SurfTheSite
11:1 PETACH LEVANON DELATEYCHA VE TO'CHAL ESH BA ARAZEYCHA
KJ (King James translation): Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.
BN (BibleNet translation): Open your doors, Levanon, that the fire may devour your cedars.
I wonder if the deity feels the same way about the equatorial rainforests? Does he (does she, do they?) not regard all of Nature as sacred?
פְּתַח לְבָנוֹן דְּלָתֶיךָ וְתֹאכַל אֵשׁ בַּאֲרָזֶיךָ
KJ (King James translation): Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.
BN (BibleNet translation): Open your doors, Levanon, that the fire may devour your cedars.
I wonder if the deity feels the same way about the equatorial rainforests? Does he (does she, do they?) not regard all of Nature as sacred?
And why, anyway, would YHVH, or at the very least Zechar-Yah, want to see the greatest timber-forest of the Levant destroyed? Anger that the cedar for the First Temple came from there, and it has been destroyed - but not rebuilt?
11:2 HEYLEL BEROSH KI NAPHAL EREZ ASHER ADIRIM SHUDADU HEYLIYLU ALONEY VASHAN KI YARAD YA'AR HA BATSUR
הֵילֵל בְּרוֹשׁ כִּי נָפַל אֶרֶז אֲשֶׁר אַדִּרִים שֻׁדָּדוּ הֵילִילוּ אַלּוֹנֵי בָשָׁן כִּי יָרַד יַעַר הַבָּצוּר
KJ: Howl, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: howl, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down.
BN: Wail, cypress-tree, for the cedar is fallen, because the best of them have been destroyed: wail, you oaks of Bashan, for the mighty forest has been cut down.
This is not "how are the mighty fallen" (2 Samuel 1:19), but clearly an allusion to it. Is the metaphor of the trees a statement that Omnideism has (or will when it comes) overthrown the Asherot and Asherim? Or are we in the realm of Cad Goddeu, the battle of the trees.
BEROSH: And speaking of the battle of the trees, the scholars have fought with bows and arrows, and most mightily, over this one too. A fir tree, in the view of the Latinists, picking up the Septuagint Greek. A cypress tree, insist the Chaldeists, going to the Arabic and other Levantine languages for equivalents. Whichever it is, you can also find it at Hosea 14:9 (8 in some versions), likewise paired with the cedar, generally translated as "cypress"; and at Isaiah 14:8, 37:24 - again pairing the cedar with the cypress - and 60:13).
I think the answer lies, as noted above, in the building of the Temple itself, because that is what Zechar-Yah is all about. In 1 Kings 5:22 and 24, as well as 6:15 (6:34 uses BEROSH for the double-doors, which were about looks, not sturdiness), the planks themselves were of cedar, but the fancy-overlay was cypress, and no way would anyone use fir for an overlay that needed to be stood and walked upon by thousands - fir is a soft wood, and bends easily. Cypress alone can do that; at least, of the woods available in the Levant at that time. And in Ezekiel 27:5 the planks for the decks of ships, which again would require cypress (though the translation at the link renders it as "fir trees" - try this link instead, for "cypress").
BASHAN: see the notes at the link.
11:3 KOL YILELAT HA RO'IM KI SHUDEDAH ADARTAM KOL SHA'AGAT KEPHIYRIM KI SHUDAD GE'ON HA YARDEN
KJ: There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled.
BN: A voice of the wailing of the shepherds! for their glory is destroyed: a voice of the roaring of young lions! for the pride of the Yarden is laid waste.
samech break
11:4 KOH AMAR YHVH ELOHAI RE'EH ET TSON HA HAREGAH
KJ: Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter;
BN: Thus says YHVH my god: Feed the flock of slaughter...
TSON HA HAREGAH: Meaning what: the flock that is only being reared for the purpose of slaughtering it for food? In which case, while this sounds like a negative, it is actually a positive: fatten them up. But if the "flock" is the metaphorical one of chapters 9 and 10, then the message is precisely the opposite: what is the point of the fertility deities bestowing fertility, if the people are simply fodder for the next man-of-conquest and the leadership isn't strong enough, with its spiritual as well as its political and military fortresses, in tact, if it's all about short term money-making for no greater spiritual or cultural use?
Which reading the next verse confirms.
11:5 ASHER KONEYHEN YAHARGUN VE LO YE'SHAMU U MOCHREYHEN YO'MAR BARUCH YHVH VA O'SHIR VE RO'EYHEM LO YACHMOL ALEYHEN
KJ: Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not.
BN: ... whose owners slay them, and do not accept any guilt; and they who sell them say, "Blessed be YHVH, for I am rich"; and their own shepherds have no pity for them.
It turns out not to be about fattening up the lambs for slaughter, nor is it a vegan attack on carnivorism, though the arguments for that latter are implicit in the laws of Kashrut, which this is also about, because the words function both literally and metaphorically. The flea-market economy, as above, but also: Why should anyone feel guilty about killing the lambs for food? To which Zecar-Yah's answer is: Because they are "god's creatures", and therefore sacred. So you take them to the Temple-abattoir to be slaughtered prayerfully by the trained shochet, and in the act of sacrifice (sacre ficere - making sacred) you obtain permission from the deity to kill and eat, and you rightly feel no guilt about it (unlike the deity in respect of the forests of Levanon and the oaks of Bashan!). But those who simply slaughter the animals, at the private abattoir of their own farm, or some outfit of corporate profit-making, these have not sacrificed, and so...
But even that isn't what this is really about. Sacrifice makes the eating legitimate - provided you are sincere in the act of sacrifice. What Zechar-Yah is complaining about is not the farmers who are fattening vast flocks, because there is money to be made; that would be fine, if they were also sincere in their prayers: but they do not care about the animals, the deity, or even the basic human need; only about the quarterly dividends.
KONEYHEN: Why is it feminine, and plural, if it refers to the TSON? The same question for MOCHREYHEN and ALEYHEN. Is he addressing a female audience?
O'SHIR: The trees, as noted above, contained an inference of Asherah; and now O'SHIR does the same (It is an Aleph O'shir, not an Ayin 'shir, so this is Kena'ani, not Mitsri, Asherah not Osher). I am wondering if Zechar-Yah isn't playing clever word-games with an ancient song that everybody knows (but one which has become lost to us), giving it new meaning to accord with the new theology.
LO YACHMOL: The shepherds do not pity the flocks, or their rich bosses? The syntax seems to suggest the latter, but we can be reasonably confident that this is misleading.
11:6 KI LO ECHMOL OD AL YOSHVEI HA ARETS NE'UM YHVH VE HINEH ANOCHI MAMTSI'Y ET HA ADAM ISH BE YAD RE'EHU U VE YAD MALKO VE CHITETU ET HA ARETS VE LO ATSIL MI YADAM
KJ: "For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.
BN: "For I shall no longer feel pity for the inhabitants of the land," says YHVH; "but, lo, I will deliver all of the men into their neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king; and they shall smite the land, and I will not deliver them out of their hand...
If this is now YHVH speaking through Zechar-Yah, can we also assume that the previous verses must have been as well? As we have noted many times, he sometimes goes over-the-top in telling us repeatedly that he is quoting the deity, and then switches back and forth without bothering to denote the change at all.
BASHAN: see the notes at the link.
11:3 KOL YILELAT HA RO'IM KI SHUDEDAH ADARTAM KOL SHA'AGAT KEPHIYRIM KI SHUDAD GE'ON HA YARDEN
קוֹל יִלְלַת הָרֹעִים כִּי שֻׁדְּדָה אַדַּרְתָּם קוֹל שַׁאֲגַת כְּפִירִים כִּי שֻׁדַּד גְּאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן
KJ: There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled.
BN: A voice of the wailing of the shepherds! for their glory is destroyed: a voice of the roaring of young lions! for the pride of the Yarden is laid waste.
samech break
11:4 KOH AMAR YHVH ELOHAI RE'EH ET TSON HA HAREGAH
כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי רְעֵה אֶת צֹאן הַהֲרֵגָה
KJ: Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter;
BN: Thus says YHVH my god: Feed the flock of slaughter...
TSON HA HAREGAH: Meaning what: the flock that is only being reared for the purpose of slaughtering it for food? In which case, while this sounds like a negative, it is actually a positive: fatten them up. But if the "flock" is the metaphorical one of chapters 9 and 10, then the message is precisely the opposite: what is the point of the fertility deities bestowing fertility, if the people are simply fodder for the next man-of-conquest and the leadership isn't strong enough, with its spiritual as well as its political and military fortresses, in tact, if it's all about short term money-making for no greater spiritual or cultural use?
Which reading the next verse confirms.
11:5 ASHER KONEYHEN YAHARGUN VE LO YE'SHAMU U MOCHREYHEN YO'MAR BARUCH YHVH VA O'SHIR VE RO'EYHEM LO YACHMOL ALEYHEN
אֲשֶׁר קֹנֵיהֶן יַהֲרְגֻן וְלֹא יֶאְשָׁמוּ וּמֹכְרֵיהֶן יֹאמַר בָּרוּךְ יְהוָה וַאעְשִׁר וְרֹעֵיהֶם לֹא יַחְמוֹל עֲלֵיהֶן
KJ: Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not.
BN: ... whose owners slay them, and do not accept any guilt; and they who sell them say, "Blessed be YHVH, for I am rich"; and their own shepherds have no pity for them.
It turns out not to be about fattening up the lambs for slaughter, nor is it a vegan attack on carnivorism, though the arguments for that latter are implicit in the laws of Kashrut, which this is also about, because the words function both literally and metaphorically. The flea-market economy, as above, but also: Why should anyone feel guilty about killing the lambs for food? To which Zecar-Yah's answer is: Because they are "god's creatures", and therefore sacred. So you take them to the Temple-abattoir to be slaughtered prayerfully by the trained shochet, and in the act of sacrifice (sacre ficere - making sacred) you obtain permission from the deity to kill and eat, and you rightly feel no guilt about it (unlike the deity in respect of the forests of Levanon and the oaks of Bashan!). But those who simply slaughter the animals, at the private abattoir of their own farm, or some outfit of corporate profit-making, these have not sacrificed, and so...
But even that isn't what this is really about. Sacrifice makes the eating legitimate - provided you are sincere in the act of sacrifice. What Zechar-Yah is complaining about is not the farmers who are fattening vast flocks, because there is money to be made; that would be fine, if they were also sincere in their prayers: but they do not care about the animals, the deity, or even the basic human need; only about the quarterly dividends.
KONEYHEN: Why is it feminine, and plural, if it refers to the TSON? The same question for MOCHREYHEN and ALEYHEN. Is he addressing a female audience?
O'SHIR: The trees, as noted above, contained an inference of Asherah; and now O'SHIR does the same (It is an Aleph O'shir, not an Ayin 'shir, so this is Kena'ani, not Mitsri, Asherah not Osher). I am wondering if Zechar-Yah isn't playing clever word-games with an ancient song that everybody knows (but one which has become lost to us), giving it new meaning to accord with the new theology.
LO YACHMOL: The shepherds do not pity the flocks, or their rich bosses? The syntax seems to suggest the latter, but we can be reasonably confident that this is misleading.
11:6 KI LO ECHMOL OD AL YOSHVEI HA ARETS NE'UM YHVH VE HINEH ANOCHI MAMTSI'Y ET HA ADAM ISH BE YAD RE'EHU U VE YAD MALKO VE CHITETU ET HA ARETS VE LO ATSIL MI YADAM
כִּי לֹא אֶחְמוֹל עוֹד עַל יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ נְאֻם יְהוָה וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מַמְצִיא אֶת הָאָדָם אִישׁ בְּיַד רֵעֵהוּ וּבְיַד מַלְכּוֹ וְכִתְּתוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא אַצִּיל מִיָּדָם
KJ: "For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.
BN: "For I shall no longer feel pity for the inhabitants of the land," says YHVH; "but, lo, I will deliver all of the men into their neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king; and they shall smite the land, and I will not deliver them out of their hand...
If this is now YHVH speaking through Zechar-Yah, can we also assume that the previous verses must have been as well? As we have noted many times, he sometimes goes over-the-top in telling us repeatedly that he is quoting the deity, and then switches back and forth without bothering to denote the change at all.
11:7 VA ER'EH ET TSON HA HAREGAH LACHEN ANIYEY HA TSON VA EKACH LI SHENEY MAKLOT LE ACHAD KARA'TI NO'AM U LE ACHAD KARA'TI CHOVLIM VA ER'EH ET HA TSON
וָאֶרְעֶה אֶת צֹאן הַהֲרֵגָה לָכֵן עֲנִיֵּי הַצֹּאן וָאֶקַּח לִי שְׁנֵי מַקְלוֹת לְאַחַד קָרָאתִי נֹעַם וּלְאַחַד קָרָאתִי חֹבְלִים וָאֶרְעֶה אֶת הַצֹּאן
KJ: And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
BN: "And I will feed the flock of slaughter, down to the very poorest of the flock. And I will gather for myself two staves; the one I have named 'Beauty', and the other I have named 'Measuring Lines'. So I shall feed the flock...
Confirming that the "flock" is to be taken both literally and metaphorically - two "conceits" concurrent in the same poem, just like an Elizabethan Sonnet!
ER'EH...EKACH: Why does KJ translate the first verb in the future tense (which it is in the Yehudit), but the second (which is too) in the past tense? I think they are misled by KARA'TI, which is indeed in the past, but subjunctive to the main clause.
ACHAD: We are familiar with ACHAT for the masculine, and ECHAD for the feminine, but this appears to be the variation for the transgendered and the androgynous! And clearly not an error, because it occurs twice in the same verse.
NO'AM: The source of the English name Naomi, which is Na'ami in Yehudit (cf Ruth 1:2). Modern Ivrit has "Na'im" as the equivalent of English "nice".
CHOVLIM: And speaking of "conceits", Zechar-Yah introduced the idea behind the CHEVEL in the opening chapter (1:16), though not yet by name; at that stage he simply states that "'I have returned to Yeru-Shala'im with all my capacity for mercy intact. My house shall be built there,' says YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, and a line shall be stretched over Yeru-Shala'im..." The CHEVEL MIDAH itself makes its first appearance in 2:5, when "I raised my eyes, and saw, and, behold, a man with a measuring line in his hand." As noted in my introduction to the book, the man with a measuring line will be prohibited from measuring Yeru-Shala'im, because it is the dwelling-place of YHVH - this may also lie behind David's disastrous census in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. But that does not prevent YHVH himself from measuring his flock, and it is this that he is doing now.
11:8 VA ACH'CHID ET SHELOSHET HA RO'IM BE YERACH ECHAD VE TIKTSAR NAPHSHI BAHEM VE GAM NAPHSHAM BA CHALAH BI
KJ: Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
BN: "And I cut off the three shepherds in one month; for my soul was weary of them, and their soul also loathed me....
Unless Zechar-Yah is making oblique reference to three of the current leadership who have just been forced out of office, the suggestion that this was an older Kena'ani song or Psalm is reinforced in this verse. Christians will recognise the imagery - the three shepherds being the three Magi (priests of Zoroaster) of their Nativity myth, though of course the birth-in-the-manger of Tammuz at Beit Lechem Ephratah predates Jesus by several millennia. Note that it says "ha ro'im", which is "the" shepherds, very specific.
ACHAD: We are familiar with ACHAT for the masculine, and ECHAD for the feminine, but this appears to be the variation for the transgendered and the androgynous! And clearly not an error, because it occurs twice in the same verse.
NO'AM: The source of the English name Naomi, which is Na'ami in Yehudit (cf Ruth 1:2). Modern Ivrit has "Na'im" as the equivalent of English "nice".
CHOVLIM: And speaking of "conceits", Zechar-Yah introduced the idea behind the CHEVEL in the opening chapter (1:16), though not yet by name; at that stage he simply states that "'I have returned to Yeru-Shala'im with all my capacity for mercy intact. My house shall be built there,' says YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, and a line shall be stretched over Yeru-Shala'im..." The CHEVEL MIDAH itself makes its first appearance in 2:5, when "I raised my eyes, and saw, and, behold, a man with a measuring line in his hand." As noted in my introduction to the book, the man with a measuring line will be prohibited from measuring Yeru-Shala'im, because it is the dwelling-place of YHVH - this may also lie behind David's disastrous census in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. But that does not prevent YHVH himself from measuring his flock, and it is this that he is doing now.
11:8 VA ACH'CHID ET SHELOSHET HA RO'IM BE YERACH ECHAD VE TIKTSAR NAPHSHI BAHEM VE GAM NAPHSHAM BA CHALAH BI
וָאַכְחִד אֶת שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָרֹעִים בְּיֶרַח אֶחָד וַתִּקְצַר נַפְשִׁי בָּהֶם וְגַם נַפְשָׁם בָּחֲלָה בִי
KJ: Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
BN: "And I cut off the three shepherds in one month; for my soul was weary of them, and their soul also loathed me....
Unless Zechar-Yah is making oblique reference to three of the current leadership who have just been forced out of office, the suggestion that this was an older Kena'ani song or Psalm is reinforced in this verse. Christians will recognise the imagery - the three shepherds being the three Magi (priests of Zoroaster) of their Nativity myth, though of course the birth-in-the-manger of Tammuz at Beit Lechem Ephratah predates Jesus by several millennia. Note that it says "ha ro'im", which is "the" shepherds, very specific.
The key though is the YERACH - the Yehudit word for "month" is always CHODESH, reflecting the newness (CHADASH means "new") of the moon each month, rather than worshipping the moon itself, which the Yehudim do when she is full on the 15th (whence YAH). YERACH is the Kena'ani term, and we see it on many occasions, mostly in connection with the key moon-shrine (one of the three, alongside Ur and Charan, which is why there are three shepherds here) of Yareyacho-Jericho.
Which may well also answer the question: who are the three shepherds here? YHVH as sun-god, overthrowing the moon-cult, absorbing Yah into YHVH, one of the early stages of the coup that will establish the Omnideity.
So we have finally found an entry-point to the metaphorical language of this oracle! So Christianity understands that Zechar-Yah is prophesying the Nativity that will herald this Messianic Age. And yet the three shepherds are "cut off", because the deity is "tired of them". The Nativity - which has belonged to Tammuz since ancient times - is in fact rejected by Zechar-Yah. Throuhout he has been calling on the people to create the conditions for the coming of YHVH as the Messiah incarnate, by behaving in a manner that renders a human Jesus irrelevant. This is about you and me, not about Him. And this, this more than anything, is the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity.
11:9 VA OMAR LO ER'EH ET'CHEM HA METAH TAMUT VE HA NICH'CHEDET TIKACHED VE HA NISH'AROT TO'CHALNAH ISHAH ET BESAR RE'OTAH
KJ: Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
BN: "Then I said, 'I will not feed you; that which dies, let it die; and that which is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let those who are left eat each other's flesh...'
ISHAH...RE'OTAH: Still in the feminine. Is he addressing an audience of female choristers and priestesses of the Temple? Is it simply the metaphorical "daughter of Tsi'on... daughter of Yeru-Shala'im" of the previous chapter? Not terribly nice, positive and full of the Thirteen Attributes, whoever it is spoken to (or maybe one of them, Justice, in the form of Vengeance!).
11:10 VA EKACH ET MAKLI ET NO'AM VA EGD'A OTO LEHAPHEYR ET BERITI ASHER KARA'TI ET KOL HA AMIM
KJ: And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
BN: "Then I will take my staff, the one I have named Beauty, and cut it in pieces, that I might break my covenant which I made with all the nations...
Which may well also answer the question: who are the three shepherds here? YHVH as sun-god, overthrowing the moon-cult, absorbing Yah into YHVH, one of the early stages of the coup that will establish the Omnideity.
So we have finally found an entry-point to the metaphorical language of this oracle! So Christianity understands that Zechar-Yah is prophesying the Nativity that will herald this Messianic Age. And yet the three shepherds are "cut off", because the deity is "tired of them". The Nativity - which has belonged to Tammuz since ancient times - is in fact rejected by Zechar-Yah. Throuhout he has been calling on the people to create the conditions for the coming of YHVH as the Messiah incarnate, by behaving in a manner that renders a human Jesus irrelevant. This is about you and me, not about Him. And this, this more than anything, is the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity.
11:9 VA OMAR LO ER'EH ET'CHEM HA METAH TAMUT VE HA NICH'CHEDET TIKACHED VE HA NISH'AROT TO'CHALNAH ISHAH ET BESAR RE'OTAH
וָאֹמַר לֹא אֶרְעֶה אֶתְכֶם הַמֵּתָה תָמוּת וְהַנִּכְחֶדֶת תִּכָּחֵד וְהַנִּשְׁאָרוֹת תֹּאכַלְנָה אִשָּׁה אֶת בְּשַׂר רְעוּתָהּ
KJ: Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
BN: "Then I said, 'I will not feed you; that which dies, let it die; and that which is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let those who are left eat each other's flesh...'
ISHAH...RE'OTAH: Still in the feminine. Is he addressing an audience of female choristers and priestesses of the Temple? Is it simply the metaphorical "daughter of Tsi'on... daughter of Yeru-Shala'im" of the previous chapter? Not terribly nice, positive and full of the Thirteen Attributes, whoever it is spoken to (or maybe one of them, Justice, in the form of Vengeance!).
11:10 VA EKACH ET MAKLI ET NO'AM VA EGD'A OTO LEHAPHEYR ET BERITI ASHER KARA'TI ET KOL HA AMIM
וָאֶקַּח אֶת מַקְלִי אֶת נֹעַם וָאֶגְדַּע אֹתוֹ לְהָפֵיר אֶת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת כָּל הָעַמִּים
KJ: And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
BN: "Then I will take my staff, the one I have named Beauty, and cut it in pieces, that I might break my covenant which I made with all the nations...
KOL HA AMIM: This must refer to the No'achic code, there being no other occasion in the Tanach when YHVH or Elohim is described as making any sort of covenant with any other nation but the Yehudim.
11:11 VA TUPHAR BA YOM HA HU VA YED'U CHEN ANIYEY HA TSON HA SHOMRIM OTI KI DEVAR YHVH HU
וַתֻּפַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא וַיֵּדְעוּ כֵן עֲנִיֵּי הַצֹּאן הַשֹּׁמְרִים אֹתִי כִּי דְבַר יְהוָה הוּא
KJ: And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
BN: "And it will be broken on that day; and thus the poor of the flock who paid heed to me will know that this was done by YHVH...
TUPHAR: Again KJ seems not to have understood the grammar. TUPHAR is passive, not past; and future passive at that: "it will be broken".
DEVAR YHVH HU: The "word of YHVH" is never simply a voice, but the action which that voice brings into being: "Let there be light, and there was light".
11:12 VA OMAR ALEYHEM IM TOV BE EYNEYCHEM HAVU SECHARI VE IM LO CHADALU VA YISHKELU ET SECHARI SHELOSHIM KASEPH
וָאֹמַר אֲלֵיהֶם אִם טוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם הָבוּ שְׂכָרִי וְאִם לֹא חֲדָלוּ וַיִּשְׁקְלוּ אֶת שְׂכָרִי שְׁלֹשִׁים כָּסֶף
KJ: And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
BN: "Then I will say to them, 'If you think I have done well, pay me for my work; and if not, not.' So they will weigh out for the work I have done thirty pieces of silver."
SHELOSHIM KASEPH: I guess this is the price you pay when you want to get rid of that nuisance, the reborn Tammuz, from Yeru-Shala'im! And no doubt this was then put aside in the Treasury, ready for the day when it would be paid to Judas Iscariot! And no, I am only partially joking - much of the ancient source of the Jesus myth is located in this chapter, as already noted. The real point about the thirty pieces of silver is that it was one for each day of the lunar month (a Pidyon ha ben, a redemption of the first-born "beloved son", on each day). And it does rather make Judas the hero, not the villain, of the tale!
11:13 VA YO'MER YHVH ELAI HASHLIYCHEHU EL HA YOTSER EDER HA YEKAR ASHER YAKARTI ME ELAYHEM VA EKCHAH SHELOSHIM HA KESEPH HA ASHLIYCH OTO BEIT YHVH EL HA YOTSER
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי הַשְׁלִיכֵהוּ אֶל הַיּוֹצֵר אֶדֶר הַיְקָר אֲשֶׁר יָקַרְתִּי מֵעֲלֵיהֶם וָאֶקְחָה שְׁלֹשִׁים הַכֶּסֶף וָאַשְׁלִיךְ אֹתוֹ בֵּית יְהוָה אֶל הַיּוֹצֵר
KJ: And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
BN: Then YHVH said to me, "Send it to the potter, the high price that I was valued at by them". And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and sent them to the potter, in the house of YHVH.
HA YOTSER: "Potter" may have to do, because we don't really have an equivalent in modern culture, let alone modern English; but potter is still not strictly accurate. Let me explain.
There are several words used for the act of Creation at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, each with a very precise meaning, each denoting a different form of creation, from making something out of nothing to merely refashioning the already existant; see my notes to Genesis 1:21.
As per the Creation story, a YOTSER is a person who takes an existing substance and refashions it into another, so any craftsman in minerals could be a YOTSER. And as these are pieces of silver, is it not more likely to have been a silversmith than a potter? And the reason for sending it to the Temple silversmith, rather than some jewelery store in the market, should be obvious by this stage of reading the chapter; though it is still entirely possible that, needing somewhere to store the thirty pieces of silver, he simply made a pot.
But then, please remind me, who owned the field in which Judas Iscariot hanged himself? (The answer can be found at Matthew 27:1–10, but you will need links to Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9 as well.)
11:14 VA EGDAH ET MAKLI HA SHENI ET HA CHOVLIM LEHAPHER ET HA ACHAVAH BEYN YEHUDAH U VEYN YISRA-EL
KJ: Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
As per the Creation story, a YOTSER is a person who takes an existing substance and refashions it into another, so any craftsman in minerals could be a YOTSER. And as these are pieces of silver, is it not more likely to have been a silversmith than a potter? And the reason for sending it to the Temple silversmith, rather than some jewelery store in the market, should be obvious by this stage of reading the chapter; though it is still entirely possible that, needing somewhere to store the thirty pieces of silver, he simply made a pot.
But then, please remind me, who owned the field in which Judas Iscariot hanged himself? (The answer can be found at Matthew 27:1–10, but you will need links to Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9 as well.)
11:14 VA EGDAH ET MAKLI HA SHENI ET HA CHOVLIM LEHAPHER ET HA ACHAVAH BEYN YEHUDAH U VEYN YISRA-EL
וָאֶגְדַּע אֶת מַקְלִי הַשֵּׁנִי אֵת הַחֹבְלִים לְהָפֵר אֶת הָאַחֲוָה בֵּין יְהוּדָה וּבֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ: Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
BN: Then I cut asunder my other staff, the one I named "Measuring Lines", so that I could break the brotherhood between Yehudah and Yisra-El.
EGDAH: Well worth looking at Gesenius on this occasion; he picks up the several meanings, and the multiple occurrences, in the Tanach - a range that goes from mere pruning to the full break and cut. Strong is also worth looking at, but he doesn't have the etymological background to cover the differences, he merely lists them.
ACHAVAH: Is he speaking politically, culturally, historically, mythologically? Politically and historically there has been no such brotherhood since Rechav-Am and Yerav-Am fought a civil war in the wake of the death of Shelomoh, and divided the land into two kingdoms, Yehudah in the south, Yisra-El, later renamed Ephrayim, in the north; but that latter disappeared into slavery and genocide in the 720s BCE, two hundred years before Zechar-Yah - and this text is supposedly by a follower who came even later. So is it, in fact, a much earlier oracle, wrongly ascribed to the Guild of Zechar-Yah? There have been several points in this and the last chapter when it appeared that it might be so. Or is this Zehar-Yah (or his follower) wanting to make a "clean break" with history, recognising that the rest of Yisra-El is lost and gone for ever, and a new Yehudah can only be covenanted on what remains?
LEHAPHER: Why otherwise would YHVH want to do this anyway?
EGDAH: Well worth looking at Gesenius on this occasion; he picks up the several meanings, and the multiple occurrences, in the Tanach - a range that goes from mere pruning to the full break and cut. Strong is also worth looking at, but he doesn't have the etymological background to cover the differences, he merely lists them.
ACHAVAH: Is he speaking politically, culturally, historically, mythologically? Politically and historically there has been no such brotherhood since Rechav-Am and Yerav-Am fought a civil war in the wake of the death of Shelomoh, and divided the land into two kingdoms, Yehudah in the south, Yisra-El, later renamed Ephrayim, in the north; but that latter disappeared into slavery and genocide in the 720s BCE, two hundred years before Zechar-Yah - and this text is supposedly by a follower who came even later. So is it, in fact, a much earlier oracle, wrongly ascribed to the Guild of Zechar-Yah? There have been several points in this and the last chapter when it appeared that it might be so. Or is this Zehar-Yah (or his follower) wanting to make a "clean break" with history, recognising that the rest of Yisra-El is lost and gone for ever, and a new Yehudah can only be covenanted on what remains?
LEHAPHER: Why otherwise would YHVH want to do this anyway?
samech break
11:15 VA YO'MER YHVH ELAI OD KACH LECHA KELI RO'EH EVILI
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלָי עוֹד קַח לְךָ כְּלִי רֹעֶה אֱוִלִי
KJ: And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.
BN: And YHVH said unto me, "Take up again the instruments of a foolish shepherd...
KELI: The only tool a shepherd carries, unless it is shearing time, is his staff - but both of these have just been broken. But of course the staff is also metaphorical - both Mosheh and Aharon became famous for theirs (Exodus 4, Numbers 17), both of which turned out to be shaman-sticks, wizard-wands, serpents and blooming almond twigs: instruments of prophecy. As with Zechar-Yah now.
KELI: The only tool a shepherd carries, unless it is shearing time, is his staff - but both of these have just been broken. But of course the staff is also metaphorical - both Mosheh and Aharon became famous for theirs (Exodus 4, Numbers 17), both of which turned out to be shaman-sticks, wizard-wands, serpents and blooming almond twigs: instruments of prophecy. As with Zechar-Yah now.
11:16 KI HINEH ANOCHI MEKIM RO'EH BA ARETS HA NICH'CHADOT LO YIPHKOD HA NA'AR LO YEVAKESH VE HA NISHBERET LO YERAP'E HA NITSAVAH LO YECHALKEL U VESAR HA BERIY'AH YO'CHAL U PHARSEYHEN YEPHAREK
כִּי הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵקִים רֹעֶה בָּאָרֶץ הַנִּכְחָדוֹת לֹא יִפְקֹד הַנַּעַר לֹא יְבַקֵּשׁ וְהַנִּשְׁבֶּרֶת לֹא יְרַפֵּא הַנִּצָּבָה לֹא יְכַלְכֵּל וּבְשַׂר הַבְּרִיאָה יֹאכַל וּפַרְסֵיהֶן יְפָרֵק
KJ: For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
BN: "For, you will see, I intend to raise up a shepherd in the land, who will not visit those that are cut off, nor will he seek those that are scattered, nor heal that which is broken, nor feed that which is sound; but he will eat the flesh of the fat...
Yet another poem of misanthropic hatred, with not an ounce of redemption contained anywhere. This is so unlike the polite and charming Zechar-Yah of the first eight chapters, pushing hard for a positive outcome to a creative goal, and the language is so radically different, in tone and vocabulary as much as content, I simply cannot accept that these five chapters belong in this book at all; and if they are by a follower or followers of Zecha-Yah, then they need to go back and re-examine their idol, because they have got him very badly wrong.
Yet another poem of misanthropic hatred, with not an ounce of redemption contained anywhere. This is so unlike the polite and charming Zechar-Yah of the first eight chapters, pushing hard for a positive outcome to a creative goal, and the language is so radically different, in tone and vocabulary as much as content, I simply cannot accept that these five chapters belong in this book at all; and if they are by a follower or followers of Zecha-Yah, then they need to go back and re-examine their idol, because they have got him very badly wrong.
I wonder if he is thinking of Gog Magog - this is, after all, an early hint at the apocalyptic literature that will dominate proto-Judaism in the last two centuries of the millennium. The staves are the clues - see the illustration on my page for Magog.
samech break
samech break
11:17 HOY RO'I HA ELIL OZVI HA TSON CHEREV AL ZERO'O VE AL EYN YEMIYNO ZERO'O YAVOSH TIYVASH VE EYN YEMIYNO KACHOH TICH'HEH
הוֹי רֹעִי הָאֱלִיל עֹזְבִי הַצֹּאן חֶרֶב עַל זְרוֹעוֹ וְעַל עֵין יְמִינוֹ זְרֹעוֹ יָבוֹשׁ תִּיבָשׁ וְעֵין יְמִינוֹ כָּהֹה תִכְהֶה
KJ: Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
BN: "Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye. His arm shall become entirely withered, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."
ZERO'O...EYN YEMIYNO: Once again the direct allusions to Psalm 137. "In Bavel you yearned to rebuild Yeru-Shala'im, and swore eternal allegiance to Tsi'on; now you are here, and you are not fulfilling your pledge. So YHVH will fulfill it for you, by cleaving your tongue to the roof of your mouth, by withering your right arm, just as you offered them." Just as you offered them!
BN: "Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye. His arm shall become entirely withered, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."
ZERO'O...EYN YEMIYNO: Once again the direct allusions to Psalm 137. "In Bavel you yearned to rebuild Yeru-Shala'im, and swore eternal allegiance to Tsi'on; now you are here, and you are not fulfilling your pledge. So YHVH will fulfill it for you, by cleaving your tongue to the roof of your mouth, by withering your right arm, just as you offered them." Just as you offered them!
Presumably the misanthropic anger of this poem is sourced in the failure of the previous several to get the leadership active; having made them positive promises if they do so, he is now making negative threats. Alas, neither will work!
samech break
No comments:
Post a Comment