I believe the translation does come from the Vulgate. Do you mean that the capital A in "And" makes no sense?
One Latin version has Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terræ, et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitæ, et factus est homo in animam viventem.
Notice that the Vulgate employs igitur as the postpositive.
de limo terræ is apparently being rendered "from slime of the earth."
limo could also be translated "mud" or "muck." Other meanings of the word are possible. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/limus#Latin
Just how well does Jerome's Vulgate represent what's in the Hebrew text or in the DSS?
What directly precedes in the text of the version you are quoting?
The version containing limo is an interpretation, not so much a translation, but I think it has the previous verse in mind. Have you heard of the term "slip" used in pottery. I wonder if there are any ancient Roman texts on pottery technique and how they might describe the process, it is very ancient. It is also used to make statues in moulds.
This is why I think the ".And" is a modern interpretation on the Latin. Layers of adjustment.
See https://www.biblestudytools.com/vula/genesis/2-6.html
I'm not sure why Jerome chose limo in Genesis 2:7; it would take some study to find the potential reason. In many ways, he was a good translator. Maybe he did have 2:6 in mind.
I don't remember that use of slip, and it would be interesting to learn more about Roman pottery texts.
"And" would not have been my first choice for igitur. In Latin class, we normally translated it, by using "threfore, then" or some equivalent thereof.
See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=igitur
Concerning Genesis 2:7, Victor Hamilton has lots of helpful things to say, but here's one thing he observes:
It is taking too much liberty with Heb. ʿāpār to render it “mud” or “clay” so that yāṣar in v. 7 may carry the force of “do the work of a potter.” There are, to be sure, instances where hōmer is used in parallelism with ʿāpar (Job 4:19; 10:9; 27:16; 30:19), but such parallelism argues at best for overlap in meaning rather than identity in meaning.
Hamilton, Victor P.. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) (Kindle Locations 2895-2898). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.
As I said before, clay is not my preference for apar, and the parallelism is weak. But I am interested in how the first century and later might interpret through that lens. This is a smaller number for apar - https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/13-16.htm ,contrast howl Genesis 32:12.
I think one of the best arguments for my interpretation of dung is https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/8-16.htm
Its just a pity that we cannot know for sure the meaning of https://biblehub.com/hebrew/lechinnim_3654.htm But many things can emerge from it & it would fit the account.
For Exodus 8:14-17, see Propp's Anchor Bible Commentary, Exodus 1-18.
Umberto Cassuto (Exodus, page 105): What these כניkinnlm were, is not precisely clear. Undoubtedly, they were insects, but apparently not those called by this name today [i.e. 'lice']. Since they issued from the dust of the earth, and the dust brought them upon man and beast, it appears that they were capable of flying and had wings. Perhaps some kind of fly or gnat is meant, for they, too, are an endemic affliction of Egypt (possibly it was the kind called by the Egyptians hnms).
See the sources here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01iXV0EngvH8N9qH25M57GmiFnRrQ%3A1615582679589&ei=19VLYO3SI-Xl_Qbhi6CwDw&q=g+kritsky+insects+egypt&oq=g+kritsky+insects+egypt&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQghEKABOgoIIxCwAxDJAxAnOgcIABBHELADOgUIIRCrAjoHCCEQChCgAVD9pAJY1LYCYNK6AmgBcAJ4AIAB8QWIAfMPkgEJMC4zLjMuNi0xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesgBCcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwitmuO90qvvAhXlct8KHeEFCPYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5
Was it the dung per se? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54694fa6e4b0eaec4530f99d/t/550508ffe4b0595113f0e634/1426393343707/Dogs+in+the+Second+Temple+Period+2004.pdf
But one thing is certain in nature, most animals avoid the dung of predators (heavy meat eaters).
The quotes from numerous translation that use "dust" & "gnats" don't really tell us anything regarding the original terms. Remember the birds in Deuteronomy?
I'm not aying the translations are 100% on point, but they usually have a reason why a certain rendering is chosen. For example, I find the note in NET for Exod 8:16 to be helpful, even if there is uncertainty about how to render the verse.
I have not worked out a full-blown explanation for the apparent Jewish aversion to dung, but think Deut. 23:14 and the phrase, "dungy idols."
No one strikes the aphar/apar in the Exodus account?
Exodus 8:16-17 ESV: Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Stretch out your staff and strike the dust of the earth, so that it may become gnats in all the land of Egypt.’” And they did so. Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff and struck the dust of the earth, and there were gnats on man and beast. All the dust of the earth became gnats in all the land of Egypt.
Here's a note from the NABRE for Exod 8:16-17 [8:12, 17 NABRE]:
Gnats, flies: it is uncertain what species of troublesome insects are meant here in vv. 12–14 and then in vv. 17–27, the identification as “gnat” (vv. 12–14) and as “fly” (vv. 17–27) being based on the rendering of the Septuagint. Others suggest “lice” in vv. 12–14, while rabbinic literature renders Hebrew ‘arob in vv. 17–27 as a “mixture of wild animals.” In the Hebrew of the Old Testament, the word occurs only in the context of the plagues (see also Ps 78:45 and 105:31).
Many sources point toward viewing the creature, whatever it is, as a flying insect: that seems most plausible in light of the overall data. Still, we can't be certain now what the word means.
Josephus’ description of the conditions within the walls of Jerusalem during the final siege of the Romans in the Jewish War (66-73 CE) is intended to evoke the strongest reaction by his readers (Josephus, Jewish War 5.571):
. . . the corpses of the lower classes thrown out through the gates amounted in all to 600,000; of the rest it was impossible to discover the number. They added that, when strength failed them to carry out the poor, they piled the bodies in the largest mansions and shut them up; also that a measure of corn had been sold for a talent, and that later when it was no longer possible to gather herbs, the city being all walled in, some were reduced to such straits that they searched the sewers and for old cow dung and ate the offal therefrom, and what once would have disgusted them to look at had now become food.
From https://bible.org/article/brief-word-study-skuvbalon
Isrealites kept human dung outside the camp, but what did they burn to keep warm at night?
Nothing I have posted so far endorses the eating of dung for humans. Heavy grazing animals do eat from parents, to acquire essential bacteria and enzymes. Hippo and rhyno are two examples.
But in some circumstances - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325128#what-is-a-fecal-transplant
"Endemic" is not the correct term - "native and restricted to a certain place." is the definition.
If he means restricted to the Nile that is not restriction to a place of small scale. Unless he is to specify a specific frog restricted to a specific location. Frogs are native to most places on the planet.
Another consideration about suggesting that Exodus is potentially discussing dung beetles is a consideration of how the Hebrew word was used. Again, it's an obscure term, but I normally look for evidence that terms were used a certain way: do we have any sources/commentary from antiquity that even suggests dung beetles were part of the Exodus blows?
When I first read your comment about striking the dust, I had gnats on my mind. Okay, true, the dust was not struck for the flies. However, I don't see a command to strike the dust for the flies, it's only for the gnats. Different methods for disparate plagues.
The whole dung conversation started because of Genesis 2:7. I see dung as an unlikely candidate for making Adam for the previous reasons I've stated earlier, but one other consideration was the apparent Jewish aversion to dung of all kinds. To put dung on someone's face was considered an insult, and "dungy idols" was the ultimate putdown for idolatry. As Paul wrote, I consider all I've left behind as skybalon. That, coupled with Deut. 23:12-14 makes the possibility unlikely.
Looking back at Cassuto's remarks, he wrote:
"Perhaps some kind of fly or gnat is meant, for they, too, are an endemic affliction of Egypt (possibly it was the kind called by the Egyptians hnms)"
So he's talking about flies or gnats, not frogs. And he does narrow down the reference to hnms.
R. Alan Cole: "Gnats: the word occurs only here and in passages based on this context, and its exact meaning is conjectural. ‘Fleas’ or ‘sandflies’ are other suggestions: but ‘mosquitoes’ may be the best translation."
John Durham's remarks. Sorry that Kindle does not let the Hebrew script to come through:
. is variously rendered “gnats, swarm of gnats, lice, mosquitoes, maggots.” The harvester gnat (Chironomidae), the Anopheles mosquito, and the sandfly (Psychodidae) have all been proposed as possibilities (Frerichs, “Gnat,” IDB 2: 403). appears to be a more general term, derived from “mix” and referring to a “mixture” or “swarm” of flying insects; thus is generally translated “flies.” JB translates by “gadflies,” and some commentators refer to stinging flies (Honeycutt, BBC 1: 356; Driver, 66–67), the biting fly Stomoxys calcitrans (Hort, ZAW 69 [1957] 99, 101– 3), and even the devouring scarab beetle (Knight, 63– 64). The is not said in the account of the fourth mighty act to bite or sting, however; Exod 8: 20[ 24] says that the land was “devastated” or “ruined” () by it, a term used in Ps 78: 45 of the effect upon the Egyptians of the frogs, while the is said, in that same verse, to have “eaten” () them. The use of both terms in Ps 105: 31 is not much help, since could obviously include as flying insects, and the parallelism is not necessarily synonymous.
Durham, Dr. John I.. Exodus, Volume 3 (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 203). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
Durham, Dr. John I.. Exodus, Volume 3 (Word Biblical Commentary) (pp. 202-203). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
The commentary I linked from google books states that dung beetles are a possibility but I am not able to see the full detail and footnotes of the page.
The older commentaries are here:- https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.8.13?lang=bi&with=Commentary&lang2=en
Unless they go into specifics, they are only using the same Hebrew word so I do not think they help. But to throw the question back over the fence - what ancient commentaries specifically describe lice or gnats, by function or form?
One has to think about how this works:- "all the dust of the earth turned to lice throughout the land of Egypt."
The methods for the plagues is the point.
IMO, skybalon is not specifically dung & Deut 23:12-14 is only referring to one type of dung - human. But I have to labour the obvious question, how did the Israelites keep warm at night?
I may have mentioned this before, but it is an important read IMHO:- https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Nomads-Murrah-Bedouin-Empty-Quarter-Worlds/30857150980/bd?cm_mmc=ggl-_-UK_Shopp_Tradestandard-_-product_id=COUK9780202011189USED-_-keyword=&gclid=CjwKCAiA4rGCBhAQEiwAelVti2JvygVDc2ciGrCnK8QWAeFZrFUYGrvH_i13jZA3I7gUBEUwKl7cjRoC3UcQAvD_BwE
The point about frogs is that they are one of the plagues and the principle still stands for any generic description of an animal or insect.
Please excuse the evolutionary spin, but lice IMO is not even an option because they have always been a problem - Its nothing special & it does not deal with the gods.
Even if you opted for this:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesh_fly It still does not get away from dung.
8.1 2-15: The third plague: vermin. The Heb term refers to some small insect, such as mosquitoes or lice.
12 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: Hold out your rod and strike the dust of the earth, and it shall turn to lice throughout the land of Egypt." 13 And they did so. Aaron held out his arm with the rod and struck the dust of the earth, and vermin came upon man and beast; all the dust of the earth turned to lice throughout the land of Egypt. 14 The magicians did the like with their spells to produce lice, but they could not. The vermin remained upon man and beast; 15 and the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God!" But Pharaoh's heart stiffened and he would not heed them, as the LORD had spoken
See above where I cited a source that list scarab beetles as a possibility. So I acknowledged tat scarab beetles are contenders, but maybe doubtful ones.
You'll notice that Jewish versions of the Bible tend to favor the "lice" translation. Earlier, I also pointed to the NET note that gave some ancient data for why Exodus 8:16-17 has been translated one way or another. NET reports for Exod 8:16:
tn The noun is כִּנִּים (kinnim). The insect has been variously identified as lice, gnats, ticks, flies, fleas, or mosquitoes. “Lice” follows the reading in the Peshitta and Targum (and so Josephus, Ant. 2.14.3 [2.300]). Greek and Latin had “gnats.” By “gnats” many commentators mean “mosquitoes,” which in and around the water of Egypt were abundant (and the translators of the Greek text were familiar with Egypt). Whatever they were they came from the dust and were troublesome to people and animals.
Skybalon might be dung or it could be refuse. I've posted evidence for both views in the recent past. Whatever it was, Paul found it off-putting. Whether human or animal excrement/dung, the Jews repeatedly found it disgusting and used dung imagery to communicate their disgust and aversion. Plenty of references show this point.
Okay, how did Israel keep warm at night? I know they lit fires for one.
I'm not dogmatic about the plague being lice, but I've noticed that Jewish exegetes/translations favor this explanation for some reason. I guess NET explains why.
If it was a dung beetle, so be it. That's still a long way from Adam being made from dung, mud or slime :-)
I will continue to look at apar but my main thought on this is that life is recognised from the dirt (manure being one form) and that the apar was not inert. The term "dust" does not do it justice.
I have slept in the Arizona desert in late spring - the first night I had quite a shock. 117 degrees in the day, but I awoke in the middle of the night shivering uncontrollably. I had to grab every piece of clothing I could find to put over me.
So what do 6 million people use to keep warm at night - if they used trees and bushes they would have stripped each area bare in no time.
Against the mosquitos that abound, the following have been devised by them: those who dwell higher up than the marshy country are well served by the towers where they ascend to sleep, for the winds prevent the mosquitos from flying aloft;
I will make these concluding remarks. If you read much of the literature on this subject, it's apparent that lice means something different for translators using this term. See https://www.biblestudytools.com
For the record, I'm not saying which rendering is correct.
More than once, I've conceded that apar might not be dust in Gen. 2:7 or elsewhere. Remember how Speiser renders apar? But the fact that creatures were produced from apar does not necessarily mean the miracle happened because apart was inert, although Jehovah can use so-called secondary causes.
Israel could have used manure for fuel as the nation possibly did in tough times. The truth is that we don't know.
Looks to me like he is interpreting through Aramaic. But remember what I said long ago about the book of Daniel & "serving" a god being tied up with agriculture.
I believe that "he" might be a she although I could be wrong, but regardless, I'm not sure why you think Wolde is interpreting through Aramaic. And is "serving" necessarily tied to agriculture in Daniel?
I am not surprised that the biblical scholars cannot see the connections - what do they know about agriculture? I am not trying to belittle them but they need to extend there scope. We don't need an eco version of the bible, but we do need to recognise daily life.
Quickly, I'll just say that the Exodus passage is not talking about agriculture IMHO, but sacrifice. I'm speaking from first impressions and have not checked this point. Secondly, I see nothing in the Joshua passage that would remotely suggest agriculture is at play, and as for biblical scholars knowing about agriculture, you might be surprised. :-)
Biblical scholars and theologins know about many things. No, they're not usually specialists when it comes to agriculture or physics or math, but some are.
"I see nothing in the Joshua passage that would remotely suggest agriculture is at play" - and herein lies the problem.
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1773/1/1773.pdf
pg. 190.
"It is also the point where the overall ambiguity collapses completely. The last condition from both sides are, at first viewing, ridiculous on any level. Pharaoh tells Moses that all the people may go, but that the animals must be left behind (10: 24). Previously he has agreed that they may sacrifice to YHWH (nst 8: 3 [7]; 24 [28]). Now he agrees that they may >>serve YHWH<<, but they cannot take any animals. If by it he means sacrifice', then this is nonsensical; what are they to sacrifice? If, however, he seems to be accepting a deeper meaning of `serve', with the implication that they would not be coming back, then this condition is similar to that of retaining the dependants. They could not `serve' YHWH, as they would have to return to serve Pharaoh because they could not survive in the wilderness without their livestock. 498 "
Skirting around the edge of the real point.
The Levitical priesthood and the regime of sacrifice had not been instituted yet. To the ancients cattle was portable wealth. killing livestock and sacrifice are one and the same. Same also goes for the later Greeks. Did the people get none of the meat?
Animal husbandry is part of agriculture - we have the term "serve" here & the term only re-emerges when they have arrived in the land of inheritance.
I would be very interested in looking at the work of any biblical scholar who also claims a reasonable knowledge of the agriculture? And obviously, I do not mean in the modern sense.
Other gods in Uruk apparently also owned arable land and had their own ploughmen. In the imittu list YBC 4165 (not dated) one person is designated as ikkaru ¡a U‚ur-am¤ssu. For this deity from the entourage of I¡tar and Nan¤ya see Beaulieu 2003: 226ff.
Book about Scripture and agrarian culture. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7GVuBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT12&dq=bible+scholar+with+a+good+knowledge+of+agriculture&ots=BvLmN4FIz8&sig=80GTO7rhQsr9mC-5VYiK8frCq7c#v=onepage&q=bible%20scholar%20with%20a%20good%20knowledge%20of%20agriculture&f=false
For some reason, I now have trouble accessing the Durham dissertations. At one time, I could, but not anymore.
I know you realize that worshipers of Jehovah/YHWH sacrificed before the Levitical priesthood was established, right? Killing livestock and sacrificing them were one and the same to the ancients? Really?
What about when killing for food but not when offering the meat to a god/God?
Not all Israelite sacrifices resulted in the people getting meat. Maybe in the communion sacrifices, but not with every type of offering.
Okay, you know that just because a term reemerges in the land of inheritance does not mean the term is associated with agriculture. Those two things just don't bear a necessary relation to one another: try that with some other terms and see how things go.
Service: as is obvious from v. 25, the service in question here is the offering of sacrifice. The continued use of the verb ‘bd “to serve” and related nouns for both the people’s bondage in Egypt and their subsequent service to the Lord dramatizes the point of the conflict between Pharaoh and the God of Israel, who demands from the Israelites an attachment which is exclusive. See Lv 25:55.
Those animals were to be transplanted from Egypt to Canaan. Their domestic animals.
We have already been through how other nations animals were to be destroyed.
If they had so much of them on the journey & they we not seen a precious then why worry about quails or mana? The law basically prevented them from eating bush meat, which would have been suicidal after 40 years & the population. They would have stripped the land bare.
If you think that sacrifice only served a single function, then you are sorely mistaken, see 2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Kings 8:63. - Balance
Do you think that every tribe wanted to give up that much livestock? This was Solomon's sacrifice - not theirs, a necessary tax - 1 Chronicles 21:1.
The argument put foreword from Exod 10:25 is an all or nothing scenario which makes no sense. Pharaoh could have sent them off with a handful of animals for one sacrifice.
Quite frankly, I said very little about eating meat, so I'm not sure how I overly emphasized ancient meat eating.
The example you gave from Exod 10:25-26 does not seem to help your case: the context shows sacrifice was the issue along with leaving Egypt and never coming back. The issue was not agriculture. And it can easily be proved that we don't establish senses for words by the method you mentioned earlier. Besides, the Bible accounts are not ordered chronologically, so there is that problem added to the mix. Please run your idea for the meaning of "service" past a professional philologist or lexicographer and see what he/she thinks.
We know the Levitical priests got meat from the communion sacrifices, but what about the others?
Priests did not eat the meat of a burnt offering: everything went to Jehovah. In the case of the grain offering, the priests ate part of the sacrifice, but it was not meat.
The priests also consumed some of the guilt offering and the communion offering, as mentioned earlier. In the case of the sin offering, the animal was eaten at times, but not necessarily every time. See Lev. 4:3-21; 6:30.
I never said that sacrifice had only one function, but what I might have said (correct me if you I'm mistaken), is that the primary reason for sacrifice was religious. An example of this kind of thing in the Christian congregation is the Lord's evening meal. As Paul intimated to the Corinthians, we're not observing the Lord's death just to eat bread and drink wine. It is not a party. Similarly with the ancient sacrifices.
Lest we forget, Solomon offered up this sacrifice to God as part of the temple's inauguration. Yes, it was primarily Solomon's sacrifice, but he was doing it, in behalf of true worship and for his people. You make it sound like the sacrifice posed a burden on his subjects. Yet that is not the thrust of the account. Read 1 Chronicles 29.
On Exod 10:26, see above. It makes perfect sense to me why Moses did not want just enough to sacrifice, then return. Go back to the earlier part of Exodus where Jehovah demanded that Pharaoh let his people go. Let's not complexify what is fairly simple. See Exodus 5:1-4, which again mentions sacrifices and contains YHWH's command to let his people go. He wanted them out of Egypt permanently and the ruler of Egypt should have gotten that point as the severity of the plagues increased. His heart condition was also becoming more apparent with each plague.
I'm going to start working on my next blog entry and take care of some other matters. See you another time :)
Ellicott's Commentary: (26) Our cattle also shall go with us.—Once more Moses rejects the proffered compromise—rejects it absolutely and altogether. The cattle shall all go with the people; “not an hoof shall be left behind.” And why? First, because it is theirs (“our cattle,” “our flocks,” “our herds”), and not Pharaoh’s; secondly, because it is God’s—all, to the last head, if He requires it; and He has not said as yet how much of it He will require. The festival to be held in the wilderness is altogether a new thing; its ritual has not at present been laid down. The people will only be told “with what they must serve the Lord” when they are come to the place where they are to serve Him: i.e., to Sinai (Exodus 3:12).
do not know how [much] we will worship-: How intense the worship will be. Perhaps He will ask for more than we have in our possession. — [from Exod. Rabbah 18:1]
Yes 1 Chronicles 29 is a worthwhile read with particular attention on v6-9.
Do you know what is really interesting about it? - it does not mention the free donation of livestock. Was there no need for Leviticus 22:22 by the time of Solomon?
Of special note is 1 Chronicles V21,22.
Sacrifice & eat.
https://www.bu.edu/asor/pubs/books-monographs/nakhai.pdf pg 30. Makes an interesting argument but I need to look into that one further.
Exodus 17:3 “Anyone from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat in the camp, or slaughters it outside the camp, 4 and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the [a]tabernacle of the Lord, bloodshed is to be counted against that person."
Not a sacrifice - then what does this mean otherwise?
Firstly, I don't think the Hebrew overturns Rashi's suggestion/interpretation. He seems to regard the act of serving (in this case) as tied up with sacrifice/worship, which makes sense in the light of Exod 10:25 and 5:1-4. The act of sacrifice appears clear to me and the sources I've consulted so far all confirm the sacrifice angle for 10:26.
On the voluntary donation of animals/livestock, see 1 Chronicles 29:13-14, 20-22.
Furthermore, I've found parallels between the inauguration of Solomon's temple and the installation of the Aaronic priesthood.
Lev. 22:22 prohibits the offering of lame, maimed and blind sacrifices. It surely applied in Solomon's day just as it did in Moses' and in Malachi's time (Malachi 1:6-8).
As stated in my prior response, Israel consumed meat with some of the sacrifices, but not always.
The last passage you quoted is not Exod 17:3, I don't believe, but I would have to look at the context before replying. In any event, I've given examples where sacrifices were made but no meat was eaten like the whole burnt offering.
Are you sure that a "whole burnt offering" is actually the whole animal burned?
Leviticus 4:3–21 I will admit was burned completely but IMO this was far more than just a sacrifice. It was a response to Apis or at least what happened when Moses ascended for the tablets.
See J. Milgrom's article, "A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11" in JBL (1971).
For another perspective, see https://books.google.com/books?id=JdbBcLWt_6wC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=leviticus+17:3+rooker&source=bl&ots=aWvIuGxzoj&sig=ACfU3U3pIW8-V00rZ2Nt_Bo5lyGQbQFE1w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0-r7QhbbvAhWSmuAKHZMXD_M4HhDoATAFegQIEhAD#v=onepage&q=leviticus%2017%3A3%20rooker&f=false
Thanks, my comments about Milgrown (etc) pertain to Lev. 17:3.
When I said the burnt offering was entirely consumed, I was quoting W.K. Gilders:
Burnt offering (Hebrew, ‘olah; literally, “ascending offering”; Lev 1, Lev 6:8-13) could be a herd or flock animal (bull, sheep, or goat) or a bird (dove or pigeon). The whole animal was burned in the altar fire. It was the most extravagant sacrifice because the entirety was given to God.
From a JW publication, a definition for burnt offering:
An animal sacrifice that was burned on the altar as a total offering to God; no part of the animal (bull, ram, male goat, turtledove, or young pigeon) was kept by the worshipper.—Ex 29:18; Le 6:9.
Yes, there are numerous studies on Eden and the tabernacle, including G.K. Beale's work. I have mixed feelings about such approaches and think they read later ideas into earlier texts. I look at how abad is used in other texts and while "serve" is possible in 2:5; 3:23, I don't necessarily equate worshiping God with agriculture.
97 comments:
https://omnika.conscious.ai/artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls-4q7-4q-gen-g
Did you note the translation here? based on the vulgate I think?
2:7 - And with a capital A, which makes no sense but it is the "slime" I find most interesting.
I believe the translation does come from the Vulgate. Do you mean that the capital A in "And" makes no sense?
One Latin version has Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terræ, et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitæ, et factus est homo in animam viventem.
Notice that the Vulgate employs igitur as the postpositive.
de limo terræ is apparently being rendered "from slime of the earth."
limo could also be translated "mud" or "muck." Other meanings of the word are possible. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/limus#Latin
Just how well does Jerome's Vulgate represent what's in the Hebrew text or in the DSS?
What directly precedes in the text of the version you are quoting?
The version containing limo is an interpretation, not so much a translation, but I think it has the previous verse in mind. Have you heard of the term "slip" used in pottery. I wonder if there are any ancient Roman texts on pottery technique and how they might describe the process, it is very ancient. It is also used to make statues in moulds.
This is why I think the ".And" is a modern interpretation on the Latin. Layers of adjustment.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/limo/hd_limo.htm
Possible etymology from Latin into French?
See https://www.biblestudytools.com/vula/genesis/2-6.html
I'm not sure why Jerome chose limo in Genesis 2:7; it would take some study to find the potential reason. In many ways, he was a good translator. Maybe he did have 2:6 in mind.
I don't remember that use of slip, and it would be interesting to learn more about Roman pottery texts.
"And" would not have been my first choice for igitur. In Latin class, we normally translated it, by using "threfore, then" or some equivalent thereof.
See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060:entry=igitur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_red_slip_ware
Not sure about the etymology, but it is interesting that it is called slip & is red.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_sigillata#Forerunners
A couple of useful pages:-
http://potsherd.net/atlas/potsherd
https://romanpotterystudy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Standard_for_Pottery_Studies_in_Archaeology.pdf
unfortunately these are all about the pots but not any texts.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/19898697.pdf
Thanks for posting this information. I found it to be quite helpful, even if finding the proper etymologies for the relevant terms pose a challenge.
See https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2016/AEB_31/um/PEACOCK_1982.pdf
Also compare http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D35%3Achapter%3D46
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-0465-2_1636
Concerning Genesis 2:7, Victor Hamilton has lots of helpful things to say, but here's one thing he observes:
It is taking too much liberty with Heb. ʿāpār to render it “mud” or “clay” so that yāṣar in v. 7 may carry the force of “do the work of a potter.” There are, to be sure, instances where hōmer is used in parallelism with ʿāpar (Job 4:19; 10:9; 27:16; 30:19), but such parallelism argues at best for overlap in meaning rather than identity in meaning.
Hamilton, Victor P.. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) (Kindle Locations 2895-2898). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.
As I said before, clay is not my preference for apar, and the parallelism is weak.
But I am interested in how the first century and later might interpret through that lens.
This is a smaller number for apar - https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/13-16.htm ,contrast howl Genesis 32:12.
I think one of the best arguments for my interpretation of dung is https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/8-16.htm
Its just a pity that we cannot know for sure the meaning of https://biblehub.com/hebrew/lechinnim_3654.htm
But many things can emerge from it & it would fit the account.
Hamilton also claims that mud (and I presume, "slime") is not an appropriate translation either.
I've got to work in the muck that is my yard, but prima facie, I don't see how Exod 8:16 is talking about dung. Will do more probing later.
Hope you also get to read the Pliny reference.
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/8-17.htm
Now lets just translate this as "dung beetle". You know what the Egyptians thought of them and the implications. In line with all the other plagues.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XA9gDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=Exodus+8:16+dung+beetle&source=bl&ots=A_7tOSHTDx&sig=ACfU3U3n5YKn5AR-FZIuQbD9TQ2Ku3_6wQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGsMXrwavvAhVKTxUIHQmDB4M4FBDoATAEegQIAxAD#v=onepage&q=dung%20beetle&f=false
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1107/1107.3831.pdf
http://www.brianjford.com/CF34.pdf
For Exodus 8:14-17, see Propp's Anchor Bible Commentary, Exodus 1-18.
Umberto Cassuto (Exodus, page 105): What these כניkinnlm were, is not precisely clear. Undoubtedly, they were insects, but apparently not those called by this name today [i.e. 'lice']. Since they issued from the dust of the earth, and the dust brought them upon man and beast, it appears that they were capable of flying and had wings. Perhaps some
kind of fly or gnat is meant, for they, too, are an endemic affliction
of Egypt (possibly it was the kind called by the Egyptians hnms).
See the sources here: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01iXV0EngvH8N9qH25M57GmiFnRrQ%3A1615582679589&ei=19VLYO3SI-Xl_Qbhi6CwDw&q=g+kritsky+insects+egypt&oq=g+kritsky+insects+egypt&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQghEKABOgoIIxCwAxDJAxAnOgcIABBHELADOgUIIRCrAjoHCCEQChCgAVD9pAJY1LYCYNK6AmgBcAJ4AIAB8QWIAfMPkgEJMC4zLjMuNi0xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesgBCcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwitmuO90qvvAhXlct8KHeEFCPYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5
Exodus 8:16-17 NET Bible. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%208&version=NET
One thing that's also crossed my mind is how the ancient Jews tended to view dung, especially dog dung.
Was it the dung per se?
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54694fa6e4b0eaec4530f99d/t/550508ffe4b0595113f0e634/1426393343707/Dogs+in+the+Second+Temple+Period+2004.pdf
But one thing is certain in nature, most animals avoid the dung of predators (heavy meat eaters).
The quotes from numerous translation that use "dust" & "gnats" don't really tell us anything regarding the original terms. Remember the birds in Deuteronomy?
Also a normal "endemic affliction" is not the point of these accounts, just like the plague of frogs. Yes Egypt always had frogs, but endemic?
However it did have Heqet and also Khepri.
https://www.medicaldaily.com/use-poop-medical-treatments-throughout-history-400497
Note also that no one strikes the apar for the flies.
https://academic.oup.com/ae/article-abstract/31/2/15/2841712?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I'm not aying the translations are 100% on point, but they usually have a reason why a certain rendering is chosen. For example, I find the note in NET for Exod 8:16 to be helpful, even if there is uncertainty about how to render the verse.
I have not worked out a full-blown explanation for the apparent Jewish aversion to dung, but think Deut. 23:14 and the phrase, "dungy idols."
No one strikes the aphar/apar in the Exodus account?
Exodus 8:16-17 ESV: Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Stretch out your staff and strike the dust of the earth, so that it may become gnats in all the land of Egypt.’” And they did so. Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff and struck the dust of the earth, and there were gnats on man and beast. All the dust of the earth became gnats in all the land of Egypt.
Here's a note from the NABRE for Exod 8:16-17 [8:12, 17 NABRE]:
Gnats, flies: it is uncertain what species of troublesome insects are meant here in vv. 12–14 and then in vv. 17–27, the identification as “gnat” (vv. 12–14) and as “fly” (vv. 17–27) being based on the rendering of the Septuagint. Others suggest “lice” in vv. 12–14, while rabbinic literature renders Hebrew ‘arob in vv. 17–27 as a “mixture of wild animals.” In the Hebrew of the Old Testament, the word occurs only in the context of the plagues (see also Ps 78:45 and 105:31).
Many sources point toward viewing the creature, whatever it is, as a flying insect: that seems most plausible in light of the overall data. Still, we can't be certain now what the word means.
I think Cassuto means "endemic" in the sense of being restricted to a certain area or place. Frogs were endemic to Egypt.
One more thing about Jews and dung:
Josephus’ description of the conditions within the walls of Jerusalem during the final siege of the Romans in the Jewish War (66-73 CE) is intended to evoke the strongest reaction by his readers (Josephus, Jewish War 5.571):
. . . the corpses of the lower classes thrown out through the gates amounted in all to 600,000; of the rest it was impossible to discover the number. They added that, when strength failed them to carry out the poor, they piled the bodies in the largest mansions and shut them up; also that a measure of corn had been sold for a talent, and that later when it was no longer possible to gather herbs, the city being all walled in, some were reduced to such straits that they searched the sewers and for old cow dung and ate the offal therefrom, and what once would have disgusted them to look at had now become food.
From https://bible.org/article/brief-word-study-skuvbalon
See Ezekiel 4:12 which the Targum renders "before the carcass of your idols".
https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/dung-beetle
They are strong flyers.
Don't the "flies" come after the "gnats"? No one strikes the apar for them.
https://www.irjet.net/archives/V6/i6/IRJET-V6I681.pdf
This puts a whole new slant on dust and ashes. But it goes back a long way.
https://www.sats.edu.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/YamoahJ_PhDFinal_Oct2015.pdf
Isrealites kept human dung outside the camp, but what did they burn to keep warm at night?
Nothing I have posted so far endorses the eating of dung for humans. Heavy grazing animals do eat from parents, to acquire essential bacteria and enzymes. Hippo and rhyno are two examples.
But in some circumstances - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325128#what-is-a-fecal-transplant
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/119440
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/ashes-of-the-red-heifer.htm
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170608-some-dung-beetles-have-taken-to-decapitating-millipedes
Look at the variety and the possibility of a predatory nature - they can bite.
"Endemic" is not the correct term - "native and restricted to a certain place." is the definition.
If he means restricted to the Nile that is not restriction to a place of small scale. Unless he is to specify a specific frog restricted to a specific location. Frogs are native to most places on the planet.
Another consideration about suggesting that Exodus is potentially discussing dung beetles is a consideration of how the Hebrew word was used. Again, it's an obscure term, but I normally look for evidence that terms were used a certain way: do we have any sources/commentary from antiquity that even suggests dung beetles were part of the Exodus blows?
When I first read your comment about striking the dust, I had gnats on my mind. Okay, true, the dust was not struck for the flies. However, I don't see a command to strike the dust for the flies, it's only for the gnats. Different methods for disparate plagues.
The whole dung conversation started because of Genesis 2:7. I see dung as an unlikely candidate for making Adam for the previous reasons I've stated earlier, but one other consideration was the apparent Jewish aversion to dung of all kinds. To put dung on someone's face was considered an insult, and "dungy idols" was the ultimate putdown for idolatry. As Paul wrote, I consider all I've left behind as skybalon. That, coupled with Deut. 23:12-14 makes the possibility unlikely.
Looking back at Cassuto's remarks, he wrote:
"Perhaps some kind of fly or gnat is meant, for they, too, are an endemic affliction of Egypt (possibly it was the kind called by the Egyptians hnms)"
So he's talking about flies or gnats, not frogs. And he does narrow down the reference to hnms.
R. Alan Cole: "Gnats: the word occurs only here and in passages based on this context, and its exact meaning is conjectural. ‘Fleas’ or ‘sandflies’ are other suggestions: but ‘mosquitoes’ may be the best translation."
Mosquitoes seem "endemic" to the Nile.
John Durham's remarks. Sorry that Kindle does not let the Hebrew script to come through:
. is variously rendered “gnats, swarm of gnats, lice, mosquitoes, maggots.” The harvester gnat (Chironomidae), the Anopheles mosquito, and the sandfly (Psychodidae) have all been proposed as possibilities (Frerichs, “Gnat,” IDB 2: 403). appears to be a more general term, derived from “mix” and referring to a “mixture” or “swarm” of flying insects; thus is generally translated “flies.” JB translates by “gadflies,” and some commentators refer to stinging flies (Honeycutt, BBC 1: 356; Driver, 66–67), the biting fly Stomoxys calcitrans (Hort, ZAW 69 [1957] 99, 101– 3), and even the devouring scarab beetle (Knight, 63– 64). The is not said in the account of the fourth mighty act to bite or sting, however; Exod 8: 20[ 24] says that the land was “devastated” or “ruined” () by it, a term used in Ps 78: 45 of the effect upon the Egyptians of the frogs, while the is said, in that same verse, to have “eaten” () them. The use of both terms in Ps 105: 31 is not much help, since could obviously include as flying insects, and the parallelism is not necessarily synonymous.
Durham, Dr. John I.. Exodus, Volume 3 (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 203). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
Durham, Dr. John I.. Exodus, Volume 3 (Word Biblical Commentary) (pp. 202-203). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
Hence, the scarab beetle has been set forth as a possibility although its likelihood as a viable candidate is another question.
I am probably not making my points very clearly.
The commentary I linked from google books states that dung beetles are a possibility but I am not able to see the full detail and footnotes of the page.
The older commentaries are here:- https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.8.13?lang=bi&with=Commentary&lang2=en
Unless they go into specifics, they are only using the same Hebrew word so I do not think they help. But to throw the question back over the fence - what ancient commentaries specifically describe lice or gnats, by function or form?
One has to think about how this works:- "all the dust of the earth turned to lice throughout the land of Egypt."
The methods for the plagues is the point.
IMO, skybalon is not specifically dung & Deut 23:12-14 is only referring to one type of dung - human. But I have to labour the obvious question, how did the Israelites keep warm at night?
I may have mentioned this before, but it is an important read IMHO:-
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Nomads-Murrah-Bedouin-Empty-Quarter-Worlds/30857150980/bd?cm_mmc=ggl-_-UK_Shopp_Tradestandard-_-product_id=COUK9780202011189USED-_-keyword=&gclid=CjwKCAiA4rGCBhAQEiwAelVti2JvygVDc2ciGrCnK8QWAeFZrFUYGrvH_i13jZA3I7gUBEUwKl7cjRoC3UcQAvD_BwE
The point about frogs is that they are one of the plagues and the principle still stands for any generic description of an animal or insect.
See:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKVh7CuPUQk
Please excuse the evolutionary spin, but lice IMO is not even an option because they have always been a problem - Its nothing special & it does not deal with the gods.
Even if you opted for this:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesh_fly
It still does not get away from dung.
https://brill.com/view/journals/soan/27/7/article-p716_5.xml
Jewish Study Bible by JPS:
8.1 2-15: The third plague: vermin. The Heb term refers to some small insect, such as mosquitoes or lice.
12 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: Hold out your rod and strike the dust of the earth, and it shall turn to lice throughout the land of Egypt." 13 And they did so. Aaron held out his arm with the rod and struck the dust of the earth, and vermin came upon man and beast; all the dust of the earth turned to lice throughout the land of Egypt. 14 The magicians did the like with their spells to produce lice, but they could not. The vermin remained upon man and beast; 15 and the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God!" But Pharaoh's heart stiffened and he would not heed them, as the LORD had spoken
See above where I cited a source that list scarab beetles as a possibility. So I acknowledged tat scarab beetles are contenders, but maybe doubtful ones.
You'll notice that Jewish versions of the Bible tend to favor the "lice" translation. Earlier, I also pointed to the NET note that gave some ancient data for why Exodus 8:16-17 has been translated one way or another. NET reports for Exod 8:16:
tn The noun is כִּנִּים (kinnim). The insect has been variously identified as lice, gnats, ticks, flies, fleas, or mosquitoes. “Lice” follows the reading in the Peshitta and Targum (and so Josephus, Ant. 2.14.3 [2.300]). Greek and Latin had “gnats.” By “gnats” many commentators mean “mosquitoes,” which in and around the water of Egypt were abundant (and the translators of the Greek text were familiar with Egypt). Whatever they were they came from the dust and were troublesome to people and animals.
Skybalon might be dung or it could be refuse. I've posted evidence for both views in the recent past. Whatever it was, Paul found it off-putting. Whether human or animal excrement/dung, the Jews repeatedly found it disgusting and used dung imagery to communicate their disgust and aversion. Plenty of references show this point.
Okay, how did Israel keep warm at night? I know they lit fires for one.
I'm not dogmatic about the plague being lice, but I've noticed that Jewish exegetes/translations favor this explanation for some reason. I guess NET explains why.
If it was a dung beetle, so be it. That's still a long way from Adam being made from dung, mud or slime :-)
See the references to dung in this article which I posted before: https://bible.org/article/brief-word-study-skuvbalon
https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/307/1/Briggs_Soil_Use_and_Management_14pdf.pdf
See conclusions. Dust and ashes.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233559703_The_Insects_and_Other_Arthropods_of_the_Bible_the_New_Revised_Version
Lice = maggots. Don't think so.
I will continue to look at apar but my main thought on this is that life is recognised from the dirt (manure being one form) and that the apar was not inert. The term "dust" does not do it justice.
Article concerning ancient toilets: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/neareastarch.75.2.0080#metadata_info_tab_contents
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat52/sub331/item1987.html
"Bedouins build fires at night to keep warm."
I have slept in the Arizona desert in late spring - the first night I had quite a shock. 117 degrees in the day, but I awoke in the middle of the night shivering uncontrollably. I had to grab every piece of clothing I could find to put over me.
So what do 6 million people use to keep warm at night - if they used trees and bushes they would have stripped each area bare in no time.
See Herodotus, 2.95.1:
Against the mosquitos that abound, the following have been devised by them: those who dwell higher up than the marshy country are well served by the towers where they ascend to sleep, for the winds prevent the mosquitos from flying aloft;
Here's the Greek text for Herodotus: πρὸς δὲ τοὺς κώνωπας ἀφθόνους ἐόντας τάδε σφι ἐστὶ μεμηχανημένα. τοὺς μὲν τὰ ἄνω τῶν ἑλέων οἰκέοντας οἱ πύργοι ὠφελέουσι, ἐς τοὺς ἀναβαίνοντες κοιμῶνται: οἱ γὰρ κώνωπες ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνέμων οὐκ οἷοί τε εἰσὶ ὑψοῦ πέτεσθαι.
LSJ: κώνωψ, ωπος, ὁ,
A. [select] gnat, mosquito, A.Ag.892, Hdt.2.95, Orac. ap. Ar. Eq.1038, Arist.HA535a3, 552b5; “μήτε ὡς λέων ἀναστρέφου μήτε ὡς κ.” Metrod.Fr.60.
I will make these concluding remarks. If you read much of the literature on this subject, it's apparent that lice means something different for translators using this term. See https://www.biblestudytools.com
For the record, I'm not saying which rendering is correct.
More than once, I've conceded that apar might not be dust in Gen. 2:7 or elsewhere. Remember how Speiser renders apar? But the fact that creatures were produced from apar does not necessarily mean the miracle happened because apart was inert, although Jehovah can use so-called secondary causes.
Israel could have used manure for fuel as the nation possibly did in tough times. The truth is that we don't know.
https://youtu.be/60ZTIJi6tbI
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/AJ7JPA/ancient-egyptian-hunting-wildfowl-with-a-throwing-stick-c1350-bc-artist-AJ7JPA.jpg
E.J. van Wolde's dissertation: https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/113611
Title: A semiotic analysis of Genesis 2-3: a semiotic theory and method of analysis applied to the story of the Garden of Eden
See last paragraph on page 83.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5647.htm
Looks to me like he is interpreting through Aramaic. But remember what I said long ago about the book of Daniel & "serving" a god being tied up with agriculture.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/2-5.htm
I believe that "he" might be a she although I could be wrong, but regardless, I'm not sure why you think Wolde is interpreting through Aramaic. And is "serving" necessarily tied to agriculture in Daniel?
See https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6399.htm
In the many examples from Hebrew, I don't see a necessary connection between agriculture and serving God either.
I haven't read this piece, but see http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=old-testament-pubs
It's about worship in Daniel.
Exodus 10:26 - first usage
Joshua 24:21–24, 30
I am not surprised that the biblical scholars cannot see the connections - what do they know about agriculture? I am not trying to belittle them but they need to extend there scope. We don't need an eco version of the bible, but we do need to recognise daily life.
https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/3-28.htm "serve nor worship".
Quickly, I'll just say that the Exodus passage is not talking about agriculture IMHO, but sacrifice. I'm speaking from first impressions and have not checked this point. Secondly, I see nothing in the Joshua passage that would remotely suggest agriculture is at play, and as for biblical scholars knowing about agriculture, you might be surprised. :-)
Biblical scholars and theologins know about many things. No, they're not usually specialists when it comes to agriculture or physics or math, but some are.
"I see nothing in the Joshua passage that would remotely suggest agriculture is at play" - and herein lies the problem.
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1773/1/1773.pdf
pg. 190.
"It is also the point where the overall ambiguity collapses completely. The last condition from both sides are, at first viewing, ridiculous on any level. Pharaoh tells Moses that all the people may go, but that the animals must be left behind (10: 24). Previously he has agreed that they may sacrifice to YHWH (nst 8: 3 [7]; 24 [28]). Now he agrees that they may >>serve YHWH<<, but they cannot take any animals. If by it he means sacrifice', then this is nonsensical; what are they to sacrifice? If, however, he seems to be accepting a deeper meaning of `serve', with the implication that they would not be coming back, then this condition is similar to that of retaining the dependants. They could not `serve' YHWH, as they would have to return to serve Pharaoh because they could not survive in the wilderness without their livestock. 498 "
Skirting around the edge of the real point.
The Levitical priesthood and the regime of sacrifice had not been instituted yet. To the ancients cattle was portable wealth. killing livestock and sacrifice are one and the same. Same also goes for the later Greeks. Did the people get none of the meat?
Animal husbandry is part of agriculture - we have the term "serve" here & the term only re-emerges when they have arrived in the land of inheritance.
I would be very interested in looking at the work of any biblical scholar who also claims a reasonable knowledge of the agriculture? And obviously, I do not mean in the modern sense.
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub363/item1513.html#chapter-8
Farmers Instructions, Gods and the Agricultural Seasons of Mesopotamia
http://othes.univie.ac.at/30923/1/2013-10-01_9506443.pdf
Footnote 27 -
Other gods in Uruk apparently also owned arable land and had their own ploughmen. In the imittu list YBC 4165 (not dated) one person is designated as ikkaru ¡a U‚ur-am¤ssu. For this deity from the entourage of I¡tar and Nan¤ya see Beaulieu 2003: 226ff.
Not sure if I linked the correct paper on last post - http://othes.univie.ac.at/30923/1/2013-10-01_9506443.pdf
https://brill.com/view/title/8259
Book about Scripture and agrarian culture. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7GVuBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT12&dq=bible+scholar+with+a+good+knowledge+of+agriculture&ots=BvLmN4FIz8&sig=80GTO7rhQsr9mC-5VYiK8frCq7c#v=onepage&q=bible%20scholar%20with%20a%20good%20knowledge%20of%20agriculture&f=false
https://emory.academia.edu/OdedBorowski
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Agriculture
https://brill.com/view/book/9789004341708/B9789004341708_006.xml
Also see The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II by A. Faust.
Also check the Anchor Bible Dictionary for farming.
https://lisa.biu.ac.il/files/lisa/shared/faust-2012-israelite_society-bib.pdf
For some reason, I now have trouble accessing the Durham dissertations. At one time, I could, but not anymore.
I know you realize that worshipers of Jehovah/YHWH sacrificed before the Levitical priesthood was established, right? Killing livestock and sacrificing them were one and the same to the ancients? Really?
What about when killing for food but not when offering the meat to a god/God?
Not all Israelite sacrifices resulted in the people getting meat. Maybe in the communion sacrifices, but not with every type of offering.
Okay, you know that just because a term reemerges in the land of inheritance does not mean the term is associated with agriculture. Those two things just don't bear a necessary relation to one another: try that with some other terms and see how things go.
See also Exod 10:25 and the NET Bible notes for 10:25-26.
From the NABRE note for Exodus 10:26:
Service: as is obvious from v. 25, the service in question here is the offering of sacrifice. The continued use of the verb ‘bd “to serve” and related nouns for both the people’s bondage in Egypt and their subsequent service to the Lord dramatizes the point of the conflict between Pharaoh and the God of Israel, who demands from the Israelites an attachment which is exclusive. See Lv 25:55.
You over estimate how much meat was consumed.
I don't need to do with other terms, just this one.
https://www.ancient.eu/article/87/herodotus-on-animal-sacrifice-in-egypt/
I will go further back if I can.
From the other Levitical offerings the priests got meat.
Leviticus 6:26
Those animals were to be transplanted from Egypt to Canaan. Their domestic animals.
We have already been through how other nations animals were to be destroyed.
If they had so much of them on the journey & they we not seen a precious then why worry about quails or mana? The law basically prevented them from eating bush meat, which would have been suicidal after 40 years & the population. They would have stripped the land bare.
If you think that sacrifice only served a single function, then you are sorely mistaken, see 2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Kings 8:63. - Balance
Do you think that every tribe wanted to give up that much livestock? This was Solomon's sacrifice - not theirs, a necessary tax - 1 Chronicles 21:1.
The argument put foreword from Exod 10:25 is an all or nothing scenario which makes no sense. Pharaoh could have sent them off with a handful of animals for one sacrifice.
This was not what was being asked for.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/47-19.htm
"we and our land"
When it comes to meat and sacrifice of clean animals - the Noah account has some paradoxes, or does it?
Quite frankly, I said very little about eating meat, so I'm not sure how I overly emphasized ancient meat eating.
The example you gave from Exod 10:25-26 does not seem to help your case: the context shows sacrifice was the issue along with leaving Egypt and never coming back. The issue was not agriculture. And it can easily be proved that we don't establish senses for words by the method you mentioned earlier. Besides, the Bible accounts are not ordered chronologically, so there is that problem added to the mix. Please run your idea for the meaning of "service" past a professional philologist or lexicographer and see what he/she thinks.
We know the Levitical priests got meat from the communion sacrifices, but what about the others?
Priests did not eat the meat of a burnt offering: everything went to Jehovah. In the case of the grain offering, the priests ate part of the sacrifice, but it was not meat.
The priests also consumed some of the guilt offering and the communion offering, as mentioned earlier. In the case of the sin offering, the animal was eaten at times, but not necessarily every time. See Lev. 4:3-21; 6:30.
I never said that sacrifice had only one function, but what I might have said (correct me if you I'm mistaken), is that the primary reason for sacrifice was religious. An example of this kind of thing in the Christian congregation is the Lord's evening meal. As Paul intimated to the Corinthians, we're not observing the Lord's death just to eat bread and drink wine. It is not a party. Similarly with the ancient sacrifices.
Lest we forget, Solomon offered up this sacrifice to God as part of the temple's inauguration. Yes, it was primarily Solomon's sacrifice, but he was doing it, in behalf of true worship and for his people. You make it sound like the sacrifice posed a burden on his subjects. Yet that is not the thrust of the account. Read 1 Chronicles 29.
On Exod 10:26, see above. It makes perfect sense to me why Moses did not want just enough to sacrifice, then return. Go back to the earlier part of Exodus where Jehovah demanded that Pharaoh let his people go. Let's not complexify what is fairly simple. See Exodus 5:1-4, which again mentions sacrifices and contains YHWH's command to let his people go. He wanted them out of Egypt permanently and the ruler of Egypt should have gotten that point as the severity of the plagues increased. His heart condition was also becoming more apparent with each plague.
I'm going to start working on my next blog entry and take care of some other matters. See you another time :)
Ellicott's Commentary: (26) Our cattle also shall go with us.—Once more Moses rejects the proffered compromise—rejects it absolutely and altogether. The cattle shall all go with the people; “not an hoof shall be left behind.” And why? First, because it is theirs (“our cattle,” “our flocks,” “our herds”), and not Pharaoh’s; secondly, because it is God’s—all, to the last head, if He requires it; and He has not said as yet how much of it He will require. The festival to be held in the wilderness is altogether a new thing; its ritual has not at present been laid down. The people will only be told “with what they must serve the Lord” when they are come to the place where they are to serve Him: i.e., to Sinai (Exodus 3:12).
Note from Rashi:
do not know how [much] we will worship-: How intense the worship will be. Perhaps He will ask for more than we have in our possession. — [from Exod. Rabbah 18:1]
Ahh, Rashi ;-)
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/10-26.htm
Just read the Hebrew & see how far off his interpretation actually is.
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/9-3.htm
Yes 1 Chronicles 29 is a worthwhile read with particular attention on v6-9.
Do you know what is really interesting about it? - it does not mention the free donation of livestock. Was there no need for Leviticus 22:22 by the time of Solomon?
Of special note is 1 Chronicles V21,22.
Sacrifice & eat.
https://www.bu.edu/asor/pubs/books-monographs/nakhai.pdf
pg 30. Makes an interesting argument but I need to look into that one further.
Exodus 17:3 “Anyone from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat in the camp, or slaughters it outside the camp, 4 and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the [a]tabernacle of the Lord, bloodshed is to be counted against that person."
Not a sacrifice - then what does this mean otherwise?
Firstly, I don't think the Hebrew overturns Rashi's suggestion/interpretation. He seems to regard the act of serving (in this case) as tied up with sacrifice/worship, which makes sense in the light of Exod 10:25 and 5:1-4. The act of sacrifice appears clear to me and the sources I've consulted so far all confirm the sacrifice angle for 10:26.
On the voluntary donation of animals/livestock, see 1 Chronicles 29:13-14, 20-22.
Furthermore, I've found parallels between the inauguration of Solomon's temple and the installation of the Aaronic priesthood.
Lev. 22:22 prohibits the offering of lame, maimed and blind sacrifices. It surely applied in Solomon's day just as it did in Moses' and in Malachi's time (Malachi 1:6-8).
As stated in my prior response, Israel consumed meat with some of the sacrifices, but not always.
The last passage you quoted is not Exod 17:3, I don't believe, but I would have to look at the context before replying. In any event, I've given examples where sacrifices were made but no meat was eaten like the whole burnt offering.
Lev 17:3 is what I meant.
Are you sure that a "whole burnt offering" is actually the whole animal burned?
Leviticus 4:3–21 I will admit was burned completely but IMO this was far more than just a sacrifice. It was a response to Apis or at least what happened when Moses ascended for the tablets.
See J. Milgrom's article, "A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11" in JBL (1971).
For another perspective, see https://books.google.com/books?id=JdbBcLWt_6wC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=leviticus+17:3+rooker&source=bl&ots=aWvIuGxzoj&sig=ACfU3U3pIW8-V00rZ2Nt_Bo5lyGQbQFE1w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0-r7QhbbvAhWSmuAKHZMXD_M4HhDoATAFegQIEhAD#v=onepage&q=leviticus%2017%3A3%20rooker&f=false
Thanks, my comments about Milgrown (etc) pertain to Lev. 17:3.
When I said the burnt offering was entirely consumed, I was quoting W.K. Gilders:
Burnt offering (Hebrew, ‘olah; literally, “ascending offering”; Lev 1, Lev 6:8-13) could be a herd or flock animal (bull, sheep, or goat) or a bird (dove or pigeon). The whole animal was burned in the altar fire. It was the most extravagant sacrifice because the entirety was given to God.
From a JW publication, a definition for burnt offering:
An animal sacrifice that was burned on the altar as a total offering to God; no part of the animal (bull, ram, male goat, turtledove, or young pigeon) was kept by the worshipper.—Ex 29:18; Le 6:9.
Compare Lev. 6:23.
Gen 2:5 - cultivate or serve?
Gen 3:23 - cultivate or serve?
Adam the high priest?
I am sure you know the mass of papers regarding Eden and the tabernacle.
Yes, there are numerous studies on Eden and the tabernacle, including G.K. Beale's work. I have mixed feelings about such approaches and think they read later ideas into earlier texts. I look at how abad is used in other texts and while "serve" is possible in 2:5; 3:23, I don't necessarily equate worshiping God with agriculture.
Still researching, but this may also have a bearing on "let us make man".
I look at the information and see it turned on its head - that the tabernacle was modelled on a garden IN Eden. The multiple boundaries.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mikkedem_6924.htm
Post a Comment