Judges

Book Written:  material gathered during reign of King David; edited in 7th-6th centuries

Time Period/Setting:   200 years, 1200-1000 B.C.,  during which Israel had no centralized authority or king

Title:   Judges or military-theocratic leaders ruled over the different tribes; word 'judge' is mentioned only once in book; not necessarily charismatic leaders 

Judges contains the line, " In those days there was no king in Israel and everyone did as he pleased,"  a line which pretty well describes our modern culture of moral relativism where moral standards are determined not by God's truth but by  "what's right for me."    Of the twelve judges described in the book, four are said to be major, and, of those, two in particular interested me--Deborah and Samson.

So,  here we have Deborah, a woman whose name in Hebrew means 'bee,'  sitting under a palm tree giving orders. What an image.  It has to be only a matter of highly unusual coincidence that Barak is the name of the  military leader that Deborah summons to fight  King Jabin's army led by Sisera.  It must again be coincidence of the highest order that Barak is a  ditherer.  My study Bible uses the words 'reluctant' and 'hesitant'  to describe our president  the man.  It's no surprise that Barak doesn't want to follow Deborah's instructions unless she goes with him.   Barak does screw up the pep to take 10,000 troops against Sisera (maybe those are the 10,000 he's planning to call back from Afghanistan in July?) and he even has the guts to pursue Sisera's chariots.   A woman, Jael, finishes the job for Barak by luring Sisera into her tent and then killing him.  

The literary subtleties of the Song of Deborah, Ch. 5, elude me but there are some beautiful verses that capture the drama of Deborah's victory.  Jael killing Sisera with a tent peg is as follows:

She put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen's mallet;

she struck Sisera a blow,

she crushed his head,

she shattered and pierced his temple.

He sank, he fell, he lay still at her feet; at her feet he sank, he fell;where he sank, there he fell dead.  

Joshua

Book Written:  came to its present form in 7th-6th century B.C. via writings discovered while repairing temple during King Josiah's reign ;  not attributed to Joshua

Time Period/Setting:  1250 B.C. - 1200 B.C.

Title:  named after main character

I know that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho  because of  the song that I learned one summer in Bible School.  I only vaguely remember the verses, but the refrain was rousing, and I believe we clapped after each of those three Jerichos in the first line. 

Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho

Joshua fought the battle of Jericho,

And the walls came tumbling down.

It was edifying to finally understand that Joshua was Moses's successor in leading the Israelites into Canaan though not his blood relation.  Joshua was the son of Nun. 

The crossing of the Jordan and the curious placing of the twelve stones in the river bed along with the story of Rahab the prostitute were new to me, but I did enjoy the more familiar account of the way the retinue of priest-trumpeters and armed men circled the city for six days without uttering a word.  They said nothing, but blew their ram's horn trumpets the whole time.   What a scene.   After this careful build-up, they then just ran in and razed the city.  Go figure.

Shiloh, Gilgal and Shechem are discussed in my study Bible as important places for "tribal assembly." 

Fr. Baker notesthat Joshua's faithfulness to God throughout his leadership is a theme of this book, that the  conquest of Jericho is not a human victory, but a result of God's intercession, that the name Joshua is a variant of Jesus.  In terms of relating the Old and New Testaments (typology), Baker writes ". . . Joshua's conquest of the Promised Land is a prophecy of the spiritual conquest of the world by Jesus and his Church. . . . . "

Re Lot's Wife Syndrome

I read articles from the site Catholic Womanhood on occasion.  This one got my attention, but disappointed.  Is the syndrome not letting go?   You shouldn't look back?  

Just A Matter of Geography?

The Old Testament readings for this week have been from the Book of Genesis and caused me to go back and re-read some of the chapters.   God brings Abram out of Haran (which is roughly in present-day Iraq) and into Canaan and tells Abraham that this is the land he will possess.  Remembering Moses bringing everyone into Canaan and having just recently  read about Joshua's battle, I started wondering why in the world Abraham just didn't stay in Canaan and possess the land.  I don't know how,  but during the time it's taken me to read from Genesis to Deuteronomy, I seem to have forgotten about all the wandering,  exile and tribal conflicts in the Old Testament. 

The footnotes in my study Bible speak of the dual promise of land and progeny which I take to mean that God's promise to Abraham is of a kingdom, a certain way of living, not just the promise of a tract of earth.  So, while it might be easy to hold on to a piece of land, it's not so easy to hold on to this idea of being God's chosen people.  The study notes  sketch out an elaborate chart on the Abraham Cycle, a chart I neatly skipped over before, which in turn reminded me that there was a migration from Haran (when Abram's family left) and a migration to Haran (I presume when Abraham's servant returned there to find a wife for Isaac).   

Jacob also returns to the homeland (Paddan-aram in the region of Haran) to find a wife, Genesis 28, 1-7 and lives there "in exile"  (Ch. 31) for what was about 20 years!    Later, God instructs Jacob to go to Bethel, Ch. 35 and by Ch. 36 we're back to Canaan where Jacob settles.  We're reminded that his father Isaac lived there as "an alien."   The story of Jacob's favorite son, Joseph, then of course takes us to Egypt.  References to Egypt are also a tad confusing;  my Bible's map of the ancient world shows the Egyptian Empire, 1300 B.C.,  covering roughly the area of the southern portion of the Levant. 

The Red Tent

I've been aware of this work of historical fiction for several years.  Several family members have read it and talked about it;  I confess to only having skimmed it.  Without consulting the Cliff Notes, I'm assuming that the author found it intriguing to reflect upon Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, who seems lost to history after her story is told in Chapter 34 of Genesis.  Even my study Bible comments that "sadly" Dinah is not mentioned further except for a passing reference in Genesis 46.15 when Jacob's family is re-united with Joseph in Egypt.

 
I'm also assuming that this is a woman-affirming book, a feminist novel.   No harm in that except that it's not of especial interest to me (I have previously dis-avowed any allegiance to feminism!).  It is curious, though, that while Dinah's brothers were central to the life of Israel, she, the biological daughter of Jacob and Leah (a real wife, not just one of the maids) is only a footnote.   Of course, as in the case of my comment about Cain and Abel, God's ways are not our ways, and if Dinah had been more essential to the life of Israel, we would certainly have heard about her. 


In Genesis, Dinah's encounter with Shechem is straightforwardly characterized as rape or "defilement" while in the novel more is made of the love and devotion of Shechem towards Dinah.  (I'd have to read the book more carefully to determine if rape is mentioned at all.)   This seems an attempt on the author's part to tweak historical reality a bit by making Dinah the object of romantic love whereas women in pre-Christian times were usually characterized as just there for the taking. (Well, Jacob did apparently fall for Rachel so things weren't all bad.)  In the novel,  Dinah becomes a mid-wife, far more palatable than had the author made her a priestess or warrior.  As a midwife, Dinah eventually delivers her own nephew, one of Joseph's sons, a neat sort of Dickensian twist.  

Cain and Abel

Apropos of another matter entirely, I chanced to be reading (trying, in my own humble fashion) Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae.  He begins his Encyclical with the story of Cain and Abel and answers a question I asked earlier which was, Why was God unhappy with Cain's offering?  The Pope writes that there is no reason given for this, but he goes on to explain that God  ". . . although preferring Abel's gift, does not interrupt his dialogue with Cain.  He admonishes him, reminding him of his freedom in the face of evil:  man is in no way predestined to evil."  

Oh dear.  What a mundane mindset I had when reading this story.  It's the Bible, not a murder mystery!  What I saw was only that God was being mean to poor Cain who was only trying to be good and that God wasn't being nice, he was being unfair.   He's God, and His ways are not our ways!  

The Pope goes on.  God is "always merciful even when he punishes, . . . "  He put a mark on Cain  ". . . not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him. . . ."