Moses of Half- Manasseh

In Joshua 13:29, the king’s translators add three words to Joshua's original text (“this,” and “the possession,” respectively) which obscure what might be the truest word written in the canon about Moses’ family of origin.

With the translators’ help, Joshua 13:29 reads: "And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and this was the possession of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families [Joshua 13:29]." The addition of “inheritance” to the verse is negligible. The entire chapter is about “inheritances.” Like the (You) which attends many declarative sentences is understood without expression, “inheritance” is understood to be the subject of Joshua 13.

Without the translators’ help, Joshua 13:29 reads thus: “And Moses gave unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and was of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families.” It's understandable if the translators were confused by the text of Joshua 13:29 as it was written. Moses was, by his own, utterly unreliable testimony, a Levite son of Amram of the families of Kohath– not of the line of Manasseh. The only problem with Moses' pedigree, as Moses records it, is that Amram was long- dead before Moses was born. It's impossible that Moses was, as he alleges, a child of Amram.

Joshua 13:29, could amount to an admission– compliments of a “Freudian slip” from Joshua's pen– that Moses, though a Jew, was not a Levite. Certainly the pedigree Moses provides himself is patent malarkey. Perhaps Joshua 13:29 was simply meant to signify that Moses couldn't remember which tribe he was from (if he was indeed of the twelve tribes). It could be that Joshua 13:29 is Joshua's politest way of revealing Moses' bastardly heritage (outside of Pharaoh's household).

Abarim Publications’ Dictionary of Biblical Names defines the name Manasseh as, “Forgetting, Evaporating.” Moses, in Genesis, says of the name Manasseh: “Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house [Genesis 41:51];” meaning that, in the case of “first mention,” Manasseh is related to bastardization. A bastard is one who knows not who their father is. If Moses knew who his father was, he certainly didn't tell the truth about it anywhere in the ‘Holy Bible’.

Not Untied

In Deuteronomy 33, Moses records the various “blessings” which he prophesied over the tribes of the children of Israel before his death. “And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of [Reuben] before his death… Let Reuben live, and not die; and let not his men be few [Deuteronomy 33:1 & 6]." In adding one three- letter word (“not”) to the text of verse 6, the translators turned the text against itself.

If the added “not” is removed from Deuteronomy 33:6, the result reads: “Let Reuben live, and not die; and let his men be few.” This is a complete sentence and a full thought. Why would the translators add “not” to a text which is complete without it, if not to overturn the gist of the text? Why would the king's translators edit what they've been commissioned to translate, unless under political pressure to do so? After all, this isn't be the first blessing- turned- into- a- curse recorded in the ‘Holy Bible' canon: therefore the case for leaving the text alone enjoys precedent- based merit.

In Genesis 49, the “blessings” bestowed upon the twelve patriarchs [“Every [patriarch] according to his blessing [Jacob] blessed them.”] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel by their father “Israel” (which is to say Jacob) are recorded by Moses. Of these twelve blessings, two are explicit, overt curses.

In his “parting shot,” Jacob (according to Moses) takes a swipe at two of his children– Simeon and Levi– saying the trademark of their brotherhood is their cruelty; and cursing it as unconscionable. Moses says Jacob (“Israel”) said, “5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. 6 O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united… 7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel [Genesis 49:5 - 7].”

Scattered- and- divided is not established- and- united. Jacob's “blessing” of Simeon and Levi is a curse (uttered by “Israel [Genesis 49:2]”) dividing brothers. Why, then, would the translators add “not” to the text of Deuteronomy 33:6? Where's the coverup? What’s the caper? Perhaps the addition of “not” to Deuteronomy 33:6 is simply a Vatican- style figleaf applied by the translators to the text to cover Reuben's nakedness uncovered therein. Jacob (“Israel”) also cursed Reuben in “blessing” all his children before the day of his death, after all.

According to Moses, Jacob (“Israel”) himself said of Reuben: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch [Genesis 49:4].” The inspiration for Jacob's (which is to say “Israel's”) ‘blessed’ cursing of Reuben, alluded to by Moses in Genesis 49, is found in Genesis 35:22: “...Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it.” Cometh, then, the curse of Deuteronomy 33:6 without cause? Why cover it up?