8:1 VA YOMRU ELAV ISH EPHRAYIM MAH HA DAVAR HA ZEH ASIYTA LANU LEVILTI KERO'OT LANU KI HALACHTA LEHILACHEM BE MIDYAN VA YERIYVUN ITO BE CHAZKAH
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אִישׁ אֶפְרַיִם מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ לְבִלְתִּי קְרֹאות לָנוּ כִּי הָלַכְתָּ לְהִלָּחֵם בְּמִדְיָן וַיְרִיבוּן אִתֹּו בְּחָזְקָה
BN (BibleNet translation) And the men of Ephrayim said to him, "Why have you served us thus, that you did not call us, when you went to fight with the Midyanites?" And they chided him sharply.
In my notes to the last chapter I wondered why Gid'on called the men of Zevulun, Naphtali, Asher and both parts of Menasheh, but not Ephrayim or Yisaschar, let alone the other tribes. The folk of Mount Ephrayim were called, but only after the battle, when the pursuit of the remainder was being set up. The exclusion of Ephrayim cannot have been because they were not needed, given that they clearly are needed now. Was it a statement of northern independence from the Yosephite dominance in the south? No - because Menasheh was a part of that Yosephite clan, and Ephrayim did not separate until after the death of Shelomoh (Solomon). Was it that Ephrayim worshipped a different form of the Trinity? Or horoscopally that they didn't belong. The previous chapter simply says that YHVH told him not to take large numbers - and that the ones left behind were the cowards; but that was simply a constructed pretext to form a small raiding party. Was it perhaps connected with the triads formed for the carrying of the Ark through the Mosaic desert? But no to that too - see the diagram, above.
8:2 VAYOMER ALEYHEM MEH ASIYTI ATAH KA CHEM HA LO TOV OLELOT EPHRAYIM MIVTSIR AVI-EZER
KJ: And he said unto them, What have I done now in comparison of you? Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?
In my notes to the last chapter I wondered why Gid'on called the men of Zevulun, Naphtali, Asher and both parts of Menasheh, but not Ephrayim or Yisaschar, let alone the other tribes. The folk of Mount Ephrayim were called, but only after the battle, when the pursuit of the remainder was being set up. The exclusion of Ephrayim cannot have been because they were not needed, given that they clearly are needed now. Was it a statement of northern independence from the Yosephite dominance in the south? No - because Menasheh was a part of that Yosephite clan, and Ephrayim did not separate until after the death of Shelomoh (Solomon). Was it that Ephrayim worshipped a different form of the Trinity? Or horoscopally that they didn't belong. The previous chapter simply says that YHVH told him not to take large numbers - and that the ones left behind were the cowards; but that was simply a constructed pretext to form a small raiding party. Was it perhaps connected with the triads formed for the carrying of the Ark through the Mosaic desert? But no to that too - see the diagram, above.8:2 VAYOMER ALEYHEM MEH ASIYTI ATAH KA CHEM HA LO TOV OLELOT EPHRAYIM MIVTSIR AVI-EZER
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם מֶה עָשִׂיתִי עַתָּה כָּכֶם הֲלֹוא טֹוב עֹלְלֹות אֶפְרַיִם מִבְצִיר אֲבִיעֶזֶר
BN: And he said to them: "What have I ever done in comparison to you? Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephrayim better than the vintage of Avi-Ezer?..
The language is rather more diplomatic than poetic. He doesn't actually answer them, but pampers them with flattery and praise. Which seems to add weight to my suggestion that this was about the need of the northern tribes to prove themseves. And then, as in the next verse, allowing Ephrayim to complete the capture of OREV and ZE'EV...
The language is rather more diplomatic than poetic. He doesn't actually answer them, but pampers them with flattery and praise. Which seems to add weight to my suggestion that this was about the need of the northern tribes to prove themseves. And then, as in the next verse, allowing Ephrayim to complete the capture of OREV and ZE'EV...
ATAH: Usually translated as "now", but context is everything. The root, ET, simply means "a moment in time", and is most commonly used as the "appointed time" for a feast or feast or festival.
OLELOT: Wine again! We finished the last chapter back at the winepress; though the reference to Avi-Ezer is to Judges 6:11, when we first met Gid'on at his family's winepress. Whenever we read wine, as my notes throughout the last chapter make clear, we need to read eucharist. What is the betting there will be a reference to bread at any moment? (see verse 5)
8:3 BE YEDCHEM NATAN ELOHIM ET SAREY MIDYAN ET OREV VE ET ZE'EV U MAH YACHOLTI ASOT KA CHEM AZ RAPHTAH RUCHAM ME ALAV BE DABRO HA DAVAR HA ZEH
KJ: God hath delivered into your hands the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb: and what was I able to do in comparison of you? Then their anger was abated toward him, when he had said that.
OLELOT: Wine again! We finished the last chapter back at the winepress; though the reference to Avi-Ezer is to Judges 6:11, when we first met Gid'on at his family's winepress. Whenever we read wine, as my notes throughout the last chapter make clear, we need to read eucharist. What is the betting there will be a reference to bread at any moment? (see verse 5)
8:3 BE YEDCHEM NATAN ELOHIM ET SAREY MIDYAN ET OREV VE ET ZE'EV U MAH YACHOLTI ASOT KA CHEM AZ RAPHTAH RUCHAM ME ALAV BE DABRO HA DAVAR HA ZEH
בְּיֶדְכֶם נָתַן אֱלֹהִים אֶת שָׂרֵי מִדְיָן אֶת עֹרֵב וְאֶת זְאֵב וּמַה יָּכֹלְתִּי עֲשֹׂות כָּכֶם אָז רָפְתָה רוּחָם מֵעָלָיו בְּדַבְּרֹו הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה
BN: "YHVH has delivered into your hands the princes of Midyan, Orev and Ze'ev: and what was I able to do in comparison to you?" Then their anger was abated toward him, when he had said that.
ET OREV VE ET ZE'EV: Their names, yes, but the way it is phrased makes me want to translate this as "YHVH has delivered into your hands those princely creatures out of Midyan, the raven and the wolf...". See my notes to these names in the previous chapter (verse 25).
KJ: And Gideon came to Jordan, and passed over, he, and the three hundred men that were with him, faint, yet pursuing them.
ET OREV VE ET ZE'EV: Their names, yes, but the way it is phrased makes me want to translate this as "YHVH has delivered into your hands those princely creatures out of Midyan, the raven and the wolf...". See my notes to these names in the previous chapter (verse 25).
8:4 VA YAVO GID'ON HA YARDENAH OVER HU U SHELOSH ME'OT HA ISH ASHER ITO AYEPHIM VE RODPHIM
וַיָּבֹא גִדְעֹון הַיַּרְדֵּנָה עֹבֵר הוּא וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאֹות הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אִתֹּו עֲיֵפִים וְרֹדְפִים
BN: And Gid'on came to the river Yarden, and crossed over, he, and the three hundred men who were with him, exhausted, but pursuing them.
ET'CHEM: Pursuing who? The folks of Mount Ephrayim caught Orev and Ze'ev, and hanged them, at the end of the previous chapter. Is Gid'on continuing to pursue their armies? And if so, is it for the short-term booty, or to drive the invaders out for good? No, apparently there were still more "kings" of the Beney Midyan - I wonder if their names too will prove symbolic? I wonder if we are pursuing all the stars of a single constellation? And if so, does that make Gid'on a comet?
KJ: And he said unto the men of Succoth, Give, I pray you, loaves of bread unto the people that follow me; for they be faint, and I am pursuing after Zebah and Zalmunna, kings of Midian.
ET'CHEM: Pursuing who? The folks of Mount Ephrayim caught Orev and Ze'ev, and hanged them, at the end of the previous chapter. Is Gid'on continuing to pursue their armies? And if so, is it for the short-term booty, or to drive the invaders out for good? No, apparently there were still more "kings" of the Beney Midyan - I wonder if their names too will prove symbolic? I wonder if we are pursuing all the stars of a single constellation? And if so, does that make Gid'on a comet?
8:5 VA YOMER LE ANSHEY SUKOT TENU NA KIKROT LECHEM LA AM ASHER BE RAGLAI KI AYEPHIM HEM VE ANOCHI RODEPH ACHAREY ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A MALCHEY MIDYAN
וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַנְשֵׁי סֻכֹּות תְּנוּ נָא כִּכְּרֹות לֶחֶם לָעָם אֲשֶׁר בְּרַגְלָי כִּי עֲיֵפִים הֵם וְאָנֹכִי רֹדֵף אַחֲרֵי זֶבַח וְצַלְמֻנָּע מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן
BN: And he said to the men of Sukot: "Please can you give some loaves of bread to the people who are following me; for they are famished, and I am pursuing after Zevach and Tsalmun'a, the kings of Midyan."
SUKOT (סכות): another link to the grape harvest, Sukot being the autumn harvest festival? No, because we are in the month of Tevet (see Judges 7:22).
But of course there was also a physical, geographical SUKOT, the second stopping-point in the desert after the flight from Mitsrayim (Exodus 12:37), way south-west of, and in the opposite direction to wherever Gid'on is scurrying now. Or maybe there was another Sukot, same name different location - 1 Kings 7:45/46 has one in Kikar ha Yarden, the plain of the river Jordan, where
KJ: And the princes of Succoth said, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in thine hand, that we should give bread unto thine army?
SUKOT (סכות): another link to the grape harvest, Sukot being the autumn harvest festival? No, because we are in the month of Tevet (see Judges 7:22).
But of course there was also a physical, geographical SUKOT, the second stopping-point in the desert after the flight from Mitsrayim (Exodus 12:37), way south-west of, and in the opposite direction to wherever Gid'on is scurrying now. Or maybe there was another Sukot, same name different location - 1 Kings 7:45/46 has one in Kikar ha Yarden, the plain of the river Jordan, where
"all the articles that Hu-Ram made for King Shelomoh, for the Temple of YHVH, were made of burnished bronze; the king had them cast in clay moulds in Kikar ha Yarden, between Sukot and Tsartan."
LECHEM: The wine two verses ago, and now the bread. The eucharist confirmed (again; we already confirmed it in the last verse of the previous chapter).
ZEVACH (זבח) is the root of MIZBE'ACH, the sacrificial altar (or Mizbach, but I shan't rehearse that oddity again here). Not a name to give a human being; clearly, again, a part of the ritual; having made the Kiddush over the wine and bread, it is now time to slaughter the calves and prepare the sacrificial meal.
TSALMUN'A (צלמנע) appeared in Numbers 33:41 as another of the stopping places in the desert; but this is not connected - funny that this should happen twice though, and in the same verse. Tsalmon is a mountain (a very high hill - there are no mountains in Bible-land, save only Chermon) in Samaria, near Shechem, covered in snow in Psalm 68:15. But here there is an added Ayin (ע). The Tsel is easy - it means shadow. Man'a means "to restrain", but here it is in the gerundive form, "restraining shadow". Or might that be the ancient construct for a "black hole"?
8:6 VA YOMER SAREY SUKOT HA CHAPH ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A ATAH BE YADECHA KI NITEN LITSVA'ACHA LACHEM
ZEVACH (זבח) is the root of MIZBE'ACH, the sacrificial altar (or Mizbach, but I shan't rehearse that oddity again here). Not a name to give a human being; clearly, again, a part of the ritual; having made the Kiddush over the wine and bread, it is now time to slaughter the calves and prepare the sacrificial meal.
TSALMUN'A (צלמנע) appeared in Numbers 33:41 as another of the stopping places in the desert; but this is not connected - funny that this should happen twice though, and in the same verse. Tsalmon is a mountain (a very high hill - there are no mountains in Bible-land, save only Chermon) in Samaria, near Shechem, covered in snow in Psalm 68:15. But here there is an added Ayin (ע). The Tsel is easy - it means shadow. Man'a means "to restrain", but here it is in the gerundive form, "restraining shadow". Or might that be the ancient construct for a "black hole"?
8:6 VA YOMER SAREY SUKOT HA CHAPH ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A ATAH BE YADECHA KI NITEN LITSVA'ACHA LACHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר שָׂרֵי סֻכֹּות הֲכַף זֶבַח וְצַלְמֻנָּע עַתָּה בְּיָדֶךָ כִּי נִתֵּן לִצְבָאֲךָ לָחֶם
BN: And the princes of Sukot said: "Are the palms of Zevach and Tsalmun'a now clasped in your hands, that we should give bread to your army?"
A phrase that recalls the tale of Naval and David! 1 Samuel 25. And in the next verse a response that does the same, but even more so. The inference is "have you caught them yet? we'll feed you when you've caught them".
CHAPH: Is not a hand; a YAD is a hand, and YAD is the word used in the second half of the sentence. So the author is making a distinction, and we must too, in translating it. KAPH is used to mean "curved", and also "hollow", the latter in the sense that something curved may appear to be hollow - a spoon for example, or any bowl or cup; and also the palm of the hand. Deuteronomy 25:12 does indeed use KAPH for the whole hand, but this is unusual; normally it is the palm, and KAPH REGEL for the "palm", the instep, of the foot. Judges 12:3 will use KAPH to mean "putting one's life in one's hand", and we can see something of the sort in its usage here (see also my slghtly different translation at verse 15)
And now the pun on LECHEM (bread) and LECHEM (war) is openly used.
Are we repeating the tale of OREV and ZE'EV?
KJ: And Gideon said, Therefore when the LORD hath delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into mine hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers.
A phrase that recalls the tale of Naval and David! 1 Samuel 25. And in the next verse a response that does the same, but even more so. The inference is "have you caught them yet? we'll feed you when you've caught them".
CHAPH: Is not a hand; a YAD is a hand, and YAD is the word used in the second half of the sentence. So the author is making a distinction, and we must too, in translating it. KAPH is used to mean "curved", and also "hollow", the latter in the sense that something curved may appear to be hollow - a spoon for example, or any bowl or cup; and also the palm of the hand. Deuteronomy 25:12 does indeed use KAPH for the whole hand, but this is unusual; normally it is the palm, and KAPH REGEL for the "palm", the instep, of the foot. Judges 12:3 will use KAPH to mean "putting one's life in one's hand", and we can see something of the sort in its usage here (see also my slghtly different translation at verse 15)
And now the pun on LECHEM (bread) and LECHEM (war) is openly used.
Are we repeating the tale of OREV and ZE'EV?
8:7 VA YOMER GID'ON LACHEN BE TET YHVH ET ZEVACH VE ET TSALMUN'A BE YADI VE DASHTI ET BESARCHEM ET KOTSEY HA MIDBAR VE ET HA BARKANIM
וַיֹּאמֶר גִּדְעֹון לָכֵן בְּתֵת יְהוָה אֶת זֶבַח וְאֶת צַלְמֻנָּע בְּיָדִי וְדַשְׁתִּי אֶת בְּשַׂרְכֶם אֶת קֹוצֵי הַמִּדְבָּר וְאֶת הַבַּרְקֳנִים
BN: And Gid'on said: "Let it be, when YHVH has delivered Zevach and Tsalmun'a into my hand, that I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers."
This needs translating in rather more exegetic detail. "I have cleaned out one shrine and removed two kings. Now watch me cut the heads off these two as well, and know what will happen to you next if you don't submit. As I cut down the totem pole at Ophrah, so will I turn your sacred grove into a wilderness. Or are you ready to come over to our side?"
KJ: And he went up thence to Penuel, and spake unto them likewise: and the men of Penuel answered him as the men of Succoth had answered him.
This needs translating in rather more exegetic detail. "I have cleaned out one shrine and removed two kings. Now watch me cut the heads off these two as well, and know what will happen to you next if you don't submit. As I cut down the totem pole at Ophrah, so will I turn your sacred grove into a wilderness. Or are you ready to come over to our side?"
8:8 VA YA'AL MI SHAM PENU-EL VA YEDABER ALEYHEM KA ZOT VA YA'ANU OTO ANSHEY PENU-EL KA ASHER ANU ANSHEY SUKOT
וַיַּעַל מִשָּׁם פְּנוּאֵל וַיְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיהֶם כָּזֹאת וַיַּעֲנוּ אֹותֹו אַנְשֵׁי פְנוּאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר עָנוּ אַנְשֵׁי סֻכֹּות
BN: And he went up from there to Penu-El, and spoke to them in the same manner: and the men of Penu-El answered him exactly as the men of Sukot had answered him.
PENU-EL: why is that not either LA PENU-EL or PENU-ELAH, to give the dative correctly?
And why the negative responses? On both sides. Is there not a covenantal agreement among the tribes to support each other in these situations?
8:9 VA YOMER GAM LE ANSHEY PENU-EL LEMOR BE SHUVI VE SHALOM ECHOTS ET HA MIGDAL HA ZEH
KJ: And he spake also unto the men of Penuel, saying, When I come again in peace, I will break down this tower.
PENU-EL: why is that not either LA PENU-EL or PENU-ELAH, to give the dative correctly?
And why the negative responses? On both sides. Is there not a covenantal agreement among the tribes to support each other in these situations?
8:9 VA YOMER GAM LE ANSHEY PENU-EL LEMOR BE SHUVI VE SHALOM ECHOTS ET HA MIGDAL HA ZEH
וַיֹּאמֶר גַּם לְאַנְשֵׁי פְנוּאֵל לֵאמֹר בְּשׁוּבִי בְשָׁלֹום אֶתֹּץ אֶת הַמִּגְדָּל הַזֶּה
BN: And he said much the same to the men of Penu-El, saying: "When I come back here in peace-time, I will break down this tower."
This is an oxymoron. People who come in peace do not break down towers. And anyway the tower is a migdal, a church spire not a castle's turret; this is religious, not military. Religious people who come on crusades, "our psychotic delusion is superior to your psychotic delusion", such people break down religious sites, and call it "peace-time".
pey break
KJ: Now Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the hosts of the children of the east: for there fell an hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword.
This is an oxymoron. People who come in peace do not break down towers. And anyway the tower is a migdal, a church spire not a castle's turret; this is religious, not military. Religious people who come on crusades, "our psychotic delusion is superior to your psychotic delusion", such people break down religious sites, and call it "peace-time".
pey break
8:10 VE ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A BA KARKOR U MACHANEYHEM IMAM KA CHAMESHET ASAR ELEPH KOL HA NOTARIM MI KOL MACHANEH VENEY KEDEM VE HA NOPHLIM ME'AH VE ESRIM ELEPH ISH SHOLEPH CHAREV
וְזֶבַח וְצַלְמֻנָּע בַּקַּרְקֹר וּמַחֲנֵיהֶם עִמָּם כַּחֲמֵשֶׁת עָשָׂר אֶלֶף כֹּל הַנֹּותָרִים מִכֹּל מַחֲנֵה בְנֵי קֶדֶם וְהַנֹּפְלִים מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף אִישׁ שֹׁלֵף חָרֶב
BN: Now Zevach and Tsalmun'a were in Karkor, and their troops with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that was left of all the armies of the Beney Kedem, a hundred and twenty thousand men who drew sword had fallen there.
KARKOR (קרקר): Probably today's Qarqar, for which see the link.
KARKOR (קרקר): Probably today's Qarqar, for which see the link.
MACHANEYHEM: Deliberate word-play, or on this occasion pure coincidence? This one is open to debate. In the previous verse Gid'on was speaking to the men of Penu-El, and Penu-El is always associated with Ya'akov, and the wrestling-match with the night-spirit (his wrestling with the former champion of the shrine, and his initiation as sacred-king). The place is named Penu-El precisely because Ya'akov wrestled there and saw the face of the deity (Panim shel El elides into Penu-El); but also note the word-play in Genesis 32:21, which also identifies the name with the real adversary here, his brother Esav. But it is Genesis 32:22 that matters to us here: first Ya'akov performs minchah, just like Gid'on; then "HU LAN BA LAILAH HA HU BA MACHANEH - and he himself lodged that night in the camp". To this day the place is known as Machanayim, the multiple plural because, in verse 8, he divided the camp "LI SHNEY MACHANOT - in two camps".
120,000 men! slaughtered by 300! With an atom bomb, maybe (or by a comet). Not with mere swords.
SHOLEPH: The Yehudit root for the Yiddish "to shlep", which for some reason some north American Jews think is "to shep".
8:11 VA YA'AL GID'ON DERECH HA SHECHUNEY VA AHALIM MI KEDEM LE NOVACH VE YAGBAHAH VA YACH ET HA MACHANEH VE HA MACHANEH HAYAH BETACH
KJ: And Gideon went up by the way of them that dwelt in tents on the east of Nobah and Jogbehah, and smote the host: for the host was secure.
וַיַּעַל גִּדְעֹון דֶּרֶךְ הַשְּׁכוּנֵי בָאֳהָלִים מִקֶּדֶם לְנֹבַח וְיָגְבֳּהָה וַיַּךְ אֶת הַמַּחֲנֶה וְהַמַּחֲנֶה הָיָה בֶטַח
BN: And Gid'on took the route the nomads take, to the east of Novach and Yagbehah, and smote the camp; for the camp was insecure.
DERECH HA SHECHUNEY: A DERECH is a way or a road, and seems to have been used then in the manner of RECHOV today, so that probably this should be translated as "Tent-Dwellers Avenue" or perhaps "Caravanserai Highway" - I am tempted from the verse number to call it "Route 8-11". Something of this sort anyway.
NOVACH: Originally Kenat (קְנָת) before Novach conquered it and named it after himself - see Numbers 32:42. Who exactly Novach was is unclear, as these are the only two references to him in the entire Tanach, but the context of the Numbers text implies that he was from the tribe of Menasheh.
YAGBEHAH: Like Novach, it can be found about about seven miles north-west of what is now Amman in Jordan, not far from the town of es-Salt. So this is a very long way east of Yisra-El.
BETACH: This cannot mean what the KJ translation says it means; it has to have been the opposite. The camp must have been decidedly insecure or he could not have smitten them. Or had it already been "secured" by his own side?
DERECH HA SHECHUNEY: A DERECH is a way or a road, and seems to have been used then in the manner of RECHOV today, so that probably this should be translated as "Tent-Dwellers Avenue" or perhaps "Caravanserai Highway" - I am tempted from the verse number to call it "Route 8-11". Something of this sort anyway.
NOVACH: Originally Kenat (קְנָת) before Novach conquered it and named it after himself - see Numbers 32:42. Who exactly Novach was is unclear, as these are the only two references to him in the entire Tanach, but the context of the Numbers text implies that he was from the tribe of Menasheh.
YAGBEHAH: Like Novach, it can be found about about seven miles north-west of what is now Amman in Jordan, not far from the town of es-Salt. So this is a very long way east of Yisra-El.
BETACH: This cannot mean what the KJ translation says it means; it has to have been the opposite. The camp must have been decidedly insecure or he could not have smitten them. Or had it already been "secured" by his own side?
8:12 VA YANUSU ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A VA YIRDOPH ACHAREYHEM VA YILKOD ET SHENEY MALCHEY MIDYAN ET ZEVACH VE ET TSALMUN'A VE CHOL HA MACHANEH HECHERID
וַיָּנוּסוּ זֶבַח וְצַלְמֻנָּע וַיִּרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן אֶת זֶבַח וְאֶת צַלְמֻנָּע וְכָל הַמַּחֲנֶה הֶחֱרִיד
BN: And when Zevach and Tsalmun'a fled, he pursued after them, and took the two kings of Midyan, Zevach and Tsalmun'a, and discomfited all of their army.
8:13 VA YASHAV GID'ON BEN YO'ASH MIN HA MILCHAMAH MI LEMA'ALAH HE CHARES
KJ: And Gideon the son of Joash returned from battle before the sun was up.
8:13 VA YASHAV GID'ON BEN YO'ASH MIN HA MILCHAMAH MI LEMA'ALAH HE CHARES
וַיָּשָׁב גִּדְעֹון בֶּן יֹואָשׁ מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה מִלְמַעֲלֵה הֶחָרֶס
BN: And Gid'on ben Yo'ash returned from battle before the sun was up...
Before the sun was up - again echoing Ya'akov's wrestlings (see Genesis 32:27 in particular: "And he said, 'Let me go, for the day is breaking'."). So the cosmology is all at night, confirming the suspicion that the "three companies" were the three phases of the moon, and the LAPIDIM were the stars, and that this is specifically - hard to say for certain which cosmic event, possibly the comet that we have thought to identify earlier, possibly the moon in the month of Tevet pursuing falling stars or two of the planets across the Heavens, a tale of pure mythology anyway, and not an ounce of history in it anywhere. The retreating shadow of Tsalmun'a may well be a solar eclipse. And of course those "angels", those "messengers", as I explained at the time, were the astrology of the soothsayers, the light (like the ones in the torches in the broken pitchers) from the stars - worth looking at Isaac Luria's "Big Bang" theory, the "Shevirat ha-Kelim", which you can do here.
KJ: And caught a young man of the men of Succoth, and enquired of him: and he described unto him the princes of Succoth, and the elders thereof, even threescore and seventeen men.
Before the sun was up - again echoing Ya'akov's wrestlings (see Genesis 32:27 in particular: "And he said, 'Let me go, for the day is breaking'."). So the cosmology is all at night, confirming the suspicion that the "three companies" were the three phases of the moon, and the LAPIDIM were the stars, and that this is specifically - hard to say for certain which cosmic event, possibly the comet that we have thought to identify earlier, possibly the moon in the month of Tevet pursuing falling stars or two of the planets across the Heavens, a tale of pure mythology anyway, and not an ounce of history in it anywhere. The retreating shadow of Tsalmun'a may well be a solar eclipse. And of course those "angels", those "messengers", as I explained at the time, were the astrology of the soothsayers, the light (like the ones in the torches in the broken pitchers) from the stars - worth looking at Isaac Luria's "Big Bang" theory, the "Shevirat ha-Kelim", which you can do here.
8:14 VA YILKAD NA'AR ME ANSHEY SUKOT VA YISH'ALEHU VA YICHTOV ELAV ET SAREY SUKOT VE ET ZEKENEYHA SHIV'IM VE SHIV'A ISH
וַיִּלְכָּד נַעַר מֵאַנְשֵׁי סֻכֹּות וַיִּשְׁאָלֵהוּ וַיִּכְתֹּב אֵלָיו אֶת שָׂרֵי סֻכֹּות וְאֶת זְקֵנֶיהָ שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה אִישׁ
BN: And he captured a young man of the men of Sukot, and enquired of him; and he made him write down the names of the princes of Sukot, and their elders, who numbered seventy-seven men.
YISH'ALEHU: "Enquired of him" is such a beautifully gentle euphemism!
YICHTOV: Writing? "and he wrote to him" is the literal translation.
77 - the sacred number 7 in doublet. See Lamech and Seven.
KJ: And he came unto the men of Succoth, and said, Behold Zebah and Zalmunna, with whom ye did upbraid me, saying, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in thine hand, that we should give bread unto thy men that are weary?
YISH'ALEHU: "Enquired of him" is such a beautifully gentle euphemism!
YICHTOV: Writing? "and he wrote to him" is the literal translation.
77 - the sacred number 7 in doublet. See Lamech and Seven.
8:15 VA YAVO EL ANSHEY SUKOT VA YOMER HINEH ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A ASHER CHERAPHTEM OTI LEMOR HA CHAPH ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A ATAH BE YADECHA KI NITEN LA ANASHEYCHA HA YE'EPHIM LACHEM
וַיָּבֹא אֶל אַנְשֵׁי סֻכֹּות וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה זֶבַח וְצַלְמֻנָּע אֲשֶׁר חֵרַפְתֶּם אֹותִי לֵאמֹר הֲכַף זֶבַח וְצַלְמֻנָּע עַתָּה בְּיָדֶךָ כִּי נִתֵּן לַאֲנָשֶׁיךָ הַיְּעֵפִים לָחֶם
BN: And he came to the men of Sukot, and said: "Here are Zevach and Tsalmun'a, about whom you upbraided me, saying: 'Are the palms of Zevach and Tsalmun'a now clasped in your hands, that we should give bread to your army?'
CHAPH: See my note to verse 6.
8:16 VA YIKACH ET ZIKNEY HA IR VE ET KOTSEY HA MIDBAR VE ET HA BARKANIM VA YAD'A BAHEM ET ANSHEY SUKOT
KJ: And he took the elders of the city, and thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth.
CHAPH: See my note to verse 6.
8:16 VA YIKACH ET ZIKNEY HA IR VE ET KOTSEY HA MIDBAR VE ET HA BARKANIM VA YAD'A BAHEM ET ANSHEY SUKOT
וַיִּקַּח אֶת זִקְנֵי הָעִיר וְאֶת קֹוצֵי הַמִּדְבָּר וְאֶת הַבַּרְקֳנִים וַיֹּדַע בָּהֶם אֵת אַנְשֵׁי סֻכֹּות
BN: And he took the elders of the city, and some thorns and briers from the desert, and with them he taught the men of Sukot.
This is what he threatened in verse 7, but did he really take the entire Sanhedrin out into the town square, and have them thrashed, with the entire town gathered to witness it, like a Prep-school headmaster with a cane? Apparently he did.
This is what he threatened in verse 7, but did he really take the entire Sanhedrin out into the town square, and have them thrashed, with the entire town gathered to witness it, like a Prep-school headmaster with a cane? Apparently he did.
8:17 VE ET MIGDAL PENU-EL NATATS VA YAHAROG ET ANSHEY HA IR
וְאֶת מִגְדַּל פְּנוּאֵל נָתָץ וַיַּהֲרֹג אֶת אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר
BN: And he beat down the tower of Penu-El, and slew the men of the city.
As he threatened in verse 9. But what was the lesson that he taught in the previous verse? A lesson requires students, or it has only ephemeral value. This is more about "he taught them a lesson" than any form of educational instruction. Though no doubt the inhabitants of other cities, who heard what he had done, did their own homework, and made sure they had learned the correct catechism off-by-heart when it came to a test, just as the good citizens of Giv-On did with Yehoshu'a (Joshua 9).
There was no mention of a tower when Ya'akov was there (Genesis 32); but it certainly helps us understand his story better; especially the connection with the Beit-El story at the beginning of his epic journey (Genesis 28).
KJ: Then said he unto Zebah and Zalmunna, What manner of men were they whom ye slew at Tabor? And they answered, As thou art, so were they; each one resembled the children of a king.
As he threatened in verse 9. But what was the lesson that he taught in the previous verse? A lesson requires students, or it has only ephemeral value. This is more about "he taught them a lesson" than any form of educational instruction. Though no doubt the inhabitants of other cities, who heard what he had done, did their own homework, and made sure they had learned the correct catechism off-by-heart when it came to a test, just as the good citizens of Giv-On did with Yehoshu'a (Joshua 9).
There was no mention of a tower when Ya'akov was there (Genesis 32); but it certainly helps us understand his story better; especially the connection with the Beit-El story at the beginning of his epic journey (Genesis 28).
8:18 VA YOMER EL ZEVACH VE EL TSALMUN'A EYPHOH HA ANASHIM ASHER HARAGTEM BE TAVOR VA YOMRU KAMOCHA CHEMOCHEM ECHAD KE TO'AR BENEY HA MELECH
וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל זֶבַח וְאֶל צַלְמֻנָּע אֵיפֹה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הֲרַגְתֶּם בְּתָבֹור וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּמֹוךָ כְמֹוהֶם אֶחָד כְּתֹאַר בְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ
BN: Then he said to Zevach and Tsalmun'a: "What kind of men were they whom you slew at Tabor?" And they answered: "As you are, so were they; each one resembled the child of a king."
TAVOR? - but Tavor hasn't been so much as mentioned in Gid'on's story, anywhere. In Judges 4:6 Devorah sent Barak there, with his ten thousand soldiers, to fight against Yavin and Siysra; were the Beney Midyan, and specifically these two kings, involved in that war? Nothing specifically states that either the tribe, or these kings, played any part. So is there a part of the tale simply missing from our text?
EYPHO: Any modern Israeli will tell you that the word means "where?", and this is confirmed by Ruth 2:19, Isaiah 49:21 and Jeremiah 36:19 et al. But clearly it cannot mean "where?" in this context - the Chabad translation here tries it, but the verse as a whole simply doesn't make sense with it.
KAMOCHA CHEMOCHEM: An answer of wonderful humanism. "They were human beings" in short, regardless of nation, cult, creed or any other superimposed division. But also princely. So they are paying him a compliment ("as you are, so were they; each one resembled the child of the fifth wife" would have had a very different tone and intention), and in the same expression they pay themselves, and all the dead, the same compliment.
KJ: And he said, They were my brethren, even the sons of my mother: as the LORD liveth, if ye had saved them alive, I would not slay you.
TAVOR? - but Tavor hasn't been so much as mentioned in Gid'on's story, anywhere. In Judges 4:6 Devorah sent Barak there, with his ten thousand soldiers, to fight against Yavin and Siysra; were the Beney Midyan, and specifically these two kings, involved in that war? Nothing specifically states that either the tribe, or these kings, played any part. So is there a part of the tale simply missing from our text?
EYPHO: Any modern Israeli will tell you that the word means "where?", and this is confirmed by Ruth 2:19, Isaiah 49:21 and Jeremiah 36:19 et al. But clearly it cannot mean "where?" in this context - the Chabad translation here tries it, but the verse as a whole simply doesn't make sense with it.
KAMOCHA CHEMOCHEM: An answer of wonderful humanism. "They were human beings" in short, regardless of nation, cult, creed or any other superimposed division. But also princely. So they are paying him a compliment ("as you are, so were they; each one resembled the child of the fifth wife" would have had a very different tone and intention), and in the same expression they pay themselves, and all the dead, the same compliment.
8:19 VA YOMER ACHAI BENEY IMI HEM CHAY YHVH LU HA CHAYITEM OTAM LO HARAGTI ET'CHEM
וַיֹּאמַר אַחַי בְּנֵי אִמִּי הֵם חַי יְהוָה לוּ הַחֲיִתֶם אֹותָם לֹא הָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם
BN: And he said: "They were my kinsmen, even the sons of my mother. As YHVH lives, if you had let them live, I would not slay you."
BENEY IMI: Obviously they were not literally the sons of his mother, but of his ancestral mother, children of Chavah (Eve) - which universalises, just as their statement had universalised. And this, equally obviously, is true for the men that Gid'on is about to kill too, and thus renders him a complete hypocrite (yes, but he's acting in the name of YHVH, so that redeems him).
KJ: And he said unto Jether his firstborn, Up, and slay them. But the youth drew not his sword: for he feared, because he was yet a youth.
BENEY IMI: Obviously they were not literally the sons of his mother, but of his ancestral mother, children of Chavah (Eve) - which universalises, just as their statement had universalised. And this, equally obviously, is true for the men that Gid'on is about to kill too, and thus renders him a complete hypocrite (yes, but he's acting in the name of YHVH, so that redeems him).
8:20 VA YOMER LE YETER BECHORO KUM HAROG OTAM VE LO SHALAPH HA NA'AR CHARBO KI YAR'E KI ODENU NA'AR
וַיֹּאמֶר לְיֶתֶר בְּכֹורֹו קוּם הֲרֹג אֹותָם וְלֹא שָׁלַף הַנַּעַר חַרְבֹּו כִּי יָרֵא כִּי עֹודֶנּוּ נָעַר
BN: And he said to Yeter his firstborn: "Up, and slay them". But the young man did not draw his sword: for he was scared, because he was still a youth.
YETER: Names in the Tanach are always symbolic. YETER means "remainder", but it is also the root of Yitro, Mosheh's Midyanite father-in-law. Note, in this context: Midyanite!
8:21 VA YOMER ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A KUM ATAH U PHEGA BANU KI CHA ISH GEVURATO VA YAKAM GID'ON VA YAHAROG ET ZEVACH VE ET TSALMUN'A VA YIKACH ET HA SAHARONIM ASHER BE TSAV'REY GEMALEYHEM
KJ: Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, Rise thou, and fall upon us: for as the man is, so is his strength. And Gideon arose, and slew Zebah and Zalmunna, and took away the ornaments that were on their camels' necks.
YETER: Names in the Tanach are always symbolic. YETER means "remainder", but it is also the root of Yitro, Mosheh's Midyanite father-in-law. Note, in this context: Midyanite!
8:21 VA YOMER ZEVACH VE TSALMUN'A KUM ATAH U PHEGA BANU KI CHA ISH GEVURATO VA YAKAM GID'ON VA YAHAROG ET ZEVACH VE ET TSALMUN'A VA YIKACH ET HA SAHARONIM ASHER BE TSAV'REY GEMALEYHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר זֶבַח וְצַלְמֻנָּע קוּם אַתָּה וּפְגַע בָּנוּ כִּי כָאִישׁ גְּבוּרָתֹו וַיָּקָם גִּדְעֹון וַיַּהֲרֹג אֶת זֶבַח וְאֶת צַלְמֻנָּע וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַשַּׂהֲרֹנִים אֲשֶׁר בְּצַוְּארֵי גְמַלֵּיהֶם
KJ: Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, Rise thou, and fall upon us: for as the man is, so is his strength. And Gideon arose, and slew Zebah and Zalmunna, and took away the ornaments that were on their camels' necks.
BN: Then Zevach and Tsalmun'a said: "You get up and do the deed; a man is only what he is capable of doing himself". So Gid'on arose, and slew Zevach and Tsalmun'a, and took away the ornaments that were on their camels' necks.
I have to say, I am on Zevach and Tsalmun'a's side on this one - what kind of a man is this, who condemns these two men to death in this way, and then passes the execution of the execution to his son, a mere youth. You can handle killing in battle; you can handle ritual sacrifice; your god sanctions this: do it yourself.
SAHARONIM: No such ornaments have been mentioned previously, though it is not surprising to find kings stating their status by pinning expensive jewels on their camels. More interesting is what they were, because SAHARONIM are crescents (see also Isaiah 3:18), which suggests that this specifically Islamic emblem was already much in use long before it became specifically Islamic. And given the ancientness of moon-worship, this fact is not in the slightest bit surprising.
Is this really about the star-gazers watching the heavens from the observation-points in the summits of their towers, and trying to describe what they see in story-form? So you observe a planet, and see that it has two moons, or five moons, and that there is one sun, or there are three suns, but as you watch over the entire month, things move, the crescent moon waxes, and wanes, the sun's orbit takes it further away, or brings it closer, an eclipse takes place, a planet from another part of the cosmos enters this decan... and each tale is added to the mythological encyclopaedia, and becomes scientific understanding of the gods in the only form then available... and requires liturgical acknowledgement as well, through song, through sacrifice, through eucharist... and he who has the deepest understanding of these things (see next verse, but also the ear-rings in verse 24)...
KJ: And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you.
I have to say, I am on Zevach and Tsalmun'a's side on this one - what kind of a man is this, who condemns these two men to death in this way, and then passes the execution of the execution to his son, a mere youth. You can handle killing in battle; you can handle ritual sacrifice; your god sanctions this: do it yourself.
SAHARONIM: No such ornaments have been mentioned previously, though it is not surprising to find kings stating their status by pinning expensive jewels on their camels. More interesting is what they were, because SAHARONIM are crescents (see also Isaiah 3:18), which suggests that this specifically Islamic emblem was already much in use long before it became specifically Islamic. And given the ancientness of moon-worship, this fact is not in the slightest bit surprising.
Is this really about the star-gazers watching the heavens from the observation-points in the summits of their towers, and trying to describe what they see in story-form? So you observe a planet, and see that it has two moons, or five moons, and that there is one sun, or there are three suns, but as you watch over the entire month, things move, the crescent moon waxes, and wanes, the sun's orbit takes it further away, or brings it closer, an eclipse takes place, a planet from another part of the cosmos enters this decan... and each tale is added to the mythological encyclopaedia, and becomes scientific understanding of the gods in the only form then available... and requires liturgical acknowledgement as well, through song, through sacrifice, through eucharist... and he who has the deepest understanding of these things (see next verse, but also the ear-rings in verse 24)...
8:22 VA YOMRU ISH YISRA-EL EL GID'ON MESHAL BANU GAM ATAH GAM BINCHA GAM BEN BENECHA KI HOSHA'TANU MI YAD MIDYAN
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל גִּדְעֹון מְשָׁל בָּנוּ גַּם אַתָּה גַּם בִּנְךָ גַּם בֶּן בְּנֶךָ כִּי הֹושַׁעְתָּנוּ מִיַּד מִדְיָן
KJ: Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian.
BN: Then the men of Yisra-El said to Gid'on: "Rule over us, both you, and your son, and your son's son also: for you have delivered us from the hand of Midyan".
ISH YISRA-EL: is really singular, though it comes across as plural. Or is this simply an idiom that we have not encountered before?
MESHAL: since when did MESHAL mean "to rule"? A sentence, an opinion, a parable, a proverb (The Book of Proverbs, in Yehudit, is the Mishley Shelomoh); a "theme" for a song even, on several occasions in the Psalms (49:5, 78:2...); and actually a very specific type of "theme" at that - Gesenius explains it as an aspect of "the laws of parallelism" which "commonly consists of two hemistichs of similar argument and form" and is "specifically used of a prophecy (Numbers 23:7, 18), of a discourse or a didactic poem (Job 27:1, 29:1)" and "often used of a derisive poem (Isaiah 14:4, Micah 2:4, Habakkuk 2:6). So "rule" is rather more "teacherly" in the Rabbinic sense than any king or even sacrificial priest: an early form of Navi (Prophet) perhaps: the shaman of the ancient world: Merlin to "king" Ar Thur, Shemu-El to king Sha'ul.
And yet, how very strange, because there really is no obvious connection, but the same root does indeed appear to yield LIMSHOL = "to rule" - cf Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, Exodus 21:8, Joshua 12:2 and many others. Scholars have wrestled with this one for many centuries, but found no explanation. And yet it seems to me that there is an easy explanation, and it can be found at Genesis 1:16, where "Elohim made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars." On that occasion, the verb for "to rule" is LEMEMSHELET, not quite the same MASHAL, because it has a second Mem - and the modern word for "government" is MEMSHELAH, from this root. Is MESHAL in our verse, and in those other examples, simply bereft of its Mem "medugash", and actually a different root? The next verse, which places the MASHAL back with YHVH, would seem to confirm this, and in so doing endorses my contention that Gid'on will take the prophetic role of Shemu-El, not the secular one of Sha'ul.
HOSHA'TANU: Moshi'a, not Mashiyach. Which at first is surprising, because we understand the earthly ruler to be the latter, the heavenly ruler the former. But in fact all the "Judges" thus far have been Moshi'a, not Mashiyach... and see Gid'on's answer in the very next verse.
This is the first hint in the Book of Judges of a desire for a king, which will come to fruition with Sha'ul, and already they are thinking in terms of dynasties!
ISH YISRA-EL: is really singular, though it comes across as plural. Or is this simply an idiom that we have not encountered before?
MESHAL: since when did MESHAL mean "to rule"? A sentence, an opinion, a parable, a proverb (The Book of Proverbs, in Yehudit, is the Mishley Shelomoh); a "theme" for a song even, on several occasions in the Psalms (49:5, 78:2...); and actually a very specific type of "theme" at that - Gesenius explains it as an aspect of "the laws of parallelism" which "commonly consists of two hemistichs of similar argument and form" and is "specifically used of a prophecy (Numbers 23:7, 18), of a discourse or a didactic poem (Job 27:1, 29:1)" and "often used of a derisive poem (Isaiah 14:4, Micah 2:4, Habakkuk 2:6). So "rule" is rather more "teacherly" in the Rabbinic sense than any king or even sacrificial priest: an early form of Navi (Prophet) perhaps: the shaman of the ancient world: Merlin to "king" Ar Thur, Shemu-El to king Sha'ul.
And yet, how very strange, because there really is no obvious connection, but the same root does indeed appear to yield LIMSHOL = "to rule" - cf Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, Exodus 21:8, Joshua 12:2 and many others. Scholars have wrestled with this one for many centuries, but found no explanation. And yet it seems to me that there is an easy explanation, and it can be found at Genesis 1:16, where "Elohim made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars." On that occasion, the verb for "to rule" is LEMEMSHELET, not quite the same MASHAL, because it has a second Mem - and the modern word for "government" is MEMSHELAH, from this root. Is MESHAL in our verse, and in those other examples, simply bereft of its Mem "medugash", and actually a different root? The next verse, which places the MASHAL back with YHVH, would seem to confirm this, and in so doing endorses my contention that Gid'on will take the prophetic role of Shemu-El, not the secular one of Sha'ul.
HOSHA'TANU: Moshi'a, not Mashiyach. Which at first is surprising, because we understand the earthly ruler to be the latter, the heavenly ruler the former. But in fact all the "Judges" thus far have been Moshi'a, not Mashiyach... and see Gid'on's answer in the very next verse.
This is the first hint in the Book of Judges of a desire for a king, which will come to fruition with Sha'ul, and already they are thinking in terms of dynasties!
8:23 VA YOMER AL'EHEM GID'ON LO EMSHOL ANI BACHEM VE LO YIMSHOL BENI BACHEM YHVH YIMSHOL BACHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם גִּדְעֹון לֹא אֶמְשֹׁל אֲנִי בָּכֶם וְלֹא יִמְשֹׁל בְּנִי בָּכֶם יְהוָה יִמְשֹׁל בָּכֶם
BN: And Gid'on said to them: "I will not rule over you. Nor will my son rule over you. YHVH will rule over you."
Remember that, in all lands, through all of history, until the secular age commenced around the 18th century (CE), all emperors, kings and other forms of monarchy were simply the representative of the deity on Earth, there to serve as human surrogate in every ritual and ceremony; and in every case they had the secular authority, but at the highest level they did what they were told by their shamanistic wise-man: Shemu-El to King Sha'ul, Merlin to King Arthur, the Buddhist monks to the Shogun of Japan, the Archbishop of Canterbury to the King of England...
8:24 VA YOMER AL'EHEM GID'ON ESH'ALAH MIKEM SHE'ELAH U TENU LI ISH NEZEM SHELALO KI NIZMEY ZAHAV LAHEM KI YISHME-ELIM HEM
Remember that, in all lands, through all of history, until the secular age commenced around the 18th century (CE), all emperors, kings and other forms of monarchy were simply the representative of the deity on Earth, there to serve as human surrogate in every ritual and ceremony; and in every case they had the secular authority, but at the highest level they did what they were told by their shamanistic wise-man: Shemu-El to King Sha'ul, Merlin to King Arthur, the Buddhist monks to the Shogun of Japan, the Archbishop of Canterbury to the King of England...
8:24 VA YOMER AL'EHEM GID'ON ESH'ALAH MIKEM SHE'ELAH U TENU LI ISH NEZEM SHELALO KI NIZMEY ZAHAV LAHEM KI YISHME-ELIM HEM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם גִּדְעֹון אֶשְׁאֲלָה מִכֶּם שְׁאֵלָה וּתְנוּ לִי אִישׁ נֶזֶם שְׁלָלֹו כִּי נִזְמֵי זָהָב לָהֶם כִּי יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים הֵם
BN: And Gid'on said to them: "I have a request to make of you. Let each of you give me the jewelery he has obtained as spoil" (for they all had much gold jewelery, because they were Yishme-Elim).
NEZEM: Ear-rings, nose-rings, pearl-necklaces, all of these are described as NEZEM in different verses in the Tanach (Genesis 24:47, Isaiah 3:21, Hosea 2:15 et al).
I wonder if those whatever-they-weres were crescent-shaped as well, like the SAHARONIM of verse 21. Either way, they go with the camel-jewelery. But since when were these folk Yishme-Elim? We have just been told that they were men of Yisra-El. And we are nowhere near Edom. Is the term a pejorative, rather than a tribal description, in the way that we might call somebody "a Philistine", without suggesting that they belong to that nation? Or do we yet again have multiple tribal versions of the same mytholgical tale mixed up?
What does he want them for anyway? Wealth as a preference over power? Or is the jewelery symbolic of their status, as nose-rings still are in some parts of Africa, and wedding-rings throughout Christianity, and therefore they are rendering themselves his property? To which the answer is: in a sense, yes; but actually... wait and see...
KJ: And they answered, We will willingly give them. And they spread a garment, and did cast therein every man the earrings of his prey.
NEZEM: Ear-rings, nose-rings, pearl-necklaces, all of these are described as NEZEM in different verses in the Tanach (Genesis 24:47, Isaiah 3:21, Hosea 2:15 et al).
I wonder if those whatever-they-weres were crescent-shaped as well, like the SAHARONIM of verse 21. Either way, they go with the camel-jewelery. But since when were these folk Yishme-Elim? We have just been told that they were men of Yisra-El. And we are nowhere near Edom. Is the term a pejorative, rather than a tribal description, in the way that we might call somebody "a Philistine", without suggesting that they belong to that nation? Or do we yet again have multiple tribal versions of the same mytholgical tale mixed up?
What does he want them for anyway? Wealth as a preference over power? Or is the jewelery symbolic of their status, as nose-rings still are in some parts of Africa, and wedding-rings throughout Christianity, and therefore they are rendering themselves his property? To which the answer is: in a sense, yes; but actually... wait and see...
8:25 VA YOMRU NATON NITEN VA YIPHRESHU ET HA SIMLAH VA YASHLIYCHU SHAMAH ISH NEZEM SHELALO
וַיֹּאמְרוּ נָתֹון נִתֵּן וַיִּפְרְשׂוּ אֶת הַשִּׂמְלָה וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ שָׁמָּה אִישׁ נֶזֶם שְׁלָלֹו
BN: And they answered: We give them willingly. And they spread out a garment, and each man threw into it the jewelery he had obtained as spoil.
Incidents of this kind occur repeatedly in the Torah, but with very different agendas. When the Habiru leave Mitsrayim under Mosheh, the Mitsri are all standing at the roadside, in the darkness of midnight, handing over their jewelery (Exodus 3:22, 12:35), all of which appear to be like pilgrim-gifts, all of which will be used to make the Golden Calf (Exodus 32). On other occasions the spoil goes to the priestly treasury, or is allowed to be taken home by the looters as battle-reward. At the opposite extreme from the Exodus gifts is the sin of Achan in Joshua 7, for which see my notes there.
8:26 VA YEHI MISHKAL NIZMEY HA ZAHAV ASHER SHA'AL ELEPH U SHEV'A ME'OT ZAHAV LEVAD MIN HA SAHARONIM VE HA NETIPHOT U VIGDEY HA ARGAMAN SHE AL MALCHEY MIDYAN U LEVAD MIN HA ANAKOT ASHER BE TSAV'REY GEMALIM
וַיְהִי מִשְׁקַל נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר שָׁאָל אֶלֶף וּשְׁבַע מֵאֹות זָהָב לְבַד מִן הַשַּׂהֲרֹנִים וְהַנְּטִפֹות וּבִגְדֵי הָאַרְגָּמָן שֶׁעַל מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן וּלְבַד מִן הָעֲנָקֹות אֲשֶׁר בְּצַוְּארֵי גְמַלֵּיהֶם
BN: And the weight of the gold jewelery that he had requested came out at one thousand, seven hundred shekels of gold, separately from the jewelery and the ear-rings and the purple clothing that the kings of Midyan wore, and in addition to the chains that were around their camels' necks.
ELEPH U SHEV'A ME'OT: Why than number? When you tell a story, even an entirely made-up story., Inspector Cluedo Rides Again or The Mystery of the Fairies of the Bottom of my Garden, names and numbers are generally chosen for a reason; and in stories that claim to be historical, that number has to have been remembered for a reason, or why bother to mention it? And this is very precise in its not-being-necessary-to-mention-it, if that is indeed the case. So why?A thousand for its Aleph, the seven hundred for its Zayin, both mystical and magical numbers when they stand alone - easy to spot the symbol, but not so obvious the symbolism.
SAHARONIM: see my note at verse 21.
NETIPHOT: These, most definitely, are ear-rings, but not crescents. The root is NATAPH, which is the word for "droppings", specifically those round pieces of costive left behind by sheep and goats. The shape of the pearls is metaphorically NETUPH, whence NETIPHOT.
NETIPHOT: These, most definitely, are ear-rings, but not crescents. The root is NATAPH, which is the word for "droppings", specifically those round pieces of costive left behind by sheep and goats. The shape of the pearls is metaphorically NETUPH, whence NETIPHOT.
VIGDEY HA ARGAMAN: Of all the dyes that could be procured from the Murex, none was richer, finer, stronger, more majestic, than the the mauve of Argaman - the very colour used for the "royal purple" to this day - and yes, the same purple used throughout TheBibleNet for the transliterated text. See Exodus 25:4.
8:27 VA YA'AS OTO GID'ON LE EPHOD VA YATSEG OTO VE IRO BE APHRAH VA YIZNU CHOL YISRA'EL ACHARAV SHAM VA YEHI LE GID'ON U LE VEITO LE MOKESH
KJ: And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel went thither a whoring after it: which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house.
8:27 VA YA'AS OTO GID'ON LE EPHOD VA YATSEG OTO VE IRO BE APHRAH VA YIZNU CHOL YISRA'EL ACHARAV SHAM VA YEHI LE GID'ON U LE VEITO LE MOKESH
וַיַּעַשׂ אֹותֹו גִדְעֹון לְאֵפֹוד וַיַּצֵּג אֹותֹו בְעִירֹו בְּעָפְרָה וַיִּזְנוּ כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרָיו שָׁם וַיְהִי לְגִדְעֹון וּלְבֵיתֹו לְמֹוקֵשׁ
BN: And Gid'on made a priestly breastplate out of it, and placed it in his home-town, in Aphrah: and all Yisra-El went whoring after it there: so that it became a snare for Gid'on, and for his house.
EPHOD: A priestly breastplate or a variation on the Golden Calf? The Redactor is clearly struggling here. If it was a genuine Ephod, as per the High Priest of Yisra-El, then people would have come to worship at the shrine, and would not be accusable of "whoring after it"; so it has to be a pagan replacement for the totem-pole, and not an icon to YHVH. Having transformed the original tale, in order to make Gid'on a hero of YHVH, he now has to deal with Gid'on making a golden icon to his real god, which appears to be a variant of modern Mammon! So the icon has to become a snare. And then he ducks the issue altogether, leaving the tale incomplete, jumping to the end in the very next verse.
And two very different scholarly views on what the ephod even was: click here for a secular, here for a Jewish orthodox view.
APHRAH: See Judges 6:11.
KJ: Thus was Midian subdued before the children of Israel, so that they lifted up their heads no more. And the country was in quietness forty years in the days of Gideon.
8:28 VA YIKAN'A MIDYAN LIPHNEY BENEY YISRA-EL VE LO YASPHU LASE'T RO'SHAM VA TISHKOT HA ARETS ARBA'IM SHANAH BI YEMEY GID'ON
וַיִּכָּנַע מִדְיָן לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יָסְפוּ לָשֵׂאת רֹאשָׁם וַתִּשְׁקֹט הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בִּימֵי גִדְעֹון
BN: Thus was Midyan subdued before the Beney Yisra-El, so that they lifted up their heads no more. And the country was at peace for forty years at the time of Gid'on.
Yet again forty years, the same symbolic number at almost every stage of this book. Though I would also point out that this is at least the third time since Yehoshu'a succeeded Mosheh that the Beney Midyan have been conquered, and there will be many more in the centuries to follow.
pey break
KJ: And Jerubbaal the son of Joash went and dwelt in his own house.
Yet again forty years, the same symbolic number at almost every stage of this book. Though I would also point out that this is at least the third time since Yehoshu'a succeeded Mosheh that the Beney Midyan have been conquered, and there will be many more in the centuries to follow.
pey break
8:29 VA YELECH YERUV-VA'AL BEN YO'ASH VA YESHEV BE VEITO
וַיֵּלֶךְ יְרֻבַּעַל בֶּן יֹואָשׁ וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּבֵיתֹו
BN: And Yeruv-Va'al ben Yo'ash took up residence in his own shrine.
Interesting that the Redactor goes back to calling him Yeruv-Va'al, as though the name Gid'on has been stained by the ephod. Is it perhaps, yet once more, a different version that is now being used?
VEITO: Given his priestly role from the outset, and everything that happens until the making of the ephod at the end, it seems to me that this is about his return to his religious base, from where he now Judged the country for the next forty years, rather than his ancestral farmhouse. The next verse confirms this.
8:30 U LE GID'ON HAYU SHIV'IM BANIM YOTS'EY YERECHO KI NASHIM RABOT HAYU LO
KJ: And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
Interesting that the Redactor goes back to calling him Yeruv-Va'al, as though the name Gid'on has been stained by the ephod. Is it perhaps, yet once more, a different version that is now being used?
VEITO: Given his priestly role from the outset, and everything that happens until the making of the ephod at the end, it seems to me that this is about his return to his religious base, from where he now Judged the country for the next forty years, rather than his ancestral farmhouse. The next verse confirms this.
8:30 U LE GID'ON HAYU SHIV'IM BANIM YOTS'EY YERECHO KI NASHIM RABOT HAYU LO
וּלְגִדְעֹון הָיוּ שִׁבְעִים בָּנִים יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכֹו כִּי נָשִׁים רַבֹּות הָיוּ לֹו
BN: And Gid'on had seventy disciples, who sat at his feet: for he had many wives.
First let me say that I do not accept the accuracy of this verse, in the original: like the whoring in verse 27, the Redactor has a problem with the original story, and needs to alter it to suit his purposes: and like the whoring in verse 27 he has done an extremely bad job of it, refusing to accept what is actually a really useful piece of sociological forensics that would give us a better understanding of the schools of Prophets later on, and also the construct in Pirkei Avot 1:1 with which Jesus was clearly familiar even before that book was finalised and published: "gather disciples".
First let me say that I do not accept the accuracy of this verse, in the original: like the whoring in verse 27, the Redactor has a problem with the original story, and needs to alter it to suit his purposes: and like the whoring in verse 27 he has done an extremely bad job of it, refusing to accept what is actually a really useful piece of sociological forensics that would give us a better understanding of the schools of Prophets later on, and also the construct in Pirkei Avot 1:1 with which Jesus was clearly familiar even before that book was finalised and published: "gather disciples".
SHIV'IM BANIM: There are some very unlikely numbers in the Bible, but few more so than this; if we take it at face value. Three score and ten is a symbolic number however - and we have now grown used to seeing it: a school of priests or prophets, a Sanhedrin, an advisory council of elders, the translators of the Septuagint later on - always seventy, and always the word "sons" in its figurative sense, as the Temple choir will be the "Beney Korach", the "sons of Korach", and apprentices in the bronze furnaces will be "Beney Tuval", the "sons of Tuval". And no need for any wives to make them. What in fact Gid'on is establishing with his seventy "sons" is the Biblical equivalent of a Rabbinic yeshiva, just like the Prophetic guilds later on. So the phrase about the wives is a necessary addition by the Redactor; so my translation must be deemed inaccurate: either they are sons, and therefore wives were needed, or they are disciples, and therefore no need for any wives; mothers, yes, but Gid'on is only the father in the way that a mediaeval Abbot (from the Yehudit word Avot meaning "fathers") was Padre (father) to his "sons" the monks.
YOTS'EY YERECHO: Nothing to do with the city of Yericho (Jericho), though both words come from the same root. The YERECH is specifically the thigh, and much of this story has told of Penu-El, where Ya'akov wrestled with the "angel" and had "the hollow of his thigh" put out of joint. So even "thigh" is a euphemism. The immolation of Ya'akov's thigh was a part of the ceremony of king-making, just as Achilles was dipped in the Styx to give him a sacred heel, and Oedipus something similar to make his name mean "swollen-foot". Ya'akov is really Yah-Ekev in its earliest form, "the heel god", and this is retained in Genesis 25:26, when Ya'akov comes out of his mother's "thigh" "his hand holding on to Esav's heel".
YOTS'EY YERECHO: Nothing to do with the city of Yericho (Jericho), though both words come from the same root. The YERECH is specifically the thigh, and much of this story has told of Penu-El, where Ya'akov wrestled with the "angel" and had "the hollow of his thigh" put out of joint. So even "thigh" is a euphemism. The immolation of Ya'akov's thigh was a part of the ceremony of king-making, just as Achilles was dipped in the Styx to give him a sacred heel, and Oedipus something similar to make his name mean "swollen-foot". Ya'akov is really Yah-Ekev in its earliest form, "the heel god", and this is retained in Genesis 25:26, when Ya'akov comes out of his mother's "thigh" "his hand holding on to Esav's heel".
But even that may be more than the Redactor intended; he just wants to insist that these were biological sons, and not disciples (which only makes sense if he recognises that Gid'on is not a Yahwist shaman, but a follower of some other deity).
KI NASHIM RABOT HAYU LO: But the euphemism is useful, because it enables this ludicrous final phrase of the verse, self-evidently an add-on by the Redactor, the same need to pretend that Gid'on was ever a Beney Yisra-Eli leader, or at least to absorb and assimilate him into the history that is now being created, a thousand and more years after whatever the events may have been.
And if he did have enough wives to mother seventy sons (what, and no daughters; what is the statistical probability of that!), then either each wife had fifteen or more, which is simply cruelty, or there were more than four wives, which was unacceptable in the laws of the Beney Yisra-El at that time. Or concubines; I am prepared to acknowledge concubines... see the next verse.
But that yerecho continues to trouble me, and it takes me back to the word "whoring", which is always about the rites of Asherah, the May King and May Queen rituals of the fertility cult, all of which we witnessed in detail last time we visited Yericho, with the spies and Rachav in Joshua 2. So we can identify the purpose of the ephod too, and why they were so happy to give their jewelery for its fabrication. The ephod contains the Urim and Tumim, the sacred dice through which oracles are determined and lots are allocated: and at the rites of Asherah, the dice will be used to determine who gets to cavort with whom, hierodule and hierophant honouring in that manner the goddess who bestows fertility.
KJ: And his concubine that was in Shechem, she also bare him a son, whose name he called Abimelech.
8:31 U PHIYLAGSHO ASHER BISHCHEM YALDAH LO GAM HI BEN VA YASEM ET SHEMO AVI-MELECH
וּפִילַגְשֹׁו אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁכֶם יָלְדָה לֹּו גַם הִיא בֵּן וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת שְׁמֹו אֲבִימֶלֶךְ
BN: And his concubine, who was in Shechem, she too bore him a son, who he named Avi-Melech.
AVI-MELECH: My father is Moloch! No good YHVH-worshipper names his son Avi-Melech. Look at the Genesis stories to know who he was, and which god he worshipped. Further evidence that this is all Heraklean and not originally a Beney Yisra-Eli story at all.
KJ: And Gideon the son of Joash died in a good old age, and was buried in the sepulchre of Joash his father, in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
AVI-MELECH: My father is Moloch! No good YHVH-worshipper names his son Avi-Melech. Look at the Genesis stories to know who he was, and which god he worshipped. Further evidence that this is all Heraklean and not originally a Beney Yisra-Eli story at all.
8:32 VA YAMAT GID'ON BEN YO'ASH BE SEYVAH TOVAH VA YIKAVER BE KEVER YO'ASH AVIV BE APHRAH AVI HA EZRI
וַיָּמָת גִּדְעֹון בֶּן יֹואָשׁ בְּשֵׂיבָה טֹובָה וַיִּקָּבֵר בְּקֶבֶר יֹואָשׁ אָבִיו בְּעָפְרָה אֲבִי הָעֶזְרִי
BN: And Gid'on ben Yo'ash died at a ripe old age, and was buried in the sepulchre of Yo'ash his father, in Aphrah of the Avi-Ezrites.
The poor family that he claimed to come from could not have afforded a sepulchre - though with all the jewelery that he acquired for the ephod, maybe he also built his father a sepulchre, and left a space for himself. But this again confirms Gid'on, or Yeruv-Va'al, as the hero of the local shrine. And was his father really named Yo'ash? Or does this just happen to mean "primal ancestor"?
pey break
KJ: And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baalberith their god.
The poor family that he claimed to come from could not have afforded a sepulchre - though with all the jewelery that he acquired for the ephod, maybe he also built his father a sepulchre, and left a space for himself. But this again confirms Gid'on, or Yeruv-Va'al, as the hero of the local shrine. And was his father really named Yo'ash? Or does this just happen to mean "primal ancestor"?
8:33 VA YEHI KA ASHER MET GID'ON VA YASHUVU BENEY YISRA-EL VA YIZNU ACHAREY HA BE'ALIM VA YASIYMU LAHEM BA'AL BERIT LE ELOHIM
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר מֵת גִּדְעֹון וַיָּשׁוּבוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּזְנוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבְּעָלִים וַיָּשִׂימוּ לָהֶם בַּעַל בְּרִית לֵאלֹהִים
BN: And it came to pass, as soon as Gid'on was dead, that the Beney Yisra-El turned again, and went whoring after Ba'alim, and made Ba'al Berit their god.
BA'AL BERIT: The first hint the Tanach has ever given us (or let slip through) which god Av-Raham really made his covenant with. Because, of course, isn't YHVH himself a Ba'al Berit?
As to the return to whoring: what were they doing when he was alive, if not the same - see verse 27, and my note to the last verse.
KJ: And the children of Israel remembered not the LORD their God, who had delivered them out of the hands of all their enemies on every side:
As to the return to whoring: what were they doing when he was alive, if not the same - see verse 27, and my note to the last verse.
8:34 VE LO ZACHRU BENEY YISRA-EL ET YHVH ELOHEYHEM HA MATSIL OTAM MI YAD KOL OYEVEYHEM MI SAVIV
וְלֹא זָכְרוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם הַמַּצִּיל אֹותָם מִיַּד כָּל אֹיְבֵיהֶם מִסָּבִיב
BN: But the Beney Yisra-El did not remember YHVH their god, who had delivered them out of the hands of all their enemies on every side.
8:35 VE LO ASU CHESED IM BEIT YERUV-VA'AL GID'ON KE CHOL HA TOVAH ASHER ASAH IM YISRA-EL
KJ: Neither shewed they kindness to the house of Jerubbaal, namely, Gideon, according to all the goodness which he had shewed unto Israel.
8:35 VE LO ASU CHESED IM BEIT YERUV-VA'AL GID'ON KE CHOL HA TOVAH ASHER ASAH IM YISRA-EL
וְלֹא עָשׂוּ חֶסֶד עִם בֵּית יְרֻבַּעַל גִּדְעֹון כְּכָל הַטֹּובָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: Nor did they show any compassion to the house of Yeruv-Va'al (Gid'on), despite all the goodness which he had shown to Yisra-El.
The name appears to be given here as though it were two parts of a single name, and not two names. (But then the ancients didn't use brackets [I have provided the brackets]).
ASHER ASAH IM: The IM being the nearest we get to an admission that he was never a Beney Yisra-El himself.
A flawed hero then? In this version. A man offered a secular kingship, who turned it down in favour of a bishopric, and everyone went off whoring after Ba'alim again. A good moral for the Redactor to end with! Except that, in the next chapter, he clearly did accept the kingship, and it was precisely Ba'al that he himself brought the people back to: Ba'al, not YHVH. Unless Ba'al and YHVH were the same. And why would he be named Yeruv-Ba'al if that were not the case?
pey break
The name appears to be given here as though it were two parts of a single name, and not two names. (But then the ancients didn't use brackets [I have provided the brackets]).
ASHER ASAH IM: The IM being the nearest we get to an admission that he was never a Beney Yisra-El himself.
A flawed hero then? In this version. A man offered a secular kingship, who turned it down in favour of a bishopric, and everyone went off whoring after Ba'alim again. A good moral for the Redactor to end with! Except that, in the next chapter, he clearly did accept the kingship, and it was precisely Ba'al that he himself brought the people back to: Ba'al, not YHVH. Unless Ba'al and YHVH were the same. And why would he be named Yeruv-Ba'al if that were not the case?
pey break
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment