The Old Testament: Notes on Genesis
My wife has joked about the foolhardiness of blogging the Bible due to the likelihood of offending everyone: people who take the Bible as the word of God understandably take it very seriously, and I’ve met some atheists who take rejection of the Bible nearly as seriously. I’m in neither camp.
Nevertheless, it’s impossible to “blog the canon” without discussing the Bible. We can disagree about its truth content, but the poetry is lucid, lovely and powerful- frequently majestic, and the stories are lively and entertaining. Seemingly half of our English phrases were begat by either the King James Bible or Shakespeare. (Note that I am using a Latin version and the KJB.) It is also a foundational text of the West and central to how billions of people see the world.
So, I have great respect for the text, but am neither a devout believer nor an atheist. I don’t take the Bible to be a literal record of events. Therefore, certain questions posed by atheists, like how the sons of Adam or Noah might have reproduced, seem irrelevant to me because I take these early books as stories about the generations of a particular nation in a corner of the near east, with much in the way of parable and myth. I know plenty of believers who aren’t literalists either. As a Christian once said to me, “the books were written by men, and are flawed; the Word is true”. Another way of putting it is that we don’t read Aesop’s fables and find them worthless because foxes can’t talk.
I approach the text neither as a believer nor an atheist. I ask believers to understand that I read the books with deep respect, but am not looking to be saved, and please keep in mind that I was not raised hearing these stories so mistakes are likely plentiful. For atheists, I ask that the books be read outside of and in spite of arguments with believers. As always, any notes, suggestions of corrections from anyone who knows this material better than me are appreciated. Here are my notes:
Creation: In the beginning, the earth was formless, dark, and watery. The earth as womb- it’s an image familiar from Egyptian creation stories, but different from the chaos in Gilgamesh and Hesiod. The creation of day and night, land, plants and grasses, animals, fishes and birds- life brought forth from the waters, as likely was the case. Last forth is man, who is given dominion over every living thing- does this dominion outlast the fall of Adam and Eve? God rests on the seventh day, which is thus holy. I have difficulty thinking of this as literal dating, but am unsure of the numerical significance.
The serpent promises Adam and Eve that they will be as gods by eating the fruit (it never says “apple”. I assume this convention comes from the Latin “malum”, which can mean either an evil or an apple.) His punishment is the toil required to bring forth food. Hers is the pain of childbirth and patriarchal marriage. Where does it say their punishments pass down to their descendents? This has been assumed by many religious groups, with the strangest example being the now-abandoned Mormon belief that the skin color of blacks indicated their descent from Cain.
Cain and Abel: the chastened Cain is marked so that anyone who attacks him will be avenged sevenfold. The Lord can scourge Cain, by making him a vagabond, but man cannot. Lamech, of the fifth generation is also a murderer, suggesting the race of Cain is cursed. Instead we follow the generations after Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. Eight generations later is Noah, at a time when the earth is filled with violence because “all flesh has corrupted his way upon the earth”.
Noah, as we know, builds an ark and survives a global flood similar to the Gilgamesh story. On the mountain at Ararat, he makes a burnt offering to God who decides to never again curse the entire earth. This is the first covenant spoken of. While the burnt offerings are reminiscent of all early sacrifices, such as the Homeric ‘hectacombs’, I can’t remember the Greek gods making any sort of long-term contracts with men- they tend to be more often imperious than negotiating. There is a dialogue established here between the people of God and the Lord himself, which is ongoing and changes over time.
This dialogue strikes me as different from the Homeric interactions with the gods. Yahweh speaks directly with his believers, which the gods in Homer do as well. Having been accustomed to think of the God of Abraham as distant but omnipotent, it’s a bit of a surprise to read in Genesis about Yahweh appearing to believers and, at one point, sitting in a tent doorway talking to them. But we’ve heard about Odysseus conversing with and being protected by Athena, for example. What seems different is that the Hebrew God establishes lasting covenants with his people that build an intergenerational relationship between the Lord and the chosen people, instead of say giving specific gifts to a city or warrior. I do see this as a distinct innovation from earlier traditions, but could be wrong. I would love to hear thoughts from anyone who studies ancient myths or Scripture, as do many of our friends here at the League.
Abram, his wife Sarai, and Lot his nephew are sent out of Haran by God to make a great nation. They separate because their herdsmen cannot live together: Lot dwelling in Sodom and Abram in Canaan. The story is convoluted, but clearly Abram is protected by God as an obedient servant, and his offspring are given Canaan by covenant and required to circumcise their sons as a mark of that covenant.
Sodom and Gomorrah: Lot, meanwhile, lives in the cursed city of Sodom. God sends two angel travelers to Sodom, and Lot takes them into his house as guests. The men of the city want to know the travelers, presumably sexually, and Lot refuses to turn them over to be raped, offering his daughters instead. Finally, the wicked people of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed, God being unable to find anyone pure in either city, with the exception of Lot’s family, who are shepherded out before the destruction. Having now discussed a number of Greek stories about the import of offering hospitality to supplicant travelers, who the Greeks believed were protected by Zeus, it is difficult to see this story as being simply about homosexual behavior. Many stories in Genesis involve blessed travelers in foreign lands fearing they will be killed; in at least three cases, men pretend that their wife is their sister so they won’t be killed for her. However, this leads to trouble for the people of the cities because, quite clearly, sleeping with another man’s wife is forbidden by God. Offering hospitality and protection to foreigners is commanded by God, and I often wonder, therefore, just how Jews and Christians understand the debate about “illegals” given the specificity of their book in this regard.
Abraham and Isaac: God speaks to his servant Abraham and tells him to offer his beloved son Isaac as a burnt sacrifice. Abraham obeys. At last, God tells him to stay the execution. The horror of God asking for the life of a son is beyond human reasoning. Kierkegaard says of Abraham that he “believed by virtue of the absurd; for all human reckoning had long since ceased to function.” Kierkegaard notes that Abraham had no reason to hope for life after death, which is not yet mentioned in the Bible. He simply trusts that God has reasons beyond man, and submits in fear. This fear and submission to God is the beginning of wisdom in the Scriptures.
Jacob and Esau: There is a rivalry between the sons of Isaac from their birth. I see this rivalry as explaining the development of civilization, with the meek, scholarly and God-fearing son Jacob inheriting the father’s blessing, instead of the hairy, wild hunter son Esau, who as first-born would traditionally have been blessed. Jacob is his mother’s favorite and wins the blessing through cleverness (and deception!), by replacing his father’s favorite son, Esau, in bringing him savory meat on his sickbed. Through his ingenuity, the meeker son rules over his, understandably bitter, brother, and Jacob becomes Israel, blessed by his father and God. With the founding of the new nation, the older rules of patrilinear inheritance are altered- Jacob becomes Israel by his submission to God. Similarly, Joseph is shocked when Israel blesses the younger son Ephraim instead of Manasseh (Gen: 48:18)
Onan: Onan is called on to continue his lineage by having children with his dead brother’s wife and, in his hesitation to enter her, spills his seed. God strikes him dead, which seems cruel. However, it also seems frankly untenable to see a message here about masturbation, since the transgression is more evidently disobedience.
Joseph and the Pharaoh: Joseph, the son of Israel is favored and his father gives him a multicolored coat that arouses the ire of his siblings. In vengeance, they sell Joseph into slavery- it’s already established that they cannot murder their brother. As a slave in Egypt, Joseph distinguishes himself by his gift for interpreting dreams: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” The prophetic dream is commonplace in most myths and holy people are often interpreters of dreams. Joseph wins the favor of the Pharaoh by interpreting a prophetic dream indicating a future seven years of famine so that food might be stockpiled. The people are thus provided for and Joseph is protected. In addition, his people are brought into the land of Goshen and will be protected, provided they give the fifth part of their yield to the Pharaoh, a good deal.
Jacob prophesizes the fates of his offspring, the twelve tribes of Israel. Levi and Simeon will be cursed for their cruel anger, while Joseph will be blessed. Jacob dies and is buried in Canaan, and the other children, fearing for themselves, bow down to Joseph in Egypt. He forgives them for their various transgressions.
In summary, the book of Genesis establishes the lineage of the chosen people who descend in a line from Abraham to Isaac to Israel and Joseph. The old joke that the message of the Old Testament is “Don’t mess with the well-connected” is exaggerated, but has a ring of truth. In Genesis, the Lord brings the people great blessings, none of which as of yet involve the afterlife, and in return, requires their obedience.
“God rests on the seventh day, which is thus holy. I have difficulty thinking of this as literal dating, but am unsure of the numerical significance.”
Most scholars argue that this creation story comes from the priestly the Priestly tradition (P in the source theory). The emphasis is on place and order and establishing boundaries, which will be repeated in the Priestly sacrificial rituals (Exodus 25ff, most of Leviticus). Those rituals seem to have an obsession with the number 7. The priest dips the corner of the alter in blood 7 times, that sort of thing.
So God creates a world where everything is put in its place and where time is ordered; therefore impurity spreads when this order is disrupted. The purity rituals both restore order and reflect the created nature of the universe. Note how disorderly the rest of Genesis is in comparison to Chapter 1. Even chapter 2 represents a very different narrative sensibility.Report
According to Wikipedia:
A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that “what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours” (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion.
That is, the sin for which Sodom was destroyed was anticipating Ayn Rand.Report
@Mike Schilling, You beat me to the point … though the Rabbinic interpretation does make it pretty clearly about a sin of harshness towards others (not just strangers). There’s a midrash somewhere or other about either one of Lot’s daughters or a slave-girl who, as punishment for giving money to a beggar, is killed by the townspeople by being coated in honey and subjected to an angry swarm of, I believe, ants.Report
@JL Wall, That was how I take it- the harshness towards others, here waylaying them, is excessive, but of a sort with others who sin by assaulting innocent neighbors or strangers.Report
Genesis in particular illustrates the truth of my wife’s description of Scripture, which is that it’s the story of one dysfunctional family after another.Report
“Offering hospitality and protection to foreigners is commanded by God, and I often wonder, therefore, just how Jews and Christians understand the debate about ‘illegals’ given the specificity of their book in this regard.”
Is it “foreigners” who must be offered protection or travelers? If it’s travelers, I think one can certainly make a distinction between those traveling through one’s country and those attempting to colonize it.Report
Saint Louis, Leviticus expands on this understanding (19:33-34)
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”
I don’t think that refers to just travelers, esp. given the reference to the Hebrews in Egypt–they were not travelers there.Report
A lot of interpretation is necessary here. A few points:
(1) The word “sojourn” connotes a temporary stay, not a permanent one.
(2) One is capable of loving strangers and still not wanting them to colonize one’s country. Similarly, simply asking a stranger to leave who has entered the country illegally need not be considered “do[ing] him wrong.”
(3) Perhaps the rules are (and should be) more lenient for refugees, which is essentially what the Hebrews in Egypt were, anyway. Whether Mexican immigrants can be considered refugees from a failed state is another debate altogether.Report
@Saint Louis, A couple of interpretive points, first: These were laws given to a people in transit (that is, they were presently sojourning). They also had, historically, been herders — that is, in transit. So from that, you could see an understanding of “sojourn” as “sojourn with, sojourn among” rather than “sojourn through.”
But I think the strongest evidence, with Dave, that this does not refer simply to travellers, comes from looking at what’s translated as “sojourn.” 19.34 opens with: K’ezrach (He who rises, comes, or goes) mikem (with you-plural). From which you can see how one translation gets “sojourns” and another gets “dwells” (JPS). But it seems to indicate something other than just travelling.
On the other hand, I don’t necessarily make the matter any clearer by resorting to Hebrew: typically the Jewish debate has been over the question of just who/what is a “Ger” (translated as ‘stranger’ above, but sometimes understood to mean ‘convert.’) I prefer the more expansive understanding, but it’s not entirely clear, from this verse, at least, who’s right.Report
@JL Wall, I do see the distinction as far as colonizers. It seems to me though that the colonizers in that time were more usually attacking armies and, in that case, it was generally very clear about which people were protected by God and which ones weren’t. Sojourning in that context seems closer to refugees, at least to me.Report
I don’t read the first 11 chapter of Genesis (up to the Tower of Babel) as historical, it feels more like a mythology created to express overarching truths than an account of historical events. (But if so, why all the ages and geneologies? I’ve always had trouble with that.)
I have difficulty thinking of this as literal dating, but am unsure of the numerical significance.
One of the theories I’ve heard in sermons, and from people I know who have studied theology, is that the creation story is meant to mirror the construction of a temple. The first three days have places being constructed (the heavens, the seas and skies, the earth) and the next three have the corresponding places being filled, like the furnishings would be placed in the temple. The last thing to be placed in the temple was the image of the god; in Creation, the last thing made is humans, made in God’s image.
Offering hospitality and protection to foreigners is commanded by God, and I often wonder, therefore, just how Jews and Christians understand the debate about “illegals” given the specificity of their book in this regard.
The command is repeated several times in the later books of the Pentateuch, and with regard to Saint Louis’ point it definitely includes long-term residents since one of the main reasons given for the command is that “you were aliens and strangers in Egypt” – and the Israelites were there over a century. I don’t know how Jews read it generally, but on a trip to Israel with a Christian group in May we talked with one of the settlers in Ephrat, and he claimed that the command referred only to treatment of other Jews. I would guess that’s the most hard-line right-wing interpretation of the verse, though, and Reform Jews may see things differently.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the stories of Dinah and of Tamar.Report
@Katherine,
(But if so, why all the ages and geneologies? I’ve always had trouble with that.)
Perhaps the biblical author meant both to disclose overarching truths through mythology and to give an account of history. Or perhaps he didn’t differentiate history and mythology as we do today. I’m not well studied enough to give an informed assessment, but I don’t see anything troubling in finding ages and genealogies in what we today would call a work of mythology.Report
I’ve long thought that the Adam & eve story is so much better when understood as the farmer lament at the changes they saw when they stopped being foragers and settled down to one area.
Especially as the cities densities became breeding grounds for disease. So we have the tilling of the earth, and the beginning of “death”. This is a much better story and much cooler to read when you don’t think of it as a literal depiction of what happened.Report
@ThatPirateGuy,
This is a much better story and much cooler to read when you don’t think of it as a literal depiction of what happened.
That’s true of most of the Bible really, at least up to a point.Report
Genesis is one of my favorite books. One of the things that I see as absolutely essential to the reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is God’s pronouncement of his various creations as “good”.
This is a moral judgment of His. It’s not just a guy making a sandwich and saying “this is a good sandwich!” halfway through, it’s not just a statement of quality.
Compare, for example, to Buddhism.
The serpent promises Adam and Eve that they will be as gods by eating the fruit (it never says “apple”. I assume this convention comes from the Latin “malum”, which can mean either an evil or an apple.) His punishment is the toil required to bring forth food. Hers is the pain of childbirth and patriarchal marriage. Where does it say their punishments pass down to their descendents?
I’ve read this portion as a “just so” story.
Girls hate snakes disproportionately. Yes, I know. You knew this girl who wasn’t afraid of snakes and this boy who was but, seriously, chicks hate snakes to a degree that guys don’t and then guys have to run in and kill them. Spiders too. This story explains why.
Why do we have to work to eat when all of the other animals out there just sort of move around and goof off? This story explains why.
Why do dogs and cats and cows have babies so effortlessly while human women are screaming for half a day? This story explains why.
Why do guys run stuff? This story explains why.
It’s always been this way and, as a matter of fact, the first man and first woman had how the world works explained to them by God Himself. This is in Genesis.
So, tonight: take the remote control from your wife’s hand and, when she looks at you, say “Genesis 3:16.”Report
@Jaybird, and prepare yourself a spot on the couch for the night.Report
I am new to this series but studied the OT from a secular perspective as an undergraduate, a loooong time ago. When (if) you get to Exodus, please note my favorite passage in the entire bible, Exodus 24:9-11
“Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear like the sky itself. But he did not lay a hand on the leaders of the Israelites, so they saw God, and they ate and they drank.”
It’s been a long time since I studied this but my old (and long deceased) professor – a former theologian and devout Christian who nonetheless sought insight through studying scripture in its secular, historical context, and who read the original Greek and Hebrew – taught that linguisitic analysis marked this passage as one of the very oldest in the Bible, and that “They” in the last passage should be understood to say that Yahweh joined in the eating and drinking. I still remember how my mind was blown with the image of a physical manifestation of the Judeo-Christisan God, with his feet on the ground.
I’ve also always thought that, since this passage is so at odds with more familiar representations of Yahweh in the pentateuch – as a burning bush or whatever – that it must have been a dear and important tradition of at least some of the tribes of Israel to survive later editing.Report
I understand using a translation in your native language (presumably English), but why Latin? The Bible, at least the part you’re discussing, is Hebrew.Report
@Imaginary Lawyer, Yeah, I’ve abandoned that idea. Thought some online Medieval Latin texts would be more accurate somehow, and realized that made little sense.Report