In Judges 7, verse 5, the NRSV renders, "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; all those who kneel down to drink, putting their hands to their mouths, you shall put to the other side.'
A comparison of the NRSV rendering to the various Hebrew base text, does not show the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" occurring in verse 5, but rather, verse 6 (where the NRSV leaves it out - yet the Hebrew places the words 'putting their hands to their mouths' after the word 'lapped' in verse 6).
It would also appear that the phrase "you shall put to the other side" does not find support in the Hebrew in verse 5, nor in any verse prior or subsequent (likely a dynamic license in place of "likewise" or "also") The NRSV has apparently inserted the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" into verse 5 from 6, and has added as a bolt from the blue "you shall put to the other side".Most other translations remain loyal to the underlying Hebrew and render "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; likewise (or also) all those who kneel down to drink"
In verse 5, the Hebrew (BHS and WLC base text) reads, "Yarad'am mayim Yhwh 'amar Gid`own laqaq mayim lashown keleb laqaq yatsag kara` berek shathah" It is not until verse 6 in which the phrase "yad peh" (hand to the mouth) appears in the Hebrew base text.The NRSV is not known for its bolts from the blue as is the NIV and a few other dynamic translations – so their removal from verse 6 and placement to verse 5 was likely based on a textual variant, or some other indicator, which the committee was convinced adequately justified a departure from the base text.
Unfortunately, the NRSV (at least that I can find) does not notate or otherwise explain the departure.As far as the indications of why the lappers from their hands were chosen over those who got down to the water level to drink? Take your pick – Rabbinical tradition holds that the lappers were chosen because they refused to bow down to an idol (see Tanhuma – Buber; Toledot 19; Yalqut Shim'oni, Judges 62:1 and 1 Kings 29. On the other hand – Josephus (Antiquities V.vi.3, 216-217) claims that the lappers were the cowards, scared to turn their backs kneel and drink, supposedly highlighting an even more important victory miracle by choosing cowards.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Anarchy or Monarchy
"Really, can you blame them for wanting a monarch? We just finished a book, Judges, which is all about what happens when there is no leader—mass murder, gang rape, anarchy, and so forth." ~ Unknown
That was the whole point of the book of Judges - there was a leader – a leader who forewarned them that their failure to drive out the inhabitants of the land, as divinely commanded by said leader, would lead to their adopting the debased religious beliefs and practices of the Canaanites – which would result in Jehovah's disfavor and his abandoning them to their enemies (as noted earlier in Exodus 23:32-33; Ex 34:11-17; again at Numbers 33:55; and De 7:2-5). The historical record found in the book of Judges shows how the warning became a reality.The books of Judges was not all about what "happens when there is no leader" – indeed, it is all about what "what happens when one rejects the leader" – especially when said leader is the creator (Judges 8:23, Genesis 1:2).
It is not that Samuel desires anarchy over monarchy – no – it is not ideological preference which gives him internal grief and causes him to pray – rather it is his recognition that the sovereign leader, God, has been rejected yet again by this people – for why "appoint for us a King" when the King already exists (1 Samuel 10:19, 1 Samuel 12:12, Psalm 74:12, Isaiah 33:22).
There is coming a time, and it is here already, when not all will prove their desire to reject, but to voluntarily accept, by their own free will and choice – the creator as their King (Isaiah 33:22-24). Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man has he will give in behalf of his life and existence (ne'phesh – Job 2:4). Really? Is mankind that selfish? The creator holds that he can be loved, respected, and obeyed unselfishly – and for no other reason that the desire of one's "lev" - so just as the people who approached Samuel made an authoritative choice from the lev - all will eventually choose from the same source.
That was the whole point of the book of Judges - there was a leader – a leader who forewarned them that their failure to drive out the inhabitants of the land, as divinely commanded by said leader, would lead to their adopting the debased religious beliefs and practices of the Canaanites – which would result in Jehovah's disfavor and his abandoning them to their enemies (as noted earlier in Exodus 23:32-33; Ex 34:11-17; again at Numbers 33:55; and De 7:2-5). The historical record found in the book of Judges shows how the warning became a reality.The books of Judges was not all about what "happens when there is no leader" – indeed, it is all about what "what happens when one rejects the leader" – especially when said leader is the creator (Judges 8:23, Genesis 1:2).
It is not that Samuel desires anarchy over monarchy – no – it is not ideological preference which gives him internal grief and causes him to pray – rather it is his recognition that the sovereign leader, God, has been rejected yet again by this people – for why "appoint for us a King" when the King already exists (1 Samuel 10:19, 1 Samuel 12:12, Psalm 74:12, Isaiah 33:22).
"for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected from being king over them. In accord with all their doings that they have done from the day of my bringing them up out of Egypt until this day in that they kept leaving me and serving other gods, that is the way they are doing also to you."
There is coming a time, and it is here already, when not all will prove their desire to reject, but to voluntarily accept, by their own free will and choice – the creator as their King (Isaiah 33:22-24). Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man has he will give in behalf of his life and existence (ne'phesh – Job 2:4). Really? Is mankind that selfish? The creator holds that he can be loved, respected, and obeyed unselfishly – and for no other reason that the desire of one's "lev" - so just as the people who approached Samuel made an authoritative choice from the lev - all will eventually choose from the same source.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Shib'im (70) Versus Hamishshim (50) and Daniel's 70 Weeks
Shib’im is literally 70 (ten sevens), as the numbering system in Hebrew is base 10, as is said, “Shib'im Panim la-Torah" (Seventy Methods of the Explanations of the Torah)” – The Jubilee, the 50th year (not 49th year which you would get by multiplying 7 x 7 under your method), is not referred to as shib’im, as that would mean 70, not 50 – you are confusing hamishshim (means 50) with shib’im, two completely different words, as is evidence in a comparison to Leviticus 25:10 (which defines the Jubilee in terms of hamishshim) to Daniel 9:24 (which speaks not of hamishshim, but rather shib'im) – they are separate cardinal numbers.
Hamishshim (50) comes from the root hamash (fifth), whereas shib’im (70) comes from the root sheba (seven).
Hamishshim (50) comes from the root hamash (fifth), whereas shib’im (70) comes from the root sheba (seven).
Misquoting Babylon the Great Has Fallen
"Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years until 562 BC"
This statement is based solely upon the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) 1956 Babylonian Chronology - unfortunately, P&D (as did Sollberger subsequent to them) erroneously excluded over 7,000 Babylonian business cuniform tablets, of which 1,450 cuneiform tablets dated during the reign of the Kings in question (Nabopolassar through Nabonidus) reveals reigning years for most of the kings which contradict the P&D established timeline (P&D based their timeline on only two tablets - the first and the last tablets dated to each King).
On this evidence, current academic and scholarly opinion is nearly in agreement - P&D err'd, and the 50 year old chronology is in dire need of radical revision - and in fact, is already underway.
In regards to your claimed "quotes" - the 581 BCE date as the year in which Amel-Marduk succeeded Nebuchadnezzar II is based upon the biblical record at 2 Kings 25:27-30 - they then assign a 2 year period to Amel, 4 years to Neriglissar, and nine months to Labashi.
The remaining period they assign to Nabonidus ... "till Babylon fell in 539 B.C" - not 17 years (i.e., your mathematical computations are taken out of context - now you may not agree with the biblical chronology, but you should at least present your "quotes" correctly - it is Josephus, who is identified on page 230 in a footnote who makes a statement that Belshazzar was in his 17 year of rule when Babylon was taken, there is no mention as you have fabricated, that Nabonidus "ruled for 17 years" according to the cited WT publication)
You might also take note, that Nabonidus did not rule from Babylon the entire time, as he set up his ruling capital later in Tema, leaving control of the capital city of Babylon to his son, Belshazzar.
This statement is based solely upon the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) 1956 Babylonian Chronology - unfortunately, P&D (as did Sollberger subsequent to them) erroneously excluded over 7,000 Babylonian business cuniform tablets, of which 1,450 cuneiform tablets dated during the reign of the Kings in question (Nabopolassar through Nabonidus) reveals reigning years for most of the kings which contradict the P&D established timeline (P&D based their timeline on only two tablets - the first and the last tablets dated to each King).
On this evidence, current academic and scholarly opinion is nearly in agreement - P&D err'd, and the 50 year old chronology is in dire need of radical revision - and in fact, is already underway.
In regards to your claimed "quotes" - the 581 BCE date as the year in which Amel-Marduk succeeded Nebuchadnezzar II is based upon the biblical record at 2 Kings 25:27-30 - they then assign a 2 year period to Amel, 4 years to Neriglissar, and nine months to Labashi.
The remaining period they assign to Nabonidus ... "till Babylon fell in 539 B.C" - not 17 years (i.e., your mathematical computations are taken out of context - now you may not agree with the biblical chronology, but you should at least present your "quotes" correctly - it is Josephus, who is identified on page 230 in a footnote who makes a statement that Belshazzar was in his 17 year of rule when Babylon was taken, there is no mention as you have fabricated, that Nabonidus "ruled for 17 years" according to the cited WT publication)
You might also take note, that Nabonidus did not rule from Babylon the entire time, as he set up his ruling capital later in Tema, leaving control of the capital city of Babylon to his son, Belshazzar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
