• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scriptural literacy

Piggy said:
For my money, the Anchor Bible series is an excellent place to start if you've already got a lot of the big picture and want to explore individual books and topics.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I was not aware of that series of books!

---
There has been one book of the NT that I have hesitated reading. As a child, late one night, I began reading Revelation. I had serious nightmares and never bothered to look at the text again. After recently having discussions with evangelical fundamentalists on how they believe it is all coming true, a friend's wife telling me that the "Left Behind" series is "great literature", and a co-worker using parts to explain various conspiracy theories he holds, I've decided I need to become much more familiar with the text. So I'm off....Revelation here I come!

If you don't hear from me in a couple of days, please send a search party. Look for me near the locusts, wearing crowns, with human faces (9:7) or if I'm not there, I'm probably hanging out in the wilderness with the woman who has eagle wings (12:14). :)
 
sphenisc said:
Bette Midler?
Click to expand...
:D

----
"And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword: "I know where you are living, where Satan's throne is. Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan lives. But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication. So you also have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and make war against them with the sword of my mouth. Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. To everyone who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give a white stone, and on the white stone is written a new name that no one knows except the one who receives it." (Revelation 2:12-17)

Ok. "Satan's Throne" appears to reference the altar to Zeus in ancient Pergamum (or a temple to one of the Caesars. I've found mention of this city being the center of the Roman Imperial Cult). Antipas was (according to Christian tradition) the first Bishop of Pergamum, appointed by John the apostle. Martyred in 92 CE during the reign of Domitian. It could be assumed that mentioning only one martyr means no persecution of Christians had become widespread in that area.

Balaam is a reference to Numbers 22:5-24:25. The Nicolaitans (also mentioned as hated by John in the letter to the church in Ephesus Revelation 2:6) would probably have been a sect that said it was ok to participate in pagan meals. So this would be bad (according to Paul 1 Corinthians chapter 8). So I would take it that John is saying those who don't participate in the pagan meals will receive some of the hidden manna (Exodus 16:33-34). I would then take it he means they would be spiritually fulfilled with the word of God.

The white stone is where I start to get somewhat lost. What is the significance? Is it part of the "great white throne" mentioned in Revelation 20:11 that God sits upon? I've found various people saying white stones were used as admittance to festivals or the lot cast in elections in Greece. I can't find any archeologists who say this. Anyone know more about white stones or have some reputable sources regarding their use in ancient times?

The "new name" would appear to refer back to Isaiah 56:5 or Isaiah 62:2? Or/also Isaiah 65:15? Is it the individual person being renamed so they can join the community? Enter heaven? Could it imply the nation of Israel? A group (Gentiles? Jews?) Both?

Or is it that I should be looking at the 7 churches as a whole? What each individual church is promised then becomes the whole (7 being perfect or complete) of what is given to the faithful?

Church of Ephesus = permission to eat from the tree of life
Church of Smyrna = not harmed by the second death
Church of Pergamum = hidden manna and new name
Church of Thyatira = authority over nations and the morning star
Church of Sardis = clothed in white and name will not be blotted out of the book of life
Church of Philadelphia = pillar in the temple of God, a possession of God, a citizen of New Jerusalem
Church of Laodicea = a place with Christ on his throne

Thoughts? Ideas?
 
I have found this mention of a white stone by Persius Flaccus in one of his plays (the very first sentence mentions it). The white stone being used to mark a good day on the calendar. It almost makes me wonder if it would have been used like chalk is today.

I also found this taken from the book Dictionary of Phrase and Fable by E. Cobham Brewer, 1898. No footnotes are offered so I don't know by what means Mr. Brewer came by this information.

I also found this.......I'm not even sure what it is. Pretty much a whole page of crazy. Apparently there is a hidden name in the word "white stone". Luckily, the author of the web page discovered it and decided he is the "White Stone".:eye-poppi

Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore....
 
Still looking for info regarding white stones and their significance in ancient times. If anyone has some ideas or sources, please share!!

------
Continuing on, I am very much interested by the text concerning the "mark of the beast". Again, some of my renewed interest in Revelation has been a co-worker talking of conspiracies and Armageddeon. The "mark of the beast" seems to be prominent in his theories.

"Then I saw another beast that rose out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. It exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed. It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, it deceives the inhabitants of earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet lived; and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six." (Revelation 13:11-18)

Chapter 13 seems to describe a false trinity. The dragon (Satan), the beast rising from the sea (Rome), and the beast rising from the earth (Roman officials promoting and enforcing the worship of the Emperor). Putting these verses in proper historical perspective would seem to show that the "mark" being mentioned were the Roman coins that had the images of Emperor's along with titles describing them as divine. All of John's visions are heavily symbolic, so the "mark" would be meant figuratively not literally (e.g., tattoo or computer chip).

Nero seems to be the logical choice for the 666 reference. For the older texts that had the variation of 616, Nero works as well. "Neron Caesar" in Hebrew gives 666 and the variation of "Nero Caesar" gives 616. For anyone not familiar, the Hebrew alphabet is all consonants. The tenth letter has the numerical value of 10, but the eleventh has the numerical value of 20, and the following letters carry on by tens until you reach 100. Then the letters carry on by hundreds. I took this example from Professor Bruce Metzger at Princeton:

"The "full" spelling of "Nero Caesar" in Hebrew letters is N, R, W, N, Q, S, R. These letters have the following values: N=50, R=200, W=6, N=50, Q=100, S=60 and R=200." (Breaking the Code by Bruce Metzger)

You can also transliterate the Greek word for beast (therion) into Hebrew and get 666 as well. So this would show that Nero's very name reveals his true nature to anyone reading Revelation when it was written.

The Oxford commentary points out something else interesting about the number 666:

"The number 666 has the unusual characteristic of being not only what the ancients called a triangular number (it is the sum of all the numbers up to 36), but also a doubly triangular number (36 is the sum of all the numbers up to 8). It is the eighth such number (in the series 1, 6, 21, 55, 120, 231, 406, and 666). So for those familiar with ancient numerology, Nero is also revealed to be "the eighth" with a significance chapter 17 will develop." (Oxford Bible Commentary pg 1298)

Looking at chapter 17 we find:

"As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are united in yielding their power and authority to the beast;
they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful." (Revelation 17:11-14)

The writer of Revelation took up the legend that Nero did not commit suicide, but fled east to Parthia and would return to retake Rome. There were actually 3 pseudo-Neros mentioned in history and this legend regarding Nero's return lasted for centuries.

By saying "the beast that was and is not" the writer is stating that Nero is not eternal, unlike Jesus (who was, is, and will be). When it then mentions "it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven" the writer would not be trying to make someone pick one Caesar and begin counting upwards, rather seven is complete so it represents the complete series of rulers with Nero returning to be the last. The "eighth" also being a reference to the 666 numerology used in chapter 13. The other 10 kings mentioned could be allies of Nero's from the east, who would support him in his sacking of Rome.

(I also take the line about "they are to receive authority as kings for one hour" as more proof not to take time periods in Revelation literally.)

Looks like everyone has to rethink that idea of Obama being the Antichrist:D (which, btw, is a term never used in Revelation).

I guess you could say the writer of Revelation was somewhat of a conspiracy nut himself, since he didn't believe the "official" story regarding Nero's death...
 
I've been reading (and re-reading) Revelation and a thought occurred to me...

When Christianity became the religion of Rome, how did this affect the Christians who would have been familiar with the book of Revelation? How did their eschatology change? Would the believers of Revelation look upon Constantine's "conversion" as a boon or a curse?

Any ideas?

----

Piggy had mentioned the Anchor Bible series. I found that the author of the Anchor Bible book on Revelation (J. Massynberde Ford) puts forth the theory that the core prophecies of Revelation (basically chapters 4-22) come from John the Baptist. That to me is a highly intriguing theory, so I believe I've found another book to add to my reading list.
 
Sorry, but I have been a bit too busy with work to wade back into Revelations, and have been wallowing in some Jewish history to better understand parts of the OT. As part of that, I have been re-reading Max Dimont. He seems to be generally accurate, but has a tendency to credit pretty much any invention to the Jews, so take his work with a helping of salt.

Is Ichneumonwasp still around?
 
Hokulele said:
Sorry, but I have been a bit too busy with work to wade back into Revelations, and have been wallowing in some Jewish history to better understand parts of the OT. As part of that, I have been re-reading Max Dimont. He seems to be generally accurate, but has a tendency to credit pretty much any invention to the Jews, so take his work with a helping of salt.

Is Ichneumonwasp still around?
Click to expand...

What? How dare you have a life outside of this thread!!!!!:p

Seriously, no need to apologize.

I don't know what happened to Ichneumonwasp...hopefully he'll pop back in at some point.

I think we may have also lost Piggy again...
 
If Jesus was a disciple of John then why is John always shown as being subservient to Jesus? Telling others that Jesus is greater than he is. Saying that Jesus will provide a greater baptism. John is described as preparing the way for Jesus. Nothing more. In fact, they are only shown as associating briefly and John always reacts in the same awe inspired way.

So in view of this, in what particular sense can we think of Jesus as John's disciple?
 
Radrook said:
If Jesus was a disciple of John then why is John always shown as being subservient to Jesus? Telling others that Jesus is greater than he is. Saying that Jesus will provide a greater baptism. John is described as preparing the way for Jesus. Nothing more. In fact, they are only shown as associating briefly and John always reacts in the same awe inspired way.

So in view of this, in what particular sense can we think of Jesus as John's disciple?
Click to expand...

Look at how Jesus' baptism scene changes through each successive Gospel.

The Gospel of Mark has Jesus get baptized by John the Baptist in the river Jordan, then the Spirit descends and the voice comes from the heavens (Mark 1:4-11).

The Gospel of Matthew has John the Baptist tells Jesus that he (John) needed to be baptized by Jesus. Jesus tells him not to worry, John can baptize him 'cause that's the way it needs to happen. So Jesus is baptized by John, the spirit comes down, and cue the voice-over from the heavens. (Matthew 3:1-17)

In Luke, John talks of the Savior's coming, answers a few questions on how people should live, and says he is not worthy to untie the Messiah's sandals (mentioned in Mark and Matthew). Next a quick mention of John being thrown in jail, then verse 21 states "Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus had also been baptized and was praying..." cue Spirit descending and heavenly voice-over. Notice it does not say John baptized Jesus. (Luke 3:1-22)

Finally, in the Gospel of John, Jesus is never baptized. In fact, it mentions that Jesus and his disciples were baptizing in the countryside and so was John and his disciples. John states he is not the Messiah and that he must decrease and Jesus must increase. He warns people that if they disobey the Son they will endure God's wrath. (John 3:22-35)

Scholars note how each later Gospel keeps downplaying John the Baptist's role. They feel the followers of Jesus would have been embarrassed by people knowing that Jesus was baptized by John (this implies sin), so the story was redacted through each Gospel.

Now John the Baptist appeared to be baptizing people to prepare them for the return of the Messiah and the coming Kingdom of God. This is a pretty strong (and pretty traditional) ancient Jewish apocalyptic message. One difference between John the Baptist and other "prophets" of the time is that John didn't gather people in a large mass outside of town, with the intent of removing the local Roman magistrate (which normally caused the Romans to be concerned, and in most cases they just sent troops out to kill all involved - read Josephus, it happened several times- example would be War book 2.261). John preached, baptized and then sends the people on their way. So now you have alot of people with apocalyptic visions dancing in their heads, wondering about a coming Messiah and returning to their homes sharing his ideas. Jesus could have been one of these people. Perhaps he spent even more time with John the Baptist, learned from John, became John's disciple, and baptized others to help prepare them for the coming Kingdom of God. This would explain what Jesus was doing in the earlier years not mentioned in the Gospels...
 
Greediguts said:
Now John the Baptist appeared to be baptizing people to prepare them for the return of the Messiah and the coming Kingdom of God. This is a pretty strong (and pretty traditional) ancient Jewish apocalyptic message. One difference between John the Baptist and other "prophets" of the time is that John didn't gather people in a large mass outside of town, with the intent of removing the local Roman magistrate (which normally caused the Romans to be concerned, and in most cases they just sent troops out to kill all involved - read Josephus, it happened several times- example would be War book 2.261). John preached, baptized and then sends the people on their way. So now you have alot of people with apocalyptic visions dancing in their heads, wondering about a coming Messiah and returning to their homes sharing his ideas. Jesus could have been one of these people. Perhaps he spent even more time with John the Baptist, learned from John, became John's disciple, and baptized others to help prepare them for the coming Kingdom of God. This would explain what Jesus was doing in the earlier years not mentioned in the Gospels...
Click to expand...


In addition, the local authorities mistook Jesus' actions for John's.

Mark 6:14-16 said:
King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him." But others said, "It is Eli'jah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."
Click to expand...


If Jesus was not a disciple of John's, why were the two so easily confused?
 
I've been following this thread with great interest, but didn't feel that I had anything worthwhile to add. In a PM conversation with Greediguts, I was recommended to read Genesis 1, 2, and 3, and I had a few questions regarding Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2.

I've read many people interpret Genesis 1 and the beginning of Genesis 2 as giving two disparate accounts of creation, in particular the order in which plants were created relative to humans. In the KJV, Genesis 1 gives the creation of plants on the third day:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."​

Humans are then created on the sixth day.

In Genesis 2, also using the KJV, it gives:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."​

It then goes on to elaborate on the creation of man. It says afterwards:

"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."​

Going from these passages, I'm not exactly sure that I see the discrepancy many people are claiming; at least, not in the same way. I was hoping that someone could help elaborate on this.

It seems to me the discrepancy would be that Genesis 1 clearly implies that the plants and trees were brought forth as they were created on the third day, whereas Genesis 2 implies that plants were created but were not yet brought forth. Genesis 2 also seems to imply that God created "the earth and the heavens" on the same day that he created "every plant of the field," which differs from Genesis 1.

Am I looking at this correctly? Am I missing anything? Is the KJV translation purposefully obtuse?
 
Last edited:
The KJV, although the most poetic of translations, is fairly well known to be less than accurate at times. I think there was a discussion on this earlier in the thread, but if not, I typically use the New Revised Standard Version. It is much easier to read (losing the anachronistic language, no offense to your screen name :)), and the translation is generally held to be much more accurate. Here is the account from Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:4-5 said:
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground -- then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Click to expand...


Then he wandered off and started planting things (God, that is). In this translation, the early discussion of plants seems to be an explanation of why there aren't any (no rain), rather than a description of pre-planting them.

But of course, as with anything else biblical, your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
TheAnachronism said:
I've been following this thread with great interest, but didn't feel that I had anything worthwhile to add. In a PM conversation with Greediguts, I was recommended to read Genesis 1, 2, and 3, and I had a few questions regarding Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2.

I've read many people interpret Genesis 1 and the beginning of Genesis 2 as giving two disparate accounts of creation, in particular the order in which plants were created relative to humans. In the KJV, Genesis 1 gives the creation of plants on the third day:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
​
Humans are then created on the sixth day.

In Genesis 2, also using the KJV, it gives:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
​
It then goes on to elaborate on the creation of man. It says afterwards:
"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
​
Going from these passages, I'm not exactly sure that I see the discrepancy many people are claiming; at least, not in the same way. I was hoping that someone could help elaborate on this.

It seems to me the discrepancy would be that Genesis 1 clearly implies that the plants and trees were brought forth as they were created on the third day, whereas Genesis 2 implies that plants were created but were not yet brought forth. Genesis 2 also seems to imply that God created "the earth and the heavens" on the same day that he created "every plant of the field," which differs from Genesis 1.

Am I looking at this correctly? Am I missing anything? Is the KJV translation purposefully obtuse?
Click to expand...

You're seeing some of it!:) The timelines of creation are different. Chapter 1 has plant life created on the 3rd day, man on the 6th. Chapter 2 gives up the creation of man right away, with plants, birds, and animals coming after Adam, not before. The main point of chapter 1 is the establishment of the Sabbath. The Sabbath has existed from the beginning of time, the observance of it was decreed by God, and so everyone must follow it. Chapter 2 is a folklore tale. It has fantasy aspects (talking snake, magic fruit, special tree, etc.) to help explain the world and why things are the way they are...just like any good mythology.

There is something else that stands out in the verses you quote from Genesis 1 and 2. Notice how God is mentioned. Chapter 1 refers to God as "God". Chapter 2 & 3 use "LORD God". The Tetragammaton (YHWH) is consistently used from Genesis 2:4 until the end of Chapter 3 in the early texts.

Now look closely at the beginning of Genesis chapter 2-

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation. 4(a) These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

4(b)In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Genesis 2:1-9

4(a) is the end of the creation story as told by one author. 4(b) is the start of another creation story, which seems to have no knowledge of the story that preceded it.

The author of chapter 1 saw God as removed from the earth, distant, mysterious, and just barking commands so things pop into existence. The author of most of chapter 2 and all of 3 sees God as walking around, shaping man out of mud, breathing life into him, and interacting with Adam and Eve (notice the author of chapter 1 never mentions the names Adam and Eve). A much more intimate story. It becomes much clearer why scholars see the beginning chapters of Genesis as two stories mashed together.
 
Just to add a bit -- yes, be careful of KJV.

If you look at the Hebrew closely, there is no clear indication that plants are already formed. There is an implication that plants are animated by rain itself.

A more direct transliteration with a little bit of editing:

In-day made Yahweh God earth and heaven and any of shrub of the field not yet he-appeared on the earth and any of plant-of the-filed not yet he-sprung-up for not he-sent-rain Yahweh God on the earth and man was not to work ground but stream came up from the earth and he-watered the whole of the surface of the ground and he formed Yahweh God the man dust from the ground and he breathed into-nostrils-of-him life and-he-became the man into being living now-he-placed Yahweh God garden in-Eden in-east and-he-put there the-man whom he-formed and he made grow Yahweh God from the ground every-of tree being-pleasant to-sight and-good for-food and-tree-of the-life......................

Better view with some translation -- When Lord God made the earth and heavens no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up; the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being. Now the Lord God had placed a garden in the east, in Eden, and there he put the man he had formed. And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow...............



There is not really any sense that the plants are nascent in seeds in the ground (already formed), though the author must have known the fact. The story, as regards the plants, concerns more the creation of the garden as the idyllic place for man; and this takes place after man is formed. One bit of info to support the discrepancy is that waters cover the earth (streams spring up) before man is created and no mention of plants being on the earth occurs until after man is made.

In other words, I think the discrepancy is real.

ETA:

Sorry, forgot to add.......the first part of the story in Genesis 2 is about life -- the importance of water to life (or even the equation of water with life) and breath=life. So the emphasis in the story that no rain has come for the plants means that they don't yet have life (they don't yet exist) as the man after he was formed had no life until God breathes into his nostrils.
 
Last edited:
Oh, yeah, I meant to chime in on the Jesus as John's disciple........

I can see two clear options -- Jesus may have been a disciple of John and changed the message.

Or, it could have been that Jesus was not an apocalypticist at all (ala Crossan) but after he was thought to be resurrected apocalyticism may have entered the picture and the new groups then attached Jesus to the best known apocalypticist of the time and region -- John.
 
(OK...long post I know, but I wanted to include the verses for everyone to read)

"Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord:
"I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously;
horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.
The Lord is my strength and my might,
and he has become my salvation;
this is my God, and I will praise him,
my father's God, and I will exalt him.
The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is his name."

"Pharaoh's chariots and his army he cast into the sea;
his picked officers were sunk in the Red Sea.
The floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone.
Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power—
your right hand, O Lord, shattered the enemy.
In the greatness of your majesty you overthrew your adversaries;
you sent out your fury, it consumed them like stubble.
At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up,
the floods stood up in a heap;
the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.
The enemy said, "I will pursue, I will overtake,
I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them.
I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.'
You blew with your wind, the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the mighty waters.

"Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
awesome in splendor, doing wonders?
You stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them.

"In your steadfast love you led the people whom you redeemed;
you guided them by your strength to your holy abode.
The peoples heard, they trembled;
pangs seized the inhabitants of Philistia.
Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed;
trembling seized the leaders of Moab;
all the inhabitants of Canaan melted away.
Terror and dread fell upon them;
by the might of your arm, they became still as a stone
until your people, O Lord, passed by,
until the people whom you acquired passed by.
You brought them in and planted them on the mountain
of your own possession,
the place, O Lord, that you made your abode,
the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established.
The Lord will reign forever and ever." (Exodus 15:1-18)

Exodus chapter 15 verses 1-18 are considered by many scholars to be the oldest text of the Hebrew Bible. Scholars established that ancient Semitic languages had no definite article (like the word "the" in English). Later, the prefix ha- in Hebrew developed as the definite article for that language. The prefix ha- is found throughout the Hebrew Bible. It is used quite liberally. The song at the beginning of chapter 15 does not use ha- once. For that reason (and a few other morphological and lexical features), scholars believe this song could be one of the oldest parts of the bible.

Why is that important? Well, it would mean that Moses never parted the Red Sea, especially in the Charleton Heston sense. If you read the lines without thinking of the story that precedes it, you get a picture of ships (or quite possibly barges) sinking due to storms, not an army trying to walk through the parted water. You would think if a miracle like a parting of the sea and the people walking across the sea floor happened, it would have been mentioned in the song. It isn't.

Now scholars also feel that the song itself was placed into the Exodus text after the story had been written. This is easily realized because the last few verses (13-18) mention other people and lands that the Israelites haven't reached or even had contact with. The Philistines, the Edomites, and the Moabites would not be aware of them at this stage.

Plus the obvious question that begs to be asked, how could the Israelites all know the words to this song if this was the first time it was sung?

So basically, the whole Moses parting the Read Sea could have been what an ancient interpreter took away from hearing the hymn. The text was compiled and then someone added the original song to show how it came to be and why it would have been sung (perhaps on special occasions or festivals when they celebrated the Exodus).

Some scholars speculate that many of the stories of the Hebrew Bible are derived from prose rewritings of an ancient cycle of songs. The missing books named in the Hebrew Bible (The book of Yashar, the book of War) could have been the books that contained these hymns. Again, this is speculation. (My sources for this post are the Oxford Annotated NRSV Bible and the book How to Read the Bible by Prof. James Kugel.)
 
Isn't one theory that the "real crossing"/parting involved the Jordan and that crossing the Jordan was introjected back to Egypt?

That would make more sense of the references to Edom, Moab, Canaan and the Philistines.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Isn't one theory that the "real crossing"/parting involved the Jordan and that crossing the Jordan was introjected back to Egypt?

That would make more sense of the references to Edom, Moab, Canaan and the Philistines.
Click to expand...

I don't recall coming across that theory, but I'll look again. Do you remember where you read/heard this idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom