TaborBlog

“All things biblical” from the Hebrew Bible to Early Christianity in the Roman World and Beyond

Category: Biblical Expositions

Happy New Year–at least on the Hebrew Calendar!

Today brings the New Moon or a new month on the Jewish calendar. But it is not  just any new moon. According to the Torah, “This month (literally “new”) shall be to you head of the months…Exodus 12.

Today is the beginning of Nisan or Aviv, the biblical name of this new moon/month. This is the case not only on the traditional Hebrew calendar but just confirmed in Israel with the confirmation of the ripening sheaves of barley that signal the harvest is near and there is no need to add a 13th month to this particular year.

Even though the focus on the 1st day of the 7th month is dominant in Judaism today has been picked up even in our culture as “Rosh HaShanah,” the Jewish “New Year,” in biblical times such was not the case. This is indeed the beginning of the “Sacred” year, not the civil year, and the return of the cycle of Sabbaths, New Moons, and Festivals…

The terms “first day of the first month” in the Hebrew Bible, marking the ,”New Year” signal a new beginning, or renewal of life, including here in this text in the time of Moses at the Exodus. It is also called the turning of the year, and has to do with the sprouting of the barely, and with what we call “Spring”–at least in the northern hemisphere!

According to the Torah Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was 90 (Gen 17:17).  A year earlier, when Abraham was 99, we have an important set of references to what was ahead.  Three “men” appeared to Abraham, one of whom is subsequently revealed to be an “epiphany” of Yahweh. The Yahweh figure tells Abraham explicitly twice:

I will certainly return to you when the season comes around, and lo, Sarah your wife shall have a son (Gen 18:10).

Is anything too hard for Yahweh?  At the set time I will return to you, when the season comes around, and Sarah shall have a son (Gen 18:14).

Two precise Hebrew expressions are used here, lending strong emphasis to the precise timing of the birth of Isaac.  There is great meaning in all this.  The first phrase, “when the season comes around,” is literally, “at the time (or season) of life.”  It is a reference to the new year in the Spring, in the month of Abib or Nisan (see Exodus 12:2).  It is worth noting that in the traditional reading of the Torah portions this section is paired with a reading from the Prophets, from 2 Kings 4.  There we read of another extraordinary birth, that of the son of the Shunammite woman during the time of Elisha (2 Kings 4:16).  Truly this month of Nisan is a month of miracles and “new birth” as we shall see.  The second phrase, “at the set time,” stresses the exactitude of the timing of this important event.  It will come at a precise time or season.  These are not merely superfluous passing references.  Three chapters later we read:

And Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him (Gen 21:2).

What we learn here is that Isaac was born in the Spring of the year, likely in the month of Nisan, at a “set time.” In the book of Exodus we read of another “Spring” birth–this time the birth of the nation of Israel. Whether the author intended to link the two ideas or not is difficult to say:

Israel is My son, My first-born,
and I have said unto you: Let My son go (Exodus 4:22).

When Israel was a child I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son (Hosea 11:1).

Exodus 12:40-41 explicitly states that this “birth” of a nation taking place at this precise time:

Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.  And it came to pass, at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the very day [i.e., Passover], it came to pass that all the host of Yahweh went out from the land of Egypt.

The reference to the very day is to the 15th of Nisan, the evening of the Passover Seder.  But what about this intriguing reference to 430 years?  Scholars have disputed over the meaning of this chronological note.  It should be noted that the verse, when properly translated, does not say that Israel was in the land of Egypt for 430 years, but rather the that the time of their “sojourning” was 430 years.  What event happened, 430 years earlier, “to the day,” from Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, based on the chronological records now preserved in the traditional Hebrew “Masoretic” text.

Some have suggested plotting this 430 year period of “sojourn” with the Call of Abraham in Genesis 12.  Others have counted the 430 years from the circumcision covenant with Abraham, when he was 99 years old (Gen 17).  Still others have begun the 430 years with the birth of Isaac in Genesis 21.  The Rabbinic source Seder ‘Olam preserves a traditional solution to this question.

In Genesis 23:4 Abraham tells the children of Heth, from whom he purchases the burial cave of Machpelah in Kiriatharba or Hebron, “I am a stranger and a sojourner” with you.   Abraham refers to himself as a ger (stranger) and a toshav (sojourner), even though the Land of Canaan had been promised to him. Abraham never received the Land of Promise in his lifetime; he remained a “sojourner” until the day of his death.  The same is true for Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and their 70 descendants who went down to Egypt.  The question is, precisely when did this “sojourning” of the people of Israel begin?  According to Seder ‘Olam it begins not in Genesis 12, with the Call of Abram to leave his father Terah’s house in Haran, but five years earlier, when he left the city of Ur in Babylon.  Note carefully, when Abram leaves Haran he is 75 years old (Gen 12:4).  But according to Genesis 11:31 “they went forth . . . from Ur of the Chaldees” some years earlier.  This is the actual beginning of their wandering or sojourning.  There is a significant reference in this regard in Genesis 15:7:

And He said to him: “I am Yahweh that brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it.”

One might have expected, on the basis of Genesis 12:1-3, for the text to read “who brought you out of your father’s house,” i.e., from Haran.  But in the Genesis tradition, picked up on by the Rabbis, the initial “Call” of Abram was out of Ur in Babylon, not from Haran in the land of Canaan.  In other words, the wandering, or “sojourning” of Abram begins before his call from Haran at age 75.  Also, the Hebrew word here is crucial.  The phrase here translated “brought you out” is from the verb yatz’ah, the same word used in Exodus 20:2 introducing the Ten Words at Mt Sinai:

I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.

That would mean that according to the Masoretic chronology Abram left Ur, which was his own personal “Exodus” from idolatry and paganism, on the very same night, Nisan 15th, which later becomes the Passover.

The precise chronology of the Masoretic Hebrew text confirms this.  Note the following references and numbers (the years are given as AM, “after Man (i.e., Adam),” which correspond to the traditional numbering of Jewish years since Creation):

Abram leaves Ur    Abram 70    Year    2018 AM (Gen 11:31)

Abram leaves Haran    Abram 75    Year 2023 AM     (Gen 12:4)

Birth of Isaac    Abram 100    Year 2048 AM    (Gen 17:17)

Birth of Jacob    Isaac 60    Year 2108 AM (Gen 25:20)

Israel to Egypt    Jacob 130    Year 2238 AM (Gen 47:9)

Exodus    210 yrs later    Year 2448 AM (Ex 12:40)

The total years from Abram leaving Haran at age 75 (2023 AM) until Jacob going down to Egypt (2238 AM) are 215.  To this we add the 210 years of Egyptian slavery for a total of 425 years: from Abram leaving Haran, until the Exodus in the year 2448 AM.  Since Exodus 12:40-41 designates 430 years rather than 425 the conclusion becomes obvious. The five additional years are by default the time Abram spent in Haran.  Accordingly, he must have left Ur at age 70.  Thus, the total years of “sojourning of the children of Israel,” is precisely 430 years, from the Abram’s “going out from Ur” at age 70 (2018 AM), until Israel’s “going out of Egypt” in the year 2448 AM.

One important additional note here.  Why would Exodus 12:40 speak of the sojourn of the “children of Israel” as 430 years when this period begins with Abram?  According to the rabbis Abram stands for the whole people.  The term “Israel” is both a name and a title which includes Abraham and his entire line through Isaac and Jacob.  The Covenant with the Jewish people begins with Abraham.  The Rabbis love to play with letters and point out that the name ISRAEL in Hebrew is spelled Yod, Shin, Resh, Alef, Lamed.  These five Hebrews letters are the first letters of the names of the Patriarchs and their wives, namely Yod=Yitzak (Isaac) and Yaakov (Jacob); Shin=Sarah; Resh=Rebecca and Rachel; Lamed=Leah!

Isaac is born at a “set time,” when the “season of life” comes around.  We have already seen that this is a reference to the beginning of Spring, or the month of Nisan.  In Jewish tradition Isaac, as a miraculous child of promise, was born on Nisan 15th or Passover.  In fact Genesis hints at the festivals and holy days of Israel, later set forth in the Torah, as known in various ways in much earlier times (Gen 1:14; 8:13).  For example, there is a reference to Lot preparing “unleavened bread” or matzos, for the heavenly guests prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:3)!  Why matzos?  In the previous chapter Abraham has been told that Isaac will be born “at this season next year” (18:14).  So, in the text of Genesis we know we are in the time of Nisan, when Abram is 99, a year before Isaac’s birth.  Does Genesis imply that God rescued and removed Lot and his family from Sodom around, or even on, the very night of Passover? The text contains several Passover motifs.  The angels keep urging Lot and his family to leave, to hurry, and not to delay.  In a similar way the Israelites make haste to leave Egypt, not even allowing their bread to rise.

 

Share

The Making of a Messiah: Featured in Today’s Bible History Daily

Today’s special issue of Bible History Daily features my article “The Making of a Messiah.” You can read more here.

Share

Newborn Lamb Skins and the Pope’s New Shoes

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Exodus 23:19

Millions listened to the report this morning on National Public Radio about the Pope Emeritus Benidict’s new shoes. If you missed the story you can listen or read it here. He has apparently given up his trademark and traditional red Pradas,  for a set of burgundy loafers that were given to him in Mexico last March by a cobbler named Armando Martin Dueñas. It all sounds fine and good until one realizes that these amazingly comfortable, soft, fine quality loafers are made from new-born lamb skins! This detail was mentioned in passing in the report, and the reporter apparently found it of no significance. Apparently orders are pouring into Armondo’s shop as thousands rush to get a pair at the modest price of $200–and right now his factory can only produce a thousand a month! Apparently these would-be customers have no problem with the idea of killing neo-natal lambs before they even have lived long enough to be weaned or walk God’s green earth just so one can enjoy their soft supple skin.

Unfortunately, one might find a strange kind of biblical support for this idea in Leviticus 22:26-28 which allows for a newborn bull, sheep, or goat to be killed by its eighth day. But there is another opposite tradition running through the Torah that seems to reflect a prohibition of such cruelty to animals. It is repeated twice, once in Exodus and again in Deuteronomy:”You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19; Deut 14:21). The prohibition, by extension, becomes the foundation for all kosher laws within Judaism–the separation of “milk” or dairy and “meat” or flesh.

The scholars suggest the prohibition originates as a protest against a Canaanite method of preparing a sacrifice, which may well be the case, but the rabbis express a variety of opinions. Some have argued that the prohibition is one of the chukkim–laws for which there is no known rational purpose, whereas others have understood the principle behind the restriction as having to do with separating “blood” associated with the violence involved in the slaughter of animals, from “milk,” which signifies nurture, life, and non-violence. Thus the kosher Jewish kitchen and table become a lesson in moral sensitivity–a perpetual reminder that the shedding of blood, prohibited before the time of Noah, was a serious and weighty matter. Animals may be slaughtered for food as part of thanksgiving offerings, but their “blood” must be poured out and buried in respect. Flesh can then be eaten, but never with blood or with “milk” alongside, which is a symbol of giving life–the opposite of death.

The great Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel suggests something more. He argues that the Torah here is prohibiting an act of great cruelty that would allow a newborn nursing animal to be killed and separated from its mother long before its time–all too fulfill the whimsical human lust after culinary “delicacies.”

That rings true in my own thinking. I have no idea if the former Pope knows or cares that his new shoes come at the expense of a newborn lamb, still nursing, and taken from its mother and slaughtered. There are surely many other horrors of human cruelty on the planet over which we must constantly grieve. But this morning at least, this one is on my mind and I feel some sort of sad revulsion at the idea–all the more so that this involves the Pope. Where is Saint Francis when we need him? Or that forgotten vegetarian, James the brother of Jesus, who, more than any bishop of Rome, was the legitimate successor of Jesus–and thus the “first Pope.

Share

Biblical Controversies and Enigmas: Featured in Bible History Daily Today

A series of lectures I did under the general rubric of “Biblical Controversies and Enigmas” is featured in today’s edition of Bible History Daily from the Biblical Archeology Society. Click on the image below to learn more:

Lecture List: Biblical Controversies and Enigmas

  • Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?
  • Surprises on Mt. Zion: Understanding Ancient Jerusalem
  • Counting Time: Biblical Chronology and Calendars Made Simple
  • What Does the Bible Really Say About Death, Afterlife and Resurrection?
  • King of the Jews: A Tale of Two Dynasties
  • Dead Messiahs Who Don’t Return
  • Parting of the Ways: When Did a New Religion Called Christianity Begin?
  • The Making of a Messiah
  • Tracing the Last Days of Jesus: The Latest Archaeological Evidence
Share

Interpreting the Bible Through Art

To convey the meaning of Scripture, we commonly resort to words. That is how we explicate the text—with words. That’s also the case with those nonbiblical books denominated apocrypha, as in the Book of Judith, the subject of this column. But the meaning and interpretation of the text can be conveyed also through art. We have customarily used art in this magazine simply to illustrate the words that convey the meaning. In this instance, however, the art is the primary focus—a portrait of Judith by the great early-20th-century artist Gustav Klimt.

Don’t miss the fascinating essay by Hershel Shanks, “Art as Bible Interpretation,”  in the January/February 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. It is available on-line here.

Many of us have enjoyed browsing through art works treating biblical characters and themes since we were children. We find the portrayals endlessly diverse and alluring.  Shanks offers an insightful analysis here to the portrayal of the “Judith” story from the “Apocrypha.”

A friend recently gave us a wonderful book by Patrick de Rynck titled How to Read Bible Stories and Myths in Art: Decoding the Old Masters from Giotto to Goya. I have been spending some happy hours flipping through this wonderful book. It is arranged alphabetically by figures or scenes related thereto: Abraham, Achilles, Adam and Eve, Anna and Joachim…Christ/Adoration of the Magi, Crucifixion, et al. That Rynck includes both Bible stories as well as figures from “mythology,” mostly Greek, makes it all the more fascinating as a comparative endeavor. I also like Rynck’s method. He focuses on a single painter/painting and then breaks it down into its components, trying to get at the innovations, intents, presuppositions, and interpretations of the artist, placing each in a wider art-history context. This is the kind of book one can “dip into.” I highly recommend.

Share