TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible

[ttf_drizabone]

Exodus 2 text

Highlights

- Moses is born, saved and raised as a prince
- Moses marries priests daughter

Summary

 - A boy is born to a Levite Hebrew woman who hides him for three months—remember the whole kill-the-firstborn thing? Then she puts him in a basket in the reeds of the Nile, and asks Miriam (the boy's sister) to keep an eye on him.
- Meanwhile, Pharaoh's daughter is taking a bath in the river. She finds the baby and thinks he's cute. She wants to keep him after recognizing that he must be one of these Hebrew boys.
- Conveniently, Miriam shows up and says, "I can find you a woman to breast feed this kid!" So Miriam runs and gets the baby's mother to do the job.
- The kid grows up past breastfeeding age, and Pharaoh's daughter takes him as her son. She calls him Moses, which means "I took him from the water." Moses is an Egyptian name, incidentally.
- Moses grows up knowing he's a Hebrew in Pharaoh's household. One day, he goes for a stroll to see his Hebrew brethren and sees an Egyptian beating a Hebrew. He makes sure no one's around, kills the Egyptian, and leaves.
- Later, Moses sees two Hebrews fighting and breaks it up. The Hebrew yells, "Who made you a judge and ruler over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" (2:14)
- Moses freaks out and runs away.
- Pharaoh finds out.
- Moses settles in Midian and helps out some Midian women trying to tend their father Reuel's flock. Reul is the Priest of Midian.
- The women tell Reuel about the help Moses gave them, and Reuel gives Moses one of his daughters, Zipporah, as a thank you. Yeah.
- They have a son and name him Gershom.
- Pharaoh dies.
- God is still around—he remembers his covenant with the Israelites and hears their cries.

Questions and Observations

1. Its a very condensed summary of the first 20 or so years of his life isn't it.
2. ISTM That the Princess finding and adopting Moses and using his mum as a wet nurse would be too good to be true were it not for divine providence.  Which is what the writer wants you to think.
3. I think that traditionally Moses was in Midian for 20 years too.
4. So Moses is brought up as a ruler and then spends a time in a priests home married to his daughter.  I wonder if he picked up any useful skills during those times?
5. FYI Hebrews and Israelites mean the same thing, but you probably knew that.

[ttf_drizabone]

Exodus 3 text

Highlights

- God introduces himself to Moses
- God promises to bring the People back to the Promised Land

Summary

- Moses is guarding his father-in-law's flock of sheep, and he takes them "beyond the wilderness" (3:1) to Horeb, the mountain of God.
- The angel of God appears to him in a flame in a bush that's on fire but doesn't burn. Moses checks out the situation.
- God calls Moses and tells him that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that this is Holy Ground.
- God says that he's seen the affliction of his people and has come to deliver them out of the hands of the Egyptians  to bring them back to the Promised Land and that Moses will lead them.
- Moses, a bit freaked out by all this, asks God why he's been chosen for the job.
- God tells him not to worry, that he'll give him signs and that Moses will bring the people back to this place.
- Moses asks God for his name so that he can tell the Israelites who sent him.  God says that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that his name is YHWH, which is translated "I am who I am"
- God tells Moses to tell the People if Israel that he will bring them out of Egypt to a land flowing with milk and honey, that they will listen to him, that Pharaoh will need signs to convince him to let them go, and that the Egyptians will give them lots of shiny stuff.

Questions and Observations

 1. In the first 2 chapters the writer details a few incidents over decades, so each incident must be significant.
 2. This incident where Moses meets God gets 1 1/2 chapters. 
 3. The writer seems to want to show that God is dangerous, like a power substation, holy, so he has to be approached with care
 4. Names have been important in the story so far )including Genesis), and often describe a persons character or something significant about the person.  God's name doesn't provide any limits, he is who he is and he's that way forever. 
 5. YHWH is sometimes translated as "Jehovah" but often as "The Lord" using all cap's in title case.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 03, 2015, 01:18AMExodus 3 text

Highlights

- God introduces himself to Moses
- God promises to bring the People back to the Promised Land


Wait a second here, where do you get the "back" part?  I just read the text, and He promises to give them a land already occupied by multiple ethnic groups, but there is no mention of "back," unless it's in a previous verse.

This becomes important later in the contrast between Joshua and Judges.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 03, 2015, 04:56AMWait a second here, where do you get the "back" part?  I just read the text, and He promises to give them a land already occupied by multiple ethnic groups, but there is no mention of "back," unless it's in a previous verse.

This becomes important later in the contrast between Joshua and Judges.

Tim, "back" is a very legitimate canonical--i.e. in its context-- reading of this passage.  Exodus 1:1 clearly shows the Exodus narrative as a continuation of the Genesis narrative and Exodus 2:24 sets the narrative in the context of remembering the covenant with the patriarchs which clearly included the promised land.  You may not find the idea of repossessing the land to your liking, but it's not a misreading of the text itself.  It fits very well with a contextual reading of the Exodus narrative.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 03, 2015, 04:56AMWait a second here, where do you get the "back" part?  I just read the text, and He promises to give them a land already occupied by multiple ethnic groups, but there is no mention of "back," unless it's in a previous verse.

This becomes important later in the contrast between Joshua and Judges.

Tim, this chapter doesn't say "back" but as John says. I think its use is justified because of what's said in Genesis.

I wrote :
- "back", because that's where Jacob and his family had came from at the end of Genesis.
- "Promised" because God had promised it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

Are you concerned that the People/Children of Israel hadn't lived there before? or that they didn't own the whole of the land?  Or something else?

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 03, 2015, 12:41PM

Are you concerned that the People/Children of Israel hadn't lived there before? or that they didn't own the whole of the land?  Or something else?

If you asked, hardly anyone could answer how Israelites got from the Garden of Eden to Israel to Egypt and back again, at least without looking it up.

Archaeological evidence doesn't support an Exodus, but does support a gradual development of identity within the area.  The Joshua account of conquest is also not supported, but the Judges version of the same events seems to be close.

Interestingly when the Assyrians conquered the northern half something like 4.5 million refugees were displaced, so a refugee crisis is nothing new.  The southern half wasn't conquered immediately because they were able to negotiate alliances. 

Sorry if I got some details wrong, much of this comes from memory from a lecture course we did over the summer. 

[ttf_robcat2075]

I'll just note that among all the business of Moses left in a basket in the river and the princess bathing in the river and then all the plagues that come later... there is no mention of crocodiles which are common today and had to be common then.

I'd think a baby in a basket would be crocodile lunch before too long and if I were going to send a plague upon Egypt I think crocodiles would be far more likely and compelling than frogs.

It's almost as if the writer hadn't actually been there.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 03, 2015, 12:56PMIf you asked, hardly anyone could answer how Israelites got from the Garden of Eden to Israel to Egypt and back again, at least without looking it up.

Archaeological evidence doesn't support an Exodus, but does support a gradual development of identity within the area.  The Joshua account of conquest is also not supported, but the Judges version of the same events seems to be close.

Interestingly when the Assyrians conquered the northern half something like 4.5 million refugees were displaced, so a refugee crisis is nothing new.  The southern half wasn't conquered immediately because they were able to negotiate alliances. 

Sorry if I got some details wrong, much of this comes from memory from a lecture course we did over the summer. 

Tim, too much to attempt to refute and/or correct in a post, but let me challenge you to read a couple of books by a professor at my alma mater. 

James Hoffmeier is a highly respected Egyptologist and archeologist who has published extensively in this area.  His PHD is from the University of Toronto and his books are published by the likes of such as Oxford University Press.  You really should look at all sides of this issue.  I've read "your side" many times.  It's about time you read some serious historical and archeological work from responsible conservative scholars such as Hoffmeier.  Are you up to the challenge?

Here are a couple of the links:

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0199731691

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0KZMKNCT0WF532K1GZCD

Here's a link to a short bio of Dr. Hoffmeier

http://divinity.tiu.edu/academics/faculty/james-k-hoffmeier-phd/

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: robcat2075 on Dec 03, 2015, 02:02PMI'll just note that among all the business of Moses left in a basket in the river and the princess bathing in the river and then all the plagues that come later... there is no mention of crocodiles which are common today and had to be common then.

I'd think a baby in a basket would be crocodile lunch before too long and if I were going to send a plague upon Egypt I think crocodiles would be far more likely and compelling than frogs.

It's almost as if the writer hadn't actually been there.

Interesting, I'd never thought about crocodiles and never heard it raised as an issue.  I'll see what I can find on it.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: robcat2075 on Dec 03, 2015, 02:02PMI'll just note that among all the business of Moses left in a basket in the river and the princess bathing in the river and then all the plagues that come later... there is no mention of crocodiles which are common today and had to be common then.

I'd think a baby in a basket would be crocodile lunch before too long and if I were going to send a plague upon Egypt I think crocodiles would be far more likely and compelling than frogs.

It's almost as if the writer hadn't actually been there.

Here you go http://news.mongabay.com/2011/09/scientists-confirm-ancient-egyptian-knowledge-nile-crocodile-is-two-species/  and  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/09/14/nile-crocodile-is-actually-two-species-and-the-egyptians-knew-it/

QuoteGreek historian, Herodotus, actually pointed this out nearly two thousand years five hundred ago after visiting Egypt. The researchers write that according to Herodotus, who has been dubbed the Father of History, “ancient Egyptian priests were cognizant of two forms [of Nile crocodile] and selectively used the smaller, more tractable form in temples and ceremonies”. DNA tests of mummified specimens bore this out: all of them were of the more docile Crocodylus suchus.

At one time the Nile crocodile and its cryptic species used to share some of the same habitats, including the Nile River, according to the scientists. Now, however, the smaller Crocodylus suchus survives only in West Africa with researchers speculating that the bigger, fiercer crocodile outcompeted it.

...

Herodotus wrote that the ancient Egyptians recognised one crocodile that was larger and aggressive and another that was tamer and considered sacred, which they raised in temples. That’s part of what Geoffrey St Hilaire used in his description of the species.


So the Princess, Miriam and baby Moses were swimming among the nice friendly sacred crocs, while the mean ugly ones were a long way away.   Problem solved.

[ttf_timothy42b]

I wasn't familiar with Hoffmeier but I'll see what interlibrary loan can turn up.

Googling him I found a number of articles about how he's overturning the consensus among archaeologists.  Really.  At least they recognize the consensus.  Apparently he's gone back through the OT text and recalculated the date of the Exodus, and all the Israeli archaeologists were 200 years off so they were looking in the wrong places. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 04, 2015, 06:02AMI wasn't familiar with Hoffmeier but I'll see what interlibrary loan can turn up.

Googling him I found a number of articles about how he's overturning the consensus among archaeologists.  Really.  At least they recognize the consensus.  Apparently he's gone back through the OT text and recalculated the date of the Exodus, and all the Israeli archaeologists were 200 years off so they were looking in the wrong places. 

Tim, the "consensus" that you are speaking about has done such recalculations numerous times in the history of the discussion.  The "accepted" date of the Exodus has shifted a number of times for a variety of reasons.  It's a classic case of paradigm overload.  When the pardigm'' i,e. the consensus date-- is overloaded with anomalies, you look at the data from a fresh perspective.  That's often when a new consensus emerges.  Dr. Hoffmeier has been crucial in pointing out the need for a new consensus. 

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Dec 04, 2015, 07:45AM  Dr. Hoffmeier has been crucial in pointing out the need for a new consensus. 

Not what I meant, but I explained badly.

Clearly he has different and far more conservative opinions about the historicity of the Exodus and the settlement of Canaan than the Israeli and other archaeologists' consensus suggests.

He's basing his claim that everybody else is wrong and he's right on the idea they don't know the right date for the Exodus, so of course they can't find any archaeological evidence.  I find it extremely problematic to try and dig an exact date for anything out of a text so old and be able to rely on it.  That's taking literalism to an extreme.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 04, 2015, 08:37AMNot what I meant, but I explained badly.

Clearly he has different and far more conservative opinions about the historicity of the Exodus and the settlement of Canaan than the Israeli and other archaeologists' consensus suggests.

He's basing his claim that everybody else is wrong and he's right on the idea they don't know the right date for the Exodus, so of course they can't find any archaeological evidence.  I find it extremely problematic to try and dig an exact date for anything out of a text so old and be able to rely on it.  That's taking literalism to an extreme.

Tim, it's not really about literalism, per se.  There have always been what are labelled as  minimalists and maxmimalists as far as the historicity of OT events are concerned.  Dr. Hoffmeier is attempting to show that his reading of the archeological data-- his expertise-- fits with the maximalist reading.  In other words he is shaking up the consensus of the minimalists because he's arguing and getting a good hearing for his position that the data upholds a maxmimalist, rather than a minimalist position.  Your current opposition to his point of view sounds more like it's based on your assumptions rather than knowledge of what he claims the data actually upholds.  In that sense doesn't seem much different from those of us who hold to more traditional perspectives and are skeptical of the skeptics, seeing behind their work some presuppositions that we believe cloud their assessment of the data.  Might I suggest that you give his work a serious read, if you are seeking to base your opinions on these issues on the strength of the data. 

[ttf_MoominDave]

I have an apology to make - busy busy Dave has not been making time for this, leaving the burden all on Martin. Sorry Martin! We won the band contest though... But no let-up in busyness.

So, catch-up...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 18, 2015, 05:53PMGenesis 43 text
cf. Jubilees 42:4-23

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 18, 2015, 05:53PMGenesis 44 text
cf. Jubilees 42:24-25, Jubilees 43:1-13

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 18, 2015, 05:53PM - We're left wondering, what's going to happen now?
We're reminded that the chapter divisions in the Bible are a relatively modern addition - while Genesis 44 leaves us with a cliffhanger, Jubilees 43 just ploughs straight through into Joseph's reveal. Given that Genesis 45 opens with the reveal, I imagine that those reading in ancient times would not have broken the story here?

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 18, 2015, 05:53PM- 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?

As before, the whole Joseph segment has much more of a coherent narrative to it than anything that's gone before. I can easily see why it would occur to scholars to think of it as a piece of literature - while the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob segments have the feel of small possibly-historical stories stitched together into a narrative, the Joseph story is one long coherent segment.

To me personally, it reads as if Joseph's purpose was to separate out Benjamin from his brothers - to get them apart, then bring Benjamin on side, leaving the brothers that had wronged him out in the cold. But they perform unexpectedly well...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 19, 2015, 06:40PMGenesis 45 text
cf. Jubilees 43:14-24

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 19, 2015, 06:40PMHighlights

- 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?

If we accept a straight historical narrative, asking questions about what purpose things served seems to me, as a non-believer, to be cart-before-the-horse. But you know that...

And however... Given that the story appears to be a later coherent composition, the same questions do illuminate, though possibly not in the way intended - they ask us to look into the mind of the writer, trying to divine the message that they sought to convey. What was the conception of God in the mind of the priest(? perhaps?) who composed (or at least vastly elaborated) the Joseph story? It does seem pretty clear that the message they wished to convey was about there being a purpose for Joseph, one that used the deceit of his brothers to bring about better times for all, turning their wicked act on its head.

I find it interesting that in general Jubilees seems to be briefer on the Joseph story than Genesis. Previously it has often filled in detail, acting as a commentary, which contrasts with this. I conclude tentatively that the Jubilees author felt that the Joseph story was self-explanatory and already covered in more than sufficient detail in Genesis.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 23, 2015, 06:34PMGenesis 46 text
cf. Jubilees 44, Jubilees 45:1-4

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 23, 2015, 06:34PMGenesis 47 text
cf. Jubilees 45

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 23, 2015, 06:34PMGenesis 48 text
cf. Jubilees 45:14-16,

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 23, 2015, 06:34PMHighlights

- 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.

 - Jubilees comes to a different total of people in Jacob's party, making 70 as opposed to the 66 of Genesis. Not a very significant difference...
 - But I'm intrigued by the inclusion of Er and Onan in the list of Judah's sons who travelled. Back in Genesis 38 we had the sordid story of Judah and Tamar, in which Er and Onan were both found dead early on. Gen 38 didn't seem to gel well with other events as we went through, and now this is thoroughly confusing. An obvious thought is that Gen 38 should really be placed after the whole Joseph story, if making a coherent narrative is an aim. Another is that they do feel like separate stories - from separate sources. Can we guess that 'originally' there were two short stories covering this time in the network of campfire stories found in the near Middle East on the subject at the time? A putative short Joseph story and Judah/Tamar? And that the short Joseph formed the basis for the long Joseph elaboration that we have today? I'm just guessing really... But this little detail escaped the writer's attention. I note that Jubilees does not include Er and Onan in the list, so presumably the discrepancy had been spotted by the time it was written.
 - Jubilees 45 swaps verses around a little - the death of Jacob is related before Joseph's manoeuvres on land management.
 - Wikipedia reckons that Goshen is an area between the Eastern Nile delta and the Gulf of Suez. I note that it doesn't comment on this in its customary detail and that the identification is from a time of biblical Western scholarship (1885) that tends to attract cautious annotations in light of later discoveries and thinking. So I'd like to hear some more detail on this intuitively appealing answer before committing to it.
 - Jacob favours a younger son once again. He really hasn't learned from his mistakes...
 - But Jubilees makes nothing of the whole blessing episode. It's a cursory mention with none of the detail of Genesis, nothing more. The whole 'Ephraim will outshine Manasseh' shtick reads to me like an after-the-fact justification of relative political prominences of Israeli tribes in the era of the Joseph author (~5th century BC). If the Tribe of Ephraim had then waned in prominence by the time of the writing of Jubilees (~1st century BC), it would make sense for the author to simply omit that, on the grounds that the written-as-fulfilled prophecy had over the longer term proven to be false.

These chapters provide an example of why Jubilees is a valuable resource - in showing us some 1st-century BC prominent Jewish religious thinking, it hints to us how the thinking and critical analysis on these stories was evolving.

Regarding biblical prophecy, you know my position already - when you're writing long after the fact, you can write whatever you want, and set things up how you wish. Sorry if that's boring.

[ttf_MoominDave]

I think we inadvertently skipped over Genesis 49... Or maybe Martin included it in his general stuff. It doesn't say a lot that isn't said elsewhere. So here it is explicitly:

Genesis 49 text

In fact, it's pretty much a poetical duplication of Genesis 48, with more explicit prophecies of the destinies of Jacob's sons, plus the death and burial of Jacob in the Cave of Machpelah. The end of Jubilees 45 covers this also.

Questions and Observations

I would also read this prophecy as after-the-fact justification for relative later tribal political prominences. I'm sure I have read somewhere that there is a theory that the Bible was put together during the period of Persian administration of the area, as a response to a Persian desire to record the political allegiances and distributions of their subjects. I can't find a reference right now, but I do find some aspects of this an intuitively appealing explanation for why the Bible came to be put together - surely a massive literary undertaking. And scholars do tend to think that the Joseph story was written up at this time.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 08:46PMGenesis 50 text
cf. Jubilees 46:1-8

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 08:46PMHighlights

- 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
Jubilees supplies us with the detail that Joseph was buried in Egypt. It also mixes in a more detailed narrative of Exodus 1, telling us of Makamaron, king of Canaan, who killed the king of Egypt that Joseph worked for.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 08:46PMThe End of Genesis

A big moment! We have completed our first book. Well done all, most especially Martin, who's done most of the work, particularly in the last couple of weeks (28 chapters to my 21 thus far, with one from John). I'll go to celebrate by cleaning out the cat litter trays and doing the food shopping, back in a bit...

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 09:13PMWe'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
Good idea. And one that was in my head too, albeit with a more narrative slant - I'll post my book summary later.

I like your more meta summary though.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 09:13PMThemes - 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?
I think this evolves perceptibly through the text. He starts out as a tangible entity that interacts with humans on their own terms (cf. Adam/Eve, Cain), but for some reason has superpowers, but then becomes more of an intangible thing, appearing in dreams (cf. Abraham), and finally is referenced only in the background, with prophecy considered divinely inspired but without that being explicitly stated (cf. Jacob).

It seems to me that we see the increasing sophistication of the religious thinking of the 'people of the book' throughout this narrative.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 09:13PM- How do the women of Genesis make their way and achieve their own agendas in this male-dominated and patriarchal society?
It varies, doesn't it? As in real life. Some have no trouble getting their way, often in rather manipulative fashion (e.g. Rachel, Tamar) - perhaps the only fashion open to them, I don't make judgement on them automatically for that; others seem passive victims of events (e.g. Dinah). It's a pretty small sample of people to be comparing between, though.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 09:13PM- 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 r
elationship between God's promises and human virtues or human history?
I read this as saying that the later writers were proud to have risen above an ancient tradition of barbarism. We do the same - we look at the lessons of history, and try not to repeat the large chunks that went wrong. Or we should do - I'm currently covering my eyes regarding the naivety of what we seem determined to do in Syria... But hopefully I'm just not as informed as those that are making the decisions...

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 09:13PM- God makes big promises, but what are the major problems that get in the way of their fulfillment?  How are the problems overcome?
This we have differing takes on. For me, it seems obvious that those promises were written in later, to create a satisfying narrative circle. In that situation, you can make whatever you like happen to fulfil them.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 09:13PM- 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?
As presented, God seems utterly indifferent to how Abraham and Jacob relate to him, which is kind of intriguing. This differs from the conception of him earlier in the narrative, where he took a more personal interest in making judgements (e.g. Adam/Eve, Cain, Noah, Babel).

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 24, 2015, 09:13PM- What are the sexual mores of this text? What kind of sex is good, bad, or indifferent?
Obviously very different times. Incidences of polygamy and passing on of wives occur without censure. Masturbation is punishable by death. Although the connection isn't explicitly made to exact sexual acts, Sodom is destroyed for the interests of its inhabitants, and an interest in homosexual rape there is noted in the text.

It all seems laid out to encourage people to maximise the amount of children they have - a vital thing to make society thrive in such an era. Now, our needs are different; we have thrived so much that we endanger our environment. Not having children should be a virtue.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Here we are - the story so far, Book of Genesis:

We start with big picture stuff.

Creation
 - Days of creation, the world and everything in it, Adam and Eve.
 - Tempting of Eve by the serpent; Eve and Adam eat the forbidden fruit.
 - The Fall; A&E expelled from the garden.
The first attempt at a human world
 - Cain murders Abel.
 - Humans spread. Some of them are bad people.
 - Many generations pass.
The flood
 - God becomes weary of human misbehaviour.
 - Noah told to build boat, gather family and animals.
 - Earth is flooded, everything else dies. [A point that we missed at the time occurs to me - if this is true, why do we have trees now? Did Noah take seeds as well?]
The second attempt at a human world
 - Many generations pass; listed lifespans decrease so rapidly that Noah's son Shem outlives all of them.
 - Language creation comes from the Tower of Babel story; Hebrew is specified as the earlier original language.

Now the narrative focusses in on more detail, dealing with the (mis)adventures of Abraham and his family.

Abraham
 - Abram starts out from Ur (modern-day Iraq), travelling extensively with family. He takes in Haran (modern-day Turkey), Canaan (modern-day Israel), the Negeb (desert region in the South of modern-day Israel) Egypt, where Abram and Sarai are evidently politically highly placed, Canaan again. He dwells by the Oaks of Mamre, and is buried in the Cave of Machpelah.
 - God promises Abram and Sarai lots of descendants, renames them Abraham and Sarah, demands circumcision. Isaac shows up late in life, a half-brother for Ishmael, who is banished along his mother Hagar, but also has lots of descendants.
 - Lot escapes Sodom, which Abraham pleads for.
 - Abraham gets out of sacrificing Isaac.
Isaac
 - Abraham's servant brings back Rebekah, a cousin-wife for Isaac.
 - They have twins, Esau and Jacob.
Jacob
 - Jacob subverts Esau's inheritance, and is banished. But Rebekah favours Jacob, and Isaac goes along with it.
 - Jacob is ostensibly sent away to find a cousin-wife. He ends up serving Laban for many years for this, but comes away with two wives (Leah and Rachel) and two concubines (Bilhah and Zilpah), eventually having various sons with all of them.
 - Jacob returns, fearful of Esau's reception. But Esau welcomes him.
 - He is renamed 'Israel'.
 - Jacob's sons create local trouble and he has to move.
Joseph
 - Joseph, Rachel's oldest son, is favoured by Jacob. His brothers resent this and sell him into slavery.
 - Sold to Egypt, he works for highly placed Potiphar, but his wife conspires to jail him.
 - He rises from jail through skill in interpreting dreams prophetically, becoming one of the foremost administrators of the land.
 - Having prepared for famine, Egypt fares well under his stewardship. His family, unknowingly, come to ask him for help.
 - After several turns, he then welcomes them to Egypt, where they take up residence. All live happily ever after...

Or do they...?

[ttf_MoominDave]

And on into Exodus, the final bit of catching-up to where Martin's taken us

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 29, 2015, 12:36PMExodus 1 text
cf. Jubilees 46:9-16

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 29, 2015, 12:36PMHighlights

- 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.

 - Although the books have been divided since ancient times, it is clear that the narrative simply continues through from Genesis to Exodus without a break. Jubilees makes this clear - the division between Genesis and Exodus doesn't even come at the end of a chapter, in Jubilees, it's between two verses within a chapter.
 - I see where Jubilees 46 gets the number 70 from, rather than the 66 given in Genesis 46 - it's given here. But then I also spot that I missed that 66 excluded some wives - so it's probably all correct anyhow. My mistake.
 - Jubilees does not mention the midwives, which in Genesis seems a bit of an odd detail that doesn't make great sense anyhow (cf. Robert's objection).

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 30, 2015, 12:43PMExodus 2 text
cf. Jubilees 47

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 30, 2015, 12:43PMHighlights

- Moses is born, saved and raised as a prince
- Moses marries priests daughter

Summary

 - A boy is born to a Levite Hebrew woman who hides him for three months—remember the whole kill-the-firstborn thing? Then she puts him in a basket in the reeds of the Nile, and asks Miriam (the boy's sister) to keep an eye on him.
- Meanwhile, Pharaoh's daughter is taking a bath in the river. She finds the baby and thinks he's cute. She wants to keep him after recognizing that he must be one of these Hebrew boys.
- Conveniently, Miriam shows up and says, "I can find you a woman to breast feed this kid!" So Miriam runs and gets the baby's mother to do the job.
- The kid grows up past breastfeeding age, and Pharaoh's daughter takes him as her son. She calls him Moses, which means "I took him from the water." Moses is an Egyptian name, incidentally.
- Moses grows up knowing he's a Hebrew in Pharaoh's household. One day, he goes for a stroll to see his Hebrew brethren and sees an Egyptian beating a Hebrew. He makes sure no one's around, kills the Egyptian, and leaves.
- Later, Moses sees two Hebrews fighting and breaks it up. The Hebrew yells, "Who made you a judge and ruler over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" (2:14)
- Moses freaks out and runs away.
- Pharaoh finds out.
- Moses settles in Midian and helps out some Midian women trying to tend their father Reuel's flock. Reul is the Priest of Midian.
- The women tell Reuel about the help Moses gave them, and Reuel gives Moses one of his daughters, Zipporah, as a thank you. Yeah.
- They have a son and name him Gershom.
- Pharaoh dies.
- God is still around—he remembers his covenant with the Israelites and hears their cries.

Questions and Observations

1. Its a very condensed summary of the first 20 or so years of his life isn't it.
2. ISTM That the Princess finding and adopting Moses and using his mum as a wet nurse would be too good to be true were it not for divine providence.  Which is what the writer wants you to think.
3. I think that traditionally Moses was in Midian for 20 years too.
4. So Moses is brought up as a ruler and then spends a time in a priests home married to his daughter.  I wonder if he picked up any useful skills during those times?
5. FYI Hebrews and Israelites mean the same thing, but you probably knew that.

 - From the ESV footnote "Moses sounds like the Hebrew for 'to draw out'". What was Pharoah's daughter doing naming the child with a Hebrew pun? Seems distinctly unlikely...
 - Midian is thought to have been East of the Gulf of Suez. The Biblical narration tells us that the inhabitants of the land were the descendants of Midian, son of Abraham. As with all biblical annotations on population derivations, this may or may not be worth anything.
 - Jubilees is even briefer on the subject!
 - Jubilees also names Pharoah's daughter as Tharmuth. This gives a possible handle on historicity? I'll come back to this when I've more time to think about it.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 03, 2015, 01:18AMExodus 3 text
cf. Jubilees 48:1-3

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 03, 2015, 01:18AMHighlights

- God introduces himself to Moses
- God promises to bring the People back to the Promised Land

Summary

- Moses is guarding his father-in-law's flock of sheep, and he takes them "beyond the wilderness" (3:1) to Horeb, the mountain of God.
- The angel of God appears to him in a flame in a bush that's on fire but doesn't burn. Moses checks out the situation.
- God calls Moses and tells him that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that this is Holy Ground.
- God says that he's seen the affliction of his people and has come to deliver them out of the hands of the Egyptians  to bring them back to the Promised Land and that Moses will lead them.
- Moses, a bit freaked out by all this, asks God why he's been chosen for the job.
- God tells him not to worry, that he'll give him signs and that Moses will bring the people back to this place.
- Moses asks God for his name so that he can tell the Israelites who sent him.  God says that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that his name is YHWH, which is translated "I am who I am"
- God tells Moses to tell the People if Israel that he will bring them out of Egypt to a land flowing with milk and honey, that they will listen to him, that Pharaoh will need signs to convince him to let them go, and that the Egyptians will give them lots of shiny stuff.

Questions and Observations

 1. In the first 2 chapters the writer details a few incidents over decades, so each incident must be significant.
 2. This incident where Moses meets God gets 1 1/2 chapters. 
 3. The writer seems to want to show that God is dangerous, like a power substation, holy, so he has to be approached with care
 4. Names have been important in the story so far )including Genesis), and often describe a persons character or something significant about the person.  God's name doesn't provide any limits, he is who he is and he's that way forever. 
 5. YHWH is sometimes translated as "Jehovah" but often as "The Lord" using all cap's in title case.

 - Exodus takes a long time over this - Jubilees skips over in a matter of lines.
 - Jubilees put a timeline on it, telling us that Moses lived for "five weeks and one year". This could be consistent with the Exodus narrative.
 - God manifesting physically is a throwback to earlier parts of Genesis. Although he doesn't exactly turn up in person, rather speaking out of a burning bush.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Exodus 4 text

cf. Jubilees 48:4

Highlights

 - God gives Moses some tricks to play to convince people that God's power is backing Moses.
 - Moses returns to Egypt.

Summary

 - God makes Moses staff turn into a snake...
 - ... and his hand become leprous and then change back again. These two miraculous tricks will convince doubters that he is for real.
 - God promises to make Moses eloquent on the subject.
 - Moses returns to Egypt.
 - God instructs him to perform the miracles before Pharaoh, but tells him that he (God) will make Pharaoh say no when asked to liberate the Israelities.
 - God instructs him to then threaten Pharaoh with the deaths of every firstborn Egyptian son.
 - God meets Moses on the way to Egypt and tries to kill him (can I really have read this right?). Zipporah circumcises him, which seems to be enough to save his life.
 - God tells Aaron to meet Moses and join up with his mission.

Questions and Observations

1) A modern magician could perform either of those two tricks easily.
2) Why does God go through the charade of making Moses be an ambassador, will everyone knows in advance that he's also controlling Pharaoh and will make him deny the request? Seems a bit pointless...
3) Jubilees really takes a different focus here - the details of this chapter hardly rate a mention in its narrative.
4) So circumcision's still important... But why on Earth did God try to kill Moses, who he was making into an ambassador? This makes no sense to me. Have I misread the passage somehow?
5) Aaron hasn't been mentioned before. Where's he come from? Who is he?
6) Overall, this chapter seems narratively peculiar and somewhat incoherent.

[ttf_drizabone]

Welcome back Dave, and congratulations.  Good to see you again.

What band to you play in?

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 05, 2015, 06:04AM]
Questions and Observations

1) A modern magician could perform either of those two tricks easily.
2) Why does God go through the charade of making Moses be an ambassador, will everyone knows in advance that he's also controlling Pharaoh and will make him deny the request? Seems a bit pointless...
3) Jubilees really takes a different focus here - the details of this chapter hardly rate a mention in its narrative.
4) So circumcision's still important... But why on Earth did God try to kill Moses, who he was making into an ambassador? This makes no sense to me. Have I misread the passage somehow?
5) Aaron hasn't been mentioned before. Where's he come from? Who is he?
6) Overall, this chapter seems narratively peculiar and somewhat incoherent.

I don't have time now to discuss just not except to say that ancient magicians were pretty capable too.

I'll get on to the rest soon.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 05, 2015, 01:23PMWelcome back Dave, and congratulations.  Good to see you again.

What band to you play in?

Cheers! Here's the contest result. Kidlington Concert Brass. Trombone section prize wasn't to be this time, alas...

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 05, 2015, 04:04PMCheers! Here's the contest result. Kidlington Concert Brass. Trombone section prize wasn't to be this time, alas...

So is this you playing bass? http://www.kidlingtonconcertbrass.org.uk/uploads/8/9/0/8/8908634/3089085_orig.jpg

[ttf_drizabone]

-Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 05, 2015, 06:04AMExodus 4 text

...
 - God meets Moses on the way to Egypt and tries to kill him (can I really have read this right?). Zipporah circumcises him, which seems to be enough to save his life.


QuoteQuestions and Observations

2) Why does God go through the charade of making Moses be an ambassador, will everyone knows in advance that he's also controlling Pharaoh and will make him deny the request? Seems a bit pointless...

Was there a typo here?  I assume you meant "when everyone knows in advance..."  If so I disagree that everyone knew in advance, we're reading a recount of the event written some time later.  At the time only Moses and those he told would have known about God hardening Pharaoh's heart.  Even if you want to say that its only a story, it works the same way in a story, doesn't it. 

I'm guessing the next questions would be along the lines of :
Q. why did he do that?  A. So that everyone would know how powerful he was.
Q. how could he do that and be just/loving/not vindictive ... A. How long have you got?  But at least I think that Pharaoh had already mistreated the Hebrew's so it wasn't unjustified, and he was never made to do anything that he didn't want to do. And I see Gop interacting with people the same as Gen 45:5 ... and 50:20  where God works through bad things people do to bring good for the people he favours.

Quote4) So circumcision's still important... But why on Earth did God try to kill Moses, who he was making into an ambassador? This makes no sense to me. Have I misread the passage somehow?

Yeah, its pretty strange isn't it.  My "making sense" of the passage goes like this:
- the text skips a lot - so I get to read in what might have happened
- In the last chapter we are told that God appeared to Moses, announced that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and said he was going to redeem Israel from Egypt and bring them to a land of milk and honey.  I consider this to be a fulfillment of the promises that God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and also the prophecy that they would be in a foreign land while the Amorites got really bad.
- and you remember that circumcision was a clause in God's Covenant associated with the Promise
- If Moses was going accept God's part of the promise there was an obligation on him to carry out his side of the agreement.  Especially as he was to be God's representative.
- I think that Moses must have told Zipporah about God's covenant with Israel, sauce she knew what was expected, which indicates that Moses would have known that he was responsible for circumcising his children. 
- But Moses thought he could be God's ambassador, get God's gifts and lead God's people without having to do what God wanted.
- God disagreed.

- If God had really wanted to kill Moses, Moses would be dead.  Zipporah wouldn't have been able to stop him, unless he gave her opportunity to stop him, which implies that he allowed himself to be stopped.
- So the event was (partially) a lesson where God taught Moses and the readers that that God wasn't just there to give out gifts to the people that want to claim to be his, but that he should be respected or else.

Quote5) Aaron hasn't been mentioned before. Where's he come from? Who is he?

He was Moses brother (v13), that's all the introduction he is getting. And you can work out where he came from.

Its another case of the writer not saying anything more than what he needs to for his plot.

Quote6) Overall, this chapter seems narratively peculiar and somewhat incoherent.

I agree its peculiar, but it moves the plot along:
- It points out that Moses is not perfect
- It introduces Aaron
- Jethro's agreement to let Moses go, this contrasts with Pharaoh's response, but I don't know whether its significant
- It highlights that God is not just about doing things for his people - he's not domestic, people have to respect him and be aware of what they are dealing with
- And despite Moses scepticism and lack of enthusiasm, the people believed the signs and accepted him and worshipped God.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 06, 2015, 12:34PMSo is this you playing bass? http://www.kidlingtonconcertbrass.org.uk/uploads/8/9/0/8/8908634/3089085_orig.jpg

Hah, yes! Remembrance Sunday concert 2009, I think... The trombone is a Conn 73H, which I still have in the loft, but isn't my favourite these days. There are more recent photos out there online, mostly on Facebook.

So, fair's fair... Any photos to declare?

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 06, 2015, 08:24PM-
Was there a typo here?  I assume you meant "when everyone knows in advance..."  If so I disagree that everyone knew in advance, we're reading a recount of the event written some time later.  At the time only Moses and those he told would have known about God hardening Pharaoh's heart.  Even if you want to say that its only a story, it works the same way in a story, doesn't it. 
Yep, that's a typo, and you've corrected it as I intended; sorry about that. I normally revise quite carefully before (and often a little after, less forgivably...) posting, but my head had got a little addled by the time I came to this post; there was a lot of catching-up to do!

So, I was saying the same thing as you here, but going a different way with it. Only Moses (plus anyone he told, as you point out) would have known that Pharaoh was to be made to say no. But this is a bit pointless on the face of it, for Moses. It's not about Moses going to get an answer, as he already knows it (whether it's from God's info or from Egyptian Politics 101), it's about sending a message to the Israelites to be ready to act.

Essentially, I read it as a piece of political grandstanding intended to serve notification to all and sundry that things are about to kick off.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 06, 2015, 08:24PMYeah, its pretty strange isn't it.  My "making sense" of the passage goes like this:
- the text skips a lot - so I get to read in what might have happened
- In the last chapter we are told that God appeared to Moses, announced that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and said he was going to redeem Israel from Egypt and bring them to a land of milk and honey.  I consider this to be a fulfillment of the promises that God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and also the prophecy that they would be in a foreign land while the Amorites got really bad.
- and you remember that circumcision was a clause in God's Covenant associated with the Promise
- If Moses was going accept God's part of the promise there was an obligation on him to carry out his side of the agreement.  Especially as he was to be God's representative.
- I think that Moses must have told Zipporah about God's covenant with Israel, sauce she knew what was expected, which indicates that Moses would have known that he was responsible for circumcising his children. 
- But Moses thought he could be God's ambassador, get God's gifts and lead God's people without having to do what God wanted.
- God disagreed.

- If God had really wanted to kill Moses, Moses would be dead.  Zipporah wouldn't have been able to stop him, unless he gave her opportunity to stop him, which implies that he allowed himself to be stopped.
- So the event was (partially) a lesson where God taught Moses and the readers that that God wasn't just there to give out gifts to the people that want to claim to be his, but that he should be respected or else.
That would harmonise the chapter quite a bit. One has to interpolate heavily to get any kind of a satisfying narrative at times, and this is one of them...


Quote from: drizabone on Dec 06, 2015, 08:24PMHe was Moses brother (v13), that's all the introduction he is getting. And you can work out where he came from.

Its another case of the writer not saying anything more than what he needs to for his plot.
Oh yes, silly me, I missed that. Btw, it's v14, not 13.

So he's his brother - is that his adoptive brother or his blood brother (presumably the latter, if he's a Levite)? Makes quite a difference - an adoptive brother would be an Egyptian prince, whereas a blood brother would likely have been killed on Pharaoh's orders, cf. the whole baby-in-the-basket episode where we started out.

Then, the context seems to imply that Moses already knows who Aaron is ("Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite?"). This seems a mystery.

More heavy interpolation required...

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 07, 2015, 03:35AM
So he's his brother - is that his adoptive brother or his blood brother (presumably the latter, if he's a Levite)? Makes quite a difference - an adoptive brother would be an Egyptian prince, whereas a blood brother would likely have been killed on Pharaoh's orders, cf. the whole baby-in-the-basket episode where we started out.

Then, the context seems to imply that Moses already knows who Aaron is ("Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite?"). This seems a mystery.

More heavy interpolation required...

In ch 6 we find out that Moses and Aaron were natural brother's both descended from Levi. And Miriam who organised the baby sitting in ch2 was their sister.  So Moses was a Levite too, but got a promotion.

I also think that Moses had contact with his birth family beyond the wet nursing so knew who his brother and sister were.  That's speculative I know but he knew at least that he was Hebrew so I don't think its too much of a stretch.

We read soon that Aaron is 3 years older than Moses, so his birth may predate Pharaoh's birth controls, but they didn't seem to be very successful anyway.

[ttf_drizabone]

Exodus 5 text

Highlights

 - Moses says "Let my people go" and Pharaoh says No.

Summary

- Moses tells Pharaoh that "the Lord God of Israel" has told him to "let my people go" and worhip for 3 days

- Paraoh says "Who is the Lord that I should obey him"

- Moses tries to negotiate but Pharaoh digs his heels in and decides to make life worse for the Hebrews.

- The Hebrews now have to get their own straw to make the bricks for the Egyptians

- The Hebrews blame Moses and Aaron for their plight and Moses blames God.

Questions and Observations

- Pharaoh is initially stubborn, but also wants to show who's boss and makes conditions worse for the Hebrews. I imagine that Pharaoh says something like "Who is this wimpy God? I'll show him who is in charge" Has God caused this or is this just Pharaoh acting normally, or is that a false dichotomy?

- The Lord has introduced himself to Moses already, introduced himself to the Hebrews, and now Pharaoh says he doesn't know him.  That sounds like a plot setup to me.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 07, 2015, 03:03AMHah, yes! Remembrance Sunday concert 2009, I think... The trombone is a Conn 73H, which I still have in the loft, but isn't my favourite these days. There are more recent photos out there online, mostly on Facebook.

So, fair's fair... Any photos to declare?

Here's my band.  http://www.cccb.com.au/

I'm the MD's right hand man.

And we are on Facebook too I've been told.

[ttf_robcat2075]

Curious... is there a modern example of a magician turning a rod into a snake before a live audience?

[ttf_drizabone]

I dunno.  I'd ask google. And then I'd send Dave out to verify it.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 07, 2015, 06:08PMHere's my band.  http://www.cccb.com.au/

I'm the MD's right hand man.

And we are on Facebook too I've been told.

Nice to put a face to the handle - pleasure to meet you, Martin.
http://www.cccb.com.au/galleries/2015/data/images2015/cccb_2015_08_conductors.jpg

Quote from: robcat2075 on Dec 07, 2015, 08:36PMCurious... is there a modern example of a magician turning a rod into a snake before a live audience?
Quote from: drizabone on Dec 08, 2015, 01:36AMI dunno.  I'd ask google. And then I'd send Dave out to verify it.

I'd ask Google too. Not being into magic tricks myself. Uncle Google is not particularly forthcoming on this one, but I imagine you'd do it by the kinds of means that magicians normally use to appear to make one thing turn into another - sleight of hand and misdirection.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 07, 2015, 04:31PMExodus 5 text
Jubilees skips over a few chapters in Exodus now, picking back up with the plagues that commence in Exodus 7.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 07, 2015, 04:31PMHighlights

 - Moses says "Let my people go" and Pharaoh says No.

Summary

- Moses tells Pharaoh that "the Lord God of Israel" has told him to "let my people go" and worhip for 3 days

- Paraoh says "Who is the Lord that I should obey him"

- Moses tries to negotiate but Pharaoh digs his heels in and decides to make life worse for the Hebrews.

- The Hebrews now have to get their own straw to make the bricks for the Egyptians

- The Hebrews blame Moses and Aaron for their plight and Moses blames God.

Questions and Observations

- Pharaoh is initially stubborn, but also wants to show who's boss and makes conditions worse for the Hebrews. I imagine that Pharaoh says something like "Who is this wimpy God? I'll show him who is in charge" Has God caused this or is this just Pharaoh acting normally, or is that a false dichotomy?

- The Lord has introduced himself to Moses already, introduced himself to the Hebrews, and now Pharaoh says he doesn't know him.  That sounds like a plot setup to me.

It's interesting, returning to read this stuff in a detailed manner for the first time since childhood. My childish reaction: "That Pharaoh, what a nasty man". My adult reaction: "Ugly power game that Pharaoh's playing; enforcing a system where second-class citizens know their place - that's a classic unjustifiable social situation that's arisen time and time again through the ages". One hears similarities in what the odious Trump is saying about Muslims and the US right now - and of course there are the ongoing difficulties arising from reconciling a not-very-distant past built on the slave trade with modern notions of equality.

Further, reducing resources available while demanding no decrease in achievement is another classic divide-and-conquer manouevre beloved of those who would reduce the status of some component of their society to suit their own wants. David Cameron and his Conservative party are treating the British NHS in this fashion right now - starve it of money, then claim it's failing, then when public attitudes on it have softened, sell it off to his mates for cheap.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Exodus 6 text

Highlights

 - God repeats Abraham's covenant (i.e. numerous descendants, owning Canaan) to Moses.
 - Some genealogy around Moses and Aaron.

Summary

 - God gives Abraham's covenant to Moses, telling him it is not forgotten.
 - Moses repeats this to the Israelites, but fails to motivate them to uprising.
 - God instructs Moses to now take the same message to Pharaoh.
 - The descent of Aaron and Moses from Levi is given, given amongst a larger family tree that also includes some descendants of Aaron, but not Moses.
 - Finally, a seeming non-sequitur is given - a repetition of the injunction to Moses to talk to Pharaoh.

Questions and Observations

1) Abraham's covenant would make an excellent rallying-cry whether divinely instructed or no.
2) It's a bit peculiar that Moses would (v11) again be told to go to Pharaoh as if he hadn't previously, when he did in Exodus 5. I suspect some jumbling here? Particularly when we even get a third instance of the same in v29, which makes even less sense. Dare I use the naughty word again... Duplication...
3) In fact the phrasings of vv 12 and 30 suggest strongly to me that they come from the same place, but jumbling left two copies of them in there somehow. v12: 'But Moses said to the Lord, “Behold, the people of Israel have not listened to me. How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, for I am of uncircumcised lips?”'; v30: 'But Moses said to the Lord, “Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips. How will Pharaoh listen to me?”'. The similarity is obvious, and v30 appears to be v12 with some words cut from the middle of Moses's quote and a few words added at the end.
4) "Uncircumcised lips" is a peculiar phrase, and slightly opaque. Does Moses mean that he is too Egyptian to address Pharaoh on behalf of the Hebrews? But he was explicitly circumcised earlier.
5) Genealogy:

Levi (lived to 137)
|
Gershon,             Kohath (lived to 133),             Merari
|                                   |                                          |
Libni, Shemei        Amram, Izhar, Hebron, Uzziel    Mahli, Mushi

Amram (lived to 137) = Jochebed (Amram's aunt, Kohath's sister)
                       |
                    Aaron, Moses

Aaron = Elisheba (daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon)
      |
    Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, Ithamar
                               |
                          Phinehas (by a daugher of Putiel)

Izhar
  |
Korah, Nepheg, Zichri
  |
Assir, Elkanah, Abiasaph

Uzziel
   |
Mishael, Elziphan, Sithri

6) Lifespans continue to be inflated, but are still gradually coming down. Moses and Aaron's generation are the great-grandchildren of Joseph's generation - so we might estimate a timespan of some 50-70 years between arrival and departure in Egypt.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 08, 2015, 06:04AMJubilees skips over a few chapters in Exodus now, picking back up with the plagues that commence in Exodus 7.

It's interesting, returning to read this stuff in a detailed manner for the first time since childhood. My childish reaction: "That Pharaoh, what a nasty man". My adult reaction: "Ugly power game that Pharaoh's playing; enforcing a system where second-class citizens know their place - that's a classic unjustifiable social situation that's arisen time and time again through the ages". One hears similarities in what the odious Trump is saying about Muslims and the US right now - and of course there are the ongoing difficulties arising from reconciling a not-very-distant past built on the slave trade with modern notions of equality.
Isn't that the opposite?

The Jews wanted to leave Egypt, and the Pharaoh would not let them leave, because he wanted to keep them enslaved.

Today, Trump isn't demanding that all Muslims stay here as slaves, or, I'm missing something.

Anyway, I'm enjoying reading this thread, because it is a very unusual take on the OT.   

[ttf_MoominDave]

Not close similarities - just echoes. Trump is willing to treat Muslims as possessing fewer rights than other non-citizens, seemingly. The topicality of it drew me to make the comment - various people were stunned by the bonkersness of his latest pronouncement on my Facebook newsfeed this morning.

So large-scale - "these people are of lesser importance to me than these other people, therefore we are not obliged to be nice to them" - a match. Small-scale - "let us keep these people as our slaves" - not a match. Thank goodness. Though given Trump's general approach (say whatever makes the most headlines), who knows where his rhetoric will go!

Perhaps it was unwise for me to be too topical - don't want to draw traffic from other subjects into this thread!

[ttf_robcat2075]

If Google and Youtube are the last word, it appears that no one has a convincing rod-to-snake illusion.

[ttf_timothy42b]

Quote from: robcat2075 on Dec 08, 2015, 08:05AMIf Google and Youtube are the last word, it appears that no one has a convincing rod-to-snake illusion.

Objects turning into doves and snakes are pretty standard fare though.

[ttf_ddickerson]

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 08, 2015, 07:02AMNot close similarities - just echoes. Trump is willing to treat Muslims as possessing fewer rights than other non-citizens, seemingly. The topicality of it drew me to make the comment - various people were stunned by the bonkersness of his latest pronouncement on my Facebook newsfeed this morning.

So large-scale - "these people are of lesser importance to me than these other people, therefore we are not obliged to be nice to them" - a match. Small-scale - "let us keep these people as our slaves" - not a match. Thank goodness. Though given Trump's general approach (say whatever makes the most headlines), who knows where his rhetoric will go!

Perhaps it was unwise for me to be too topical - don't want to draw traffic from other subjects into this thread!

Yeah, lets not derail this thread.

[ttf_robcat2075]

Quote from: timothy42b on Dec 08, 2015, 08:24AMObjects turning into doves and snakes are pretty standard fare though.

Looking for examples.


Throw rod on ground. Turn it into a snake. That is the baseline.


The Pharaoh said it was a common magician's trick and yet no one can duplicate it.


It seems to be like "The Indian Rope Trick" which has often been described in literature as if it existed, as if it had been seen, but no one has ever demonstrated it.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Something like:
1) Hide snake up sleeve of coat
2) Brandish rod in same hand
3) Put other hand into front of coat, where leprosy glove is waiting
4) Pull out other hand, commanding attention with it, while simultaneously shaking out snake onto the ground and retracting staff into sleeve
5) Put other hand back into front of coat, pulling off leprosy glove
6) And lo! There's a snake on the ground...
Would do the job, no?

Honestly, this doesn't seem anything to get hung up on... Even easier with an accomplice (e.g. Aaron), or if you can turn around while doing it.

Here's a couple of variably snaky tricks:
David Blaine apparently chews up and swallows a live snake, then retrieves it from a child's backpack
David Ginn plays his "snake can" trick; no reason one couldn't do this with a live snake

Please don't make me Google these any more - I can't take any more of that oh-so-corny patter... Making it look like they've turned one object into another is the magician's stock-in-trade. This page discusses similar tricks, based on live snakes and performed in the same region, and also mentions that the author has seen magician Allan Rasco perform exactly the trick we're discussing here.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 08, 2015, 05:40AMNice to put a face to the handle - pleasure to meet you, Martin.
http://www.cccb.com.au/galleries/2015/data/images2015/cccb_2015_08_conductors.jpg

That's not me.  Its our principle clarinet player.  He'll obviously be thrilled that he looks like a trombone player.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 08, 2015, 10:51AMPlease don't make me Google these any more - I can't take any more of that oh-so-corny patter... Making it look like they've turned one object into another is the magician's stock-in-trade. This page discusses similar tricks, based on live snakes and performed in the same region, and also mentions that the author has seen magician Allan Rasco perform exactly the trick we're discussing here.

There are 9 more signs to come.  And we're going to make you google each one.    And if you complain, we'll take away your keyboard and make you did it anyway.  <<evil laugh>>

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Dec 08, 2015, 06:48AM
Questions and Observations

2) It's a bit peculiar that Moses would (v11) again be told to go to Pharaoh as if he hadn't previously, when he did in Exodus 5. I suspect some jumbling here? Particularly when we even get a third instance of the same in v29, which makes even less sense. Dare I use the naughty word again... Duplication...
3) In fact the phrasings of vv 12 and 30 suggest strongly to me that they come from the same place, but jumbling left two copies of them in there somehow. v12: 'But Moses said to the Lord, “Behold, the people of Israel have not listened to me. How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, for I am of uncircumcised lips?”'; v30: 'But Moses said to the Lord, “Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips. How will Pharaoh listen to me?”'. The similarity is obvious, and v30 appears to be v12 with some words cut from the middle of Moses's quote and a few words added at the end.

My take on it is that the repetitions were put there deliberately by the writer.  This gives the impression that Moses was really not sure about the whole exercise and that God had to keep psyching him up.

After all one man going up against the leader of a world super-power would have been a bit daunting.

Quote4) "Uncircumcised lips" is a peculiar phrase, and slightly opaque. Does Moses mean that he is too Egyptian to address Pharaoh on behalf of the Hebrews? But he was explicitly circumcised earlier.

I think uncircumcised is being used here as a metaphor for "unclean" or unworthy


And thanks for the genealogy - they're always helpful

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 08, 2015, 12:15PMThat's not me.  Its our principle clarinet player.  He'll obviously be thrilled that he looks like a trombone player.

Oops... I made an assumption after looking at this one, that helpfully has your name on: http://www.cccb.com.au/galleries/2015/data/images2015/cccb_2015_05_nationals.jpg
Life 101: Never assume...

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 08, 2015, 12:31PMThere are 9 more signs to come.  And we're going to make you google each one.    And if you complain, we'll take away your keyboard and make you did it anyway.  <<evil laugh>>

I'm still getting off lightly compared to the Egyptians...

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 08, 2015, 12:50PMAnd thanks for the genealogy - they're always helpful

There is a bit of me that would like nothing better than to make a family tree out of all of this stuff. However, you're saved from that level of tedium by the fact that lots of keen people have done the job already...

[ttf_MoominDave]

Exodus 7 text

cf. Jubilees 48:5

Highlights

 - Moses and Aaron performs tricks for Pharaoh in aid of the Israelites, but do not win him over.
 - The second trick is the Nile-into-blood trick, the first plague of Egypt.

Summary

 - Moses and Aaron go to Pharaoh, pleading for him to release the Israelites.
 - (It is assumed that) Pharaoh asks them for a miracle in support.
 - They do their snake trick.
 - But Pharaoh's 'sorcerors' can also do this, so he remains unimpressed.
 - Aaron's snake swallows the snakes of the sorcerors, but this does not impact anything.
 - Moses then turns the water of the Nile into blood.
 - But Pharaoh's 'sorcerors' can also do this, so he remains unimpressed.
 - A week passes.

Questions and Observations

1) Jubilees does provide a parallel version here - but it is so compacted (all plagues skipped over in one verse) as to be completely uninformative.
2) The text says Moses was 80 and Aaron 83 when they spoke to Pharaoh. Can we make anything realistic out of this? Probably not, all these lifespan numbers are hopelessly altered. For lifespans in this segment, dividing by a number somewhere around 2-3 seems to give more reasonable lengths - e.g. Levi, living to 137 - maybe something like 45-70 instead. If that maps consistently for this passage, Moses and Aaron would likely have been in their 30s during this episode, which feels intuitively reasonable. It's all supposition on my part though.
3) This is what, the fourth time that Moses has been instructed in the text to go talk to Pharaoh in the same fashion? Some may say narrative insistence; it does seem more like the simultaneous inclusion of several competing texts to me. Yes, he does continue to say this going forward in the narrative from here, but it has a firm narrative purpose. Thus far it hasn't, and hasn't sat naturally in the narrative on several occasions.
4) The leprous hand trick seems to have been entirely overlooked in favour of the rod snake one.
5) The rod-into-snake trick has been discussed above - there is an account online (but not footage that I have found) of modern magician Allan Rasco doing exactly this trick. It is, I maintain, not difficult to see how it might be done.
6) Turning water into blood. In small quantities, this is a trick that has been around for a very long time. It's been a very long time since people with a definite slanting interest in events wrote down what happened here, and they wrote it down a very long time after it happened. My money would be on a small-scale demonstration being gradually inflated by storytelling into the whole River Nile.
7) This would help explain the odd detail that Pharaoh's magicians repeated the trick - how could they, if it involved the whole Nile?

[ttf_drizabone]

I wonder about the extent of the water turning into blood too.

On the one hand we're told that its effect was widespread "... the fish in the Nile died, and the Nile stank, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile. There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. ...And all the Egyptians dug along the Nile for water to drink, for they could not drink the water of the Nile." and then as you note the Egyptian magicians could do the same which requires water.

My guess is that the writer is not telling us what happened when in chronological order, just the effects. Cause what happened to the blood is not significant for the plot and he doesn't bother telling us stuff that isn't.

So my guess on what happened in order is:
- Moses turns water into blood
- this produced the stated results
- then Moses unwound the effects or maybe blood washed away naturally, I don't know but this is not significant to the story
- the magicians repeat the sign
- then we are told there were 7 days before God appeared to Moses to tell him about the next sign.

This construction seems a bit manufactured because the comment about the 7 days is in this chapter.  But that's entirely arbitrary and could just have easily been in ch8.  Then we realise that there is no duration of the sign and no indication that it ended, just that it happened and what its effects were.

By the way, those magicians wouldn't have been popular, turning all the water into blood.

[ttf_drizabone]

Exodus 8 text

Highlights

- more signs, this time some that the court magicians can't do
- Pharaoh is wavering in his stubborness but still refuses to let the people go.

Summary

 - God, Moses, and Aaron again team up to dump thousands and thousands of frogs onto the Egyptians.
 - Pharaoh's magicians can reproduce the miracle, ironically only worsening the problem.
 - Moses and Aaron ask Pharaoh when he'd like the frogs removed, and Pharaoh lets them know he'd like the friendly amphibians gone by the following day. Moses and Aaron pray, and the frogs leave.
 - Pharaoh, happy that his bed is frog-free, "hardens his heart" and decides to ignore the Israelites' requests for freedom.
 - Next plague. Gnats. Gnats Everywhere. On animals, people, the works.
 - This time, the Pharaoh's magicians can't replicate the miracle. 
 - Pharaoh "heart was hardened".
 - Next sign : Flies.
 - This time, God tells Pharaoh that he will ensure that the Israelites' homes are protected from the plague, just to make sure that Pharaoh knows that he (God) is "The Lord in the earth".
- this time the writer doesn't say that Moses and Aaron triggered the miracle - God did it.
- Pharaoh finally tells Moses that his people can sacrifice to their God - but "in the land".
- Moses reminds Pharaoh that it would be insensitive for the Israelites to worship near the Egyptians, and Pharaoh agrees.
 - Moses asks God to lift the fly plague, and God does it.
 - Pharaoh again "hardens his heart, and would not let the people go".


Questions and Observations

1. We're getting a pattern:
 - God sends Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh to say "Let my people go, or else ..."
 - Pharaoh refuses, so we get the or else.
2. But there are differences in each event too.

3. so I think we're being asked to do a "compare and contrast" and notice commonalities, differences, trends etc.  (My daughter just did her HSC sort of similar to A levels so I know these things)

4. The miracles are getting trickier, so that the magicians can't reproduce them
5. Pharaoh is starting to waver, but in the end still refuses to let the people go.
6. I'm interested in watching the challenge/response of each plague to see how God implements his heart hardening.  So far there always seem to be natural reasons for Pharaoh to be stubborn, either its because a problem has disappeared or because Moses keeps asking for more.  So if God is causing it, he doesn't seem to be making Pharaoh act out of character.  What do you think?

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 09, 2015, 02:28PM3. so I think we're being asked to do a "compare and contrast" and notice commonalities, differences, trends etc.  (My daughter just did her HSC sort of similar to A levels so I know these things)
Yep, I read the same intention in the writer too.

Quote from: drizabone on Dec 09, 2015, 02:28PM4. The miracles are getting trickier, so that the magicians can't reproduce them
5. Pharaoh is starting to waver, but in the end still refuses to let the people go.
6. I'm interested in watching the challenge/response of each plague to see how God implements his heart hardening.  So far there always seem to be natural reasons for Pharaoh to be stubborn, either its because a problem has disappeared or because Moses keeps asking for more.  So if God is causing it, he doesn't seem to be making Pharaoh act out of character.  What do you think?

Seems like Pharaoh is not keen on the idea of letting the Israelites go in general... God could save Pharaoh and the Egyptians a lot of trouble by getting him to fold his hand rather earlier in the game. But presumably God wants to see it all the way through.

How could these tricks be done? We start to get into more difficult territory with these if we regard the whole thing as a story of a battle of modern-style magicians. While I've been commenting on the tricks broadly as if the story happened as recounted thus far, this I think is the point at which it becomes sensible to note the consensus on the historicity of them - that they didn't happen as described, if indeed there is anything real behind the stories. People have theorised ways in which chains of events could have caused events similar to those described, but it really is all hand-waving in the dark... It's unsatisfying; nobody likes to be relying on the words of an unreliable narrator; but with material this old and gnarly it's vital.

I don't want to labour that too much - it feels rather unsporting to do so. But that's ultimately where my position on this segment is, as with all the apparently fantastical material in this book.