TromboneChat

Quote from: MoominDave on Apr 22, 2016, 11:55AM
Questions and Observations

1) Interesting that no remark at all seems to attach to a woman being the leader of this people. The men don't have good previous form for treating women as equals.

I think the story remarkable enough that the author wouldn't have to make a comment outside the story.  He puts it all in the story.  '8 Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.”'  The men were a bunch of wimps hiding behind Deborah's skirts.  And it was Jael who killed Sisera.  What comment would he need to make?

Quote2) Also interesting that the story is related as if Ehud were the previous Judge. What about Shamgar? Perhaps slaying 600 Philistines with an ox-goad wasn't such a big deal, leadership-wise.

I'm pretty sure that some of the judges were concurrent, although it doesn't seem to be the case this time.  I'll try and find a timeline for whats going on.  No doubt there will be multiple different ones on the web.

Quote3) Jabin, King of Hazor... We have heard that name before - a king of the same place with the same name led the confederation against the Israelites as described in Joshua 11.
3a) So there is a problem... Hazor was completely annihilated in Joshua 11:10-15 - every last person murdered. But now there is a powerful enough king there to subjugate the Israelites? And of the same name as the king before the destruction? This seems distinctly unlikely.
3b) Which makes the idea that Joshua and Judges are parallel (not sequential) chronologies seem more appealing. In this view, Jabin King of Hazor is the same person in both books, told in two versions of the story. The two versions conflict, but that is only a problem for Biblical believers. This version certainly feels more realistic than the version of Joshua.
3c) It is also possible that the destruction of Hazor and its people was very much less then described in Joshua, leaving them to rebuild. But the accuracy of the text takes a knock either way.

My commentary notes that Jabin was probably a title rather than an individual name.  He may have been Jabin the 7th too.

I think you comment in 3c might be correct too.  Joshua does seem to written with the idea that the conquering was pretty complete (most of the time)

Quote6) Typical Biblical exaggeration - all are killed at the battle of Mount Tabor except the leader. Right...

Typical!  I'm thinking that the genre isn't really historical textbook.

It seems so far like it (and Joshua too) use stories that are put together to make theological points.  But I'm still working out what I think.  The repetition of 40 and 80 years would seem to be more symbolic than likely.

Its interesting that in the Hebrew bible its part of the (minor) prophets so its seen more as a text with a meaning rather than mainly a historical narrative.  Same for Joshua, Ruth, Samuel and Kings.

Quote7) Shamgar does get a mention in the Song of Deborah, as a leader under whom conditions had deteriorated. Not sure how well that fits with the heroic narrative of rescuing Judges listing him.

I don't think that all the Judges were great leaders in all respects.  There seems to be a general downward trend and even though they may have been good at beating the Philistines that didn't mean that they were going to be all round role models like your average professional sportsman nowadays.  Shamgar did his rescuing but stuffed up on other things.  So too for Gideon.  And as for Samson!


Its interesting trying to work out what sort of text Judges is and what purpose it had.

Judges 6 text
Judges 7 text

Highlights

 - Gideon tentatively lead Israel to defeat the Midianites and the Amelakites.

Summary

 - Midian opresses Israel by stealing all their crops
 - The Lord calls Gideon to save Israel
 - Gideon rejects The Lords description of him as mighty and tries to wimp out.
 - The Lord does a fiery sign for him
 - The Lord tells Gideon to destroy the pagan altars in his town
 - The men of the town don't like this but Gideon's father calms them down.
 - The Midianites come: The Spirit of God "clothes" Gideon: the People come
 - Gideon want God to give him another sign that God is with them. God does it.
 - Gideon asks God for the opposite sign.  God does it.
 
 - God tells Gideon that there are too many warriors, and to send the scared ones home. He doesn't want them thinking that they saved themselves
 - 22,000 go, leaving 10,000, but thats still too many
 - God tests them by getting them to drink at the river.  Any who lap like a dog are sent home. Those that use their hands as a cup can stay.  Only 300 stay.  God says that's good but Gideon is not convinced
 - There were lots of Midianites and Amalekites but Gideon sent a spy who reported that one of them had a dream about their camp being destroyed by a piece of bread tumbling into their camp.  The other says that obviously means that the Isrealites are going to destroy them.
 - This convinces Gideon.
 - So Gideon got his men to suround the camp at night and at his commandm to make a racket and shine their torches.  The enemy panicked, killed each other and fled
 - Gideon gathered more men and chased the the rest of the Midianites. They captured the "waters against them" and killed 2 princes.

Questions and Observations

1) Gideon is often considered a faithful judge but he actually doesn't believe God when he says that he is for Israel and will save them.  He needs a lot of convincing.

2) The Israelites had cried out to God to save them but they weren't keen to give up their Baal worship were they?

3)  Do you think the numbers seem to be getting normalish now.  22,000 to 10,000 are reasonable sizes for an army.  At least they're not out by a couple of orders of magnitude.

Funny, I was just thinking this morning that it was about time I got to the next chapter.

Numbers - these still seem intuitively large to me. Henry V led an army of 6-9,000 at Agincourt in 1415, to pick a random Mediaeval battle prosecuted by a power expanding their territory, out of a total English population at that time of a little more than 2 million.

Finding a reliable number for the population of this area at that time is beyond the internet; Google is swamped by results that are biblically-derived (even some from old scholarly journals), and hence look way too high. The best I could find was this, a book which incidentally decries this state of affairs on this page. 200-300,000 is the number that they like the best, though they stress that they don't even like that very much - and I stress that it isn't clear to me which period of time it applies to from this - seemingly the more populous later thriving period of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah? It is probably reasonable to think that the population at this earlier time was more like 50-100,000?

So an army of 22,000 would involve the mobilisation of pretty much every single able-bodied man in the loose confederation of tribes. Doesn't seem realistic to me. I shall for now persist in dividing these numbers by 10-100 in my head.

Henry had to ship his troops across the channel, so that would have inhibited the number of troops he had available.  And they weren't defending their home from people raiding their crops.  I reckon you would get a higher percentage of people volunteering to fight if they were defending their livelihood.

But dividing by 10-100 is about what I expected you to think actually. 

I was thinking that its a lot less than dividing by 1000 which is what you were talking about when they were in the wilderness.

Fair point on Henry - sorry, not the best comparison, brain not turned on. The French army at Agincourt was a bit larger - about 12,000 apparently, and they were on their territory. Although much of what's now France was English then, so it's all a bit muddled.

Question: Is the same word for "thousand" still being used here? The one that meant "family group" rather than "1,000", that your concordance plumped for "5-14 people" as a definition for.

I'm pondering whether even if the same word is used, it seems sensible to me to insist that the Exodus numbers be consistent with these numbers. Different texts, different authors, different lengths of historical trail leading to them.

I don't know if the same word for thousand is still being used, I'll ask around.

But I don't think that Judges is talking family groups here - at least not of 10 - 14 like we were talking about in the wilderness and my commentary:
- we'd be looking at a max size of around 300 men to start with - not a credible force to deal with an army that steal a tribes grain harvest
- and God got Gideon to reduce the size of the Israelite army from 22 x 14 to 10 x 14 and then to 300.  ie 308 to 140 to 300!!!  Which doesn't seem to work well even if you double the sizes of the family groups.

So it looks like the bible is either using a different word here, or the word for "thousand" is pretty flexible. ie its no more specific than saying a company or group or bunch

(and fyi - a concordance lists all the words in the bible and shows what verses they occur in.  A commentary is a discussion of a part of the bible. I only mention this cause I know you like to be accurate.)

Judges 8 text

Highlights

 - Gideon mops up the Midianites

Summary

 - Gideon's army continues to pursue the fleeing Midianites, led by their kings Zebah and Zalmunna.
 - They pass through the towns of Succoth and Penuel, and both refuse to give food to Gideon's army. This is rude, and Gideon promises he'll make them pay when he's done with Zebah and Zalmunna.
 - His army defeats Midian and captures Zebah and Zalmunna.
 - On their way back, Gideon captures a young man from Succoth, who identifies the elders and princes of the city that were so inhospitable before.
 - Gideon beats them with thorns and briars.
 - He also returns to Penuel and breaks down their tower and kills the men of the city.
 - While interrogating Zebah and Zalmunna, Gideon finds out that they killed his brothers in Tabor.
 - Gideon tells his oldest son, Jether, to kill these fools. Jether is still just a boy, though, and he doesn't want to.
 - Zebah and Zalmunna say, Do it youself.
 - So he does, and he takes the ornaments from their camels' necks.
 - Israel asks Gideon to be their king, and his sons after him, because he's delivered them from Midian.
 - Gideon refuses, and tells them that the Lord will be their king.
 - He asks his men to give him all of the gold they've captured from the Midianites, which they willingly do. 1700 shekels worth
 - With all that gold, Gideon makes an ephod, which is basically the ultimate in high-priestly bling.
 - After this, Israel enjoyed peace for 40 years.
 - Those years were good to Gideon. He had many wives and concubines, who gave him 70-some-odd sons, including Abimelech (more on him later).
 - Gideon "died in a good old age, and was buried"
 - After Gideon died Israel whored after other gods and were not even very nice to Gideon's family.

Questions and Observations

1)  1700 shekels is about 20kg (thats about 42lbs for those who still use the old fashioned avoirdupois system.  Was it 14lbs to a stone?  So thats 3 stone.  I'm glad we swapped to metric/decimal before I had to do maths with that or pounds, shillings and pence.).  But regardless of the weight I'd suggest that making yourself a blinged out ephod (which was the high priests jacket) was indicative of wanting to be seen as equal to or even better than the high priest.  And lots of wives. So I'm guessing he valued his own prestige over loyalty to God. (or he just liked bling) It may have been a family trait: his brothers were identified by Z & Z as looking like kings.

2) And did you notice the first mention of Israel wanting a king?

Judges 10 text


Highlights -

 - Israel and God are having some relationship issues

Summary

 - Tola, son of Puah and grandson of Dodo, judged Israel for 23 years.
 - After him, Jair judges Israel for 22 years.
 - When he dies, Israel starts worshiping the gods of Syria, Zidon, Moab and the Philistines.
 - Israel spends 18 years under the oppression of the Philistines and the Ammonites, after which they cry unto the Lord for help.
 - God says that he has saved Israel lots of times and they still forget about him, so this time they're on their own.
 - He says that they can go and cry to the gods that they have chosen and they can save them.
 - Israel says that they have sinned, that God can do whatever he wants to them, but please save them.  And they put away the strange gods and served the Lord, who felt sorry for them.
 - Meanwhile the Ammonites were gathering an army to attack Israel

Questions and Observations

1) I've got nothing this time

Judges 11 text


Highlights -

 - Jephthah - a flawed judge

Summary

 - Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior who led a band of worthless fellows.
 - his brothers had driven him out of town because his mum was a prostitute and they didn't want him sharing their inheritance
 - When the Ammonites made war against Israel the elders of Gilead asked Jephthah to lead them
 - He said "now you want to be my friend. if I win then I will be your head"
 - The elders of Gilead agreed.
 - Jephthah sends a messenger to see the king of the Ammonites and ask why he's attacking.
 - The king responds, "Because Israel stole my land."
 - Jephthah says, "God gave us this land. You can have the land that your God gave you."
 - The king says, "I don't think so. Prepare for war."
 - "Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through the land. He also vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whatever[a] comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” (11:29-31).
 - The Lord does deliver the Ammonites into Jephthah's hands, and he "smote them […] with a very great slaughter. And the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel" (11:33). Guess that settles that.
 - So Jephthah heads home, triumphant. as he approaches his house, his daughter comes out to greet him.
 - Jephthah despairs when he sees her, remembering the promise he made to God. Jeph meant what he said, and he said what he meant, so it's not looking good for his daughter.
 - She takes the news of her father's promise to God surprisingly well, and agrees to submit. S“Let this thing be done for me: leave me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my companions.”  ( 11:37).
- After her two months are up, Jephthah's daughter returns, and he carried out his vow.
 - The daughters of Israel commemorate this event each year by lamenting Jephthah's daughter for four days.

Questions and Observations

1) Jephthah was a good warrior but was he a good person?
2) What does it mean that "the Spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah"?
   - that Jephthah was completely controlled by the Spirit? ie he wasn't in control
   - that Jephthah was empowered by the Spirit for a specific purpose? ie he was in control
   - or something else?
3) Was the Spirit responsible for his vow to offer the first thing to come out of his hoese to the Lord.
4) Was this vow permissable under the law?
5) Was Jephthah entitled to redeem his daughter by paying the set price for her?
6) apparently the word for burnt offering could also mean dedicated: so some that think that the offering was not necessarily as a burnt offering - it may have included giving here up to the temple as a sort of nun.  Hence the concern with her virginity rather than her death?  Do you think that this is a possibility?
7) some think that vows were made publicly: that the daughter knew of the vow (v36 indicates some knowledge of the vow) : that she chose to come out of the house so that she would be dedicated and not have to marry, so that she would inherit her fathers legacy.  What do you think of this?
8) Theres been a lot of work gone into showing that the most obvious interpretation of this passage is not  the correct one.  I'm not sure if the arguments are well founded or not.  Either way I think that this passage is an example that shows that even the judges were not following God as they should.
9)  At a bigger picture level it shows that God doesn't need perfect people to do stuff for him - he can and does use the material at hand.

Quote"...whatever[a] comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."
A jackass stupid vow since he knew only had the one child. Maybe he was thinking it would be the cat on a Roomba.

But if "burnt" doesn't mean burnt, are they claiming it's not burnt anywhere else?

I think we skipped over chapter 9?

Judges 9 text

Highlights

 - Rise and Fall of Abimelech

Summary

 - Gideon had 70 sons, including Abimelech by a concubine in Shechem
 - Abimelech raises a rebellion against his brothers, hires some dodgy mercenaries, and slaughters them all...
 - ...except the youngest, Jotham, who hides...
 - ...then makes a passionate but rather obscure speech to the people, involving tree-based metaphors...
 - ...then runs away and lives in peace elsewhere.
 - The leaders of Shechem and Abimelech fall out.
 - Gaal comes to Shechem and foments rebellion against Abimelech
 - Abimelech is informed, and drives him out
 - But the people continue to revolt
 - Abimelech recaptures the city, destroying it and salting the ground
 - Local leaders take refuge in a secure tower with many people, but Abimelech burns it with them inside
 - Abimelech attacks Thebez (presumably also a city in rebellion?)
 - Again people seek refuge in a tower, which Abimelech approaches to burn
 - But a woman throws a millstone from the top of the tower, fatally crushing his head
 - Abimelech, not yet dead, asks a warrior of his to kill him with a spear to avoid the 'indignity' of being killed by a woman
 - Moral: everyone got what they deserved

Questions and Observations

1) Abimelech does not get a favourable write-up. Clearly shown to us as a "Bad Guy (TM)". But were his actions less brutal than those of some of the "Good Guys"? I would submit not - but the writers for their own reasons did not wish to give his actions the flavour of divine sanction, which they could have fairly easily. I'm not clear why.
2) Having 70 sons seems an obvious way to risk succession arguments. Is 70 a realistic number? I suppose if Gideon had 20 concubines, that's 3.5 each. Why isn't this kind of behaviour approved of by modern Christianity? What's changed between then and now? [Well, everything, obviously - but what's changed theologically?]
3) The story is wrapped up with a neat moral, but is it really such a straightforward story?
4) Millstones are heavy! A ton or so, even ancient examples. One person (whatever their gender) raising one up to throw it (or even pushing it off a flat surface to fall) is not realistic.
5) Abimelech is a Bad Guy and doesn't respect the rights of women to be as brutal as him. Taken along with the Deborah story, suggests some decent gender enlightenment in the mind of the author.

Catching up after a busy week, before heading up the road to Scotland for a week off in which you may not see much of me...

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 27, 2016, 02:42PMJudges 8 text

1)  1700 shekels is about 20kg (thats about 42lbs for those who still use the old fashioned avoirdupois system.  Was it 14lbs to a stone?  So thats 3 stone.  I'm glad we swapped to metric/decimal before I had to do maths with that or pounds, shillings and pence.).  But regardless of the weight I'd suggest that making yourself a blinged out ephod (which was the high priests jacket) was indicative of wanting to be seen as equal to or even better than the high priest.  And lots of wives. So I'm guessing he valued his own prestige over loyalty to God. (or he just liked bling) It may have been a family trait: his brothers were identified by Z & Z as looking like kings.

2) And did you notice the first mention of Israel wanting a king?

 - Pretty odd that Ephraim were annoyed with Gideon for achieving a military victory. They wanted the land for themselves? So much for all being on the same side.
 - Yep, about 3 stone. Quite a jacket.
 - Another 40 years - yes, these feel like formula numbers.
 - A king, yes, just a hint. Given the scholarly view that these books were put together under a later king, hints like this become later-written commentaries intended to convey the notion of pre-ordained national route to monarchy. State propaganda, perhaps.

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 27, 2016, 07:54PMJudges 10 text

 - Jair had 30 sons who rode on 30 donkeys. Seems a peculiar detail. Riding on a donkey was a mark of failed pretension for Balaam - is it here?
 - I'll make a full list of leaders when summarising the book.
 - Yes, this all has quite a familiar feeling as a narrative element...

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 30, 2016, 07:40PMJudges 11 text

1) Jephthah was a good warrior but was he a good person?
I don't think we really are presented with enough info to make that judgement?

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 30, 2016, 07:40PM2) What does it mean that "the Spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah"?
   - that Jephthah was completely controlled by the Spirit? ie he wasn't in control
   - that Jephthah was empowered by the Spirit for a specific purpose? ie he was in control
   - or something else?
3) Was the Spirit responsible for his vow to offer the first thing to come out of his hoese to the Lord.
So, I'm not a theologian. But it seems to me that the spirit of this kind of thing as we've been seeing it in the text is that the person in question is being steered with irresistibly strong guidance, but performing all their own actions. So I would suspect that this would be on Jephthah.

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 30, 2016, 07:40PM4) Was this vow permissable under the law?
Didn't they forbid human sacrifice? Or just human sacrifice to Moloch?

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 30, 2016, 07:40PM5) Was Jephthah entitled to redeem his daughter by paying the set price for her?
Pass. What's your reading?

Quote from: drizabone on Apr 30, 2016, 07:40PM6) apparently the word for burnt offering could also mean dedicated: so some that think that the offering was not necessarily as a burnt offering - it may have included giving here up to the temple as a sort of nun.  Hence the concern with her virginity rather than her death?  Do you think that this is a possibility?
7) some think that vows were made publicly: that the daughter knew of the vow (v36 indicates some knowledge of the vow) : that she chose to come out of the house so that she would be dedicated and not have to marry, so that she would inherit her fathers legacy.  What do you think of this?
8) Theres been a lot of work gone into showing that the most obvious interpretation of this passage is not  the correct one.  I'm not sure if the arguments are well founded or not.  Either way I think that this passage is an example that shows that even the judges were not following God as they should.
It's a nice thought. On the face of the story, it's certainly something disturbing that fits badly with modern Christianity and Judaism.

Judges 12 text

Highlights

 - Successive Judges: Jephthah (second part), Ibzan, Elon, Abdon

Summary

 - Ephraim angry with Jephthah for not inviting them along to fight the Ammonites, threatening to attack
  - They fight
  - Ephraim loses
  - A test is related where men of Gilead and Ephraim could distinguish each other by pronouncing a word as "sh" vs "s".
 - Jephthah dies after 6 years of Judgery.
 - He is followed by Ibzan, who Judges 7 years.
 - Then by Elon, who Judges 10 years.
 - Then by Abdon (8 years).

Questions and Observations

1) Tough things, fossils.
2) What a bizarre thing to fight over...
3) These Judges are presented as having authority over the whole of Israel - but they are clearly not in authority over Ephraim, who treat Jephthah with disrespect.
4) Our modern usage of "shibboleth" as a practice distinguishing a group comes from this Biblical usage, presumably?
5) Ibzan had 30 sons and 30 daughters. Abdon 30 sons and 40 grandsons. These were prolific breeding people by the narrative. Powerful men controlling lots of concubines. Again - why acceptable then but not now by the continued religious tradition?
6) I read a bit of tribal needle into this passage. Ephraim and Gideon seem keen to fight, like old enemies. And there's a hint of ethnic mockery in the "shibboleth" test - just as when some of the dimmer members of our UK English speaking group rib Americans over differing spellings, and vice versa.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Apr 30, 2016, 08:38PMA jackass stupid vow since he knew only had the one child. Maybe he was thinking it would be the cat on a Roomba.

But if "burnt" doesn't mean burnt, are they claiming it's not burnt anywhere else?

He probably had servants as well, and he may have been thinking of an animal when he made the vow - but jackass stupid is a pretty good description anyway.

All the translations I've read say burnt offering but some of the arguments if seen about the text not requiring a burnt offering include:
- there are 2 clauses in v31 "the first thing I see shall be the Lords and I will offer it as a burnt offering".  So one argument is that these clauses were actually joined by an "or" rather than an "and"
- the text is more concerned that she wouldn't lose her virginity rather than her death
- Lev. 27:2-8 seem to speak of sanctifying or dedicating people (humans), through a "special vow." This seems to indicate tabernacle service.
- Human sacrifice was always understood from the days of Abraham onward to be an offense and an abomination. It had been denounced and forbidden in Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; Dt 12:31; 18:10.
- It would have been ironic that she was considered a heroine for submitting to a pagan act of worship

Here's some arguments I found if you want to go into it (the last one is more scholarly):

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jepthah.php
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jephthahs-daughter.html
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1227/did-jephthah-actually-sacrifice-his-daughter

Quote from: MoominDave on May 01, 2016, 02:37AMI think we skipped over chapter 9?


oops

Quote from: MoominDave on May 01, 2016, 02:51AM
Didn't they forbid human sacrifice? Or just human sacrifice to Moloch?

Human sacrifice was generally forbidden, not just to Moloch. God didn't want them and thought they were detestable.  Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; and 32:35 clearly indicate that the idea of human sacrifice has "never even entered God's mind."

QuotePass. What's your reading?

Re: 5) Was Jephthah entitled to redeem his daughter by paying the set price for her?

Leviticus 27 deals with this. 

vv1-8 talks about a special vow where a person can be bought back.
vv28-29 says that if a person is devoted to the Lord then they can't be bought back.  "No one devoted, who is to be devoted for destruction[e] from mankind, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death."  Which seems to disagree with my previous point.

So did Jephtha make a special vow or a devotion?  I don't know.


 

Quote from: MoominDave on May 01, 2016, 02:37AM
Questions and Observations

1) Abimelech does not get a favourable write-up. Clearly shown to us as a "Bad Guy (TM)". But were his actions less brutal than those of some of the "Good Guys"? I would submit not - but the writers for their own reasons did not wish to give his actions the flavour of divine sanction, which they could have fairly easily. I'm not clear why.

I agree that the text puts him on the bad end of the spectrum. I'm not sure that brutality is really the scale that determines good or bad for judges, though, they were meant to deliver Israel from their opressors so in a sense brutality was part of the job description. But Abimelech's brutality was against his brothers and was used so that he could become king, not to deliver Israel. So he was brutal, just looking out for himself and not doing what God said.  What is there about this to give divine sanction to?

The writers said back in chapter 2 that this was a story of Israel becoming more and more corrupt: we can see this progression in the judges too.

Its interesting that Abimelech made himself King so depicting him as "bad" is a criticism of the idea of kings.  This is actually consistent with later criticism in the same set of books, ie Kings and Chronicles.

Quote2) Having 70 sons seems an obvious way to risk succession arguments. Is 70 a realistic number? I suppose if Gideon had 20 concubines, that's 3.5 each. Why isn't this kind of behaviour approved of by modern Christianity? What's changed between then and now? [Well, everything, obviously - but what's changed theologically?]

I think that 70 is probably symbolic.

I would argue that this kind of behaviour wasn't approved of in anciant Judaism either.  Abimelech isn't a model of "approved" behaviour, he's a model of the sorts of bad behaviour that the Israelites were doing.  Abimelech is an example of God being able to achieve his purposes (saving Israel) even despite the fact that the people he uses are wicked.  (he doesn't only use people who are perfect) So there's no change theologically. 

Quote3) The story is wrapped up with a neat moral, but is it really such a straightforward story?

Yeah: Israel was bad and the society is chaotic. Girlz Rule.  (which was probably a critic on what was going on)

Quote4) Millstones are heavy! A ton or so, even ancient examples. One person (whatever their gender) raising one up to throw it (or even pushing it off a flat surface to fall) is not realistic.

Not all millstones were that big.  Some millstones were small, designed to be used by a woman grinder her own grain - they may have even been portable, a walkstone - she would have moved the top stone (which) was smaller) by hand.  I expect that this was what she threw.

After all its unlikely that you would have a 1 tonne millstone on the top of a tower.

Quote5) Abimelech is a Bad Guy and doesn't respect the rights of women to be as brutal as him. Taken along with the Deborah story, suggests some decent gender enlightenment in the mind of the author.

He was probably using the women to make negative insinuations about the guys in the story by way of contrast. 

Quote from: MoominDave on May 01, 2016, 03:04AM
Questions and Observations

1) Tough things, fossils.
2) What a bizarre thing to fight over...
3) These Judges are presented as having authority over the whole of Israel - but they are clearly not in authority over Ephraim, who treat Jephthah with disrespect.
4) Our modern usage of "shibboleth" as a practice distinguishing a group comes from this Biblical usage, presumably?
5) Ibzan had 30 sons and 30 daughters. Abdon 30 sons and 40 grandsons. These were prolific breeding people by the narrative. Powerful men controlling lots of concubines. Again - why acceptable then but not now by the continued religious tradition?
6) I read a bit of tribal needle into this passage. Ephraim and Gideon seem keen to fight, like old enemies. And there's a hint of ethnic mockery in the "shibboleth" test - just as when some of the dimmer members of our UK English speaking group rib Americans over differing spellings, and vice versa.

2. Yeah.  Another illustration of just how bad the Israelites were getting.

3. I've noticed that a judge in a particular area was said to lead "all Israel" a few times.  I think that because Israel was still fairly small that even though a judge actually lived in a particular area his influence was felt over the whole of Israel.  But that's just me speculating.

4. I think that's right.

5. Once again I think lots of things that happen in Judges are examples of people doing the wrong thing, they're not examples of what is normally considered right.

6. Ditto.  with the note that ribbing Americans over their spelling and pronunciation is an honourable practice.  After all their computer programs keep insisting on marking our spelling as incorrect.

Judges 13 text
Judges 14 text
Judges 15 text


Highlights -

 - the birth of Samson
 - Samson tries to get married
 - Samson is brutal and barbaric

Summary

Chapter 13

1. Israel does evil so God gave them into the hand of the Philistines for 40 years

2. An angel appears to a woman who was barren and promises her a son that will save his people.  He gives instructions that she is to abstain and eat kosher food during her pregnancy.  The son is to be a Nazirite for all of his life.

3. The woman and her husband get further instruction and realise that the angel is actually God. 
 - The baby is born and called Samson. He grew and the Lord blesses him and the Spirit of the Lord stirs in him.

4. Samson decides he wants to marry a Philistine girl and tells his Dad to get her for him.  His father asks if there isn't an Israelite girl he could marry, but Samson insists that the Philistine giirl is right "in his eyes".

5. Samson's Mum and Dad didn't know that this was all part of God's plan for an opportunity to fight the Philistines.

Chapter 14

6. Samson and his family went to Timnah to visit the woman.  A young lion attacked him but he ripped it apart with his bare hands.  The woman still looked good to him.

7. When he went back to Timnah after a few days there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass.  He took some of the honey.

8. Samson prepared a feast as was the custom there, (sort of a bucks night I guess) and the Phillistines sent him 30 companions.  Samson gave them a riddle with 30 sets of nice clothes as the prize. 

   Out of the eater came something to eat
   Out of the strong came something sweet.

They couldn't answer the riddle so they asked his bride to get the answer out of him.  She gave him the "You don't love me" guilt trip and he told her the answer. She told them and they told Samson.  But he new how they had got it.

9. Samson got angry and killed 30 Philistine men, took their clothes and gave it to his companions and went home angry.

10. Samsons wife was given to his best man.

Chapter 15

11. After a while Samson goes to visit his wife, with a young goat (how romantic).  His father in law says that he thought Samson hated the woman so he had given her to someone else, would you like her younger sister, she's much more beautiful.

12. So Samson caught 300 foxes, tied torches to their tails and set them alight and put them in amoung the harvested grain.

13. The Philistines were angry and killed the woman and her father.  Samson killed those Phillistines.

14. The Philistines attacked the Israelites to capture Samson.  Samson agreed to be tied up and handed over. When the Philistines came to get him, he broke his bonds and killed a thousand of them using the jawbone of a donkey as his weapon.

15. He was thirsty, he asked God for water and got it.  He judged Israel for 20 years.


Questions and Observations

1) Israel was oppressed for 40 years and they didn't even call out to God for help.  That's sad.  Its an indication that they are getting further and further from God.

2) So God takes thing into his own hands and provides a man to save Israel, even though Israel hadn't repented or even asked for help. The man was to be a Nazirite all his life.  Remember back to Numbers 6. A Nazirite was someone that had volunteered temporarily to be set apart aka holy for God by staying away from unclean things. Samson was a life-time conscript rather than a volunteer.  Its pretty obvious that he wasn't interested in being a Nazirite as everything they weren't supposed to do.  Pretty much like Israel don't you think. God chose them to be holy, but they did just about everything they could to spoil that.

3) Compare and contrast what is said to Samson's mum and what to Mary (Jesus' mum) about their sons?  Is this significant?  (Or maybe we can do this when we get to the New Testament)

4) Samson wants to marry a Philistine girl in contravention of instructions for the Israelites not to marry foreigners.  And he's bossy isn't he.

8) I guess this was a Philistine custom rather than Israelite.

9) I hope you're not really thinking that Samson is supposed to be an approved role model of good behaviour. 

10) Samson is brutal and barbaric, don't you think?

11) Should God have used a less brutal and barbaric method of saving Israel from the Philistine oppression?  Was there a better way?  Why might have he used Samson, warts and all? 

There is a really cute youtube video of the Samson story, in three parts.  I think somebody posted it here once. 

He gets tricked by women more than once, it seems.  Wonder what the message is - and why the Samson story is taught in Sunday school to children. 

Quote from: timothy42b on May 06, 2016, 04:56AMThere is a really cute youtube video of the Samson story, in three parts.  I think somebody posted it here once. 

He gets tricked by women more than once, it seems.  Wonder what the message is - and why the Samson story is taught in Sunday school to children. 

I think I remember a video cartoon with Samson having an Arnie voice.  If that's the one your thinking of, I wouldn't describe it as cute.  Brutal and barbaric. 

Which leads to the question of why it was taught in Sunday School?  We got a sanitised version done in a boys adventure action style story . They had the theme of Good Israelite Heroes (in the style of Captain America or Superman) defeating the Canaanite Baddies. I think that those stories were chosen because they were more graphic and memorable, rather than for what they taught.  I remember stories about Ehud, Gideon and Samson but not Shamgar or Othniel.  I'm pretty sure they weren't taught and that its not just me not remembering, but I wouldn't know would I.

Judges 16 text


Highlights -

 - Samson meets another girl
 - Samson kills more Philistines.

Summary

 - Samson goes to a prostitute in Gaze and stays the night. The Philistines lie in wait to ambush him in the morning. Samson gets up at midnight tears the city gates apart and carries them away.

 - His next "girlfriend" was Delilah.  The Philistines bribed her to find out the secret of his strength. Samson lied about it couple of times at first but she used the "you don't love me" trick so he told her that he was a Nazirite and that if his hair was shaved his strength would leave him.

 - So she shaved his head. This time the Lord left him and his strength left him too.  The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes. and put him in prison in Gaze.  But his hair began to grow again.

 - The Philistines put on a feast for Dagon their god, because they had captured Samson.  All the lords of the Philistines and another 3000 normal people were there.  They led Samson into the temple and made the mistake of putting him near the 2 columns that supported the roof.  Samson prayed to the Lord for strengh that he may be avenged on the Philistines and he pushed the 2 pillars over and he died.  He killed more Philistines in his death than in his life.

Questions and Observations

1) In the last chapter we read that Samson judged for 20 years.  This chapter is towards the end of his life so it going to be nearly 20 years after last chapter.

2) Samson is brutal and immoral this time.

3) FWIW I've read that there is archaeological evidence that Philistine temples were built with 2 main pillars in the centre of the building holding up the roof.

4) Wikipedia reports the finding of a stone seal with the image of a man and a lion in the area and from 12C BC, which at least supports the fact that the story was circulating at that time.

It's not a story with any clear moral, is it? Everyone's a baddie and most of the actions make no logical sense. Hard to know what to think of it really...

Couple of echoes jumped out at me:
1) Helpful to see the Nazirite vow actually in use, as specified in Numbers 6.
2) Samson killing 1,000 with the jawbone of a donkey reminds me of Shamgar killing 600 with an ox goad in Judges 3. Hmm, those names are similar, aren't they? 'S' and 'Sh' were to some extent interchangeable between dialects/accents, as shown by the 'shibboleth'/'sibboleth' test in Judges 12 - so the first syllable of each two-syllable name seems possibly identical. I wonder if the two references are echoes from the same story?

Judges 17 text
Judges 18 text

Highlights

 - A man called Micah hires/adopts a Levite as a household priest
 - A scouting expedition from Dan comes past, and the priest blesses their mission
 - They return with a military force, taking Micah's goods and the priest with them
 - They destroy the city of Laish, then rebuild it, calling it Dan

Summary

Ch. 17
 - Micah's mother is missing 1,100 pieces of silver. Micah says that he has it and returns it.
 - His mother, in gratitude at the return, makes Micah a gift of expensive religious icons, one carved, one metal.
 - Micah makes his son the household priest.
 - A Levite from Bethlehem journeys by, and stops with Micah. Micah offers him a post as household priest, which he accepts; Micah is proud to have a Levite ministering to his spiritual needs.
Ch. 18
 - The tribe of Dan is out to grab some space for themselves. They send out 5 scouts into the area, who stop at Micah's house.
 - They talk with the Levite, seeking religious backing for their mission. He gives it.
 - They move on to the city of Laish, finding it prosperous and pleasant.
 - They report back to their command that it would be a good idea to attack it and take it. 600 Danites do so.
 - They pass Micah's house; the scouts loot the valuables and also persuade the Levite to join their cause.
 - Micah raises a posse and chases the Dan force. He catches them and exchanges angry words, but backs down in the face of superior numbers.
 - Dan takes Laish, burning the city and killing all.
 - They rebuild the city and live in it, calling it "Dan" instead of "Laish".

Questions and Observations

1) This story seems to be missing its beginning.
2) V.6: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.". This is a recurring line in this book. Kings are good, m'kay? Or possibly bad, if you have a more Libertarian viewpoint.
3) Ambiguous moral line to start with - steal money from your mother, and when you confess and give it back she'll be so grateful that she'll give you gifts. Hmm...
4) This was clearly not a household that lived by the Ten Commandments, if religious icons were acceptable.
5) 1,100 pieces of silver would have been a vast sum, if 10 PoS/yr + board was an acceptable salary for the Levite. In modern terms, it is hard to compare exactly, but I think we are talking something in the region of a million pounds.
6) What happened to Micah's son's role as household priest prior to the Levite? He might be expected to be resentful at losing his role, but he disappears from the story.
7) It isn't explicitly stated, but I think it's clear that Micah would have been some kind of head honcho of the local area. He has so much money and prestige, and his neighbours follow his lead.
8) Recall Joshua 19:47: "When the territory of the people of Dan was lost to them, the people of Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and after capturing it and striking it with the sword they took possession of it and settled in it, calling Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor.".
9) My immediate thought had been that something seemed strange with the chronology here - Dan taking the land for the first time, but Ephraim and Levites already well established? But reading back, the Joshua passage does imply to us that Dan was retaking the land after earlier taking then losing it.
10) "Laish" in this chapter seems clearly the same city name as "Leshem" in Joshua 19. An illustration of how names can be a bit slippery, with different vowels (Hebrew not being very rigorous with vowels by the standards of many written language systems), and a surplus syllable to finish.
11) The Levite's treachery is given a positive gloss.
12) It isn't entirely clearly phrased, but it seems that the Levite in question is named at the end here - Jonathan, son of Gershom, son of Moses (or possibly Manasseh). His descendants keep the priestship of Dan.
13) It seems that Biblical Dan is generally accepted to have been here. But here's something peculiar... Recall the division of the land from Joshua - the portion for Dan was nowhere near this Northern outpost; rather it was on the coastal plain in the centre of modern Israel, abutting the territory of the Philistines. What were Danites doing so far North, having had to cross the territory of a number of other tribes to get there? And then Micah's dwelling in Ephraim was in the next door tribe to the illustrated Dan land - a very long way from there to Laish too. Something doesn't add up here geographically; the text does emphasise that they are "far from Sidon", but it still seems peculiar.
14) Not entirely relevantly, but interestingly (to me, anyhow), I see that it is hypothesised that the tribe of Dan may have been one of the Sea Peoples referenced at various times over the centuries by the ancient Egyptians as the Denyen. Obviously this doesn't fit with a literalist reading of the text, but I hope that even those that do read literally find it an interesting aside.
15) Timescales - without totting up the exact attributions of 20, 40, 80 year spans that been mentioned through the text between Judges, I think that if we trust the numbers exactly, we are ostensibly some 200 years from the end of Joshua here. Joshua took over when Moses died, an old man, at which time Moses's son would have been adult. Moses's son's son, Jonathan, referenced here, would not have been around 200 years later. We can I think reconcile this earlier by suggesting that the Micah story should be placed earlier in the chronology or by suggesting (as I have been throughout) that the chronological numbers are all still substantially inflated.
16) The Wikipedia article on the story suggests that it is composed of two interleaved versions of the same story, citing various narrative duplications within it and a likely decomposition into two parallel texts.
17) I think this is a record number of observations on a summary thus far!

Quote from: MoominDave on May 09, 2016, 02:50AMJudges 17 text
Judges 18 text

Highlights

 - A man called Micah hires/adopts a Levite as a household priest
 - A scouting expedition from Dan comes past, and the priest blesses their mission
 - They return with a military force, taking Micah's goods and the priest with them
 - They destroy the city of Laish, then rebuild it, calling it Dan

Summary

Ch. 17
 - Micah's mother is missing 1,100 pieces of silver. Micah says that he has it and returns it.
 - His mother, in gratitude at the return, makes Micah a gift of expensive religious icons, one carved, one metal.
 - Micah makes his son the household priest.
 - A Levite from Bethlehem journeys by, and stops with Micah. Micah offers him a post as household priest, which he accepts; Micah is proud to have a Levite ministering to his spiritual needs.
Ch. 18
 - The tribe of Dan is out to grab some space for themselves. They send out 5 scouts into the area, who stop at Micah's house.
 - They talk with the Levite, seeking religious backing for their mission. He gives it.
 - They move on to the city of Laish, finding it prosperous and pleasant.
 - They report back to their command that it would be a good idea to attack it and take it. 600 Danites do so.
 - They pass Micah's house; the scouts loot the valuables and also persuade the Levite to join their cause.
 - Micah raises a posse and chases the Dan force. He catches them and exchanges angry words, but backs down in the face of superior numbers.
 - Dan takes Laish, burning the city and killing all.
 - They rebuild the city and live in it, calling it "Dan" instead of "Laish".

Questions and Observations

1) This story seems to be missing its beginning.

Yeah, its got an abrupt start hasn't it.

Quote2) V.6: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.". This is a recurring line in this book. Kings are good, m'kay? Or possibly bad, if you have a more Libertarian viewpoint.

As a said before I  don't think that the "Deuteronomist" (ie the supposed author of this and the other former prophets) is arguing that Kings are good.  I think that he's just saying that without a king, everything was chaotic, and that Kings would unify them.

Quote3) Ambiguous moral line to start with - steal money from your mother, and when you confess and give it back she'll be so grateful that she'll give you gifts. Hmm...

Yeah, pretty suss.  My mum never thought that was a model to follow.

Quote4) This was clearly not a household that lived by the Ten Commandments, if religious icons were acceptable.

No, and made out of silver too. Naughty

Quote5) 1,100 pieces of silver would have been a vast sum, if 10 PoS/yr + board was an acceptable salary for the Levite. In modern terms, it is hard to compare exactly, but I think we are talking something in the region of a million pounds.

Gee that much.  And he just had it hidden away.  I suppose there would have been a lot of silver from pillage, and as you say shortly, it seems as though Michah's family were the leaders of the area. so they probably got a good share.

Quote6) What happened to Micah's son's role as household priest prior to the Levite? He might be expected to be resentful at losing his role, but he disappears from the story.

One could speculate that God would not have been impressed with someone impersonating a Priest, and would have dealt with it severely, but he doesn't seem to be punnishing Israelites individually so much in Judges does he.

Quote7) It isn't explicitly stated, but I think it's clear that Micah would have been some kind of head honcho of the local area. He has so much money and prestige, and his neighbours follow his lead.

Agreed

Quote8) Recall Joshua 19:47: "When the territory of the people of Dan was lost to them, the people of Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and after capturing it and striking it with the sword they took possession of it and settled in it, calling Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor.".

I find the historical background interesting.  Apparently there were lots of migrations and changes at the time: armies with the latest iron tech weapons had a big advantage over the old fashioned bronze age armies.

Quote9) My immediate thought had been that something seemed strange with the chronology here - Dan taking the land for the first time, but Ephraim and Levites already well established? But reading back, the Joshua passage does imply to us that Dan was retaking the land after earlier taking then losing it.

10) "Laish" in this chapter seems clearly the same city name as "Leshem" in Joshua 19. An illustration of how names can be a bit slippery, with different vowels (Hebrew not being very rigorous with vowels by the standards of many written language systems), and a surplus syllable to finish.

Yeah, the way I fit it together is that the stories after Samson, happen earlier, overlapping the stories of the judges.  1:34 mentions Dan not being able to hold on to its allottment on the south coast so they had to seek land in the north, ie Laish/Leshem.  So this story was set at that time, probably soon after chapter 1.

Quote11) The Levite's treachery is given a positive gloss.

Do you think so? (that's with a dubious tone of voice)  I take most things in these stories as negative, even if they do end up with someone profiting.

Quote13) It seems that Biblical Dan is generally accepted to have been here. But here's something peculiar... Recall the division of the land from Joshua - the portion for Dan was nowhere near this Northern outpost; rather it was on the coastal plain in the centre of modern Israel, abutting the territory of the Philistines. What were Danites doing so far North, having had to cross the territory of a number of other tribes to get there? And then Micah's dwelling in Ephraim was in the next door tribe to the illustrated Dan land - a very long way from there to Laish too. Something doesn't add up here geographically; the text does emphasise that they are "far from Sidon", but it still seems peculiar.

see my comment on 10

Quote14) Not entirely relevantly, but interestingly (to me, anyhow), I see that it is hypothesised that the tribe of Dan may have been one of the Sea Peoples referenced at various times over the centuries by the ancient Egyptians as the Denyen. Obviously this doesn't fit with a literalist reading of the text, but I hope that even those that do read literally find it an interesting aside.

Yep, definitely an interesting period in history.  there are lots of changes happening in that part of the world.  Mass migrations, new civilisations, new cutting edge tech with the development of iron weapons

Quote15) Timescales - without totting up the exact attributions of 20, 40, 80 year spans that been mentioned through the text between Judges, I think that if we trust the numbers exactly, we are ostensibly some 200 years from the end of Joshua here. Joshua took over when Moses died, an old man, at which time Moses's son would have been adult. Moses's son's son, Jonathan, referenced here, would not have been around 200 years later. We can I think reconcile this earlier by suggesting that the Micah story should be placed earlier in the chronology or by suggesting (as I have been throughout) that the chronological numbers are all still substantially inflated.

+1 to Michah being earlier.

Quote16) The Wikipedia article on the story suggests that it is composed of two interleaved versions of the same story, citing various narrative duplications within it and a likely decomposition into two parallel texts.

maybe.

Quote17) I think this is a record number of observations on a summary thus far!

You're just making up for taking a holiday.    Welcome back.

Quote from: drizabone on May 09, 2016, 02:57PMOne could speculate that God would not have been impressed with someone impersonating a Priest, and would have dealt with it severely, but he doesn't seem to be punnishing Israelites individually so much in Judges does he.
I find coming to mind the link Robert posted a while back, to a book that lays out a hypothesis that the Exodus never happened, and rather instead the Israelites were a confederation of those tribes that happened to come to neighbour each other. The fragmentary, disordered, and tribal nature of the society that we're seeing here in Judges seems to be rather matchable to a history of this type. Maybe Israelites and God weren't so bothered about each other at this point because Yahweh hadn't yet become a thing.

Quote from: drizabone on May 09, 2016, 02:57PMI find the historical background interesting.  Apparently there were lots of migrations and changes at the time: armies with the latest iron tech weapons had a big advantage over the old fashioned bronze age armies.

Yeah, the way I fit it together is that the stories after Samson, happen earlier, overlapping the stories of the judges.  1:34 mentions Dan not being able to hold on to its allottment on the south coast so they had to seek land in the north, ie Laish/Leshem.  So this story was set at that time, probably soon after chapter 1.

This para snipped from later in Martin's post, but same stuff
Yep, definitely an interesting period in history.  there are lots of changes happening in that part of the world.  Mass migrations, new civilisations, new cutting edge tech with the development of iron weapons
The idea that Dan were late incomers is interesting. They are treated as a special tribal case in various ways here and later.

Quote from: drizabone on May 09, 2016, 02:57PMDo you think so? (that's with a dubious tone of voice)  I take most things in these stories as negative, even if they do end up with someone profiting.
He gave divine sanction to their mission, then went along with it with a "glad heart", condoning the robbery of his employer and father figure - then is rewarded with a spiritual mission that employs him and his descendants for life. The moral seems to be that deceiving those of the 'wrong' faith is legitimate both spiritually and morally. Do you read it differently?

Quote from: drizabone on May 09, 2016, 02:57PMYou're just making up for taking a holiday.    Welcome back.

Cheers! I'm conscious that I don't want to abuse your enthusiasm for the project by leaving you to write vast numbers of summaries in a row... But life keeps leaving only small amounts of time for making proper contributions.

Judges 19 text

Highlights

 - A Levite persuades his estranged concubine to return with him, but the journey ends in criminal disaster

Summary

 - A Levite had a concubine (again in the "hill country of Ephraim").
 - She left him and went to stay with her father, in Bethlehem.
 - Four months later the Levite journeys to them, to seek reconciliation.
 - This goes well; he is welcomed and urged to stay longer repeatedly.
 - Eventually he demurs - they depart together, late in the day.
 - They reach Jerusalem, but fear spending the night there, amongst non-Israelites.
 - Pushing on, the sun sets when they are near Gibeah, in the land of Benjamin.
 - Lacking accommodation, they settle down in the main square.
 - A late-returning older field worker invites them into his house.
 - But the men of Gibeah come to the house and demand that the Levite be given to them for sex.
 - The householder demurs, offering them in the Levite's place both the Levite's concubine and the householder's virgin daughter.
 - The men continue rowdily, and the householder forces the Levite's concubine out to them.
 - They rape and abuse her all night, and she is found dead on the doorstep in the morning by the Levite.
 - The Levite takes her dead body home, then slices her into 12 pieces, posting each to a separate tribe of Israel. This provokes outrage at the story throughout the land.
 - To be continued...

Questions and Observations

1) Intriguing to have a second successive story about a Levite in the "hill country of Ephraim". Do we suspect some confusion in transmission? It's clearly a separate narrative to the Micah story, but it's odd that these two details match.
2) In Joshua 15:63, we are told that Jerusalem was in the allotment of Judah, but that Judah could not drive out the Jebusites who lived there. However, the general consensus seems to be that it isn't at all clear that what the Bible says about the Jebusites matches up with reality.
3) There is a very clear echo in the sordid denouement of this story all the way back to Genesis 19, ostensibly a story from a very different historical setting. Lot and two angels sheltered in a freely offered house in Sodom, where the men of the town banged on the door and demanded the angels be given to them for sex. Lot offered his two virgin daughters instead. I think this is the first time we've seen such an obvious textual duplication so separated by context? I think what we see here is a clear indication that these stories were circulating in oral form for a long period prior to writing down - cross-pollination can easily occur in this circumstance.
4) The Levite didn't seem to do much to prevent his concubine being ill-treated. He also seems massively unsympathetic on finding her in the morning.
5) I'm not sure I would have wanted to be one of the post room workers receiving a bloody bit of decayed human body in the post...

Interesting, a thread entitled The Chrisitan bible....45 posts and you still haven't started reading it!

Quote from: vegasbound on May 10, 2016, 04:45AMInteresting, a thread entitled The Chrisitan bible....45 posts and you still haven't started reading it!

I'm not sure what your intent is here.  Are you suggesting the Bible isn't Christian until the New Testament? 

Many would agree with you.  (including especially those in the Judaic faith) But many, probably most, Christians read the Old Testament only through the lens of the New, and of more recent theology, finding precursors and references to the future. 

Quote from: vegasbound on May 10, 2016, 04:45AMInteresting, a thread entitled The Chrisitan bible....45 posts and you still haven't started reading it!

Try 879 posts...

I'm not sure what you're saying either, or from what angle it's coming. Perhaps a word or two more of explanation might help us understand your point? These books are all in the book that typically gets published with the name "Bible" on the front. It's all interesting stuff, and you need the OT to understand the context that the NT sits in.

Quote from: MoominDave on May 10, 2016, 04:58AMTry 879 posts...

I'm not sure what you're saying either, or from what angle it's coming. Perhaps a word or two more of explanation might help? These books are all in the book that typically gets published with the name "Bible" on the front. It's all interesting stuff, and you need the OT to understand the context that the NT sits in.

The Christian part is the new covenant that starts with the death and reserection of JC, as oppossed to the old covenant covered in what is called the old testement.

Yes an understanding of the OT is helpful on many fronts.

You could then further your understanding/research through the so called Gnostic gospels as well as the Nag Hammedi scrolls and the other parts not admited to the bible as we know it in the Judaic-Christian world by the council at Nicea!

Yes standard church services in the UK will usually have an old testemant and a new testemant scripture reading as part of the service,but the Christian part is the new testement.

Sounds like you have an interest in the subject...

Judges 20 is all yours if want to play along with our game...

Quote from: MoominDave on May 10, 2016, 04:58AM It's all interesting stuff, and you need the OT to understand the context that the NT sits in.

Approaching the OT using only the context of the NT may lead to different results though. 

Quote from: MoominDave on May 10, 2016, 05:12AMSounds like you have an interest in the subject...

Judges 20 is all yours if want to play along with our game...

I have spent many years studying various texts, working in the sand pit 10 years ago the translators where suprised I had read the quoran.

In repect to the Bible and being an Englishman it is the King James version it is all about the words written in Red!

Quote from: timothy42b on May 10, 2016, 05:20AMApproaching the OT using only the context of the NT may lead to different results though. 

This is unlikely to be an approach that would appeal to me - my interest is in these books as historical documents - casting earlier writings in light of later writings seems back-to-front - only makes sense if you think that there actually is something to the whole divine inspiration lark.

There is a potential validity to the idea inasmuch as our copies of older books have been filtered through the minds of those for whom the newer books represent fulfilment of various ideas in the older books. But, as one learning a lot as we go along, I would still much rather do it this way round.

Quote from: vegasbound on May 10, 2016, 05:25AMI have spent many years studying various texts, working in the sand pit 10 years ago the translators where suprised I had read the quoran.

In repect to the Bible and being an Englishman it is the King James version it is all about the words written in Red!

When considering which English version to use at the start of the thread, the KJV was mentioned. It has a poetry to it, but keener Bible studiers than I preferred to use a more modern version on grounds of translation cleanliness. I don't think it has made a great deal of difference to the thread, to be honest.

The Koran is a book I have not yet read (briefly attempted, then abandoned). I have some hope of persuading Martin to treat it this same way once we finally finish this book But his preferred follow-up option was Richard Dawkins's 'The God Delusion', so I may have to wait on that one...

However, we are gradually getting around to the point where we'll need to decide whether to include the Apocrypha or not...

By the way, what is the sand pit?

Quote from: MoominDave on May 10, 2016, 05:45AMWhen considering which English version to use at the start of the thread, the KJV was mentioned. It has a poetry to it, but keener Bible studiers than I preferred to use a more modern version on grounds of translation cleanliness. I don't think it has made a great deal of difference to the thread, to be honest.

The Koran is a book I have not yet read (briefly attempted, then abandoned). I have some hope of persuading Martin to treat it this same way once we finally finish this book But his preferred follow-up option was Richard Dawkins's 'The God Delusion', so I may have to wait on that one...

However, we are gradually getting around to the point where we'll need to decide whether to include the Apocrypha or not...

But have you read the Egyptian book of the dead?   now there is a page turner....NOT!

Again, only scanned it. The two Eddas I did read completely though, which disposed of several months worth of bus travel to and from work.

Quote from: MoominDave on May 10, 2016, 04:09AM - They rape and abuse her all night, and she is found dead on the doorstep in the morning by the Levite.
 - The Levite takes her dead body home, then slices her into 12 pieces, posting each to a separate tribe of Israel. This provokes outrage at the story throughout the land.

The writer is not clear that the concubine was killed by the rape. 

Quote3) There is a very clear echo in the sordid denouement of this story all the way back to Genesis 19, ostensibly a story from a very different historical setting. Lot and two angels sheltered in a freely offered house in Sodom, where the men of the town banged on the door and demanded the angels be given to them for sex. Lot offered his two virgin daughters instead. I think this is the first time we've seen such an obvious textual duplication so separated by context? I think what we see here is a clear indication that these stories were circulating in oral form for a long period prior to writing down - cross-pollination can easily occur in this circumstance.

I'm not sure if it was a confusion of two stories or a similar occurence or even a deliberate reuse of the Genesis story but the Judges author, who seems to want to show how bad the Gileadites: they are as bad as those Sodomites and thus deserve a similar punishment.

Quote4) The Levite didn't seem to do much to prevent his concubine being ill-treated. He also seems massively unsympathetic on finding her in the morning.

He was disgustingly callous.  I'll just let my concubine be offered to the crowd.  I'll get some sleep while they're raping her.  Come on dear, isn't it a lovely morning, time to get up and go.

The author makes it clear that the Levite and the Gibeahites are bad.

Judges 20 text


Highlights -

 - Israel fights a Holy Civil War?

Summary

 - All Israel (except for Benjamin) gathered at Mizpah to discuss The Incident and the Levite tells them his version of what happened and how they wanted to kill him and now his concubine is dead (of course he was innocent)
 - The tribes vow to punish Gibeah for their atrocity.  They ask of Benjamin will give up the Gibeah-ites but they gather to protect them.
 - The people ask amongst themselves "who will go first" and the Lord said that Judah will go first.
 - On the first day of battle the people of Benjamin destroy 22,000 Israelites, then 18,000 on the second.
 - The people of Israel asked the Lord if they should continue the battle.  The Lord said yes.
 - Israel used the ambush technique and killed all except 600 Benjaminites.

Questions and Observations

1) The Levite is all holy and righteous isn't he.  Totally different to his real character.  It seems interesting that a back country priest can have so much influence on the whole People.

2) The question "Who will go first?" imitates the situation at the beginning of Judges where the Israelites are deciding who will fight the Canaanites.  So this war seems to count as an official "Holy War" but it the accuser is just as guilty as the offenders so it seems pretty suss.  I reckon God is allowing the People to learn a lesson the hard way.

It perhaps makes more sense as a conflict if we think of the story setting as pre-federation times rather than post. All a bit difficult to be historically certain of.

I'm not at all convinced that the author does portray the Levite unfavourably. They narrate their actions without commentary. Which passages do you read this from?

Judges 21 text

Highlights

 - Israel brutally arranges for external wives for the tribe of Benjamin

Summary

 - With the events of the previous chapter, all Israel swore not to permit a daughter to marry a Benjaminite.
 - But they don't want Benjamin to die out, so they think of two solutions:
  - Murder the inhabitants of a city that didn't partake in the war against Benjamin, then abduct its virgin daughters to give to Benjamin as wives.
  - Abduct random women at a festival to give to Benjamin as wives.

Questions and Observations

1) Benjamin wouldn't die out without non-Benjamin Israelite wives; these tribes were not so small as all that. And this chapter illustrates means by which they could have sorted out such a problem themselves.
2) Neither of these solutions seems in the slightest bit morally palatable or even understandable as presented...
3) The presentation of the two solutions is narratively a little strange - the second is presented as if the first hasn't already been. Two parallel stories?
4) This concluding story to Judges has been of a piece with the whole book - brutal and morally highly questionable.

Quote from: MoominDave on May 10, 2016, 03:38PMIt perhaps makes more sense as a conflict if we think of the story setting as pre-federation times rather than post. All a bit difficult to be historically certain of.

ISTM that in Joshua the Israelites were presented as being united, exceptions to the unity was played down.  In Judges they start of united, but become less so as the book proceeds.  "Everyone did as they saw fit - there was no king"  Is that what you mean by pre-federation?  In Samuel they become a kingdom with a King so would that be the federation you are thinking of?


QuoteI'm not at all convinced that the author does portray the Levite unfavourably. They narrate their actions without commentary. Which passages do you read this from?

To me, the Levites character is revealed in ch19.  You characterised him there as "massively unsympathetic". I thought "disgustingly callous".  Either way its unfavourable?

In ch20 he is spins the story of the concubine to not reveal his callousness. And the offence he tells of is all about what they did to him: they rose against me, they surrounded my house, they meant to kill me, they violated my concubine, and she is dead, I cut her in pieces.  I think its suspicious that he doesn't say that they killed his concubine. Was she dead in the morning or did that happen later, due to his "tender" care of her?  And even if she did die before he opened the door, he spent the night comfortably in his bed, not worrying about whether she is dying on the doorstep.

Quote from: vegasbound on May 10, 2016, 04:45AMInteresting, a thread entitled The Chrisitan bible....45 posts and you still haven't started reading it!

Hi Vegasbound,

Welcome to our little thread.

As a christian, I think that the Old Testament is definitely part of our Bible because its part of God's revelation.

And it would be great if you could contribute or comment.

cheers
Martin

Quote from: MoominDave on May 10, 2016, 03:50PM1) Benjamin wouldn't die out without non-Benjamin Israelite wives; these tribes were not so small as all that. And this chapter illustrates means by which they could have sorted out such a problem themselves.

I think that they think that Benjamin would die out because the other Israelites has vowed not to let any of their daughters marry a Benjamite.  And as all the Benjamite women were killed there would be no new little Benjamites - hence extinction.

The two solutions were meant to get around their vow.

Quote2) Neither of these solutions seems in the slightest bit morally palatable or even understandable as presented...

certainly not moral (which is the point of the narrative) but understandable as a way around their vow.

Quote3) The presentation of the two solutions is narratively a little strange - the second is presented as if the first hasn't already been. Two parallel stories?

The first solution provided 400 wives for the 600 men, so they needed Plan B to get wives for the other 200 men.  Isn't that logical?

Quote4) This concluding story to Judges has been of a piece with the whole book - brutal and morally highly questionable.

Yep.  And that's the point.  Look at how barbaric Israel had gotten.

Quote from: drizabone on May 10, 2016, 06:04PMISTM that in Joshua the Israelites were presented as being united, exceptions to the unity was played down.  In Judges they start of united, but become less so as the book proceeds.  "Everyone did as they saw fit - there was no king"  Is that what you mean by pre-federation?  In Samuel they become a kingdom with a King so would that be the federation you are thinking of?
The story we've had from the Bible is that they started out federated by default, all bound together by the Exodus narrative. But the Exodus narrative is historically tricky - it's so far proven impossible to verify in any way (and a lot of clever people with a personal interest in seeing it proven true have tried). So the hypothesis from Robert's book seems like a decent default position - the Israelite tribes were freshly grown local native federations, and they came together in time to form larger, stronger units, much like Wessex conquering the other Anglo-Saxon and Danish kingdoms to form modern England. This seems very historically plausible - a natural pattern that has been repeated many times in various eras and places.

With that head on, I see Judges as being a collection of 'tales from the old times', presented more or less straight if one ignores the perhaps inserted narrative of successive eras of full Israel that is used to link it together, but Joshua as being part of a more heavily mythologised write-up that seems clearly less trustworthy.

Quote from: drizabone on May 10, 2016, 06:04PMTo me, the Levites character is revealed in ch19.  You characterised him there as "massively unsympathetic". I thought "disgustingly callous".  Either way its unfavourable?
But it's presented straight by the author. This is our editorialising, not theirs. They actually do a strong job of maintaining apparent narrative impartiality. One can argue that the text leaves no conclusion possible but that the Levite is shown very wanting, and that perhaps the author slanted it in this more subtle way. But at no point do they say "He's a bad man".

Quote from: drizabone on May 10, 2016, 06:04PMIn ch20 he is spins the story of the concubine to not reveal his callousness. And the offence he tells of is all about what they did to him: they rose against me, they surrounded my house, they meant to kill me, they violated my concubine, and she is dead, I cut her in pieces.  I think its suspicious that he doesn't say that they killed his concubine. Was she dead in the morning or did that happen later, due to his "tender" care of her?  And even if she did die before he opened the door, he spent the night comfortably in his bed, not worrying about whether she is dying on the doorstep.
It's so callous (and overall a weird story - demanding strangers to rape in the night? Chopping the body into pieces to mail to political leaders?) that it makes me wonder whether he murdered her and then blamed it on the innocent Gibeahites, perhaps for political reasons. It does have the flavour of a plot to bring down Benjaminite influence.

Quote from: drizabone on May 10, 2016, 07:49PMYep.  And that's the point.  Look at how barbaric Israel had gotten.
Or, in the alternative interpretation: Look at how disordered things were before they got their society together.

Quote from: drizabone on May 10, 2016, 07:24PMHi Vegasbound,

Welcome to our little thread.

As a christian, I think that the Old Testament is definitely part of our Bible because its part of God's revelation.

And it would be great if you could contribute or comment.

cheers
Martin

Martin,

Thanks for the welcome and yes the OT gives us a backgrounf, but is in reality more a transcript of the history of the 12 tribes as eventually agreed by the council of Nicea, it is shared through out the Judaic-christian traditions as well as those in Islam.

Give me a nudge when you get to the Chrisitan part, always happy to debate the Magdalene or revelations, or Paul's hijacking of the Jerusalem church and turning it into the church of Rome!

In preface, the earlier summaries:

Quote from: MoominDave on Apr 19, 2016, 03:39AMCondensed Pentateuch:
Quote from: MoominDave on Apr 06, 2016, 02:58PMGenesis

• [li]Big picture stuff
  • [li]Creation; Adam & Eve[/li][li]Humans, take 1; Cain & Abel, Noah[/li][li]The Flood; Wash everything away, start again[/li][li]Humans, take 2[/li]
  [/li][li]Abraham; extensive travels, original covenant, Lot, not sacrificing Isaac[/li][li]Jacob; conflict with twin Esau, banishment, wives, 12 sons[/li][li]Joseph; betrayal to Egypt, rise, saving of family, supposed origins of 12 tribes[/li]

Exodus

• [li]New scene, three generations on - Israelites now of low status in Egypt[/li][li]Moses grows up, fights battle of wills with Pharoah over plagues, leads Israelites to depart[/li][li]Wandering, take 1; through the desert to Mt. Sinai, where they make a long camp and...[/li]

Leviticus

• [li]...many laws are given[/li]

Numbers

• [li]Wandering, take 2; they reach their destination, but are too weak to attempt the task, and so...[/li][li]Wandering, take 3; more pootling around, building up military prowess over the years in the preparation for invasion; new leaders emerge, and they finish on the brink of their destination again[/li]

Deuteronomy

• [li]Moses orates; recap of terms and conditions, forward planning[/li][li]Moses dies[/li]

Joshua

• [li]Conquest
  • [li]Joshua appointed leader, to cross Jordan, conquer Canaan[/li][li]Spies report back that the time is ripe[/li][li]Jericho is the first city to fall. Then Ai, at the second attempt.[/li][li]The Gibeonites talk them into an alliance.[/li][li]Southern Canaan all conquered (sudden shift of narrative gear)[/li][li]Ditto the North[/li]
  [/li][li]Division of conquered land between the tribes
  • [li]The East bank land that Moses took[/li][li]West bank land[/li][li]Remaining land[/li][li]Cities of refuge and Levite cities nominated[/li]
  [/li][li]Joshua dies[/li]

Judges

• [li]Prologue: Messy details of attempted not-always-successful conquest[/li][li]An intermittent sequence of Judges leads:
  • [li]Othniel - defeated Mesopotamia[/li][li]Ehud - kills Eglon[/li][li]Shamgar - killed 600 Philistines with an ox-goad[/li][li]Deborah - defeated Jabin of Hazor[/li][li]Gideon - defeated Midian[/li][li]Tola, then Jair[/li][li]Jephthah - defeated the Ammonites[/li][li]Ibzan, then Elon, then Abdon[/li][li]Samson - killed Philistines, made trouble[/li]
  [/li][li]The Dan tribe take territory in the North[/li][li]The Benjamin tribe are defeated by the other tribes[/li]

Ruth 1 text

Highlights

 - Naomi, an Israelite woman, is widowed in Moab, and so are her two daughters-in-law
 - She returns home, and one of the daughters-in-law, Ruth, insists on returning with her

Summary

 - A famine drives married couple Elimelech and Naomi from Bethlehem to Moab, along with their two sons
 - Elimelech dies, and the sons marry Moabite women
 - The two sons die, and the three women are left alone
 - Naomi decides to return to Bethlehem, and asks her two daughters-in-law to return to their familial houses
 - Both initially wish to stay with her, but only one, Ruth, ultimately does so
 - Ruth vows to take on the ways of Naomi's people, and they return to Bethlehem

Questions and Observations

1) A new book, and a change of gear here - brutal tales of political infighting are put on hold for a brief (only 4 chapters) calmer interlude of domestic stuff.
2) We are explicitly told that this was "In the days when the judges ruled", which is presumably what this slightly unexpected book is doing here in the Biblical sequence. I see that the Jewish canon places it elsewhere, where it is perhaps more naturally located.
3) Authorship: Anonymous, with the historical attribution to Samuel not considered supportable.
4) As is common in these books, the names of various characters are not names, but rather narrative descriptions (like a blunter Charles Dickens):

• [li]Naomi: "Pleasing"[/li][li]Elimelech (Naomi's husband): "My God is King"[/li][li]Mahlon (Naomi's son): "Sickness"[/li][li]Chilion (Naomi's son): "Wasting"[/li][li]Mara (Naomi's new name for herself): "Bitter"[/li][li]Orpah (Naomi's daughter-in-law): "Nape" (i.e. of the neck, signifying her back turned on Naomi)[/li][li]Ruth (Naomi's daughter-in-law): "Friend"[/li]

5) Orpah has some extra-Biblical associations: legendarily apparently Goliath's mother and/or the daughter of Eglon and/or killed by a general of King David (which would seem to chronologically conflict with the genealogy at the close of this book giving Ruth as David's great-grandmother). It also seems perhaps unlikely that she would have been the daughter of a Moabite king but the mother of a Philistine hero.

Here's my summary of Judges.

The main reason its different to yours is that I see the story through the prism given in chapter 2, ie
 
2:16-23  God testing Israel and Israel getting worse
 
- Israel turns to other gods
- God lets them get oppressed
- they call out to God for deliverance
- God sends a judge to save and govern them
- when the judge dies they turn back to other gods again and become even more corrupt
- repeat and each time get worse

So in that light we have:

- It starts with Israel united and driving out Canaanites
- But then they fail to completely drive them out or make treaties with them
- they get visited by an angel who tells Joshua that this is happening because they are being unfaithful to God
- when Joshua dies the people are unfaithful (this doesn't seem completely chronological)
- God explains his test: whats going to happen in the book (see above)
- So we no have a cycle of oppression - judge saving - judge leading - Judge dies - Israel apostasises - nations oppress.
  The Judges are:
  - Othniel - did pretty much what judges were supposed to do: save Israel and lead them
  - Ehud and Shamgar - again, no problems
  - Deborah - I think the author uses a woman here, to show how bad the men were.
  - Gideon - didn't really believe his call, built a golden ephod that led to idol worhip
    - Abimelech:
       - don't think he's a judge, but he took leadership, killed his brothers and fought with his fellow Israelites.
  - Tola and Jair - don't seem to have had any problems
  - Jephtha - defeated the Ammonites but there was that stupid vow that he would sacrifice the first thing to come out of his house - his daughter.
  - Ibzan, then Elon, then Abdon - no problems
  - Samson: chosen by God as a Nazirite, broke all the Nazirite vows, killed lots of Philistines, had lots of women, brutal and barbaric.
- then we have a couple of stories that seemed to run at the same time as the Judges
  - Michah has some silver idols and appoints his own family priest, first his son and then a Levite.
  - Then some men from Dan "steal" his priest and his idols
  - Then a story about a Levite that visits a town, is threatened with rape, so he gives the men his concubine so he can have a nice nights sleep.  The concubine is raped and then dies.  The Levite cuts up the concubine and sends the pieces to the other tribes.
  - They meet and decide to avenge the wrong.  Nearly all the Benjamite men are killed so the rest of the men devise some cunning but immoral plans to provide them with wives so the tribe doesn't go extinct. 

  - In the latter part the book repeats a theme "In those days there was no king in Israel and everyone did as they pleased"