 |
"And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad called the altar 'ED,'for it shall be a witness between us that the Lord is God. Joshua 22:34
WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THIS TERM "ED" OTHER THAN "DIVISION." PLEASE CITE SOURCE. Thank you.
Bobbye
P.S. I just want the origin/definition of the term "Ed" -- not the interpretation of the verse(s). Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbye
First approach -
The word "ED" in Joshuah 23 is not in the Hebrew text, but is 'supplied,' as are many words on the grounds of common sense.
Still looking...
MORGANITE
:)
Perhaps this will assist you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbye
The Altar of witness” in Joshua 22, was the name of the altar erected between the tribes of Israel that had settled either side of the Jordan. It reminded them of their common heritage, and a binding of them by their God to the land itself, which vouchsafed to them a permanent inheritance for as long as they served Him. The altar itself was the witness, or reminder to the tribes that they belonged together and were bound by the Sinaiatic Covenant.
‘ed [no capitals in Hebrew], 'ed, sounding as along ‘a’ as in 'mate', is used to signify: witness, testimony, evidence (of things), and witness (of people). ‘ed is used several times in the Old Testament of witness, except where a plural form is required, in which case the word is, 'edah – sounds like Ada, but with the last ‘a’ drawn out. This form is always plural and refers to testimony, witness, and is only ever and used in relation to laws as divine testimonies.
In the case of Joshua 22:23, we have a Priestly account of the departure of the trans-Jordanic tribes, at which time the Altar of Witness was erected. I am tempted to say that it was as if two lovers were parting and broke a token in half to be perpetual reminders of their love, but that does not quite fit the case. What they did was to raise an altar as a symbol of their unity in separation.
The altar was built on Jordan’s West Bank, (some say on the East Bank!) and was probably intended to underscore the religious unity of the tribes on either side. It is possible, that it refers to an incident occurring as a result of King Josiah’s reforms, and which the Priestly writer has transferred to this earlier period for didactic purposes.
The speculation for this rests upon the fact that Deuteronomistic writers do not regard the law of the single sanctuary as binding until the after the Temple was built, but those of the Priestly school believe that it was always in force.
So, it is suggested, the writer here wishes to point a moral for the men of his day by adorning a story of the zeal displayed by their forefathers in upholding the law.
The theological standpoint of Joshua is covenental, and reflects the religious traditions of both Exodus and Deuteronomy. Joshua records the faithfulness of God to the provisions of the Covenant, but it is also clear that concurrently the Israelites failed at an early period of their history to conform to the Divine Plan for their Destiny (see 17:13, 18:3).
Although Hebrew morale was doubtless higher under Joshua than it had been under Moses, the threat of a lapse into pagan nature-worship and a return to polytheism was a real and present danger (see Numbers 25:2f, Deuteronomy 4:3, 23).
The Altar of Witness would also, it was hoped, serve as a reminder of their Covenant relationship with el shaddai. The Hebrews were required to bear spiritual witness to the essentially moral and holy nature of their god, and fidelity to this cause would determine the way in which the kingdom ideals would be realized.
Although the Israelites failed in this high endeavour, as their subsequent history proves, the concept of a divine kingdom became from that time an indelible element of Hebrew spiritual consciousness.
MORGANITE
:)
23.34 ‘And the children of Reuben, and the children of Gad, called the altar [Ed], for ‘it is a witness between us that Yahweh is God’.’
The actual name is not in the Massoretic Text. However it is found in some Hebrew manuscripts and in the Pe****ta (the Syriac version). We could translate ‘named the altar’ (as LXX) but the explanatory phrase following it anticipates a name having been given. Thus the name Ed, meaning witness, is possibly to be inserted although it was not in the text used for the LXX which has ‘And Joshua gave a name to the altar of the children of Reuben, and the children of Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and said, It is a testimony in the midst of them, that the Lord is their God.’
Whichever is correct it is clear that the altar was given a name that indicated that it was a witness between His people on the east of Jordan, and those on the west, that they recognised Yahweh as their only God.
Found in :
The Book of Joshua, A Commentary
www.angelfire.com/ok/bibleteaching/joshua.html
God bless,
MaggieB
I agree. It is noteworthy that Hebrew names that we modern western people take for proper nouns are often statements that declared the purpose or design or, in the case of people, something of their origin or destiny.
Whenever the story was written, the altar seems to be the unifier of peoples who were separated - divided. The need to keep Israel intact although physically separated could be the reason the altar was built; to remind those on one side of the flood, and those on the other, that they were still one people 'under God' and, or even greater importance, under one Covenant with yhvh.
Although neither of the two Israelitish kingdoms, Judah or Israel, can be said to have pleased God in their religious life and choices, keeping alive the idea that they were bound inextricably to the God of Heaven, and to each other, is a potent force for setting the general direction of a people who were struggling to grow into an identity whose parameters had been set by God Himself, which they had willingly taken upon themselves, between God and themselves, for their temporal and spiritual blessing.
Thus, the Altar of Witness - 'ed' means 'witness' - is a seal, or ratification, that the Covenant is in force and also a perpetual reminder that they were a Covenant people bound each to each as well as to God wherever in the land they dwelt.
MORGANITE
:)
Thanks, Maggie and Morganite.
Excellent material.
My comments: "The altar -- so named "Ed" in the KJV -- was actually a "bloodless altar" that separated the 2-1/2 tribes on the east side of the Jordan from the 9-1/2 tribes on the west side. The altar was not erected for sacrifices, therefore, not pleasing to God." This is comparable to liberalism today that denies the Blood of Jesus. It is divisive!
As Morganite pointed out, the term "ed" (pronounced "ayed") is "a witness, etc." The bloodless altar was erected merely as a testimony that the 2-1/2 tribes would remain separated from the 9-1/2 tribes on the east. Altars were to be used for sacrifice. The "ed" was not constructed with "sacrifice" as its function.
The "ed" is what I was seeking and you have supplied the reference.
Thanks.
Bobbye
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 AM. |