The distinction between the spies of Moses and those of Joshua.
The first looked only superficially at outward appearances. Nu. 13:27-28
וַיְסַפְּרוּ לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ בָּאנוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר שְׁלַחְתָּנוּ וְגַם זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הִוא וְזֶה פִּרְיָהּ אֶפֶס כִּי עַז הָעָם הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ וְהֶעָרִים בְּצֻרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאֹד וְגַם יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק רָאִינוּ שָׁם
NIV: They gave Moses this account: “We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there
whereas the spies of Joshua listened to the inhabitants. Joshua 2:8-10
וְהֵמָּה טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּן וְהִיא עָלְתָה עֲלֵיהֶם עַל הַגָּג וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל הָאֲנָשִׁים יָדַעְתִּי כִּי נָתַן יהוה לָכֶם אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִי נָפְלָה אֵימַתְכֶם עָלֵינוּ וְכִי נָמֹגוּ כָּל יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵיכֶם כִּי שָׁמַעְנוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הוֹבִישׁ יהוה אֶת מֵי יַם סוּף מִפְּנֵיכֶם בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם וַאֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם לִשְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן לְסִיחֹן וּלְעוֹג אֲשֶׁר הֶחֱרַמְתֶּם אוֹתָם
NIV: Before the spies lay down for the night, she went up on the roof and said to them, “I know that the Lord has given you this land and that a great fear(P) of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. We have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the Lord your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.
In Josh. 2:4 we encounter the act צפן CAPAN, which I think is from צף, צב, 'swell, tuck in'. The north, צפוֹן CAPON, is not the land hidden צפוּן in the distance, but rather the heaved land of the Ante-Lebanon range. Compare with הר נשפה, 'high mountain, of Isaiah 13:2, and the שפיים, 'high places' of Isaiah 41:18.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
The spies of Moses and those of Joshua
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: The spies of Moses and those of Joshua
Isaac Fried:
Yes, Joshua’s spies listened to the harlot Rahab. But was that a good thing? Did Rahab the harlot provide accurate intelligence?
1. Rahab the harlot told Joshua’s spies: “[A]ll who live in this country are melting in fear because of you.”
That wasn’t true, not by a long shot. Joshua had 40,000 men besiege Jericho (Joshua 4: 13), yet the people of Jericho, far from “melting in fear because of” the Israelites, wouldn’t budge. They sent out no emissaries to try to negotiate a surrender. No, Joshua had to rely on an outright divine miracle to take Jericho. The seventh day, when the priests for the 7th straight day marched around Jericho, on this occasion 7 times, the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. Absent that divine miracle, Joshua could not have taken Jericho, whose inhabitants dug in to defend their city and in no way were “melting in fear because of” the Israelites.
2. Rahab the harlot said: “We have heard…what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan….”
Once again, that’s inaccurate. How could King Og : עוג : A-wa-ge, with that vintage Hurrian name (many attested Hurrian names begin with Awa, including 5 such Hurrian names at the province of Nuzi alone), be thought to be an Amorite king? No way. King Og : עוג : A-wa-ge reigned in Hurrian country in the northeast Transjordan/Bashan.
3. Can’t you see that Rahab was playing both sides of the fence? Rahab doesn’t show any true loyalty to the Israelites until the Israelites were literally killing everyone in Jericho. Only at that point, at Joshua 6: 23, does Rahab decide that she and her family should now be rescued by the already victorious Israelites.
Yes, Rahab had hidden Joshua’s spies. But that shrewd move simply deftly allowed that harlot to come out smelling like a rose, regardless of whether the Israelites’ siege of Jericho would prove to be successful or not. I see Rahab as an opportunist, who did not provide good intelligence to Joshua’s spies.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Yes, Joshua’s spies listened to the harlot Rahab. But was that a good thing? Did Rahab the harlot provide accurate intelligence?
1. Rahab the harlot told Joshua’s spies: “[A]ll who live in this country are melting in fear because of you.”
That wasn’t true, not by a long shot. Joshua had 40,000 men besiege Jericho (Joshua 4: 13), yet the people of Jericho, far from “melting in fear because of” the Israelites, wouldn’t budge. They sent out no emissaries to try to negotiate a surrender. No, Joshua had to rely on an outright divine miracle to take Jericho. The seventh day, when the priests for the 7th straight day marched around Jericho, on this occasion 7 times, the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. Absent that divine miracle, Joshua could not have taken Jericho, whose inhabitants dug in to defend their city and in no way were “melting in fear because of” the Israelites.
2. Rahab the harlot said: “We have heard…what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan….”
Once again, that’s inaccurate. How could King Og : עוג : A-wa-ge, with that vintage Hurrian name (many attested Hurrian names begin with Awa, including 5 such Hurrian names at the province of Nuzi alone), be thought to be an Amorite king? No way. King Og : עוג : A-wa-ge reigned in Hurrian country in the northeast Transjordan/Bashan.
3. Can’t you see that Rahab was playing both sides of the fence? Rahab doesn’t show any true loyalty to the Israelites until the Israelites were literally killing everyone in Jericho. Only at that point, at Joshua 6: 23, does Rahab decide that she and her family should now be rescued by the already victorious Israelites.
Yes, Rahab had hidden Joshua’s spies. But that shrewd move simply deftly allowed that harlot to come out smelling like a rose, regardless of whether the Israelites’ siege of Jericho would prove to be successful or not. I see Rahab as an opportunist, who did not provide good intelligence to Joshua’s spies.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: The spies of Moses and those of Joshua
I actually enjoy these insightful, creative, open minded, diggings into the background of the, superficially, deceitfully naive, biblical stories. But I have this to say:
1. Some apologetic Hebrew interpreters prefer to think that the present זונה is from זון ZUN, 'feed', or as some jesters maintain she kept in יריחו a מזנון, 'diner'. She possibly had a kind of an inn with "room service" to comfort weary travelers (recall the story of TAMAR) far from home, an arrangement that was apparently tolerated by the libertine Canaanites, as it is even today. Her name רחב was given her possibly for her wide and soft רך heart (some legends have it that Joshua later married her for her exceptional beauty). I would go easy on her: the women tried hard to make a living in a tough and rough business, and then escape unscathed a looming conflagration of hostilities by risking her life.
2. I think that OG עוֹג is from the root גאה, 'soar, rise', as is עוּגָה, 'cake'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
1. Some apologetic Hebrew interpreters prefer to think that the present זונה is from זון ZUN, 'feed', or as some jesters maintain she kept in יריחו a מזנון, 'diner'. She possibly had a kind of an inn with "room service" to comfort weary travelers (recall the story of TAMAR) far from home, an arrangement that was apparently tolerated by the libertine Canaanites, as it is even today. Her name רחב was given her possibly for her wide and soft רך heart (some legends have it that Joshua later married her for her exceptional beauty). I would go easy on her: the women tried hard to make a living in a tough and rough business, and then escape unscathed a looming conflagration of hostilities by risking her life.
2. I think that OG עוֹג is from the root גאה, 'soar, rise', as is עוּגָה, 'cake'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: The spies of Moses and those of Joshua
Isaac Fried:
You wrote: “I think that OG עוֹג is from the root גאה, 'soar, rise', as is עוּגָה, 'cake'.”
1. גאה, 'soar, rise' has a fine meaning, but only the gimel/ג matches as to the three letters in each word or name.
2. עוּגָה, 'cake' looks similar to “Og” : עוג, but (a) I don’t know that word, and (b) the meaning doesn’t fit.
3. So please consider my proposed Hurrian etymology for the name of this king in the northern Transjordan who appears in many books in the Bible.
“Og” : עוג should be either E-wa-ge or I-wa-ge in Hurrian, where Hebrew ע in initial position usually renders the Hurrian true vowel E or I as its own separate syllable. E-wa-ge is ideal here. The root is e-wa. To that is added the Hurrian divine suffix -ge.
Many attested Hurrian names begin with either Awa- or Ewa- or Iwa-, and Gelb and Purves in “Nuzi Personal Names” consider all three to be a Hurrian element. Yet there’s no Hurrian common word like that, and no known Hurrian meaning.
e-wa is a Hittite word for a special, sacred kind of barley. ewa-barley played a very important role in Hittite rituals and mythology, and was sometimes associated in particular with the Queen of the Hittites. I see e-wa as being a Hittite loanword for Hurrian proper names (though it is not a Hurrian common word).
The ideal English spelling, in my opinion, is E-wa for all of these various Hurrian names, not Awa or Iwa.
8 Hurrian names at Nuzi begin with Awa- or Ewa- or Iwa-. I see Ewa- as being the ideal spelling, because that is the spelling of the Hittite word for “barley”. Note in particular the attested Hurrian name at Nuzi Ewa-zi, where -zi as a suffix means “dear” and is often applied to a deity.
The Hurrian divine suffix is -ge, and fits here, since ewa is a sacred barley.
The linguistic fit is perfect.
As I believe you may agree, in the ancient world most noblemen’s names had a divine reference. Here the divine reference in the Hurrian name “Og” : עוג : E-wa-ge is to ewa, a Hittite word for a sacred form of barley used by pagans in cultic rituals.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “I think that OG עוֹג is from the root גאה, 'soar, rise', as is עוּגָה, 'cake'.”
1. גאה, 'soar, rise' has a fine meaning, but only the gimel/ג matches as to the three letters in each word or name.
2. עוּגָה, 'cake' looks similar to “Og” : עוג, but (a) I don’t know that word, and (b) the meaning doesn’t fit.
3. So please consider my proposed Hurrian etymology for the name of this king in the northern Transjordan who appears in many books in the Bible.
“Og” : עוג should be either E-wa-ge or I-wa-ge in Hurrian, where Hebrew ע in initial position usually renders the Hurrian true vowel E or I as its own separate syllable. E-wa-ge is ideal here. The root is e-wa. To that is added the Hurrian divine suffix -ge.
Many attested Hurrian names begin with either Awa- or Ewa- or Iwa-, and Gelb and Purves in “Nuzi Personal Names” consider all three to be a Hurrian element. Yet there’s no Hurrian common word like that, and no known Hurrian meaning.
e-wa is a Hittite word for a special, sacred kind of barley. ewa-barley played a very important role in Hittite rituals and mythology, and was sometimes associated in particular with the Queen of the Hittites. I see e-wa as being a Hittite loanword for Hurrian proper names (though it is not a Hurrian common word).
The ideal English spelling, in my opinion, is E-wa for all of these various Hurrian names, not Awa or Iwa.
8 Hurrian names at Nuzi begin with Awa- or Ewa- or Iwa-. I see Ewa- as being the ideal spelling, because that is the spelling of the Hittite word for “barley”. Note in particular the attested Hurrian name at Nuzi Ewa-zi, where -zi as a suffix means “dear” and is often applied to a deity.
The Hurrian divine suffix is -ge, and fits here, since ewa is a sacred barley.
The linguistic fit is perfect.
As I believe you may agree, in the ancient world most noblemen’s names had a divine reference. Here the divine reference in the Hurrian name “Og” : עוג : E-wa-ge is to ewa, a Hittite word for a sacred form of barley used by pagans in cultic rituals.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: The spies of Moses and those of Joshua
1. The essential part of the root גאה is the uni-lateral root ג G, the א, ע, ה being just filler letters. They might also be atrophied or muted sounds, as in the Aramaic ארעא versus the Hebrew ארץ, ''land'. related to גאה are געה, 'bellow', נגע, 'touched', הגיע, 'arrived, reached', גיא, 'valley', (which is high in reverse), and עוּגָה UGAH, 'high cake'. Also the post-biblical געגועים GAGUIYM, 'longings'.
2. As I see it the O in OG is the personal pronoun הוּא HU, namely, OG = he is G. Farther related to עוֹג is עוֹק. Thinking the ע a possibly smothered צ, I would farther relate it to צוֹק and צוּק.
3. I am sorry, but I am unable to consider anything about "Hurrian" as I know absolutely nothing about it. I deal only with what I can verify independently for myself.
4. Being an inn keeper, and constantly listening to travelers, RAXAB was in a perfect position to understand what was going on in the world around her. She surely heard about the mass of people pushing onward along the red see, fiercely and uncompromisingly intent of reclaiming the land of Canaan. She was possibly also on good terms with the Jericho court, even the king himself, who may have come down from time to savor delicacies from her exquisite menu of haute cuisine.
5. I fully agree with your claim that "the ancient world most noblemen’s names had a divine reference." So, G may be such a reference.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
2. As I see it the O in OG is the personal pronoun הוּא HU, namely, OG = he is G. Farther related to עוֹג is עוֹק. Thinking the ע a possibly smothered צ, I would farther relate it to צוֹק and צוּק.
3. I am sorry, but I am unable to consider anything about "Hurrian" as I know absolutely nothing about it. I deal only with what I can verify independently for myself.
4. Being an inn keeper, and constantly listening to travelers, RAXAB was in a perfect position to understand what was going on in the world around her. She surely heard about the mass of people pushing onward along the red see, fiercely and uncompromisingly intent of reclaiming the land of Canaan. She was possibly also on good terms with the Jericho court, even the king himself, who may have come down from time to savor delicacies from her exquisite menu of haute cuisine.
5. I fully agree with your claim that "the ancient world most noblemen’s names had a divine reference." So, G may be such a reference.
Isaac Fried, Boston University