Deuteronomy 26-34, Book of Joshua 1-15

I was just wondering, because God goes to great lengths to explain that bad things would only happen to his people if they strayed from him,why it is that Exodus begins by explaining that the bondage in Egypt happened because of a regime change after the time of Joseph.  Just something to think about.

Deuteronomy continues the the job of summarizing what has come before, and finally gets around to reintroducing the significance of Joshua, making a heavy case for him.  I'll have more on that in a moment.

I'd also like to make mention of the fact that God says the ark of the covenant needs to be plastered.  I don't think that was mentioned previously, when God was being incredibly specific about all that.

There's another song that reads like a psalm, with an emphasis on the Rock, which is I think the second time the idea is mooted in the books of Moses.  In Christianity, Jesus famously rechristens Simon as Peter because it means the Rock, which he intends to build his church on.  Peter is a Joshua figure, by the way.

There's mention that the Hebrews void of counsel may be something of a breach of contract, which may explain what happened to them in Egypt, because that was a significant breach in the Genesis lineage.  I've been bringing that up regularly.  This may have something to do with explaining what befell Balaam, a prophet who failed to sway a people in the direction of God.  God doesn't like that sort of thing.

Moses dies, and Deuteronomy ends by noting that there has been no prophet like him since.  There are plenty of other prophets that follow in the Old Testament, but at later times, and of course Christians have Jesus as the new Moses.

The Book of Joshua may be a continuation of Deuteronomy just as Acts is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke.  Didn't I say something like that previously?  At any rate it's a clear distinction from the way other some of the other books chronicling Moses present themselves.  God is still active, but he's not the God who spent all his time building a culture with rules.  He's more like the God who believes in war and conquest above all else, which to be fair Moses also experienced, but not quite to this heavy extent.

Another difference in perspective is the phrasing of what happened to the Red Sea after the flight from Egypt.  Here it's described as melting, several times.  Tradition, and earlier narratives, have it as being parted.  There's a clear difference.  I stated previously that perhaps the later books of Moses were written sooner than the earlier ones.  This difference may be a sign of things not being solidified yet.  Who looks to the Book of Joshua for information concerning the flight from Egypt anyway?

It may also be worth noting that there's a city called Adam, and it doesn't reference the first man in the passage at all.  Possibly indicates where the name came from, or what it inspired, much as the name Eve is described in Genesis itself as having in itself significance beyond being the name of the first woman.  So another indication that Book of Joshua, like Deuteronomy, came first, and Genesis was solidified later, like a Hollywood prequel.

One bit of continuity is the ending of God providing manna.  However, no mention of quail, which is far less famous, and perhaps for this very reason.  He seemed to provide it for the first time twice anyway.

Another lost heroic woman of the Old Testament is the harlot Rabah, who was a citizen of a Jericho who like Lot was the one good person living there, providing shelter for Joshua's scouts and thus securing her and her family's survival in the most famous conquest of the book (she reads like a preview of women in the New Testament).  But there are more.  Many more.  There was certainly war and conquest elsewhere, but here it's so jubilant and almost the whole point entirely, as if it's the template for what is described in earlier instances.  God does tell Joshua how to do it, but again, that's a marked difference between the interactions God has with his chosen representative and all the covenants and social outlines he spent his time reiterating in previous books.

There is a link, however, with the God of Genesis, insofar as Joshua making at least one deal with citizens of a land the Hebrews approach, even though it quickly degenerates into even more war.  That's what Abraham was famous for, a little like the Solomon of his day, a wise ruler (except for tricking people into thinking his wife was his sister).

Jerusalem is mentioned for the first time.  It is one of five kingdoms that attempt to unite against the Hebrew hoard.  Gaza is mentioned, too.  God points out the Philistines to the aging Joshua.  We met them in Genesis, but things didn't end well then, and they will only get worse later.

As if in confirmation of my observations, the Book of Joshua provides another summaries of Moses' conquests.  Here Balaam is mentioned again, this time as a soothsayer.  It may be entirely possibly that God's previously inexplicable crusade against the magical kind of all variations is a reaction to other relationships he's tried to make that failed, unlike with Abraham and his descendants.  You fail, like Balaam, and you become dead to him, an abomination.  He demands success above all else.  Obedience is about as important to him as human life in general.  He tests and tests, and if you fail, he smites you.  The end.

Caleb is finally referenced again!  At this point he has become another Esau or Lot, someone whose story has branched off from the main record that is the Bible.  It is no doubt very likely that people at that time had a lot more stories.  I'm beginning to wish I had access to those, too.  I like these lost figures like Balaam and Caleb, who begins to sound, in the Book of Joshua, almost like a classic Greek warrior.

The Jebusites, one of several tribes routinely referenced in the books of Moses as antagonistic to God's wishes for his people, are referenced as occupying Jerusalem "to this day," another indication that the memory as of the composing of this book was probably fairly recent.  They also read like the predecessors of today's Palestinians.

Deuteronomy 6-25

Sometimes as I'm reading it seems the later books of Moses may have actually been written first.  I know I've already suggested that Exodus itself predated Genesis, and keeping in mind I'm not approaching this from a scholar's perspective.  These are the impressions I get from reading through the Bible.  Another observation is that these books of Moses may be comparable to the gospels of the New Testament, perhaps one or more of them independently composed (there may be a case to be made of a link between Exodus and Leviticus, like Luke and Acts).

Deuteronomy, meanwhile, makes strong Christian waves the further I read into it.  "Man does not live on bread alone," which is something Jesus says in Matthew, pops up.  Again, Christians seem concerned mostly with the big stories from the Old Testament, and then the later prophets, but there's a ton of material in the early books as well.  Deuteronomy is also where love is first referenced in relation to God, and of course that was another of Jesus's favorite edicts.

Another interesting phrase that has nothing to do with Christianity is, "since I am not speaking to your children who have not known or seen it," which is Moses speaking for God, very strongly suggesting the time in which the Moses chronicles began to be solidified out of oral tradition as being very much removed from the Moses experience itself, where there would be far less direct contact with God, when there was clearly plenty of it in the early books.  This is the first mark of distinction between the traditions the Moses books are meant to introduce and those who are later living them.  A lot of the talk about how God claims several generations (at least; because he proclaims as many as ten sometimes) are not allowed to come back into the faith for various offenses or statuses may also indicate how long from the origin point the stories become codified, because the contemporaries of the record will know exactly how long certain families have been excluded from the community.

And yes, I will go on record suggesting that there was a fair bit of interpreting and not strictly experienced material in these books.  The term "divinely inspired" is kicked around a lot by those who want you to believe everything, but even those who make that effort could not possibly translate what are clearly things relevant only to a specific and very much in the past living condition.  You should not read the Bible as if you need to take everything as if it really was and always will be that way.  Because you will probably not be a believer on the other side of the experience.  It's not a surprise that for a long time the actual reading of scripture was kept to a minimum, even considering basic literacy levels.  There's only so much interpreting that can be done.  You need to be able to think critically.  The material that has been included (and there are certain books that aren't in every version although I will be covering some of this apocrypha because it's in mine, and I love me some Tobit) has the greatest amount of religious significance.  By the time anyone realized how much duplicated material existed in the books of Moses, it was probably too late, the same way the gospels present similar biographies for Jesus but material that appears in one or two but not all of them.  Anyway, there's always the chance I will be smited, and so be considered officially sacrilegious.  But even material of this kind can be lost in the boundless sea that is the internet.  Even though it's apparently incredibly rare to actually read the whole Bible and notice these things, there's a very small chance someone else will stumble upon these thoughts and actually care.

The concept of a Hebrew king is referenced for the first time.

God seems to have remarked on a lot of cultures where the offspring are burned as part of a sacrificial offering.  I find this incredibly frightening.

God also doesn't take kindly to the magical arts.  I figure it's because of competition to miracles and such.  This comes up every now and then, although this is the first time it's gone into with any depth.  Normally it was just "they must be smited.  the end."  He then codifies the tradition of prophecy, and even warns against false prophets.  It seems to be implied that the work of prophets can probably be confirmed in a lifetime, something both Jews and Christians have a hard time considering.  Both are institutions that become as much a culture as a faith as time goes on.

The institution of the three path rule is pretty interesting, three cities on the outskirts of every settlement so that those guilty of accidental murder have a place to flee to (so those pursuing them can't guess right away where they went).  Although this is one of the ways where justice has a chance to flourish, God still seems to have a lot of reasons people need to be executed, mostly by stoning.  God, I ask, or Moses?  It's probably easy to assume the one goes hand-in-hand with the other, but that may not be necessarily so.  A little later, Moses talks about divorce, which Jesus specifically contradicts, saying Moses gave this rule as an appeasement to the people of his time.  There is also a contradiction in Deuteronomy to something said in an earlier book (I'm giving you homework to discover where and/or to confirm that I'm not misremembering) about the ability of a man to marry his brother's widow.  I'm pretty sure that it was stated previously that this is wrong, but here Moses says it's okay, that it preserves a family line already begun.  Family lines were incredibly important in Genesis, but not as much in the books of Moses, except to discuss the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob, or in other words the twelve tribes.  Moses himself is descended from Levi, who was previously not significant in a positive way, and all Levites are made the first priestly class.

Finally, it's made official that usury is okay as long as it's with gentiles.  So that ensures Jews never have problems with their neighbors again!

Did I say "finally"?  Not really!  Because poor Balaam is referenced again, completely ignoring a whole narrative that paints him in incredibly honorable light and condemning him for Moses' misconception that results in an ignominious death.  Thus begins the full burial job that Revelation later echoes.  This may be another sign that the folks putting the Bible together either just didn't realize the Balaam narrative was there or didn't care to eliminate it.  Or perhaps to suggest Moses' imperfection.  But that still leaves the rest of us, because no one ever talks about Balaam, and certainly not as a wise prophet who greatly helped the exiled Hebrews.  If you want to remember the guy himself, please keep that in mind.  A forgotten hero of the faith.

Numbers 21-36, Deuteronomy 1-5

It strikes me as I'm reading, the deep and perhaps hidden significance of the serpent in Old Testament lore.  In Genesis the serpent was always interpreted to be the Devil in disguise, tempting Eve into enacting original sin, cursed by God ever after to wriggle on its belly, and there are other passages about this sorry fate.  And yet in Exodus God also has Moses and Aaron turn the staff trick of transforming it into a serpent, and the image returns in Numbers in an equally famous episode that the medical establishment later adopted, of serpents that God had sent against his continually mischievous people and then the one he asks Moses to place upon a staff to cure them.

So which is it?  Are serpents representations of evil, or are they perhaps after all agents of God?  The Old Testament is littered with God testing his people, who are constantly failing (except Abraham with his near-sacrifice of Isaac, which seems to be the defining point for the foundation of Judaism).  Maybe this whole time we've been misinterpreting the serpent in the garden.  Maybe God always intended man to become aware of his regular duties, which he'd already been given anyway, to be lord and master of the earth much as God is Lord of everything else (and man).  God has a terrible time accounting for all the ways mankind disappoints him, including his own chosen people, and spends a lot of time smiting them in the early books.  He could have just as easily done the job the first time, but didn't.  Sometimes failure is permanent, but the larger point is that God is constantly testing mankind.

And his agent that first time was a serpent.  Put aside the curse he levels against it.  He continues using serpents in the books that follow.  I'm not trying to upend theology here, but these things keep coming to me.  (Don't smite me!)

Anyway, Numbers gets a ton more interesting with the introduction of and narrative that follows Balaam for a while.  There's this whole story of this prophet who exists entirely outside of the Hebrew lineage, an independent phenomenon in direct communication with God.  His whole story is how he gets out of having to condemn the Hebrews as they continue their journey toward the promised land.  It's like the Bible suddenly splits off into an entirely new story filled with its own mythology, right in the middle of the Moses arc.  His own lord and master is displeased each time Balaam reports what God has told him, that he keeps evading the prospect of taking out the Hebrews.

Unfortunately, his narrative ends abruptly, we switch back to Moses, and the next and last time he's brought up Balaam is summarily executed as a collaborator with the enemy, even listed as a villainous presence who actively conspired against the Hebrews.  There's apparently even something about it in Revelation.  The guy's whole reputation is entirely slandered, even though he clearly was working the opposite of how he ends up being perceived, and to make it all the worse, probably no one outside of devoted scholars are even aware today that he ever existed.  Not cool.  So that's another way my ruminations on the Bible will deviate from the record.  Balaam represents an important development in the history of God's interaction with mankind.  He's confirmation that God didn't just pal up with Abraham and his descendants.  And another way in which Moses kind of ended up doing his own smiting along the way, when God failed to do it himself.

There's an interesting phrase to be found here, "son of man," that is associated with repentance, which is another thing later Christians could probably call their own from the earliest books even though they mostly seem concerned with the prophetic later ones.

The classic pagan god Baal is referenced for the first time, as are Hebrew judges, which becomes important later, notably in the books of Judges.

A man named Phinehas manages to talk God out of another round of smiting, which puts him on a certain kind of level with Moses, who managed the fete earlier (and himself then proceeded to smite in the same righteous manner).  This seems significant.  His name, however, has since been forgotten.  Making a note of it here all the same.

Jericho is referenced for the first time.

A second census is carried out, now that a considerable amount of smiting has occurred..  God is also asked to consider women as capable of inheriting property, which he grants.  So that's another positive indication for women in the face of a number of other examples that don't paint them in such favorable light.

Joshua is officially deemed Moses' successor.  God outlines the holy days.  The Judaic tradition of holy war continues, presaging the Crusades and much of what Islam has become.  The exiles start to settle down, which initially causes God discomfit, but he decides to play along.  Canaan, the promised land, is identified as such.  High priests are referenced for the first time, another thing Christians will definitely recognize.

Deuteronomy, the fourth book of Moses and fifth of the Old Testament, begins with something Numbers had done in a different way, recapping the journey to this point.  The Deuteronomy version highly favors the most favorable Judaic interpretation of events.  It also comes in the form of a great speech on the part of Moses, who had initially beggared God to ask for someone else (i.e. Aaron) to do the talking because he was a poor public speaker.  Here he has no problem at all, and seems to relish the role.

The descendants of Esau and Lot are encountered, who are not part of the Hebrew exiles from Egypt.  They are part of separate traditions.  Imagine a Bible that includes their stories as well, or even Balaam's.

The most striking element now seems how easily war-like and conquer-happy the Hebrews are at God's behest.  They sound like Alexander the Great, or Attila the Hun, that sort of phenomenon.  They fight and beat everyone, and assume their territory for their own, a small (relatively speaking) scrappy band of warriors always good for a fight.  You could easily make a movie about Moses and do almost nothing but warfare.

The ten commandments are referenced again, specifically as a covenant.  My interpretation of them will continue to be in the air.  The familiar ones end up being reiterated, in case you'd forgotten, although at that point are not spoken of in relation to a covenant.  God, as I will argue for now, seems far more interested in emphasizing the way to worship him than the moral codes that dominate the latter of the traditional ten commandments, some of which he goes to great lengths to interpret given specific circumstances again and again, such as murder.

That is all for now.

Numbers 1-20

Numbers, the third book of Moses, fourth overall in the New Testament, takes its name from the fact that God asks Moses to conduct an census of all the Hebrews he's led out of Egypt.  Each of the twelve tribes of Israel (descendants of Jacob's twelve sons, in other words) are counted.  For the record, Judah's family was the most productive in the fruitful-and-multiplying business, with Dan coming in second.  Joseph's was a comfortable middle-of-the-pack performer.  Levi's brood is not counted, though, since the Levites are quickly tapped as the keepers of the first temple, God's switch in exchange for the strict tithing of all first-borns he'd previously called dibs on.

I'd just like to say it's amazing what a little time will do.  Sure, the twelve tribes had a significant role in Jewish history, but in Genesis you'd hardly know that any of the brothers besides Joseph would have had a positive role to play at all.  They sold him to Egypt, after all, and tried to convince their father that he was dead.

Then again, the Hebrews after Egypt were not exactly ones to appease God or refrain from grumbling.

Speaking of the temple keepers, they seem to have been presaging Samson in God's edict that they not cut their hair.  He'd already requested his people not round their beards or trim their sideburns, but this is going a step further.  It didn't give the Levites superpowers, and they were allowed to shorn themselves without consequence eventually, but the idea that those closest to God were also the hairiest clearly was one that had some legs to it.

A lot of Numbers also reiterates things previously experienced in the other books, which can sometimes be a little confusing.  Either that or some of the same grumbling and near-smiting occur again.  There's a new one with a fire that consumes property until Moses prayed, but there's also the return of quail, or perhaps its debut.  There are also many cultural rules outlined.

The best numbers in Numbers, weirdly enough, read like a preview of the later Twelve Days of Christmas, twelve days in which gifts are presented to bless the budding temple.

Some additional early prophesying occurs with the otherwise obscure figures of Eldad and Medad, which leads to more grumbling and eventually the premature death of Miriam, the wife of Aaron, who is exiled for a week by way of penance for her role in this latest round of discontent.  Aaron himself does not so long after.

Somewhat related, but God officially declares that Moses and all his generation will not see the promised land for themselves because of their continued wickedness (Moses not so much because of his wickedness, but because he couldn't possibly live long enough to usher the next generation; he remains a humble and awesome dude).  God appoints Joshua and the less famous Caleb as the succeeding stewards.

God swallows up a couple of negative nellies into the ground, straight to Sheol (Hell) to prove he still has a few tricks up his sleeve, and fear tactics remain one of his favorite past-times.  It doesn't quite stick, however, and so he unleashes a massive plague on his people.

The Nephilim are mentioned again, but are still not actually explained.

Numbers continues.

Exodus 31-40, Leviticus 1-27

Aaron takes on the rebellious sibling mantel as these passages from Exodus begin, helping the Hebrews cast their graven cow while Moses converses with God, only to blame it on everyone else and a huge coincidence (!) when his big brother asks him about it.  Not surprisingly, Aaron is not spoken of in such favorable terms from this point onward.

What's really interesting here, however, is the contrast between how God and Moses react to the situation.  At first, God is ready to go old school Genesis on his chosen people, to smite them out of existence and keep Moses around as another Noah, or Abraham.  Moses talks him out of it.  And then does his own smiting.  It's interesting on a number of levels.  In Genesis, Abraham has to do a fair bit of negotiating with God in order just to save Lot.  Here, and as perhaps a running commentary on a remarkable partnership overall, he has no qualms taking Moses' sage advice.  Which, again, Moses then personally undoes.

A lot of these trials the Hebrews put God through seem to be a reflection on all the plagues he visited on the Egyptians earlier, a test of faith, and on the whole they manage to pass (somehow).  If you want to know the ways in which other peoples just didn't measure up, or why the flood or sacking of Sodom and Gomorrah happened, this might be a good place to look.  A little later, as Leviticus outlines a lot of things that are called abominations, it's mighty tempting (and in fact one of the parts of the Bible people seem to have paid actually read) to assume those were the reasons he chose.

But.  And perhaps I'm about to commit blasphemy or something, but.  I think I have a revision to the ten commandments.  I mentioned before that earlier when they were gone over the specific phrase "ten commandments" was nowhere to be found.  There were in fact a lot more than ten originally.  And when they're reiterated again as God is helping Moses fashion the tables again after he's smote them in his rage, there's further source for confusion, because there's a reference that suggests when this is done only the first of the two tables is redone, but it can just as easily be interpreted as God himself redoing the first one and Moses the second.  And there's even the possibility that the ten and most important commandments are not exactly the ones everyone knows.

This is my argument.  The phrase "ten commandments" comes after a list that very specifically goes over the terms of worship God has been talking about with considerable emphasis already.  In fact, these terms are repeated so often it may be very easily understood if you want to go against millennia of tradition, that these are the rules most important to him.  Since they're not as concisely outlined as the first time God explains his rules, I have to guess exactly how they work, but here goes:

1. This one is more or less the same as the original, having no gods before God.
2. Tear down the altars of the gods of others.
3. Thou shalt not make graven images.
4. Feast of unleavened bread.
5. First-borns belong to God (which would make sense given the last plague against Egypt).
6. An ass and a lamb first-born together.
7. All human first-borns to be redeemed, which may indicate the covenant of circumcision.
8. Keep holy the Sabbath.
9. Three holy festivals throughout the year.
10. Guidelines concerning sacrificial offerings.

I may be smited before I get a chance to read the rest of the Bible.  I know this.  Carry on.

Then the ark of the covenant is put together as previously outlined, and takes about as much time to accomplish as it took to describe.  Repetitions of this nature, such a common aspect of the Bible to this point, bear the mark of oral tradition, and also maintaining awareness for the specific details later generations intended to follow active.  

That's how Exodus ends.

Leviticus is a reiteration of the rules for living previously described in Exodus, plus a few additional guidelines and even some more of God smiting people (Aaron's sons).  There's some of this that was clearly carried on for many generations after, both by Jews and Christians, although I may further court blasphemy by suggesting it's hard to pick one guideline over another when all of it was clearly geared toward the specific living conditions of that time.  The extended look at leprosy, for instance, suggests that Moses very clearly understood the sorry state of medicine in his day.  There was nothing else to do but shun the seriously sick, because otherwise there was the risk of contaminating everyone, and that would not be a great way to keep everyone alive.  When Jesus later undoes a lot of what Moses set up, such as the way he treated leprosy or some of the basic rules of how to live (not to mention the revision of the most important commandment) he's advancing the cause of civilization past what it had been before his time.  He's providing an update.  He's the new Moses, among other personifications, as well as the new Adam, born of the new Eve, which is one way Christians have a hugely positive female role model where so many of the early Old Testament women, such as the original Eve, seemed like such sorry examples to follow, and helped justify thousands of year of gender suppression.  When you read the Bible, in other words, it's a considerable case of logical fallacy to assume that all the conditions of an earlier time can be directly translated to your own.  Do Jews still sacrifice bulls?  Maybe I don't know enough about Jews today, but I don't think so.  They're very good for tradition, but that doesn't seem to be like one of those traditions they still follow.  This is not to say all the rules to be found here are invalidated, but that you can't just assume that because it's there you have to take it for its word.  Yet Jews and Christians have been doing that, selectively, for an incredibly long time.  There's even the foundation for Christian confession, later echoed, after a kind, by Jesus.  The rules against incest, by the way, were probably freshly in the minds of the Hebrews, having escaped Egyptians whose rulers practiced this to such an extent pharaohs up to and including King Tut were physically deformed because of it.  It's not just bad morally, but genetically.

That's Leviticus in a nutshell.  There is a random reference to someone named Azazel, which may be the first named indication of Satan's existence beyond the serpent in Genesis's Garden of Eden, but as in a lot of the information to be found in the early books it seems like implied knowledge, the way you might reference the Sox winning the Series today.  Chances are good most people would know what you're talking about if you say that in conversation.  In a thousand years?  Sorry, Boston fans, that will probably not be the case anymore.

One further meditation before we move onto another book of Moses.  Since I've already been making all these connections between Old and New Testament, a lot of people tend to see a disconnect between the presentation of God between them.  Given that Jesus is presented as the son of God and in fact God himself, and that he can display many of the same attributes as the God of Abraham, I don't find this as much of a stretch.  When God speaks with Jesus, he never comes right out, but hides, the way he does around Moses, since otherwise would be deadly to anyone else.  There's also the transfiguration, which is another event very similar to what we're told about God in his relationship with Moses.

It can challenge your faith to read the Bible, if you reading the Bible.  You begin to see holes in the logic.  If you must believe everything, you may choose to believe nothing at all, because there's certainly that possibility.  As a whole, however, as I'm reading, I'm seeing how the answers you need to overcome these challenges are in there already.  The God who smote the earth in a flood was talked down by Moses later.  God is never presented as perfect.  He believes he's made a giant mistake several times.  He knows he has very real rivals.  (You may want to read Neil Gaiman's American Gods for a theory as to what happens to a god when people stop believing in them.)  And yet he kindles a special relationship, gives mankind every chance to redeem himself.  And if you're a Christian, you see that he takes the definitive move a little later to do the redemption himself.  Jews and Christians disagree on a lot of points.  Maybe as I continue to read I'll better understand how Jews decided to forgo the leap of faith that led to Christianity.  In a lot of ways, their promised land exists today in Israel.  Do, or did or will, they have the mighty ruler they prophesied as their messiah?  Who knows?  

The journey continues.

Exodus 16-30

Hey, so did you know Moses was married and had kids?  No?  Well, that's another of the marked differences between Exodus and its predecessor Genesis.  The remarkable thing is that Aaron, although less famous, still has about equal billing, as I've suggested before a lot like an improved Jacob/Esau situation.

Another thing I haven't mentioned yet but keeps coming up is the significance of repeated numbers.  Here, besides all the sevens and forties that stretch back to Genesis, is the emphasis on three, which is another thing the New Testament borrows (actually, all three numbers, although the three days bit is easily the most important one).

As the action picks up, the Hebrews have commenced with their bellyaching and Moses discusses this with God, who comes up with the idea of manna, which also supports his seven day pattern.  Less famous are the quails that serve as dinner with equal regularity as the appearance of the manna in the early morning hours.  Then they grumble about water and God gives them that, too.

And then they go to war, the episode that involves Moses holding his arms up and then having them propped up so his side prevails.  This marks the first references to Joshua, who will eventually become his successor.  As I was saying, in Genesis, Joshua would have been his son, or at least have been introduced earlier or at any rate less randomly.  Then comes a good bit revolving around Jethro, the father of Moses' phantom wife.  What follows is basically the institution of the priestly order, at least as Christians would understand it.

Then God scares everyone by appearing as thunder and lightning, and then what is supposed to be the Ten Commandments.  Except maybe slightly later in Exodus they're reduced only to the first ten in terms of general importance, because although those are certainly the first and featured, there follow many more.  Many more.  In fact, some of them appear to be clarifications for some of the first ones you know already, all sorts of rules governing what constitutes acceptable (!) murder and what doesn't, for instance.  Actually, the whole thing is like setting up the basic rules of a society, like the pillar inscribed with the code of Hammurabi, which predates Moses by some five hundred years.  (The Bible, incidentally, is first codified perhaps a thousand years or so after its initial events take place.  So the things we know from roughly the time of the Dark Ages is the kind of memory the Jews would've sustained until making an official account of it.)

And then God gives Moses incredibly (incredibly) detailed instructions for the famed ark of the covenant (or, the title object from Indiana Jones's first adventure, Raiders of the Lost Ark).  In a sense, this is an echo from another ark entirely, but again, incredibly detailed.  Noah's ark did not come with nearly these many instructions, although to be fair it was only meant to have two of every creature and not God himself within it.  This also serves as the foundation of Jewish temples and Christian churches, even down to the necessary vestments to be worn by the priests or rabbis within them.

And, certainly, God bless anyone who has the fortitude to read through all of it.  Although again, these passages also clearly allude to other gods besides God Almighty, the Lord as acknowledged even by God himself.  When he calls himself a jealous god, now you know why.

Exodus 5-15

Before I go much further, I should note that Exodus is not only where God becomes known as Yahweh, but also the Lord.

Moses and Aaron are now busy at the work of convincing the Pharaoh of Egypt to let the Hebrews, or people of Israel (at this point a person rather than a country) go out into the wilderness to pray.  They aren't even asking for freedom, just a chance to pray.  It's Pharaoh's stubbornness and pressing the issue that leads to the title event, and further wandering toward the promised land.  Since the time of Abraham they have been living in the lands of others, whether it be Philistines or Canaanites, and until the Egyptians at least to the point of Joseph they have only been able to win the good graces rather than full cooperation of their hosts.  Always the struggle.  I think the point of the Egyptian bondage might actually be to explain why Egypt never really expanded like other empires.  Clearly one of the most notable of the ancient civilizations, leaving a clear and lasting legacy, but in the end not quite like the Greeks or Romans.  God says several times that he's making Pharaoh "harden his heart" and make the situation worse in order to make a lasting impression on Egypt.  Unlike, say, Romans and the emerging Christian faith, it's not exactly that the result of all this is to make Egyptians into a Hebrew nation.

It's very interesting, too, that although described as Hebrews and therefore part of the Abrahamic tradition, the people Moses and Aaron free are not apparently all that aware of the specifics of their faith, especially how much they're supposed to care about God.  This may explain all the bellyaching that will follow, not to mention the Golden Calf episode, or perhaps merely denote that once again, the chroniclers of the Moses tradition were fully aware that there were other gods acknowledged even by God himself, who also makes reference to the Egyptian pantheon whose components have survived to this day in a mythology many people still know plenty about.

The genealogy work I was looking for early finally does show up.  Although similar in almost every respect, it's still not really as comprehensive as the family lines described in Genesis.  Readers of the Bible may have to wait for the even more exhaustive lineage ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament.

Also at this point God does not seem to need an intermediary of any kind to speak with Moses, although this will be necessary again later.  They talk just like anyone else did in Genesis.

Then the inducements begin:

• rod-into-snake
• Nile-and-other-water-into-blood
• frogs
• gnats (the first one Pharaoh's magicians couldn't duplicate)
• flies
• livestock plague
• boils
• hail
• locusts
• three days of darkness
• death of the first-borns (carried out by God himself)

The last of these also has the effect of establishing the tradition of the Passover, as you probably know already.

And finally, Pharaoh follows the edict to "let my people go," and the title event finally occurs.  But that still not being enough, and perhaps not enough to explain the curious lack of forward momentum on the part of Egypt itself, Moses then parts the Red Sea and then allows it to crash down on the pursuing Egyptian military.

And then my favorite part of this section, which is perhaps the first psalm, a poem about everything that has just occurred, the great victory.  It's really pretty awesome and deserves more recognition than I'm currently aware it gets.

Genesis 41-50, Exodus 1-4

The grand sweep of Genesis concludes in Egypt as Joseph talks his way out of trouble, interpreting the Pharaoh's dreams and attaining a position just below him in importance.  Joseph's brothers come to him and he hides his true identity from them, repeating another pattern in the Bible to this point.  He pushes it just far enough to have his kid brother Benjamin placed in the position God had Abraham place Isaac.  Different circumstances, same general need to play the ultimate test.

The points I really want to stress, however, are how Joseph and his brothers echo Cain/Abel and Jacob/Esau and even the later Moses/Aaron, and just perhaps Jesus, whose single existence comprised the dual nature of God and man.  Which of the two sides wins in the struggle?  The point is never really the victory, because victory is sometimes not even possible, but rather to strike a contrast between them, and illustrate God's relationship to man and therefore man's relationship to God.  More narrowly, Joseph may simply be called a predecessor to Jesus, how he relates to the Pharaoh, how he represents both himself and his people.  His people, by the way, who continue to live, by choice, in exile, but always preferring in personal matters their own.  By the end of Genesis, Jacob has died and then Joseph dies, but not before, as Jacob has done before him, prophesying about the future, or in other words the fulfillment of the covenant God has been making with Abraham and his descendants for all prosperity and a land to call their own.

Then begins the second book of the Bible, Exodus, and with it a swift contrast in the fortunes of Hebrews in Egypt.  The old pharaoh who came to rely so favorably on Joseph has passed away and the new one greatly fears the shear number of Hebrews living within his kingdom, so he subjugates them rather than allow his fear of a revolt or uprising to come to pass.  Like Jesus later, all the male offspring become subject to genocide, but the Hebrews prove crafty and avoid the inevitable fate of their kind, saving their little boys, and of course famously in the case of Moses.

He's sent in a basket down the river and ends up in the Pharaoh's palace, and grows up a regular Joseph, until he remarks on the oppression of his own people, and then goes into exile, finds his birth family, and then incidentally runs into a bush lit by an angel and then inhabited by God, who charges him with the salvation of the oppressed Hebrews, who are suddenly keen to begin looking for that promised land.  He doesn't feel up to the task of doing the speaking for himself, so he asks if it's okay that his brother Aaron do it for him.  God says it's okay.

The way God presents himself is a key difference, by the way, between Exodus and Genesis.  God even gives himself a name, which is later translated for simplicity's sake to Yahweh, although the basic statement is that he is God because he's the only being in creation who's always "is."

What's really notable here is how definitive the transition from Genesis to Exodus really is.  Although the circumstances around Joseph serve as a bridge, Exodus makes no attempt at the same kind of genealogical comprehensiveness as Genesis.  Moses is left pretty much to appear at random.  He is descended from Levi, marking the first point this particular son of  Jacob is considered significant, much less in a positive light.  

It's just as if Exodus originally stood apart from Genesis, or that it was composed first and Genesis second, like a prequel, to explain where the Hebrews came from in the first place and how their faith developed, or a justification for the new emphasis on finding a homeland, which makes Genesis to become the first work of prophecy in more ways than one in the Bible, assuming there's an equal chance it developed first.  It seems as if Moses came about independently, certainly within the awareness of the Abrahamic tradition but separate from it, which is why in the early parts of Genesis some knowledge is implied whereas in the later parts it's inferred.  Moses is the start of the Jewish traditions still practiced today.  That's why the first books of the Bible are dedicated to him so completely, even Genesis, where he doesn't even appear.  The way Christians view the Old Testament is how Jews view Genesis in regard to Moses.  He's the whole reason anyone should care about it.  Pretty shocking, when you consider how significant most of that material is, at least culturally.