text:
Chapter One
Apparent Woe and Great Invention
SOMETIME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIXTH CENTURY BCE -- THE YEAR 550 will do as a rough marker -- the greatest religious genius whose name the world has never known, surveyed a desert. He was the son of the "diaspora," the offspring of one of the minority of Judaeans who had been forcibly removed from central Palestine by the Babylonians forty to fifty years earlier. He was of a priestly family. His father, now dead, had sired him when he was himself full of years. Trained from his earliest days to be a religious savant, the young man had become the hope not only of his own family, but of an entire phalanx of ageing priests, and, now, their children, who banded together in the city of Babylon on the river Euphrates. The older men, those who had known his father, schooled him as deeply as they could, but they recognized that even as a youth, he had an inner vision, a way of listening, and then of recasting what he heard which set him apart from the merely clever, the students who could memorize and could argue, but who rarely could understand. As he entered his twenties, increasingly the older men brought him with them, when they walked together along the banks of the Euphrates. There, alone with the grief that only those who had known the service of Yahweh in the temple of King Solomon could fully grasp, they wept, as they remembered Zion.
The preceding description is an historical model, presented through the device of personification. It will become clear as the argument unfolds why this model -- this bundle of hypotheses -- is an appropriate one in the present state of our knowledge of biblical texts and, indeed, that it has the virtue of being parsimonious, an unusual characteristic in this particular area.
To return. The desert our young man, now thirty, surveyed was not physical. Although later chroniclers were to dramatize the physical and social dimensions of the "Babylonian captivity," it was not by standards of the Ancient Near East (or, even, the standards of the twentieth century), a particularly nasty conquest. Only a minority, at most 10 to 20 percent of the population, actually was sent into exile. The "poorest sort of the people of the land" were left behind (II Kings 24:14) to be farmers and to tend the vineyards. Their life in a war-levelled land must have been bleak, the more so because the skilled artisans such as carpenters and blacksmiths, who could have rebuilt the city, were taken away (Jer. 24:1). But it was moderated by the Babylonian official who was in charge of the former kingdom of Judah giving to the poor land and vineyards, probably an indication that some of the lands of the exiled elite were redistributed to the poor (Jer. 39:10). No new national or ethnic group was introduced into Judea. It was not colonized in any formal sense, but rather was a tiny, poor satrapy.
The key to understanding the Babylonian captivity is to see it from the vantage point of Babylonian realpolitik . The standard Babylonian practice was to strip conquered territories of their political and religious elites. This removed most of the potential troublemakers, the local leaders, but there was more: the very top men in the conquered societies were brought to the capital and were treated well, while they were indoctrinated in Babylonian learning, which in some areas, such as astronomy, was prodigious. Thus, King Jehoiachin, who had been on the throne of Judah in 597, was taken with his family to Babylon and treated well. He was still alive in 562 when Nebuchadnezzar died, and members of his family took a leading role not only in the exile community in Babylon, but also in Judah after the exile ended. Admittedly, King Jehoiachin's successor, and the last of King David's line, the puppet King Zedekiah, 597-586/7, was treated horribly. His sons were killed before his eyes and then he was blinded and incarcerated until he died (Jer. 52: 10-11). This, however, was not routine policy. Zedekiah was punished because he had taken an oath of loyalty to the Babylonian king and had broken it by treating with the Egyptians. (Ezekiel 17:11-24 interprets this as Yahweh's punishment for breaking of a solemn oath.) That was unusual, however. For the most part, the Babylonians treated the deported elites well, and probably used many of them, those who were not artisans, as what would today be called middle-level civil servants.
Below the level of royalty, the displaced Judaeans were not treated badly. They were given religious toleration and were not dispersed. In addition to those who lived in Babylon proper (located in what is today the suburbs of Baghdad), another concentration of diaspora Judaeans lived in "Tel Aviv," an ancient Babylonian location of some debate, and not to be confused with the modern city of that name. There they may have been engaged in reclaiming land, a form of manual labour which must have been painful to a soft-handed elite. The key, however, is that even there the Babylonians permitted sufficient concentrations of Judaeans to coalesce, to preserve their language, and their literary and religious traditions.
The Babylonian exiles were very conscious that they were an elite, the keepers of the nation's heritage. Yet, there was the constant danger that the "remnant" in the old homeland would eventually get above itself and take over the national patrimony, or that any other section of Judaeans, now living abroad, would seize leadership of the diaspora. The "Egyptians" were a constant worry. The Babylonian exiles' concern about their own position is clearly seen in Jeremiah (24:1-10) where an unambiguous metaphor compares the exiles with the remnant left in the land of Judah. In this vision of Jeremiah, two baskets of figs are placed before Yahweh, this occurring after the exile. One basket has very good figs, ripe; the other has figs so bad as to be inedible. The good figs were the captives of Judah who were now in exile; the evil figs were the "residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt." Ultimately, Yahweh judged one set to be evil. The other was good. These were the Babylonian exiles, and they would re-inherit Jerusalem, Yahweh promised (Jer. 24:8-10).
So the desert that the young man of the Babylonian exile saw was not one of physical oppression, but of spiritual apprehension. He and his fellow legatees of Judah's religious aristocracy were sick to their very marrow with fear, longing, and loss. Their fears were that neither they nor their children, nor their children's children, would again see Jerusalem. Or, worse, that when they did finally see the holy mountain it would be too late: others, the stay-behind remnant of callus-handed, thick-necked peasantry would have grabbed control of the holy sites and of the ritual offices. Or perhaps it would be the untrustworthy "Egyptians," Judaeans who lived in Upper Egypt and were now beginning to lose Hebrew as their first language, and who might arrive first in Jerusalem, and seize control of religious life. These apprehensions, while having within them certain carnal aspects (no one likes to lose power, prestige, or money), were fundamentally spiritual, as were the longings of the religious leaders of the exile. A longing for God is not like any other.
But why could not the exiled Babylonian priests get in touch with Yahweh? Was he not everywhere? Yes, but he denied them access, save through the fleeting visions of the prophets.
They could not deal with him, because, under the covenant, he could be directly approached only one way: through an idol.
And now that idol was broken, so fragmented that it floated as dust across the desert.
This fact is what the young religious genius understood, and to understand that man's genius, we must break through the subsequent belief (one that has been normative for at least the last 1,500 years) that the Chosen People had no idols. They did, but they did not denominate them as such. While denouncing the iconic idols of their neighbours, the Chosen People produced an aniconic idol whose dimensions exceeded those of almost any religious artifact in ancient history: the Temple of Solomon. Just as Yahweh could be limned only in the covenant, so the covenant could be touched only in the Temple. There, in the Holy of Holies, in the tabernacle in which the earliest Israelites had travelled with their god in the Ark of the Covenant, Yahweh was physically present (see Exodus 29:42, 33:9). There one killed all manner of beasts, their blood being a direct offering to him. By an easy act of association, one did not merely worship in the Temple. One worshipped the Temple. This form of aniconic idol is not as unusual as one might think. What is unusual is the direct denial of its function. But, as we shall see, such denial of reality was one of the ways in which the ancient Hebrews and their heirs transcendent, by-passed reality.
Surveying this spiritual wasteland, the young scholar -- he would in later times have been called a saint, a great rabbi, a sage -- made one of those leaps of faith and of human will that bend forever time's arrow in a certain direction. His decision: that he -- and if they would help him, the surviving elders from pre-exile days, and their sons, his contemporaries -- would gather up the most important things that could be known of the history and worship of his people and place it in one set of scrolls. Some things, such as the writings (or transcriptions) of the early prophets (the "Major Prophets"), already were in circulation in partial form. But other items, and these the most central to the nation's history, were in fragments. Several versions of some events were about while other, crucial matters were still only told in story form, passed from one bearded ancient to another.
To essay such a task was heroic, to complete it divine. The hardest thing for a present-day observer to comprehend is the level of faith required. We have the knowledge that the Temple eventually was rebuilt, the idol repaired, the sacrifices reinstituted, the covenant again physically honoured, and thereby reaffirmed. However, the young man had no such foreknowledge. He was proceeding, with the same kind of faith that is ascribed to Moses, to lead the people spiritually, yet, unlike Moses, to some destination that he knew not. In collecting the central traditions of the Chosen People, in editing them so that they fit together rather better than they otherwise would, in writing down ancient oral tales and fitting them into his text, and in adding touches of his own, the young man was inventing a great religion. This is not the same as creating one; inventions are made by the imaginative recombination of pieces that are lying around a culture's workshop, with the addition of the occasional newly-machined part. This was invention, not creation.
The only way the young man could tie everything together was by writing history. He had no choice, because that was the way his culture and his religion worked. The fragments and stories he had to work with all were historical in nature. It may sound tautological to suggest that he wrote historically, because that was the way his culture had taught him to think, but that is the case nonetheless.
The history he wrote, this great invention, was intended, I think, to correct the recent past. That is, if one believes that Yahweh, the god of the covenant, works in human historical events (as clearly our young man did), then the only way to figure out where and why recent events had gone so terribly wrong, was to put them in the long perspective of the Chosen People's entire relationship with Yahweh. The first step to rehabilitating a pathological present was to lay down historical tram lines, parallel, straight, long, and true.
Beyond that, his faith, I think, held out to him two hopes. One of these was that in writing down in great detail the characteristics of the Temple (parts of the Book of Kings read like the transcription of an architectural seminar), and the ways in which ritual worship had been conducted in the past (the Book of Leviticus is almost a drill-manual for priests), he was providing the blueprint for a restoration of what he believed to be the central aspects of the religion of the Chosen People. In other words, a detailed record of the past was to serve as a detailed blueprint for the future.
If that failed -- if the Temple was never rebuilt, or if the priestly caste never made it back to Jerusalem, and they were usurped either by the "Egyptians" or by the ill-educated and instinctively-apostate peasantry who had remained in the land -- the young man had another hope. This was that the scrolls he put together, with their story of the nation's history and with their definitions of the true form of Temple worship, would themselves become the Temple. It is not such a great step from worshipping an aniconic idol to worshipping an invisible one. If the faithful among the Chosen People could not be a people of the Temple, they could become the people of the Temple's book.
Before his hair had turned gray or his eyes dimmed, the young man had collected, with the help of his allies, young and old, the traditions and manuscripts of his people and turned them into nine scrolls, which became the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian "Old Testament" has things out of sequence at this point); Ruth belongs later: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel (broken in early medieval times into two separate volumes) and Kings (also broken into two in the early medieval era). These nine books are a unity. They take the story of the covenant -- the interaction of Yahweh and the Chosen People -- from the creation of the earth down to the 560s BCE, when after thirty years as a prisoner in the equivalent of a gilded cage in Babylon, Jehoiachin, former King of Judah was set free. The Book of Kings ends with marvellous ambiguity. Jehoiachin, released, is set upon a throne by his Babylonian host, and it is a higher throne than that of the other conquered kings who are with him. And he was given a daily allowance of food for the rest of his life (II Kings 25:28-30). That is an end to an historical chronicle written by someone who had hope, but who had no idea of what the next chapter of the Chosen People's history would contain.
In suggesting that the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible are a unity and that they are best modelled as being the invention of a single great exilic mind, a mixture of national religious curator, seer, historian, priest (however much help he may have had from his confreres, and, however much small details of his work may have been tinkered with by later Pecksniffian minds), I am sailing broadside to several currents of scholarship. One of these is the largely unconscious but pervasive, almost instinctual, belief in modern biblical studies that authors and editors are separate categories of human beings. That is to say: the creative and the conservative do not meet in the same person. The sub-field of biblical scholarship that deals with "textual criticism," has been imprinted very strongly by people who tend to see the world as being a place where rational and non-rational forms of knowledge are sharply distinguished. In their work this has meant that hypotheses about the development of the scriptures separate very sharply writing and editing: different functions, therefore different people. This, I think, is unnecessary (and therefore by the basic test of Ockham's Razor, to be discarded) and in fact flies in the face of the single most manifest quality of the first nine books of the Hebrew scriptures: they are the work of a genius, in both the editing of old material and the inclusion of new. (Most literate North Americans will have less difficulty than the specialists in accepting this viewpoint, as they are acquainted with the career of the African-American genius, Toni Morrison. Not only did she serve for decades as one of the most active and influential of American literary editors, but for her own work received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1993.) So, we use interchangeably the terms writer-editor, author-editor, and editor-writer, editor-author: it was all a single activity, both integrative and inventive.
Here, the word "invention" is used for the product of the great and nimble mind that produced the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible. Inventors do not create, for creation is to make something where there was nothing. Inventors use what is to hand, and then they add something of their own genius, whether it is new ways of recombining old elements, or tiny little improvements in existing parts so that what otherwise would not work does; or they take out their tools and make a part of new design and suddenly everything works. And the really good ones do so with marvellous efficiency and little flash. One thinks with admiration of the medieval inventor who first whittled from a piece of oak the eccentric cam, and attached it to the rim of a wagon wheel, thereby permitting the translation of rotary motion to linear force; on that elegant simplicity hangs all modern mechanical transportation.
Between the very good inventors and the few really great ones, there is a line: the truly great ones instinctively and fully collaborate with their users. There is nothing more useless than a physical invention that is ahead of its time or a cultural invention that is ahead of its audience. (The sadly risible nineteenth-century Frenchman who invented a perfectly workable facsimile machine comes to mind.) If ever there was a case of successful collaboration between inventor and audience, it is the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible. Not only were they embraced by their exilic audience, they were carried, eventually, back to the city of Jerusalem where they became the reference point for the establishment of a spiritual world. One cannot read these nine books of history without entering into their world, arguing with them, interrogating them for hidden meanings. Genesis through Kings: a truly great invention.
Another place where the idea of the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible's being a unity clashes with modern scholarship is that few of the most influential scholars see it as such -- although the idea is gaining credence quite quickly -- and that is no small problem. Here an aside is required. My view of Genesis through Kings as being a unified entity, seems on the surface to conflict with traditional Jewish scholarship, which emphasizes the first five books, the Books of Moses, as the primary unit, the one on which everything else is built. Here the problem is only apparent, for although traditional Judaism privileges the Pentateuch, and has done so since well before the Common Era, it has held equally firmly to the view that the Books of Moses and the first half of the Nevi'm -- Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings ("the Former Prophets") -- together form a larger unity that is the primary reference for the history of the Chosen People from Creation into the period of the Babylonian exile. It is distinct from the "Latter Prophets" consisting of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (the "Major Prophets") and the twelve books ascribed to the "Minor Prophets." This takes us back to my position, that Genesis through Kings form a single united entity. That leaves for later two very interesting historical questions: why, given their belief that the corpus of sacred literature we have been discussing was part of a larger entity, did the early "Orthodox" interpreters break out the first five books for special treatment? and when did they do this?
The problem with modern scholarship is greater, and more difficult to define, for the scholars fight among themselves, like an ever-shifting pack of feral canines, and it is hard to focus clearly on the myriad issues involved. Fundamentally, however, two major viewpoints among non-Orthodox scholars concerning the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible have dominated the second half of the twentieth century. The first of these stems from a brilliantly succinct essay of Gerard von Rad's Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs of 1938. In it, von Rad bypassed the smaller issues of textual scholarship (although he was impressively skilled in those areas), and argued that certain books of the Hebrew Bible were a unity, and that this could be demonstrated on the basis of their ideological oneness. This unity was independent of what the original sources of the material were. He called the books so united the "Hexateuch" and they consisted of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and -- this was crucial -- Joshua. The unity that he perceived was a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces. In the centre, the pivot of his interpretation, was a "creed" which comprises Chapter 26 of the Book of Deuteronomy. But it is not a creed in the modern sense of being a theological statement. Instead, it is a statement of beliefs about Israel in history: God created the world and chose the people of Israel as his own, brought them out of Egypt, led them to freedom and eventually to settlement in the promised land. Around that hub of historical belief pivots all the narrative of Genesis-through-Joshua. The basic historical creed tethers the story of the Chosen People, like the radius of a circle, and as the narrative line races around the circumference of the circle, it has redundancies and repetitions (that is what one would expect in a story that circles on a fixed radius) yet the integrity of the narrative is undivided. But none of this works if one stops at the end of the Book of Deuteronomy, for the narrative effectively concludes with the heartbreaking vision of Moses, taken to Mount Nebo, just on the east side of the Jordan River, where he looks into the promised land, and then, this vision granted, dies. If, as von Rad argues, the fundamental historical creed includes the settling of the people in the new land, then the Book of Joshua has to be part of the circle of narrative that the historical creed defined. Hence, the Hexateuch is a unity. This I find both compelling and convincing.
Equally, I find convincing (if less elegantly argued) the other dominant opinion of the second half of the twentieth century, that of Martin Noth, articulated in Uberlieferungsgeschichtiche Studien of 1943. Noth's argument runs as follows: (I) that although the sources that underlie Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers run into the Book of Deuteronomy (2) there begins with the first verse of Deuteronomy a separate literary unit, one that continues to the end of Kings. This unit -- Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings -- was compiled by a single writer, Noth believed, whom he called "the Deuteronomist." Later scholars have tended to see several cooperating hands, rather than a single one on the scribal scroll, but the fundamental point of Noth's argument about the unity of the "Deuteronomistic history" has carried the day. This has obvious implications for the consideration of the Books of Moses. "At the end of Numbers there is a deep incision," Noth noted. "For with Deut. 1:1 there begins the deuteronomistic historical work which fundamentally has nothing to do with the Pentateuch and became attached to it from the literary point of view only later ..."
Thus, the two dominant approaches to the fundamental books of the Hebrew scriptures have only one thing in common: they reject the idea that the Pentateuch (the five Books of Moses) are the basic unit. Gerard von Rad's approach gives one a Hexateuch (Genesis through Joshua) and then the rest of the Former Prophets (Judges, Samuel and Kings) as separate entities. Martin Noth's approach provides us with a "Tetrateuch" (that is, Genesis through Numbers) and a deuteronomistic history that runs from Deuteronomy through Kings. Clearly, the problem is with the Book of Deuteronomy, for the two leading textual scholars of their generation read it quite differently. Yet, I think each is correct.
If it is true (as von Rad argues) that the Book of Deuteronomy is demonstrably part of a unified entity that includes all of the Pentateuch and also the book of Joshua; and if it is also the case, as Martin Noth demonstrates, that the Book of Deuteronomy is part of a unified entity that includes the last book of the Pentateuch and all of the Former Prophets, then a reasonable suggestion is that, in fact, we are here dealing with a single historical narrative, the product of a single coherent viewpoint, that runs throughout the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible.
In suggesting this, I am not being opportunistic. My own views of the unity of the first nine books are developed independently of the semi-syllogism given above. Frankly, I cannot see how any other hypothesis could be the first line of investigation: one has a coherent story, from creation down almost to the time of post-exilic writing and compilation, and one has a motive for the writing and editing to be done. That may be simple to state, but in historical explanations, as in mathematics, simplicity is elegance, and elegance is strength.
Acceptance of the unity of the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible, as the invention of a single religious genius (however much he may have been helped by colleagues), is dependent upon an understanding of the wonderful flexibility of the Book of Deuteronomy. It is not one thing -- either the tie-up of the pre-history of the ancient Hebrews, or the beginning of what, in the context of the times, was the nation's "modern history" -- it is both. The editor-cum-author here knew exactly what he was doing. The Book of Deuteronomy is a strong spine with two mighty arms. That spine and those arms can support, on the one hand the first four Books of Moses, and on the other the four "Former Prophets" (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). There is a symmetry here that is immensely skilful. The four books on each hand balance each other; and each set of four becomes a set of five because they are thematically and historically integrated with the central volume, Deuteronomy. By using the Book of Deuteronomy in this dual role, the editor-author -- the inventor -- was carving in his own way two sets of five tablets. He, the most self-aware of historians, knew full well that he was invoking here the image of the two sets of five laws brought down by Moses from the mountain in the establishment of the Sinai covenant. The use of this image speaks well of the good sense of the inventor: he did not risk Yahweh's wrath for vain-glory by carving out ten scrolls, and thus making himself equal with Moses. But, his nine, presented in the manner he did, was very close, and close enough to tell us that he knew that he, like the Moses whom he depicts in his historical text, was creating a religion that was virtually new.
By his recombination of existing elements and his own creative additions, he permanently replaced the religion of ancient Israel with a new one. This, because of its conceptual locus in the southern kingdom, focusing on Jerusalem, is best called " Judahism ," and its followers "Judahists" or "Judahites." This is not a word trick. The new system of belief and practice has to be distinguished both from what came before it (of which, note, we have no direct knowledge, only light filtered through the writings of the Judahists). And, equally, it has to be distinguished from its successor, the great invention of the second through fifth centuries of the Common Era, " Judaism " whose followers we know as the "Jews." The difference here is not linguistic: all variants of "Jews," "Jewish," Judaism," "Judahism," trace their origins to the Hebrew word "Yehudah," referring to the tribe of Judah. The difference is historical and one of the primary rules of historical work is not to use one term for two distinct phenomena. The religion of Judah, based on Temple sacrifice to Yahweh, up to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, is distinct historically from its descendent, the post-Temple faith, usually known as "Rabbinic Judaism."
The first legacies of Judahism's unknown genius were fourfold. The writings that he collected from a hodge-podge of manuscripts, hand-me-down folk tales, and his own controlled creativity, remain among the most compelling historical and literary documents known to humanity. The direct rules that he preserved, modified, and promulgated, including those for priestly behaviour, maintained the Judahist faith intact (albeit with some internal strife) until 70 CE. The blueprints he provided for the re-creation of his beloved idol, the Temple, permitted its rebuilding, and there, until the year 70, the covenant between Yahweh and the Chosen People was daily confirmed. And, on a tactical level, the newly-codified story of the Chosen People, with its very strong Yahwist centre, was a tool by which heresies and "syncretistic" cults were defined, and then destroyed upon the return to Jerusalem of the exiled elite.
One longs to know whether or not the great inventor ever saw Jerusalem. I think not, for he had to understand that the working of parallelism within his writings was not metaphorical only, but normative. He could not permit himself to enter the land of promise, even if he had the opportunity to do so, for what Moses, his consciously-defined predecessor had not done, he could not himself do. To be true to his god, he had to die on the far side of Jordan.
The great inventor was nothing if not respectful. He was as much a curator of old traditions as he was an editor, and he was more an editor than he was an author. His shaping of old stories may seem to modern eyes, almost too gentle, too respectful, for he preserves archaism and forms of words that few, if any, of his own generation fully understood. And he keeps in one long narrative duplicate versions of the same story, and these frequently do not entirely agree. (Compare, for example, Moses' extensive instructions concerning public worship in Exodus, chapters 25-31 and chapters 35-40.) But that is what historians do, even today: when their sources do not agree, they do not destroy one version and march blithely on with a false consonance. If two versions of a report are equally apposite, but incompatible with each other, the reader is not denied that knowledge. The more an historical account includes primary material, the more such dissonances are preserved.
So, he collected stories, documents, bits of poetry, hymns, mnemonic litanies of dos and don'ts, rules for priestly ritual, and architectural details of votive structures. The final version of the inventor's great work contains plenty of clues as to how he worked. For instance, in Kings he several times cuts short what otherwise would be a long and tiresome discussion of some second-line king, with the query, are not the acts of King So-and-So "written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?" (for example II Kings 1:18; 15:26; 15:31; 15:36) or written in the "book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?" (for example II Kings 15:36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17; 21:25). He also refers to a volume known as the "book of the acts of Solomon" (I Kings 11:41). Clearly, he is referring to historical scrolls that he has to hand, and, further, these are not rare items. They must have been widely known within the religious elite, or he could not have referred to them with the easy confidence that his colleagues would be acquainted with them. Also, the great inventor (or perhaps one of his predecessors, for he was the final curator, editor and author of a mass of material that had been piling up for centuries), refers to some books of scripture that the ancient Israelites possessed, but which are now lost, seemingly forever. Thus in Numbers (21:14) there is a tantalizing reference to the Book of the Wars of Yahweh. In this case, our editor-author gives no hint that he has actually seen the book, and it may be that his reference is secondhand, encapsulated in an earlier scroll that he is using for part of his collection of ancient Israel's central traditions. But if so, even this is revealing: he has not tinkered with the text he has received, even if it leaves him, like us, yearning to see the original Book of the Wars of Yahweh. In a more familiar way, indicating that he has seen the original, the editor-author cites in the Book of Joshua (10:13) the contents of the Book of Jashar, which deals with Joshua's making' the sun and moon stand still so that the children of Israel could finish their slaughter of the Amorites unimpeded by nightfall.
Part of the cultural and religious inheritance of the Chosen People was preserved orally: hymns, epic poems, short verse compositions that border on doggerel, folk tales, law cases, and, perhaps longer epics, items that came close to being sagas. The use of these items is not directly referred to in the Genesis-Kings scrolls, but it is fair to point out that transformation of oral information into written form went on well after the return to Jerusalem by the exiles. Witness here the clearest case, that of the Book of Esther which purports to give the origins for the festival of Purim. It is set entirely in post-return times (that is, after c.538 BCE) and is a folk tale of a fairly standard type: a vicious man is punished through the cunning of a virtuous woman. The Book of Esther probably was the last book to be admitted to the Hebrew canon, and is a good example of how oral material became scribally perpetuated. One could produce dozens of similar cases, if one instanced later material in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. That is not necessary: the clear point is that anyone collecting and caring for the history of the Chosen People would have been aware of oral custom, and would have weighed the more important items for possible inclusion in the written word.
All this is so obvious -- the great inventor was an historian, and how else do historians work, but by being the magpies of the intellectual world? Yet, the minute one mentions "sources," a great buzzing occurs, as if a nest of wasps were about to swarm. One has to ignore part of this swarm, the group with which there is no negotiation whatsoever: the Ultra-Orthodox Jews and their Christian counterparts, the more extreme evangelicals and their phalanx of Berserker Right outriders, the Christian fundamentalists, and especially the cadre known as "Dispensationalists." If one takes the view of various Haredi sects, the question of sources is irrelevant as they believe that the first five books of the Bible are not merely named the Books of Moses, but were actually written by his hand. That does away with any problem of sources, although it does leave the inconvenient issue of how, at the end of the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses was accurately able to report in the past tense the details of his own death. The other books of the Bible are held each to be a composition of a single person, their integrity being a function, in part, of each book's being integral to itself. No source problems, therefore. When one turns to the Christian equivalent of these beliefs, those of the keener evangelicals and fundamentalists, one finds that the source issue also disappears in this instance because of the belief in the "verbal inerrancy" of the scriptures. The Almighty dictated them to "holy men of old." (That this is roughly the same method of composition postulated for the Koran is not a point the Christian Right is disposed to dwell on.) Within the belief systems of many Orthodox and most evangelicals (and of all of the Ultra-Orthodox and a lot of the Christian Fundamentalists), to suggest, however tactfully one might do so, that the scriptures are a collection of pieces that originally were not found in their present packaging, is to invite instant denunciation. This is particularly difficult to deal with because the evangelicals, and most especially the "Dispensationalists," rearrange the Bible pretty much according to their own whim. The situation is well summarized by Jon Butler:
Then came the twin disasters of fundamentalism and dispensationalism. Fundamentalism heightened the developing antiintellectualism of evangelicalism by disguising complex, crude and controversial theological statements as literal interpretations of the Scriptures, a trend capped by the influential Scoffield Reference Bible (1909). Dispensationalism completed this canonization of Biblical mechanics by manipulating the arbitrary versification of the scriptures completed in the sixteenth century and turning the Old and New Testament into a kind of gigantic Christian puzzle, all parts interchangeable. Now, words and sentences could be manoeuvred to create and defend simplistic interpretative schemes from any angle, brushing aside the verses' original context while also rigidly classifying modern events with a few simple-minded categories.
This sort of thing cannot be fought, so it is best ignored.
Considerably more amenable to rational discourse is the world of biblical "criticism." The word "criticism" is unfortunate, as it unfairly tars a set of scholars who, at their best, are serious appreciators of the text. In the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth, the "higher critics" (the people who worked on the big questions) were a distinct occupational category from the "lower critics" who did all the dog work of sorting out the hundreds of thousands of variant readings of the manuscripts. In fact, these are among the most impressive scholars one can encounter.) Today, that distinction has gone away, but the word "critic" still has ugly overtones, given that we are dealing with a text many people view as in some sense sacred. "Biblical scholars" will do, as the term carries no accusation of arrogance.
The first scholarly problem concerning the sources of the great invention, Genesis-Kings, is that there has yet to emerge any satisfactory method of either identifying or analyzing oral material. This has two aspects. One of these is the immediate one of identifying what elements the exilic author-editor picked up by word of mouth, from his contemporaries and from elders. He does not label his oral sources. If only he had occasionally said the equivalent of "and the troth of this is vouchsafed by ..." but he does not. It might be theoretically possible to sort out the oral sources by subtracting from the total text whatever he picked up in written sources, and then denominating the residual material as "oral" in source. That, however, is patently impossible in practice. It resembles the time-honoured way of defining miracles in the Jewish and Christian traditions -- explain everything one can by rational means and then ascribe the remainder to "miracle" -- and it is equally barren of result. Not only do we not know the full extent of the written sources which the great inventor used but, because he was also a writer, it would be impossible to determine what part of the thus-defined residual material was his own wordsmithing, and what came from oral sources.
Where the indeterminate nature of scriptures' oral sources becomes a problem, and one that cannot be dealt with satisfactorily, is at the distant end of the time line: the period before King David, especially the stories that tell about the patriarchs, the wanderings with Moses, and the supposed conquest of Canaan by Joshua. Now, it is a truism that in a society that was overwhelmingly non-literate, the most important events were talked about, and probably passed from one generation to another and to another, before they were eventually written down. But that says nothing, really. The real question is, how long was the religious memory maintained in oral form before being written down? Even if one takes a "good old-fashioned" dating of the earliest written scriptures as being about the year 1000 BCE, in the court of the United Monarchy, this means that, if the narrative of the pre-monarchical years was not entirely a fabrication of the court historians, then the religious memory, said to cover roughly 1,000 years, was enhulled in the Hebrew equivalent of sagas and epic poetry. Fair enough: where this becomes problematic is if one abandons the "good old-fashioned dating" and asks, as scholars have, how long was the ancient oral tradition kept in that form, before being written down? One could argue for the maintenance in oral form of the saga material (and all the other folklore aggregations of a developing religion) all the way down to the eve of the Exile, or even after it. But, whether one accepts either of those extreme dates -- 1000 to roughly 550 BCE -- or anything in between, the ultimate result is the same. One ends up dealing with written texts and the earliest solid version of the central text of the Hebrew Bible comes from about 550 BCE. There is no way of validating the suppositions being made concerning the pre-biblical (meaning prewritten) history of the biblical text. Nor should one assume the antiquity of any supposedly "oral" portion of the written text: merely because an oral tradition refers to a distant era does not mean that the tradition itself originated long ago.
All modern speculations about the formation of the Hebrew scriptures exist in the shadow of the "Documentary Hypothesis." This is doubly unfortunate in name. The speculations involved are not "documentary," for that is a term which includes probative material of all sorts, including oral. It is about documents and how they relate to each other. Moreover, it is not a hypothesis in any meaningful sense. At no time has this "hypothesis" been given operational specificity. That is, never have any of its proponents spelled out the "hypothesis" in such a way as to permit testing, by observing certain characteristics that are produced independently of the hypothesis, and thus to permit assessment of whether it is confirmed or disproved. And the necessity of framing something so basic as null-hypothesis entirely escapes the notice of the practitioners. The "documentary hypothesis," then, simply does not exist. What exists in its place is really a very useful item, as long as one understands what it is. It is an heuristic fiction, and can best be labelled the "Documents Model." Heuristic fictions, unlike hypotheses, are evaluated not by whether they are proved or disproved, but by their fecundity. And, in that context, the Documents Model is very successful indeed.
The Documents Model is a fictive machine that has few basic parts, and these easily comprehensible. It began with two elements, which stemmed from the observation made as early as the eighteenth century that there were two gods -- or at least two names for God -- in the basic scriptures of the Hebrew Bible, most especially the Books of Moses. One of these was Yahweh. The other was Elohim, a form of the basic god-name "El" common in Palestine in the period -- roughly 1000 to 600 BCE. The biblical texts that discussed Yahweh were observed to deal favourably with the interests of the southern kingdom, Judah, and those that focused on Elohim to favour the northern kingdom, Israel. There were other distinguishing points, too numerous to mention, but the key is that a list of distinguishers, broken into two distinct columns could be adduced. Therefore, it was suggested that in Genesis, Exodus (and perhaps in subsequent books), there were two basic sets of documents underlying the final texts. These were named "Y" (meaning Yahwist; it is still usually printed as "J" in the scholarly literature, but this is an affectation. The English-language "Y" will do quite nicely) and "E." This was a sensible expedient: if one found, say, the report of a Royal Commission on the theory of government, in which some of the references to the head of government were to "the King" and most of the rest were to "the President," one might reasonably conclude that the committee had split down the centre and that some hapless civil servant had been left to tape over the differences and hope that no one noticed.
The documents associated with "Y" and "E," however, were found not to cover the entire Books of Moses, so two other sources of documents were postulated (again, on the basis of painstaking examination of the original texts). These were said to be the Priestly Source -- "P" whose documents are concerned more than anything else with defining and protecting the professional position of the priestly caste; and the "D" source, which in its early formulation was limited to the Book of Deuteronomy. And, because the pieces still did not quite fit, a later editorial hand -- called "R" for redactor -- was postulated. "R" became the equivalent of the "miscellaneous" category in a salesman's expense account: "R" was responsible for whatever could not be accounted for elsewhere.
Conceptually, this Documents Model was elegant, and its fecundity was amazing, for it, like Helen of Troy, launched a thousand battleships. Given its elegant simplicity -- there were only five moving parts, Y, E, P, D, and R -- one would have thought that the Documents Model could have been made to approximate one or two versions of possible historical realities. Yet, I can find only one even-moderately successful instance of an attempt at producing a version of the Books of Moses that distinguishes between the various models. This is Paul Haupt's "Polychrome Bible" of 1891, and he accomplished this task only by leaving out the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy! Search as hard as one may, nothing turns up. Perhaps I am missing some obvious item, but unless that is the case, we are here encountering something that in most fields of historical scholarship would be taken as diagnostic: a model, fundamental to a field of study, for which no one has yet found a real-world counterpart.
Although the Documents Model still has its uses, the present situation reminds me of a scene I witnessed one day at my farm implement dealer's. He was short of help and had hired three city lads, each a qualified motorcar mechanic. None had any experience with farm machinery. They were set to taking from its packing case a machine they had never seen before, much less operated, and they were to assemble the machine and tune it for field work. Watching them was a treat. They were good mechanics and not stupid, but each part as it came out of its package had several possible uses: industrial parts are made to fit several different places, just as religious formularies are. They argued, and they worked hard and eventually they got the thing together. (That the other mechanics, all country boys, just happily let them work away, giving each other the occasional wink, hardly needs stating; some things are universal.) Eventually, the city lads got the machine together -- it was a big self-powered haybine -- without too many pieces left over. The thing started, most of the parts moved, but the cutting head, on which everything depended, was on upside down. They went back to arguing.
Now the argument level on the shop floor of biblical scholarship is prodigious. The Documents Model has moved from being an elegant five-part machine, to one with a thousand pieces, strewn all over the shop. For one thing, it is now generally accepted that document source Y and document source E did not just make their impact in the early parts of the Books of Moses, but are also found in Deuteronomy and also in the Book of Joshua, and possibly in Judges. Second, and much more important, the last fifty years of biblical scholarship have multiplied the sources of documents from five, to more than a score. Each has its tiny siglum, which, like the Masonic handshake, is known only to the initiates. Baruch Halpern comments ironically on the "welter of sigla" and lists some of the more prominent of the new codes -- Dtr, [Dtr.sup.1], Dtr2, [Dtr.sup.2]], Dtr(hez), Dtr(jos), Dtr(x), DtrG, DtrH, DtrN, DtrP, E(Dtr)n, E(Dtr)p, E(Dtr)x, H, H(Dtr), H(Dtr)het, H(Dtr)x, JE, M+, M-, Rdtr, Rdt3, SDeb. ... The effect of this fragmenting of the sources brings to mind Edmund Burke's denunciation of political factionalism -- "this tessellated pavement without cement," he called it. Whereas, the relationship between putative documents in the classic Documents Model had been limited (by the basics of statistical theory) to about twenty-four possible patterns, now the possible relationships spin into the thousands, and all of them based on merely heuristic original sources, of whose independent existence there is no documentation. Robert Alter, one of the pioneers of the literary study of the Bible, surveyed this scene and commented that: "In many cases a literary student of the Bible has more to learn from the traditional commentaries than from modern scholarship. The difference between the two is ultimately the difference between assuming that the text is an intricately interconnected unity, as the midrashic exegetes [Jewish textual interpreters of the Common Era] did, and assuming it is a patchwork of frequently disparate documents, as modern scholars have supposed." This has been very detrimental to historical understanding. "By its concentration on these smaller units, rather than the larger compositional units, form-criticism has ignored the possible significance for dating, origin and function of the biblical literature of the larger genres which constitute the shape of the biblical narrative," is the judgement of Philip R. Davies, who is hardly a romantic about ancient Israel. He continues: "Form-criticism largely and perhaps conveniently forgets that meaning, structure, and social setting are also dimensions of those larger compositions, and in its obsession with the "original" forms does not direct its methods to the elucidation of the larger (and less hypothetical) units. One of the major larger genres of the biblical literature is historiography, and yet this genre, without parallel in the "Ancient Near Eastern" literature, has hardly attracted until recently a fraction of the structural, rhetorical and comparative analysis of other smaller Gattungen ."
Clearly, if the text unambiguously implies a fragmentation of its origins, the biblical scholars must honour that. However, one can easily find instances in which a single verse of the Hebrew scriptures is allocated to as many as three different sources according to various scholarly criteria. This is the equivalent of watching someone who has never heard of the concept of statistical significance, work out the percentage of voters in a small sample to the twentieth place to the right of the decimal point. A lovely example is found in David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies : a sixteenth-century scholar worked out the average weight of a stone cannon ball of 10.75 inches, a highly variable object, both in density and indeed in size, to be sixty-one pounds, one ounce, two drams, one scruple and 15 685644/1414944 grains. That is what such tight parsing of "sources" by documents exegetes does: it violates a basic rule of all historical explanation, which is that if the potential random variation in any phenomenon is greater than the differences that one is defining and explaining, then the exercise has no probative value whatsoever and has to be abandoned. Real differences must exceed random probabilities, or one is not doing history, but necromancy. And, given that the Masoretic Text (which, for most parts of the Hebrew Bible is the text scholars employ) has shown itself to have literally hundreds of thousands of variants on the verse-by-verse level (and those are the ones we know about; how many other variants are lost?), then it follows that a single verse (and, in some cases, even a pericope) is too small a unit to split analytically into fragments.
Because the Documents Model is fundamentally right-headed -- it asserts the incontrovertible argument that the Hebrew Bible which we now possess is based, at least to some extent, on earlier documents -- it warrants continual employment: some day it may stimulate a big intellectual payoff. However, for the individual who is interested in considering the first one-third of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis-Kings)as an historical narrative (which is what the scriptures announce themselves to be), then, ironically, the Documentary Model in its myriad present-day guises has little to say. This is because the question of the etiology and relationship of the various document-components of the Hebrew scriptures is completely irrelevant either to their historical accuracy or, more important, to whether or not they were believed by their audience and thus became historical realities in themselves .
That sounds harsh, but consider: (1) The actual date of one of the documents upon which the scriptures are based, and whether or not that date is earlier or later, has no relationship whatsoever (within reasonable time limits) to whether or not the accounts are either accurate or convincing. This must be emphasized, because biblical scholars have tended to think that the earlier a document or tradition can be dated, the more historically accurate it is apt to be. They have therefore had a considerable investment in positing as early a date as possible for a given source (if the scholars are believers) or as late as possible a date (if they are skeptical of belief). The reductio ad absurdum of this process is the "eyewitness-syndrome," wherein the report of an event that someone claims to have seen is taken as being more accurate than an event a later person described from assembled evidence and circumstantial argument. We only need to remind ourselves that up to the sixteenth century, virtually every eyewitness to the operation of the solar system swore that the sun revolved around the earth. Indirect evidence, of course, was more closely correct. Further, in evolving documents, such as the scriptures were, the later editors could frequently improve accuracy, through the knowledge they had acquired from later sources. Newer sources, therefore, were often more accurate than older.
(2) The arrangement of the relative temporal order of the sources believed to lie behind the Hebrew Bible is extrinsic to the issue of the documents' accuracy and also to whether the final unity was a convincing entity to the religious community towards which it was directed. To take an extreme example, concerning the Y source, it is the customary wisdom among biblical scholars to hold that the Yahwist documents are the oldest in the Bible (being written either just before, during, or just after the reign of King Solomon) and that one cannot explain the evolution of the Hebrew scriptures unless one starts with "Y" as the foundation stone. Yet it has been shown that a convincing arrangement of the sources can be postulated that makes the Y source a product of the last years of the kingdom of Judah and the last source to be incorporated. The point is that, fascinating as all the rearranging of the mosaic tiles of the Documents Model is, the manner in which they are combined does not in any way affect either the historical accuracy or the useability of the final product. That final product was a tool for the reconquest of Jerusalem by a narrow, highly motivated, exiled religious elite.
(3) Nor does the Documents Model's suggestion that the history of the Bible before its final-redaction was a very fragmented entity, cut one way or the other on the historicity issue. The first reaction to biblical "criticism" of nineteenth-century believers (and the reaction today of Christian evangelicals and of Orthodox Jews) was that if there were several early sources for the Bible, then that somehow "disproved" the Bible's historical accuracy. More importantly, the Documents Model was taken by some biblical scholars as implicitly proving the opposite possibility, that the Bible was historically accurate. This does bear notice, for it is a fallacy that appears pervasively in "New Testament" studies, albeit less so in "Old." The leap of illogic here stems from the sound historical principle that two sources are better than one, and three are even better, in confirming an event: independent sources. Now, when the pioneering scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries developed their Documents Model, they were quite pleased to find that (for example, for the life of Moses), they had material from two sources. So, the more they fragmented their sources, the more attestation they thought they had to events far in the past. In "New Testament" studies, which struggle with a scarcity of independent documentation that makes the difficulties with the Hebrew Bible seem trivial, a great deal of stress is laid upon "multiple attestation" for chronicling the life of Jesus. The Quest for the Historical Jesus, like the Quest for the Historical Moses, depends upon multiple attestation. Except that is not what we have when we have multiple sources that are subsumed into a single entity either by a writer-editor or by processes of discrimination whereby religious authorities, acting collectively, include only certain items in a "canon" because they are ideologically compatible one with another, and with the viewpoint of those same authorities who control the religious system. The various heuristic items posited by the Documents Model do not constitute multiple attestation, for they are not independent witnesses.
Anyone who enjoys doing anagrams or playing with jigsaw puzzles can find a great deal of pleasure in reading biblical scholarship, for one is able to watch some first-class minds try to figure out how the Hebrew scriptures came together. However, the only intellectual constant that I have found in my reading is that through this activity runs a single principle of historical evidence, indeed the only one on which all the scholars would agree: that the report of a given historical event is always after the event. (There are a few religious zealots who claim otherwise, but they are not here germane, even if their view of biblical prophecy is diverting.) The trouble is, this is nothing that a beginning history graduate student would not know and act upon. Indeed, a real problem is that even this elementary principle is misread. David Noel Freedman, who in his generation was among the most powerful arbiters of what was and what was not first-line biblical scholarship, stated his version of this basic rule as follows: "In the Bible, historical narratives generally come down to the time of the author(s); therefore the latest episodes recorded are roughly contemporary with the writer(s) of the stories. Put another way, the work is composed or completed shortly after the last of the stories is finished, and the work may be dated accordingly. A significant burden of proof rests with those who wish to extend the period between the end of the narrative and the composition of the work." This is indeed astounding, and I can think of no other field of history wherein anyone would dare declare a similar evidentiary principle, solely upon faith. It virtually equates what is usually termed a terminus a quo , the earliest point at which something could have happened, with a terminus ad quem , the latest date at which something could have occurred. The earliest date (the point where the last episode ends) is just that: the very first possible date of composition. Why the composition should be assumed to have occurred at the earliest date in biblical history (but not in secular history) defies explanation. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to argue that in cultures wherein the oral memory was prized, events were not written down until a generation or two after they happened, and then only because the public memory was beginning to slip somewhat, and the historical occasion needed to be frozen in time by its being written down. Actually, the only acceptable method in historical scholarship for suggesting a probable date for an occurrence is that there be some reason for the dating which is independent of the mere possible range of dates. Thus, for example, I have suggested that the author-editor of the first nine books of the Genesis-Kings volumes worked in the mid-sixth century, not because Kings ends in the 560s, but because there was a social context in that period which made his work necessary for the maintenance of his own religious polity.
In the nine books of scripture that the great editor-writer produced while in Babylonian exile, there is a grammar of invention. These are the rules of what it was permissible, and not permissible, to do in the religious culture of his time, caste, and ideology. This grammar can be inferred by our first examining, at a macro-level, what the editor-writer did in his work, and then what he did not do. This inferred grammar of invention is important in itself, but, more than that, it is potentially valuable because it may be applicable to the way religious invention occurs in the two main offshoots of the Judahist religion, namely early Christianity and Rabbinic (or "Talmudic") Judaism.
What the author-editor wanted to achieve (and, I think did so with masterly success) was almost brutally simple. He wanted to win, and to do so decisively. So the heart of the Hebrew scriptures, Genesis through Kings, is a chronicle of victories. Some of these are clearly marked, but the most important ones are so pervasive, that they do not require labelling as such, for they become the structural warp upon which the weft of his verbal tapestry is articulated.
The first, and most pragmatic of the victories which the editor-writer celebrates is that of Judah over Israel. He has the good sense not to be triumphalist about this, but this only makes his message more effective. The rivalry of Judah and Israel from c.928 BCE until the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in 722/721 is chronicled with masterly economy and restraint. What is usually read as a soporific set of succession lists, enlivened by the occasional apostasy and genocide (see Appendix B), is actually masterful propaganda. This is an anachronistic term, stemming as it does from an office of the Vatican, but appropriate nonetheless. The basic chronicle of the northern kingdom -- the ten tribes -- comes to an end because "the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, which had brought them out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and had feared other gods" (II Kings 17:7). They had built "high places" (meaning raised altars) in all their cities, and had set up images (idols) and sacred groves on high hills, to the worship of other (undefined) gods (II Kings: 17:8-12). So, they perished.
The interesting point, though, is that the editor-writer of the scriptures is too shrewd to merely let the Israelites disappear. Granted, they disappear as a social group after many of them are taken captive by the Assyrians and never again rise as an independent political power. (This opens a question which most scholars avoid, given the problematic nature of the evidence: what are we to make of the Samaritans, a northern group that acquired both its own Pentateuch and Temple?) Still, if Judah and Benjamin, who take on the collective governmental name of the "kingdom of Judah," are the sole repositories after 722 BCE of the covenant, why does the editor-writer of the most important books of the Hebrew scriptures not excise altogether the subsequent reference to "Israel"? Why does he continue to refer to the Ki
|Figures and Tables
|Introduction: Us and the Semites Inventing the Covenant
|Apparent Woe and Great Invention
|Returning with Yahweh to Jerusalem
|History's All-Embracing Arms: The Covenant Inventive Fecundity and Judahist Multiplicity: The Later Second Temple Era
|Siloam's Teeming Pool - I
|Siloam's Teeming Pool - II
|Siloam's Teeming Pool - III The Invention of Christianity
|The Re-Invention of the Species
|From Yeshua of Nazareth to Jesus the Christ The Invention of the Jewish Faith
|Don't Stare at the Neighbors
|The Hermetic, Perfect Mishnah
|Taming the Mishnah: Tractate Aboth, the Tosefta, Sifra, and the Yerushalmi
|The Bounteous Bavli and the Invention of the Dual Torah
|Conclusion: Surpassing Wonder Notes Appendices A. Glossary B. Biblical Chronology C. The Manuscript Base of the Holy Scriptures D. Modern Biblical Scholarship and the Quest for the Historical Yeshua E. The Great Rabbinic Corpus: Access, Dating, Translation, Methods, and Queries
|General Index
|Textual Index
|Table of Contents provided by Publisher. All Rights Reserved.


text:
One of the many properties an aspiring Thai, Low Kick Kickboxer or even MMA fighter requires are conditioned shins and one of the questions I get asked frequently is just how do you condition your shins? Should I kick trees like in the Jean Claude Van Damme movie, Kickboxer? Tap them with bottles? Roll them with Rolling pins?
Well there are certainly many methods employed to getting the shins conditioned to a level where by you can fight and check leg kicks however, due to misinformation and a lack of understanding about the body, Some of these methods utilized by trainers and fighters alike actually could be detrimental to the body in years to come.
The idea that the shin can become harder, due to calcium deposits developing over the shin bone or the bone itself getting harder is somewhat of a myth. A conditioned shin comes in various parts.
So what's wrong with hitting trees or tapping shins with bottles and sticks?
Well, when you hit the shins with anything that's harder than the bone you run the risk of causing tiny stress fractures on your shin. In the short term this may deaden the nerves however, in the long term this could actually weaken the shins causing pain and injury, even arthritis later on in life.
And what about kicking trees? Hey didn't the Thai's kick trees back in the day?
Before I went out to Thailand I had this vision of Thai's just whacking away at trees. Haha how wrong I was. Nope, in this day and age, no trees are harmed in the making of a Thai Boxer however, it is true that before, Thais kicked the trunks of soft banana trees (the trunks were very rubbery and soft thus not like kicking an oak tree) The trunk of the trees they'd hit would be so soft in fact that they would make makeshift hand wraps with the strips of bark from where they kicked.
So how exactly do you condition your shins?
The tried and tested method is to basically kick the bags and pads AS MUCH AS YOU CAN!!!
The harder the pads and bags, the better the conditioning however, you must start at a level where by you are not feeling as if you are damaging yourself. After all, what's the point in hitting the bags that are so hard that you are all bruised and battered and then can't hit for at least a week?
Sure you will feel some pain on your legs after training but with the right treatment (Massage, Ice etc) you'll be good to go for the next training session.
In Thailand I would see fighters train on the bags kicking away at them morning and afternoon, continuously kicking with one leg for over 3 rounds then switching to the next leg. This amount of kicking is the correct way of conditioning your shins. Along with patience and perseverance (Hey, it's not going to happen over night in fact it could take at least 6 months of training like this)
Kicking leather Thai pads should also be placed as a mandatory training drill in your shin conditioning regimen.
What about sparring?
Sparring is a great way to condition shins and get used to blocking but it must be done with shin pads on as stated above, you must try not to strike your own shin with anything as hard as or harder than except of course for in a fight.
So It's all about deadening nerves?
Not entirely. As stated above it is also a psychological process. Another thing to help condition shins is to condition the muscles that are surrounding the shins. These muscles are usually worked out from the intense amounts of running and skipping a Thai boxer will do. The Thai style of running, whereby you strike the road/floor with the ball of your feet and stay on your toes, works the Calf muscles which in turn builds the muscle defenses on the side of the shin. As is the same with skipping.
So remember ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, Train hard but train smart and train safe!
Keep your guard up and Chok Dee!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Where the action is
As the energy industry evolves, the skills of its workforce must follow suit. At Spencer Ogden, we recruit only the best international talent across all energy sectors, providing industry-leading services to both our clients and candidates that they won't find anywhere else.
Our client base includes energy and utility providers, manufacturers, developers, research institutes, consultancies and international government bodies. To support our growing list of clients, Spencer Ogden is actively looking for talented and motivated graduates to join in the fun.
Brand value and culture are at the heart of our global organisation. Each of our offices has been designed with Spencer Ogden's trademark features, like AstroTurf through the sales floor, and American-styled diners in the kitchen. Subtle influences from the local culture such as our souk-themed meeting room for Dubai, and the vibrant London taxi parked in our London office, re-emphasise the trademark SO culture of servicing local clients on a global scale. Our office spaces are designed to energize and encourage movement, collaboration and interaction at all levels.
Spencer Ogden is committed to providing first-class training for all of its staff across the globe. Our secret weapon is our Academies, where we provide an intensive skill enhancing course for the world's top graduates. Career progression is a top priority for us, where success and hard work is always rewarded. Throughout the company, several Directors started as graduates, having been introduced to Spencer Ogden through an Academy.
Kallum Challenger was on the floor just six weeks before smashing out her first big deal, a feat she puts down to persistence and the support of her team leader. "I think it comes down to not giving up. The Project Manager that I rang initially to pull the job had not been answering my calls or emails for a couple of weeks, but I continued to ring until I finally got through. When you first start on the desk you'll be ringing candidates for a couple weeks, but I think that's essential. The more candidates you talk to, the bigger your network grows."
"The training programme helped me with the basics: qualifying a job, qualifying a candidate. Without these, even the strongest deal can fall through."
As one of the fastest growing recruitment companies in the world, covering all sectors across the entire energy industry, the opportunities for ambitious graduates are endless.
If you think you're a perfect fit for Spencer Ogden, click here to apply for our Academy today.


text:
October 15, 2009
This morning we had our first major unsolicited positive preannouncement – with DSW doubling annual earnings guidance to $0.70-$0.80 with half the year already in the bag. Implications for the stock are obvious – especially with over half the float short (can you say 'pain trade'?). I've been warming to DSW in recent months, but given my structural concerns about the viability of the business I have not gotten myself over the hump of actually 'liking it'.
Let's step back a minute and look at the broader retail considerations. We're looking at implied 4Q guidance for DSW comps of 4-6%, but on a two-year run-rate this still keeps comps trending around -1%. Remember the aggregate government retail sales numbers released yesterday that everyone got so excited about? Yes, the yy numbers look good, and will accelerate in the next 2 months. But on an underlying trendline basis? Flat – and we need to see them +10% in 4Q in order to remain flat on a 2-year trend basis (which appears to leave them with 2% - 3% of cushion in the full-year comp).
I'm not trying to be a killjoy here, but let's not lose sight of the forest, when most are looking at the trees, and many are playing with the bark.
Some Notable Call Outs
- Eddie Bauer is back and this time it has nothing to do with its recent bankruptcy proceedings. Surprisingly, the company just launched a premium line of outdoor apparel and gear called First Ascent. The products are priced at the premium level on par with The North Face and Patagonia. I received their catalog highlighting the launch and actually did a double take after seeing the Eddie Bauer name. Entering an already crowded space for premium outdoor apparel may not be the answer to all of the company's problems, but at least they are taking a step in the right direction to re-introduce authenticity into the brand.
- Burberry highlighted that ordering through Spring '10 remains cautious by its U.S Department store customers, despite a recent pick up in momentum for the brand. The CFO went on to suggest that orders are being planned down double-digits for the Spring season. The department stores are also still ordering close to need and relying somewhat on reordering rather than upfront purchase commitments.
- Add e-commerce to the list of features on Facebook with the addition of a web service/application called Payment. The application essentially allows any Facebook page to become e-commerce enabled, with transactions completed via an interface with Paypal. While the product is still in its early stages, it won't be long before millions of Facebook users set up shop selling everything and anything.
- Not a ton of new news out of GPS other than they are returning to television going into the holiday season. While not a total surprise it wasn't confirmed until today. Management has been adamant that is would not return to television until they were confident in the merchandise. Some may view this as a vote of confidence in the product, however the jury's out until we see some improvement in comps, which as late as September were below expectations.
-India: Chamber of Commerce Advocates Removal of Vat On Fashion Products - The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) has urged the Finance Ministry and the Empowered Committee on VAT to remove the Value Added Tax (VAT) on products of fashion, especially with more than 50% handloom and handicrafts input to make them competitive in the global market. <webnewswire.com>
-Advent Buys Charlotte Russe for $380M - Charlotte Russe Holding Inc. went private Wednesday after Boston-based Advent International Corp. completed the deal to purchase the teen retailer for $380 million and appointed Jenny Ming president and chief executive officer. In an exclusive interview with WWD, the private equity firm said it is looking to double the store count, boost sales productivity and reevaluate the demographic focus of the San Diego-based retailer. Ming, who succeeds John Goodman as ceo, has been an operating partner at Advent since 2008 and served as president of Gap Inc.'s Old Navy unit from 1998 to 2006. She will temporarily fill the position of chief merchandising officer, previously held by Emilia Fabricant. <wwd.com>
-Fila Aiming to Become Fourth Largest Sports Brand - Fila is looking to become the world's fourth largest sports fashion brand in five years, its top executive said at a press conference in Korea. The goal is to more than double sales to reach $3 billion over that time frame. Fila Korea also announced intentions to go public sometime next year. Yoon Yoon-soo, chairman of FILA Korea and GLBH Holdings, the parent company of FILA global operations, made his comments during a presentation at the Fila 2009 Global Conference held at the Grand Intercontinental hotel in Samseong-dong, southern Seoul. "We aim to increase the global sales of FILA to $3 billion in the next five years and become the world's No. 4 sports brand," said Yoon, according to the Korea Herald. "We have secured a stable financial structure by completing restructuring over the years. Becoming the No. 4 sports brand is attainable," he said. FILA's global revenue is likely to reach $1.2 billion this year, a 20% increase from 2007 when Yoon took over the Italian sports brand. <sportsonesource.com>
-Saucony to Focus on Elite Athletes, Overall Male Consumer - In fulfilling his vision of Saucony becoming the next great global athletic brand, company President Richie Woodworth noted that it is imperative for the company to do a better job attracting male customers. Speaking at the Annual Institutional Investor Conference for Saucony parent company Collective Brands International, Inc., Woodworth said the new focus came after Saucony found it was noticeably over-indexed in women and under-indexed in men. "We said, 'Okay, if the marketplace is 62% men, 38% women, what are we?' Boom, we're exactly the inverse opposite," said Woodworth. The challenge, however, was attracting more men to the brand without alienating its "extremely loyal" women consumers. <sportsonesource.com>
-Target sets its sights on a digital newsstand - Target Corp. is offering digital magazines on a new site with partner Zinio LLC, a technology company that works with publishers to provide digital versions of print publications. Target.Zinio.com offers single issues or annual subscriptions to magazines such as Marie Claire, Popular Mechanics, Elle and Woman's Day. <internetretailer.com>
-The Sports Authority's CEO Doug Morton Retires From Day-to-Day Operations - The Sports Authority announced that Doug Morton will be retiring as CEO. Morton, who has been with Sports Authority for 22 years, and served as CEO for more than a decade, will remain with the company as chairman of the board. <sportsonesource.com>
-Zappos Builds its Social Network - At Zappos, every employee is encouraged to tweet, post photos and videos, comment and blog freely on behalf of the $1 billion company. As a result, sometimes strange things end up online. Chief executive officer Tony Hsieh likes to post quotes that inspire him, such as "I failed my way to success." Inspirational pieces have the biggest following among the Zappos customer base. Such statements "have absolutely nothing to do with sales, but it communicates our brand," said Brian Kalma, Zappos director of user experience. "Instead of us trying to force product on them, we try to make them smile, make them laugh. It's an opportunity to create a fun conversation." <wwd.com>
-Gucci Latest Luxe Brand to Use Social Media - To mark the launch of Gucci Eyeweb, a new collection of sunglasses aimed at "the digital generation" of 18- to 25-year-olds, the brand will unveil today a global, multilingual, social networking microsite that asks users to upload and share their photos. Their pictures will then rotate over a 3-D image of the sunglasses, looking as if they're reflected in the dark lenses. Users of Guccieyeweb.com can switch among cities such as London, Milan, New York, Tokyo, Paris and Berlin to check out what their friends in each place are doing around the clock, and they can share their Gucci photo galleries on Facebook and Twitter. Next month, Gucci plans to swap the sunglasses, which cost $220, with ski goggles, so users can upload their winter holiday and weekend snaps. <wwd.com>
-Ittierre Seeks More Funding - After securing a $44 million line of credit in February, which reactivated its industrial and commercial activities, Ittierre SpA confirmed Wednesday it has asked for an additional banking facility understood to be for the same amount. Ittierre, which produces collections under license for Just Cavalli, C'N'C Costume National, Galliano and Ermanno Scervino, and parent company IT Holding SpA, which also owns the Gianfranco Ferré, Malo and Extè labels, filed for the Italian equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February after running out of cash. The additional 30 million euros, or $44.4 million, of liquidity is needed to help keep Ittierre operational while the government-appointed special commissioners continue their efforts to turn the company around. <wwd.com>
-H&M sales hit by warm weather - H&M sales have continued to slide, down 8% on a like-for-like basis in September. The Swedish fashion chain blamed the decline on unusually warm weather in most of the markets in which it operates. H&M said sales in countries with colder weather were satisfactory. Overall sales rose by 1% reflecting H&M's growth. The group had 210 more stores on September 30 than at the same time last year, bringing its total to 1,869. H&M's comparable year-on-year sales have been in negative territory since January 2008. Like-for-like sales in August were down by 11% with total sales were down 3%. <retail-week.com>
-Burberry Revenues Rise 4.6% in Quarter - First-half revenues at Burberry Group plc rose 6.1% to 572 million pounds, or $915.2 million, from 539 million pounds, or $862.4 million, boosted by favorable exchange rates and nonapparel such as handbags, small leather goods, scarves and shoes. Figures have been calculated at average exchange rates for the six-month period. Burberry said Wednesday that, at constant exchange rates, revenues in the six months to Sept. 30 would have shown a decline of 5 percent, due to a 15% decline in wholesale sales, which was in-line with the company's previous guidance. <wwd.com>
-Converse Brings Back Star Chevron - Converse said the iconic Star Chevron logo will now be the primary logo on all Converse basketball footwear. The Weapon Evo, a basketball shoe evolved from the original Weapon, will be the first shoe to feature the logo again. <sportsonesource.com>
-Texas Retailers Feel Recessionary Pressures - Retailers here were shielded from some of the worst fallout of the recession because of the diverse economy, population growth and revenue from the oil and natural gas industries. But as key sectors adjust to new fiscal realities, the region is absorbing the impact of job cuts, rising store vacancies and home foreclosures. Some economists predict recovery in the state will outpace a national rebound. Experts at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas expect minimal, modest growth in Texas in the first half of 2010, said D'Ann Peterson, a business economist at the Fed. <wwd.com>
-Zegna Continues Store Rollout Plan - Ermenegildo Zegna is pressing ahead with expansion in established and fast-growth emerging markets, introducing its global concept store format to Hong Kong and opening its first-ever boutique in Mongolia. After opening two flagship stores in Singapore's ION Mall on Wednesday, Ermenegildo Zegna will inaugurate today its fourth Peter Marino-designed global concept store format in Hong Kong — following New York, Milan and Tokyo — and unveil a stand-alone Z Zegna concept store design created by Peter Marino. <wwd.com>
RESEARCH EDGE PORTFOLIO: (Comments by Keith McCullough): NKE
McGough and I will take the other side of today's bulled up GS call. For the immediate term TRADE, NKE is a short at this price. Shorting high again... KM
NKE: Phillip Knight, Director, converted 5,000,000 shares of Class A Common Stock into Class B Common Stock and then sold 183,000 shares ($12mm).
ARO: Karin Hrtler-Garvey, Director, exercised 11,000 options ($462k).
NILE: Terri Maupin, VP of Finance & Controller, exercised 1,000 options ($63k).
- Charles Whetzel, EVP, exercised 10,000 options ($280k).
- David Pulver, Director, sold 25,000 shares ($700k).
- Advent CR, Inc., bought 1.321mm shares ($23mm).
- Frederick Silny, CFO, sold 174,000 options ($1.9mm).
- Leonard Mogil, Director, sold 80,000 options ($242k) and sold 4,500 shares ($79k).
- John Goodman, CEO, sold 200,000 options ($1.88mm) and sold 145,000 shares ($2.54mm).
FL: Ronald Halls, Pres. & CEO, sold 14,000 shares ($168k).
FINL: Gary Cohen, CAO, exercised 10,000 options ($63k).
- Janet Grove, Vice Chair, exercised 25,000 options ($100k).
- Karen Houget, CFO, exercised 23,000 options ($92k).
PETM: Thomas Stemberg, Director, exercised 35,000 options ($283k).
TGT: James Johnson, Director, exercised 9,000 options ($144k).


text:
Agility Financial Credit Union is a not-for-profit financial cooperative. Our goal is to help serve our members' financial needs. We do that through offering savings and lending options and by providing convenience.
At Agility Financial Credit Union we offer a wide array of products and services from savings and checking to auto and home equity loans, conveniences like online bill pay and check cards to direct deposit and payroll deduction. We pride ourselves on the low-cost nature of our products and services.
495 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103Get Directions »
NeighborhoodThe Edge


text:
Bullet Type: JHP, Jacketed Hollow Point
Bullet Weight: 90gr
Bullet Jacket: Copper
Case: Nickel
Velocity: 1,000 ft/s
Powder: Non-Corrosive
Primer: Boxer
Amount: 20 Round Box
Notes: Power, reliable expansion and reduced recoil are vitally important features for a self-defense caliber. Ideal for personal defense situations. Available in the premium Personal Defense Low Recoil line.


text:
I make over $50,000 per month at 26 years old. Ask me anything.
I make over $50,000 per month at 26 years old. Ask me anything
how many generations back does your families money go ?
I've made it myself since 21. $50,00 per month is the most I'm making now and until it's over. I started at ~$6,000 per month. My father works on a crane and my mother works at a mall. I wish I had family money.
I own several businesses, some related to software engineering, mostly professional services that are only accessible via subscriptions. You see how this can grow exponentially and why what I make is possible. I basically siphon money out of other companies and pocket 90% of it, if you want the face of it. That's about 75% of my income.
>I basically siphon money out of other companies and pocket 90% of it, if you want the face of it. That's about 75% of my income.
So basically you're just a parasite who has never done a day's of hard work in his life?
Did you go to college? How much money did you start out with?
>accessible via subscriptions
how many customers do you have? and how expensive are these subscriptions?
How complex are your services? I used to get hung up thinking companies wouldn't pay for basic services, but after a stint at a publicly traded company, I see that most companies can barely take care of the basics with technology.
OP, tell us more if u don't mind.. what sort of "professional services" and deeper details like what type of software work u do in your software engineering? We're not rich guys/biz oriented, any advice u give would be appreciated!
What skills would you attribute most of your success to?
help me make money
why are you too retarded to not be putting that shit into property, shares or at the very least a term deposit.
Define "hard work" please.
I didn't go to university and I really wanted to. I will, eventually. I started with a few thousand.
Yearly, they are over $100. Monthly, they are over $20. I'm not going to be too specific. I know how good some fellows are here at social engineering. The subscriptions have varied in the middle five digits and low six digits, slowly growing.
I'm not giving any more information related to what I'm involved with. It would be too obvious who I am.
When I was in middle school, I started working out via body-weight exercises in my bedroom. Unknowingly to me at the time, I was training myself to do things even if I didn't feel like doing them. It developed into other areas in my life and has been sort of my ethos, if you'd like. it gave me a "just do it" attitude in the right ways. Discipline is easily the most important. I hate motivation. It's simply the spark-plug in the engine that is your brain. Your discipline is what carries you.
Go into software and really work at it. Trust me. Trust me. Trust me. It is a low cost vehicle. You can learn from your computer chair. You have nothing to lose. Many well known entrepreneurs feel the same way.
Do you work for Tanda?
>Feb 12, 2016
Post recent balance
I was wondering if someone else was going to notice this and bring it up.
How much of your work is outsourced?
How good are you with software development yourself?
Your discipline answer vexes me desu. I'm Veeky Forums and having discipline is a trait shared by anyone who isnt a nu-male.
I'm guessing OP is selling anti-virus/anti-malware software? Seems to be a good subscription model that retards buy into because of fear.
Software dev reporting in, only banking £130k a year though which after tax makes me poor.
holy shit, well done son. that number looks so delicious sittin there all on its lonesome... mabye you should add another digit in there... get one of those sexy 7 digit numbers going...
> only banking £130k a year though which after tax makes me poor.
qlQR makes a good point, OP youd be getting taxed like 50% of everything you make. mabye you should get out of aus and go to luxembourge or some shit
I make over $50,000 per day.
Ask me anything.
Do you want a butler?
No questions, just wanted to say well done if legit and you didn't just temporarily change it in the browser.
Why on earth would you keep that much wealth liquid? Especially considering the sub 3% return you're probably getting on that account.
This is spot on.
I can have a lot of motivation, but that always vanishes after a bit.
How do I get more disciplined without lifting (health issues)?
Please link your business website or Linkedin profile.
>trusting a nigger who used inspect element to change the value
lol , if ur that rich then prove it by taking a picture of one of the rich items you have in your house
Hey man
Dont let these non believers get you down, the reason all they know how to ask is how and what you have to prove is because they aren't motivated enough to get out there and start doing something, then another thing and growing.
Props for making it this far, I want to see you hit another three zeroes after that $50,000 a month.
Good luck, and godspeed user.
Can you be my sugar daddy?
Thx much love,
your talking about lottery shit.
>I know how good some fellows are here at social engineering.
You already gave away enough info to find out what you do.
Is anyone going to call OP on his bullshit? The date is Feb 16, 2016. You guys are getting trolled. This is some /b/ level trolling and you guys fell for it. At 50k a month he would be known to the media for his darling tech startup. This is board is filled with retards.
is the cost of kneepads and lip balm included or excluded in the $50,000?
Where'd he get the pic? GRIS doesn't show shit.
How do you plan to invest it, or are you going to start other companies?
Also, how did you get into contact with your clients (the companies) that you deal with? Email, skype?


text:
Chief Instructor – Kayla Feder Sensei
Kayla Feder Sensei began her Aikido training in 1973 at the age of 9 and has trained continuously for 47 years. She studied directly under Morihiro Saito Shihan, 9th dan traveling to Iwama, Japan in 1980. Saito Shihan was an apprentice to the founder, Morihei Ueshiba (O'Sensei). He was one of O'Sensei's longest training students. In subsequent trips to Japan Feder Sensei trained with a number of other Shihan who trained under the founder.
Feder Sensei has also trained with and been strongly influenced by Doran Shihan, Nadeau Shihan, Saotome Shihan, and Ikeda Shihan. She received the rank of 6th dan in 2004.
Feder Sensei has taught seminars throughout the US, Europe, and Israel. In addition to her Aikido accomplishments she received a Masters degree in Holistic Health Education from JFK University in 1998.
Feder Sensei's teaching style supports the individual growth of each student. She has created a warm and welcoming community at Aikido of Berkeley. Feder Sensei also includes yoga and meditation practices as part of the training at Aikido of Berkeley.
Kayla Feder Sensei's press kit.
Kayla Feder Sensei interviewed by Edgar Ortega


text: Safe 24/7 parcel delivery and collection. Control site safety and your site's perimeter Does your organisation receive a large number of parcel deliveries every day? Does the speed of these couriers on your site often give rise to risk situations?Avoid unnecessary onsite traffic which may disrupt or interfere with operations and even give rise to accidents.Peripass ensures that couriers can check in quickly and easily and can leave parcels in a dropbox. All they must do is enter the recipient or the department. Rapid and efficient deliveries Install a dropbox in the visitor zone to avoid couriers from driving around the site to drop off their deliveries. Upon arrival, the courier selects a dropbox with the right size and indicates the recipient of the parcel or the department to which the parcel must be delivered. Once the dropbox is closed, Peripass sends the recipient a notification along with a unique code to collect the parcel. 24/7 pick-up Do your customers want to collect deliveries 24/7? Do customers need to pick up parts urgently? Your contact can collect goods at any time of the day, without requiring an employee to be onsite, with a QR code or an e-ticket. Peripass controls the right dropbox, ensuring a seamless delivery. Combine our solutions. Complete your business case. Visitors and contractorsYard management


text:
rollim earned the Dreadbloon Popper Achievement in Bloons Monkey City
rollim just got more awesomer and has reached Level 7!
rollim earned the New Frontiers Achievement in Bloons Monkey City
RainbowPuppy earned the Hill Giant Gold Achievement in Bloons TD 5
Ninja Kiwi and Bloons are trademarks of Ninja Kiwi Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries
iPhone and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc.


text:
Craniosacral Therapy
A unique and powerful bodywork technique is getting attention throughout the world. Developed in the 20th century in the United States, Craniosacral Therapy is used more and more by massage therapists, osteopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors and physical therapist. It is a gentle hands-on method that supports every system in the body, releasing tension and enhancing your body's own ability to heal.
What is craniosacral therapy?
Craniosacral therapy taps into a movement called the craniosacral rhythm, that is felt most strongly, at your head (cranium) and the base of your spine (sacrum). The craniosacral rhythm is created by a "wave' of fluid, which continuously ebbs and flows in the space around the brain and spinal cord. Because your body is connected in all its parts, the rhythm can also be felt throughout your tissues.
Tension anywhere in your body can restrict the flow of the craniosacral rhythm. Practitioners use a gentle touch, often less than a nickel's weight, to subtly correct that rhythm. In the process, tension can spontaneously release, allowing for positive change to occur throughout the body.
Why craniosacral therapy?
Craniosacral therapy works on a profound level to support healthful changes in all the body's systems.
Nervous System
Releasing tension that blocks the craniosacral rhythm can deeply calm the nervous system. Stress-related conditions often improve including anxiety, insomnia, digestive problems, and depression, menstrual irregularities, breathing difficulties, and headaches. In addition, visual problems, hearing difficulties, and injuries to the head or spinal cord can improve. Craniosacral therapy has been particularly helpful in treating children with birth trauma, learning difficulties, chronic ear problems, and hyperactivity.
Circulatory System
As the body relaxes, circulation improves, resulting in increased energy, reduced pain, improved immune system function, and faster recovery from surgery and injuries such as whiplash.
Musculoskeletal System
Craniosacral therapy provides relief for many painful musculoskeletal conditions. Even complex problems such as TMJD, fibromyalgia, arthritis and sciatica respond well to this gentle therapy.
The Emotional Component
Physical tension in the body may be connected to strong feelings. A hunched posture, for example, can be the result of fear experienced in the past. When the body relaxes, feelings can surface. Becoming aware of your emotions can be a very effective aid in relieving tension and pain, and can lead to long-lasting improvements.
A Versatile Approach
Craniosacral therapy is suitable for all ages from infants to the elderly. Because it works with a system that most techniques don't address, it can be an effective alternative where other therapies have not provided relief.
The gentle touch of craniosacral therapy may also be a good choice for you if you have trouble relaxing, are ticklish or if massage therapy sometimes leaves you sore. The touch is so subtle that is unlikely your body will tighten up in response to it, a benefit that can greatly enhance your ability to relax.


text:
7 Rituals to Prepare You for the New YearDecember 29, 2018 11:11 am
New year is a time of year that encourages us to reflect on things. It's a perfect opportunity to check in with your self and (in a gentle way) decide what you might like to bring in to your life in the coming year. In this post I am going... View Article


text:
Caravan Lithium Kit
Caravan Lithium Battery System
Lithium batteries for caravans are becoming increasiningly popular and affordable to run the every day household items while on the road. Whether you are free camping or staying at an unpowered site at a caravan park, having a self sufficient setup to run the modern day caravnners appliances makes life on the road a lot more comfortable. The initial expense of a caravan lithium battery setup will be more than a normal AGM deep cycle battery setup, although when you factor in the lifespan of both systems side by side - a caravan lithium setup will save you dollars in the long run due to its superior longevity, whilst giving you the added convenience of running your normal household 240volt appliances off grid in that period.
Imagine being on the road and finding a nice little free camping spot, and being able to use your microwave, hair dryer, air conditioner or washing machine without the need to find mains power!
Generators are a popular alternative, although can be quite inconvenient when you can't use them in certain places - like national parks or at certain times like in caravan parks. Having a caravan lithium battery system opens you up to easy caravanning wherever you choose to travel.