As I mentioned in other threads, I'm (very slowly) working my way through the Bible again. I'm using three different study Bibles, with different perspectives, which is nice.
As I've been doing, I'll write things that seem interesting to me as I read the scriptures and their accompanying study notes. Feel free to use this thread to reply to what I've written, or to post any of your own thoughts that pertain to the book of Exodus. Post whatever you like, whenever you like; just keep it within Exodus for this thread.
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."
Since I just ended my comments on Job today, I'm only going to do a little bit of Exodus for now.
Exodus Chapter 2
When the Israelites cry out under their labors, it doesn't say they're crying out to God specifically- they just cry out under oppression. But God hears their cry and has compassion regardless of whether or not they were asking him for help. God knows what each of us needs, and sometimes answers a prayer we haven't even consciously made.
Moses' father-in-law is called many different names- Jethro, Reuel, and Hobab are used at different times throughout the Pentateuch (Gen., Ex., Levit., Numb., Deut.) to describe this same person. Other times, Hobab is called the son of Reuel, making them different people altogether! This seems like a small detail, but there are so many of these simple, basic details that act as strong evidence (when combined) that Moses is not the author of the entire Pentateuch. Surely Moses could remember his father-in-law's name! In stead, since there are already many other reasons to suspect multiple authors/sources, it makes sense that the three names for one man are just different sources/people recalling things differently.
But (as usual) this is not an acceptable interpretation for literalists. So some fundies have made up a little story to explain things. Apparently, Moses' father-in-law was named Jethro AND Reuel (and Hobab??) and also had a son named Hobab (named after himself, or one of his split personalities??), who is not the same person as Jethro/Reuel/Hobab SENIOR. Apparently for some people this "solves" the dilemma and "proves" Moses' authorship of the entire Pentateuch.
No, wait, it totally makes sense now! Jethro/Reuel/Hobab just liked a little variety applied to his name, and insisted other people alternate what they called him. Right? And his son Hobab, to avoid confusion, was called "Hobby," and he was the first person in history who made model trains. Thank God for model trains, right? Because without the model trains, where would they have gotten the idea for the big trains?
.......riiiiiiiight......
-- Edited by Chris at 13:16, 2006-09-11
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."
There might be something to the theory that Moses' father-in-law did actually have three names:
Since this part of the world had MANY different peoples and nations living within it at the time (each with it's own language and dialect), and since Jethro was the HIGH priest of Midian, people from each nation and culture would have their own title for him, which is what they would have for every "famous" person living in the land, including the Pharoahs. This is one of the problems that MANY biblical historians and archaeologists have had while trying to find out stuff about the people and cultures of the Bible...including me!
That makes sense, Jeffrey- probably lots of different nations had different names for the same person if they were famous enough... (for the Lord of the Rings fanatics) it's kind of like Gandalf also having several other names.
I don't think anyone is saying the text is actually referring to different people. It just serves as evidence (for many) that there was more than one source for the pentateuch, since the names aren't consistently used.
Edit- Hmm... except for Hobab being the son of Reuel (or whatever name it was)... I guess those probably are actually different people.
-- Edited by Chris at 18:19, 2006-09-16
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."
The "Angel of the Lord" is the one who appeared in the bush, yet "The Lord" himself is the one who speaks, and moses is afraid to look "at God."
The lines of identity between the angel and God are blurry; there may be no real difference between them. One interpretation given by some Christians is that the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament is actually the pre-incarnate Christ.
Why must Moses remove his sandals? An interesting theory is that removing sandals helps to keep soil from being transferred to/from holy ground on a person's feet- keeping the area even more holy and set apart from ordinary places. Another theory suggests that since visions of God are extremely terrifying, perhaps the removal of his sandals simply kept him from running away in fear.
"I AM" / "I am who I am" / "I will be who I will be..." The way God refers to himself is a strange one. Another possible reading is "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious." In fact, God actually says it that way later on in Exodus. This is interesting, since the Egyptians receive not one shred of gracious treatment as the story progresses, Moses himself is also attacked by God at one point- and even the whole Israelite nation is in danger of God wiping them out after the Golden Calf incident.
Exodus Chapter 4
Ooo... Fun! Verses 24-26 of this chapter contain one of the strangest stories in the whole Bible: when God mysteriously and without motive attempts to kill... Moses? His Son? According to my study Bibles, the text is unclear who is the intended victim; there are so many unspecified pronouns ("God sought to kill him"), it's hard to tell whether God intended to kill Moses or his son-- however, which son is unclear. Presumably the firstborn, as mentioned in verse 23.
It is a popular theory that God intends to kill Moses for not having obeyed the law of circumcision of his son(s), but this is by no means clear. Moses, having been raised in an Egyptian household, would not have known to circumcise his son(s). When Zipporah performs the circumcision rite and makes the strange "bridegroom of blood" statement, it seems without motive- as much as God's intent to kill is without apparent motive.
No one really is sure why God intended to kill (someone) in this story- it seems likely that this is a fragment from a lost tradition that was left in the final story for who-knows-what reason. One interesting thing, though-- after Zipporah circumcises her son, she wipes the bloody foreskin across Moses' groin ("feet" in the OT is very often a euphemism for you-know-what). This seems exceedingly nasty, but the arch-shape of a person's legs being smeared by blood can be seen to prefigure the smearing of blood over the doorposts during the tenth plague (passover), when also the lives of the firstborn were at stake. It's an interesting parallel, anyway.
-- Edited by Chris at 18:59, 2006-09-16
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."
I always liked the stories of the plagues. They're some of my favorite stories from the Bible, actually. So, I'm sorry I'm going to skip some of them, but I just didn't have any "thoughts on the Bible" while reading them.
Exodus Ch. 8
Vv. 22-23:
"But on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, where my people live, so that no swarms of flies shall be there, that you may know that I the Lord am in this land. Thus I will make a distinction between my people and your people. This sign shall appear tomorrow.
This new sign in which Goshen is not affected by the plague of flies, is interesting. Were there no Egyptians at all living in the land of Goshen? If there were, were they saved from the flies along with the Israelites? Could other Egyptians flee to Goshen to be saved from the flies, or did the flies follow them around in a little cloud of misery? hehe!
A more serious question is: since this is the first special distinction God makes between Egyptian and Israelite- does that mean Israel shared in Egypt's misery of the first three plagues?
There are many differences in how each plague story is told. Also, later in scripture, the plagues are listed, but with several plagues left out. These inconsistencies suggest to many people that there were originally multiple plague-story-yarns that have since been woven together into the Biblical version we have today. Perhaps the most glaring evidence of this is the scene (later on; not in this chapter) in which Pharaoh angrily sends Moses away from his presence, shouting
"If I ever see you again, I'll KILL YOU!!!" (paraphrased) - to which Moses replies "As you say, you shall never see me again." Then sure enough, the next plague story begins with a face-to-face discussion between Pharaoh and Moses. Ummm....
Exodus Ch. 9
Note that in verse 19 God directly instructs Pharaoh (and the whole of Egypt) how to save themselves from the coming plague of hail. Even in wrath God is gracious, providing relief from the punishment that is deserved.
Exodus Ch. 11
Verse 2:
"Tell the people that every man is to ask his neighbour and every woman is to ask her neighbour for objects of silver and gold."
It has been suggested that this "asking for gold" is disturbingly similar to blackmail. If a mob boss kills a member of your family and then asks you for money, you give them the money- no question!! Similarly here, after the horrible death and destruction brought on by the plagues, the Egyptians would scarcely deny the Israelites anything! The possibility that this was extortion is not denied by the text, leaving the reader to ponder...
...which is one of the truly wonderful things about Hebrew scripture. It often leaves itself open to critical interpretation. Just wait until the story of Achan!
-- Edited by Chris at 08:12, 2006-09-28
__________________
"I'd place myself... oh... somewhere between Galadriel and Peter Griffin."
hehe!
