Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Santa Claus]

The Biblical God would have a history reaching into the past and to be considered in the case of a Tiberian Masoretic base text, namely the distinction between the voice of this God and an alleged word of that God that guys claim, which runs through the entire Bible like a red thread (see footnote below) including the Gospel of Jesus.

The Decalogue was spoken to the Israelites by God himself so they would know a difference and everything else Moses was to present to the Israelites (Exodus 21:1)

Mixing these two different things, as was the Israelites' response in Exodus 24:3 (biblehub.com unfortunately is wrong again!) ...

**** ויספר לעם את כל דברי = and he told to the people all words (not the words) of The LORD

**** ויאמרו כל הדברים אשר דבר = and they answered all these words that had been spoken The LORD

... would not be a homage to the Biblical God, nor would it be a homage to a God of Mount Sinai, but it would be a homage to Moses as a God—and we are not people like those who let themselves be called Muslims: Of course a human being can and also may be God (Exodus 7:1) the Torah brings its own ground for understanding and explanation.


FOOTNOTE: 1 Kings 13 – this time just an alleged prophet without a divine mandate. It is a story to better understand God's voice as the alternative to Moses' claims, whose binding prophethood was of limited duration, e.g. Exodus 3:12 & 15:25.26 & Joshua 24:24 etc. but unfortunately, most authors and publishers of the Bible lie in these or relevant passages out of consideration for Jewish and Christian philosophies.

[jimwalton]

Sure, we can talk. I'm not seeing your flow. In Ex. 24.1, the speaker is YHWH, inviting select leaders and 70 elders to an audience. Their obeisance ( וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם ) was anticipated and expected. But obeisance to whom? Since it was YHWH who issued the invitation, He is presumed to be the object of their prostration as well. "Ascend to YHWH and prostrate yourselves." If Moses were to be the object of their prostration, no ascent would be necessary. YHWH is the focus—He is the one being approached (v. 2). In v. 3, it is the words YHWH has spoken that are to be obeyed: all YHWH's words and righteous principles. It is reference to His covenant relationship with them.

YHWH has issued the invitation. Prostration is the YHWH. It is the words of YHWH that are to be recognized as covenantally binding. Moses wrote everything YHWH had said (v. 4). Israel offered burnt offerings to YHWH (v. 5).

If I'm following what you're saying, I'm see quite a different picture. If I am misunderstanding, please try again.

[Santa Claus]

> Sure, we can talk.

Maybe something general to the context, basic & useful no matter how the OP will decide, slowly and topic by topic?

There are some Jewish sects that make an exegetical distinction between words spoken by the Biblical God as "Elohim" and words spoken by the Biblical God as "Tetragram" according to their modern Tiberian Masoretic text ... specifically to exclude Exodus 3:12 from the words of the constitution in Exodus 24:3 for a specific purpose (that you may recognize now?) and as a byproduct God's Decalogue as it was written in Exodus (and to which Jesus had referred in his interpretation of the Sabbath – Moses' version of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy is different!) would disappear too.

It's more than counting peas, it's asking if also the still undigested contents of the little worms in the peas need to be subtracted from the total weight that is to be sold without cheating, but I have to accept it ... up to a level ... and with that topic it would be the contrary tradition in Jerome's original Vulgate from around 400 CE which reads "Dominus" and not "Deus" in Exodus 20:1

Locutus quoque est Dominus cunctos sermones hos

[url]Vulgate, manuscript VI century & Vulgate, HTML/unicode[/url]

[url]Modifications of the Latin text of Jerome's Vulgate in Exodus 20:1[/url]

Even if the Tiberian Masoretic text was handed down uniformly here, there might have been previously a regular Hebrew text with the Tetragram in Exodus 20:1 for the LXX reads κυριος here as well.


> In Ex. 24.1, the speaker is YHWH, inviting select leaders and 70 elders to an audience. Their obeisance ( וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם ) was anticipated and expected.

I see no problem of identity here, because according to our special Hebrew text (Exodus 3:12) ...

תעבדון את־האלהים־על־ההר־הזה

... it is just "the God on this mountain" who is served and we perhaps agree that it shouldn't be an alien mountain troll, like Tolkien's Balrog or something else, but a synonym for Elohim, El Shaddai or MyLORDs etc.

Nor should it be a problem that – apart from the verb itself because the Hebrew עבד does not mean sacrifice – there could maybe have been different Hebrew sources here, regarding singular "thou serve" as in all old Vulgate and in the Douay‑Rheims Bibles "thou shalt offer sacrifice to God upon this mountain" vs plural "ye serve" as in all Masoretic texts and in the King James Versions "ye shall serve God upon this mountain"

Jerome had read 2nd person singular future tense instead of a 2nd person plural present tense – perhaps the Nun Paragogicum was only written indistinctly תעבדה → תעבדון and Jerome had recognized a nonsensical cohortative mode? The Roman Catholic Church had never had a problem with that!

The only problem would be that the story of the elders in Exodus 24:1.9–11 would be a different one, because in Hebrew Exodus 3:12 it's all the people of Israel, and I don't read anything about a bending down שׁחה of these chosen people either, because they only had watched, eaten & drunk!

[jimwalton]

That some Jewish sects distinguish between Elohim and YHWH is immaterial to the discussion at hand. You can always find someone who sees things differently, but we don't function according to the rules set by small minorities. The standard Masoretic text has YHWH both times in Ex. 24.3. The Septuagint has θεοῦ for the first phrase and κύριος for the second, which makes sense because there is no equivalent for YHWH in Greek. Both theos and kurios signify YHWH, or God the Father, in the NT.

Then you make a switch to Exodus 20.1. Jerome uses Dominus to speak of YHWH, as we see in Ex. 20.2 (ego sum Dominus Deus tuus). That the Septuagint uses kurios also makes sense, as the signification for YHWH.

So let's address Ex. 3.12, which clearly uses elohim and not YHWH. YHWH and Elohim, through much of Exodus, are used interchangeably to speak of YHWH, and even at times used together, as YHWH Elohim, as you seem to be saying. Again, that some Jewish sects draw a distinction is not of particular significance. There are sects of Christianity (which many would call cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses) who also contest the Greek renderings speaking of Jesus throughout the NT, but their renderings have no support and are illegitimate. The context of Exodus 3.12 unmistakably aligns YHWH with Elohim, as is clear from vv. 2-20, but especially a verse like Ex. 3.13-15,18. In 3.12, אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים (technically the gods) is the same term (אֱלֹהִים) used throughout Ex. 3 to signify YHWH specifically.

So I'm not sure what your point is. We are agreeing that, in the context, Elohim is YHWH, correct?

Regarding "serve" and "sacrifice" (viz., worship) in Ex. 24, when they come to "serve" the Lord (v. 2), they pledge obedience (v. 3) build an altar (v. 4), offer sacrifices (vv. 5-6), and commit to a covenantal relationship (v. 7). The eating and drinking of the elders in 24.11 is a covenantal meal. Brevard Childs writes, "The Ugaritic parallel confirms this interpretation of the terms by reflecting a similar sequence. These verses function as a eucharistic festival in which selected witnesses celebrate the covenant sealing of vv. 3-8." The representatives of Israel conclude the covenant ceremony with a meal to show they will comply with the terms of the covenant and do God's bidding, and in return experience His protection.

[Santa Claus]

In the first case the meaning of "you [2. plural] serve the God on mountain this" would be given through the separating & connecting accents (cantillation) "Etnachta" and "Zakef katan" ...

ויאמר כי־אהיה עמ֔ך וזה־לך הא֔ות כי אנכי שלחת֑יך בהוציאך את־העם ממצר֔ים תעבדון את־האלה֔ים על ההר הזה׃

... namely with the meaning of (a) requested action(s) performed by all the Israelites on this mountain, e.g. Exodus 19:13 (the Hebrew text is about God's decree to go up on the mountain at a given time) as I had answered correctly.

The second case would have theoretical justification with a text without vowels and accents because of the use of the Nun paragogicum (Grammar §47m) used not only for emphasis but also to close a unit of meaning, here quoted by me only Exodus 3:12b

בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון | את האלהים על ההר הזה

= "after your bringing the people out of Egypt you [2. plural] serve | the God on the mountain this"

[jimwalton]

I see little contextual warrant for the second case. Ex. 3.13 starts with "Moses said to God...", creating a clean break with the sentence of v. 12. If you separate "the God on the mountain this" from the first part of v. 12, you are left with a dangling fragment of thought with no reference point and no meaning. There is justification to go with the first case and none to go with the second, especially since the "when" of v. 12 requires a solution presented as "you will worship God on this mountain."