The Mystery Detail of the Tahash

From The Book of Numbers Blog - "The mystery detail: The most precious objects were wrapped up in dolphin skin. Two questions: 1) They were in the desert—where did they get dolphin skin? 2) Why wrap in dolphin skin, which is famously delicate?"

_____________________________________________________

Case in point - they [Hebrew] did not originate "in the desert", they came from Goshen (there has been a long debate over the precise location of the Egyptian Goshen – though it is often agreed to that it lies in the eastern part of the Nile Delta; perhaps Wadi Tumilat). – if you recall your own posts regarding Genesis and Exodus).

It does not seem a large leap of speculation to assume the Hebrew left with supplies and possessions - hides and skins would certainly be on the top ten list at that time. What you are reading as "dolphin" in the Tanakh is the Hebrew word tahash - which is unfortunately rendered as "badger" in the very inept King James Version (KJV babies have further wandered into "goat", "leather", "porpoise", and even "seal").

Except in Numbers 4:25 and Ezekiel 16:10, tahash is always governed by "or" (ot) which is "skins", and is therefore doubtless the name of an animal of some sorts. In Ezekiel 16:10, it is used in reference to the coverings of a woman's sandals – while its other occurrences all refer to the skins used in covering the tabernacle and its accessories.

As far as I know, the "badger" is rarely, if ever seen meandering through Sinai or Goshen even. Though "goat" is not impossible, it, like "badger" lacks cognate language support.Your TNK presents "dolphin" likely because (i) it is similar to a "dugong" [www.hsi.org.au] (Dugong dugong), but let's face it, how many common reader's would know what a dugong is exactly, and (ii) the Hebrew word tahash is quite cognate to the Arabic tuhas "dugong or dolphin".The bottle-nosed dolphin is found in the eastern Mediterranean, while the dugong is plentiful in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba [www.uaeinteract.com], as well as higher-level deep tributaries in in the northern Nile delta.

Unlike its cousin the bottle-nosed dolphin, the dugong's skin is very thick and durable. The skin of the dugong is still used to this day by Sinai Bedouin to make sandals [www.tesag.jcu.edu.au] - see page 33, subsection "Indigenous Use and Hunting".

If the dugong skin is tough enough to wear on your feet, rest assured Plotz, it is adequate as a covering for the tabernacle and its accessories.

.

Mystery solved ...

Save Me or Remember Me

At Luke 23:42 one reads the words spoken by a criminal – one of two criminals who were hung along with Jesus – one on each side of him. Following a noble public declaration of his own guilt and a standing up in defense of the innocence of Jesus, this one criminal spoke the last words that we are made aware of being simply, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (NIV).

For this particular post, I am not concerned with Jesus response – though for added emphasis of the point I wish to make, it is worth noting that this portion of Luke is often called on to demonstrate the ultimate mercy and forgiveness offered by God through his son. In fact, in nearly all discussions of this verse, it is Jesus response to the thief’s which is the subject of discussion; often serving as a classic example of “forgiveness of sin”, or more commonly the position of many in Christendom that perhaps wish to support that it is faith alone which “saves” - not works (certainly not a Biblical concept, but better a later discussion).

All worthy subjects for discussion for sure – forgiveness, salvation, faith, works, but:

But the criminal never asked for forgiveness of his sin from Jesus. No, what he requested was of Jesus was to “Remember” him; he did not request “Forgive me …”; nor “Do not forget to forgive me …”; not even the standard. “Jesus please come into my heart and save me …”. None of these was said or implied. His words were quite literal and eloquently simple … “Remember me …”

These two simple words spoken and the cultural meaning behind them are all too often covered over by the culture of the Western world rooted so deeply in Greek theology and philosophy. But this thief was not Greek, no, he was Hebrew as Jesus was Hebrew – and it is within this Hebrew culture reflected so well by the Hebrew Scriptures and oral traditions where the thief’s request is fully comprehended.

Archeology as well as Biblical accounts has sufficiently demonstrated that Jewish burial tombs were customarily built outside of the cities, a major exception being those of the kings. Such tombs outside the cities might be an excavated grave in the ground (taphos) or, as was often the case among the Hebrews, might be a natural cave or rock-cut vault (compare Acts 7:16 and Genesis 23:19, 20). The references to such tombs in the Christian Greek Scriptures would all appear to place them outside of the cities, except reference David’s tomb at Acts 2:29.

The Koine Greek word “taphos” presents the notion of burial (from thapto, to bury) as in Matthew 23:27, while mnemeion (from mnaomai, mimnesko, to remind) is a memorial (or sepulcher as a monument). Related to mnemeion is the word mnema, which has a corresponding meaning referring also to a memorial or record of a thing or dead person. Unlike taphos, these later words reflect a greater idea of permanence than taphos – they are in fact the ancestors of the later Latin word monumentum.

Although it was the custom of the pagan peoples around them to make their tombs as lavish as their circumstances would allow, the early Jewish tombs that have been found are notable for their simplicity. This was because the Jews’ worship allowed no veneration of the dead, and did not foster any ideas of a conscious existence after death in a spiritual world, ideas such as those held by their contemporaries – the Egyptians, Canaanites, and Babylonians. The only belief held by the ancient Hebrew even resembling thoughts of “after-life” were limited to a physical resurrection to earth to a restored Garden of Eden (a paradise) at the appointed time.

In view of the underlying thought of remembrance associated with mnemeion, the use of this word (rather than taphos) at John 5:28 with regard to the resurrection of “all those in the memorial tombs” seems particularly appropriate and contrast sharply with the prevailing ancient Hebrew thought of complete repudiation and effacement from all memory as represented by the fate of those tossed away as trash in the Valley of Geh Hinnom (Gehenna) (Matthew 10:28, 23:33, Mr 9:43).

The importance attached to burial by the Hebrews is indicative of their that they be “remembered”, primarily by YHWH (commonly vocalized in English as Jehovah) in whom they had faith who would set a time limit and remember them, and would not leave them forever in sheol (gravedom) – See Job 14:13, Ps 16:10.

How Jehovah God “remembered” them was of vital importance to the ancient Hebrew (Psalms 25:7, Jer 31:34, Psalms 137:6, Psalms 109:15, Proverbs 10:7, Eccl 9:5, Eccl 1:11, Isaiah 43:25, and so on).

Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures, whether one was to be remembered or passed over for remembrance at the appointed time by Jehovah was the direct result of whether one’s name was or was not recorded in Jehovah’s “book or remembrance” – the book he started keeping as first mentioned in Mal 3:16.

Of interest in this regard in Jesus words recorded at John 5:28, “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will here his voice [Jesus – emphasis mine] and come out.”

The Koine Greek word translated as memorial tombs is not the plural of “taphos (grave) or haides (gravedom, the equivalent of Hebrew sheol), nor gehenna (the Valley), - but it is the word mnemeion (remembrance, memorial tomb).

It lays stress on preserving memory of the deceased person. Not those whose memory was “blotted out” in Gehenna because of unforgivable sins but persons remembered by God will be resurrected with the opportunity to live forever (Matthew 10:28, Mark 3:29, Hebrews 10:26, and of course Mal 3:16).

In Acts 24:15 it states “I have hope toward God … that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people, who out of ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected.

Anastasis is the Koine Greek word translated “resurrection”, literally meaning “a standing up again” and it refers to a rising up from death. The fuller expression “resurrection from the dead” is used repeatedly in the Scriptures, and the Hebrew word is techiyath hammethim, which means “revival of the dead”.

The basic idea of “remembrance” involved in the original Koine Greek words for “tomb” or “memorial”, the cultural significance to the ancient Hebrew of how God would “remember” one, and how one was either recorded into to or erased from God’s book or remembrance, is what influence the words of Thief being executed next to Jesus.

He was asking just as he said, to be “remembered”, not forgotten in sheol (gravedom) – to be resurrected from death at Jehovah’s appointed time. The Hebrew word zakar means more than simply “not to forget”, it means to mark, to recall – first used in Genesis of Noah, later of Abraham, it relates to promises made by God, and acted upon by God to fulfill them, and the appointed time – he recalls.

And now also, maybe Jesus response to him makes a bit more sense as well.

The Phrase "Jehovah God"

An examination of Genesis Chapters 2 and 3 alone show that the phrase "Jehovah God" is in fact used over 20 times (understanding that "Jehovah" is the common English vocalization for YHWH (the tetragrammaton). The first occurrence of the phrase appears in Genesis 2:4 as follows:

אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות יהוה אלהים ארץ ושמים

יהוה is YHWH
עשות is Elohim
(remember, Hebrew is read right to left)


Various translations read -

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" – ASV

"These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens" – Darby

"This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens" – WEB

"These 'are' births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens" – Young's Literal

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" – KJV

(If you recall, the KJV replaces every occurrence of "יהוה" or the common English vocalization "Jehovah" with "LORD" to hide the name.)

"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" – NWT

In Chapters 2 and 3 alone, this exact phrase does exist in the original language (20 times), and is rendered so in many translations.

Command and Directive

Is there a difference in concept between a command and a directive? Perhaps to us English speaking person there is, albeit quite subtle. We often use the words interchangeably; after all, how much difference is there in commanding your children to be inside the home prior to sunset, or directing them of the same.

But inside the word directive, is direct – which we also recognize within direction. Now direction, and command, have a wider gap in meaning to us than does directive and command.

Everyone is familiar with the word command; we often see the word commandment used quite often; especially we are most familiar with its use to translate the Hebrew word mits'vah into English - but it really does not wholly convey the underlying concrete meaning of mits'vah.

The word command implies words of force or power as a General commands his troops. The word mits'vah is better understood in English as a directive. To grasp better the picture painted by this word it is helpful to look at a related word, “tsiyon” – its concrete meaning being that of a desert or a landmark.

The Ancient Hebrews were a nomadic people who wandered the deserts searching for pastures to feed and care for their flocks.

Nomads were quite accustomed to using the various rivers, mountains, rock outcroppings, stars, etc as landmarks to give them their direction. The verb form of mits'vah is tsavah meaning to direct one on a journey. The mits'vah of the Bible were not commands, or rules and regulations, to the Hebrew (as we might understand that today). The Hebrew understanding of mits’vah went much deeper - and often more personal.

They were directives - or landmarks that one looked for guidance in order that one should not veer from the path provided; turning neither to the right, or to the left (Deuteronomy 5:32, 28:14, Joshua 1:7, Proverbs 4:27, Isaiah 30:21).

Interestingly, the word “tsiyon” meaning landmark is also the word translated as Zion, the mountain of God but, not just a mountain, it is the very landmark.

hele ben shachar Part I

The rendering "Lucifer" (AV,Da) is derived from the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer comes from a root meaning "to shine" and is a descriptive designation applied to the king of Babylon." Isa. 14:4,12

This shining one is represented as saying in his heart: "Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting." (Isa. 14:13)

Biblical evidence points to Mount Zion as the mountain of meeting." Since stars can refer to kings (Numbers 24:17; Rev. 22:16), the stars of God must be the kings of the Davidic line who ruled from Mount Zion.

In fact the metaphor of a star is specifically used in referring prophetically to the Davidic kings of Judah and Bible history shows that the Babylonian dynasty for a time did rise above these Judean kings by the conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. They did therefore, shine brightly in the ancient world and could be termed "shining one" (Lucifer)

The king of Babylon (or, the dynasty of Babylonian kings) indicated his ambition to lift up his throne above the stars of God by desiring to make the kings of the line of David mere vassals and then finally dethroning them.

Stars are used in the Bible in a figurative sense and in metaphors or similes to represent persons, as in Joseph's dream in which his parents were represented by the sun and moon, and his eleven brothers by eleven stars.(Gen. 37:9,10)

Job 38:7 parallels the morning stars that joyfully cried out at earth's founding with the angelic sons of God.

The resurrected and exalted Jesus spoke of himself as the bright morning star and promised to give the morning star to his conquering followers, this evidently indicating a sharing with him in his heavenly position and glory. (Rev. 22:16; 2:26,28; compare 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:6)

The seven angels of the congregations, to whom written messages are delivered, are symbolized by seven stars in the right hand of Christ. (Rev. 1:16,20; 2:1; 3:1)

The angel of the abyss called Abaddon is also represented by a star. Rev. 9:1,11

Literally, Isaiah uses the term Helel Ben Shachar (הילל בן־שׁחר), light bearer (or shining one), son of the dawn, to refer to the fall of the Babylonian king.
Strong, Briggs, Robinson, and others tell us that the term, הילל, helel, can be translated "shining one".

The King James Version renders vs. 12 as follows: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art though cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations."

In spite of this rendering, the proper name "Lucifer" is NOT in the original Hebrew text. In Hebrew "Lucifer, son of the morning" is helel ben shachar. It could be translated "Shining one, son of the dawn." It is NOT a proper name, but an epithet for the king of Babylon.

In the fourth century C.E., Jerome (340 AD – 419 AD) had risen to prominence within the Roman Catholic Church and began work on a Latin translation of the Bible. After 20 years the translation known as the Vulgate was completed (405 C.E.)

Church historian Schaff says of the Vulgate: "From the present stage of biblical philology and exegesis the Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing, in particulars…"

When he (Jerome) translated Isaiah 14:12, he did not strictly translate the Hebrew helel ben shachar, neither did he use the Greek (LXX) Heosphoros. He instead translated as though the original word had been lukophos. Lukophos, which by Jerome's time, had become an epithet for the gods Apollo and Pan.

Many think that Jerome's selection of words may have been influenced by the theology of the earlier Catholic theologians Tertullian and Origen, who had begun to read Satan into the story of the King of Babylon.

Dr. Roy Blizzard, a well-known Hebrew roots scholar, offers some insightful background, "The history of the origin of a being called Lucifer is interesting. The word Lucifer comes from the Latin verb, luceo, lucere, luxi, which means to shine, to glow, glitter, to be clear. It is light, day dawning. The adjective, lucidus-a-um, means shining, bright, clear, lucid. The noun, lucifer-eri, means the morning star, the planet Venus, or a day. It comes from the adjective lucifer-era-erum, shiny."

The Bible includes no character named Lucifer. Isaiah had never heard of such a being. Nor had the apostles of Jesus' day. Lucifer, as a manifestation of the devil, is a later invention. We find no association between helel ben shachar of Isaiah 14:12 and Satan until the time of Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) and Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.). The proper name "Lucifer" does not find its way into a translation until Jerome's time, some 150 years later.

Dr. Watts summarizes, "The apparent reflection of a 'Lucifer myth' in v. 12 is just that. It is a simile to picture the fall and disgrace of the tyrant." We learn nothing of the origins of Satan from this story.

helel ben shachar - Part II

Question:

"Do you think that the "Shining One, Son of the Morning" may be a reference to the Morning Star (i.e. Venus as it appears in the morning sky)? Or do you think there is another significance (though I doubt that the Afroasiatic peoples with the exception of the Egyptians made much use of helical rising stars in time-keeping measurements)?

If it is a reference to the Morning Star, then the translation of Lucifer is quite apt. If it is a reference to another astronolical phenominon, then it is not."

Response:

If I had a nickel for every individual (scholar and layman) who have attempted association of the Hebrew "helel" to various Canaanite, Ugaritic, Sumerian, Chaldean, Akkadian, and other ancient near east astral myths – I would have been able to retire decades ago in the south of France. There is an entire section within the CUL dedicated to the various thesis, studies, and papers issued in this regard – the majority of course peaking between the 15th and 17th centuries before interest was quashed as Jerome's erroneous theological blunder became quite apparent.

The Hebrew word "helel" is not a proper name, but is rather an epithet. Assigning "Lucifer", or "Bob", or "Mary", or any other proper name to helel is a wide divergence from Hebrew grammar, and simply cannot be supported in the underlying text, nor context. That is problem number one. A larger problem has to do with the fact that "helel ben-shachar" is a "hapax legomenon", appearing only once in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.

Many sources (such as Herder and Gunkel, McKay, Pritchard, Winckler, Day, et al ) are often drawn upon to argue that the Hebrew phrase rendered helel ben shachar is the product of myth, or at least similar in reference to other mystical accounts. These sources reference the astral myths, the mythology from various ancient near east cultures, and alleged mythological phrases that supposedly parallel Isaiah 14:12. The greater majority of these theses dried-up long before the end of the 18th century as more information regarding B-Hebrew became known and available.

You propose the "comparison to Venus" endeavors.

As many have claimed an association with Venus, so have they claimed association with Jupiter, Marduk, Enlil, Arabic (Sahr – the moon god), Hil (Ugaritic god), Nergal, Shahar, even Halley's comet.

As many have proposed the association with astral myth, twice have adequately shown all the approaches problematic for numerous reasons.

An examination of the various existing myths from the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Chaldean, Canaanite, Greek, and Ugaritic et al regions (yes, and even the Nordic) and cultures has demonstrated that any similarities between these myths and the Helel account are typically outweighed by vast differences. In those situations when a cited myth seems to be on point, a careful investigation demonstrates that the historicity of such a myth is in doubt. In essence, there is an absence of any single myth reflecting the totality of the context presented in Isaiah 14:12. This absence of association has been recognized by a number of scholars (my favorite in this regard is Chisholm).

Despite enormous interest in this aspect of Isaiah and innumerable attempts, nobody has yet been able to reconstruct a convincing mythological torso or to determine its precise origin. No known literature matches the details provided in Isaiah, nor has Isaiah been shown to have depended on any mythical source.

It is most probable however, that the prophet simply drew upon existing Hebrew culture and prior biblical material rather than from the mythology of the surrounding culture (compare Job 38:32 and the known Mazzaroth and Ash constellations, and the association with established earthly authority or rulership). The context alone in Isaiah is fairly convincing that it is a Babylonian ruler who is being addressed (and most convincingly, the associated whole of Babylonian rulership/political system).

Rendering "Lucifer" or any other proper name to Isaiah 14:12 is not supported by the Hebrew text and grammatical construct. There is simply nothing with the context of Isaiah 14, or within the entire Hebrew Scriptures, to presume an association to Venus (McKay), as the "morning star". The rendering therefore, and implied association with Lucifer of other origin, is somewhat impotent. There is however, strong evidence that such refers to titles often assigned to themselves by Babylonian Kings (Sayce touches on this, as well as the more contemporary Joan Oates in her and her husbands latest revision of Babylon – just a few suggestions if you are looking for more info).

Does this mean you personally cannot ascribe a higher mystical association with certain Hebrew biblical accounts and other cultural antiquity accounts and literature? Nah. People have been doing such for eons, and I suspect as long as people are more excited about a perceived mystical explanation hidden in the kosmos, the section in the CUL will certainly grow larger over time.

What's in a Name?

A little background on the word - you know that it comes from the verb hawah, meaning to become or exists. In Hebrew thought, that which exists has breath, and the breath was the character of someone. Hawah comes from the primary root, hah, or heh [HH] – which if you open your mouth wide and blow the air from your lungs, you will have pronounced this ancient root word. There are many derivatives which come from HH – hawah [to become or exist]; hayah [to breath, was, come to pass]; chayah [live, life, exist]; neshamah [to blow, or wind from the lungs]; yihyeh [he exists] and so on. HH in the paleo is made up of two “hey”, and the pictograph letter for hey, was the little man, standing with his arms raised out, which singularly, means to “behold” as when looking at a great sight [one might throw their arms up or out in amazement or wonderment], and when beholding a great sight, one often takes in a deep breath, or even “sigh”, with the extended meaning then of “reveal” as well – with the two hey, you have both – a great sight or wonderment itself being the very revealing of life’s breath.

The Waw was the picture of the tent peg, meaning just that, a peg or hook, used to secure something, fixed it in place, even “add” – as the waw is often used and a prefix to words to mean “and” in the sense of adding things together, or bringing together.

The Yad was the side-view of the arm and hand meaning to work, make, throw – all the functions of the hand and arm working together. The Modern Hebrew name “yud” is a derivative of the two letter word “yad” meaning "hand", the original name for the letter. or secure.

The word, yhwh, from a literal academic perspective means “he exists” or as in Genesis 15:6, “b’yhwh“ meaning the “fully existent one”

Yhwh is derived from the root Hh [see above] by placing the Yad in the beginning, or in front of the Hh, and is completed by inserting the waw between the Hh.

By his very own action, his own hand’s work [yad], he is the one to which all life’s breath, wonderment, and revelation [hey hey] are secured and brought together [waw]. He is the very cause and securing factor, of all that exists – that which we call the wonderment or revelation of life through every breath we take.