only occasion of the name Yo'ash, and it is difficult to deduce. Possibly it should be YEHO'ASH, and probably the root is YA'ASH, meaning "to despair", or at the very least "to be cast down in spirits" (cf "NO'ASH - נֹאָֽשׁ - in Job 6:26, Isaiah 57:10, Jeremiah 2:25 and 18:12, YA'ESH - יַאֵ֣שׁ - in Ecclesiastes 2:20). But what sort of a parent names their child "Desperate" or "Hopeless"? We can imagine his friends, behind his back, calling Job, or Shakespeare's Timon of Athens, by one of those as a nickname, but... it can only have been an epithet, and several of the later Prophets could easily have been satirised in the same manner.
The same root probably gives the two versions of Josiah, YOSHI'A (יאשיה) in Zecheriah 6:10, YOSHI-YAHU (יאשיהו) in 2 Kings 23:23 and 2 Chronicles 34:33; but that latter may stem from a different root, ASHAH (אשה) meaning "to heal". It is one of the quaint fascinations of Yehudit that two roots which are often very close, can yet have opposite and still complementary meanings: "to despair" and "to heal".
AVI HA EZRIY (אבי העזרי): The name means "father of help", which of course is exactly what you need if you are called "despair" but wish your name came from the alternate root: "to heal". But here, in its literal usage, it is simply the naming of his tribe, the Ezraites, with Yo'ash as its "father", which presumably means its "elder" - a position of authority that makes sense, given that he is the owner of the land that hosts the rock and the Asherah which will be the keys to this tale. But Ezraites are unknown as a Biblical tribe, anywhere but here; and Ezra is of course the leader of the Beney Yehudah at the time of the Redaction. In other words, once again, we cannot take the names at face value; the author is playing with us poetically, describing the state of the nation.
But see verse 34, where Avi Ha Ezer is mysteriously transformed into the name Avi-Ezer; though it still appears to be the name of his clan, or tribe (perhaps, having made the sycophantic reference to his chief once, the Redactor felt it unnecessary to do the same again, and simply reverted to the correct name!).
But see verse 34, where Avi Ha Ezer is mysteriously transformed into the name Avi-Ezer; though it still appears to be the name of his clan, or tribe (perhaps, having made the sycophantic reference to his chief once, the Redactor felt it unnecessary to do the same again, and simply reverted to the correct name!).
GID'ON (גדעון): usually pronounced Gideon in English, it also appears as GID'OM in Judges 20:45, as a place in the tribe of Bin-Yamin. The root GAD'A means "to cut down", or "prune", which connects us to the winepress mentioned in the same verse. Isaiah 15:2 uses the root of this word in reference to mourners shaving, again a connection with the state of despair described in Yo'ash's name. So was Gid'on the priest, the oracle, the "angel", or the god himself? We shall see shortly.
And was Gad actually a Yisra-Eli? See verse 15 where he is given as a clan of Menasheh, but it feels like an afterthought of the Redactor, needing to make sure all these "Judges", not one of whom really was Yisra-Eli, became integral to the national history.
KJ: And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
6:12 VA YERA ELAV MAL'ACH YHVH VA YOMER ELAV YHVH IMCHA GIBOR HE CHAYIL
וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יְהוָה עִמְּךָ גִּבֹּור הֶחָיִל
BN: And a messenger of YHVH appeared to him, and said to him, "YHVH is with you, you mighty man of valour".
I am inclined to translate this as "And in a flash of inspiration it struck him, and he said to himself, You are the man who needs to take the lead here." By no means literal, but as a deconstuction of the ancient metaphor, I think it is accurate.
GIBOR HE CHAYIL: This is an epithet for the heroes of battle, and not a statement of his spiritual or intellectual condition. He is being summoned to war.
6:13 VA YOMER ELAV GID'ON BI ADONI VE YESH YHVH IMANU VE LAMAH METSA'ATNU KOL ZOT VE AYEH CHOL NIPHLE'OTAV ASHER SIPRU LANU AVOTEYNU LEMOR HA LO MI MITSRAYIM HE'ELANU YHVH VE ATAH NETASHANU YHVH VA YITNENU BE CHAPH MIDYAN
KJ: And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
I am inclined to translate this as "And in a flash of inspiration it struck him, and he said to himself, You are the man who needs to take the lead here." By no means literal, but as a deconstuction of the ancient metaphor, I think it is accurate.
GIBOR HE CHAYIL: This is an epithet for the heroes of battle, and not a statement of his spiritual or intellectual condition. He is being summoned to war.
6:13 VA YOMER ELAV GID'ON BI ADONI VE YESH YHVH IMANU VE LAMAH METSA'ATNU KOL ZOT VE AYEH CHOL NIPHLE'OTAV ASHER SIPRU LANU AVOTEYNU LEMOR HA LO MI MITSRAYIM HE'ELANU YHVH VE ATAH NETASHANU YHVH VA YITNENU BE CHAPH MIDYAN
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו גִּדְעֹון בִּי אֲדֹנִי וְיֵשׁ יְהוָה עִמָּנוּ וְלָמָּה מְצָאַתְנוּ כָּל זֹאת וְאַיֵּה כָל נִפְלְאֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר סִפְּרוּ לָנוּ אֲבֹותֵינוּ לֵאמֹר הֲלֹא מִמִּצְרַיִם הֶעֱלָנוּ יְהוָה וְעַתָּה נְטָשָׁנוּ יְהוָה וַיִּתְּנֵנוּ בְּכַף מִדְיָן
BN: And Gid'on said to him: "Oh my Lord, if YHVH is truly with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all his miracles, the ones our fathers spoke about, saying: 'Did not YHVH bring us up from Mitsrayim?' But now YHVH has forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midyanites.
Eso va, as they say in Spanish. Elu ha chayim, or kacha zeh, in modern Ivrit. "Such is life"! YHVH says it's their own fault for following false gods and forsaking him; they say it's his fault for being a false god and forsaking them. No one ever takes responsibility (except Gid'on - whence my alternate translation of the previous verse).
KJ: And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?
Eso va, as they say in Spanish. Elu ha chayim, or kacha zeh, in modern Ivrit. "Such is life"! YHVH says it's their own fault for following false gods and forsaking him; they say it's his fault for being a false god and forsaking them. No one ever takes responsibility (except Gid'on - whence my alternate translation of the previous verse).
6:14 VA YIPHEN ELAV YHVH VA YOMER LECH BE CHOCHACHA ZEH VE HOSHA'TA ET YISRA-EL MI KAPH MIDYAN HA LO SHELACHTIYCHA
וַיִּפֶן אֵלָיו יְהוָה וַיֹּאמֶר לֵךְ בְּכֹחֲךָ זֶה וְהֹושַׁעְתָּ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכַּף מִדְיָן הֲלֹא שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ
BN: And YHVH looked upon him, and said: "Go with all your might, and you shall save Yisra-El from the hand of the Midyanites. Have I not sent you?"
YHVH: Confusion as to whether it is a messenger, or YHVH himself (confusion in the written text; confusion with the inner voice; it really doesn't matter how you name the metaphor!)
YHVH: Confusion as to whether it is a messenger, or YHVH himself (confusion in the written text; confusion with the inner voice; it really doesn't matter how you name the metaphor!)
HOSHA'TA: Confusion as to whether he is a Navi or a Moshi'a. Perhaps he has been a NAVI until now, and in taking responsibility for his nation he will become the MOSHI'A (but not a MASHIYACH).
KJ: And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house.
6:15 VA YOMER ELAV BI ADONAY BA MAH OSHIY'A ET YISRA-EL HINEH ALPI HADAL BIMNASHEH VE ANOCHI HA TSA'IR BE VEIT AVI
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בִּי אֲדֹנָי בַּמָּה אֹושִׁיעַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל הִנֵּה אַלְפִּי הַדַּל בִּמְנַשֶּׁה וְאָנֹכִי הַצָּעִיר בְּבֵית אָבִי
BN: And he said to him: "Oh my Lord, how shall I save Yisra-El? Look at me! My family is one of the poorest in Menasheh, and I am the youngest in my father's house."
BI ADONAY: Above (verse 13) he said BI ADONI; why they are different? Have we got several texts mixed up together, in one of which it is an "angel" who appears to him, and in the other he meets YHVH face to face (verse 22) and lives? The phrasing of the text here seems to insist that some human has come to him, under the sacred tree where he delivers his oracles; but if he is delivering oracles in the conventional manner, something like a séance or a crystal ball, it really doesn't matter how he or we poeticise the outcome.
BI ADONAY: Above (verse 13) he said BI ADONI; why they are different? Have we got several texts mixed up together, in one of which it is an "angel" who appears to him, and in the other he meets YHVH face to face (verse 22) and lives? The phrasing of the text here seems to insist that some human has come to him, under the sacred tree where he delivers his oracles; but if he is delivering oracles in the conventional manner, something like a séance or a crystal ball, it really doesn't matter how he or we poeticise the outcome.
TSA'IR: "Least" is incorrect; he is the youngest. This is about his age, not his merits. In fact, being the youngest is one of his greatest merits - as we have seen throughout the Book of Genesis, the Beney Yisra-El practiced ultimogeniture, and it was always the youngest who inherited.
How far is this tale intended purely as a moral message: stop whingeing when life gets tough, and stop expecting other people (god, government, family, philanthropists...) to sort it out for you; get off your backside and sort it out for yourself. If Gid'on can do it... Probably not, actually; because in the Biblial tales, the credit always goes to the deity, no matter how extraordinary the human achievement.
KJ: And the LORD said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man.
6:16 VA YOMER ELAV YHVH KI EHEYEH IMACH VE HIKITA ET MIDYAN KE ISH ECHAD
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יְהוָה כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְהִכִּיתָ אֶת מִדְיָן כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד
BN: And YHVH said to him: "Surely I will be with you, and you shall smite the Midyanites as one man."
IMACH: Which is the feminine form that we have seen so often, and wondered why the Pointer has done this; in verse 12 we had IMCHA - same spelling without pointing, but clearly masculine, and correctly masculine, with it. Why not here also?
6:17 VA YOMER ELAV IM NA MATSA'TI CHEN BE EYNEYCHA VE ASIYTA LI OT SHA ATAH MEDABER IMI
KJ: And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then shew me a sign that thou talkest with me.
IMACH: Which is the feminine form that we have seen so often, and wondered why the Pointer has done this; in verse 12 we had IMCHA - same spelling without pointing, but clearly masculine, and correctly masculine, with it. Why not here also?
6:17 VA YOMER ELAV IM NA MATSA'TI CHEN BE EYNEYCHA VE ASIYTA LI OT SHA ATAH MEDABER IMI
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וְעָשִׂיתָ לִּי אֹות שָׁאַתָּה מְדַבֵּר עִמִּי
BN: And he said to him: "If now I have found grace in your sight, then show me a sign that you are talking to me...
This verse is especially pleasing: how do I know that I am not simply suffering from a psychotic delusion, some form of schizophrenic megalomania... I need more than just this flash of inspiration, this anger at the state of the world... Can we now state for certain that he is conducting a séance or gazing into a crystal ball? Or perhaps he has been dealing the Tarot cards, and suddenly one of them seemed to move... And with the pagan shrines of the Middle East at that epoch, drugs, probably haoma, cannot be ruled out either.
6:18 AL NA TAMUSH MI ZEH AD BO'I ELEYCHA VE HOTSE'TI ET MINCHATI VE HINACHTI LEPHANEYCHA VA YOMER ANOCHI ESHEV AD SHUVECH
אַל נָא תָמֻשׁ מִזֶּה עַד בֹּאִי אֵלֶיךָ וְהֹצֵאתִי אֶת מִנְחָתִי וְהִנַּחְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ וַיֹּאמַר אָנֹכִי אֵשֵׁב עַד שׁוּבֶךָ
BN: "Don't go away, I implore you, until I come back, and bring you my sacrifice, and set it before you." And he said: "I will wait until you come back".
MINCHATI: A minchah is a sacrifice; specifically the afternoon sacrifice. If it was a mere gift, the text would say MATANAH - we have noted this previously - see my notes to Judges 3:15.
MINCHATI: A minchah is a sacrifice; specifically the afternoon sacrifice. If it was a mere gift, the text would say MATANAH - we have noted this previously - see my notes to Judges 3:15.
From the giving of the minchah, we can confirm that the vision of the "angel" is in fact the flickering light from the altar, and the reading of the oracle, not by séance or crystal ball or Tarot card, despite my irreverent satires, but through the throwing of the dice - the Urim
and Tumim which were kept in the priest's breastplate for precisely this purpose.6:19 VA GID'ON BA VA YA'AS GEDI IZIM VE EYPHAT KEMACH MATSOT HA BASAR SAM BA SAL VE HA MARAK SAM BA PARUR VA YOTS'E ELIL EL TACHAT HA ELAH VA YAGASH
וְגִדְעֹון בָּא וַיַּעַשׂ גְּדִי עִזִּים וְאֵיפַת קֶמַח מַצֹּות הַבָּשָׂר שָׂם בַּסַּל וְהַמָּרַק שָׂם בַּפָּרוּר וַיֹּוצֵא אֵלָיו אֶל תַּחַת הָאֵלָה וַיַּגַּשׁ
BN: And Gid'on went indoors, and prepared a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the meat he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out to him under the oak, and presented it.
GEDI: That Gid'on should bring a Gedi is splendid poetry, though it may also be splendid coincidence on this occasion. And it may be that Gid'on went into his kitchen, and cooked this on the hob; but, if it is intended as a minchah, it is also problematic, because - unless our understanding of these things is quite wrong - the minchah was a meal-offering, and not a meat-offering. See the link to minchah, above, which mostly takes us to the details from Leviticus 2; see also Exodus 30:9 and 40:29, both of which make a very clear distinction between the items to be sacrificed on the altar, though KJ, as it always does, translates minchah as "meat-offering".
BUT: now look at this alternate link, from which we can also see that there may indeed have been meat-offerings at the Minchah, in the sense that Minchah also came to mean the event, the second round of daily sacrifices, as well as its contents - and if an olah (meat-offering) was made during the Minchah service (the service named as Minchah) as opposed to a minchah (I am using upper and lower case to distinguish the two)... the upper case version applies today, when prayer services in synagogues are related to the times, not the contents, of the three acts of Avodah (worship) in the Temple: thus the Shacharit prayers are recited at sunrise, the Minchah at any point in the middle of the day, and the Ma'ariv immediately before sunset (though actually the original Ma'ariv had no content, but was simply the cleaning-up rituals at the end of the day of sacrifices).
Compare Av-Raham's meeting with the angels in Genesis 18. This meal at least is kosher.
GEDI: That Gid'on should bring a Gedi is splendid poetry, though it may also be splendid coincidence on this occasion. And it may be that Gid'on went into his kitchen, and cooked this on the hob; but, if it is intended as a minchah, it is also problematic, because - unless our understanding of these things is quite wrong - the minchah was a meal-offering, and not a meat-offering. See the link to minchah, above, which mostly takes us to the details from Leviticus 2; see also Exodus 30:9 and 40:29, both of which make a very clear distinction between the items to be sacrificed on the altar, though KJ, as it always does, translates minchah as "meat-offering".
BUT: now look at this alternate link, from which we can also see that there may indeed have been meat-offerings at the Minchah, in the sense that Minchah also came to mean the event, the second round of daily sacrifices, as well as its contents - and if an olah (meat-offering) was made during the Minchah service (the service named as Minchah) as opposed to a minchah (I am using upper and lower case to distinguish the two)... the upper case version applies today, when prayer services in synagogues are related to the times, not the contents, of the three acts of Avodah (worship) in the Temple: thus the Shacharit prayers are recited at sunrise, the Minchah at any point in the middle of the day, and the Ma'ariv immediately before sunset (though actually the original Ma'ariv had no content, but was simply the cleaning-up rituals at the end of the day of sacrifices).
Compare Av-Raham's meeting with the angels in Genesis 18. This meal at least is kosher.
But more significantly, compare the two occasions in Genesis (25:19-34, 27:1ff) which found Ya'akov in the kitchen, preparing a similar gift for his father Yitschak - on both occasions using the sacrificial meal to steal his brother Esav's rights as first-born and make the younger son the one who inherits.
samech break
KJ: And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.
samech break
6:20 VA YOMER ELAV MAL'ACH HA ELOHIM KACH ET HA BASAR VE ET HA MATSOT VE HANACH EL HA SEL'A HA LAZ VE ET HA MARAK SHEPHOCH VA YA'AS KEN
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים קַח אֶת הַבָּשָׂר וְאֶת הַמַּצֹּות וְהַנַּח אֶל הַסֶּלַע הַלָּז וְאֶת הַמָּרַק שְׁפֹוךְ וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן
BN: And the messenger of Elohim said to him: "Take the meat and the unleavened cakes, and lay them on this unsanctified rock, and pour out the broth". And he did so.
ELOHIM: In verse 11 he was a messenger of YHVH. And will be again in the next verse. Yet more evidence that there are, perhaps as many as four different versions, mixed up in this text.
SEL'A HA LAZ: That a rock should serve as an altar is only mildly problematic: both the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im and the Ka'aba at Mecca were built on and around holy rocks. The LAZ is another matter. LUZ was an almond-grove, adjacent to Beit-El; but that isn't the problem. As you will see at the link to LUZ, the root means "perversion" or "wickedness", which renders it a most unlikely place for a god to ask for a holy act to be performed; unless the pouring of the minchah, which is itself holy, renders the profane sacred, and serves as a metaphor for the role that Gid'on is about to play in Yisra-El.
KJ, like most translations, simply ignores LAZ.
KJ: Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.
ELOHIM: In verse 11 he was a messenger of YHVH. And will be again in the next verse. Yet more evidence that there are, perhaps as many as four different versions, mixed up in this text.
SEL'A HA LAZ: That a rock should serve as an altar is only mildly problematic: both the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im and the Ka'aba at Mecca were built on and around holy rocks. The LAZ is another matter. LUZ was an almond-grove, adjacent to Beit-El; but that isn't the problem. As you will see at the link to LUZ, the root means "perversion" or "wickedness", which renders it a most unlikely place for a god to ask for a holy act to be performed; unless the pouring of the minchah, which is itself holy, renders the profane sacred, and serves as a metaphor for the role that Gid'on is about to play in Yisra-El.
KJ, like most translations, simply ignores LAZ.
6:21 VA YISHLACH MAL'ACH YHVH ET KETSEH HA MISH'ENET ASHER BE YADO VA YIGA BA BASAR U VA MATSOT VA TA'AL HA ESH MIN HA TSUR VA TO'CHAL ET HA BASAR VE ET HAMAT SOT U MAL'ACH YHVH HALACH ME EYNAV
וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה אֶת קְצֵה הַמִּשְׁעֶנֶת אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדֹו וַיִּגַּע בַּבָּשָׂר וּבַמַּצֹּות וַתַּעַל הָאֵשׁ מִן הַצּוּר וַתֹּאכַל אֶת הַבָּשָׂר וְאֶת הַמַּצֹּות וּמַלְאַךְ יְהוָה הָלַךְ מֵעֵינָיו
BN: Then the angel of YHVH stretched out the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat, and the unleavened cakes; and fire rose up out of the rock, and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of YHVH departed from his sight.
Which turns the minchah into a KURBAN (sometimes written as Korban, and identical to the Islamic use of the word), or burnt offering. What is being described here is a conventional ritual for asking the intervention of the deity, with one difference from the laws of Minchah that we have been following: the OLAH is always Kurban, the Minchah never is - so does this tell us that Gid'on was not a priest of the Beney Yisra-El, but of a different cult altogether, whose practices were different? Click here for a full list and explanation of the different types of sacrifice.
Which turns the minchah into a KURBAN (sometimes written as Korban, and identical to the Islamic use of the word), or burnt offering. What is being described here is a conventional ritual for asking the intervention of the deity, with one difference from the laws of Minchah that we have been following: the OLAH is always Kurban, the Minchah never is - so does this tell us that Gid'on was not a priest of the Beney Yisra-El, but of a different cult altogether, whose practices were different? Click here for a full list and explanation of the different types of sacrifice.
Or is the "messenger" in fact the sign of the diety in the flame burning on what is now an altar, and what has in fact taken place is simply the creation of an altar, for the purpose of sacrifice?
BASAR: Literally "flesh", but the intention here is unquestionably "meat", again throwing into question our conventional understanding of the minchah as a meal-offering.
6:22 VA YAR GID'ON KI MAL'ACH YHVH HU VA YOMER GID'ON AHAH ADONAI YHVH KI AL KEN RA'IYTI MAL'ACH YHVH PANIM EL PANIM
KJ: And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face.
BASAR: Literally "flesh", but the intention here is unquestionably "meat", again throwing into question our conventional understanding of the minchah as a meal-offering.
And of course Gid'on could perfectly well have done this without needing a messenger to instruct him. The seemingly miraculous lighting of the fire is echoed in the burning bush (Exodus 3), and in Eli-Yahu's (Elijah's) duel with the priests of Ba'al in 1 Kings 18, though I think the point here is rather more a parallel with Yesha-Yah's at the start of Isaiah 6. Because the point is not the fire so much as the sign that Gid'on had requested, and his "calling".
U MAL'ACH YHVH HALACH ME EYNAV: The fire simply burned out - the "angel", the "messenger of YHVH", being nothing more than the message of the flames. But I think the point of the verse is less the departure of the angel than the pun on MAL'ACH and HALACH.
6:22 VA YAR GID'ON KI MAL'ACH YHVH HU VA YOMER GID'ON AHAH ADONAI YHVH KI AL KEN RA'IYTI MAL'ACH YHVH PANIM EL PANIM
וַיַּרְא גִּדְעֹון כִּי מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה הוּא וַיֹּאמֶר (ס) גִּדְעֹון אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה כִּי עַל כֵּן רָאִיתִי מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים
BN: And when Gid'on saw that he was a messenger of YHVH, Gid'on said: "Ahah! It is my Lord YHVH! And I have seen a messenger of YHVH face to face."
AHAH: To me this is "Ahah" in English, exactly as it is in the Yehudit - an expression of pleased surprise when the proving sign he has asked for magically appears. Rashi, however, translates it as "alas", an expression of concern: "What will happen to me" - presumably because "no man may see the face of the deity and live". But this is not the face of the deity - mythologically speaking, this is Loge, not Wotan. As the next verse will confirm.
Compare Ya'akov's phrasing at Penu-El (Genesis 32), which even means "the face of El".
Yet did he not know it was a messenger? He seemed to know. Why else did he bring the sacrificial meal and ask him to kindle the fire to burn it on?
And why the switch from YHVH to Elohim and back again to YHVH? Quite likely a sloppiness by the Redactor, that Elohim belonged to the polytheistic original, and he failed to change it consistently to the monotheistic YHVH. More evidence of multiple texts amalgamated to make this redacted version.
Most versions of the Yehudit text have a most unusual samech break in mid-verse, between HU and VA YOMER. Sepharia has it, as does Sar Shalom; Mechon-Mamre does not, though the other Chabad version does. I leave my reader to check other versions, and to seek out an explanation; I do not have one.
KJ: And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die.
AHAH: To me this is "Ahah" in English, exactly as it is in the Yehudit - an expression of pleased surprise when the proving sign he has asked for magically appears. Rashi, however, translates it as "alas", an expression of concern: "What will happen to me" - presumably because "no man may see the face of the deity and live". But this is not the face of the deity - mythologically speaking, this is Loge, not Wotan. As the next verse will confirm.
Compare Ya'akov's phrasing at Penu-El (Genesis 32), which even means "the face of El".
Yet did he not know it was a messenger? He seemed to know. Why else did he bring the sacrificial meal and ask him to kindle the fire to burn it on?
And why the switch from YHVH to Elohim and back again to YHVH? Quite likely a sloppiness by the Redactor, that Elohim belonged to the polytheistic original, and he failed to change it consistently to the monotheistic YHVH. More evidence of multiple texts amalgamated to make this redacted version.
Most versions of the Yehudit text have a most unusual samech break in mid-verse, between HU and VA YOMER. Sepharia has it, as does Sar Shalom; Mechon-Mamre does not, though the other Chabad version does. I leave my reader to check other versions, and to seek out an explanation; I do not have one.
6:23 VAYOMER LO YHVH SHALOM LECHA AL TIYR'A LO TAMUT
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו יְהוָה שָׁלֹום לְךָ אַל תִּירָא לֹא תָּמוּת
BN: And YHVH said to him: "Calm down, stop worrying, you are not going to die".
Again compare Ya'akov's phrasing in Genesis 32. Also Mosheh's encounters on the mountain in Exodus 3 and 19. YHVH here sounds (SHALOM LECHA) like he's greeting a mate down the pub, which is why I have rendered it so colloquially. Is the reassurance because seeing the face of YHVH is supposed to lead to death? Because, if so, he hasn't seen that face, only the messenger - and even the messenger turned out to be a mere flame, glowing on a rock: Loge, as noted above, not Wotan.
KJ: Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovahshalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
Again compare Ya'akov's phrasing in Genesis 32. Also Mosheh's encounters on the mountain in Exodus 3 and 19. YHVH here sounds (SHALOM LECHA) like he's greeting a mate down the pub, which is why I have rendered it so colloquially. Is the reassurance because seeing the face of YHVH is supposed to lead to death? Because, if so, he hasn't seen that face, only the messenger - and even the messenger turned out to be a mere flame, glowing on a rock: Loge, as noted above, not Wotan.
6:24 VA YIVEN SHAM GID'ON MIZBE'ACH LA YHVH VA YIKRA LO YHVH SHALOM AD HA YOM HA ZEH ODENU BE APHRAT AVI HA EZRI
וַיִּבֶן שָׁם גִּדְעֹון מִזְבֵּחַ לַיהוָה וַיִּקְרָא לֹו יְהוָה שָׁלֹום עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה עֹודֶנּוּ בְּעָפְרָת אֲבִי הָעֶזְרִי
BN: Then Gid'on built an altar there to YHVH, and called it YHVH-Shalom: it is still there to this day, in Aphrah of the Avi-Ezrites.
VA YIVEN: In fact, as we have seen, he has already built the altar; but the appearance of YHVH cuts the ribbon so to speak, giving it official validation (like buildings that only officially exist after the monarch or the Mayor have declared them open).
VA YIVEN: In fact, as we have seen, he has already built the altar; but the appearance of YHVH cuts the ribbon so to speak, giving it official validation (like buildings that only officially exist after the monarch or the Mayor have declared them open).
YHVH-SHALOM (יהוה שלום) is likely the Redactor's renaming, and also an explanation of the apparent colloquialism in the previous verse (the name almost sounds like Gid'on responding: "Shalom, Gid'on." "And to you too, YHVH-Shalom").
Again we have the creation of a historical narrative to explain the takeover of an ancient shrine. And given the one inexplicable piece of this tale, which is Gid'on's belief that YHVH was in the flame, might it even be that the original tale was a Yisra-Eli Prometheus, a myth about the discovery of fire; that Gid'on had placed some grain on the rock for a Minchah, and in the sun, perhaps a piece of silica in the rock acted as glass does, and the dry grain caught fire, and magic, wow, the gods have given human beings fire... but this part of the tale reduced to mere angels by the Redactor, because that wasn't the tale that he needed here?
From archeological investigations, we know that the shrine (see the notes to Aphrah, above) was originally to Gad, the god of Fortune (see my comment about the Gedi, above!), so Gid'on/Gideon was really Gid-On, "the place of Gad", who was a variation of Ba'al or Bel in his capacity as god of fortune, long before he became yet another god named as a tribe. The making of the fire (like Loge in the Nibelungen stories, fire is always a type of angelic manifestation when in holy places) by Gid'on is necessary to claim the shrine for the Beney Yisra-El.
pey break
KJ: And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it.
From archeological investigations, we know that the shrine (see the notes to Aphrah, above) was originally to Gad, the god of Fortune (see my comment about the Gedi, above!), so Gid'on/Gideon was really Gid-On, "the place of Gad", who was a variation of Ba'al or Bel in his capacity as god of fortune, long before he became yet another god named as a tribe. The making of the fire (like Loge in the Nibelungen stories, fire is always a type of angelic manifestation when in holy places) by Gid'on is necessary to claim the shrine for the Beney Yisra-El.
pey break
6:25 VA YEHI BA LAILAH HA HU VA YOMER LO YHVH KACH ET PAR HA SHUR ASHER LE AVIYCHA U PHAR HA SHENI SHEV'A SHANIM VE HARASTA ET MIZBE'ACH HA BA'AL ASHER LE AVICHA VE ET HA ASHERAH ASHER ALAV TICHROT
וַיְהִי בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו יְהוָה קַח אֶת פַּר הַשֹּׁור אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִיךָ וּפַר הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים וְהָרַסְתָּ אֶת מִזְבַּח הַבַּעַל אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִיךָ וְאֶת הָאֲשֵׁרָה אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו תִּכְרֹת
BN: And it came to pass the same night, that YHVH said to him: "Take your father's young bullock, the second bullock, the one that is seven years old, and destroy the altar of Ba'al that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is mounted on it...
And then, for the Redactor to complete the narrative and ensure the religious takeover, it is precisely Ba'al's shrine that has to be cut down, and replaced. What is odd is that the original shrine is the one said to be still there - so he does't physically destroy anything ;rather, the altar that he has been using in the previous verses is that altar, but he is now reconsecrating it to YHVH.
And then, for the Redactor to complete the narrative and ensure the religious takeover, it is precisely Ba'al's shrine that has to be cut down, and replaced. What is odd is that the original shrine is the one said to be still there - so he does't physically destroy anything ;rather, the altar that he has been using in the previous verses is that altar, but he is now reconsecrating it to YHVH.
A second bullock, and even more so a seven-year-old bullock, is unusual for sacrifice, where first-borns are the norm, and first-years even more so - but if it is going to be Kurban then it doesn't matter quite so much, because it is forbidden to eat an Olah: the whole point of burning it is that it is burned completely, reduced to ash. But the number seven is sacred to YHVH, and this makes a Yovel (Jubilee) of it, which "redeems" the false idol, and "liberates" it in its new nomenclature. Aand perhaps even more importantly, Gid'on is to be sent to save the people from the Midyanites, and verse 1 told us they have been under Midyanite rule for seven years.
The added tale continues to verse 32. The propitiatory rite described in the verses above would have been sufficient in the original story; but necesssary for the Ezraic Yehudim, who would no longer have been familiar wth the ancient rites and ceremonies.
The statement that the Asherah belongs to his father adds another layer of complexity, because his biological father may be Yo'ash, but his divine father is Avi-Ezer, and Avi means father (see my note to verse 11). As a god-name it links to Av-Raham, the sun god.
ASHERAH: "Cut down the Asherah" confirms the previous comment about the oak tree as a sacred tree. Asherah in the Kena'ani world was the wife of El, and Elah was the oak tree in verse 9, the feminine form of Elon.
ALAV: Note that the Asherah is "on" the rock, and trees need root-space, so it can't literally be growing out of it, which leads me to assume that it was an oak tree that had been shaped and carved and mounted there, something in the manner of the totem poles of the native north American peoples; and perhaps that is also why it is called an ELAH rather than an ELON.
KJ: And build an altar unto the LORD thy God upon the top of this rock, in the ordered place, and take the second bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood of the grove which thou shalt cut down.
The added tale continues to verse 32. The propitiatory rite described in the verses above would have been sufficient in the original story; but necesssary for the Ezraic Yehudim, who would no longer have been familiar wth the ancient rites and ceremonies.
The statement that the Asherah belongs to his father adds another layer of complexity, because his biological father may be Yo'ash, but his divine father is Avi-Ezer, and Avi means father (see my note to verse 11). As a god-name it links to Av-Raham, the sun god.
 |
| Navajo monument, New Mexico |
ALAV: Note that the Asherah is "on" the rock, and trees need root-space, so it can't literally be growing out of it, which leads me to assume that it was an oak tree that had been shaped and carved and mounted there, something in the manner of the totem poles of the native north American peoples; and perhaps that is also why it is called an ELAH rather than an ELON.
6:26 U VANIYTA MIZBE'ACH LA YHVH ELOHEYCHA AL ROSH HA MA'OZ HA ZEH BA MA'ARACHAH VE LAKACHTA ET HA PAR HA SHENI VE HA'ALITA OLAH BA ATSEY HA ASHERAH ASHER TICHROT
וּבָנִיתָ מִזְבֵּחַ לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ עַל רֹאשׁ הַמָּעֹוז הַזֶּה בַּמַּעֲרָכָה וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת הַפָּר הַשֵּׁנִי וְהַעֲלִיתָ עֹולָה בַּעֲצֵי הָאֲשֵׁרָה אֲשֶׁר תִּכְרֹת
BN: "And build an altar to YHVH your god on the top of this rock, in the approved manner, and take the second bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood from the Asherah which you are going to cut down."
MA'OZ: We have encountered complexities with the root OZ before, in Judges 5:21 and 23 to be precise, where "OZ" means "strength", and the town Meroz probably meant "steadfast". Here I think he is being told to build the altar where the rock is at its most "steadfast", suggesting that this part of the hill is mostly mud or stones. The instruction appears to suggest that the minchah, earlier in the story, was not on a formal altar, though in the verses that followed it was repeatedly described as being one; so, again, this is likely to have been an aspect of the cultural conquest: the previous altar doesn't count as a proper altar, because it was to a false deity; now that it has been reconsecrated to YHVH, it is a proper altar.
MA'OZ: We have encountered complexities with the root OZ before, in Judges 5:21 and 23 to be precise, where "OZ" means "strength", and the town Meroz probably meant "steadfast". Here I think he is being told to build the altar where the rock is at its most "steadfast", suggesting that this part of the hill is mostly mud or stones. The instruction appears to suggest that the minchah, earlier in the story, was not on a formal altar, though in the verses that followed it was repeatedly described as being one; so, again, this is likely to have been an aspect of the cultural conquest: the previous altar doesn't count as a proper altar, because it was to a false deity; now that it has been reconsecrated to YHVH, it is a proper altar.
It is not obvious why the rock was previously named as a Sel'a (verse 20), but here as a Ma'oz; "sel'a" describes its geographical elevation, "ma'oz" its geological strength, so perhaps it is just the story-teller wanting to vary the vocabulary.
BA MA'ARACHAH: The King James translates this as "ordered", which may be a synonym for "instructed", or it may be a description of the place. The intention is that there is a correct way of making an altar, and YHVH assumes that Gid'on knows what it is - with Mosheh, who was supposedly the founder of all this, YHVH gave chapters and chapters of very precise instruction, which became part of the "oral tradition" that was handed down with Semicha. So Gid'on's status as a trained priest is also confirmed.
What better way to take over a shrine that includes an Asherah than to cut down the Asherah and use it as firewood for the altar of the new temple. This is a story for Frazer's "Golden Bough" (and a defense of Frazer against the scholars who now denigrate and even deny him, mostly because his conclusions are not convenient to the ones they would prefer).
And for a second time, we witness the Kurban, the burnt offering.
KJ: Then Gideon took ten men of his servants, and did as the LORD had said unto him: and so it was, because he feared his father's household, and the men of the city, that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night.
BA MA'ARACHAH: The King James translates this as "ordered", which may be a synonym for "instructed", or it may be a description of the place. The intention is that there is a correct way of making an altar, and YHVH assumes that Gid'on knows what it is - with Mosheh, who was supposedly the founder of all this, YHVH gave chapters and chapters of very precise instruction, which became part of the "oral tradition" that was handed down with Semicha. So Gid'on's status as a trained priest is also confirmed.
What better way to take over a shrine that includes an Asherah than to cut down the Asherah and use it as firewood for the altar of the new temple. This is a story for Frazer's "Golden Bough" (and a defense of Frazer against the scholars who now denigrate and even deny him, mostly because his conclusions are not convenient to the ones they would prefer).
And for a second time, we witness the Kurban, the burnt offering.
6:27 VA YIKACH GID'ON ASARAH ANASHIM ME AVADAV VA YA'AS KA ASHER DIBER ELAV YHVH VA YEHI KA ASHER YAR'E ET BEIT AVIV VE ET ANSHEY HA IR ME ASOT YOMAM VA YA'AS LAILAH
וַיִּקַּח גִּדְעֹון עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מֵעֲבָדָיו וַיַּעַשׂ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו יְהוָה וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרֵא אֶת בֵּית אָבִיו וְאֶת אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר מֵעֲשֹׂות יֹומָם וַיַּעַשׂ לָיְלָה
BN: Then Gid'on took ten men from among his followers, and did as YHVH had said to him: and so it was, because he feared his father's household, and the men of the city, that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night.
AVADAV: Servants, disciples, followers, worshippers? In verse 15 he claimed to be from one of the poorest families in Menasheh, so more likely they were servants than had servants. But if this is about Gad, not Gid'on, and we are witnessing a religious take-over... then "followers".
It must have been a mighty big tree too, this Asherah, that it needed ten men to cut it down and move it. Or is it simply a play on words: Asherah with an Aleph (אֲשֵׁרָה) for the tree, Asarah with an Ayin (עֲשָׂרָה) for the number of men (Sheen-Seen are the same letter, just differently pointed, the Sheen with the dot above the right branch, the Seen with the dot above the left branch - yes, I think I did choose "branch" deliberately!)? Cf Shibolet and Sibolet in Judges 12:4-6 where the homophone is achieved with a Seen-Samech variation.
KJ: And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Baal was cast down, and the grove was cut down that was by it, and the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built.
AVADAV: Servants, disciples, followers, worshippers? In verse 15 he claimed to be from one of the poorest families in Menasheh, so more likely they were servants than had servants. But if this is about Gad, not Gid'on, and we are witnessing a religious take-over... then "followers".
It must have been a mighty big tree too, this Asherah, that it needed ten men to cut it down and move it. Or is it simply a play on words: Asherah with an Aleph (אֲשֵׁרָה) for the tree, Asarah with an Ayin (עֲשָׂרָה) for the number of men (Sheen-Seen are the same letter, just differently pointed, the Sheen with the dot above the right branch, the Seen with the dot above the left branch - yes, I think I did choose "branch" deliberately!)? Cf Shibolet and Sibolet in Judges 12:4-6 where the homophone is achieved with a Seen-Samech variation.
6:28 VA YASHKIYMU ANSHEY HA IR BA BOKER VE HINEH NUCHATS MIZBACH HA BA'AL VE HA ASHERAH ASHER ALAV KORATAH VE ET HA PAR HA SHENI HO'ALAH AL HA MIZBE'ACH HA BANU'I
וַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר בַּבֹּקֶר וְהִנֵּה נֻתַּץ מִזְבַּח הַבַּעַל וְהָאֲשֵׁרָה אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו כֹּרָתָה וְאֵת הַפָּר הַשֵּׁנִי הֹעֲלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַבָּנוּי
BN: And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Ba'al had been pulled down, and the Asherah that was mounted on it had been cut down, and the second bullock was being offered upon the altar that had been erected there.
For about the three hundredth time: why is it MIZBACH here, but MIZBE'ACH elsewhere in the chapter? In the tale of Menasheh at the end of the Book of Joshua (see my note to 22:19), we had the sense that Mizbach was a negative but Mizbe'ach a positive, and this seems also to be the case here, the altar to Ba'al being described as a Mizbach, but the new one as a Mizbe'ach (though, without the pointing, the two words are absolutely identical).
KJ: And they said one to another, Who hath done this thing? And when they enquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash hath done this thing.
For about the three hundredth time: why is it MIZBACH here, but MIZBE'ACH elsewhere in the chapter? In the tale of Menasheh at the end of the Book of Joshua (see my note to 22:19), we had the sense that Mizbach was a negative but Mizbe'ach a positive, and this seems also to be the case here, the altar to Ba'al being described as a Mizbach, but the new one as a Mizbe'ach (though, without the pointing, the two words are absolutely identical).
6:29 VA YOMRU ISH EL RE'EHU MI ASAH HA DAVAR HA ZEH VA YIDRESHU VA YEVAKSHU VA YOMRU GID'ON BEN YO'ASH ASAH HA DAVAR HA ZEH
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ מִי עָשָׂה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וַיִּדְרְשׁוּ וַיְבַקְשׁוּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ גִּדְעֹון בֶּן יֹואָשׁ עָשָׂה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה
BN: And they said to one another: "Who has done this thing?" And when they enquired, and asked, they said: "Gid'on ben Yo'ash has done this thing."
KJ: Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out thy son, that he may die: because he hath cast down the altar of Baal, and because he hath cut down the grove that was by it.
6:30 VA YOMRU ANSHEY HA IR EL YO'ASH HOTS'E ET BINCHA VE YAMOT KI NACHATS ET MIZBACH HA BA'AL VE CHI CHARAT HA ASHERAH ASHER ALAV
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אֶל יֹואָשׁ הֹוצֵא אֶת בִּנְךָ וְיָמֹת כִּי נָתַץ אֶת מִזְבַּח הַבַּעַל וְכִי כָרַת הָאֲשֵׁרָה אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו
BN: Then the men of the city said to Yo'ash: "Bring out your son, that he may die: because he has torn down the altar of Ba'al, and because he has cut down the Asherah that was on it."
A lynch-mob? A class action law suit for blasphemy and apostasy? A crusade?
We need to refer back to verse 11 again, where we were told that the oak-tree belonged to Yo'ash, meaning that it was on his land; and the inference of the work Gid'on was doing there is that it was farmland, out in the country, whereas these men have come from the city. So Yo'ash is free to have any altar he pleases on his land...
6:31 VA YOMER YO'ASH LE CHOL ASHER AMDU ALAV HA ATEM TERIYVUN LA VA'AL IM ATEM TOSHIY'UN OTO ASHER YAREV LO YUMAT AD HA BOKER IM ELOHIM HU YAREV LO KI NATATS ET MIZBECHO
וַיֹּאמֶר יֹואָשׁ לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָמְדוּ עָלָיו הַאַתֶּם תְּרִיבוּן לַבַּעַל אִם אַתֶּם תֹּושִׁיעוּן אֹותֹו אֲשֶׁר יָרִיב לֹו יוּמַת עַד הַבֹּקֶר אִם אֱלֹהִים הוּא יָרֶב לֹו כִּי נָתַץ אֶת מִזְבְּחֹו
BN: And Yo'ash said to everyone who was standing there, ready to attack him: "Are you here to advocate on behalf of Ba'al? Will you save him? He who wishes to make a complaint on his behalf, let him be put to death this very morning. And if he is a god, then let him complain to himself that somebody has torn down his altar."
TERIYVUN...YARIV...YAREV: Variants of the same root, not once but three times, to make sure we don't miss it. Traditional scholarship tells us that RIYV is the root (the initial Yud on YARID and YAREV is a grammatical addition; the Yud in TERIYVUN is part of the root, dropped when grammar requires the initial Yud): Reysh, Bet, Yud (ריב); and the meaning is "to quarrel", "to argue", "to contend". And now proceed to the next verse (and especially to my notes there).
TERIYVUN...YARIV...YAREV: Variants of the same root, not once but three times, to make sure we don't miss it. Traditional scholarship tells us that RIYV is the root (the initial Yud on YARID and YAREV is a grammatical addition; the Yud in TERIYVUN is part of the root, dropped when grammar requires the initial Yud): Reysh, Bet, Yud (ריב); and the meaning is "to quarrel", "to argue", "to contend". And now proceed to the next verse (and especially to my notes there).
IM ATEM TOSHIY'UN OTO: Meaning Ba'al, not Gid'on; but notice the verb: TOSHIY'UN, as in Moshi'a.
But this is not the outcome that we expected, is it? Somehow we had assumed that Gid'on was doing this behind his father's back, even scared that his father would be angry with him, and not so much for the sacrificing of the bullock as for the cutting down, the name-changing, of the altar. But not the case. Dad doesn't just support his son, he is furiously angry with the men for being Ba'al and Asherah worshippers. Why then Gid'on's secrecy? Why didn't he talk to dad first, to find out, and then enlist his help? Is there something in the meaning of the name Yo'ash (see my failed note at verse 11) that would help us explain this seeming anomaly?
Or is everything in this part of the tale so firmly directed towards the next verse that everything else simply had to be made to fit?
KJ: Therefore on that day he called him Jerubbaal, saying, Let Baal plead against him, because he hath thrown down his altar.
6:32 VA YIKRA LO VA YOM HA HU YERUV-VA'AL LE'MOR YAREV BO HA BA'AL KI NATATS ET MIZBECHO
וַיִּקְרָא לֹו בַיֹּום הַהוּא יְרֻבַּעַל לֵאמֹר יָרֶב בֹּו הַבַּעַל כִּי נָתַץ אֶת מִזְבְּחֹו
BN: So on that day he was given the name Yeruv-Va'al, saying: "Let Ba'al make his own complaint, because he has torn down his altar."
YERUV-BA'AL (ירו-בעל). The explanation of the name lies in the previous verse: YARAV and BA'AL are being combined, so that his name means something like "the complaint of Ba'al". Two "buts":
YERUV-BA'AL (ירו-בעל). The explanation of the name lies in the previous verse: YARAV and BA'AL are being combined, so that his name means something like "the complaint of Ba'al". Two "buts":
"But" a) The verb LARIYV is also used for "advocacy", and "pleading a cause" or "pleading a case", so we have to ask, given that this was a pre-YHVH tale being converted into a YHVH tale, whether in fact Gid'on wasn't a Ba'al-worshipper himself all along, and this second part of the tale the pseudo-history invented to pretend the shrine was Yahwist, and the deity YHVH all along, (see my explanation of Phádraig at Judges 2:18).
"But" b) - every student points it out (and quite rightly that they should point it out, but quite wrongly when they do), that there is only one Bet (ב) in the Yehudit. No, wrong - in fact there is no Bet at all in the Yehudit; there is the letter Vet, medugash (with a dot inside it) to indicate a double-letter; the first Vet being the last letter of YARAV, the second being the first letter of Ba'al, softened to Vet because this is the grammatical rule when two words are conjoined. So the English should be pronounced Yeruv-Va'al, though it is really Yeruv-Ba'al. If Gid'on or Gad-On was the name of the shrine and the god, then the man in question was probably always named Yeruv-Ba'al. The story of his name was also needed by the Redactor to complete the process of "cutting down the Asherah" - after all, the monotheistic Beney Yisra-El could not have an ancient hero who so obviously bore a name and worshipped a god who was Ba'al, not YHVH.
Once again these stories from Judges appear to be attempts to give Yisra-Eli aetiology to shrines and practices and folk-lore existant in the land from long before; and as such we can again argue that Judges is contemporaneous with Genesis.
pey break
KJ: Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the east were gathered together, and went over, and pitched in the valley of Jezreel.
Once again these stories from Judges appear to be attempts to give Yisra-Eli aetiology to shrines and practices and folk-lore existant in the land from long before; and as such we can again argue that Judges is contemporaneous with Genesis.
pey break
6:33 VE CHOL MIDYAN VA AMALEK U VENEY KEDEM NE'ESPHU YACHDAV VA YA'AVRU VA YACHANU BE EMEK YIZRE-EL
וְכָל מִדְיָן וַעֲמָלֵק וּבְנֵי קֶדֶם נֶאֶסְפוּ יַחְדָּו וַיַּעַבְרוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּעֵמֶק יִזְרְעֶאל
BN: Then all of Midyan and Amalek and the Beney Kedem gathered together, and crossed over, and pitched in the valley of Yizre-El.
YIZRE-EL: Ayin followed by Aleph is most unusual in Yehudit, but the El ending allows us to see that it must have been hyphenated; and this is how the name is given throughout the Masoretic Tanach: Joshua 15:56 and 19:18; 1 Samuel 27:3, 1 Kings 18:45 and 21:1, 2 Kings 9:15 and 10:1, Hosea 1:4 et al. The root is ZER'A = "seed", and is used as a verb for both the scattering and the sowing, which suggests that the valley, known today as Jezreel, was extremely fertile. And so it is again today (see "1922" at the link); but for many centuries, including in large parts of the Biblical period, and especially during the Ottoman, it was famously swamp and marshland, notorious for its malarial mosquitoes.
6:34 VE RU'ACH YHVH LAVSHAH ET GID'ON VA YITKA BE SHOPHAR VA YIZA'EK AVI-EZER ACHARAV
KJ: But the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered after him.
YIZRE-EL: Ayin followed by Aleph is most unusual in Yehudit, but the El ending allows us to see that it must have been hyphenated; and this is how the name is given throughout the Masoretic Tanach: Joshua 15:56 and 19:18; 1 Samuel 27:3, 1 Kings 18:45 and 21:1, 2 Kings 9:15 and 10:1, Hosea 1:4 et al. The root is ZER'A = "seed", and is used as a verb for both the scattering and the sowing, which suggests that the valley, known today as Jezreel, was extremely fertile. And so it is again today (see "1922" at the link); but for many centuries, including in large parts of the Biblical period, and especially during the Ottoman, it was famously swamp and marshland, notorious for its malarial mosquitoes.
6:34 VE RU'ACH YHVH LAVSHAH ET GID'ON VA YITKA BE SHOPHAR VA YIZA'EK AVI-EZER ACHARAV
וְרוּחַ יְהוָה לָבְשָׁה אֶת גִּדְעֹון וַיִּתְקַע בַּשֹּׁופָר וַיִּזָּעֵק אֲבִיעֶזֶר אַחֲרָיו
BN: But the spirit of YHVH came upon Gid'on, and he blew a trumpet; and Avi-Ezer gathered behind him.
GID'ON: Despite having his name changed, he remains Gid'on in the text. So also with Ya'akov when he became Yisra-El, and many other instances throughout the Tanach.
RU'ACH: See my note to Genesis 1:2 to understand this; though there it is RU'ACH ELOHIM and not RU'ACH YHVH; "spirit" is not a good translation for a Jewish Bible, though it works perfectly well for a Christian one.
AVI-EZER: The entire tribe, amassed in military readiness; see my notes to verses 11 and 25.
6:35 U MAL'ACHIM SHALACH BE CHOL MENASHEH VA YIZA'EK GAM HU ACHARAV U MAL'ACHIM SHALACH BE ASHER U VIZVULUN U VE NAPHTALI VA YA'ALU LIKRA'TAM
KJ: And he sent messengers throughout all Manasseh; who also was gathered after him: and he sent messengers unto Asher, and unto Zebulun, and unto Naphtali; and they came up to meet them.
GID'ON: Despite having his name changed, he remains Gid'on in the text. So also with Ya'akov when he became Yisra-El, and many other instances throughout the Tanach.
RU'ACH: See my note to Genesis 1:2 to understand this; though there it is RU'ACH ELOHIM and not RU'ACH YHVH; "spirit" is not a good translation for a Jewish Bible, though it works perfectly well for a Christian one.
AVI-EZER: The entire tribe, amassed in military readiness; see my notes to verses 11 and 25.
6:35 U MAL'ACHIM SHALACH BE CHOL MENASHEH VA YIZA'EK GAM HU ACHARAV U MAL'ACHIM SHALACH BE ASHER U VIZVULUN U VE NAPHTALI VA YA'ALU LIKRA'TAM
וּמַלְאָכִים שָׁלַח בְּכָל מְנַשֶּׁה וַיִּזָּעֵק גַּם הוּא אַחֲרָיו וּמַלְאָכִים שָׁלַח בְּאָשֵׁר וּבִזְבֻלוּן וּבְנַפְתָּלִי וַיַּעֲלוּ לִקְרָאתָם
BN: And he sent messengers throughout all Menasheh, who were also galvanised to follow him; and he sent messengers to Asher, and to Zevulun, and to Naphtali; and they came up to meet them.
MAL'ACHIM: Messengers. I point it out only because it is the same word that is elsewhere translated as "angels" - see my note to verse 11.
BE CHOL MENASHEH: I presume that this is a way of saying both parts of Menasheh, west and east of the Yarden.
6:36 VA YOMER GID'ON EL HA ELOHIM IM YESH'CHA MOSHI'A BE YADI ET YISRA-EL KA ASHER DIBARTA
KJ: And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said
MAL'ACHIM: Messengers. I point it out only because it is the same word that is elsewhere translated as "angels" - see my note to verse 11.
BE CHOL MENASHEH: I presume that this is a way of saying both parts of Menasheh, west and east of the Yarden.
6:36 VA YOMER GID'ON EL HA ELOHIM IM YESH'CHA MOSHI'A BE YADI ET YISRA-EL KA ASHER DIBARTA
וַיֹּאמֶר גִּדְעֹון אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אִם יֶשְׁךָ מֹושִׁיעַ בְּיָדִי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ
BN: And Gid'on said to Ha Elohim, "If you will save Yisra-El by my hand, as you have said...
Not YHVH this time, but not Elohim either; it keeps switching, presumably because the gods these various judges followed or manifested were not always the same (or a sloppy Redactor, who simply missed some of the "corrections" he was expected to make!). HA ELOHIM is very specifically plural and polytheistic.
Can we presume that "Gid'on said" is simly a way of expressing the act of prayer?
Not YHVH this time, but not Elohim either; it keeps switching, presumably because the gods these various judges followed or manifested were not always the same (or a sloppy Redactor, who simply missed some of the "corrections" he was expected to make!). HA ELOHIM is very specifically plural and polytheistic.
Can we presume that "Gid'on said" is simly a way of expressing the act of prayer?
6:37 HINEH ANOCHI MATSIG ET GIZAT HA TSEMER BA GOREN IM TAL YIHEYEH AL HA GIZAH LEVADAH VE AL KOL HA ARETS CHOREV VE YADA'TI KI TOSHIY'A BE YADI ET YISRA-EL KA ASHER DIBARTA
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מַצִּיג אֶת גִּזַּת הַצֶּמֶר בַּגֹּרֶן אִם טַל יִהְיֶה עַל הַגִּזָּה לְבַדָּהּ וְעַל כָּל הָאָרֶץ חֹרֶב וְיָדַעְתִּי כִּי תֹושִׁיעַ בְּיָדִי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ
BN: "Behold, I shall place a woollen fleece on the threshing-floor; if there is only dew on the fleece, and the earth around it remains dry, then I will know that you will save Yisra-El by my hand, as you have said...
This was clearly a Ba'alite practice, not a Mosaic one, and quite probably an act of idolatry punishable by death under Mosaic law. Eli-Yahu's (Elijah's) contest with the priests of Ba'al, in 1 Kings 18, likewise depended on the divine response to a natural action - in that case the lighting of a fire. In verses 17 and 21 above, Gid'on already asked for, and received, such a sign.
CHOREV: Check the spelling of this against a certain mountain in Sinai - you will find they are the same. These are the little details that you just cannot get from a Greek, or Latin, or even from most English translations. This is why Fra Bacon insisted that his fellow Christians had to learn Hebrew and study with the Jews.
This was clearly a Ba'alite practice, not a Mosaic one, and quite probably an act of idolatry punishable by death under Mosaic law. Eli-Yahu's (Elijah's) contest with the priests of Ba'al, in 1 Kings 18, likewise depended on the divine response to a natural action - in that case the lighting of a fire. In verses 17 and 21 above, Gid'on already asked for, and received, such a sign.
CHOREV: Check the spelling of this against a certain mountain in Sinai - you will find they are the same. These are the little details that you just cannot get from a Greek, or Latin, or even from most English translations. This is why Fra Bacon insisted that his fellow Christians had to learn Hebrew and study with the Jews.
But just because it is the same name, doesn't mean we have suddenly moved geographical location. The root CHARAV simply means "dry", and is used for the desert; which is also why Har (Mount) Chorev manages to be a synonym for Har (Mount) Sinai: "the big hill in the dry desert".
We hear the word fleece and immediately.... but is it just coincidence? Probably, but there is a need to ask. And well worth a detour into Frazer or Campbell to learn more about the origins of the Golden Fleece: what it really was, and what its role and purpose. Here it is probably just a fleece.
As to the science of this, the sign that he is hoping for, it all has to do with the difference between mist and dew, between humidity and condensation, and can be affected by the nature of the ground on which you lay it: dew comes up from the ground, and is therefore associated with the Underworld; mist comes down from the skies, and is therefore associated with the sun.
We hear the word fleece and immediately.... but is it just coincidence? Probably, but there is a need to ask. And well worth a detour into Frazer or Campbell to learn more about the origins of the Golden Fleece: what it really was, and what its role and purpose. Here it is probably just a fleece.
As to the science of this, the sign that he is hoping for, it all has to do with the difference between mist and dew, between humidity and condensation, and can be affected by the nature of the ground on which you lay it: dew comes up from the ground, and is therefore associated with the Underworld; mist comes down from the skies, and is therefore associated with the sun.
A GOREN isn't just any piece of ground, but specifically a threshing-floor (a manger, in Christian terminology), so he is laying it down on straw. I leave you to conduct the remainder of the experiment for yourself.
KJ: And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.
6:38 VA YEHI CHEN VA YASHKEM MI MACHARAT VA YAZAR ET HA GIZAH VA YIMETS TAL MIN HA GIZAH MELO HA SEPHEL MAYIM
וַיְהִי כֵן וַיַּשְׁכֵּם מִמָּחֳרָת וַיָּזַר אֶת הַגִּזָּה וַיִּמֶץ טַל מִן הַגִּזָּה מְלֹוא הַסֵּפֶל מָיִם
BN: And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.
VA YAZAR: "Thrust" - I am not entirely sure what this means. Does he "gather it up", making a wet bundle in his arms? A Biblical dehumidifier? It would work too, because sheep's wool is highly absorbent of humidity, and if you have ever lived in a tropical climate you will know that the condensation gets into the walls, moulds the clothing, greens the wood, but never leaves a visible drop anywhere (unless, in modern houses, your windows are of glass).
Presumably he carried out the science-trick for the benefit of his flock (his parishioners, I mean; the worshippers at his shrine), knowing that they were too uneducated to recognise that it was a trick, and therefore gullible to the "divine magic". And now they should be ready to follow him to the ends of the Earth... but no, apparently there are doubters, sceptics, and he is going to have to pull a second trick.
KJ: And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.
KJ: And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.
6:39 VA YOMER GID'ON EL HA ELOHIM AL YICHAR AP'CHA BI VA ADABRAH ACH HA PA'AM ANASEH NA RAK HA PA'AM BA GIZAH YEHI NA CHOREV ET HA GIZAH LEVADAH VE AL KOL HA ARETS YIHEYEH TAL
וַיֹּאמֶר גִּדְעֹון אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים אַל יִחַר אַפְּךָ בִּי וַאֲדַבְּרָה אַךְ הַפָּעַם אֲנַסֶּה נָּא רַק הַפַּעַם בַּגִּזָּה יְהִי נָא חֹרֶב אֶל הַגִּזָּה לְבַדָּהּ וְעַל כָּל הָאָרֶץ יִהְיֶה טָּל
BN: And Gid'on said to Ha Elohim, "Do not flare up your nostrils at me if I speak one more time. Please, let me have certain proof, just this once, with the same fleece. This time, let only the fleece be dry, and the ground wet with dew."
AL HA ARETS: Not AL HA GOREN; placing it directly on the mud or grass, rather than into the dry straw.
The trick is nonetheless slightly more difficult, but still achievable, if indeed it is dew that he means, rather than general humidity. Much depends on whether the fleece is still "skin-backed", which is to say has a component that is leather, or simply sheared wool. You can do the experiment yourself, as a party game: a sheepskin coat leather-side-down on the floor, next to some gathered fragments of pure wool, and a spilled bucket of water if there isn't any dew or humidity: leave it lying there for an hour and one will soak up the water, leaving itself wet and the floor dry, the other will fail to, leaving itself dry and the floor wet.
6:40 VA YA'AS ELOHIM KEN BA LAILAH HA HU VA YEHI CHOREV EL HA GIZAH LEVADAH VE AL KOL HA ARETS HAYAH TAL
AL HA ARETS: Not AL HA GOREN; placing it directly on the mud or grass, rather than into the dry straw.
The trick is nonetheless slightly more difficult, but still achievable, if indeed it is dew that he means, rather than general humidity. Much depends on whether the fleece is still "skin-backed", which is to say has a component that is leather, or simply sheared wool. You can do the experiment yourself, as a party game: a sheepskin coat leather-side-down on the floor, next to some gathered fragments of pure wool, and a spilled bucket of water if there isn't any dew or humidity: leave it lying there for an hour and one will soak up the water, leaving itself wet and the floor dry, the other will fail to, leaving itself dry and the floor wet.
6:40 VA YA'AS ELOHIM KEN BA LAILAH HA HU VA YEHI CHOREV EL HA GIZAH LEVADAH VE AL KOL HA ARETS HAYAH TAL
וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים כֵּן בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא וַיְהִי חֹרֶב אֶל הַגִּזָּה לְבַדָּהּ וְעַל כָּל הָאָרֶץ הָיָה טָל
BN: And Elohim did so that night: only the fleece was dry, but there was dew on all the ground.
Note that the final verse changes back from HA ELOHIM to ELOHIM; which may be a typographical error or a proofing error of the Redactor.
Note that the final verse changes back from HA ELOHIM to ELOHIM; which may be a typographical error or a proofing error of the Redactor.
No comments:
Post a Comment