Posts
Moses really knows how to kill a storyline doesn't he? The action starts to heat up to a boiling point with God commanding that the Midianites be smoted (feel free to use that word in Scrabble) and Moses decides that we need to go over who's in what tribe and how many there are. To be fair, God did kill off a shit load of people during the last few chapters so I guess it doesn't hurt to recount.
Does anyone want to volunteer to compare the counts? We should be able to see which tribe was naughtiest.
In Chapter 27, God grants women property rights but there are conditions.
The good news in this reading is that God tells Moses to go up the mountain and gaze upon the land that the LORD has given his chosen people. The bad news, Moses is going to die like Aaron because he displeased God. Oh well.
Joshua is picked as Moses' replacement (I think) and we're subjected to a rehashing of the burnt and non-burnt offerings.
Chapter 30 finishes up by stating that ultimately women's opinions are subject to male approval.
Numbers 26
ReplyDelete44 The descendants of Asher by their clans were:
through Imnah, the Imnite clan;
through Ishvi, the Ishvite clan;
through Beriah, the Beriite clan;
45 and through the descendants of Beriah:
through Heber, the Heberite clan;
through Malkiel, the Malkielite clan.
46 (Asher had a daughter named Serah.)
47 These were the clans of Asher; those numbered were 53,400.
Note verse 46 where Asher has a daughter named Serah. She originally appeared in the list of Jacob's family going into Egypt (along with Dinah, Jacob's daughter, who isn't in this list). And she'll appear again in 1 Chronicles 7:30. Now daughters don't found clans so why was she here? An answer is that the author used the same source for all three lists and failed to remove Serah (as he did for Dinah) when using it as a basis for the people going into the promised land (and for the Chronicles list). Midrash, however, says that Serah was still alive even down to the time of Chronicles, hence the reason she is in the lists, and beyond (web search for Serah bat Asher for some of the stories).
I thought the past participle of smite was smitten. Are you sure that smoted is a real word? My spell-check doesn't like that but it's not the ultimate authority.
ReplyDeleteSmote is a real word. Smoted isn't (or at least it isn't in the Oxford English Dictionary).
ReplyDeleteThere have been some fun passages this week - I particularly liked Num 23:22 "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." I knew unicorns were worthy of worship! Now to discern what color and what level of visibility they must have to be worthy of my undying obedience.
ReplyDeleteChapters 26-30 were, however, kind of a yawner. I think we've heard the rules for sacrifice and passover before. The inheritance laws are useful - but the "males having the final say over female vows" passages in ch 30 have to grate the nerves of most of the commenters here.
@bananacat1
ReplyDeleteSmitten would sound like the Israelites were fond of the Midianites.
Smoted may not be a REAL word but I think it does a better job of conveying the inherent violence of the situation.
Man, my translations stink. First no badgers and now no unicorns!
ReplyDelete@Susan
ReplyDeleteI know! I've mainly been reading the English Standard Version (and flipping back to the KJV at times) and I TOTALLY missed the unicorns.
You know unicorns still exist today. We will see them mentioned again in Psalms and Isaiah. And i am sure many of you have seen unicorns in real life and never knew they really were called unicorns. Might have been at a local zoo, or if you had been in the African bush.
ReplyDeleteWell you could go with 'smashed'.
ReplyDeleteNote God isn't identical to the unicorn ('blessed be her hooves that smite ignorance') just that his strength was similar (but obviously not equal).
@Edward
ReplyDelete"I am sure many of you have seen unicorns in real life and never knew they really were called unicorns."
Please explain.
@Bruce,
ReplyDelete"In Chapter 27, God grants women property rights but there are conditions."
What conditions are put on the women? I might be miss reading your comment, however the other day you mentioned how God was sexist, so i took this as conditions on the women.
Talking about sexist, if God was, wouldn't He instruct Moses to tell those women to get back in the kitchen and go find a husband and have some kids? :-) And Moses would have recorded, "Yes and that was what i was thinking also Lord."
Reading it myself the conditions are on inheritance transfer. If no sons it goes to daughters, if no sons or daughters then it goes to his brother... etc.
"Chapter 30 finishes up by stating that ultimately women's opinions are subject to male approval."
Again i think this comes from the belief that God is sexist.
Notice in 30:3 it says in her youth. So ya my daughter says she is going to go do something, and i know it's not a good idea, so i tell her she cannot go do it.
In 30:10-15. If my wife who is in my house decides to go out and get a credit card, and she has little to no means of paying it off, and i find out about it, then ya i feel i can put the stop to it. When she racks up a high bill who has the responsibility of paying the thing off? It will be me.
I have two friends that have just went through divorce that their x-wives did this exact thing to them. One of them drained his bank account the day she had him served papers or something like that. She also purchased her son a car and is trying to stick him with the bill.
Granted as lazy as some men are today this rule is and should be reversed in specific situations.
@Skepticali: Yeah, if he as the strength of a unicorn, I wonder if he also has its rainbow-farting capacity. I'm thinking of the end of the flood story.
ReplyDeleteIt's rhinos.
@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteUnicorn is really the Rhinoceros. And no i am not trying to pull some trick. You can even go to Amazon and purchase a book Return of the Unicorns.
In 1828 the definition for Unicorn is such, again from the Noah Webster dictionary:
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.
3. A fowl.
fossil unicorn, or fossil unicorn's horn, a substance used in medicine, a terrene crustaceous spar.
I posted it all, now let's see what he says about rhinoceros.
rhinoceros:
A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, as a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.
So 200 years ago unicorns were know as the rhinoceros, now the KJV was 400 years ago. So how is it we can apply our understanding of unicorn from today to the Bible that was translated into english 400 years ago?
So when you see unicorns in the Bible this is what they are really talking about. And it really makes sense.
We can talk about this more when we get to Deuteronomy 33:17.
I also missed that they are in Deuteronomy and Job as well.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteYou stated;
"Notice in 30:3 it says in her youth. So ya my daughter says she is going to go do something, and i know it's not a good idea, so i tell her she cannot go do it."
But the rest of the chapter clearly states, many times, that a man can override a woman's wishes whenever he feels compelled. The only time a woman is responsible for her actions/words is when a man says nothing.
Also, Rhinos have two horns. The one in front is just larger then the other.
http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/white-rhinoceros:ceratotherium-simum-photo-1337.html
I stand corrected. Indian Rhinos have one horn. http://blog.oregonlive.com/photos/2008/04/animal_of_the_day_14.html
ReplyDeleteI'm late!
ReplyDeleteThis is all P, except 28 & 29, which are continuation of the separate, tabernacle-less law from Numbers 15.
So does the 2nd census in chapter 26 account for all the people God smottened? I'm way not interested enough to compare them. Except Simeon drops from 59,300 to 22,200!
Ch. 28 rehashes law from Leviticus 23; compare especially 28:16-26 and Lev. 23:5-8
Ch. 30 is damned sexist: any oath a woman makes is null and void if her father or husband questions it. *Even if she's a widow.* (Huh?)
On the Unicorn, my New English Bible translates 23:22 as "What its curving horns are to the wild ox, God is to them, who brought them out of Egypt."
The word in question, רְאֵם, is only used in three places: in two of Balaam's curses (23:22 and 24:8 are nearly identical!) and an old poem from Deuteronomy (again in a very similar context).
But the only passage that mentions horns is Deuteronomy. (I'm starting to get seriously annoyed by my Bible's loose translation. THERES NO MENTION OF HORNS WHY FUCKING ADD THEM IN???)
Actually the oath of a widowed or divorced woman was binding on her. Also a man could only nullify without penalty his wife's or daughter's vow on the day he heard about it. If he nullified it later, he was guilty of breaking the vow not her. Still sexist.
ReplyDeleteUnicorns crept in with the first Greek translation which used monokernos for the creature. Cognates from other Semitic language suggested the animal is the wild ox (auroch) which is why more recent translations use that.
@Bruce,
ReplyDelete"But the rest of the chapter clearly states, many times, that a man can override a woman's wishes whenever he feels compelled. The only time a woman is responsible for her actions/words is when a man says nothing."
Yes if you view is that men are all sexist pigs and they treat their wife like property, then yes you could see it that way.
Can i ask you this questions. See in Genesis 3:1-6 woman made a decision. Would you had rather had Adam tell her NO (and himself because he was in the greater sin here, being the head of the family) and rebuked that serpent? Would you have considered that sexist and Adam imposing on his wife's wishes?
@Abbie,
ReplyDelete"*Even if she's a widow.* (Huh?)"
You read that wrong. From the KJV i see you are having issues with yours.
30:9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.
She takes a vow, say she remarries, it will stand.
She is a widow, her husband is dead, so verse 10 and on in this context does not apply to the widow.
If it's not sexist, then why does it say the father can overrule his daughter's vows, or a husband can overrule his wife's vows, but it doesn't say anything about a father overruling his young son's vows or a wife overruling her husband's vows? I've noticed that the only time that the bible mentions women is to put limits on them ;-)
ReplyDelete@Edward
ReplyDelete"Can i ask you this questions. See in Genesis 3:1-6 woman made a decision. Would you had rather had Adam tell her NO (and himself because he was in the greater sin here, being the head of the family) and rebuked that serpent? Would you have considered that sexist and Adam imposing on his wife's wishes?"
Question; Are you serious?