Weird Bible: Zipporah at the inn

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Weird Bible: Zipporah at the inn

Mescal: Jul 23, 2005

There are some passages in the Bible that are pithy and inscrutable. Here's one of my^� faves. In a short passage in Exodus that still baffles all, God sought to kill Moses. Or did he? This happens while Moses is on the way to confront the Pharaoh of Egypt, who has captured the Israelites.

quote:

24�On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. 25�But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son�s foreskin, touched his feet with it, and said, �Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!� 26�So he let him alone. It was then that she said �a bridegroom of blood,� because of the circumcision. (NRSVUE)

If the meaning isn't clear to you, you're in good company. It's all "he, him, him, she, him," so who is doing what? The traditional Jewish interpretation is that God tried to kill Moses because he hadn't circumcised his son. The traditional Christian interpretation is "God did what? I've never heard of this." The Samaritans (who still exist) rewrote the thing so God was mad at Moses for bringing his family, showing that another ancient tradition was unclear too.

Commentators generally say that it's a shorter version of a story that was originally clearer. It may have been shoehorned into another narrative because it was a story too important to omit. But it was too uncomfortable to include clearly and entirely. This reminds me of Jacob wrestling with God in Genesis 32:22, another gobsmacking baffler where Jacob fights and beats^�� Yahweh (God) and is renamed Israel. This story gives the origin of the name Israel--"struggles with God" and an origin of parts of Kosher food law. It's also WAY TOO SHORT.

Maybe Zipporah at the inn was shoehorned in, maybe not. Because it actually kind of fits. Here's the passage that precedes it:

quote:

21�And the Lord said to Moses, �When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in your power, but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22�Then you shall say to Pharaoh, �Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son. 23�I said to you, �Let my son go that he may serve me.� But you refused to let him go; now I will kill your firstborn son.� �

God says to Moses, show miracles to Pharaoh, which won't convince him. Then tell him I say "Israel is my firstborn son, you wouldn't let him go, so I will kill your firstborn son." So this story is about first born sons, who are important in the Bible, except when their birth rights are stolen through trickery. So Zipporah's incident happens between this and, later, God killing all the first born sons in Egypt, which frees Moses' people. In-between there's a ton of plagues and a genealogy. It takes forever. (The money shot is where God invents Passover.)

In this context, which most readers have taken pains to avoid, it begins to make sense that in this story God sought to kill Moses' son. After all, why would God send Moses on a holy quest just to kill him on the way there? I think it's a sacrifice. Egypt took God's firstborn son, his nation, and God's gonna kill all of the first born boys in Egypt, and along the way Moses has to sacrifice his firstborn son to get his people's freedom.

The context for this is that there were still memories at this time of the ancient Hebrews' occasional sacrifice of children. See Ezekiel 20:25-26, "Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. 26 I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord." See also the binding of Isaac, where God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son. The Binding of Isaac in our Bible is a blending of multiple narratives, in one of which God does not rescind his order and Abraham kills the boy. I believe that was the older version. But the story as we now have it serves not to show Abraham's obedience to God's horrific command, but rather an origin story of how animal sacrifice was a substitute for human sacrifice in the Hebrews' stories.

Now we're starting to get somewhere. In Zipporah's incident, the boy's circumcision appears to be a substitute for his death. In two stories here we've seen new rites replacing human sacrifice. This reflects the changes in Hebrew religious practice and serves the Biblical authors' love for origin stories.

Let's restate that sentence through this line of thinking. "On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him (Moses or his son) and tried to kill Moses' son."

But wait. There are other people, real academics, who've written about this. The following is from Francesca Stavrakopoulou's King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice. I'll paste it in full, but the gist is that she believes in the story Moses, not God, sought to kill his son.

quote:

A key element within the biblical ideology of separateness is the covenant of circumcision. This is closely bound to both foundation myths. Within the Exodus narratives, a circumcision myth concerning Moses lies embedded within a Passover tradition, which argues strongly for the probability that circumcision was bound up with the firstborn-sacrifice. Exod. 4:24-26 reads:

quote:
And it was on the way, at a place where they spent the night, YHWH encountered him and he sought to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son�s foreskin and touched his genitalia with it, and said, �Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me�. So he left him alone. It was then she said, �A bridegroom of blood by circumcision�.

The primary problem in deciphering the text is that it is difficult to discern who is seeking to kill whom, and whose genitalia Zipporah touches. Most commentators cast Moses as the subject of YHWH's apparent aggression, and consequently infer that it is Moses' genitalia which are daubed with the blood of the foreskin. This is probably based upon the premise that HTN, "bridgegroom", is commonly related to Arabic hatana, "circumcise. As such, this text is widely held to reflect traditions constructed upon a matriarchal marriage rite in which a young man sacrificed part of his penis to the goddess in order to appease her potential anger at his invasion of her body (in the form of the bride). If YHWH is understood to be the assailant, this coheres with the apotropaic function of circumcision within some ancient cultures. However, the wider context in which this passage occurs is the killing of the firstborn. This could suggest that YHWH is seeking to kill Moses' son. Hall argues that emending vet-dalet-resh-kaf, "in/on the way", to "vet-kaf-resh-kaf", "your firstborn", renders text, "his firstborn son was at the lodging and YHWH met him and he sought to kill him", thereby making sense of the child's circumcision and its function as a substitution for his sacrifice.

However, though Hall's interpretation is attractive, Maccoby offers an alternative suggestion which is more secure and it leaves the consonantal text unchanged. He proposes that it is Moses who seeks to kill his son. On the basis of this argument, the following interpretation of the text is to be favored:

quote:
And it came to pass on the way at the overnight lodging that YHWH encountered him [Moses] and he [Moses] sought to kill him [the child]. And Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched his [Moses'] genitalia with it, and said, "Truly you are a bridgegroom of blood to me." So he [YHWH] withdrew from him [Moses]. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood by circumcision."

This interpretation may thus suggest that the circumcision of the child has protected him from being sacrificed by his father, Moses, as though it functions as a substitution ritual. In this context, it is notable that Arabic hatana, circumcise, as been related to Akkadian hatanu, protect. Moreover, the wider context of this story is the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn and the saving of the Israelite firstborn during the Passover, one biblical term for which is fe-samek-het, "protect". Significantly, an alternative term employed of the Passover is ayin-vet-resh, a verb which occurs in the hiphil in numerous texts describing child sacrifice, as has been seen, including that of the firstborn (for example, Ezek 20:25-26).
The theme of circumcision reappears within the Passover narrative in the immediate aftermath of the escape from Egypt. Exod. 12:43-51 specifies who is permitted to participate within the Passover ritual. Significantly, it is only the circumcised who may eat the Passover meal. The reason for this is made explicit: the uncircumcised are foreign, and �no foreigner shall eat of it� (v.43). Circumcision defines who �Israel� is, and thus may partake of her rituals of self-identity, as verses 47-48 make plain...

I'll assume you didn't read all of that quote, but the point again is that the author believes that Moses sought to kill his son. In my opinion this doesn't change much about what we've learned from the narrative. It does bring up another mystery: why didn't Christians go for this interpretation all along? It makes Moses look bad instead of God!

Stavrakopoulou also mentions that the enigmatic "bridegroom of blood" is wordplay. In the Bible, it's always wordplay. Here's another thing: where the NRSV says she touched his (whose?) feet, in the quoted passage it's genitalia. To state it briefly, in the Old Testament references to feet or thighs are often a euphemism for genitals.

Where are we? I've made it through one sentence, plus a little more. I need to read more about the "bridegroom of blood" stuff to say more about it. If you're a scholar and I've hosed something up, please tell me about it.

^{� I am not a professor of Biblical studies or professional academic.

�� And maybe tops, sexually}

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 03:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 03:01

Mescal: Jul 23, 2005

Twigand Berries posted:

wait all that feet washing?

No, I said Old Testament.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 04:53

Mescal: Jul 23, 2005

Seth Pecksniff posted:

I'm actually reading a book rn that's a literary critique of the Bible so when I get to this section I'll let you know what it says op

That must be a very big book. What is it?

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 04:55

Mescal: Jul 23, 2005

Big Scary Owl posted:

Cool thread OP. The bibble is full of weird stuff. One of my favorites is this:

Not one, but 2 bears. Holy overkill batman.

Mauled 42 of the boys. 42. That's the bit that cracks me up.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 05:51

Mescal: Jul 23, 2005

Sophy Wackles posted:

p sure circumcision was thrown in there because at the time they didn�t have soap and it was hard to convince guys to chop their dicks off.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that circumcision was invented as a substitute for human sacrifice. It existed in their culture and others before written history. I wouldn't be surprised if it predated sacrifice. I'm saying that the narrative frames it that way. It makes sense in a story too because they're both blood magic.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 09:19

Mescal: Jul 23, 2005

Devils Affricate posted:

There's a lot of "kissing of feet" in the Bible. Were they talking about blowjobs??

i don't actually remember much kissing of feet but that's probably regular prostration that ordinary people do all the time. it's usually clear from context and knowing the tropes when this stuff is sexual

# ¿ Jun 22, 2022 00:15

Mescal: Jul 23, 2005

mods move this thread to another subforum

# ¿ Jun 25, 2022 20:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 03:01

Mescal: Jul 23, 2005

naem posted:

�I the lord your God am totally the toughest you guys, and hey don�t, kill kids wtf who does that. Also clean your gross dicks maybe. I don�t know. Quit worshiping cows they�re food.�

Are you talking about the golden calf? I'm iffy on that one. I think it's more about iconoclasm than monotheism. I lean toward the opinion that the golden calf was just a statue of God. I think if it were meant to be a different god they'd have named it. YHWH was a bull. Sometimes. There's a famous piece of pottery depicting/labeled "YHWH and his Asherah," that's His wife, they're both bovine, they both have a penis, and then there are two smaller less anthropomorphic bovines with penises and the smaller one is sucking the bigger one's penis.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2022 09:23

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Weird Bible: Zipporah at the inn