TromboneChat

I've just realised that I'd been operating under a misapprehension... The Book of Jubilees I knew contained alternative arguably canonical versions of early Biblical stuff, but I thought that it didn't pick up the narrative until after the Exodus.

However, it seems that actually it covers all the stuff we've already done. I'll start also consulting this as we go forward, and posting references to its content as they inform.
Online version here. Chapter 1 deals with Moses, but chapter 2 and onwards rewinds back to the start. The story of Jacob covers chapters 22 to 39.

What other parallel manuscripts should we be aware of?

Quote from: drizabone on Oct 31, 2015, 08:19PM"Now there is some substance worth reading"!

We should at least take do it in another thread.  Even if its offline we can have multiple participants.  What do you think John?

Sure, we could start another thread.  It might be even a smaller core of participants, but that's OK with me.  My time is still very limited for the next month or so and having multiple threads going spreads it even a little thinner, but I'm happy to contribute as much as possible.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 01, 2015, 05:16AMYes, yes, please don't go to the thought that I'm one of those awful rape-excusing, victim-blaming men out there who can't bear to see a man accused of a sexual crime. I'm not. What I was rather doing was imagining how the unpleasant people that were Jacob and his family might have sold the idea of revenge - maybe even to themselves in the stories they told each other that may have developed into this portion of the narrative.
I didn't think you were one of them.


Interesting stuff about the names, and a lot of work on your part formatting it.  Thanks.
QuoteIf I just run down a list of UK urban areas by decreasing size (which should give a decently randomly selected cross-section of old names), we see the following etymologies:
...

At least in this sample of place names, it is simply unfound to have a place called by a simple name, as in Shechem, although a few personal names (3/20) have found their way into longer constructions. But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen - consider some more modern placenames, such as Sydney (named for Lord Sydney), Melbourne (named for Viscount Melbourne), and Adelaide (named for the British Queen).

So after that lengthy preamble it would seem to make more sense to look at some explicit Middle Eastern examples - I'll just pick a few random old place names in the local region as they occur to me:

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 01, 2015, 03:46PMISTM that the bible paints us all as "problematic people", and says that the point of him favouring Abraham and his descendants was part of a long term plan fix up these "problematic people".  So he's not choosing people to favour based on them being good brand ambassadors, but because he's going to use them as part of his plan.  And so far we haven't seen indication of people choosing God either.  Its God that is choosing the people.

Its pretty much that same nowadays.  The gospel is not that we choose God because God has picked all the cool people, so that other Christians are people that you admire or want to be like (although I know that it might seem like that sometimes). The situation is that, from our perspective, we choose him because we realise that we are 'problematic' and that we want that fixed. 

Interesting. So are you saying that the chosen people were chosen specifically because they were morally poor (or at least, no better than those around them)? Does that fit with other Christian viewpoints?

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 02, 2015, 10:27AMInteresting. So are you saying that the chosen people were chosen specifically because they were morally poor (or at least, no better than those around them)? Does that fit with other Christian viewpoints?

Thats what I'm saying.

Does it fit with other christian viewpoints?  Yes and No. 

On the one hand I would say that typically people think that they are decent and better than average, that its God's job to love us decent people like us and so God really should save us because we're ok; much better than those disreputable sinners over there.

But the bible has a different point of view.  He chooses us because he loves us, warts and all.

eg for Israel:

QuoteDeutoronomy 7:6-8
 “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery
Quote
The Gospels are full of Jesus condemning self righteous religious people and accepting sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors, the poor, unschooled hicks from the country ... eg

QuoteLuke 18:9... (sort of fits)
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Paul outlines the principle that we are all sinners and deserve God's anger but that he chooses some of us to show his love.  Romans 1-6

But, if they were chosen because they were morally inept - didn't Yahweh create them that way?

And that implies that the rest of humanity who were not chosen (and who came from, well, we don't know that part) are morally superior. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 02, 2015, 12:38PMBut, if they were chosen because they were morally inept - didn't Yahweh create them that way?

And that implies that the rest of humanity who were not chosen (and who came from, well, we don't know that part) are morally superior. 

Read Romans 9 and Deuteronomy 7-- the whole thrust of the doctrine of election in the Bible that it is of grace-- i.e. mercy to those who not only don't deserve it, but actually deserve just the opposite-- i.e judgement.

Grace only makes sense when we realize that according to the Bible, none of us deserve anything from God, due to our sin. This is basic to the Bible and all of Christian theology.  Augustine spelled this out best in the early church, but all of the magisterial Reformers were united on this point.

In a nutshell, the Bible says that you and I and everyone else are not naturally nice people and God doesn't choose us because we're nice people, but because he's gracious to undeserving sinners.

No one is morally superior in the Bible apart from the  transforming grace of God.

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 02, 2015, 12:38PMBut, if they were chosen because they were morally inept - didn't Yahweh create them that way?

I would say that God didn't create create man (Adam) that way, he created man with the ability to choose between right and wrong.  Adam chose to disobey and we too choose to disobey.  (this is me trying to avoid controversial stuff, for those that might want to be picky)

QuoteAnd that implies that the rest of humanity who were not chosen (and who came from, well, we don't know that part) are morally superior. 

No, there is the option that the unchosen are similarly morally inept/corrupt.  However many of those who aren't chosen believe that they are morally superior and have done nothing worthy of condemnation, so they have no need to repent and seek the mercy of God.


Thought for the Day: if inept is a word then why isn't ept?  And what function does the prefix "in" serve.  qv flammable/inflammable and adequate/inadequate

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 02, 2015, 01:44PMNo one is morally superior in the Bible apart from the  transforming grace of God.

Are you saying that it is not possible to discern shades of grey between the moral desirabilities of various bible characters? Or are you rather saying that the moral superiority of God is so vast that comparing individual humans is pointless? But then how do we judge the morals of God? What if we conclude that his morals are of such a different type (e.g. destruction of the flood) that it doesn't even make sense to think of them as morals?

Or are you saying something else that I haven't discerned... I think maybe a little further explication would help me understand your point of view here.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 02, 2015, 02:28PMThought for the Day: if inept is a word then why isn't ept?  And what function does the prefix "in" serve.  qv flammable/inflammable and adequate/inadequate

'In-' is one of those prefixes (or word portion that can look like a prefix when it isn't quite) that can arise in multiple ways (like 'Auf-' in German), and has caused the meanings of individual words to drift around unpredictably over the centuries. Some relevant info here.

We do still have 'ept' in the language. We just spell it 'apt'...

The flammable/inflammable doublet arises in English because the two words entered the language at different times. Inflammable c.1600 from Latin inflamma, to inflame; flammable c.1800 from Latin flammare, to set on fire. As to how it arose in Latin, I'm not sure. So the two words seem to have at one time had separate meanings in English, but to have converged to the point where they are now synonyms.

I would have naively assumed that the explanation would be the same as for the valuable/invaluable doublet (where 'in-' was added to 'valuable'), but apparently not...

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 02, 2015, 01:44PMRead Romans 9 and Deuteronomy 7-- the whole thrust of the doctrine of election in the Bible that it is of grace-- i.e. mercy to those who not only don't deserve it, but actually deserve just the opposite-- i.e judgement.


It takes significant mental gymnastics to insert that back into the OT, though.

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 03, 2015, 04:57AMIt takes significant mental gymnastics to insert that back into the OT, though.

How is it mental gymnastics to insert Deuteronomy back into the OT?   It doesn't seem too hard to me.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 03, 2015, 05:41AMHow is it mental gymnastics to insert Deuteronomy back into the OT?   It doesn't seem too hard to me.

It's mental gymnastics to read Deuteronomy in light of Romans. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 03, 2015, 07:52AMIt's mental gymnastics to read Deuteronomy in light of Romans. 

I'm not sure that I was doing that, but it's not illegitimate at all if one takes  a canonical approach to the Scriptures, an approach that has a long and, in my opinion, trustworthy heritage.

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 31, 2015, 04:00AMGenesis 35 text

Highlights

 - Jacob, prompted by God, goes back to Bethel to apparently repeat what he did earlier.
 - Rachel dies in childbirth, producing Benjamin
 - Isaac dies
...

9) The narrative still hasn't 'got over' its tendency to inflate ages - Isaac is listed as dying at 180. I am intrigued as to when these numbers will assume believable proportions - we are definitely getting there.

Its interesting that in chapter 27, 20 years ago, Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see.  But he lived for another 20 years or so.

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 03, 2015, 07:52AMIt's mental gymnastics to read Deuteronomy in light of Romans. 

Where's the difficulty?

Do you fault Paul's use of Genesis 25 to support what he says about election in Romans 9?

Genesis 37 text

Highlights

 - Joseph is a spoilt brat
 - Joseph dreams that his family will bow down to him.
 - The brothers sell Joseph as a slave and pretend to their father that he has been killed.

Summary

 - This is the story of Jacob. 
 - Joseph dobbed on his older brothers.
 - jacob loved Joseph more than any of his brothers and made him a robe of many colours.
 - Not unexpectedly, his older brothers hated him.
 - Joseph had a dream that indicated that he would reign over his brothers.
 - His brothers hated him more.
 - He had another dream about his father, mother and brothers bowing down to him.
 - His brothers were jealous. His father pondered.
 - Isaac tells Joseph to see if his brothers, out pasturing the flocks, were well
 - The brothers decide to kill Joseph but Judah convinces the others to sell Joseph into slavery instead.
 - Joseph is sold for 20 pieces of silver
 - The brothers rip Joseph's special coat and stain it with blood and tell Dad that Joseph was taken by a wild animal
 - Joseph is sold to the Captain of the Guard in Egypt.


Comments and questions

1) the text says that Joseph was Jacob's favourite because he was the 'son of his old age'  I would have expected the reason to be because he was Rachel's son.
2) Josephs coat apparently symbolised that he was to be the heir.
3) Joseph was a spoilt brat, yes?
4) There is going to be lots of similarities between Joseph and Jesus. 
   - he was sold for 20 shekels of silver
   - his brothers selling him to foreigners as a metaphorical death

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 03, 2015, 06:26PMIts interesting that in chapter 27, 20 years ago, Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see.  But he lived for another 20 years or so.

If Isaac was 55 when he started suffering from cataracts, and in his 70s when he died, that would make a believable story.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 03, 2015, 09:26PMGenesis 37 text
Compare Jubilees 39 text.

Gen 37:1-2 = Jub 39:1, pretty much exactly.
Then Jub 39 cuts out all the detail of Joseph's betrayal by his brothers and goes straight to the events of Gen 39, which we'll come to in time.

That was an easy comparison... Others will be more fruitful, I hope!

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 03, 2015, 09:26PM1) the text says that Joseph was Jacob's favourite because he was the 'son of his old age'  I would have expected the reason to be because he was Rachel's son.
I'd have also expected on those grounds for Benjamin to be even more favoured.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 03, 2015, 09:26PM2) Josephs coat apparently symbolised that he was to be the heir.
Is this a tradition thing? It doesn't say so. Though it's certainly possible. You'd have thought that Jacob would have learned his lesson from his dealings with Isaac, Rebekah, and Esau about how badly that kind of thing can go down...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 03, 2015, 09:26PM3) Joseph was a spoilt brat, yes?
As always with prophecy in the Bible, my mind goes straight to how it could have come into the story, giving no credence to the idea that it might be accurately reported. I can just imagine an ancient storyteller, with a shorter story (indeed, perhaps the abridged version found in Jubilees) wanting to flesh out and make more dramatic the omitted circumstances leading to Joseph's arrival in Egypt as a slave.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 03, 2015, 09:26PM4) There is going to be lots of similarities between Joseph and Jesus. 
   - he was sold for 20 shekels of silver
   - his brothers selling him to foreigners as a metaphorical death

Again, this pushes me towards pondering on when these elements entered the story. As Tim pointed out, foreshadowing seems to have been a big thing for the compilers of these texts - and probably for the storytellers whose tales they wrote down. When an event has clear past echoes of something to come, we have to ask ourselves how likely it is that those past echoes were placed there later, and deliberately. And then ask ourselves how likely it is that deliberate action the other way around occurred - people in the then future acting in the full knowledge that their actions were deliberately echoing events in their history.

Flicking back a chapter, comparing with Jubilees is starting to seem more eye-opening...

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 31, 2015, 04:33AMGenesis 36 text

Highlights

 - Various descendants of Esau are enumerated
 - Also descendants of Seir the Horite
 - Also kings of Edom

Summary

 - Esau had three wives, the two Canaanites that Rachel so hated (Adah and Oholibamah), and Ishmael's daughter Basemath.
 - Esau and Jacob have to move apart from each other as the land cannot support all their flocks in close proximity.
 - Seir the Horite is listed as being important in the land that Esau moved into. His family and their chiefhoods are listed.
 - A list of kings of Edom is given.
 - A list of chiefs of the land is given.

Compare Jubilees 36, Jubilees 37 and Jubilees 38.

The story is given quite differently here. In this version of it, before Isaac dies, he addresses Jacob and Esau, dividing his inheritance by their seniority by age, and making them swear a powerful oath to never fight each other. Esau selflessly cites the 'birthright for pottage' deal, swapping his larger inheritance for Jacob's.

But once Isaac is dead, Esau's sons force him into declaring war on Jacob after Isaac dies, and he musters a large force of diverse nationalities. As a result, Jacob kills Esau, and he and his sons and their forces defeat Esau's forces, exacting tribute from the foreign elements of his support for many years.

It also talks of the death of Leah, something not touched on in Genesis, saying that Jacob appreciated her more after Rachel died, placing the tombs of the various people deceased in this passage in the Cave of Machpelah, along with Abraham and Sarah.

Genesis 38 text; cf. Jubilees 41

Highlights

 - Judah's family doings are recounted, in particular regarding Tamar, his daughter-in-law, in a very odd and sordid story involving death, masturbation, incest, prostitution, deceit, and the thwarted honour killing of Tamar attempted by Judah.

Summary

 - Judah takes a wife, the daughter of Shua, a Canaanite.
 - They have three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah.
 - Judah takes a wife for Er, Tamar. But God puts Er to death for being "wicked".
 - Judah orders Onan to inseminate Tamar and raise the offspring as Er's. But Onan prefers to waste his seed on the ground. God doesn't like this either, and also puts Onan to death.
 - Judah orders Tamar to return to her father, remaining a widow until Shelah is old enough to marry her.
 - Time passes. Shelah grows up, but is not given to Tamar in marriage. Judah's wife dies.
 - Judah goes to Timnah for the sheep-shearing. Tamar hears of this and takes herself there too, positioning herself on the entrance road to wait for him, dressed not as a widow.
 - But whoops... Judah thinks she is a prostitute and bargains with her for her wares. She bargains back, and they have intercourse for the agreed price (items to be held until Judah later sends along a young goat to redeem them with). Tamar conceives from this.
 - Afterwards, Judah sends his shepherd with the agreed goat, but Tamar in her guise as a prostitute cannot be found at Timnah, having returned to her father's house. Judah (not a man to take reverses lightly) takes it back, advising that they will become a laughing-stock if the story gets out.
 - In time, Tamar's pregnancy becomes obvious, and word of it reaches Judah. He goes to her house and demands of her father that he give her to him, to be put to death by burning.
 - Tamar sends him her prostitution payment items, and Judah realises that the pregnancy is due to him. Judah retreats in embarrassment at having been outwitted.
 - Tamar gives birth to twins, Perez and Zerah.

Comments and questions

1) We interrupt the story of Joseph for this. Jubilees also does the same.
2) Judah "went down from his brothers and turned aside to [...] Hirah". Do we read this as meaning that they fell out in some manner and he went to live elsewhere?
3) Judah taking a Canaanite as a wife is noteworthy to the writer. Maybe because Esau taking Canaanite wives turned out badly? Are all of Jacob's sons supposed to have instead travelled back to Abraham's family to take wives? That would seem bizarre.
4) Er's story is short in Genesis - he is given a wife, he is put to death for unspecified wickedness. Jubilees has a small amount more detail - it says that he wanted a wife who was his cousin, but Judah would not permit it. It also says that he would not lie with Tamar - maybe a deliberately-written pre-echo of what Onan is about to do?
4a) Insert standard disclaimer about Er the real person dying naturally and it being attributed to God, yadda yadda.
5) Onan's story is the origin of the English word "onanism". Not many are coming out of this chapter looking good so far... Judah acting very controllingly, two of his three sons slain by God by naughtiness, God taking "terminate with extreme prejudice"-style exception to non-extreme events.
5a) Insert standard disclaimer about Onan the real person dying naturally and it being attributed to God, yadda yadda.
6) Jubilees names Judah's wife as Bedsu'el, and furthermore states that it was her will that prevented Shelah from marrying Tamar in a timely fashion.
7) It isn't clear what Tamar's intention was in waiting for Judah at Timnah. Maybe she just wanted to 'have it out' with him as to why he hadn't fulfilled his promise regarding marrying Shelah to her. But if so it's pretty peculiar that when Judah took her for a prostitute and asked her price that she gave him one...
8) Presumably Judah would have become an object of mirth because the objects he left for the prostitute exceeded the value of the goat by some way?
9) Judah really is an extremely controlling individual... He learns that his son's widow (who he is currently withholding a fresh husband from in contravention of his earlier promise) is pregnant non-maritally, and his reaction? To demand that she be given to him to be put to death in horrific fashion.
10) The exact logic of the denouement is a trifle unclear to me. On learning that he was the one who had paid Tamar for sex, impregnating her, Judah retracts his demand of execution, declaring "She is more righteous than I". But she still bargained for money for sex with him... Perhaps Judah was physically forceful in his demand to have sex with her for money and this isn't shown? The let-off has more of the feel of Judah being embarrassed than of Judah seeing the moral way to proceed. Whatever. It was a long time ago, and the right outcome seems to have come to pass.
11) Jubilees has more info at the end of the chapter - Tamar was not given to Shelah because of her sons by Judah (in addition to Judah also shunning her). There are a number of verses detailing which family members it is bad practice to put one's penis into, and endorsing as Abrahamic Judah's prescription for violating these of death by burning. They also detail how Judah was forgiven - this seems to have caused the Jubilees writer worry.
12) Judah's demand of Tamar's execution is a textbook example of an attempted Honour Killing. Shockingly, these continue today in strongly patriarchal societies where the woman is viewed as little more than a factory for making more men.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 07, 2015, 03:23AMGenesis 38 text;

 - Tamar gives birth to twins, Perez and Zerah.

Twins again! and fighting over who is going to be the first born - must be just a copy of the Jacob and Esau story

QuoteComments and questions

1) We interrupt the story of Joseph for this. Jubilees also does the same.

Just an observation on our differing opionion of the significance of Jubilees.  I guess you think that it has the same status as Genesis so is an relevant opinion.  Whereas I don't think it has any special status, its just a the result of a priest 1st century BC priest redoing the stories to promote his understanding of calerdar the Jewish calenday and including some traditional glosses on the biblical stories.  Hence I probably won't comment much on them.

Quote2) Judah "went down from his brothers and turned aside to [...] Hirah". Do we read this as meaning that they fell out in some manner and he went to live elsewhere?

Its possible. But the text doesn't make anything of it so its not significant.

Quote3) Judah taking a Canaanite as a wife is noteworthy to the writer. Maybe because Esau taking Canaanite wives turned out badly? Are all of Jacob's sons supposed to have instead travelled back to Abraham's family to take wives? That would seem bizarre.

I think it goes back further than Esau.  God told Abraham that the Cananites were "wicked" and that he was going to punish them.  I'd expect that because of that it was important to keep the chosen people separate from them.  I reckon  that the writer would emphasise this even if he was just writing the story to justify future wars.  So this theme is the reason that Isaac and Jacob were sent to get wives who weren't Cananites, and why Esau's wife turned out bad, or was said to.  I wonder where the other brothers wives came from, probably not from Abraham's old family.

Quote4) Er's story is short in Genesis - he is given a wife, he is put to death for unspecified wickedness. Jubilees has a small amount more detail - it says that he wanted a wife who was his cousin, but Judah would not permit it. It also says that he would not lie with Tamar - maybe a deliberately-written pre-echo of what Onan is about to do?

Just setting up the story for the situation Tamar was going to be in and showing Judah not providing for Tamar.

It seems to me that over the last few generations the writer has been emphasising how important having babies were to women in this society.  Just look at the lengths women went to.  "Here hubby sleep with my servant".  Apparently it was a tradition (called the Levirate tradition) that a man should sleep with his brothers widow to provide her with an heir.

Quote4a) Insert standard disclaimer about Er the real person dying naturally and it being attributed to God, yadda yadda.

Who said he died naturally?

Quote5) Onan's story is the origin of the English word "onanism". Not many are coming out of this chapter looking good so far... Judah acting very controllingly, two of his three sons slain by God by naughtiness, God taking "terminate with extreme prejudice"-style exception to non-extreme events.

Right.  Although I would think that Judah was wrong in not making sure his son's did the right thing for Tamar.  As you say he was in control.

Quote5a) Insert standard disclaimer about Onan the real person dying naturally and it being attributed to God, yadda yadda.

ditto to 4a

Quote6) Jubilees names Judah's wife as Bedsu'el, and furthermore states that it was her will that prevented Shelah from marrying Tamar in a timely fashion.

Maybe

Quote7) It isn't clear what Tamar's intention was in waiting for Judah at Timnah. Maybe she just wanted to 'have it out' with him as to why he hadn't fulfilled his promise regarding marrying Shelah to her. But if so it's pretty peculiar that when Judah took her for a prostitute and asked her price that she gave him one...

Given the reference to "cult prostitute" I think that Tamar deliberately set out to appear as one by dressing the part.  If so, then there would have been expectations about the negotiation too.  Or maybe I've just read to many Fantasy books.

Quote8) Presumably Judah would have become an object of mirth because the objects he left for the prostitute exceeded the value of the goat by some way?

Or maybe because he had been tricked.

Quote9) Judah really is an extremely controlling individual... He learns that his son's widow (who he is currently withholding a fresh husband from in contravention of his earlier promise) is pregnant non-maritally, and his reaction? To demand that she be given to him to be put to death in horrific fashion.

I don't think the worst aspect of Judah is that he's controlling.  He is supposed to have provided Tamar with an heir  and hasn't and now is going to punish her for organising it herself.

Quote10) The exact logic of the denouement is a trifle unclear to me. On learning that he was the one who had paid Tamar for sex, impregnating her, Judah retracts his demand of execution, declaring "She is more righteous than I". But she still bargained for money for sex with him... Perhaps Judah was physically forceful in his demand to have sex with her for money and this isn't shown? The let-off has more of the feel of Judah being embarrassed than of Judah seeing the moral way to proceed. Whatever. It was a long time ago, and the right outcome seems to have come to pass.

"denouement" : show off.  I had to look that up.

I think the key is seeing that the story is about providing an heir for Tamar.  Judah was supposed to organise it and failed.  Tamar sneakily sorted it.  She took her inspiration from Jacob. I think that Judah is recognising and judging his and Tamar in the light of this.

Quote11) Jubilees has more info at the end of the chapter - Tamar was not given to Shelah because of her sons by Judah (in addition to Judah also shunning her). There are a number of verses detailing which family members it is bad practice to put one's penis into, and endorsing as Abrahamic Judah's prescription for violating these of death by burning. They also detail how Judah was forgiven - this seems to have caused the Jubilees writer worry.

This was probably important in the sense I mentioned a few chapters ago where immportant people's failings tend to get whitewashed.  And you weren't convinced.  In this case we get Judah left as being less righteous than a "prostiture" in the bible but forgiven in Jubilees.

Judah was the head of what was to become the largest and most prestigious tribe in Israel.  King David and his dynasty were descended from Judah through Tamar. 

Quote12) Judah's demand of Tamar's execution is a textbook example of an attempted Honour Killing. Shockingly, these continue today in strongly patriarchal societies where the woman is viewed as little more than a factory for making more men.

Yep.  And kudo's for the bible in promoting women's rights eh?  That thought about that story would go down like a lead balloon nowadays.  Women are interested in a completely different set of rights.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMTwins again! and fighting over who is going to be the first born - must be just a copy of the Jacob and Esau story
Well, maybe! Once one starts to suspect this kind of textual massaging, it becomes very difficult to maintain anything above a low level of confidence in what it says. Caution in reading it becomes habitual.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMJust an observation on our differing opionion of the significance of Jubilees.  I guess you think that it has the same status as Genesis so is an relevant opinion.  Whereas I don't think it has any special status, its just a the result of a priest 1st century BC priest redoing the stories to promote his understanding of calerdar the Jewish calenday and including some traditional glosses on the biblical stories.  Hence I probably won't comment much on them.
I wouldn't say that I'm putting Genesis and Jubilees in the same basket, quite. As you say, Jubilees seems to be essentially a later rewrite by someone who had access to other old sources, and apparently the ulterior motive of showing how it all fitted their pet calendar. So I am thinking of Jubilees as more like a commentary, but one written a very long time ago by someone who had access to traditions and books that we have likely now lost, so one that is potentially able to deliver surprising and profound insights into the text - but of course the same suspicions of textual massaging apply to both texts - did the Jubilees author perhaps at times 'work up' episodes in order to make them fit their calendar better?
What I feel it gives us is an insight into how at least some highly placed Jews of not many years BC looked at this material. Given that in seeking to understand it, we are at least to some extent bound to consider the means by which it got to us and the people and motives that had custodianship of it, then it becomes to me quite attractive to examine and compare it. But of course there's no need for anyone else to feel interested in doing the same. In any case, there's not that much of Genesis or Jubilees left now - I've missed the boat on comparing most of it...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMI think it goes back further than Esau.  God told Abraham that the Cananites were "wicked" and that he was going to punish them.  I'd expect that because of that it was important to keep the chosen people separate from them.  I reckon  that the writer would emphasise this even if he was just writing the story to justify future wars.  So this theme is the reason that Isaac and Jacob were sent to get wives who weren't Cananites, and why Esau's wife turned out bad, or was said to.  I wonder where the other brothers wives came from, probably not from Abraham's old family.
Seems a sensible way of reading it to me.

Apropos of not much, it sometimes perturbs me how 'narratively' people tend to think. Many people tell themselves stories as they go through life - about themselves, about their family, about other people, about local events, about world events - and end up casting things poorly. Essentially, they're referring to a simplified model of the world in their head rather than to the world. Now, we all do that all the time (the brain is an amazing thing), but it is common for people to start believing the predictions of their model over what they actually observe that the world is doing. Again, we all do this to some extent - we just have to try to be able to recognise when we are telling ourselves a story, and when we are perceiving more profoundly.
All the material we are dealing with here has been thoroughly 'narrativised', millennia ago - it's been reduced to memorable series of simplified actions and motives. At some point a narrative conclusion was reached among the group of people that gave rise to this text - "Canaanites are wicked". Today we'd call that simple racism, and point to what we know about genes and their distributions, and to what we know about social groupings and how they can make themselves stronger by 'othering' outsiders. Then, it was unchallenged, and became a powerful enough canard that some Israelites (and I'm sure some Canaanites too, though we don't as far as I'm aware have their side of the story?) mutually detested each other for no better reason than their barely-distinguishable ethnicities.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMIt seems to me that over the last few generations the writer has been emphasising how important having babies were to women in this society.  Just look at the lengths women went to. "Here hubby sleep with my servant".
Yes, quite probably. Raising many children successfully in the difficult circumstances faced by these people would have been a heroic task.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AM Apparently it was a tradition (called the Levirate tradition) that a man should sleep with his brothers widow to provide her with an heir.
Levirate marriage

That makes some sense in a situation where it is a struggle to simply survive and where the modern Western notion of marriage as a love match was much less prominent. A widow, with or without children, would suddenly be placed in a more difficult position. Providing a means by which she and her potential children could simply be provided for, and by which an unmarried man could be married would have seemed an elegant solution in many cases. So many cases, in fact, that it became a tradition we are still writing about here and now...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMWho said he died naturally?
Me! Well, "naturally" as in "within nature", not as in "oh, look what just happened". As opposed to not within nature - God striking him down. By construction, I'm not likely to go for that as an initial explanation.

Was just noting that a young adult dying non-specifically and then that being attributed to God begs a few big questions. Two such even more so.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMMaybe
Indeed! This is the kind of detail that makes one wonder whether the Jubilees writer had other sources that have since been lost, or whether they were just filling in holes with convincing detail in order to make a narrative that pleased them more.

And if the Jubilees writer could have done that, why not the Genesis writer / series of writers, editors and storytellers?

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMOr maybe because he had been tricked.
That's what I meant, broadly. He was tricked, and the physical manifestation of that trickery was that he was left with a different set of objects.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMI don't think the worst aspect of Judah is that he's controlling.  He is supposed to have provided Tamar with an heir  and hasn't and now is going to punish her for organising it herself.
Well... His controllingness is what's driving him to punish her - for controlling herself when he felt that it was his right to do so.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 01:21AMJudah was the head of what was to become the largest and most prestigious tribe in Israel.  King David and his dynasty were descended from Judah through Tamar.
Yes, it absolutely makes sense that later priests would be concerned with the various implications found in this book that their predecessors behaved in bad ways. Having Judah patch things up with God over it seems like it would make them feel a bit better about it.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 09, 2015, 04:16AM
Apropos of not much, it sometimes perturbs me how 'narratively' people tend to think. Many people tell themselves stories as they go through life - about themselves, about their family, about other people, about local events, about world events - and end up casting things poorly. Essentially, they're referring to a simplified model of the world in their head rather than to the world. Now, we all do that all the time (the brain is an amazing thing), but it is common for people to start believing the predictions of their model over what they actually observe that the world is doing. Again, we all do this to some extent - we just have to try to be able to recognise when we are telling ourselves a story, and when we are perceiving more profoundly.
All the material we are dealing with here has been thoroughly 'narrativised', millennia ago - it's been reduced to memorable series of simplified actions and motives. At some point a narrative conclusion was reached among the group of people that gave rise to this text - "Canaanites are wicked". Today we'd call that simple racism, and point to what we know about genes and their distributions, and to what we know about social groupings and how they can make themselves stronger by 'othering' outsiders. Then, it was unchallenged, and became a powerful enough canard that some Israelites (and I'm sure some Canaanites too, though we don't as far as I'm aware have their side of the story?) mutually detested each other for no better reason than their barely-distinguishable ethnicities.

that's related to something I was going to ask you about too.  Whether you saw the stories as being written with a coherent plot themes running though it - either introduced by the authors (like Jubilees) or by an omnipotent immortal God, or were they just a series of independent stories with as much or as little plot as happens in any history of a number of  generations.

Two for the price of one

Genesis 39 text; cf.
Highlights

 - Joseph faithful despite calamity

Summary

 - Joseph bought by Potiphar, the Captain of the Guard
 - The Lord was with Joseph, he became successful so Potiphar promoted him to be overseer of his house and all his possesions.
 - The Lord blessed everything Joseph was in charge of so Potiphar had no concerns
 - Joseph was hot and Potipar's wife tried to seduce him.
 - Joseph continually resisted her advances so she had him accused of trying to seduce her.
 - Potiphar believed his wife and threw Joseph into jail.
 - Joseph gained the favour of the jailer who put him in charge of it.
 - Once again the Lord blessed everything Joseph was in charge of and the jailer left it to him.

Comments and questions

1) We return to the story of Joseph
2) The slavers were Ishmaelites, so they were related to Joseph.
3) Beware a woman scorned
4) Its nice change to see one of the chosen family with integrity.


Genesis 40 text; cf.
Highlights

 - Joseph interprets dreams

Summary

 - Pharaoh's Chief Cupbearer and Chief Baker were imprisoned
 - They both have dreams and Joseph interprets them
 - The Chief Cupbearer will be restored, the Chief Baker executed
 - Joseph asks the Chief Cupbearer to remember him when he is freed
 - The Chief Cupbearer is restored, the Chief Baker executed
 - The Chief Cupbearer doesn't remember Joseph

Comments and questions

1) Joseph was pretty good with dreams

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 12:32PMthat's related to something I was going to ask you about too.  Whether you saw the stories as being written with a coherent plot themes running though it - either introduced by the authors (like Jubilees) or by an omnipotent immortal God, or were they just a series of independent stories with as much or as little plot as happens in any history of a number of  generations.

Regarding Genesis on its own (as that's as far as we've got here as yet and it's been a long while since I sat down to read any large portion of the rest of it) my feeling is that there were at some point in the vague region of a millennium BC various campfire stories in circulation amongst those that came to form the Jewish state dealing with their long history. These were collected together into one narrative as coherent as it could be made. Which is some way from 100% convincing, as we've noted going through. By various authors? Very probably, in my estimation - over a lengthy time period during which the text was patched and altered to reflect new source influences.

So yes, there are certainly continued plot elements - the "chosen people" thing being probably the most obvious. Another would be the consistent interest in genealogy shown. Other repetitions of theme we've noted and pondered over the meaning of - when the same thing happens in quickish succession to two related people, we wonder whether it actually happened that way or whether at some point in the transmission process the person relating the story changed it. If they did, we wonder whether it was deliberately or accidentally done. If deliberately, we wonder why - to make the story more easily memorable by resonating more clearly with the audience? To make it more dramatic? And we wonder at what stage of the process the change might have occurred - did the original teller make it? Some unknown campfire bard thousands of years ago? The one who originally wrote the material down? One of those who later amended their work? All we really know is that the text as it has reached us has particular characteristics, and has had them since no later than the year ****. (But what is this date??)

For me, the value of the text feels much more in the series of only-sequentially-related generational adventures related, taking us from Abraham to Joseph via Isaac and Jacob. The binding elements via God have the feel of authorial insertion attempting to lend the overall narrative a coherent structure that it didn't naturally have.

An interesting text to compare it to is the Edda, a collection (well, two collections - the so-called Poetic Edda and Prose Edda) of the old Norse stories of history and religion. As this was a) put together in much more recent history than the Bible, and b) deals with a religion that is now dead (indeed was dying when the Edda was compiled), it is possible to be more sure of the authorial process, and avoid controversy in the eyes of the faithful at the same time. With the Edda, we see much more clearly the gathering together of the diverse elements of an oral tradition of historical stories, and we may even conjecture about euhemerisation - wondering whether figures such as Odin and Thor were originally tribal leaders whose deeds grew in the telling until they were regarded as gods. In contrast, the components of the Israelite religious tradition are so old that there is pretty much no intellectual point in wondering whether the various elements that were combined into their monotheistic God began life as human individuals in the same way.

You can find English texts of the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda online behind those links. There's a lot of fascinating material in them, but neither are a quick read...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 07:29PMGenesis 39 text
cf. Jubilees 39; verses 1-13 correspond to Gen 39. Noting that the Judah and Tamar story insertion that we dealt with previously takes place slightly later in the Joseph story in Jubilees than in Genesis. Jubilees has nothing to add to this segment by my reading.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 07:29PMHighlights

 - Joseph faithful despite calamity

Summary

 - Joseph bought by Potiphar, the Captain of the Guard
 - The Lord was with Joseph, he became successful so Potiphar promoted him to be overseer of his house and all his possesions.
 - The Lord blessed everything Joseph was in charge of so Potiphar had no concerns
 - Joseph was hot and Potipar's wife tried to seduce him.
 - Joseph continually resisted her advances so she had him accused of trying to seduce her.
 - Potiphar believed his wife and threw Joseph into jail.
 - Joseph gained the favour of the jailer who put him in charge of it.
 - Once again the Lord blessed everything Joseph was in charge of and the jailer left it to him.

Comments and questions

1) We return to the story of Joseph
2) The slavers were Ishmaelites, so they were related to Joseph.
3) Beware a woman scorned
4) Its nice change to see one of the chosen family with integrity.
Indeed it is! It has become a little wearing to repeatedly read of their toxic bickerings. So thank you to Joseph for lifting our mood.

Trying to fit Joseph into a known Egyptian historical period is an interesting conundrum - I'll come back to it when the Pharaoh is introduced.

Incidentally, the Wiki page on Potiphar gives us a few speculations on this episode - one of which (due to fiction author Thomas Mann) is that Potiphar's wife's sexual frustration could have been due to Potiphar being a eunuch. Certainly it was not uncommon in ancient Egypt for a eunuch to have status. It also notes that the usual punishment for rape there and then was death, maybe suggesting some known mitigating circumstances. There is more than meets the eye to this story, though it is pretty unclear exactly what.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 07:29PMGenesis 40 text
Jubilees 39:14-18 covers Genesis 40 - Jubilees definitely giving less detail here.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 09, 2015, 07:29PMHighlights

 - Joseph interprets dreams

Summary

 - Pharaoh's Chief Cupbearer and Chief Baker were imprisoned
 - They both have dreams and Joseph interprets them
 - The Chief Cupbearer will be restored, the Chief Baker executed
 - Joseph asks the Chief Cupbearer to remember him when he is freed
 - The Chief Cupbearer is restored, the Chief Baker executed
 - The Chief Cupbearer doesn't remember Joseph

Comments and questions

1) Joseph was pretty good with dreams

I'd have been rather upset in Joseph's shoes to have been forgotten! Though more upset in the baker's shoes...

I concur that this pair of chapters is a pretty straightforward narrative. One could ask - in reality, did these things happen like this? But there isn't a great deal of point in probing small details in this way - scholars have been searching for corroboration for centuries.

I neglected to mention an important biblical theme introduced here: the "suffering servant". 

This is where a person serves faithfully while suffering unjustly, often from the person/people he is serving, and often because of his faithful service.

(I don't think its mentioned before this, but for Joseph the theme is strong.)

This is ultimately God's responsibility and discussed in Rom 5:1... and Heb 12:1-17 which mentions Esau as a counter example

Genesis 41 text
Highlights

 - Joseph goes from prisoner to vice-ruler of Egypt by interpreting Pharaoh's dreams

Summary

 - Joseph was in jail 2 more years before Pharaoh had 2 troubling dreams
 - Pharaoh called for his magicians to interpret them, but no-one could
 - The Chief Butler remembers Joseph and tells Pharaoh that he can interpret dreams
 - Joseph is summoned, and says that it will be God that provides the answer
 - Pharaoh retells the dreams and Joseph explains what they mean : 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine
 - Joseph says that 2 dreams mean that they are fixed by God and that he will shortly bring it about.
 - Joseph advises Pharaoh to appoint a wise man to gather and save up crops in the good years so that it can be used during the famine.
 - Pharaoh decides that Joseph was The Man and appoints him as second in command.
 - Joseph is given a proper Egyptian name and a wife, Asenath
 - the times of plenty happened as predicted and Joseph gathered lots of grain.
 - Asenath had 2 sons to Joseph: Manasseh and Ephraim
 - The 7 years of famine began as predicted but Egypt had bread,
 - (all) the neighbouring countries had to come to Egypt to buy grain.


Comments and questions

1) current literary analysis (ie Wikipedia) is that unlike the stories of his ancestors, the story of Joseph is a single unitary story with literary origins.
2) there is a huge difference between Joseph now and the brash teenager depicted in ch 37. 
3) So if two dreams mean that God is going to make it happen soon, then what about Joseph's two dreams in ch37 where his family would bow down to him? I wonder if he was thinking about that?
4) I'd like to know what Joseph's Egyptian name meant, there are too many different opinions on the web.
5) Asenath was the daughter of Potiphera the priest of On. On is the original name for Heliopolis - the city was the centre of worship of Ra the sun god. 

Genesis 42 text

Highlights

 - Joseph sees his brothers but is not yet reconciled.

Summary

 - the famine hits Canaan.  Jacob tells his sons to not just sit there looking at each other, but to go to Egypt to but some grain.
- they have to but the grain from Joseph, he recognises them but they don't recognise him
- Joseph accuses the brothers on coming to spy on Egypt.  They deny it
- Joseph tells them to prove their innocence by bringing their remaining brother back.
- the brothers decide that they are being punished for the distress they caused Josepth when they sold him, this makes Joseph cry
- Joseph decides to keep Simeon hostage to ensure that they bring back Benjamin.
- Joseph sends them on their way with grain, but also hides their money in their sacks fir the grain.
- When they get home they recount what happened to Jacob, and that they have to take Benjamin to Egyot to get Simeon back.
- Reuben offers his two sons as surety that he will bring Benjamin back
- Jacob says that he has lost to much, and would die if he lost Benjamin too

Comments and questions

1) "Don't just sit there looking at each other..."  that's what my Dad used to tell me as a kid

2) There's a contrast with the previous chapter where he says that God has made him forget his fathers house and then here his brothers appear.  This may have been 7 years later but still ....

3) In Joseph's dream all of his family bowed to him, here we only have his older brothers bowing.

4) Jacob still favours Rachel's kids, but the brothers are willing to self-sacrifice for Benjamin

Thanks Martin. Have been meaning to give a few moments to this thread for a few days now, but brass band contest preparations and general otherwise busyness are proving a reasonable challenge at the moment! January will be calmer...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 10, 2015, 06:42PMGenesis 41 text
cf. Jubilees 40 and 42:1-3

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 10, 2015, 06:42PMHighlights

 - Joseph goes from prisoner to vice-ruler of Egypt by interpreting Pharaoh's dreams

Summary

 - Joseph was in jail 2 more years before Pharaoh had 2 troubling dreams
 - Pharaoh called for his magicians to interpret them, but no-one could
 - The Chief Butler remembers Joseph and tells Pharaoh that he can interpret dreams
 - Joseph is summoned, and says that it will be God that provides the answer
 - Pharaoh retells the dreams and Joseph explains what they mean : 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine
 - Joseph says that 2 dreams mean that they are fixed by God and that he will shortly bring it about.
 - Joseph advises Pharaoh to appoint a wise man to gather and save up crops in the good years so that it can be used during the famine.
 - Pharaoh decides that Joseph was The Man and appoints him as second in command.
 - Joseph is given a proper Egyptian name and a wife, Asenath
 - the times of plenty happened as predicted and Joseph gathered lots of grain.
 - Asenath had 2 sons to Joseph: Manasseh and Ephraim
 - The 7 years of famine began as predicted but Egypt had bread,
 - (all) the neighbouring countries had to come to Egypt to buy grain.


Comments and questions

1) current literary analysis (ie Wikipedia) is that unlike the stories of his ancestors, the story of Joseph is a single unitary story with literary origins.
And, expanding on that, here's what Wikipedia says immediately after it notes that:
Quote from: Wikipedia... the majority of modern biblical scholars date the Joseph story in its current form to the 5th century BCE Persian era at the earliest. There have been many attempts to trace the story's redaction history including work by Donald Redford. His theory states that a first "Reuben version" of the story originated in the northern kingdom of Israel and was intended to justify the domination by the “house of Joseph” over the other tribes; this was followed by a later “Judah-expansion” (chapters 38 and 49) elevating Judah as the rightful successor to Jacob; and finally various embellishments were added so that the novella would function as the bridge between the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob material in Genesis and the following story of Moses and the Exodus.
400s BC is many hundreds of years after the events depicted, raising questions over how sensible it is to try to identify characters in it with historically attested figures - which is where this touches my interest in it - the obvious question to my mind that it raises being "Which Pharoah is referenced in the story?".

Regretfully, I tend to conclude that given the apparent nature of the story's genesis, we're wasting our time trying to work out who might have been what in reality. Wikipedia's note on the story's possible historicity lays this out clearly.

That said, it is striking that the 14th century BC Pharoah Akhenaten, famous for introducing a monotheistic faith with little apparent motivation, lived in the same broad historical span as the Joseph story is set in. Whether or not there's any truth in any of Genesis, it is certainly possible that Hebrew monotheism and Akhenaten's monotheism could have been related ideas, geographically in reasonable proximity as they were.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 10, 2015, 06:42PM2) there is a huge difference between Joseph now and the brash teenager depicted in ch 37. 
3) So if two dreams mean that God is going to make it happen soon, then what about Joseph's two dreams in ch37 where his family would bow down to him? I wonder if he was thinking about that?
4) I'd like to know what Joseph's Egyptian name meant, there are too many different opinions on the web.
I note that Jubilees 40:10 has a different variation on the same name, but in no way am I enough of a scholar on the subject to offer any valid opinion as to which might be more 'accurate'. Genesis has "Zaphenath-paneah", while Jubilees has "Sephantiphans". I'll go so far as to assert that these look like differing transliterations of the same name, but no further.

Given that apparently everyone has been in confusion on this point for more than 2,000 years, we're unlikely to get much joy here, I'm afraid...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 10, 2015, 06:42PM5) Asenath was the daughter of Potiphera the priest of On. On is the original name for Heliopolis - the city was the centre of worship of Ra the sun god.
Potiphera... Now where have we heard a name like that before...?

Potiphar. Whose wife falsely accused Joseph, whose punishment did not seem to match the gravity of his alleged crime. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to equate Potiphar and Potiphera - the two names are certainly very much more closely related than the two versions of Joseph's Egyptian name mentioned above. Priests could hold high office in Egypt at this time. I suppose though that Potiphar cannot have been a eunuch, if Joseph married his daughter... Weird layout though - Joseph imprisoned for allegedly sexually molesting his wife, then he marries his daughter... Some back-story here would help! All speculation really, but intriguing.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 14, 2015, 10:31PMGenesis 42 text
cf. Jubilees 42

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 14, 2015, 10:31PMHighlights

 - Joseph sees his brothers but is not yet reconciled.

Summary

 - the famine hits Canaan.  Jacob tells his sons to not to sit there looking at each other, but to go to Egypt to but some grain.
- they have to but the grain from Joseph, he recognises them but they don't recognise him
- Joseph accuses the brothers on coming to spy on Egypt.  They deny it
- Joseph tells them to prove their innocence by bringing their remaining brother back.
- the brothers decide that they are being punished for the distress they caused Josepth when they sold him, this makes Joseph cry
- Joseph decides to keep Simeon hostage to ensure that they bring back Benjamin.
- Joseph sends them on their way with grain, but also hides their money in their sacks fir the grain.
- When they get home they recount what happened to Jacob, and that they have to take Benjamin to Egyot to get Simeon back.
- Reuben offers his two sons as surety that he will bring Benjamin back
- Jacob says that he has lost to much, and would die if he lost Benjamin too

Comments and questions

1) "Don't just sit there looking at each other..."  that's what my Dad used to tell me as a kid

2) There's a contrast with the previous chapter where he says that God has made him forget his fathers house and then here his brothers appear.  This may have been 7 years later but still ....

3) In Joseph's dream all of his family bowed to him, here we only have his older brothers bowing.

4) Jacob still favours Rachel's kids, but the brothers are willing to self-sacrifice for Benjamin

Yes, Jacob is still playing his games of favouritism. Silly fellow.

It's curious/unrealistic that Joseph would be recognised by none of his brothers. They saw him, they talked to him extensively. People change in a decade, but Joseph would have had to become someone completely other for this to have worked.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 17, 2015, 09:09AMIt's curious/unrealistic that Joseph would be recognised by none of his brothers. They saw him, they talked to him extensively. People change in a decade, but Joseph would have had to become someone completely other for this to have worked.

My line of thought for this was:
- he was a teenager when his brothers last saw him (I don't know if this is realistic but that's what I imagined)
- he's 30 when Pharaoh appoints him Gen 41:46
- he had 2 kids before the famine came: so say another 2 years
- then 7 years of famine
- so if the brothers came to Egypt as soon as the famine started then Joseph would be 39
- there's likely to be a big change in appearance between a late teen and a 39 year old, yes?
- as vizier Joseph was going to be all made up and decked out in regalia
- his brothers probably thought Joseph was dead
- and they wouldn't have been expecting him to be the vizier of Egypt - that little brat!
- they would have been stressed out, trying to make a good impression and then the ruler thought that they were spies

So I don't think its that unrealistic that they would not have believed that the visier was their brother.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 17, 2015, 12:46PMMy line of thought for this was:
- he was a teenager when his brothers last saw him (I don't know if this is realistic but that's what I imagined)
- he's 30 when Pharaoh appoints him Gen 41:46
- he had 2 kids before the famine came: so say another 2 years
- then 7 years of famine
- so if the brothers came to Egypt as soon as the famine started then Joseph would be 39
- there's likely to be a big change in appearance between a late teen and a 39 year old, yes?
- as vizier Joseph was going to be all made up and decked out in regalia
- his brothers probably thought Joseph was dead
- and they wouldn't have been expecting him to be the vizier of Egypt - that little brat!
- they would have been stressed out, trying to make a good impression and then the ruler thought that they were spies

So I don't think its that unrealistic that they would not have believed that the visier was their brother.

I think your line of reasoning is very likely, Martin.  Remember, as well, that the Hebrews grew full beards and the Egyptians were always clean shaven in addition to the differences in dress, etc.  Also Joseph was apparently speaking through an interpreter.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 17, 2015, 06:12PMI think your line of reasoning is very likely, Martin.  Remember, as well, that the Hebrews grew full beards and the Egyptians were always clean shaven in addition to the differences in dress, etc.  Also Joseph was apparently speaking through an interpreter.

That is possible.

But the theme of not recognizing someone you should does repeat numerous times, so it may be more than that.  Even Mary didn't recognize Jesus in the NT, mistaking him for the gardener.

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 18, 2015, 05:03AMThat is possible.

But the theme of not recognizing someone you should does repeat numerous times, so it may be more than that.  Even Mary didn't recognize Jesus in the NT, mistaking him for the gardener.

Not sure of the significance of that.  In a book the size of the Bible numerous things are repeated, but whether they are significant or not depends on a variety of circumstances: how central to the plot line of scripture, to whom is the repeated event happening, etc.

What significance do you see in that repeated theme?

Genesis 43 text
Genesis 44 text

This summarises chapters 43 and 44.

Highlights

 - The brothers fall for the moeny in the sack trick, again.
 - We're left wondering, what's going to happen now?

Summary

 - The famine is still going strong, and the ben Abraham family has already eaten up the provisions they got from their first trip to Egypt.
- Jacob tells them to go back and buy more food.
- Judah pipes up: they were told not to come back unless they bring their youngest brother Ben with them. He promises to take care of Benjamin .
- They head off, and in Egypt, Joseph invites them all over to his house, and Joseph's servant releases Simeon to them.
Joseph arrives, and his brothers bow down and give him the money and goodies they brought with them. They all eat, drink, and get toasted.
- Then Joseph arranges for the servant to put food and the silver they used to pay for it in their bags. Just like last time. Plus, he directs the servant to put his very own silver goblet in Ben's bag. What's Joseph up to?
- After the brothers depart, Joseph sends the steward of his house after the brothers. He's supposed to accuse them of stealing the cup.
- The steward finds the silver cup in Ben's bag.
- Judah speaks up. After all, he's the one who pledged to Jacob that he would bring Ben back to him. And now, Ben's going to be killed, and they're all going to become slaves.
- Joseph says he'll take Ben as his slave and let everyone else go.
- Judah tries to persuade Joseph to take him and let Ben go instead. He argues that his father just won't be able to live without Ben, who's the only other surviving son of Rachel.

Comments and questions

1) Looks like Judah is redeeming himself for hatching the plot to sell Joseph into slavery (recall 37:26-27).
2) The old money in the sack trick again. Do you think that they should have checked their sacks before they left?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 18, 2015, 05:09PMNot sure of the significance of that.  In a book the size of the Bible numerous things are repeated, but whether they are significant or not depends on a variety of circumstances: how central to the plot line of scripture, to whom is the repeated event happening, etc.

What significance do you see in that repeated theme?

The significance of repeated themes in general is that it was common practice to tell a new story in terms of an old one.  Therefore, what seems to be a prediction is usually not, it's just knowledge of a previous story, and sometimes what seems to be an error or contradiction also is not, again, it's just knowledge of a previous story.

The significance of this particular repeated theme is one I'm not sure of.  Have to think about that one. 

Genesis 45 text

Highlights

- Joseph finally reveals himself to his brothers
- God uses the bad actions of the brothers to save the chosen family.

Summary

 - Joseph reveals his true identity. And his first question: is his father still alive?
 - His brothers are totally dumbfounded and don't answer.
 - Joseph takes the chance to credit God with their survival from the famine. "you sold me here", but "God sent me before you to preserve life"
 - Joseph instructs his brothers to tell his father that God made him lord of Egypt.
 - Cue big, sappy reunion scene.
 - The news of Joseph's little family reunion spreads to Pharaoh. Pharaoh tells Joseph to move his family to Egypt. Plus, Pharaoh himself will finance the move down. Nice deal.
 - Joseph bestows gifts and fine clothes upon his brothers and gives more to Benjamin than the others.
 - Finally, they tell Jacob that Joseph is alive and he's practically the king of Egypt.
 - Initially skeptical, Jacob finally exclaims with joy and wants to see Joseph. ASAP.



Questions and Observations

1. Is this the denoument or the story, or is that still coming?
2. So the brothers may have been the ones who sold him into slavery, but God is the one who sent him down here to sustain them through the famine.
  - Does that mean that God actually acheives his purposes using peoples jealousy, deceit, and crime?
  - Does this absolve the people of their responsibility for the bad stuff they do?
  - Does it make God responsible for the bad stuff they do?
  - Has the writer tried to reconcile the interaction of the brothers doing things for their reasons but God using these things for his own purposes?

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 19, 2015, 04:29AMThe significance of repeated themes in general is that it was common practice to tell a new story in terms of an old one.  Therefore, what seems to be a prediction is usually not, it's just knowledge of a previous story, and sometimes what seems to be an error or contradiction also is not, again, it's just knowledge of a previous story.

The significance of this particular repeated theme is one I'm not sure of.  Have to think about that one. 

Tim, I have to disagree with your statements above about predictive prophecy.  I suspect they have more to do with your overall worldview and the highly unlikely occurrence-- in your thinking-- of predictive prophecy than with repeated themes.  To me your suggestion has more the feel of a rationalization than than a reason, but I show my hand here as well.  Our pre-commitments often lead us to find things in the text, don't they?

We've seen a lot of repeated stories or themes so far in Genesis.  eg 3 creation stories, 3 stories where people have claimed their wife was their sister ...

These may or may not have been separate similar events or different stories about the same event. (I'm assuming you know what I think)  The writer included all of these, in his story, and each retelling has differences that I think are significant, and not just because the writer couldn't tell which one was true.  eg the creation stories: Gen 1 tells us the story from the world wide point of view, Gen 2 zooms in to tell us what happened to get the garden ready for Adam and Eve.  The flood is an undoing and recreation of the world after God's judgement.  They all add the the plot that the writer is creating and seem to be included so that we look for the differences and what they might mean.

So far we haven't had any retold stories that may arguably be fulfillment of prophecies yet.  But these are often marked out as "this was to fulfull such and such"  or something fairly obvious like that.  So in that case the writer is claiming that an event is fulfillment of a previous prophecy and not just a retelling of a story.  Often there are no obvious markers to say that it is the fulfullment of prophecy though.  But if you accept that some of the stories are fullfilments then its not hard to accept that stories that aren't marked can still be fullfilments.

We're on the cusp of a potential fulfillment so we can discuss the specifics as we get to them.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 20, 2015, 03:35PMTim, I have to disagree with your statements above about predictive prophecy.  I suspect they have more to do with your overall worldview and the highly unlikely occurrence-- in your thinking-- of predictive prophecy than with repeated themes.  To me your suggestion has more the feel of a rationalization than than a reason, but I show my hand here as well.  Our pre-commitments often lead us to find things in the text, don't they?

This isn't my idea originally, though.  I've found it in quite a number of religious writers, though I suspect you would dismiss them as liberal.  Just out of memory a few names I recall would be Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, L Michael White, John Shelby Spong.  (okay the last isn't exactly mainstream but the others are) 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 23, 2015, 04:57AMThis isn't my idea originally, though.  I've found it in quite a number of religious writers, though I suspect you would dismiss them as liberal.  Just out of memory a few names I recall would be Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, L Michael White, John Shelby Spong.  (okay the last isn't exactly mainstream but the others are) 

I wouldn't call any of them "mainstream."  They all skew to the radical end of biblical scholarship and none of them seem to have even a shred of respect for the historical integrity of the biblical text.  Biblical scholarship certainly is a continuum, but scholars who only seem approach the text with the intent to tear it down, as the likes of Ehrman and Pagels for example, do, should not be seen as "mainstream."  Their works have been highly criticized by many who would not call themselves "conservatives" and many of their claims are problematic even to scholars who would identify themselves as "liberal."

3 for the price of 1

Genesis 46 text
Genesis 47 text
Genesis 48 text

Highlights

- The family is reunited and Jacob hands the family to the next generation.

Summary

- With God's blessing Jacob moves his entire family, property, and goods to Egypt.
- Another Family List.  Jacob had 70 descendants.
- Jacob and Joseph meet up in Goshen, and it gets emotional.
- A big meeting with Pharaoh comes around, and Joseph introduces five of his brothers as representatives for the entire family.
 - Pharaoh tells Joseph to take them to Goshen and, if they're able, to look after his livestock.
- Then Joseph introduces his father Jacob. Jacob blesses Pharaoh
- Joseph sets everyone up with some land and food and makes sure everyone has enough.
- The famine is getting really bad in Egypt, and each year, the Egyptians have to pay more and more in order to eat.
- Pharaoh takes possession of the land and the people, and the people thank Joseph for their survival - this pertains to "this day".
- When Jacob is 147 years old, he knows death is drawing near, so he summons Joseph and makes him promise that he bury him with their ancestors in Canaan.
- Joseph takes his two sons to see Jacob. Jacob explains that Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, will now be counted as if they were Jacob's sons.
- So the twelve tribes of Israel will be Reuben, Gad, Simeon, Judah, Dan, Benjamin, Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun, Issachar, Manasseh, and Ephraim.
- Joseph's tribe is actually two tribes named after his sons, and Levi doesn't get a tribe at all. Why not? Because he's going to be the father of all priests. And this is why the 12 tribes are called the Children of Israel.
- Jacob, who's mostly called Israel now, gives a formulaic blessing to Manasseh and Ephraim. Now Jacob's having trouble seeing, just like his father, Isaac, did (recall 27:1).
- Jacob blesses the younger son, Ephraim, with the right hand, typically reserved for the eldest son.
- Jacob gathers all of his sons and blesses them. He says that Judah and not Reuben will be preeminent
- He reminds them that he wants to be buried in the cave Abraham bought, with his ancestors, and then he dies.


Questions and Observations

 - Jacob effectively gives Joseph a double inheritance because both of Joseph sons are counted the same as his brothers.
 - Jacob passes on the first borns blessing to Judah rather than Reuben.  ISTM that he has finally stopped favouring Rachel's children.
 - In Gen 15:13 we read "Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years."  And here we are in Genesis 46 with Abraham's offspring sojourning in a land that is not theirs.  So God has said he something is going to happen and here we are seeing that event happen.  It seems to me that the writer is writing this as if its supposed to be a fulfillment of prophecy**.  I think it is, but I know that not everyone will.  But whether it is a real fulfillment or just an apparent one isn't my question.

My question is for those that don't think its an apparent fulfillment of prophecy: what indicates that it isn't?  Maybe the Hebrews used a retelling of stories trope sometimes, that wasn't meant to be a fulfillment trope, but what makes this one of those?

** On second thought he's writes it not as though something God predicted, happened, but he writes that God caused it to happen (Gen 45:7,8) like he said it would.  So we've got the writer making two claims: one, that God said what would happen in the future; and two, that he made it happen.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 23, 2015, 03:05PM but scholars who only seem approach the text with the intent to tear it down, as the likes of Ehrman and Pagels for example,
Throw mud much?

Ascribing nefarious intent merely because someone has reached a different conclusion than you is not productive.

They are both products of very conservative seminaries and in Ehrman's case at least came up in a very conservative evangelical tradition. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 24, 2015, 04:55AMThrow mud much?

Ascribing nefarious intent merely because someone has reached a different conclusion than you is not productive.

They are both products of very conservative seminaries and in Ehrman's case at least came up in a very conservative evangelical tradition. 

I'm well aware that Ehrman is grew up in the conservative evangelical tradition, but while his undergraduate training was in such institutions, his seminary training was not. I'm not sure about Pagels.

Tim, it's not throwing  mud.  Ehrmman's approach is clearly one of looking for the least historically accurate reading of the texts everywhere he looks.  It's not just looking at evidence, but looking at it in the most skeptical manner one can.  I don't know any other way to describe his scholarship.  It's as  skewed as the most hard-core fundamentalist, in my opinion, only on the opposite end of the spectrum.  You may agree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that his presuppostions-  there's that  word again--  are that the text is the product of such lousy handling by the early church that  we can't trust it at all.

Genesis 50 text

Highlights

- Joseph dies expecting God to return the family to Canaan
- God works through sinful people to acheive good

Summary

 - Joseph orders his physicians to embalm Jacob, aka mummification.  That takes 40 days.
 - The Egyptians mourn for 70 days
 - Joseph requests permission from Pharaoh to leave Egypt to bury his father in Canaan,
 - Jacob is buried according to his wishes in the cave at Machpelah.
 - The brothers were worried that Joseph would want to get back at them now that Jacob had dies, so they ask for forgiveness.
 - Joseph credits God with the good fortune that resulted from their devious action.
 - Everything is all good between Joseph and his brothers. Joseph will continue to take care of them.
 - Joseph says that God will bring the brothers out of Egypt back to the land that God promised.
 - Joseph dies, is turned into a mummy, and is placed in a coffin in Egypt.


Questions and Observations

1. I guess that the amount of mouning for Jacob would have been in keeping with Joseph's status.
2. I guess that this would have also been apparent in the burial - so I'd expect that there would have been lots of Egyptian pomp and ceromony - hence the local Cananites thinking it was an Egyptian ceremony.
3. verse 20 is significant for me as it states that God works good through sinful people and their actions.
4. The writer finishes by telling us of Josephs descendants and reiterating Gods promises


The End of Genesis

We've finished Genesis, so I thought it would be an idea to do my overview and ask some questions to see if you were paying attention


Themes - this is what I noticed

- Creation : we've had 3 accounts of creation, heaven and the earth in chapter 1, Eden in chapter 2 and then a new start in the flood - ch 6-9

- Sibling Rivalry : there was lots of this wasn't there, Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers

- Infertility : Sarah, Rachel and Rebekah.  All needed God to get things going.

- Covenants and promises : Adam and Eve, Noah, and finally with Abraham and his descendants.  And it was important to God that his promises were believed.

- Lies and deceit : the serpent, and most of the patriarchs are liars.



Analysis of the text

- Genre : its basically a narrative: where the narrator and God are reliable and generally well informed

- Repetitions : there are lots.  I think that they are there for a purpose and not just random

- the text is very selective of the events it tells : just what the writer wants.


Questions and Observations
(these were mainly new things I've noticed or thought of)

- What concept of God does Genesis promote?

- How do the women of Genesis make their way and achieve their own agendas in this male-dominated and patriarchal society?

- Of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph's brothers, who most deserves to go to prison? Why are so many of the patriarchs crooks? What does this imply about the relationship between God's promises and human virtues or human history?

- God makes big promises, but what are the major problems that get in the way of their fulfillment?  How are the problems overcome?

- How do Abraham and Jacob relate to God? Would you characterize them as faithful, impious, demanding, argumentative, or what?  Are these put forward as valid ways of relating to God?

- What are the sexual mores of this text? What kind of sex is good, bad, or indifferent?



As always, your contribution is welcome.

And stay tuned for the next Episode where we find out what happens to the chosen family in Egypt after Joseph dies.

Exodus 1 text

Highlights

- The plot for the book is setup: A new Pharaoh arises in Egypt + growing Hebrew nation => conflict between the two nations.  How will it be resolved?

Summary

 - Quick recap of the characters from the end of Genesis - and a note there were 70 descendants of Jacob - aka Children of Israel
 - Notice how the boys get names in the book, but the girls don't. Just the way it was back then. 
 - A new god-king Pharaoh rises to power in Egypt, he didn't know Joseph so gets worried about the number of Hevrews.
 - So Pharaoh decides to make the Israelites do forced labor for Egypt in service to their new uber-civilization.
 - But the Israelites just keep on multiplying.
 - Pharaoh asks two Hebrew midwives, Puah and Shiphrah, to kill all the Israelite male babies.
 - The midwives lie to Pharaoh about killing babies and God rewards them for preserving life.
 - Pharaoh orders all Egyptians to kill newborn Israelite boys by throwing them into the Nile.


Questions and Observations

1. I'm guessing that just like the girls weren't named, they weren't counted in the 70 descendants either.
2. The Egyptians considered that their Pharaohs were gods
3. Ancient Israel is caught between two dueling powers, one in Egypt and one in Mesopotamia.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 29, 2015, 12:36PM
 - Pharaoh asks two Hebrew midwives, Puah and Shiphrah, to kill all the Israelite male babies.
Pharaoh must have been exceedingly simple to think no suspicious trend would be noticed regarding these women.



 

Rob,

AS you say the midwives story raises some questions.  My rationalisation goes something like:

- were they Hebrew midwives or midwives to the Hebrews, hence Egyptian
   - apparently the original language allows both translations
- I think that there are a couple of hints that point to the mid-wives being Egyptian
   - Hebrew women would be unlikely to want to kill Hebrew babies, or have Pharaoh would take them into his confidence
   - the midwives comparison of Hebrew and Egyptian births infers that it was believable that they knew about Egyptian births.  I think this unlikely if they were Hebrew
   - Pharaoh believed their explanation:
       - if they were Hebrew then as you say he would have had to have been pretty "simple" and gullible,
           - I don't think he was cause he's just taken over the rule of one of the super-powers of the time and that suggests to me that he's not simple or gullible
       - but if they were Egyptians, it would be a believable reason for Pharaoh,
       - and also a more believable account for the reader
       - there are a lot of miraculous events in Exodus that are unbelievable enough so I think that the writer keeps the mundane bits normal and believable
   - against all that, I've read that the names were Semitic.

So on balance I think that the mid-wives were Egyptian and their story believable.

Its pretty frustrating at times that the writer doesn't provide all the background information that I think he should have.  The writer seems to have focused his text on what he thought was important to tell the story he wanted.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 29, 2015, 03:41PM
   - Pharaoh believed their explanation:
       - if they were Hebrew then as you say he would have had to have been pretty "simple" and gullible,
           - I don't think he was cause he's just taken over the rule of one of the super-powers of the time and that suggests to me that he's not simple or gullible


Ya know... that super-power ruler stuff isn't fool proof. It's highly likely this new pharaoh was the son or relative of the previous pharaoh .

I recall a recent situation where a guy got a hold of a super-power largely on the basis of his father having been a previous ruler and that was pretty much a disaster.

There was no simpleness or gullibility bar for him.  In fact, I've read that people favored him because they thought he'd be the one "they'd rather have a beer with."

I understand there was another contender for the same job who was suspected to be more intelligent and capable in every way... and he had to try to hide that to have any chance at all.

I think history shows that merit is among the lesser considerations when super-powers choose rulers.

You're right. Stupidity happens.

And based on Hansen's Law you would probably see stupidity as the more likely cause.

I don't see it making a difference to the wider story, do you?