Dean Anderson

I recently posted this on another discussion board, and I was hoping that you learned guys here could give me some feedback...

Here is the ASV translation of the start of Exodus 32...

This passage at first glance seems quite confusing. To summarise it...

1) The people ask Aaron to 'make them gods'.
2) Aaron makes a golden statue of a calf, and says 'here are your gods' that brought you out of Egypt.
3) Aaron then plans a feast to Yahweh.
4) This pisses off Yahweh.

Now from this, it seems that Aaron is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. He makes a single statue - but then says "These are your gods" (plural). Also, Aaron is apparently making a new god - but then saying it is the one that brought them out of Egypt. The crowd all know that that it was Yahweh that did that, so who is he trying to kid. Thirdly, if Aaron is inventing a new god - why does he then declare a feast to Yahweh instead of declaring a feast to his new god? Not to mention the question of why the people would suddenly want to make themselves new gods after all that Yahweh has done for them...

The whole thing just doesn't make sense as translated here.

I think that what we have here is the usual translation issue with 'Elohim' being either single or plural.

The various references to "gods" all appear to be usages of the word "Elohim" (in different tenses). If we take 'Elohim' here as being the singular, the translation takes a wholly different form...

So, to repeat the earlier summary, but with 'Elohim' taking the singular translation:

1) The people want an image of Yahweh to lead them in the absence of Moses.
2) Aaron makes a statue of a calf (or bullock) and says "Here is your god".
3) Aaron plans a feast to Yahweh in front of his new statue of him.
4) This pisses off Yahweh - who doesn't approve of such statuary and images.

This version makes much more sense, and the actions of the characters (particularly Aaron) are much more consistent here.

If 'Elohim' is treated as singular rather than plural, the passage is not about Aaron inventing a god. It is about Aaron making an image of Yahweh (in the form of a calf or bullock) that can be used as a standard to lead the people in the absence of Moses.

This translation appears to be much more internally consistent and to solve the problems suffered by the "standard" translation.

Am I barking up the wrong tree here with this translation?

Or is it likely that the ASV translator has radically altered the intended meaning of the story - making the Israelites appear to completely turn away from Yahweh rather than just offend him?

Jack the Bodiless

I've read an explanation of this in terms of the transition from Elohim-worship to YHWH-worship. YHWH was the new God of Moses (though still part of the pantheon headed by El): Aaron encouraged worship of the old head-god El, which annoyed the YHWH-ists.

...Though he also ordered a feast to "Jehovah" (YHWH), so it seems that he still wished to pay special respect to YHWH within El's pantheon. Given this context, Aaron's action seems reasonable. It's as if a legion of Romans survived a difficult sea journey, erected a statue of Jupiter, ordered a feast to Neptune for his role in granting safe passage, and were then castigated by their leader who was actually a fundie Neptune-worshipper who wanted to promote his deity over the traditional pantheon.

Loomis

No. Not from what I understand.

Here’s my two cents:

According to the things I’ve read, “calf� is a poor translation. A better translation is “bull.� And this is a reference to the Canaanite / Ugartitic / Hebrew bull-god El.

Understand that Yahweh and El were originally two separate gods, but eventually they got combined into one and wound up on a dollar bill.

It looks to me like the “Aaron� character represented a group of people who believed (or otherwise insisted) that El and Yahweh were the same god. They were “bad guys� for trying to combine features of both gods (Yahwists had sacrifices, El-worshipers worshiped a golden bull).

I think that the author of Exodus 32 was a strict Yahwist who knew exactly who El was, and was trying to emphasize YAHWEH IS NOT EL. FUCK EL. FORGET ABOUT EL. DO NOT COMBINE EL WITH YAHWEH.

Am I making any sense?

Of course the author didn’t get his wish, as Yahweh and El eventually morphed.

Praise God Almighty.

Loomis

I understand why you say that. In certain parts of the OT Yahweh is definitely portrayed as one of El’s 70 sons. But like I said in my post above, in this verse it looks to me like the “Aaron� character is promoting the idea that YAHWEH IS EL, and that the “Moses� character is promoting their idea that YAHWEH IS NOT EL.

Notice in verse 32:5 that “Aaron� proclaims that the bull image is of Yahweh. It makes no mention of a two-tier hierarchy or subordinance.

Toto

I heard, in a lecture on a related subject (although I have not checked this out) that the Golden Calf was based on Egyptian sun worship. The Egyptians thought that the sky dome was the underside of a great cow, which gave birth every morning to a Golden Calf = the sun.

There is support for that theory here

Dean Anderson

I've heard the El connection before - from Friedman - although I was under the impression that this was a consequence of his "J" is Judean and "E" is Isreali twin-competing-kingdoms scenario, which relies on there having actually been two competing kingdoms (which we have scant if any archaeological evidence for).

If we take the more conservative assumption that the "J" and "E" sources were written later, does the El connection still work?

Loomis

Set aside Yahweh for a minute: Could this be the reason El was portrayed as a bull?

Okay, bring Yahweh back.

If someone was going to insist that Yahweh and El were the same god, and if El was known as a bull (he was), then wouldn’t it follow that Yahweh was a bull too?

What I’m getting at is this: The possibility that the “Golden Calf� borrowed/originated from Egyptian sun worship does not negate the possibility that the “Aaron� camp believed that El and Yahweh were the same god, while the “Moses� camp insisted that Yahweh was an independent/ unrelated god.

Am I making any sense?

Loomis

I have serious problems with Friedman. Go read his translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 from his book, “The Hidden Book in the Bible.�

Oops!

Sorry - the honorable Richard Elliot Friedman is unequivocally clueless.

Dear Richard Elliot Friedman, if you are reading this, please note that Deut 32:8 should read “sons of El,� and that the author has Yahweh and El in the same scene. They are not “different names of God� – according to that author they are DIFFERENT GODS!

Dharma

The alter of Yahweh itself has horns:

YAHWEH commanded Moses, "And thou shalt make an altar of shittim wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be foursquare: and the height thereof shall be three cubits. And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof: his horns shall be of the same: and thou shalt overlay it with brass Ex. 27:1-8

You shall then ordain Aaron and his sons. 10 Lead the bull up to the front of the Tent of Meeting, and let Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the head of the bull. 11 Slaughter the bull before the Lord, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, 12 and take some of the bull's blood and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger; then pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 13 Take all the fat that covers the entrails, the protuberance on the liver, and the two kidneys with the fat on them, and turn them into smoke upon the altar. 14 The rest of the flesh of the bull, its hide, and its dung shall be put to the fire outside the camp; it is a sin offering. Ex 29

Chris Weimer

Loomis - where do you get your crackpot theories from? The text clearly reads sons of Israel ב×*×™ ישר×?ל