As an aside:
The Exodus account does speak of the plural: “make us 'elohim that they go before our faces (yelechu le’faneinu)…these are ('elleh) your 'elohim, Israel.” Again, the problem here is, there is only one idol in the story, which makes the reference to the plural rather odd … some people have proposed that the Exodus account was actually inspired by that of Jeroboam rather than the other way around.
There is a major difference in interpretation; Moses, everyone would assume, came before Jeroboam. Although a particular book might not be chronological in its internal structure – none the less, people know which parts of the Law are “older” and more venerable.
For this reason, Jeroboam, is nowhere near the same as Aaron; For Jeroboam already had the old testament example of Aaron. To reverse the two is to refuse the interpretation that the authors necessarily intended in organizing the scripture in the way they did. (Even if JEDP theory…)
“odd” is true; but that means one needs to look closer, and listen carefully for other “odd” things;
For example – the Israelites say “this
man Moses” – instead of just “Moses”; In contrast they are talking about “gods” (eloh-`m). It seems clear that they want Moses to be demoted for God had already said to Moses:
(DRV)
Exodu 4:15 Speak to him, and put my words in his mouth: and I will be in thy mouth, and in his month, and will shew you what you must do.
Exodu 4:16 He shall speak in thy stead to the people, and shall be thy mouth: but
thou shalt be to him in those things that pertain to
God.
Literally Exodu 4:16: LXX
Exodu 4:16 και αυτος σοι προσλαλησει προς τον λαον και αυτος εσται σου στομα συ δε αυτω εση
τα προς τον θεον
It’s a double “The” structure “You, to him, are
THE pro the God”; which is closer to (in English idiom), “The pro, * the God”. This particular passage is where Moses is going into Egypt again – and is to face Pharaoh in a “showdown”. Moses is the “God” leader – eg: like Pharaoh (his equal).
Stop for a moment, and think about Moses’ history in Egypt:
The Egyptian God at this time is often thought to be “Ra” – and their Pharaoh is sometimes thought to be “Ramses the ???” – So, Moses, who was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter is given an Egyptian name; and some historical evidence suggests that he was originally called “Ramses” in his adopted “grand-father’s” honor; but as is traditional in Egypt, when a man turns against the ruler – his name is partially struck out; Hence Ramses would become mses the “outcast” son;
Now Hebrew scriptures did not originally contain vowels – and Moses is just משה which has “shin” suggesting a sound more like “Ramshee” than “Moses”; In every way, the scriptures support the context of Pharaoh being considered equal to a God – and Moses to be a prince and potential Pharaoh over Egyptian Israel;
The statement to Aaron takes on new meaning in this context – “Moses is just a man”, now you are the “heir” apparent (God) to
US.
In other words, their hearts were turning back to the GOVERNING style of Egypt.
Much of the rest of the comments that scripture makes about the events of the Exodus, later, indicate this to be precisely the repetitive sin of the people in the desert; desiring the “flesh” pots of Egypt – is to desire Egyptian sacrifices.
Regarding the Bull – I will need to reiterate, by Jeroboam’s time – it was clearly known that CHERUBIM were the ones the Hebrew God rode on; Bulls belong to “Bashan” – a pagan cult in the general area of the desert and promised land. It is true that bulls are a sign of “strength” – but they aren’t the strongest; The ox is.
And the ox is the sign of the strength of the twelve tribes:
1King 7:25 And [the sea, bronze bowl] it stood upon twelve oxen, of which three looked towards the north, and three towards the west, and three towards the south, and three towards the east: and the sea was above upon them, and their hinder parts were all hid within.
Jeroboam, by switching to the “bull”, was definitely talking apostasy; for it is neither the strength of Israel – nor the distinctive carrier of God – and was already condemned in the time of Aaron.
However, there is also the possibility that it refers to the Calf and
someone else (say, Aaron), nor does it consider that Jeroboam in the story may have been pointing to a single calf as well (he after all built two sanctuaries and two calves, so he may have installed one idol in each). Also, there are apparently instances when
'elohim could be used with a plural verb
and yet be more correctly understood to be a majestic plural.Agreed, but It is also a name without power; YHWH was the personal name to which God responded; and Elohim is the name given to all other “Gods”. So although I admit it can be understood to be a majestic plural – it may also be mis-understood to be other Gods – where “YHWH” can not; Again, the text says that Aaron specified “YHWH” but the people rose up to “MOCK”. Mocking isn’t playing nicely … and an uprising goes along with mockery;
I think that English translations of these passages leave people with an improperly down-played tone in places where the original texts are sporting and quite garish.
In order to hold the reversal argument – you will need to show (reasonably) that much of the history of the old testament has been altered from an original form; I don’t think archeology warrants such a claim; and textual criticism requires a debate – at least – before acceptance for mistakes are easy to make and pride is rampant.*
