TromboneChat

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 18, 2016, 01:51PMQuote from: MoominDave on Feb 18, 2016, 02:53AMHow does the presence of God change it?I think that is related to a point you made on ch15 where you said "2) A moral system that impels people to execute someone for gathering sticks on a holiday day... I would submit is not a moral system promoting entirely good morals."  and I said I agreed if you assumed the absence of God.

So what I meant by referring to the "presence of God" was the implication that the rule wasn't just that gathering sticks on Saturday was bad, in which case it wasn't that bad in itself so the death penalty was a gross over-reaction, but that gathering sticks on Saturday was disobeying God so:
- it was in effect giving God the finger
- breaking the covenant between God and Israel and putting Israel at the risk of God's disgruntlement.

and it was that attitude and the danger it posed to Israel that warranted such a significant punishment.
I guess we'll have to depart from one another in finding this reasonable. To me this is an arbitrary exercise of power that seems rather trying - "Oh, for goodness' sake" to me. Like the forbidden tree at the start of Genesis, it's asking something that is on the face of things quite senseless, that is only a problem because God chooses to make it a problem.

One can say "We cannot understand what is reasonable to God; he is a being beyond our comprehension". But in the absence of clear evidence for his existence, this looks like sweeping the question under the carpet.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 18, 2016, 01:51PMQuote from: MoominDave on Feb 18, 2016, 02:53AMI'd still be interested to see the passage(s) in question. This point about what looks like clear hypocrisy from some on the subject of condemning homosexuality keeps coming back, and I think we won't get clear of it until we're out of Deuteronomy?Just briefly:
- It seems pretty clear that the rules in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy as specifically told to Israel.  That doesn't automatically include Gentile christians unless there is a statement that we are under the law.
- Gentiles are actually told that they are not under the law eg Rom 6:14. 
- also Acts 15 tells of an incident where Paul was accused of teaching Jews not to follow the Law.  The apostles decided that Gentiles didn't have to follow the Law except for a few items mentioned from v22 on. 
- So I read from that that the Law doesn't apply to Gentile Christians, so we don't have to wear blue tassles and the ban on homosex in the Law is irrelevant to us.
- But Romans 1 includes homosex as sinful and that is relevant to christians.  This doesn't say homosex is worse than other sins or that homosexuals are inherently worse than other sinners, infact the following verses lists many other wicked things like envy, strife, deceit and being disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 

So in my understanding of the bible, for christians, homosex is a sin, (just like lying and being disobedient to your parents) but not wearing blue tassles is not a sin.

PS I'm not arguing that christians might not be hypocrits, just not for that reason.
Interesting, and thanks for those. Acts 15:28-29 seems to have the say: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Not sure exactly what "from blood" is meant to mean. There have been an awful lot of deaths prosecuted in the name of Christianity over the years, but I wouldn't stretch so far as to say that the tradition cannot be rescued from that - every cause with a long history is soaked in blood if you look back. The "sexual immorality" line is not clearly specified, but I suspect we can be firm that Paul included homosexuality in it - but can we be firm that it is referencing the Torah definitions? Or does it reference what would have been considered the societal norms of his time and place? Either way, as John has pointed out before, it seems unlikely that homosexuality would have been approved of.

But we don't use the same definition in at least one demonstrable way that springs to mind - and (unsurprisingly) I hear no chorus of complaint from Christians on the subject - these days we abhor seeing children and adolescents as sexual objects, whereas the social climates that both Moses and Paul operated in would have seen very the issue very differently.

So in rejecting paedophilia we have changed the Biblical Christian definition of "sexual immorality". Why is it acceptable to refine one part of the definition in one direction, but not to refine another part in another? Are we only allowed to become stricter and stricter over time? Are we not permitted to favour what seems sensible to us over what seemed sensible to very different people in a very different culture at a very different time?

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 18, 2016, 01:51PMQuote from: MoominDave on Feb 18, 2016, 02:53AMI quite liked the analysis of the link I posted earlier in Numbers, which concluded that the total population of Israel at this time was 20,000-40,000, pointing out the word translated as "thousand" in the census actually meant "tribal or family group of indeterminate size". This suggested (I thought rather strongly) that the total numbers were about a factor of 20 too high. For a total population of that size, maybe 10-15,000 warriors in total would seem reasonable? Making maybe 3,000-5,000 a significant but resistible rebelling? Which is some way below your lowest estimate above, but not a million miles.

Either this killed most of the population, or it too is inflated as a number. If it has the same 'thousands' error in it, we might deduce that maybe 500-1,000 people actually died - still a big fat disaster.I didn't read that earlier, it sounds pretty reasonable and makes more sense of what's going on with their interactions with other nations.

I was just doing the modelling cause we were talking about you modelling in the science thread and I wanted to be one too.  I think I failed
Got your catwalk right here...   

Seriously, no, that's not a fail. You've used logic to decide that an assumption's not right. You're advancing your knowledge by pinpointing the location of where the thing that is causing confusion is.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 18, 2016, 01:51PMQuote from: MoominDave on Feb 18, 2016, 02:53AMFirstly, let us note but leave aside the question I have concerning whether the textual description of events has been inflated to sound more dramatic - e.g. did Moses do something like burn them all in an enclosure, then throw them into a mass grave? I could quite easily see the Mosaic propaganda machine spin that this way.

Leaving that aside, yes, that's what I mean. It clearly says that the Israelites blamed Moses for it, not God. In fact, it's been notable that in general the Israelites, in their "stiffnecked" grumbliness, have been taking issue with the power in front of them (i.e. Moses), rather than the backing-up supernatural power that Moses has been throughout claiming is behind him. Is it only me that thinks that the general Israelite sentiment with all this throughout has been that Moses has been spinning them a tale? But one giving them useful motivation, that they're happy to tag along with, so long as he doesn't lead them into trouble. He must have been a man of rare charisma.Ok I understand your point now.  My point was that as it was happening they acknowledged God as the source of the disasters, but later they wanted to blame Moses.  It seems that they or the writer are being inconsistent or that there is a reason for them to change - so what did the propaganda machine want us to think?

And no, I don't see it as Moses spinning a tale, but you knew that already.

But I think that if you approach it without the preconception that it must be talking of real things, this is quite an intuitive way to react to it - do you agree?

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 19, 2016, 02:44AM
Interesting, and thanks for those. Acts 15:28-29 seems to have the say: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Not sure exactly what "from blood" is meant to mean. There have been an awful lot of deaths prosecuted in the name of Christianity over the years, but I wouldn't stretch so far as to say that the tradition cannot be rescued from that - every cause with a long history is soaked in blood if you look back.
I understand "what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled" to mean don't eat food that has been sacrificed to idols, that has blood in it or that has been strangled (cause its got blood in it)

In other books (Galatians I think) Paul tells Gentile christians that it doesn't matter what you eat, just don't do anything that will hurt the conscience of other believers.

So as I'm interpreting it completely differently to you, I don't think your point is relevant.

QuoteThe "sexual immorality" line is not clearly specified, but I suspect we can be firm that Paul included homosexuality in it - but can we be firm that it is referencing the Torah definitions? Or does it reference what would have been considered the societal norms of his time and place? Either way, as John has pointed out before, it seems unlikely that homosexuality would have been approved of.

It seems to me that the rules were about staying ritually clean rather than a complete prescription of morality.  The point of specifying these rules was to make sire that the Gentiles were ritually clean so that Jewish and Gentile christians could share meals together - which was an important part of christian fellowship back in the day.

this is the important bit for the rest of the discussion and probably what to read tl;dr

(Paul gives 2 principles in Galatians on Biblical ethics:
1. Things that go into you don't make you spiritually unclean.  Its the things that come out of you that do: he's talking about behaviours.
2. Anything is permissible but not everything is appropriate - the over-riding factor is love God with all your heart and love others as yourself. 

So ISTM what to do and what not to do for a christian is not determined by following a specific list of do's and don'ts.  Any of lists are descriptive or examples of right behaviour rather than prescriptive.  Right behaviour comes down to principles : love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself.)

So in the case of the situations that Acts 15 is meant to cover, even though it would normally be ok for Gentile Christians to eat anything, when you're with Jewish Christians don't offend them by eating black pudding and pork. 

(It probably wouldn't surprise me if the Jewish apostles didn't see it quite this way, but anyway...)

end of important bit



And if the above rules are about sharing meals then its probable that the sexual morality rules are too.  ie the Jewish Christians were concerned to ensure that the Gentile Christians didn't bring in characteristics of Gentile Pagan worship, which included sacred prostitution and other fun practices - hence the mention of immorality - no orgies at the meal table please! Did those rules specifically mean to cover homosex - probably because that was part of the Jewish conception of immorality.  Does its failure to include paedosex mean that we're changing the definition of immorality.  I would argue that sex of any sort in this context would have been inappropriate,


QuoteBut we don't use the same definition in at least one demonstrable way that springs to mind - and (unsurprisingly) I hear no chorus of complaint from Christians on the subject - these days we abhor seeing children and adolescents as sexual objects, whereas the social climates that both Moses and Paul operated in would have seen very the issue very differently.

This is complex Dave.  Well at least there are lots of issues going through my mind.  I'll try and cover what I think without getting too involved.  Bt please read to the end before you start replying.

Definitions:
- Paedophilia: sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children and
- Child Marriage: in Christianity and I think Judaism normally required the girl to have reached puberty.  Younger marriages were exceptional and probably would still have caused general moral outrage.
- Sexualisation: making things look sexy and treating them as sex objects.

So I think that Christianity and Judaism has allowed Child Marriage is the past but thought Paedophilia was immoral.  Nowadays the laws for paedophilia are based around an age.

That reference you cited seems to be Muslim.  It claims that Rebeccah was 3 when she married Isaac.  If you reread Gen 24 it tells us of Rebeccah doing stuff that indicates a much older age, so I don't agree with it. 

Wikipaedia and Reddit indicate that menarche probably occurred around the age of 14 (and they would be much more reliable )

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10ecpi/what_was_the_average_age_girls_started_puberty_at/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche

Wiki says that "Jewish scholars and rabbis strongly discouraged marriages before the onset of puberty,[21] but at the same time, in exceptional cases, girls ages 3 through 12 (the legal age of consent according to halakha) might be given in marriage by her father"  And "Christian ecclesiastical law forbade marriage of a girl before the age of puberty"

Saying that a society allowed girls to marry when they reached puberty is not the same as sexualising them like is done today.  I see no reason that Moses or Paul would have thought that the sexualisation of women or kids was anything but bad.  Paul wanted women to dress modestly, I expect that included all marriageable females.

That said there are no specific condemnation of pedophilia in the bible.  Which is disappointing given our current problems with it but most of the horrendous stuff that has been done to kids is clearly outside boundaries that are specified about sex being within marriage.  Jesus comment about millstones around necks in Matthew is also clearly relevant.

What we have is:
- In the NT sex is to be saved for married couples.
- the most important commandments are to love God and love one another.  (the word for love is to do what is best for a person - charity in the old version) 

I would think this excludes paedosex.

QuoteSo in rejecting pedophilia we have changed the Biblical Christian definition of "sexual immorality". Why is it acceptable to refine one part of the definition in one direction, but not to refine another part in another? Are we only allowed to become stricter and stricter over time? Are we not permitted to favour what seems sensible to us over what seemed sensible to very different people in a very different culture at a very different time?

So as I've rambled:
- paedophilia is not specifically mentioned
- the biblical and christian standard for sex has always been that sex should be a part of marriage and not outside it.
- paedophilia is pretty much excluded by the principles of loving God, loving your neighbour as yourself

On the one hand making your standards stricter than the biblical ones is still within the boundaries of the biblical standard so it seems more acceptable, while relaxing your standards probably takes you outside the biblical standard so is that's seen as a bad.  So Christians have often felt comfortable with doing that making standards stricter.

On the other hand, Jesus spends a large part of the Gospels condemning the Pharisees because they have made the standards of the law much more strict, and for also being hypocritical about imposing their extra rules.

You ask "Are we not permitted to favour what seems sensible to us over what seemed sensible to very different people in a very different culture at a very different time?"

I would say yes! providing our decisions are within the guiding principals
- Love God with all your heart
- Love your neighbour as yourself

There is a lot of room for using wisdom to make decisions about what to do in particular situations.  But most people are more comfortable having rules to follow or argue with.

Sorry for the long post.

To collapse it all down to smaller amounts of text, we're on the same page Martin, though reading it from opposite ends - and I'm not so quick to dismiss the idea that ancient Middle Eastern grown men were legally doing physical things with children that would make us throw them in jail today. I can dig more if you like - though tbh, it's not a subject I'm massively keen to dig on - very ugly, even at this remove.

In a strange way, when I ask you questions of literal consistency like this, my intention is that my question and your reasonable answer be the product that remains together for those who might be reading who are less reasonable about it to see.

Good.  Although I would like to have been more succinct.

Numbers 18 text

Highlights

 - The priesthood is for Aaron's family, with the whole tribe of Levi set aside to maintain it

Summary

 - Aaron's family are specified as having responsibility for the Sanctuary
 - Male Levites in general are specified as having responsibility for protecting this
 - Those parts of offerings not burnt are specified as explicitly to feed these people. It is itemised how this supplies a choice diet.
 - Firstborn of people and animals are to be redeemed, cow, sheep and goats excepted, the firstborn of which are automatically sacrifices.
 - The other side of the coin of religious duty for the Levites - no inheritance among them. Essentially, they have become an elite class among the Jews, an inherited state-supported bureaucracy, if you like...

Questions and Observations

1) Powerful people, the Levites now.
2) v7: "any outsider who comes near shall be put to death" - does this include other Jewish tribes? v22 suggests so. Very powerful people, the Levites now.
3) I've forgotten - remind me how the redemption of firstborn thing works again... Is it that the firstborn of any being in the camp occasions a tax to the temple from the parents or owners?
4) It always feels rather ugly to watch a hierarchy being imposed.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 21, 2016, 01:26AMNumbers 18 text

3) I've forgotten - remind me how the redemption of firstborn thing works again... Is it that the firstborn of any being in the camp occasions a tax to the temple from the parents or owners?

from your PoV, Yes.although possibly only people, cattle, goats and sheep.  And I don't remember if only males counted too.

But actually, God considers firstborn to belong to him, and they are to be sacrificed to him.

But first born people are to be redeemed, ie bought back from him by paying a set price to the priests.

This I think is to remind them of the way that he redeemed Israel (who are called his first born) from Egypt at the Passover when a first born lamb was sacrificed and its blood was painted over their doors.It also will be used to picture him redeeming of the saved by the sacrifice of his first born son (pictured as a lamb) in a similar passover.

Numbers 19 text

Highlights

 - Purification laws

Summary

 - A situation where Israel collectively contributes a red heifer for sacrifice is described
 - Touching a dead body mandates a week's uncleanness
 - Someone dying in a tent mandates: a week's uncleanness for anyone in or who enters the tent, and open vessels in the tent become unclean
 - Touching a dead body outside mandates a week's uncleanness
 - Cleanliness is returned by a clean person sprinkling with water mixed with sacrificial ashes and hyssop on specified days
 - Failure to comply mandates banishment from the camp
 - The clean person that sprinkled becomes unclean until evening and must wash their clothes

Questions and Observations

1) I am unclear what is being atoned for with the red heifer. What have I missed?
2) Some of these regulations seem unnecessary, duplicating more specific instances of categories already covered.
3) These are remarkably fussy. Some people subject to them must have become very weird indeed about what they could and could not touch.
4) Why are these laws inserted in the narrative here? Leviticus would seem a more obvious place to put them.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 25, 2016, 06:34AMNumbers 19 text


Questions and Observations

1) I am unclear what is being atoned for with the red heifer. What have I missed?

I think that the red heifer is killed to make holy water that is used to cleanse people that come in contact with the dead as described in the rest of the chapter. So they'd need to kill a red heifer every time they needed to make a new batch of holy water. 

I wonder how churches that use holy water get theirs?

Quote2) Some of these regulations seem unnecessary, duplicating more specific instances of categories already covered.
3) These are remarkably fussy. Some people subject to them must have become very weird indeed about what they could and could not touch.
4) Why are these laws inserted in the narrative here? Leviticus would seem a more obvious place to put them.

I think that content of ch 18 and 19 are included here in response to the question at the end of ch 17

"12 And the people of Israel said to Moses, “Behold, we perish, we are undone, we are all undone. 13 Everyone who comes near, who comes near to the tabernacle of the Lord, shall die. Are we all to perish?”

So it may be a bit redundant, but it fits in with the flow of the story ok, I think.

Numbers 20 text

Highlights

- Miriam dies
- Moses disobeys God
- Edom refuses to let Israel cross their land
- Aaron dies

Summary

 - Miriam dies in Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin
 - There was no water there, the People grizzled,
 - Moses asked God what to do and God told him take his staff and tell the rock to yield water
 - Moses hit the rock and water came out abundantly
 - God tells Moses and Aaron off for not believing God and told them that they would not bring the People into the Land
 - Moses sends a messenger to the king of Edom, reminding them of their shared hiritage and asking  if they can pass through Edom to get to The Land
 - Edom says if they try it, Edom will attack them with their swords.
 - Israel promised bit to take anything except water and they would pay for that.
 - Edom brings out the army to emphasise that they really didn't want Israel going through their territory


Questions and Observations

 1. We are now near the end of the 40 years in the wilderness! Which means there was nearly 40 years in between the end of chapter 19 and the beginning of chapter 20.  Apparently nothing woth mentioning happened.

 2. God wass pretty fussy about his people following instructions and not improvising.  I guess Moses thought that hitting the rock worked before so hitting it again would do the job again.  Why do you think Moses hit rather than spoke and was their problem with that? (apart from not following orders)

 3. So how were Israel and Edom "brothers"?

 4. I guess the numbers of people in Israel is significant here too.  If there were millions of them, then obviously they would make a big mess when they trooped through.  If only 20,000 then not so much of a mess, but still potentially a nuisance.

 5. The old leadership triumvirate has almost passed.

Am I the only one to find it a bit suspicious that Moses was ordered to take Aaron up a mountain for him to die? There's been so much suppressed and expressed conflict between the two of them that foul play in a final victory over his brother springs straight to mind.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 25, 2016, 03:41PM 1. We are now near the end of the 40 years in the wilderness! Which means there was nearly 40 years in between the end of chapter 19 and the beginning of chapter 20.  Apparently nothing woth mentioning happened.
I do wonder if 40 years is a substantial exaggeration. But not on any particular basis other than the general unreliability of numbers in this work. But it does fit the narrative reasonably well, so there's not really any point caring about it too hard, I think.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 25, 2016, 03:41PM 2. God wass pretty fussy about his people following instructions and not improvising.  I guess Moses thought that hitting the rock worked before so hitting it again would do the job again.  Why do you think Moses hit rather than spoke and was their problem with that? (apart from not following orders)
I've missed something... Where else did Moses do this?

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 25, 2016, 03:41PM 3. So how were Israel and Edom "brothers"?
Yes, intriguing question. The Biblical answer I suppose is that Genesis 36 specifically tells us that Edom is descended from Esau, by which I suppose we are meant to understand that the people living there were conquered and ruled by Esau's group. Although, as ever, we must insert a note pointing out that the historicity of the characters around the Joseph is strongly doubted by scholars - people don't give birth to nations, and Esau is perhaps simply a handy label with an etymologically similar name to hang the 'Edomite progenitor' label on that kept the narrative simple.

The reference to shared Israelite and Edomite history in Egypt is potentially awkward, as the particular Egyptian sojourn on everybody's minds at that time would have been the pre-Exodus time. But then they could well be referencing the tradition of Abraham in Egypt, which would make better logical sense in the context. I wonder whether the more recent sojourn had a more complex history than portrayed - were there other groups than Moses'? Did some leave earlier, and settle in Edom?

In any case, I have little conceptual trouble with the reference with no Biblical head on. These were sizeable populations of people that had existed side by side for many generations. There would have been large amounts of interbreeding at the edges.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 25, 2016, 03:41PM 5. The old leadership triumvirate has almost passed.

We've spent a long time in Moses's company now. 40 chapters of Exodus, 27 of Leviticus, 20 of Numbers thus far - 87 and counting. Before we met Moses, Genesis only had 50 chapters. It is very clear why the Pentateuch is thought of as the story of Moses, despite the masses of action hurried over in Genesis before he arrived on the scene.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 26, 2016, 02:53AMAm I the only one to find it a bit suspicious that Moses was ordered to take Aaron up a mountain for him to die? There's been so much suppressed and expressed conflict between the two of them that foul play in a final victory over his brother springs straight to mind.

I think so. 

QuoteI've missed something... Where else did Moses do this?

You're not paying attention! its in Exodus 17:1-7 

and in Exodus 15 he had to throw a log in the bitter water to make it sweet.

Numbers 21 text

Highlights

- First Canaanite encounter
- The Bronze Serpent
- The People Sing to a Well
- Encounters with Sihon and other Amorites

Summary

 - Arad hears that Israel are coming so he attacks them and takes some captives
 - Israel promise to "devote their cities to destruction" if God gives them victory over them
 - God did and Israel did.
 - Isreal gets impatient and blame God and Moses for not providing nice food.
 - The Lord sens venomous fiery serpents and they bit people and many died.
 - The People realise their sin and repent and ask that the serpents be taken away
 - God provides an antidote for the serpents (a snake on a pole) but doesn't take the serpents away.  Anyone who was bitten could look at the snake on the pole and live.
 - The People wander around in the wilderness some more and then arrive at a well so they sing to it.
- Israel ask for permission to pass through the land of Sihon.  Sihon refuses and attacks Israel.  They were Amorites.
- Israel defeated them and took possesion of their land.
- Og the king of Bashan attacks them and is defeated.

Questions and Observations

1. Aran and Israel had met before. ch 14:45
2. Can we think of a New Testament event that is similar to this?
3. The snake on the pole sounds a bit like an idol doesn't it.  Actually a future king (Hezekiah) has to destroy the snake because the People start to worship it.
4. Anyone know why the well singing is included?

One thing we haven't yet done (slightly surprisingly, to my mind) is to try to map the wanderings documented in these books. This is a difficult task, with many locations, often obscure to the modern eye, spread across much text. The results are quite debatable, but there is a traditional route, and there are other thoughts of interpretation that people have had. For example, this map draws some possibilities.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 28, 2016, 01:00PM1. Aran and Israel had met before. ch 14:45
Was that Arad? Numbers 14:45 and around doesn't specify a named location, and simply talks of "hill country". The Negeb, home of Arad, could be described so, it seems. But I imagine that there were a number of tribal leaders around them?

In fact, this prompts me to think of a political point - while the Bible talks about "Canaanites" in a way that has made me thus far think of a single political entity, in fact I think I should be thinking of them as large numbers of small and independent entities. Does that sound right? This is a moment where rereading as an adult after initial reading as a child proves illuminating.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 28, 2016, 01:00PM2. Can we think of a New Testament event that is similar to this?
I'm going to have to leave that one to the Christians in the room. Not immediately, slightly embarrassingly.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 28, 2016, 01:00PM3. The snake on the pole sounds a bit like an idol doesn't it.  Actually a future king (Hezekiah) has to destroy the snake because the People start to worship it.
Bizarre. Superstition is a bit of a built-in glitch in the human software. People try modes of thought, something good happens to occur, and they deduce that the good thing happened because of the unrelated mode of thought. Then, having made an erroneous conclusion, it takes mental dynamite to shift it. It would probably be impolite and unproductive of me to at this point extrapolate this up to a larger scale.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 28, 2016, 01:00PM4. Anyone know why the well singing is included?

It isn't obvious to me what purpose it serves. Maybe it was a particularly well-known campfire recitation at the time the text was written. Any ideas?

But an interesting point does come out of this to me: Verse 14 quotes a text that is now lost to us, the "Book of the Wars of the Lord". It is sad not to be able to read this in parallel. And verses 27-30 explicitly credit oral historians, as you pointed out.
So the writer of the version of Numbers that has come down to us here freely implies that they are to at least some extent compiling from earlier sources. The idea that Moses wrote the version that we have seems not to fit very naturally with this to me.

Numbers 22 text

Highlights

 - Balak's Moabites take fright at the appearance of the Israelite horde
 - Balaam's Ass

Summary

 - Balak, a local Moabite king, sees the Israelites camp near him.
 - This frightens him, and he sends to Balaam for reinforcements, in order to mount an attack on the Israelites.
 - Balaam is not keen. "The Lord" tells him not to go, and he passes this on to Balak's representatives, who take the disappointing message back.
 - Balak then sends stronger representatives to ask Balaam again. "The Lord" again instructs him - telling him to go along, but as a fifth column, under "The Lord"'s control, not Balak's.
 - Seemingly forgetting that he has just instructed Balaam to go, Balaam's going annoys "The Lord", who determines to teach him a lesson.
 - "The Angel of the Lord" distracts Balaam's donkey repeatedly as he rides it, annoying Balaam who beats it and threatens to kill it.
 - Balaam sees TAOTL, and becomes contrite, promising to be the fifth column. Which is odd, as he already did that and hasn't apparently since changed his mind.
 - Balaam reaches Balak, and Balak rebukes him for not coming sooner. Balaam claims direct divine instruction held him back, which seems to have been satisfactory to Balak.

Questions and Observations

1) This is the history of the Israelites, at this point their dealings with some Moabites under Balak. It recounts the interaction of the Moabites with a third party, Balaam, in terms of the God of the Israelites inspiring Balaam to stay away. It seems quite plausible, whether one is invested in the text or not, that Balaam simply did not want to fight, said nothing about religion, and the later Israelite storytellers ascribed that motive to him, reasoning that it fitted very naturally with their narrative. It would seem very strange for Balaam to give the answer to Balak quoted in verse 13: "Go to your own land, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.", as the Israelite religion would presumably not have been familiar to either party (though note also earlier musing about Edomites being brothers in exile in Egypt - were there more parties of Israelites than described in this book?). Perhaps Balaam was telling them that he was speaking to some other deity, and the Israelites later concluded that as the message was consistent with that from their own deity, they could freely ascribe one's words to the other.
2) God is deceptive/deceitful here. In verse 20 he instructs Balaam to give in to Balak's entreaties, and take a fighting force, but not to deploy it as instructed. Then in verse 22 he is cross with Balaam because he went, and follows this up by humiliating him. Make your mind up, eh... Balaam is perhaps lucky here, as the story goes - God's whims have tended to be more lethal than this. I suspect some omission of the narrative here that would make the change of tack make more sense.
3) There's been several examples recently of Israel being the innocent party in the narrative, attacked by diverse hooligans. Given again that we are reading the official Israelite history text, I have some suspicion that we may be receiving a highly slanted view of events. But then, earlier stories have not gone out of their way to present their heroes as perfect. But then again, these are texts compiled over a long period. Needs and fashions change. On balance, it's pretty believable that they could be the ones attacked several times in a row - moving around with a large armed force would be pretty provocative behaviour.
4) Mounted on a donkey for many years? These were not big powerful kings of nations, but parochial tribal leaders. Not people who lounged around on golden thrones, but farmers who got their hands dirty. I wonder if the lack of grandeur in Balaam's mount singled him out as a natural figure of fun for the storytellers.

Numbers 23 text
Numbers 24 text

Highlights

 - Balaam says nice things about Israel

Summary

 - Four "oracles" from Balaam
 - In the first and second, Balak makes him altars and sacrifices on them, asking for curses on Israel, but instead Balaam tells Balak that they are mighty and not destined to be defeated. Balak is dismayed.
 - In the third and fourth, Balaam doesn't need prompting. He tells Balak unbidden how the Israelites will militarily crush various groups of people round about, including him.
 - Balak tells him to go home ("flee"), and he does.

Questions and Observations

1) These four recitations are presented poetically. Quotes from oral historians, I presume, as with the well singing.
2) Balaam's ambition not to fight the Israelites has been realised. He has also made Balak quite antsy about the whole enterprise.
3) This seems to be the end of Balak's involvement with the narrative. No conclusion to this segment is presented - we are left guessing. Presumably he thought better of attacking the Israelites, then made contact and subsequent peace with them, telling them the story that we've just read - or he made peace with them for pragmatic reasons, and the Israelite storytellers decided that the story we've just read would make for good propaganda.
4) So what is the purpose of this three-chapter segment? I suspect to illustrate that the Israelites were gaining in military power, reputation, and savvy at this time.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 29, 2016, 12:55AMOne thing we haven't yet done (slightly surprisingly, to my mind) is to try to map the wanderings documented in these books. This is a difficult task, with many locations, often obscure to the modern eye, spread across much text. The results are quite debatable, but there is a traditional route, and there are other thoughts of interpretation that people have had. For example, this map draws some possibilities.

You did some good maps in Genesis.  I was hoping you'd volunteer for this too.

QuoteWas that Arad? Numbers 14:45 and around doesn't specify a named location, and simply talks of "hill country". The Negeb, home of Arad, could be described so, it seems. But I imagine that there were a number of tribal leaders around them?

I just assumed it was the same tribe because Hormah was mentioned in both instances.

QuoteIn fact, this prompts me to think of a political point - while the Bible talks about "Canaanites" in a way that has made me thus far think of a single political entity, in fact I think I should be thinking of them as large numbers of small and independent entities. Does that sound right? This is a moment where rereading as an adult after initial reading as a child proves illuminating.

That sounds pretty right.  Remeber back to Genesis when Jacob was attacking and defeating city states with only 40 or so men.  It also fits in with the idea that there was a lot less than 600,000 warriors in Israel.

QuoteBut an interesting point does come out of this to me: Verse 14 quotes a text that is now lost to us, the "Book of the Wars of the Lord". It is sad not to be able to read this in parallel. And verses 27-30 explicitly credit oral historians, as you pointed out.
So the writer of the version of Numbers that has come down to us here freely implies that they are to at least some extent compiling from earlier sources. The idea that Moses wrote the version that we have seems not to fit very naturally with this to me.

I think most conservative chistian theologians (as opposed to Funadamentalists) understand that Moses included old oral histories and other sources into his accounts.  At least that's what I think.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 29, 2016, 02:15AMYou did some good maps in Genesis.  I was hoping you'd volunteer for this too.
I see there's an itinerary summary chapter up ahead before the end of Numbers. Maybe then will be the best time.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 29, 2016, 02:15AMI just assumed it was the same tribe because Hormah was mentioned in both instances.
Ah, good spot, I missed that. You are pretty tidy at details.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 29, 2016, 02:15AMThat sounds pretty right.  Remeber back to Genesis when Jacob was attacking and defeating city states with only 40 or so men.  It also fits in with the idea that there was a lot less than 600,000 warriors in Israel.
Even the suggested 10-20,000 armed men turning up outside one's dwelling would make one thoughtful...

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 29, 2016, 02:15AMI think most conservative chistian theologians (as opposed to Funadamentalists) understand that Moses included old oral histories and other sources into his accounts.  At least that's what I think.

It seems odd that he would be able to do so for events that he would have been essentially live-tweeting. There isn't much lifespan left for Moses to be writing in at this point.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 29, 2016, 01:34AMNumbers 22 text

Highlights

 - Balak's Moabites take fright at the appearance of the Israelite horde
 - Balaam's Ass

Summary

 - Balak, a local Moabite king, sees the Israelites camp near him.
 - This frightens him, and he sends to Balaam for reinforcements, in order to mount an attack on the Israelites.

- Reinforcements weren't mentioned.  Balak wants Balaam to curse Israel.

Quote - Balaam is not keen. "The Lord" tells him not to go, and he passes this on to Balak's representatives, who take the disappointing message back.

I actually think that Balaam was keen, he wanted the money.  I think its significant that God told him that he wasnt  to go and that he wasn't to curse them because they were blessed.  He didn't mention the blessed part to Balaks reps.

Quote - Balak then sends stronger representatives to ask Balaam again. "The Lord" again instructs him - telling him to go along, but as a fifth column, under "The Lord"'s control, not Balak's.

- nah.  He still wanted Balaam to curse Israel.  No change.

Quote - Seemingly forgetting that he has just instructed Balaam to go, Balaam's going annoys "The Lord", who determines to teach him a lesson.

- Not so much instructed as allowed.  And notice how quickly he went when he was allowed.
- There are a couple of issues here and possible solutions.  This paper gives a quick rundown of some of them. http://www.tektonics.org/af/balaamnum.php

Quote
 - "The Angel of the Lord" distracts Balaam's donkey repeatedly as he rides it, annoying Balaam who beats it and threatens to kill it.
 - Balaam sees TAOTL, and becomes contrite, promising to be the fifth column. Which is odd, as he already did that and hasn't apparently since changed his mind.
 - Balaam reaches Balak, and Balak rebukes him for not coming sooner. Balaam claims direct divine instruction held him back, which seems to have been satisfactory to Balak.

Questions and Observations

1) This is the history of the Israelites, at this point their dealings with some Moabites under Balak. It recounts the interaction of the Moabites with a third party, Balaam, in terms of the God of the Israelites inspiring Balaam to stay away. It seems quite plausible, whether one is invested in the text or not, that Balaam simply did not want to fight, said nothing about religion, and the later Israelite storytellers ascribed that motive to him, reasoning that it fitted very naturally with their narrative. It would seem very strange for Balaam to give the answer to Balak quoted in verse 13: "Go to your own land, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you.", as the Israelite religion would presumably not have been familiar to either party (though note also earlier musing about Edomites being brothers in exile in Egypt - were there more parties of Israelites than described in this book?). Perhaps Balaam was telling them that he was speaking to some other deity, and the Israelites later concluded that as the message was consistent with that from their own deity, they could freely ascribe one's words to the other.

- I thought that the Canaanites did know about the Lord and what he had done for the Israelites in Egypt.  But I can't think of much evidence for that.  But I wonder whether the wilderness that the People were wandering in was deserted and so no one knew they were there or whether it was traveled on and there would have been people passing who would exchange news.  I think it would have been unlikely that even a group of 20,000 people would have been able to wander around for years without being detected and without interaction.  But I haven't really thought about it before.  What do you think?
- the idea that this passage is a satire showing the impotence of the local religious soothsayers seems more likely to me.
- ISTM that the main purpose of the story is to show that God is faithful to the promises that he made to Abraham, and that Israel are still blessed and not cursed.

Quote2) God is deceptive/deceitful here. In verse 20 he instructs Balaam to give in to Balak's entreaties, and take a fighting force, but not to deploy it as instructed. Then in verse 22 he is cross with Balaam because he went, and follows this up by humiliating him. Make your mind up, eh... Balaam is perhaps lucky here, as the story goes - God's whims have tended to be more lethal than this. I suspect some omission of the narrative here that would make the change of tack make more sense.

- see the note above.  I think its more accurate to say that God gives permission for Balaam to go and do what he wants. God has told Balaam not be curse Israel but lets him choose what he wants to do.  So when Balaam goes off with the guys that want him to curse Israel, God is angry.  Seems fair enough to me. Do what you're told or face the consequences.
- and Balaam gets punished for his greed shortly

Quote4) Mounted on a donkey for many years? These were not big powerful kings of nations, but parochial tribal leaders. Not people who lounged around on golden thrones, but farmers who got their hands dirty. I wonder if the lack of grandeur in Balaam's mount singled him out as a natural figure of fun for the storytellers.

- I don't think that Balaam was a king, just a soothsayer.
- But I do think that the donkey was to make fun of him.  The story does have the flavour of satire doesn't it.

Yes, you're right - I'd read something that wasn't there. Balaam is a soothsayer, not a combination soothsayer and military leader.

Happy to go with it being a satirical interlude... "Look guys, see how ridiculous this bloke that our enemies rated was"

Numbers 25 text

Highlights

- Israel gets too friendly with the Midianites and the gods
- Phineas is zealous for the Lord

Summary

 - The people lived in Shittim for a while, got "friendly" with the Midianite neighbours and started worshipping their gods.
- God got annoyed at this and told Moses to hang all the Israelite chiefs
- Moses decided that it would be better to kill the Baal worhippers
- One of the Israelites bought a Midianite woman into his tent.  Moses knew but didn't do anything.
- Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, took a spear and skewered them.
- God was impressed with Phinehas' zeal and made a covenant of perpetual priesthood for him and his descendants.
- God told Moses to harass the Midianites because they had beguiled the People.


Questions and Observations

1. I guess that Shittim was part of the Amorite country that they had conquered.  Near to Midain.
2. What part of ""You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me" didn't they understand?
3. Moses missed God's concern with the Midianite woman in the tent.  I wonder if that was because his wife was a Midianite.
4. Which reminds me that Moses lived in Midian for 40 years so ISTM that the Midianites could have known about him, The Lord, and The People wandering in the Wilderness.  Ruel visited Moses in the Wilderness so they weren't invisible.
5. God tells Moses to harass the Midianites because of the incident with Peor and Cozbi.  I would have thought that he would have been more annoyed with them getting the People to worship the Baals. (their gods).

Numbers 26 text

Highlights

- Time for another census


Summary

 - God tells Moses and Eleazer to take another census to count the warriors
 - the total number of men counted is 601,730
 - God tells Moses to use this information to make sure that all the tribes get a fair share of the land.
 - Moses then counts the Levites.
 - aside from Caleb and Joshua, no one who was counted in this census was counted in the first one. Maybe Moses and Eleazar didn't count themselves.


Questions and Observations

1. the first census had only 1,820 more warriors. That means the Israelites were pretty busy. For almost every single person who died in the plagues and punishments, new babies replaced them.
2. there are 1000 more Levites now than in the beginning.

For me, the talking donkey is one of the highlights of the OT.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Mar 01, 2016, 06:16PMFor me, the talking donkey is one of the highlights of the OT.

For me it's kind of a litmus test.

Most of the most literalist inerrant fundamentalists don't really buy the donkey speaking English gig, but think it's allegorical.  So that's a wedge issue.

Then again, a fair number actually do believe it wholeheartedly. 

So did the donkey talk in KJV style English?

And the ass said unto Balaam, "Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee?"

Balaam was probably confused because he didn't understand English

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 01, 2016, 06:01PM - the total number of men counted is 601,730
Subject to the usual thought about thousands translation error.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 01, 2016, 06:01PM - aside from Caleb and Joshua, no one who was counted in this census was counted in the first one. Maybe Moses and Eleazar didn't count themselves.
Or any of the other men who had lived through the 40 years prior. In a group of thousands of people, there would most certainly have been some. The little people tend to get ignored by the big people that make the history.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 01, 2016, 06:01PM2. there are 1000 more Levites now than in the beginning.

Corroborating evidence that the priesthood was a good place to find oneself in this society.

Numbers 27 text

Highlights

 - Laws of inheritance
 - Joshua appointed the successor of Moses

Summary

 - Via the example of Zelophehad, inheritance law is discussed, altered, and clarified:
    - Zelophehad had no sons, only daughters, when he passed away
    - Apparently, existing law mandated that his property go to his brothers
    - His daughters complained that this was unfair
    - God/Moses declares that they are right, and that the property that went to their uncles is theirs
    - The law is revised to reflect something that looks more like primogeniture as it can still be found applied to things like monarchical succession in some places - sons first, then daughters, then brothers, then uncles, then nearest kin
 - God tells Moses that he hasn't been faithful enough to finish the journey, telling him he will die before then
 - Moses asks for a successor to be appointed
 - Joshua, an earlier-mentioned favourite, is supplied, and is religiously invested as such by Eleazar

Questions and Observations

1) 'Zelophehad' is the latest in a long string of catchy names in this story. Actually, it does kind of trip off the tongue.
2) Moses has always evidently been a rigid and unyielding man with an utter belief in the rightness of his purpose. This has seen him through large amounts of turmoil that might have felled a lesser leader, and now, in his final years, is still looking out for his people by ensuring a clear and strong succession.
3) But with that said, Joshua has rather disappeared from the narrative of late. I wonder why?

Numbers 28 text
Numbers 29 text

Highlights

 - Offerings Laws

Summary

 - Complementary to the offerings mandated in Leviticus, which were in response to various sin and uncleanliness scenarios, and for feast days, we now have:
    - Twice a day, male lamb, morning and twilight, plus, in the morning, grain mixed with oil, ~2.2 ltr, and strong drink
    - For each Sabbath, this, plus two more male lambs, twice as much grain/oil again (~4.4 ltr), and more strong drink
    - For the beginning of each month, two bulls, one ram, seven male lambs, ~33 ltr of grain/oil, and about a gallon of wine
    - For Passover, as the monthly offering, plus a male goat as a sin offering, and a reminder of the usual Passover strictures about eating no leaven and resting
    - For the Feast of Weeks, as the Sabbath
    - For the Feast of Trumpets, as the Sabbath, but replace one of the bulls with a male goat as a sin offering
    - For the Day of Atonement, as the Feast of Trumpets
    - For the Feast of Booths, an extravaganza:
        - Day 1: 13 bulls, 2 rams, 14 male lambs, 1 male goat, ~125 ltrs grain/oil, plus strong drink
        - Day 2: 12 bulls, 2 rams, 14 male lambs, 1 male goat, similar amounts of grain/oil, drink
        - Day 3: 11, 2, 14, 1, etc
        - Day 4: 10, 2, 14, 1, etc
        - Day 5: 9, 2, 14, 1, etc
        - Day 6: 8, 2, 14, 1, etc
        - Day 7: 7, 2, 14, 1, etc
        - Day 8: 1, 1, 7, 1, etc

Questions and Observations

1) Strong drink has an official purpose. Not every religious movement has taken the same line. Do we assume that this refers only to wine, or did they brew stronger stuff?
2) I'm too lazy to check... Is any of this duplicating Leviticus? Or are these additional sacrifices?
3) I hadn't realised quite what a big deal the Feast of Booths was - it sounded a bit of a trivial occasion previously, but evidently it was the big Bacchanalian jolly of the annual cycle. In just over a week, they disposed of 71 bulls, 15 rams, 105 male lambs, 8 male goats, 1000 litres of grain, and an unspecified, but presumably matchingly large amount of strong drink. Crikey. Profligate indeed for a nomadic society seemingly constantly perched on the lip of disaster.

"Holy Sh#t! When did you learn to talk? We could get rich on bar bets!" would have been my reaction if the donkey I had been riding for all these many years suddenly spoke up.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Mar 02, 2016, 10:54AM"Holy Sh#t! When did you learn to talk? We could get rich on bar bets!" would have been my reaction if the donkey I had been riding for all these many years suddenly spoke up.

You believer you!  My reaction would have been more like "Wow, what was in that mushroom, and where can I get some more?" 

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 02, 2016, 09:16AM3) But with that said, Joshua has rather disappeared from the narrative of late. I wonder why?

He has only been mentioned a few of times throughout Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.  I wouldn't have thought there were enough data points to draw conclusions with any statistical significance.  (He says trying to be all scientific ) 

But Joshua's big role is to lead the People into the Promised Land.  So maybe he only or mainly gets mentioned in that context. Sp as the People have been prevented from doing that for the last 40 years or so he hasn't been mentioned, waiting on the sidelines so to speak until the coach brings him on as the super sub. 

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 02, 2016, 09:40AM
Questions and Observations

1) Strong drink has an official purpose. Not every religious movement has taken the same line. Do we assume that this refers only to wine, or did they brew stronger stuff?

Apparently it was a very intoxicating drink made from barley, honey, or dates. ( if you believe what you read on the web)

Quote2) I'm too lazy to check... Is any of this duplicating Leviticus? Or are these additional sacrifices?

These are extras.  For the nation as a whole and not for any person or specific sin.

Quote3) I hadn't realised quite what a big deal the Feast of Booths was - it sounded a bit of a trivial occasion previously, but evidently it was the big Bacchanalian jolly of the annual cycle. In just over a week, they disposed of 71 bulls, 15 rams, 105 male lambs, 8 male goats, 1000 litres of grain, and an unspecified, but presumably matchingly large amount of strong drink. Crikey. Profligate indeed for a nomadic society seemingly constantly perched on the lip of disaster.

Well they should celebrate, they had God living with them.

And by this stage they had already conquered some territory and were on the verge of entering the promised land and settling down, so not as nomadic as they were previously.

Numbers 30 text

Highlights

- Keep your promises to God

Summary

 - if a man makes vow to the Lord then you have to see it through - no backing out
 - same for a woman, except her Dad (if she hasn't been married) or her husband can anul it on the day they hear about it, because she's only a woman and the man in her life know's best

Questions and Observations

1. Rolls eyes.

Men's vows are vows. But women's vows are only vows if ratified by a responsible male. Yeesh.

Numbers 31 text

Highlights

 - God takes vengeance on Midian


Summary

 - God tells Moses to avenge the People on the Midianites
 - Moses picks 12,000 warriors: 1,000 from each tribe
 - they kill every man in the country, including all 5 kings and Balaam.
 - they took all the women and kids captive and the cattle, flocks and goods as plunder
 - Moses was angry with them for bringing the women live because they, on Balaam's advice, had caused the People to act treachorously to God, and thus caused the plague that killed 24,000 Israelites.
 - So they killed every woman who had not lain with a man.
 - Everyone that had touched a dead person was unclean for 7 days and had to stay outside the camp.
 - The plunder was ceremonially cleansed and divided up amoung the People.
 - there were no Israeli casualties.

Questions and Observations

 1. Any idea, from an atheist point of view, why Moses would have wanted to kill all the Midianites? They were treated much more harshly than the Amorites.  In-law problems?

 2. From a theistic perspective, the text indicates that God values the loyalty of his People very highly, more than the lives of those that aren't his people.

 3. But its pretty confronting from a human perspective.  We tend to think that our lives, freedom and happines is of highest value, but when we see God with different values I think we resent it.  How could he not think those people were more important  How could he treat them like that?

 4. This would have been pretty horrifying and traumatic for all concerned, especially for the Midianite women trying to protect their kids, but even for the Israelis having to slaughter the captive women and male children.  Did they have PTSD back then?

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 02, 2016, 05:31PM - God takes vengeance on Midian
Brutal stuff this.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 02, 2016, 05:31PM 1. Any idea, from an atheist point of view, why Moses would have wanted to kill all the Midianites? They were treated much more harshly than the Amorites.  In-law problems?
It really is outstandingly brutal stuff. You don't come out on top in a battle that convincingly unless the conditions are heavily slanted in your favour - e.g. prepared and armed, attacking unarmed people as they sleep. I know this was a very different time and place, but I judge this God-sanctioned action, and find it morally extremely wanting. Even the supportive fifth column Balaam is executed. Perhaps the narrative is a glorifying victory chant that has slanted the outcome from large-scale to total - this is about the best moral case I can make for the Israelites at this moment - and it is weak.

As to why... It isn't really made clear, I think? Numbers 25 showed the episode where Midianite-style worship became popular with the Israelites, and was bloodily suppressed. The two episodes (that and this) certainly seem of a piece - Midianite things being treated as sub-human. The Numbers 25 episode, given in a single chapter, might seem just one more event in a long history, but it was evidently a major happening, and an expression of bubbling ethnic tension. Yes, the Amorites in Numbers 21 were apparently treated less heinously - I think the Israelites were learning lessons of brutality at this time - maybe they felt they hadn't been brutal enough with earlier tribes that they had conquered - maybe it had stored up trouble for later?
Moses has never been shy about cementing his power amongst the Israelites with blood - in his later years, he is learning that he can also use the blood of other people as mortar.

It's vile stuff. But stuff that humans in large groups seem to be impossibly prone to doing. We haven't eradicated war and conquest yet, though we still hope that we will in the future. Back then, groups of people were held to different moral standards - one might if one wanted to stir, call them "weaker" standards. I certainly don't feel comfortable applying the moral lessons of the people who did this to modern-day life without some extremely hefty rethinking and caveats.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 02, 2016, 05:31PM 2. From a theistic perspective, the text indicates that God values the loyalty of his People very highly, more than the lives of those that aren't his people.
Does this worry you or any other Christians that might be reading?

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 02, 2016, 05:31PM 3. But its pretty confronting from a human perspective.  We tend to think that our lives, freedom and happines is of highest value, but when we see God with different values I think we resent it.  How could he not think those people were more important  How could he treat them like that?
Ah yes, this embarks on an answer. If one doesn't accept the existence of God commanding this, then it is all on Moses and those that counsel him. He would not be the last ruler in history to become viciously more callous and vengeful towards the end of his life. If one does accept the existence of God as given here, then we cannot help but conceive of an extreme caution towards him. Someone who is dangerous to his friends as well as his enemies - sometimes less so (as here), sometimes more so (as numerous episodes), an entity satisfied with nothing less than complete slavish obedience.

I might flippantly think of the most lunatically dictatorial of band conductors The kind of person who replaces a player if they have to work late one rehearsal night, and rings them in a rage to be angry with them about it while sacking them. But that is a sphere of 28 people performing one voluntary activity, not a matter of life or death, however overseriously treated by some people.
This is an entirely different scale of controlling manipulation - genocide, perhaps the ultimate moral error to our eyes. If there is an entity out there dedicated to controlling us and directing us to perform such atrocities on each other, then the morally responsible thing to do is to resist it, to not give in to its bullying, to work out how one might most effectively resist it and encourage others minded to do its bidding to resist it.

And then... If there is not such an entity out there, but others believe that there is, and that the atrocities they commit are mandated by it, then the morally responsible thing is to resist the false charge, point out the error, and work to eliminate the infection of the mind that has caused it.

And when those so affected are coming at you with drawn swords and a rock-hard belief in the rightness of their cause, this becomes difficult. Any religion that is spread by the sword has my instant distrust.

These are strong words, I appreciate, and directed against something that you hold dear. But I see no other sensible logical or moral response to the assertion that the same God that directs Christianity today did this. Supporting this alleged entity in its moral quagmire is to be complicit in the murder of the Midianites - and various other apparently God-sanctioned massacres throughout history.

This is hard and confrontational stuff. Looking forward to a bit of relatively uncontentious mapping in Chapter 33!

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 02, 2016, 05:31PM 4. This would have been pretty horrifying and traumatic for all concerned, especially for the Midianite women trying to protect their kids, but even for the Israelis having to slaughter the captive women and male children.  Did they have PTSD back then?

Times were harder, people were harder. To train to be a warrior in this type of society would have involved becoming an extremely coarse personality, someone for whom the idea of subtlety had been deliberately suppressed since a young age. Death, whether through fighting or accident, would have been a constant companion. When horrors happen all the time, people develop calluses of the mind, to cope with the terrible things that are actually normal.

In a sense, everyone would have had something like low grade PTSD all the time, I think. But not expressed the way it is today.

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 03, 2016, 02:57AMThese are strong words, I appreciate, and directed against something that you hold dear. But I see no other sensible logical or moral response to the assertion that the same God that directs Christianity today did this. Supporting this alleged entity in its moral quagmire is to be complicit in the murder of the Midianites - and various other apparently God-sanctioned massacres throughout history.


Like you say its a brutal passage and not easy to deal with. 

My take on it is that God has given us life for a time and has the authority and right to take it back when he likes. 

Quote
This is hard and confrontational stuff. Looking forward to a bit of relatively uncontentious mapping in Chapter 33!

Me too.

Numbers 32 text

Highlights

- Reuben and Gad settle in Gilead

Summary

 - the people of Reuben and Gad had a lot of cattle and saw that the lands of Gilead were great grazing country, so wanted to settle there.
 - Moses was cranky with them because he was worried that this would discourgae the people like the reports of the spies did 40 years ago.
 - Gad and Reuben promised to lead the conquering if they could settle Gilead.
 - Moses agreed.

Questions and Observations

1. Some more conquering, but the violence was marked tacit this time.


I'll hand over to you for the mapping.

Btw, interesting times ahead for the forum. Looks like a gentle coup is being mounted with the hope that all traffic will move there.

Makes me wonder how best to handle this thread (assuming they aren't going to copy over all the existing content). It's not an immediate problem, but, with years of work still ahead of us here and a lot of work already documented in this thread, we could in time find ourselves still going back and forth here, the only two posters left...  That wouldn't be good in terms of drawing in fresh input to the thread.

Seems to me that the best thing is to just carry on posting here for the meantime, and wait to see what transpires on the wider forum internal political stage. If this new site is where all the posting goes in time, we may have to just start there from where we've got to, providing a link back here. If TTF and TromboneChat patch up their differences, maybe we won't need to move at all. This might all disappear in time, but then, that's the risk anyway, and the reason a new forum has been started.

So - let's just wait and see how everyone behaves with regard to where they post for a few months, carrying on as we have been. Sound sensible?

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 03, 2016, 12:53PM

Highlights

- Reuben and Gad settle in Gilead


At least they had shade, which must have been at a premium in the desert.

(you know, from the Palm?) 

Sounds like a plan.

Just don't bring any foreign women into your tent back here.  And we'll need to cleanse ourselves after we visit that other site.

Its a bit disappointing that we got demoted to the Adults Only and Political category again.  I thought we'd been behaving pretty well after our promotion here.

Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 04, 2016, 12:42PMAt least they had shade, which must have been at a premium in the desert.

(you know, from the Palm?) 


Are you practising Dad jokes?

Numbers 33 text

Highlights

 - The full itinerary of the 40-year wandering is given

Summary

 - All the places are listed in order, with some events attached
 - God tells the Israelites to treat the Canaanites barbarically
 - He also tells them that if they don't, he will treat them with the same barbarism

Questions and Observations

1) If they believe, the Israelites are morally stuck now, aren't they? Either behave appallingly or be behaved appallingly against. Moses ratchets up the tension.
2) We're still on inflated ages - Aaron was supposedly 123 when he died. Which makes me wonder whether 40 years wandering might also be a substantial exaggeration.

Drawing a map

We have the following points:
1) "Ramesses" as a starting point shows us the difficulties we are labouring under straight away. The immediate temptation is to identify it with Pi-Ramesses, but the chronology and geography don't match the description very well, as noted in the Wikipedia text. Nevertheless, in the absence of any better candidate, we'll begin there, a location which is thought to correspond to the modern Egyptian location of Qantir. They left here on Month 1, Day 15.
2) "Succoth" is difficult, too, a placename now long gone. All we have is that is was in the Land of Goshen, the modern-day location of which is also disputed. Somewhere in the Eastern Nile delta is about as precise as things get.
3) "Etham" has the same difficulties again. It may be near modern-day Ismailia, on the Suez Canal. We'll take Ismailia as the location, then put Succoth halfway in between.
4) Then they "turned back", next camping at "Pi-hahiroth", yet another name of near-total obscurity, from where the famous Red Sea (or not, as earlier discussed) crossing happened. For this I'll plop it at the Northern end of the Great Bitter Lake, for no better reason than that...
5) ...the next stop, Marah had bitter water. Also that this involves a definite change of route direction, cf. "turning back". This was 3 day's march onwards, so I'll extend the stage length a bit.
6) Elim again, where they found fresh water, is hopelessly obscure. It was between Marah and the Wilderness of Sin, but the WoS's location is not known either. Noting that each stage thus far has come out as approximately 14 miles, I'll plump in a spirit of hopeless optimism for somewhere that far on again, over on the Eastern side of the Great Bitter Lake. The land beyond certainly looks pretty wildernessy. Somewhere near modern-day Suez on the Gulf of Suez.
7) Wilderness of Sin, as discussed. Could be anywhere wildernessy in an excessively wildernessy peninsula... The next places depend heavily on which way we decide they were heading.
8) Dophkah
9) Alush - where water came from a rock
10) Rephidim - where "Mount Sinai" was. The identification of which mountain this was has proved very unresolved. I will not use it to try to pinpoint any of the route here.
11) Wilderness of Sinai - same as Wilderness of Sin
12) Kibroth-hattaavah - complaining about the dullness of manna
13) Hazeroth - leprous Miriam
14) Rithma
15) Rimmon-perez - Wikipedia tentatively suggests that this may be identified with Makhtesh Ramon, a geological feature in the Negev, in Southern modern Israel. So we'll plot a line of 9 stops en route to this.
16) Libnah - mentioned later in the Bible, and thought to be in the modern-day Guvrin valley, where excavations have taken place. This is quite a long way North of Makhtesh Ramon, though.
17) Rissah - now we lose track completely once again
18) Kehelathah
19) Mount Shepher
20) Haradah
21) Makheloth
22) Tahath
23) Terah - anything to do with Abraham's father? Probably not.
24) Mithkah
25) Hashmonah
26) Moseroth
27) Bene-jaakan
28) Hor-haggidgad
29) Jotbathah - Wikipedia tentatively suggests Yotvata, which is down South towards the Gulf of Aqaba. We'll make a sort of arc of 13 points heading down there somewhere near the modern road and somewhere near the river.
30) Abronah, en route to...
31) Ezion-geber, a sea port on the Gulf of Aqaba
32) Kadesh - in the Wilderness of Sin. Is thought to be modern Ain el-Qudeirat, which is 80 miles NW of the end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Not an impossible march over days, I suppose.
33) Mount Hor - on the edge of the Land of Edom, where Aaron died, after 40 years. The traditional identification is of Jebel Nari Harun (lit. "Mountain of Prophet Aaron").
34) Zalmonah
35) Punon - modern-day Feinan in Jordan, according to Wikipedia
36) Oboth
37) Iye-abarim (Iyim) - in Moab
38) Dibon-gad - modern-day Dhiban in Jordan, according to Wikipedia
39) Almon-diblathaim
40) Nebo (mountains of Abarim)
41) Jericho (plains of Moab, by the Jordan) - modern-day Tell es-Sultan, North of the Dead Sea

All of this produces a vague guesstimate map that looks like this, handily plotted as a running route for those faithful that like to combine regular exercise with devotion. What do we think of it?

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 04, 2016, 01:52PMNumbers 33 text

Highlights

 - The full itinerary of the 40-year wandering is given

Summary

 - All the places are listed in order, with some events attached
 - God tells the Israelites to treat the Canaanites barbarically

Just saying that God actually said to drive them out. And that this was punishment for the Amorites really barbaric practices, eg child sacrifice.

Quote - He also tells them that if they don't, he will treat them with the same barbarism

Not actually, what God says is that if they don't drive the inhabitants out then they will be really irritating.  That sounds more like stating the obvious fact that the barbaric neighbours will actively resent them moving in and taking over, rather than God saying he's going to be the one to irritate them.

QuoteQuestions and Observations

1) If they believe, the Israelites are morally stuck now, aren't they? Either behave appallingly or be behaved appallingly against. Moses ratchets up the tension.

From the theist perspective it was a police action to remove the barbaric and wicked Amorites.  Are police necessarily barbaric and immoral because they have to capture and sometimes kill bad people that fight back.

QuoteAll of this produces a vague guesstimate map that looks like this, handily plotted as a running route for those faithful that like to combine regular exercise with devotion. What do we think of it?

Cool.

I'd be surprised if they got as far north.  I think its Libnah.  That seems to be inside the boundary of the area promised to them. Anyway its useful to get an idea of where they were supposed to have wandered.

Numbers 34 text

Highlights

- God specifies :
   - the boundaries of the Promised Land
   - how and who was going to divide the land up among the People

Summary

 - God details the borders of the Promised Land.  Here's the map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Land_of_Israel.jpg
 - God says that its going to be divided up by lot between the 9 1/2 tribes that didn't claim any land to the west of the Jordan
 - And God specifies Eliazar and the a chief of each tribe to divide the land.

Questions and Observations

1. They're getting closer.

Interesting to compare those boundaries to the boundaries of modern Israel, as shown by the shading on the map you posted. At least in order to get a feeling for how those members of that modern state that are driven by a desire to recreate ancient situations might feel about them.

Also interesting to note that nobody is quite sure exactly where some of those lines should be drawn. Makes a big difference when modern political attitudes depend on them.

Numbers 35 text

Highlights

 - A portion of the spoils of conquest are denominated for the Levite class
 - Laws on killings

Summary

 - 6 cities are designated as "cities of refuge", and to be given to the Levites
 - A further 42 cities are to be given to the Levites
 - Plus a lot of pastureland around them
 - Various cases are laid out corresponding to murder and manslaughter, to differentiate the two
 - Manslayers must remain in the city of refuge until the high priest that granted them refuge dies; only then are they free to return to where they came from. Otherwise they may be killed in revenge without attracting punishment.
 - Murder punishable by death, and murderers may not be ransomed

Questions and Observations

1) The "cities of refuge" were places where "manslayers" were allowed to flee, where accidental killers could be guaranteed a fair trial. Anyone causing an inadvertent death who couldn't reach one would have been out of luck, I suppose...
2) What constituted a "city"? The modern word conjures up pictures of sprawling metropolises (metropoles?), but that is evidently extremely far off the mark here. 48 cities for the Levites - so maybe 600 between the 12 tribes. We're talking hundreds of people per city, I reckon, if that.
3) At first glance, the law on manslaughter seems inconsistent and peculiar - i) Whether you are hunted down in revenge depends where you live; ii) How long you are exiled depends on how long the high priest has to live - but perhaps it makes more sense than it seems. These would have difficult and emotive cases, and keeping the perpetrator away from those that felt wronged would have allowed time for wounds to heal. Then, with the protection of the particular granter of refuge gone, it would have made some sense to start afresh in this way. I don't think it is the best formulation that this law could have - why not specify a set length of time (e.g. 10 or 20 years) that the refuge must be stayed in instead?

Those "refuge" cities seem to be the closest thing they have to a jail. Sort of like a modern minimum-security prison camp.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 04, 2016, 04:37PM

Not actually, what God says is that if they don't drive the inhabitants out then they will be really irritating.  That sounds more like stating the obvious fact that the barbaric neighbours will actively resent them moving in and taking over, rather than God saying he's going to be the one to irritate them.


Apparently it wasn't that uncommon to drive inhabitants out.

Later we'll find during the Assyrian conquest of the northern half of Israel, something like 4.5 million refugees fled.  Then even later the Babylonian conquest had ever more dire consequences. 

The people of the northern kingdom didn't so much flee from the Assyrians as being deported and populations being totally reshuffled to the advantage of the Assyrian empire.  Here's a link with some explanation.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/essentials/governors/massdeportation/

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 06, 2016, 07:58AM
2) What constituted a "city"? The modern word conjures up pictures of sprawling metropolises (metropoles?), but that is evidently extremely far off the mark here. 48 cities for the Levites - so maybe 600 between the 12 tribes. We're talking hundreds of people per city, I reckon, if that.

I was trying to work out the size (in my head) from the dimensions of the surrounding fields in verses 4 and 5 and they must have used different geometry to what I was taught.  The pasture around the city was 2000 cubits on each side and the city was 1000 cubits in from the outer boundary of the pasture.  That doesn't leave any room, unless the 1000 cu measurements are taken diagonally in from the corners.  If you measure diagonally you get the diagonal a square with 2000 cu sides is of the city as 2800 cubits.  Measuring in 1000 cubits from opposite corners leaves 800 cubits as the diagonal of the city which is 571 cubits or about 270 meters per side.  That seems like its going to be cosy for 600 guys and their families.  

And I cheated - I used a calculator