After finishing Exodus and all the passages going into detail over the temple construction, the robes of Aaron and his sons, etc, I was happy to be moving onto Leviticus. Only to have chapter after chapter delineating the different types of sacrifices and procedures for each. It's not hard to see where many people trying to read the Bible from start to finish might just very well quit at this point.
It's not totally without interest though. Such as the idea of allowing different types of sacrifices for those that are poor. If you don't have a cow, a sheep will do. If no sheep, then birds. If no birds, then a cereal/grain offering.
Or the fact that it covers sins committed without realizing. Upon realizing the sin, it is imperative to then make a sacrifice and make yourself right with God. If your sin involved defrauding another, you must make restitution plus a set penalty to make yourself right with your fellow man and society and STILL make the sacrifice to square things with God. It also sets the penalty, preventing capricious, greedy and/or arbitrary penalties to be set. It also allows that rulers and priests can also commit sins and will be held accountable for those sins. Think of how often rulers of the time were set up as and considered gods. Even today, dictators the world round see themselves as being independent of the concerns and laws of the people they rule.
But, five chapters in and still going, it makes laborious reading.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Call Me Ishmael
Genesis 15 starts off with another account of God's promise to Abram of many descendants and Abram points out that he and Sarai are childless and thus his belongings will pass to a slave. In verse 7, the promise or covenant is cemented through a ceremony and sacrifice.
v12-16: God speaks to Abram in a dream, and foretells of a long time that his descendants will be slaves in a foreign land, but ultimately will be delivered and with many possessions while judgment will be visited upon their oppressors, ie the story of Moses.
Chapter 16: As noted in my last post, a running theme of the Bible is the relationships of women and their roles in society as well as God's will and plans. In this case, Sarai decides to help God along with his covenant and has her Egyptian slave-girl Hagar sleep with Abram to bear him a son. However, this does not solve things as the relationship between Hagar and Sarai become tense. The Bible is not specific as to the offense Hagar commits against Sarai but it's not hard to imagine. Hagar has provided to Abram something Sarai has not but Hagar is still a slave to Sarai. Abram tells Sarai that Hagar is her slave and to do what she wishes. Again the Bible is not specific beyond that Sarai treated her harshly and Hagar runs away. There in the desert, the angel of the Lord appears to Hagar, comforts her and tells her to return to Sarai. He makes a similar promise to Hagar that he did to Abram, that through her son Ishmael (for "God Hears") will have many descendants, though it's an odd promise as he says "with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin".
An interesting story in several regards. Like the story of Adam, the patriarch listens to his wife over God and with little complaint. He also defers to his wife in the treatment of the slave. Unlike the Eden story, God does not punish them for this. It's a lesson for our times as we often try to seek to impose our will over God's, possibly even justifying to ourselves that we are in truth working God's will. God's timetable is not necessarily the same as ours. And, it does not work well. How often do we make decisions that seem right in the moment, have unforeseen consequences later? What's also striking is that the angel of God appears to a FOREIGN woman, not the woman that is matriarch of the Hebrew people, and makes a similar promise to her as he did to Abram.
Chapter 17: Another version of the covenant between Abram and God. The study Bible I use talks about how the previous version is the Yahwist account, this one is the Priestly account. Two important additions, this is where Abram's name is changed to Abraham and Sarai's name to Sarah and the practice of circumcision is introduced. A interesting aspect, here Abram laughs at the idea that Sarai, an old woman, will give birth to a child. In the next chapter as the promise is again reiterated, Sarah is the one who laughs.
Chapter 18: This is a separate but connected story. Three men stop by Abraham's tent and Abraham meets them and invites them in. Their identities are ambiguous but they make the pronouncement that when they pass that way again, Abraham and Sarah will have had a son and this is where she laughs.
The three men are only passing through, though as it turns out. For the Lord (implying he to be one of the three) are on their way to Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities that are so wicked that the Lord has heard the outcry against them and is investigating the situation and will bring about judgment and destruction.
Abraham then approaches God and challenges him, will he wash away the righteous with the wicked? God accedes if fifty can be found, the city will be spared. Abraham continues to argue, slowly whittling the number down to ten. This illustrates Abraham as being compassionate for his neighbors and kin, but also sets him up in a way as a high priest for the people as he strives to be an intercessory for them with God. It also illustrates the dual nature of God, one who judges but also one who shows compassion. And, in the end, for those of us who struggle and doubt, it also shows us a God who listens to us, and does not punish us for merely questioning or challenging him when the world seems capricious and cruel.
Chapter 19: Sodom and Gamorrah are not spared their fate, alas, but Lot and his family are as they receive the two angels who come in the night (again appearing as men). He receives them as guests into his home as per ancient tradition of hospitality and as Abraham had likewise done. However, when word gets out, the people of Sodom surround his house and demand the two visitors be handed over to them. Jarringly to us in modern day, Lot offers his virginal daughters instead for them to have their way with them. Lot is less concerned with the homosexuality aspect of their intentions as he is with violating the rules of hospitality, that these men were now under his tent. It also says a lot for the status of women in the time.
Of course we know what happens next. The angels strike blind those attempting to violate Lot's hospitality and arrange for him to flee with his wife, two daughters and their prospective sons-in-law. However, he lingers and the angels seize him, his wife and two daughters and tell them to flee to the hills. However, Lot pleads for the sake of Zoar, a small nearby town as they'd never make it to the hills in time. The angels listen and agree with the provision they don't look back. Of course, Lot's wife does and is turned into a pillar of salt.
The story ends with the origins of the Moabite and Ammonite people. Lot fears to enter the city and so lives with his two daughters in a cave. With zero prospects, the daughters arrange to get him drunk and sleep with him in turn, and bear him sons Moab and Benammi. This story thus gives a dual and conflicted nature of the Moabite and Ammonite people with the Israelites. On one hand, they are close kin, directly descended from Lot, kin of Abraham. However, their beginnings are dubious, from incestuous relations. Thus, a shorthand for illustrating both the bonds and conflicts between neighboring groups of people in ancient times.
v12-16: God speaks to Abram in a dream, and foretells of a long time that his descendants will be slaves in a foreign land, but ultimately will be delivered and with many possessions while judgment will be visited upon their oppressors, ie the story of Moses.
Chapter 16: As noted in my last post, a running theme of the Bible is the relationships of women and their roles in society as well as God's will and plans. In this case, Sarai decides to help God along with his covenant and has her Egyptian slave-girl Hagar sleep with Abram to bear him a son. However, this does not solve things as the relationship between Hagar and Sarai become tense. The Bible is not specific as to the offense Hagar commits against Sarai but it's not hard to imagine. Hagar has provided to Abram something Sarai has not but Hagar is still a slave to Sarai. Abram tells Sarai that Hagar is her slave and to do what she wishes. Again the Bible is not specific beyond that Sarai treated her harshly and Hagar runs away. There in the desert, the angel of the Lord appears to Hagar, comforts her and tells her to return to Sarai. He makes a similar promise to Hagar that he did to Abram, that through her son Ishmael (for "God Hears") will have many descendants, though it's an odd promise as he says "with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin".
An interesting story in several regards. Like the story of Adam, the patriarch listens to his wife over God and with little complaint. He also defers to his wife in the treatment of the slave. Unlike the Eden story, God does not punish them for this. It's a lesson for our times as we often try to seek to impose our will over God's, possibly even justifying to ourselves that we are in truth working God's will. God's timetable is not necessarily the same as ours. And, it does not work well. How often do we make decisions that seem right in the moment, have unforeseen consequences later? What's also striking is that the angel of God appears to a FOREIGN woman, not the woman that is matriarch of the Hebrew people, and makes a similar promise to her as he did to Abram.
Chapter 17: Another version of the covenant between Abram and God. The study Bible I use talks about how the previous version is the Yahwist account, this one is the Priestly account. Two important additions, this is where Abram's name is changed to Abraham and Sarai's name to Sarah and the practice of circumcision is introduced. A interesting aspect, here Abram laughs at the idea that Sarai, an old woman, will give birth to a child. In the next chapter as the promise is again reiterated, Sarah is the one who laughs.
Chapter 18: This is a separate but connected story. Three men stop by Abraham's tent and Abraham meets them and invites them in. Their identities are ambiguous but they make the pronouncement that when they pass that way again, Abraham and Sarah will have had a son and this is where she laughs.
The three men are only passing through, though as it turns out. For the Lord (implying he to be one of the three) are on their way to Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities that are so wicked that the Lord has heard the outcry against them and is investigating the situation and will bring about judgment and destruction.
Abraham then approaches God and challenges him, will he wash away the righteous with the wicked? God accedes if fifty can be found, the city will be spared. Abraham continues to argue, slowly whittling the number down to ten. This illustrates Abraham as being compassionate for his neighbors and kin, but also sets him up in a way as a high priest for the people as he strives to be an intercessory for them with God. It also illustrates the dual nature of God, one who judges but also one who shows compassion. And, in the end, for those of us who struggle and doubt, it also shows us a God who listens to us, and does not punish us for merely questioning or challenging him when the world seems capricious and cruel.
Chapter 19: Sodom and Gamorrah are not spared their fate, alas, but Lot and his family are as they receive the two angels who come in the night (again appearing as men). He receives them as guests into his home as per ancient tradition of hospitality and as Abraham had likewise done. However, when word gets out, the people of Sodom surround his house and demand the two visitors be handed over to them. Jarringly to us in modern day, Lot offers his virginal daughters instead for them to have their way with them. Lot is less concerned with the homosexuality aspect of their intentions as he is with violating the rules of hospitality, that these men were now under his tent. It also says a lot for the status of women in the time.
Of course we know what happens next. The angels strike blind those attempting to violate Lot's hospitality and arrange for him to flee with his wife, two daughters and their prospective sons-in-law. However, he lingers and the angels seize him, his wife and two daughters and tell them to flee to the hills. However, Lot pleads for the sake of Zoar, a small nearby town as they'd never make it to the hills in time. The angels listen and agree with the provision they don't look back. Of course, Lot's wife does and is turned into a pillar of salt.
The story ends with the origins of the Moabite and Ammonite people. Lot fears to enter the city and so lives with his two daughters in a cave. With zero prospects, the daughters arrange to get him drunk and sleep with him in turn, and bear him sons Moab and Benammi. This story thus gives a dual and conflicted nature of the Moabite and Ammonite people with the Israelites. On one hand, they are close kin, directly descended from Lot, kin of Abraham. However, their beginnings are dubious, from incestuous relations. Thus, a shorthand for illustrating both the bonds and conflicts between neighboring groups of people in ancient times.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Noah, Abram, and Melchizedek
Sloshing through the Book of Exodus right now, getting bogged down where Moses is on the mountain receiving instructions on building the temple, the vessel to carry the Ark of the Covenant (how many out there thought the first Raiders movie was going to be about Noah's Ark?), and the design of the robes that Aaron and the priests would wear. Little wonder that the movies, our memories and churches all skip right over these passages. So back to talking about Genesis and the Old Testament..
Back to Noah: A few more interesting tidbits. I noted above that the Eden story suggests that the ideal state is vegetarianism. It is here where Man is given dominion over the animals and the first set of rules governing what animals can and cannot be eaten as well as how they are to be prepared. We also get the first spelled out rules governing sacrifices. God makes a covenant or promise to Noah and to the succeeding generations. This will occur as we progress through Genesis and the Old Testament, from his promises to Abraham and Jacob.
Many world myths do have flood stories and for good reason. Catastrophic storms and floods are common in all parts of the world and even moreso for ancient cultures, many who have to live near a water source for survival and trade. Flooding is a common occurrence and fear as is drought (hence the years of famine in the Joseph story). What sets the Noah story apart though is that as always, this is a story of a people and their relationship with God. It's not simply a disaster epic of gods battling or destruction by petty, fearful or arbitrary gods. Instead it's a warning tale of what God wants and doesn't want from us. Our dominion over animals is a right and responsibility given to us, not innate. This is how the Old Testament/Bible is not in the same category as Myth that some scholars want to cast it. Greek, Roman, Norse myths, the gods are very much in human mold. They war with themselves, their actions are as noble, brave, and hypocritical and cowardly as those they lord over. Even before getting to the Ten Commandments, God has expectations of right behavior, of a right relationship with him and with other people. His judgment may be immediate but is also one of compassion.
As we move past Noah, another theme emerges, God's will being not the same as man's will or sense of fairness and culture. Despite the time period of when women are seen as little better than cattle, God acts through them and elevates them. The stories celebrate their ingenuity though the attitudes seem sexist and actions extreme today. We also see the second born or younger sons elevated over the older, again a subversion of the way culture sees and celebrates things.
Tower of Babel: I suppose one take can look at this as a "Just So" story about the scattering of people and languages, as at this point, everyone is related through Noah and his sons. It has been also interpreted as a story of human pride and endeavor, elevating themselves to be godlike without looking to God.
Abram: The next man to receive the promises of the Lord, for he and all his generations. Here, God promises the land of Canaan as being the land of his people. But, it's not a simple promise, Abram has to act, in effect to show his faith in God and his promises. He leaves home and becomes essentially a wanderer, a foreigner in foreign lands. Before you feel too bad for him, he does not leave alone. He has his wife, his nephew Lot and all their possessions and slaves.
If the Bible seems to repeat itself here, it's important to keep in mind there are several different traditions and writers the Book is drawing on as its relating the story. The reader is essentially getting one story told several different ways simultaneously.
Gen 12:13-20: This is a recurring scene and may strike several different chords with modern readers: comical, sexist, horror, distaste. Basically, due to a famine, Abram travels to Egypt. As a foreigner with no rights and a beautiful wife, he fears that he'll be killed and his wife taken. However, if the natives think she's his sister and unmarried, then they don't have to kill him to take her. She ends up as part of Pharaoh's harem but because she is married, God afflicts Pharaoh. When he finds out why he rebukes Abram, restores Sarai to him and all the possessions that Abram has and sends them out of Egypt. This tactic pops up several times.
His stay in Egypt proved successful to the point that when looking to settle elsewhere, he and Lot separate as their cattle and people have grown too numerous to settle in one place. In fairness, Abram lets Lot choose his path, and God reinforces his promise of the land and his offspring.
The story shifts now as it relates various kings in the area, their alliances and their wars. Lot finds himself in the middle and captured and Abram and his men rescue Lot, giving an idea just how large this contingent of Abram and his household has become.
Afterwards, Abram is met by the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, described as king of Salem and high priest. Melchizedek's name is invoked elsewhere in the Bible but it's here that he's actually on stage for just a few short verses. He blesses Abram and brings gifts. While he's celebrated as a high priest in later verses, here his standing is less clear as to what god he's priest of is unclear, especially as he's both priest and king, common in some ancient Near Eastern cultures but kept separate in Israel's. The translation of his title is priest of "God Most High" but contextually, the wording could refer to El, the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon as much as it does to the Hebrew God. The fact that this personage should find himself in an almost elevated position as the ideal high priest, would seem to me to indicate there were more stories and traditions that surrounded him that have long since been lost.
Next: Call me Ishmael
Back to Noah: A few more interesting tidbits. I noted above that the Eden story suggests that the ideal state is vegetarianism. It is here where Man is given dominion over the animals and the first set of rules governing what animals can and cannot be eaten as well as how they are to be prepared. We also get the first spelled out rules governing sacrifices. God makes a covenant or promise to Noah and to the succeeding generations. This will occur as we progress through Genesis and the Old Testament, from his promises to Abraham and Jacob.
Many world myths do have flood stories and for good reason. Catastrophic storms and floods are common in all parts of the world and even moreso for ancient cultures, many who have to live near a water source for survival and trade. Flooding is a common occurrence and fear as is drought (hence the years of famine in the Joseph story). What sets the Noah story apart though is that as always, this is a story of a people and their relationship with God. It's not simply a disaster epic of gods battling or destruction by petty, fearful or arbitrary gods. Instead it's a warning tale of what God wants and doesn't want from us. Our dominion over animals is a right and responsibility given to us, not innate. This is how the Old Testament/Bible is not in the same category as Myth that some scholars want to cast it. Greek, Roman, Norse myths, the gods are very much in human mold. They war with themselves, their actions are as noble, brave, and hypocritical and cowardly as those they lord over. Even before getting to the Ten Commandments, God has expectations of right behavior, of a right relationship with him and with other people. His judgment may be immediate but is also one of compassion.
As we move past Noah, another theme emerges, God's will being not the same as man's will or sense of fairness and culture. Despite the time period of when women are seen as little better than cattle, God acts through them and elevates them. The stories celebrate their ingenuity though the attitudes seem sexist and actions extreme today. We also see the second born or younger sons elevated over the older, again a subversion of the way culture sees and celebrates things.
Tower of Babel: I suppose one take can look at this as a "Just So" story about the scattering of people and languages, as at this point, everyone is related through Noah and his sons. It has been also interpreted as a story of human pride and endeavor, elevating themselves to be godlike without looking to God.
Abram: The next man to receive the promises of the Lord, for he and all his generations. Here, God promises the land of Canaan as being the land of his people. But, it's not a simple promise, Abram has to act, in effect to show his faith in God and his promises. He leaves home and becomes essentially a wanderer, a foreigner in foreign lands. Before you feel too bad for him, he does not leave alone. He has his wife, his nephew Lot and all their possessions and slaves.
If the Bible seems to repeat itself here, it's important to keep in mind there are several different traditions and writers the Book is drawing on as its relating the story. The reader is essentially getting one story told several different ways simultaneously.
Gen 12:13-20: This is a recurring scene and may strike several different chords with modern readers: comical, sexist, horror, distaste. Basically, due to a famine, Abram travels to Egypt. As a foreigner with no rights and a beautiful wife, he fears that he'll be killed and his wife taken. However, if the natives think she's his sister and unmarried, then they don't have to kill him to take her. She ends up as part of Pharaoh's harem but because she is married, God afflicts Pharaoh. When he finds out why he rebukes Abram, restores Sarai to him and all the possessions that Abram has and sends them out of Egypt. This tactic pops up several times.
His stay in Egypt proved successful to the point that when looking to settle elsewhere, he and Lot separate as their cattle and people have grown too numerous to settle in one place. In fairness, Abram lets Lot choose his path, and God reinforces his promise of the land and his offspring.
The story shifts now as it relates various kings in the area, their alliances and their wars. Lot finds himself in the middle and captured and Abram and his men rescue Lot, giving an idea just how large this contingent of Abram and his household has become.
Afterwards, Abram is met by the king of Sodom and Melchizedek, described as king of Salem and high priest. Melchizedek's name is invoked elsewhere in the Bible but it's here that he's actually on stage for just a few short verses. He blesses Abram and brings gifts. While he's celebrated as a high priest in later verses, here his standing is less clear as to what god he's priest of is unclear, especially as he's both priest and king, common in some ancient Near Eastern cultures but kept separate in Israel's. The translation of his title is priest of "God Most High" but contextually, the wording could refer to El, the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon as much as it does to the Hebrew God. The fact that this personage should find himself in an almost elevated position as the ideal high priest, would seem to me to indicate there were more stories and traditions that surrounded him that have long since been lost.
Next: Call me Ishmael
Monday, March 14, 2011
Genesis: Adam to Noah
For the season of Lent, I decided to try to get back into daily Bible reading, and starting from the beginning and working my way through. Like many Christians, I've been in Bible studies that focused on specific books, read devotions that focused on a small section of verses, and even longer in depth studies that studied the general Book as a whole. However, I've never actually read the thing from start to finish. There are books in the Old Testament I know next to nothing about. And, I think there are verses here and there that never get read or talked about. Such as the confusing opening verses of Chapter 6:
One of the interesting things I have noticed in talking with athiests is that they are as hard-headed and insistent about taking the Bible and everything in it literally as the most fundamental Christian. It's frustrating as most athiests are generally well educated if somewhat egotistical and vain in their self-worth, yet when approaching the Bible they lose all capability for actual critical reasoning in approaching ancient texts, and the ability to understand basic symbolism, metaphor and hyperbole. Suddenly, they expect a book compiled of various writing styles from different countries, languages and centuries, that includes parables, lessons, sayings, poetry, and history to all sound as dry as a history book written in the native language for a third grader.
I would love to see an athiest and a hard core fundamental Christian argue over the book of Genesis and see which one's head explodes first.
Right off the start, with the Creation Story, we have two separate accounts of how God created the Earth and all that inhabited it. And, these are not exactly the same accounts. This is because the Book is a combination of several views points and the different writers are trying to get across different ideas so they have different focuses. One is showing God's creative power, that all comes from Him. The other is focusing on God establishing Order over Chaos.
- While Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil, the serpent seems to. Why is the serpent so intelligent? How did it go around if only after it's cursed does it crawl on it's body? The serpent's temptation of Adam and Eve remind me a lot of the "Just So" stories related by Rudyard Kipling.
- The existence of the two trees, one of Knowledge and the other of Eternal Life as well as the special fruit echoes Norse and Greek myths concerning "golden apples" that are of great value and keep the gods young.
One thing that struck me about the story of Eden is that it works as a story concerning the evolution of man. The knowledge it imparts (and the threat by God to not eat it lest you die) is of self-awareness, abstract thought, and morality. Before this, man could be considered little different from the animals, though above them. He walks among them naked. There is no concept in him of right and wrong. Eating of the tree changes that. Once you have knowledge of the difference, you have responsibilities and repercussions to your choices in life. Among that self knowledge is also of one's own mortality. Animals will fight to live and to protect what they adopt as their own tribe or pact, but they don't have that abstract concept of the difference between life and death. Death as a concept is not ever-present in their thoughts, dreams or fears. But, man with his self-knowledge is also aware of his own mortality, it's always there at the edges of his thoughts and being, being the motivating force for so many of his actions. Eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge doesn't kill us but also gives the knowledge of death.
-It is interesting to note, that the implication through the Eden story is the desired and ideal state of man is to be Vegetarian. Even before being outcast, he tills the soil. When he first realizes he's naked, he makes clothes from leaves, it's God that gives him animal skins which are warmer and more durable.
Cain and Abel: The most confusing aspect of the story for many is the question, who did Cain marry? After all, we all know that murder is wrong. The modern reader needs to consider the purpose of much of the Old Testament is to tell the stories of the Hebrew people, their faith, parables, and lessons but also to tell of their relationships to the other people of the world and region. So, the story of Adam and Eve, and the genealogies of their offspring, can be considered the story of the Hebrew people and their place in the scheme of things. It's from their point of view and beginnings. The story as such does not preclude there being other people. Just that God had set aside great things for this particular set of people.
Genealogies: Some of the more boring reading of the Bible and the head swims with some of the names given to the people and cultures. As noted above, these serve to illustrate to the Jewish people their relationships to their neighbors, that in a sense, they are family. There are a few interesting names and tidbits that pop up that suggest a greater oral tradition or other traditions. Such as Enoch who is here said to be taken to God, thus did not die (although there are some interpretations that say he was both righteous and extremely susceptible to temptation and sin so he actually died before his allotted days lest he commit some grievous sin). As noted, there is an apocryphal book attributed to him. The quoted verse implying great heroes that strove against the Nephilim also suggests a tradition of great heroic tales that aren't recorded here as they are unrelated to texts concerning religious tradition.
Noah & the Ark: Another story that has similarities to several other ancient myths. Of the ancient times, floods from too much rain and famine from too little were of great concern and thus both feature prominently in the OT stories. Like the Genesis story, it is immediately evident from reading straight through that this is two different accounts of one story as the time spent on the Ark changes. On one, it's simply forty days and nights. The other, that's the time it rained, but it was almost a year by the time the waters subsided enough to release the animals. Notice, one tradition has Noah being commanded to take several pairs of the "clean" animals, which he sacrifices at the end of the ordeal.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the story does contain metaphor and hyperbole. Numbers were used for different reasons in texts from this time. Thus "Forty days and forty nights" is poetic license for a "long time". Likewise, the ages given in genealogies I don't think were meant to be literal ages, but a recognition that in the olden days when man and God were more intimate, man lived and prospered greatly as opposed to the "now' generations. Every generation looks to the past of what it considers a "golden age".
Likewise, I don't think the story is meant to mean that God literally flooded the whole world. Especially, if you take the stance that much of this is from the Hebrew people's point of view. He's frustrated with the wickedness of the people that he has taken into his fold, their corruption. It's their "world" that he's washing away to start anew. Because the greater world gets re-populated in a whole hurry.
Ham's Sin: Among fundamentalists, the argument of Ham's sin is one of homosexuality and incest. Yet, that's not actually evident in this reading. It could simply be one of callousness and neglect. He sees his father naked yet does nothing about it but talk about it to his brothers. They on the other hand take steps to cover their father up, they perform an act of kindness and decency. The primary purpose though is again to explain the relationship of the Hebrew people with the neighbors, in this case, those descended from Ham and his brothers.
Hopefully, more tomorrow as we catch up on my first week of reading.
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit will not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.Why is this confusing? Well it precedes the account of Noah, and despite the proclamation of God that he's limiting the lifespan of humans, we see that the generations following the flood are living almost as long as those that preceded it. Then, you have the whole "sons of God" taking wives and the Nephilim angle. The apocryphal Book of Enoch expands greatly on this, claiming that they are angels who are give in to lust and take human wives and give birth to giants or monstrous cannibalistic men known as the Nephilim. They also teach humans how to make war and various vain pursuits, and society becomes so corrupt, this is why there is the Great Flood. Although this reading suggests instead that the resulting children were great heroes.
One of the interesting things I have noticed in talking with athiests is that they are as hard-headed and insistent about taking the Bible and everything in it literally as the most fundamental Christian. It's frustrating as most athiests are generally well educated if somewhat egotistical and vain in their self-worth, yet when approaching the Bible they lose all capability for actual critical reasoning in approaching ancient texts, and the ability to understand basic symbolism, metaphor and hyperbole. Suddenly, they expect a book compiled of various writing styles from different countries, languages and centuries, that includes parables, lessons, sayings, poetry, and history to all sound as dry as a history book written in the native language for a third grader.
I would love to see an athiest and a hard core fundamental Christian argue over the book of Genesis and see which one's head explodes first.
Right off the start, with the Creation Story, we have two separate accounts of how God created the Earth and all that inhabited it. And, these are not exactly the same accounts. This is because the Book is a combination of several views points and the different writers are trying to get across different ideas so they have different focuses. One is showing God's creative power, that all comes from Him. The other is focusing on God establishing Order over Chaos.
- While Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil, the serpent seems to. Why is the serpent so intelligent? How did it go around if only after it's cursed does it crawl on it's body? The serpent's temptation of Adam and Eve remind me a lot of the "Just So" stories related by Rudyard Kipling.
- The existence of the two trees, one of Knowledge and the other of Eternal Life as well as the special fruit echoes Norse and Greek myths concerning "golden apples" that are of great value and keep the gods young.
One thing that struck me about the story of Eden is that it works as a story concerning the evolution of man. The knowledge it imparts (and the threat by God to not eat it lest you die) is of self-awareness, abstract thought, and morality. Before this, man could be considered little different from the animals, though above them. He walks among them naked. There is no concept in him of right and wrong. Eating of the tree changes that. Once you have knowledge of the difference, you have responsibilities and repercussions to your choices in life. Among that self knowledge is also of one's own mortality. Animals will fight to live and to protect what they adopt as their own tribe or pact, but they don't have that abstract concept of the difference between life and death. Death as a concept is not ever-present in their thoughts, dreams or fears. But, man with his self-knowledge is also aware of his own mortality, it's always there at the edges of his thoughts and being, being the motivating force for so many of his actions. Eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge doesn't kill us but also gives the knowledge of death.
-It is interesting to note, that the implication through the Eden story is the desired and ideal state of man is to be Vegetarian. Even before being outcast, he tills the soil. When he first realizes he's naked, he makes clothes from leaves, it's God that gives him animal skins which are warmer and more durable.
Cain and Abel: The most confusing aspect of the story for many is the question, who did Cain marry? After all, we all know that murder is wrong. The modern reader needs to consider the purpose of much of the Old Testament is to tell the stories of the Hebrew people, their faith, parables, and lessons but also to tell of their relationships to the other people of the world and region. So, the story of Adam and Eve, and the genealogies of their offspring, can be considered the story of the Hebrew people and their place in the scheme of things. It's from their point of view and beginnings. The story as such does not preclude there being other people. Just that God had set aside great things for this particular set of people.
Genealogies: Some of the more boring reading of the Bible and the head swims with some of the names given to the people and cultures. As noted above, these serve to illustrate to the Jewish people their relationships to their neighbors, that in a sense, they are family. There are a few interesting names and tidbits that pop up that suggest a greater oral tradition or other traditions. Such as Enoch who is here said to be taken to God, thus did not die (although there are some interpretations that say he was both righteous and extremely susceptible to temptation and sin so he actually died before his allotted days lest he commit some grievous sin). As noted, there is an apocryphal book attributed to him. The quoted verse implying great heroes that strove against the Nephilim also suggests a tradition of great heroic tales that aren't recorded here as they are unrelated to texts concerning religious tradition.
Noah & the Ark: Another story that has similarities to several other ancient myths. Of the ancient times, floods from too much rain and famine from too little were of great concern and thus both feature prominently in the OT stories. Like the Genesis story, it is immediately evident from reading straight through that this is two different accounts of one story as the time spent on the Ark changes. On one, it's simply forty days and nights. The other, that's the time it rained, but it was almost a year by the time the waters subsided enough to release the animals. Notice, one tradition has Noah being commanded to take several pairs of the "clean" animals, which he sacrifices at the end of the ordeal.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the story does contain metaphor and hyperbole. Numbers were used for different reasons in texts from this time. Thus "Forty days and forty nights" is poetic license for a "long time". Likewise, the ages given in genealogies I don't think were meant to be literal ages, but a recognition that in the olden days when man and God were more intimate, man lived and prospered greatly as opposed to the "now' generations. Every generation looks to the past of what it considers a "golden age".
Likewise, I don't think the story is meant to mean that God literally flooded the whole world. Especially, if you take the stance that much of this is from the Hebrew people's point of view. He's frustrated with the wickedness of the people that he has taken into his fold, their corruption. It's their "world" that he's washing away to start anew. Because the greater world gets re-populated in a whole hurry.
Ham's Sin: Among fundamentalists, the argument of Ham's sin is one of homosexuality and incest. Yet, that's not actually evident in this reading. It could simply be one of callousness and neglect. He sees his father naked yet does nothing about it but talk about it to his brothers. They on the other hand take steps to cover their father up, they perform an act of kindness and decency. The primary purpose though is again to explain the relationship of the Hebrew people with the neighbors, in this case, those descended from Ham and his brothers.
Hopefully, more tomorrow as we catch up on my first week of reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)