In this chapter, the *300 soldiers are selected based upon whether they kneel and (presumably) suck water out of the stream, or cup their hands and with their tongues, lap the water out of their hands.
So. . .
A) Any cultural insight on the lesser desirability of suckers vs. lappers? and
B) Is their any indication of ancient peoples actually lapping their water with their tongues?
*Something about that number seems sooooo familiar. . . .
first thought -
lapping indicates they are looking up and vision is unblocked - sucking would indicate they have there face down to the water and not paying attention.
culturally - no idea -
WAG: Gideon and the Lord were looking to reduce the size of their troops from 10,000 to a small number that proves that the Lord was the real cause of success. And so, maybe, the lappers were chosen simply because they were the smaller number.
That’s the way I’ve always understood it.
Ditto. The idea was to weed out the people who were not vigilant.
I don’t understand why lapping would mean they weren’t looking down. You can’t lap water “like a dog” unless your head is tilted down so your tongue can reach the water. And if you aren’t kneeling, what are you doing to get your head level to the water? Dogs don’t use their hands.
I’ve actually heard both explanations before, that the 300 were more ready because they were still looking or that they less ready because they weren’t, and thus the glory would go to God. I think less ready makes more sense, since previously those who were afraid were dismissed. Who is the less afraid–the guy who keeps a constant lookout or the guy who doesn’t?
From the medieval rabbi Rashi, who is the first required reading for any literate Orthodox Jew:
An argument can be made both ways; the text does not say. One thought: those who stand (scoop up water in the palm of their hands and lap from their cupped hands) are remaining alert and watchful, those who kneel are drinking hurriedly and noisily, looking down at the water, and try to be quick because they’re afraid. (Josephus, in Antiquities, expresses this opinion.
The other thought: those who kneel to drink like a dog are drinking in the fastest way, so as to be distracted for less time. There are ancient texts (my source doesn’t specify, alas) that describe the best soldiers as those who drink like dogs, thus stay alert, are quickest, and more out-doors types. This line of reasoning makes the most sense to me, since the idea is to have a smaller number of less skilled warriors, so that it’s clear that the victory comes from God and not from mere power of arms.
Other thoughts: Ralbag (early 1300s) says that those who knelt were indolent (it’s easier) while those who stood were energetic. And Kimchi (1200s) says (a) those who bow down do so because they’re used to it, bowing in worship of Baal; and (b) that they enjoyed their own reflection in the water (and so were too egotistical.)
Aside: The Hebrew word for lapping is lakak, onomatopoeic.
NOTE: The posters who are most knowledgable in this area are our Orthodox and Traditional Jews, who won’t be looking at this until after sundown. (I’m Conservative and not Sabbath-observant.)
With hiking and backpacking using your hand to get water to you indicated a degree of control and humanity, while putting your face to the stream indicated some degree of desperation.
Quite ironically the degree of desperation is what the Lord God of Israel seemed to desire.
The whole point of the story is to demonstrate that the troops were superfluous to victory. God is going to make the Israelis win, and his main concern is to make clear that they are winning due to divine intervention, not by their own military power. Picking out the vigilant troops would run opposite to the purpose.
The point of using drinking vs lapping is simply that it’s entirely arbitrary. It doesn’t matter who Gideon brings with him, as long as they do what God tells them, they’ll win.
I disagree completely. Not everything in the Bible is about God, despite what the religious think. The story of Gideon is similar to a the stories of Odysseus - how a small group of dedicated men can, through cunning and courage, defeat a much more powerful enemy. It’s an action story.
Gideon’s testing course was essentially an ancient version of special forces selection, focusing, like modern selections, on the psychological aspects of the recruits as well as their skills and physical attributes. Or, as Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler would say:
One hundred men will test today
But only three win the Green Beret
He even got the success rate right.
Its a rubbish army that does not have drinking vessels and storage for water.
Just who is in charge of this ill supplied, shambolic rabble with so little initiative.
No wonder they needed God on their side, 'cause in terms of logistics and strategy they were really a disaster.
If you have full canteens and you reach a source of water, you drink from the source of water first, and leave the canteens for emergencies. That’s military 101.
Maybe in some wise it’s akin to the legendary salted food test for aspiring executives; the hiring manager doesn’t really care whether the prospect likes salty food or not, but the way he salts his food may indicate something about his judgment.
The way I was taught, the ones who lapped with their tongues did so because they were keeping one hand on their swords or spears.
I think you guys could kick our ass one on one.
But I digress.
My Grandfather told me it was a way to pick out guys who couldn’t be sneaked up on, but he was a Baptist. 
I was just getting ready to mention the steak cutting test along the same vein (sorry, don’t have a link)
I wonder if the people of Pawnee would have been chosen or not?
Plus, when you bend down and suck water from the stream, you finish up more quickly, so you’re at a disadvantage for a shorter time.
And it’s quieter, too! You’re less likely to be heard by an enemy scout!
Was this taught in secular schools in Biblical History? It sounds stereotypically Israel-Not-Exile way of thinking. (Not that it makes it any worse than any other explanation floating around.)
In a “modern Orthodox” or certainly a non-Orthodox yeshiva I can see it alao being said as a perfectly acceptable (and perhaps uniquely Israeli) religous gloss. But in Israel you can count those types of yeshiva on one hand.
Where did you learn I?