Strindberg Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 One of my favorite parts of the Book of Mormon is Nephi's hortatory speech to his brothers after they have attempted to get the brass plates, been chastised by the angel, etc.. The other day I noticed what to me at least is a somewhat peculiar fact about it. Part of this speech runs as follows: " . . . let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses. For he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither . . ."Now, for the first time I noticed that I didn't recall from the account in Exodus that Moses "spake unto the waters." And in fact in Exodus Moses does not do so. He "stretches out his hand" over the waters in accord with instructions from the Lord.Maybe there's nothing important about this. What I'm wondering, however, is whether anyone knows of alternate versions of the Exodus story where Moses does indeed speak directly to the waters (incidentally, this goes together with the promise to Moses that he, Moses, would be made "stronger than many waters"--but now I'm really out there trying to tie together disparate texts).Anyway, thoughts? Oh, and also, are there alternate translations or possible meanings for the Hebrew phrase rendered in the KJV Exodus as "stretch out thy hand", i.e., that could imply or somehow encompass speaking to the waters?
Zakuska Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Don't forget the repeat of the Miracle...2 Kgs. 2: 14 14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over. Or Perhaps Ex 15... might give you some more insites.
structurecop Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Anyway, thoughts? Oh, and also, are there alternate translations or possible meanings for the Hebrew phrase rendered in the KJV Exodus as "stretch out thy hand", i.e., that could imply or somehow encompass speaking to the waters?According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, Ex 14:24-25 indicate an alternate account where the Egyptians are caught in the mud. That is the only alternate account listed for that section.In my opinion, the staff would indicate an earlier tradition since it shows a reliance on a cultic object. Nephi may had access to a later account that suffered interpolation from Josiah-type reformers. Also of interest is chapter 15 which seems to be a much older Yahwistic song with a newer account including the destruction of the Egyptians inserted in the middle. Just for the record, I don't believe in the historicity of the Exodus account.
Strindberg Posted September 6, 2007 Author Posted September 6, 2007 Don't forget the repeat of the Miracle...2 Kgs. 2: 14 14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over. Or Perhaps Ex 15... might give you some more insites.I read Ex. 15 but I don't see anything there about Moses addressing the waters directly. What am I missing?Regarding Kings, do you mean to say that smiting the waters is the same as stretching out one's hand over them? I can at least imagine that etymologically, but I don't know a lick of Hebrew. Is there then a further connection to speaking to the waters? Feel free to elaborate.Thanks.
Uncle Dale Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, Ex 14:24-25 indicate an alternate account where the Egyptians are caught in the mud. That is the only alternate account listed for that section.In my opinion, the staff would indicate an earlier tradition since it shows a reliance on a cultic object. Nephi may had access to a later account that suffered interpolation from Josiah-type reformers. Also of interest is chapter 15 which seems to be a much older Yahwistic song with a newer account including the destruction of the Egyptians inserted in the middle. Just for the record, I don't believe in the historicity of the Exodus account.second that motion...UD
jadams_4242 Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 second that motion...UD smitten,smote in greek or hebrew?
jadams_4242 Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 smitten,smote in greek or hebrew? Ok! using "Strongs hebrew lexicon" The word "smitten" tells of things that also lead over to #410 in the lexicon that says it can mean a "disciplined" rebuke of God, Which quite clearly is saying that wording or usage of language ties together with "smitten" in hebrew. There are many more meanings of course, but this is one!!
Strindberg Posted September 6, 2007 Author Posted September 6, 2007 According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, Ex 14:24-25 indicate an alternate account where the Egyptians are caught in the mud. That is the only alternate account listed for that section.In my opinion, the staff would indicate an earlier tradition since it shows a reliance on a cultic object. Nephi may had access to a later account that suffered interpolation from Josiah-type reformers. Just for the record, I don't believe in the historicity of the Exodus account.Good to know the story on alternates.While I see your point regarding the staff, wouldn't the version we have be more likely to be the Josiah-type redacted account (since, according to the "Josiah-type reformer redacted" argument that's pretty much the version we have), at least in its emphasis on the Lord's role in parting the waters, i.e., as opposed to the waters responding to Moses's words?In any case, whether the account is historical, whether they crossed the Sea of Reeds on a really windy day, or whether, indeed, there was no Exodus at all, isn't it interesting that Nephi sees the events this way, i.e., Moses spoke TO THE WATERS and they divided (at his behest)? In this case "being strong" and "accomplishing the thing which the Lord hath commanded" is the same thing. But the Lord doesn't do it. The individual does it--in accord with the laws of faith???
structurecop Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 While I see your point regarding the staff, wouldn't the version we have be more likely to be the Josiah-type redacted account (since, according to the "Josiah-type reformer redacted" argument that's pretty much the version we have), at least in its emphasis on the Lord's role in parting the waters, i.e., as opposed to the waters responding to Moses's words?Depending on which date you attribute to Exodus, it may not be a "Josiah-type reformer" but a "Josiah reformer" in the flesh who compiled our version of the events. More extreme reformers may have existed somewhere along the line. *shrug* But it's just a theory I'm throwing out. I'm certainly not committed to it if there is evidence otherwise. In any case, whether the account is historical, whether they crossed the Sea of Reeds on a really windy day, or whether, indeed, there was no Exodus at all, isn't it interesting that Nephi sees the events this way, i.e., Moses spoke TO THE WATERS and they divided (at his behest)? In this case "being strong" and "accomplishing the thing which the Lord hath commanded" is the same thing. But the Lord doesn't do it. The individual does it--in accord with the laws of faith???I do think the "speaking to the waters" has a verifiable ancient Near Eastern origin, since waters generally represent chaos in ANE narratives.
Strindberg Posted September 6, 2007 Author Posted September 6, 2007 I do think the "speaking to the waters" has a verifiable ancient Near Eastern origin, since waters generally represent chaos in ANE narratives.
structurecop Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 That's interesting. Could you explain a little more what you mean? Are you saying that the presence of that phrase in the BOM text would not preclude an ancient Near Eastern origin (to state the case negatively)? But what's the connection with chaos? What I mean is, Moses is clearly speaking to waters, i.e., the waters of the Red Sea, which then divided hither and thither. Where does the chaos notion connect?I can't get too in depth right now since I'm at work and don't have any reference material, but the connection between chaos and water is made directly in Genesis 1 along with "speaking" commands and the universe obeying. As elsewhere in the Bible, the deep (Heb tehom) has no definite article (the) attached to it in the Heb. Some see "tehom" here to be related to the Babylonian goddess Tiamat, a divinity representing oceanic chaos, whom the head god, Marduk, defeated in Enuma Elish... Like a divine king God pronounces his will and it is accomplished. -NOAB "Genesis"Because I don't believe in the literal historicity I can see the authors purposefully drawing an obvious parallel between Godly powers of creation and the deliverance of the Israelites.
gtaggart Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 It seems that the answer to the question that started this thread can be found by reading the KJV (or any other version) of the story it its context. Remember that the children of Israel saw the Pharaoh coming with his men and chariots and were fearful, wishing they had stayed in Egypt. And what did Moses do?And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.In other words, Moses knew then that Pharaoh's men would not make it. And then hestretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east windThere may be another version of this story that Nephi was relating, but it also makes sense that Nephi was summarizing the Genesis story and essentially conflating the "see the salvation of the LORD" statement with the moment that Moses "stretched out his hand," kind of like Cecil B. DeMille did in "The Ten Commandments."My two cents.
jadams_4242 Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 I do think the "speaking to the waters" has a verifiable ancient Near Eastern origin, since waters generally represent chaos in ANE narratives.That's interesting. Could you explain a little more what you mean? Are you saying that the presence of that phrase in the BOM text would not preclude an ancient Near Eastern origin (to state the case negatively)? But what's the connection with chaos? What I mean is, Moses is clearly speaking to waters, i.e., the waters of the Red Sea, which then divided hither and thither. Where does the chaos notion connect? Thev chaos notion may or may not i do not know? but the word "smitten" does mean to "verbally rebuke" in hebrew.
katherine the great Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 " . . . let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses. For he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither . . ."/quote]Was it the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?
Uncle Dale Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Was it the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?My guess would be the Gulf of Aqaba -- with the Egyptians on ships -- ships sunk in a storm -- the troops, their weapons, chariots all sunk in the storm at sea, and thus allowing "Israelites" already in the Negeb to gain freedom. The later Israelite "crossing of Jordan" was projected backwards on the salvation from the Egyptians. The ark's crossing of the dry Jordan was an annual festival event in ancient Israel.The two Hathor heads represent locations where the Egyptian government had mines, worked by Semitic peoples -- the northern mining area (Timna) marks the site of the discovery of the first known tabernacle. "Hebrews" working for the Egyptians at Timna eventually gained their freedom, as the Egyptian presence (under Ramses III) became weaker in the area. A convoy of Egyptian ships, sunk in a storm in that area may well have been the origin of the celebratory "Sing of Miriam" in Exodus -- the oldest preserved text in the Hebrew Bible.UDps -- a Christian underwater explorer claims to have found sunken Egyptian chariots there.http://www.wyattmuseum.com/red-sea-crossing-04.htm.
Uncle Dale Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 I do think the "speaking to the waters" has a verifiable ancient Near Eastern origin, since waters generally represent chaos in ANE narratives.Hiw about King Canute's "narrative"???Bad Sea! Go back home, this very minute! You're a bad, bad sea!UD
structurecop Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 ps -- a Christian underwater explorer claims to have found sunken Egyptian chariots there.http://www.wyattmuseum.com/red-sea-crossing-04.htm"In 1978, Ron on his first dive at the site, found chariot remains. These were not in perfect condition and required careful examination to see exactly what they were. They were covered in coral, which made it difficult to see them clearly, but it appears that the coral was the agent the Lord used to preserve them."Surely such dispassionate evaluation of the evidence warrants our rapt attention.
Uncle Dale Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 "In 1978, Ron on his first dive at the site, found chariot remains. These were not in perfect condition and required careful examination to see exactly what they were. They were covered in coral, which made it difficult to see them clearly, but it appears that the coral was the agent the Lord used to preserve them."Surely such dispassionate evaluation of the evidence warrants our rapt attention.Well, he probably says he's discivered the ark of the covenant and Noah's boat as well --- but I think that the Song of Miriam portrays Egyptians sinking into the sea, and not the sea rising up to flow back over dry land.That scenario was taken, I'm pretty sure, from the ritual crossing of the Jordan -- in which each year the Gilgal Shrine priesthood blocked off the Jordan and either carried the actual ark over the dry river-bed, or a replica ark.That was a living memory when Exodus was finalized -- the Song of Miriam was, by then, hazy ancient stuff.Not that I'm going to advertise any of this at the next seder I attend...UD
structurecop Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Well, he probably says he's discivered the ark of the covenant and Noah's boat as well --- I happened to be telling my mother about the shaky ground the Exodus account stood on when on the TV, this guy's "discovery" came on. My mom says, "They've found the chariot wheels that prove the Exodus," to which I responded, "Really, they found four thousand chariot wheels?" We haven't talked about it since then. but I think that the Song of Miriam portrays Egyptians sinking into the sea, and not the sea rising up to flow back over dry land.Absolutely agree. Not that I'm going to advertise any of this at the next seder I attend...That sounds like a good move if you want to maintain positive feelings...
katherine the great Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 ps -- a Christian underwater explorer claims to have found sunken Egyptian chariots there.http://www.wyattmuseum.com/red-sea-crossing-04.htm.Ooooo--Ron Wyatt! That guy has managed to discover almost every Biblical artifact ever sought!
Uncle Dale Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Ooooo--Ron Wyatt! That guy has managed to discover almost every Biblical artifact ever sought! Can't wait to see the pot of manna and Aaron's blossoming rod ---But, I still think the chariots in the sea merit some consideration.UD
structurecop Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Can't wait to see the pot of manna and Aaron's blossoming rod ---But, I still think the chariots in the sea merit some consideration.UDPerhaps. Maybe when some more qualified archaeologists confirm that they aren't just a couple random coral formations I'll take some more interest. I am hesitant to take too much stock in what he presents, since he thought that he found not only the post-hole for Christ's crucifix but a secret gutter running to a secret chamber where Christ's blood ran onto the Ark of the Covenant (the actual Israel Antiquities Authority paints a vastly different picture).
katherine the great Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Can't wait to see the pot of manna and Aaron's blossoming rod ---But, I still think the chariots in the sea merit some consideration.UDIt's just a shame that it wasn't discovered by a reputable archaeologist. (I believe in the Exodus, but I'm a major Ron Wyatt skeptic)
Uncle Dale Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Perhaps. Maybe when some more qualified archaeologists confirm that they aren't just a couple random coral formations I'll take some more interest. I am hesitant to take too much stock in what he presents, since he thought that he found not only the post-hole for Christ's crucifix but a secret gutter running to a secret chamber where Christ's blood ran onto the Ark of the Covenant (the actual Israel Antiquities Authority paints a vastly different picture).One thing that he did come up with, is the idea that Mt. Horeb is in Arabia. I'm not sure I agree with that -- but I do believe that Horeb was in the Gulf of Aqaba region, and that Mt. Sinai is a red herring.I flew over Mt. Sinai some years back -- other than the monastery there, that place is barren --- I think a traveler could have made a campfire there 4000 years ago, and you'd still see its undisturbed remains on the ground today. Other than a little wind and a rare lizard, there's nothing on the ground to obliterate the wanderings of thousands of hapless Israelites for 40 years.Time to seek out other possibilities.UD
katherine the great Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 Time to seek out other possibilities.UDLike: The Naked Archaeologist? He lays history bare!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.