I’m in a provocative mood today–going to the funeral of a good man later this morning.
Here’s a new twist on a story you know well from Lutheran theologian Chad Bird:
Who sold Joseph to the Midianites?
Many will say, “His brothers, of course!”
Well, maybe not.
His brothers certainly planned to “sell [Joseph] to the Ishmaelites” (Gen. 37:27). After they made their plan, “Midianite traders passed by.
And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites…” (37:28).
Here’s the question: Who are “they” who took Joseph out of the pit?
The nearest antecedent to “they” are the Midianites. Moreover, later on, Reuben discovered Joseph missing from the pit and informed his brothers (37:29-30). Joseph’s brothers presumably were away from the pit when the Midianites beat them to the punch, stole Joseph from under their noses, sold him to the Ishmaelites, and pocketed the proceeds of human trafficking.
Joseph even explains later to the cupbearer that he was “stolen [!] out of the land of the Hebrews” (40:15).
There is another wrinkle, however, for Joseph also tells his brothers in Egypt, “I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt…you sold me here…” (45:4-5).
One possible solution is that, before Joseph overheard his brothers talking about the evil they had done to him, he had always assumed the Midianites alone were responsible for selling him (42:22).
Now he realizes how complicit his brothers were in his sufferings.
This would partially explain why, when he heard their conversation, he “turned away from them and wept” (42:24).
Ultimately, we can say this: there was plenty of sin, guilt, and blame to go around that day when Joseph, at seventeen years old, had his entire life ripped to shreds by the hands of loveless men, including his own flesh and blood.
As he would learn much later in life, however, what others intended as evil against him, God used for profound good.
Good day, from Atlanta. We have a large water main break near us that affects a major part of our county including the Emory campus and hospital, CDC, and so much else. We are not in the line of the affected areas, thankfully, but we are close to it. I was on the phone around 6:30 a.m. calling two friends to make them aware to not use the water. Crews are coming here from Charlotte and Birmingham to help with repair. We have not heard the cause for it yet.
The header photo is one of the ones I submitted to the juried show, none of which got in. They offered those of us who hadn’t gotten photos in that we could choose one of our photos and have the jurors tell us why it wasn’t selected. I chose a different photo, but for some reason this one was sent as well, and it’s the one they started with, and they attacked it quite savagely.
The one point they said which might have been relevant is that the icicles on the right “compete” with the waterfall itself in the composition. I personally preferred a different photo I took that day, zoomed in more so the waterfall is bigger in the frame, and you also can better see the tiny little waterfall that is in about the exact middle of this frame, where the water is still flowing. But my husband liked this one, and I liked both, so I ended up submitting this one.
They said it took “no effort” and then told me I needed to go down into the creek and “get my feet wet” to get the photo. When I said that the stone steps are iced over when the waterfall is frozen, the man said that a photographer “takes chances” and the woman said if you can’t get closer than this, then you “just don’t take the photo.” They didn’t even know that in fact I took many photos that day, some of them zoomed in much, much closer (my camera has a zoom lens that zooms up to 2000 mm; for comparison, sports photographers will use something in the range of 500 mm), but chose this one, rather than that I took one quick photo and left.
I actually do like the icicles at right; I think they frame the photo a bit and show some perspective. But I was trying to get a slightly different perspective, where I would be basically looking past the icicles to the waterfall, with the big icicles more prominent in the frame, and looking under them to the waterfall–but there are bars there, and plants growing against the mountain, and this was the only perspective possible to get those icicles in it.
One of the jurors also said it didn’t work because there is no horizon in the shot. I do know that landscape shots usually show a horizon, but I’m not enough of an expert on landscape photos to know whether that is considered somehow a “necessary” element for a landscape photo. Most of my photos do not in fact show horizons; I’ve long noticed that (mostly I take wildlife photos, or wildflowers), but I don’t know if that is a fair criticism of a landscape photo.
At any rate, I took the photo because I found the scene breathtakingly beautiful, and I drove in very cold weather, and hiked to the falls in very cold weather, precisely because I expected it to be beautiful–and it was prettier than I expected. I intend to submit the zoomed-in photo next year (it will have different jurors).
Interesting commentary about the photo, Cheryl. I really like the icicles on the right. With the angle the photo is taken from, they are making huge assumptions about the amount of effort it took to get that close. They seem to be wrong-minded in their judgements. It is a very good portrayal of a winter scene. I think it is a lesson learned in letting go of wrong opinions more than how to improve your photography skills.
Cheryl, I don’t know the situation at all but I would maybe have preferred a few steps back, the camera down a couple of feet, the lens up a bit to capture more of the creek coming in as well as the large icicles. Maybe that would have touched on the “horizon “ looked for but not sure how much horizon one can find down in a stream bed! I guess I am just saying I am greedy and wanted more.
I can see that, too, Janice. It is a beautiful thought provoking shot, leading me to want more and I guess that is good art. Why does the !mona Lisa smile?
Thanks, Janice and Mumsee. Mumsee, I did get some shots that showed more of the creek coming in, but it’s that or the icicles in front, not both, because of the configuration of the viewing stand. If I had a cell phone camera, I could probably reach it between the bars and thus get a shot from a few feet lower, but my cameras are too large to do that. I tried to take photos “between” the bars (zooming in enough to “crop out” the bars), and that proved to be impossible. Getting the icicles in front into the shot isn’t easy, a bit of an awkward angle to do it, because they’re so close to the viewing stand but lower than it is.
I am not a photo expert by any means, but I like the icicles and brush on the right. I believe it gives the picture the depth it needs to appreciate where you are. I have no idea why a horizon would always be needed.
There are lots of people in the music industry that will insist on lots of rules to the point where songs are robbed of really saying anything. It’s great to get tips in these kinds of contests, but it is somewhat subjective. Many of the greats would never be appreciated, because of hard and fast rules. Sometimes the people just show what they like and propel an artist forward in spite of the ‘experts.’ I imagine that is sometimes true of photography, too. I will find it interesting to hear what is said about the photo if you do resubmit it.
Wandering Views 
Beautiful photos.
I’m in a provocative mood today–going to the funeral of a good man later this morning.
Here’s a new twist on a story you know well from Lutheran theologian Chad Bird:
Who sold Joseph to the Midianites?
Many will say, “His brothers, of course!”
Well, maybe not.
His brothers certainly planned to “sell [Joseph] to the Ishmaelites” (Gen. 37:27). After they made their plan, “Midianite traders passed by.
And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites…” (37:28).
Here’s the question: Who are “they” who took Joseph out of the pit?
The nearest antecedent to “they” are the Midianites. Moreover, later on, Reuben discovered Joseph missing from the pit and informed his brothers (37:29-30). Joseph’s brothers presumably were away from the pit when the Midianites beat them to the punch, stole Joseph from under their noses, sold him to the Ishmaelites, and pocketed the proceeds of human trafficking.
Joseph even explains later to the cupbearer that he was “stolen [!] out of the land of the Hebrews” (40:15).
There is another wrinkle, however, for Joseph also tells his brothers in Egypt, “I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt…you sold me here…” (45:4-5).
One possible solution is that, before Joseph overheard his brothers talking about the evil they had done to him, he had always assumed the Midianites alone were responsible for selling him (42:22).
Now he realizes how complicit his brothers were in his sufferings.
This would partially explain why, when he heard their conversation, he “turned away from them and wept” (42:24).
Ultimately, we can say this: there was plenty of sin, guilt, and blame to go around that day when Joseph, at seventeen years old, had his entire life ripped to shreds by the hands of loveless men, including his own flesh and blood.
As he would learn much later in life, however, what others intended as evil against him, God used for profound good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beautiful, Cheryl! God is amazing and water is a proof.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brrr. Beautiful, but looks very slippery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Michelle.
Too many links, so SPAM grabbed it.
AJ
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey! I was first! Favoritism!!!
mumsee
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michelle, I have often wondered about Reuben’s discovery and informing the brothers.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 2 people
My post for today, at the end of yesterday 🙂
Good day, from Atlanta. We have a large water main break near us that affects a major part of our county including the Emory campus and hospital, CDC, and so much else. We are not in the line of the affected areas, thankfully, but we are close to it. I was on the phone around 6:30 a.m. calling two friends to make them aware to not use the water. Crews are coming here from Charlotte and Birmingham to help with repair. We have not heard the cause for it yet.
LikeLike
The header photo is one of the ones I submitted to the juried show, none of which got in. They offered those of us who hadn’t gotten photos in that we could choose one of our photos and have the jurors tell us why it wasn’t selected. I chose a different photo, but for some reason this one was sent as well, and it’s the one they started with, and they attacked it quite savagely.
The one point they said which might have been relevant is that the icicles on the right “compete” with the waterfall itself in the composition. I personally preferred a different photo I took that day, zoomed in more so the waterfall is bigger in the frame, and you also can better see the tiny little waterfall that is in about the exact middle of this frame, where the water is still flowing. But my husband liked this one, and I liked both, so I ended up submitting this one.
They said it took “no effort” and then told me I needed to go down into the creek and “get my feet wet” to get the photo. When I said that the stone steps are iced over when the waterfall is frozen, the man said that a photographer “takes chances” and the woman said if you can’t get closer than this, then you “just don’t take the photo.” They didn’t even know that in fact I took many photos that day, some of them zoomed in much, much closer (my camera has a zoom lens that zooms up to 2000 mm; for comparison, sports photographers will use something in the range of 500 mm), but chose this one, rather than that I took one quick photo and left.
I actually do like the icicles at right; I think they frame the photo a bit and show some perspective. But I was trying to get a slightly different perspective, where I would be basically looking past the icicles to the waterfall, with the big icicles more prominent in the frame, and looking under them to the waterfall–but there are bars there, and plants growing against the mountain, and this was the only perspective possible to get those icicles in it.
One of the jurors also said it didn’t work because there is no horizon in the shot. I do know that landscape shots usually show a horizon, but I’m not enough of an expert on landscape photos to know whether that is considered somehow a “necessary” element for a landscape photo. Most of my photos do not in fact show horizons; I’ve long noticed that (mostly I take wildlife photos, or wildflowers), but I don’t know if that is a fair criticism of a landscape photo.
At any rate, I took the photo because I found the scene breathtakingly beautiful, and I drove in very cold weather, and hiked to the falls in very cold weather, precisely because I expected it to be beautiful–and it was prettier than I expected. I intend to submit the zoomed-in photo next year (it will have different jurors).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting commentary about the photo, Cheryl. I really like the icicles on the right. With the angle the photo is taken from, they are making huge assumptions about the amount of effort it took to get that close. They seem to be wrong-minded in their judgements. It is a very good portrayal of a winter scene. I think it is a lesson learned in letting go of wrong opinions more than how to improve your photography skills.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheryl, I don’t know the situation at all but I would maybe have preferred a few steps back, the camera down a couple of feet, the lens up a bit to capture more of the creek coming in as well as the large icicles. Maybe that would have touched on the “horizon “ looked for but not sure how much horizon one can find down in a stream bed! I guess I am just saying I am greedy and wanted more.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find the capture of the semi-circle especially appealing, and think that is what holds it all together and makes it pretty amazing.
LikeLike
The semi-circle is like a horizon, IMO.
LikeLike
I can see that, too, Janice. It is a beautiful thought provoking shot, leading me to want more and I guess that is good art. Why does the !mona Lisa smile?
mumsee
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Janice and Mumsee. Mumsee, I did get some shots that showed more of the creek coming in, but it’s that or the icicles in front, not both, because of the configuration of the viewing stand. If I had a cell phone camera, I could probably reach it between the bars and thus get a shot from a few feet lower, but my cameras are too large to do that. I tried to take photos “between” the bars (zooming in enough to “crop out” the bars), and that proved to be impossible. Getting the icicles in front into the shot isn’t easy, a bit of an awkward angle to do it, because they’re so close to the viewing stand but lower than it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Makes sense, and I don’t advise going out with a pickaxe and shovel at night to fix the problem. Well done.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not a photo expert by any means, but I like the icicles and brush on the right. I believe it gives the picture the depth it needs to appreciate where you are. I have no idea why a horizon would always be needed.
There are lots of people in the music industry that will insist on lots of rules to the point where songs are robbed of really saying anything. It’s great to get tips in these kinds of contests, but it is somewhat subjective. Many of the greats would never be appreciated, because of hard and fast rules. Sometimes the people just show what they like and propel an artist forward in spite of the ‘experts.’ I imagine that is sometimes true of photography, too. I will find it interesting to hear what is said about the photo if you do resubmit it.
LikeLiked by 1 person