A reader has emailed me with this excellent question:
“I have a few questions about your blog, but don't remember the password I gave to get on, so haven't been able to write. I'm a little confused about "where you are going" with Genesis. I see Cultural Anthropology 101, kinship stuff, the afro-centric emphasis and literary criticism, deconstruction style, and a lot about priests and shamans (more cultural anthropology). I'm having trouble getting a coherent thread I can follow, but honestly, it's probably just me. Can you give me some hint of where you are going and the purpose of all of this?”
My Response
My concern at this blog is that Genesis be understood on the deepest possible level since misunderstanding Genesis skews our understanding of the entire Bible. Allow me to give just two examples.
Example One: If one insists that Adam and Eve are the original first parents of all humans (which Genesis doesn’t assert), then one must deal with all the anthropological, biological and linguistic evidence to the contrary. When people try to reconcile their insistence that Adam and Eve are historical and the progenitors of all humanity, they ignore the very evidence that actually verifies what Genesis tells us. Take the assertion in Genesis 11:1: “Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.” This is told from the perspective of the Afro-Asiatic peoples who are mentioned in Genesis 10, from whom we receive the information in Genesis. It is true that all the languages in the Afro-Asiatic language are cognate languages. Now if somewhere in Genesis 10, a Chinese language appeared, we would have reason to suspect that someone had tampered with the text/tradition.
Example 2: Genesis 25:1 tells us that Abraham’s second wife was Keturah. The placement of this information after the death of Sarah, creates the impression that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died. It is very important to understand that Abraham, like his father and his grandfather, had two wives simultaneously. This is a characteristic of the kinship pattern of the Kenite chiefs. The wives maintained separate households. Sarah resided in Hebron and Keturah resided in Beersheba, to the south.
Then we read verse 5: “Abraham left everything to his son Isaac. While he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.” This verse shows evidence of being “glossed”, that is, edited with the intent to mislead. Keturah, a full-fledged wife, is labeled a “concubine” and her sons, who were chiefs in the Arabian Peninsula, are “sent to the east”. This puzzle piece is the only one left after we put the Genesis puzzle together. In other words, this piece doesn’t belong with this puzzle!
It is not difficult to see why this gloss entered the text. It attempts to exclude Keturah’s sons from any claim to lands within Abraham’s territory which extended from Beersheba north to Hebron along one of the richest trade routes in the ancient Near East. Unfortunately, the glossed passage has been used by Zionists to uphold their vision of a Jewish state in Palestine and exclusion of their brothers who are descended from Abraham by Keturah. Fighting between brothers brings shame upon Father Abraham. Thousands of lives have been lost because of the false claim that the land was promised only to the descendents of Isaac. They do well to hear Abraham’s words to Lot: “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.” (Gen. 13:8)
Likely Isaac did inherit at least a portion of Abraham’s territory, but he would have relied on his brothers to help him govern that territory, so in that sense they too had vested interest in the land. We know that Isaac was close to his Beersheba/Negev brothers because he was living among them when Abraham’s servant returned with Rebekah (Gen. 24:62).
The Genesis 25:5 gloss gives priority to the line of Isaac, and in so doing, discriminates against Abraham’s other descendents. It also causes us to lose sight of the fact that Abraham had eight sons: Ishmael, Isaac, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. This is significant for our understanding of Messiah, who according to the ancient Semitic numerology would be Son Number Nine, the Bridegroom who is to enter the Bridal Chamber to consummate the marriage that will lead to the birth of a new reality.
When that new reality dawns we will no longer concern ourselves with a deep reading of Genesis, but until then we have a responsibility to handle the text with as much skill as we can muster.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
8 comments:
Very Interesting, Alice. Thanks for doing this. The midrash reflects that Hagar and Keturah are one and the same woman. Why two names for the same woman?
Robb
Midrash is speculative and while it is good to consider midrash, it is sometimes in error, as in this case. The two women are different people. Hagar is Egyptian and Keturah is a descendent of Enoch/Nok. Hagar is the mother of Ishmael and if she had other sons, we don't know of them. Keturah is the mother of 6 sons and 2 of them are especially important: Jokshan and Midian. The midrash recognizes that the descendents of Cain and Seth inter-married, but it is stretching the matter beyond necessity (Occum's Razor) to require that the 2 women are the same person. Here it becomes evident that midrash is struggling to reconcile competing claims.
You write: Example One: If one insists that Adam and Eve are the original first parents of all humans (which Genesis doesn’t assert), then one must deal with all the anthropological, biological and linguistic evidence to the contrary. When people try to reconcile their insistence that Adam and Eve are historical and the progenitors of all humanity, they ignore the very evidence that actually verifies what Genesis tells us.
What happens to Paul's soteriology and Christology in, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:20ff and Romans 5:12ff, if there was no literal original Adam (and Eve, if you want to also consider 1 Timothy 2:13-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:8ff)?
Also, if Eve was not the original mother of all humans, what does Genesis 3:20 assert or mean, or how should it be interpreted or understood, and on what basis?
My apologies if you've already addressed these elsewhere.
James, no one has asked this question in the way that you have asked it. I have addressed the matter of Paul and other NT writers’ typology, but not Paul’s soteriology. Let me first say something about his soteriology. Paul's understanding of salvation is evident in his clothing analogies. Here are examples: Romans 13:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:53-54; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3: 10-12; 1 Thessalonians 5:8 and especially Galatians 3:27: "Everyone of you that has been baptised has been clothed in Christ." Or as the Orthodox liturgy states: "For as many of you as have been baptised have put on Christ."
This seems Paul's understanding of his own salvation. In Philippians 3:6-14, Paul tells us that salvation is a race to the goal of the resurrection from the dead. "In the matter of the Law, I was a Pharisee; as for religious fervor, I was a persecutor of the Church; as for the uprightness embodied in the Law, I was faultless. But what were once my assets I now through Christ Jesus count as losses. Yes, I will go further: because of the supreme advantage of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, I count everything else as loss. For Him I have accepted the loss of all other things, and look on them all as filth if only I can gain Christ and be given a place in Him, with the uprightness I have gained not from the Law, but through faith in Christ, an uprightness from God, based on faith, that I may come to know him and the power of His resurrection, and partake of his sufferings by being molded to the pattern of his death, striving toward the goal of resurrection from the dead. Not that I have secured it already, not yet reached my goal, but I am still pursuing it in the attempt to take hold of the prize for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not reckon myself as having taken hold of it; I can only say that forgetting al that lies behind me, and straining forward to what lies in front, I am racing towards the finish line to win the prize of God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus."
Now to Paul's interpretive method. 1 Corinthians 15:20ff and Romans 5:12ff don’t deal directly with soteriology, but with Paul’s platonic approach of Christology. The first man, Adam, is imperfect but the second Man, Jesus Christ, is perfect, the true Form of humanity. (You’ll remember that “adamah” is the Hebrew for humus/soil, from which the English word “human” is derived.) God made humans in God’s image and likeness, but sin marred that image so that the first is imperfect. In Platonism types are always imperfect but point to that which is Perfect. Paul is using Platonism to explain Jesus Christ to Corinthians and Romans who would have been familiar with this platonic approach. He wants them to see the pattern of revelation.
Using this same approach we are able to tease out the pattern of revelation about Jesus Christ not only in reference to Adam, but also in reference to other biblical figures such as Abraham, Moses, and David. Platonism regards the symbol as more real than the material appearance so Adam as symbol is what concerns Paul in the I Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 passages.
In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul uses Platonism to explain the relationship of Grace and Law. Sarah represents imputed righteousness while the bondservant, Hagar, represents the Law. Paul writes, “There is an allegory here: these women stand for the two covenants.”
Using this same method, we are able to discover that Noah, Abraham, Moses and David are all types of Christ. They all fail to accomplish righteousness, yet point to the One Who is Able. The platonic method of interpretation uses both contrasts and comparisons. In the two examples mentioned above Paul sets up a contrast. Platonism uses both contrast and comparison. Consider what we discover in Scripture when we use comparison.
Both Abraham and Moses were in contact with the Pharaohs and both found themselves in trouble in Egypt. What might this have meant for early Jewish Christians? What did it say to them about Jesus? Surely they would have recalled the scripture that says, “From Egypt have I brought forth my Son.” (Hosea)
Let’s explore other similarities that point to the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Need for water brought Abraham to Egypt. Without water, he and his people would have perished in drought-stricken Canaan. Moses’ life was spared when his mother floated him in a basket. Noah and his household were saved in the ark. Jesus’ first miracle involved turning water to wine. Might the water-wine story suggest that it is Jesus’ blood that brings about all redemption?
Neither Abraham nor Moses had offspring in Egypt. In terms of progeny, Egypt was not a fertile place for them (as compared to Joseph). Contrary to Dan Brown’s thesis, Jesus had no biological children while in earthly captivity.
Abraham and Moses’ natural relationships became distorted while they were in Egypt.
Abraham was estranged temporarily from his wife who was also his half-sister, and Moses was estranged from his people. Here we glimpse something of the cost involved in Christ’s taking on flesh and coming to live among us.
Both Abraham and Moses left Egypt with greater authority and wealth. Jesus’ resurrection and ascension are His return from captivity to the glory that He enjoyed before the foundation of the world.
Both Abraham and Moses were blessed by noble priests: Abraham by Melchizedek and Moses by Jethro (his father-in-law). Jesus was blessed by Simeon, a man of great faith who had yearned to see the day of Israel’s salvation.
Both Abraham and Moses met their wife at wells: Abraham married Keturah in Beer-Sheba (well of Sheba) and Moses met Zipporah, at a well in Midian. What does this suggest about the symbolic importance of Photini, the Samaritan Woman at Jacob’s well?
Using the Platonic approach, we find that Christ is foreshadowed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul, John, Peter and the early Church Fathers found that nothing in the Scripture is extraneous to the Person of Jesus Christ. As with Isaac, Jesus’ sacrificial journey required three days. As with Isaac, Jesus carried the wood upon which he would be sacrificed. As with Isaac, the sacrificed one is bound. As with Isaac, the Son is sacrificed on a mountain. Only with Jesus, no ram is provided as a substitute because Jesus is the True Form, not the type. Salvation is an embodied reality and types point us to that Reality.
So, are you suggesting that even the "historical" passages of the Old Testament, including Genesis 1-11, though written as if talking about real, literal individuals, in some cases perhaps said or implied things that weren't actually the case because something Larger was going on - i.e., they were a foreshadowing of Christ and hence that later-to-be-revealed aspect was embedded in the story, even if what the story said wasn't actually so? E.g., even though Adam and Eve were NOT the original two and only parents of all the human race, the narrative was written as if they were because that would later be seen to point to and explain Christ from a Platonic perspective?
If you have time, please read other essays at Just Genesis. Adam and Eve are the only "persons" mentioned in Genesis 1-11 that are not historical. We have a great deal of information about Cain, Seth, Noah, etc. and even know where they lived.
Okay, I'll (re)read them. It's been awhile since I first looked at them.
I still think it poses a problem for St. Paul's soteriology and hamartiology and perhaps Christology if Adam and Eve weren't historical persons and real individuals from whom all humans were descended.
A physicist/philosopher friend once posited that even if Adam weren't the actual first man and actual original father of all humans, his sin/fall could maybe be seen as similar to flattening the quantum wave function (alluding to the Schroedinger's cat idea wherein the observation establishes the state?) and establishing a new "state" for the world that affected everybody in the way that the Bible says that Adam's sin affected all of us and indeed the whole world by causing the "fall." ;^)
Adam and Eve aren't meant to be read as historical people in Genesis. Analysis of Genesis 4 and 5 shows that that Cain and Seth married into a noble house in west central Africa. So there were already populations of people and some form of government. Whether all the peoples of the earth came from one original mother or whether there were multiple sets of original parents, doesn't change the fact that, from the beginning, man found himself estranged from God and only God could bridge the gap.
The Schroedinger's cat paradox may be apt to the question of the Fall which means that humans are in a state of active decay. The person who you should ask is Ard Louis, who works in the molecular and quantum physics field. He does theoretical experiments like this. Contact him at: ardlouis@lassp.cornell.edu
Let me know what you find out!
Post a Comment