The Anglican Curmudgeon, an attorney and fellow blogger, looks at the astronomical evidence surrounding Jesus' Nativity. This is great reading!
The first in the series treats the dating of Herod's rule, the second concerns the dating of Christ's Nativity, and the third deals with the Star of Bethlehem.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Egypt in the Christmas Narrative
The Apostles, who knew Jesus' mother well, bore witness to the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ, so when people reject the virgin birth, they are calling the Apostles liars. They are rejecting the most fundamental belief of Christianity: that the Son of God came into the world to save sinners, to crush the head of the serpent, and to restore Paradise, according to the Edenic Promise (Gen. 3:15)
The Virgin Birth is one of many signs that the One born to Mary is the Son of God. This is not about the birth of the Sun at the winter solstice. This is not a reworking of the Egyptian tale of the virgin Isis giving birth to Horus. The Isis-Horus tale provides the pattern whereby Abraham's descendants would recognize Messiah. It points us to the Virgin who gave birth to the true Son of God under humble circumstances. In teh Horus myth, Isis gives birth in a cave. In Orthodoxy, icons of the Nativity the Theotokos is shown with the newly born Christ in a cave.
Miraculous or exrtraordinary births abound in the mythologies of ancient societies, such as Athena's birth from Zeus's forehead. But the birth of Jesus is unlike these in significant ways. As Scripture attests: He was not begotten by the will of man. He is the eternal Christ, begotten before all worlds, and his coming was foretold long before there were Mesopotamians, Greeks, Romans and Egyptians.
The Egyptians (who venerated the Sun as the emblem of the Creator) believed that Horus was born at the Winter Solstice because from that day forward the Sun grows in strength. The ancient Egyptian ritual involved placing a male baby before the image of Isis and the priests brought gifts to the "divine son". Some claim that Christ is based on the old Egyptian myth, but speaking Platonically, Christ is the true Form of which the Isis-Horus myth is a dim but prophetic reflection. A story and a ritual are not the same as a flesh and blood Son of God. "And he became flesh and dwelt among us - Emmanuel - God with us!" But this particular story from ancient Egypt anticipates Messiah's coming.
Through many generations, Abraham's Horite people expected the Edenic Promise to be fulfilled. The Horites were devotees of Horus, who they called the "Son of God." If we believe Genesis is the record of Abraham's ancestors, then we must also accept that it was to Abraham's ancestors that the original promise (Protevangelion) of the Son's birth was made. This also explains why the priestly lines of Abraham's people exclusively intermarried. They actually believed that the "Seed of a Woman" would come from their bloodlines.
Descent without a male parent is prefigured in Genesis 3:15 where the promise is given of One who will destroy the cosmic serpent and restore perfect communion between God and Man. The promise involves the woman's seed, not the man’s, and the promise involves “the woman,” not Eve. Gen 3:15 looks forward to the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. And the fulfillment is facilitated by Joseph’s obedience to God and his faithfulness to Mary. Not only did he refuse to put her to shame, “but he knew her not.” The words are a euphemism, expressing the conjugal act, and reflect on the union of First Man and First Woman in Gen. 4:1.
Further, Joseph listened and believed the angel's warning. He took Mary and the Child to safety in Egypt. Egypt isn't always posed as a safe place in Israel's history, but for Abraham's divine Seed, Egypt was a place of refuge, as it was for Abraham and Jacob in a time of famine. The "angel of the Lord" appeared to Joseph and told him to seek refuge in Egypt. This phrase - "angel of the Lord" - is found in Genesis 16:7 in reference to the Lord (Yahweh) who often makes His intention known in dreams. This Joseph, like his famous namesake, is a dreamer of dreams. And he remained in Egypt until the Son of God was called out of Egypt.
The Apostles believed that the return of Jesus from Egypt fulfills the prophesy of Hosea 11:1: "I called my son out of Egypt." Jews insist that this refers to Israel as a people, and certainly that is the context of the Hosea passage. Matthew's Gospel says: So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, left that night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod was dead. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: "I called my son out of Egypt." (Matthew 2:15)
All of Holy Scripture points us to the Promised Son who restores the divine image and opens the way to Paradise. May you embrace this great miracle during these twelve days of Christmas. I wish you a blessed Nativity with family and friends. And for those who are alone this Christmas, may God send angels to abide with you.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
A Christmas Message from Genesis
The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this…you will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will crush your head, and you will strike His heel.’ - Genesis 3:14-15
What does it mean to eat dust all the days of one’s life? It means that one’s efforts, one’s greatest achievements are futile. To crawl on one’s belly and to eat dust are images of total defeat! This is God’s verdict on the powers of evil. They may at times seem to be winning, but all their efforts gain them no ground, no advantage.
Wrapped into this verdict is the kernal of the Gospel that the Woman (not Eve in Gen. 3:15) would bring forth a Son who will crush the Evil One and his host of demons. The promise is sure!
The heavens themselves are set against the Devil's rebellion. Our Lord beheld Satan cast from heaven! And the sun, moon and stars bow to the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. The constellations echo the Angelic refrain: "Fear not! For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:11)
Jupiter, called the King Planet, and Regulus, called the King Star, performed a celestial dance to proclaim the arrival of the Son of God. Christ was not born in Jerusalem, a ancient Jebusite holding. He was born in Bethlehem of Judea, an ancient settlement belonging to Abraham's Horite people. I Chronicles 4:4 lists Hur (Hor) as the "father of Bethlehem". The author of I Chronicles knew that Bethlehem was originally a Horite settlement, less than 10 miles from Mt. Hor. So Jesus's descent from David can be traced back to Abraham and the expectation of the Horites that a Son of God would be born from their bloodline.
The ancient prediction in Genesis 49 tells us that He would come from Judah:
You are a lion's cub, O Judah; you return from the prey, my son. Like a lion he crouches and lies down, like a lioness-- who dares to rouse him? 10 The sceptre will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.
This clarifies the connection between Jupiter's regal behavior and the tribe of Judah because the starry coronation—the triple conjunction—occurred within the constellation of the Lion, Judah's totem. (Read more here.)
In 2 days, Christians will again celebrate the birth of the Son of God, the only hope of the world. He came to shed His Blood for the life of the world. At His second coming, He will bring that Kingdom of Peace for which our hearts yearn. Until that day, the battle rages between Christ’s seed and the seed of the Evil One.
Many who are in Christ are suffering greatly. Christians are paying a great price to bear witness to the Son of God in places where it can cost one's life. The cruelest human rights violations these days are directed against minority Christians around the world. Let us pray for them even as we celebrate the Nativity Feast, rejoicing that the blood of the saints is precious to the Lord and King who is able to crush evil once and for all, and to restore communion with the Father.
Have a blessed Christmas, dear readers.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Was Abraham an Idol Worshiper?
Alice C. Linsley
This essay responds to the comment made by Fr. Robert Hart at The Continuum that Abraham was a pagan who converted to monotheism. Fr. Hart believes that Abraham was a idol worshiper. He writes: “Abram was a pagan, a worshiper of idols, until God revealed Himself to him, and revealed His purpose through him. The text is clear that he had, until then, worshiped his father's gods.”
First, it is incorrect to apply the term “pagan” to Abraham since the term comes from ancient Rome. Pagan refers to adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns. (I've written about the contribution of Biblical Anthropology in the determination of anachronisms here.)
Second, the Online Etymological Dictionary explains that "pagan," from classical Latin means "villager, rustic, civilian," from pagus "rural district," originally "district limited by markers," related to pangere "to fix, fasten." Pagan, like villain, boor, rustic, expresses a class hierarchy from a time when common country folk were regarded by the urban elite as being of low birth, having rude manners, and lacking urbanity and sophistication. This doesn't apply to Abraham who maintained an army of at least 300 trained warriors, controlled a substantial holding between Hebron and Beersheba, negotiated water treaties with rulers, and maintained two wives and two concubines in separate households.
The verse to which the Fr. Hart is referring is Joshua 24:2: In olden times, your forefathers – Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor – lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods.
The short answer to the question: "Was Abraham an idol worshiper?" is no! Fr. Hart has been reading commentaries influenced by the Talmud and midrash. Matthew Henry perpetuates the notion that Abraham worshiped idols in his commentary on Genesis. He writes, "God made choice of Abram, and singled him out from among his fellow-idolaters..."
We should exercise suspicion about such claims. Scripture does not designate Abraham as an idol worshiper. Other than the Joshua 24 statement, which has another explanation, there is not a shred of evidence that Abraham or his father were idolaters.
Abraham's calling does not constitute a turning away from the tradition of his Horite forefathers (Horim). Abraham's people did not worship idols. They were priests of the Proto-Gospel and recognized as unique and especially pure in their worship and religious practices.
This peculiar verse: “In olden times, your forefathers – Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor – lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods” must be understood in the context of the Deuteronomist account, which begins in Deuteronomy and ends in II Kings. These books share a common concern with idolatry and recognize that on that side of the Euphrates, people worshiped the moon as equal to the sun. This is historically accurate. The moon god was honored in Ur and Haran, but never among the Horites, and Terah was a Horite.
The implication is that Terah fell into worshiping contrary to Horite tradition while living “beyond the Euphrates.” This represents the Bible's criticism of Asian dualism in which the sun and moon were regarded as equals.
In the binary worldview of the Horites the sun was regarded as superior to the moon. This was not an arbitrary preference, but an observed reality since the sun gives light whereas the moon's light is reflective or refulgent. Horite recognition of the sun's superiority is expressed in Genesis 1:16: "God made the two great lights: the greater to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night."
Further, in ancient Horite symbolism, Ra's right eye is represented by the sun and the left eye is represented by the moon. Together they are the eyes of Horus, but the moon eye is weaker than the sun eye. It is idolatry to regard the weaker as worthy of equal honor. This explains why Abraham's father was accused of idol worship in Joshua 24.
Abraham is called Hebrew. This is the English equivalent of Ha-Biru. The Habiru/Hapiru were Kushite devotees of Horus. Horus is the pattern whereby the people would recognize Messiah. He was regarded as the fixer of cosmic boundaries, the stars, the cardinal points, the winds and the tides. Horus shrines were located on major water systems and Horus ruled the waters. This is why the Horus name appears in the Semitic word for river: na-har (Hebrew), na-hr (Arabic) and ne-har (Aramaic).
Many words that pertain to boundaries and measurements are derived from Horus: hour, horoscope, horologion, horotely and horizon. The association of Horus with the horizon is evident in Har-ma-khet, meaning "Horus of the Horizon." His being was one with his father Ra.
Both Teran and his father Nahor were of the Horite ruler-priest caste which is the foundation of the priesthood of Israel. They were servants of Elohiym, which is the plural form for God and a term associated with the divine council of Horites.
Nothing is said in Genesis about Abraham worshiping other gods. This verse represents a criticism of Terah's association with Asiatic dualism. The implication is that Terah fell into worshiping contrary to tradition of his Horite ancestors. Even this is no substantiated by the text since Terah means "priest" and he was clearly of the Horite ruler-priest caste.
The criticism apparently is based upon Joshua 24:2, a later assessment of the differences between the binary worldview of the Horites and the dualistic worldview that developed in regions to the east where the Horite priests migrated. In the Nilotic tradition of the Horites the Sun and the Moon were viewed as a binary set, the Sun being the greater of the two lights.
In a dualistic view, the Sun and the Moon are equals so both are worthy of veneration. In a binary view, one of the entities of the binary set is always superior and to venerate the lesser entity is a form of idol worship. This is what stands behind the Joshua 24 criticism of Terah's residing in Mesopotamia. Note is is not a criticism of Abraham.
There is no other verse in the Bible to support the view that Terah, a Horite ruler-priest, worshiped the Moon god contrary to the practice of his Kushite ancestors who regarded the Sun as the emblem of the Creator. Abraham's Horite ancestors didn't worship the moon was done in Ur and Haran, and later in Mecca. The Horite ruler-priests were devotees of Horus whose emblem was the Sun. Sometimes their God is named "Na-Pir" which means May the God of the Ha-piru/ Hebrew be exalted.
Genesis is about Abraham's Horite caste and the promise that the Creator made to their ancestors in Eden (Gen. 3:15) that a woman of their people would bring forth the Seed of God.
Related reading: The Calling of Abraham; The Sun and the Moon in Genesis; The Christ in Nilotic Mythology; Who Were the Horites?; The Tower of Babel; Peleg: Time of Division; The Joktanites Tribes; Binary Sets in the Ancient World
This essay responds to the comment made by Fr. Robert Hart at The Continuum that Abraham was a pagan who converted to monotheism. Fr. Hart believes that Abraham was a idol worshiper. He writes: “Abram was a pagan, a worshiper of idols, until God revealed Himself to him, and revealed His purpose through him. The text is clear that he had, until then, worshiped his father's gods.”
First, it is incorrect to apply the term “pagan” to Abraham since the term comes from ancient Rome. Pagan refers to adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns. (I've written about the contribution of Biblical Anthropology in the determination of anachronisms here.)
Second, the Online Etymological Dictionary explains that "pagan," from classical Latin means "villager, rustic, civilian," from pagus "rural district," originally "district limited by markers," related to pangere "to fix, fasten." Pagan, like villain, boor, rustic, expresses a class hierarchy from a time when common country folk were regarded by the urban elite as being of low birth, having rude manners, and lacking urbanity and sophistication. This doesn't apply to Abraham who maintained an army of at least 300 trained warriors, controlled a substantial holding between Hebron and Beersheba, negotiated water treaties with rulers, and maintained two wives and two concubines in separate households.
The verse to which the Fr. Hart is referring is Joshua 24:2: In olden times, your forefathers – Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor – lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods.
The short answer to the question: "Was Abraham an idol worshiper?" is no! Fr. Hart has been reading commentaries influenced by the Talmud and midrash. Matthew Henry perpetuates the notion that Abraham worshiped idols in his commentary on Genesis. He writes, "God made choice of Abram, and singled him out from among his fellow-idolaters..."
We should exercise suspicion about such claims. Scripture does not designate Abraham as an idol worshiper. Other than the Joshua 24 statement, which has another explanation, there is not a shred of evidence that Abraham or his father were idolaters.
Abraham's calling does not constitute a turning away from the tradition of his Horite forefathers (Horim). Abraham's people did not worship idols. They were priests of the Proto-Gospel and recognized as unique and especially pure in their worship and religious practices.
This peculiar verse: “In olden times, your forefathers – Terah, father of Abraham and father of Nahor – lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods” must be understood in the context of the Deuteronomist account, which begins in Deuteronomy and ends in II Kings. These books share a common concern with idolatry and recognize that on that side of the Euphrates, people worshiped the moon as equal to the sun. This is historically accurate. The moon god was honored in Ur and Haran, but never among the Horites, and Terah was a Horite.
The implication is that Terah fell into worshiping contrary to Horite tradition while living “beyond the Euphrates.” This represents the Bible's criticism of Asian dualism in which the sun and moon were regarded as equals.
In the binary worldview of the Horites the sun was regarded as superior to the moon. This was not an arbitrary preference, but an observed reality since the sun gives light whereas the moon's light is reflective or refulgent. Horite recognition of the sun's superiority is expressed in Genesis 1:16: "God made the two great lights: the greater to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night."
Further, in ancient Horite symbolism, Ra's right eye is represented by the sun and the left eye is represented by the moon. Together they are the eyes of Horus, but the moon eye is weaker than the sun eye. It is idolatry to regard the weaker as worthy of equal honor. This explains why Abraham's father was accused of idol worship in Joshua 24.
Many words that pertain to boundaries and measurements are derived from Horus: hour, horoscope, horologion, horotely and horizon. The association of Horus with the horizon is evident in Har-ma-khet, meaning "Horus of the Horizon." His being was one with his father Ra.
Both Teran and his father Nahor were of the Horite ruler-priest caste which is the foundation of the priesthood of Israel. They were servants of Elohiym, which is the plural form for God and a term associated with the divine council of Horites.
Nothing is said in Genesis about Abraham worshiping other gods. This verse represents a criticism of Terah's association with Asiatic dualism. The implication is that Terah fell into worshiping contrary to tradition of his Horite ancestors. Even this is no substantiated by the text since Terah means "priest" and he was clearly of the Horite ruler-priest caste.
The criticism apparently is based upon Joshua 24:2, a later assessment of the differences between the binary worldview of the Horites and the dualistic worldview that developed in regions to the east where the Horite priests migrated. In the Nilotic tradition of the Horites the Sun and the Moon were viewed as a binary set, the Sun being the greater of the two lights.
In a dualistic view, the Sun and the Moon are equals so both are worthy of veneration. In a binary view, one of the entities of the binary set is always superior and to venerate the lesser entity is a form of idol worship. This is what stands behind the Joshua 24 criticism of Terah's residing in Mesopotamia. Note is is not a criticism of Abraham.
There is no other verse in the Bible to support the view that Terah, a Horite ruler-priest, worshiped the Moon god contrary to the practice of his Kushite ancestors who regarded the Sun as the emblem of the Creator. Abraham's Horite ancestors didn't worship the moon was done in Ur and Haran, and later in Mecca. The Horite ruler-priests were devotees of Horus whose emblem was the Sun. Sometimes their God is named "Na-Pir" which means May the God of the Ha-piru/ Hebrew be exalted.
Genesis is about Abraham's Horite caste and the promise that the Creator made to their ancestors in Eden (Gen. 3:15) that a woman of their people would bring forth the Seed of God.
Related reading: The Calling of Abraham; The Sun and the Moon in Genesis; The Christ in Nilotic Mythology; Who Were the Horites?; The Tower of Babel; Peleg: Time of Division; The Joktanites Tribes; Binary Sets in the Ancient World
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Who was Oholibamah?
Alice C. Linsley
Oholibamah is one of the most fascinating women in the Old Testament. Her name means "most high tent" or "tent shrine" and she is mentioned six places in Genesis 36. From her name, and based on the genealogical information in Genesis, we may safely conclude that she was associated with the Horite priestly line of Seir.
© 2004 Alice C. Linsley
Diagram of Moses’ Ancestry
∆ Seir
׀
׀
∆ Zibeon
׀
O Anah
׀
Esau ∆ = O Oholibamah (Gen. 36)
Esau ∆ = O Oholibamah (Gen. 36)
׀
∆ Korah the Elder
׀
׀
Ishar O = ∆ = O Jochebed
׀ ׀
Korah ∆ ∆ Moses
Korah ∆ ∆ Moses
That Anah and her daughter Oholibamah are important is evident from the diagram above. It is rare that females are listed in the line of descent of chiefs. In Oholibamah's case, she is listed because of her status - not because her father had no sons. We are told that she had a brother named Dishan.
Genesis 36:2 tells us that "Esau took his wives from the daughters of the Canaanites: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite; Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; and Basemath, Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebajoth."
Oholibamah is remembered as a wife of Esau and that marriage was arranged because of Oholibaham's high rank. she was probaly the daughter of a Canaanite priest. She is important also as the mother of Korah, the ancestor of Korah the Younger who opposed Moses in the wilderness. Amram's son by his cousin bride was named Korah. Amram had 2 wives, following the pattern of his ancestors. Jochebed was his half-sister bride (as was Sarah to Abraham).
According to Genesis 36:5, Esau and Oholibamah had three sons: Jeush, Jalam, and Korah. All were born in Canaan. This Korah is the grandfather or great great grandfather of Korah the Younger who died when the earth opened and devoured him and his fellow conspirators (Numbers 26:10). Here we see the continuing theme of competition between two brothers and we see that the events of the later chapters of Genesis are not chronologically far removed from the events narrated in Exodus and Numbers.
According to Genesis 36:18, Oholibamah's three sons became the chiefs of their clans. Someone of Oholibama's clan "found the hot springs in the desert, as he pastured the donkeys of his father Zibeon" (Genesis 36:24b).
Again we see that the cousin bride named her first-born son after her father. We first saw this in Genesis 5 with Naamah, Methusaleh’s cousin bride, who named her first-born son ‘Lamech’ after her father. We found it also with Keturah, Abraham's cousin bride, who named her first-born son Joktan after her father.
Genesis 36 poses difficulty because Anah is also listed as a ‘son’ of Zibeon (verse 24) and Oholibamah is listed as an Edomite chief (verse 41). "These were the names of the chiefs of Esau, in their tribes and places, in their countries and nations: Chief Timnah, Chief Alvah, Chief Jetheth, Chief Oholibamah, Chief Teman, Chief Mibzar, Chief Magdiel, and Chief Zaphoim." The term ‘son’ in reference to these two women means person through whom descendents are traced and 'chief' suggests that Oholibamah was the titular head, not necessarily the ruler.
Oholibamah is an enigma. She is mentioned repeatedly as an important woman of Edom, yet little is known of her. Her connection to the house of Korah is indisputable, and Korah's claim to the rights of primogenture were probably justified.
David had Edomite blood through Tamar and Moabite blood through Ruth. Likely David was related to the priestly line traced through Oholibamah. This is why II Samuel 8:18 speaks of David's sons as being priests. They didn't serve in the office of priest, but they were of a priestly line, and this was the line from which Jesus would come.
Oholibamah appears to prefigure the Virgin Mary. Oholibamah, the Most High Tent, housed the seed of Messiah through David, and her mother's name is Anah. The Virgin Mary, whose womb became the tabernacle of the Most High God, was the daughter of Ana. So Oholibamah is both an historical person, an ancestor of David, and an archetype of the Woman in Genesis 3:15.
There is a lovely Toparion appointed for this Sunday. Here are the words:
Prepare, O Bethlehem, for Eden has been opened to all!
Adorn yourself, O Ephratha, for the tree of life blossoms forth from the Virgin in the cave!
Her womb is a spiritual paradise planted with Divine Fruit:
if we eat of it, we shall live forever and not die like Adam.
Christ comes to restore the image which He made in the beginning!
Related reading: God's Word Never Fails; Mary's Priestly Lineage
Oholibamah appears to prefigure the Virgin Mary. Oholibamah, the Most High Tent, housed the seed of Messiah through David, and her mother's name is Anah. The Virgin Mary, whose womb became the tabernacle of the Most High God, was the daughter of Ana. So Oholibamah is both an historical person, an ancestor of David, and an archetype of the Woman in Genesis 3:15.
There is a lovely Toparion appointed for this Sunday. Here are the words:
Prepare, O Bethlehem, for Eden has been opened to all!
Adorn yourself, O Ephratha, for the tree of life blossoms forth from the Virgin in the cave!
Her womb is a spiritual paradise planted with Divine Fruit:
if we eat of it, we shall live forever and not die like Adam.
Christ comes to restore the image which He made in the beginning!
Related reading: God's Word Never Fails; Mary's Priestly Lineage
Response to The Continuum, Part 2
(For Part 1, go here.)
Alice C. Linsley
Who was Abraham?
Fr. Robert Hart said “Abram was a pagan, a worshiper of idols, until God revealed Himself to him, and revealed His purpose through him. The text is clear that he had, until then, worshiped his father's gods.”
Abram swore by the “God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth” that he would not take booty after the defeat of Chedor-Laomer and his allies. He said, “…not a thread, not a sandal strap will I take of what is yours, for you to be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich” (Gen. 14:22). To swear using this formula in reference to himself as Abram, indicates that he was a righteous man, not a pagan.
Further, Abram’s first action after arriving in Canaan (his mother’s homeland) was to seek guidance from the Moreh[1] (teacher, seer, prophet) at the Oak at the “holy place at Shechem” (Gen.12:6). The next verse states: “The Canaanites were in the country at the time” so it is evident that this account is written well after Abraham lived there.
We also have these words: “Abram put his faith in Yahweh and this was reckoned to him as righteous” (Gen. 15:6). We note that here too he is still called ‘Abram.’ The idea that Abraham was an idoler worshiper comes from a midrash of the Common Era, centuries after the Pentateuch was written. It indicates that Abraham realised that his father's idols (Teraphim)[2] had no power and perceived that there is but one God.
Genesis is like the law tablets that were broken in two. To gain the big picture, one must put the two parts together. Seemingly contradictory things are said about Abraham, yet together these statements help us to understand who he was. For example, Abraham speaks of himself in Canaan as an alien living among the Hittites (Gen. 23:3), yet when addressing him, the Hittites speak of him as a “prince of God” among them. Of course, both are true of Abraham since he had not lived in that region from his childhood, but his mother’s Horite people were regarded as elect or chosen to serve God. They are the likely origin of the concept of a 'nation of priests.'
God also is spoken of in contradictory ways. In Psalm 104:2, we are told that Yahweh is robed in light, but in Psalm 18:11 we are told that He made darkness his covering. If we ignore one of these statements we gain a partial picture. We must look at details, some of which seem to contradict the dominate view. We must also discern patterns, such as these binary opposites, as they present to us how the ancient Semites thought.
Abraham was a Horite. The Horites were devotees of Horus, called “Son of God,” and they anticipated His coming from their bloodline. As bloodline was traced through the mother, the expectation was fulfilled in the Virgin Mary, daughter of a priestly line.[3]
It has been difficult to piece together the origins of our Messianic Faith because critical information is missing about the chiefs who were the contemporaries of Reu, Serug and Nahor (see here.) The information that is missing pertains to Abraham's mother's people who controlled a region between Mt. Hor (northeast of Kadesh-barnea) and Mt. Harun (near Petra). Genesis 10:30 tells us that these were the clans whose dwelling place extended from Mesha "all the way to Sephar, the eastern mountain range." They are called Horites (Egyptian Khar) in Genesis 14:6, and 36:20, and in Deuteronomy 2:12. Numbers 33:27-28 mentions 'Terah' as a place near Mount Harun (Mount of Aaron in Jordan).
Besides being the name of Abraham's father, Terah is also the name of an Arabian tribe (Terabin) that dwells chiefly between Gaza and Beersheba (Keturah's home). This information links Terah to Joktan and Sheba, from which Terah took his wife, Abraham's mother. It also suggests that Terah's mother was a daughter of a Horite chief named Terah and Terah's patrilineal cousin, since she named her first-born son Terah after her father according to the cousin bride's naming prerogative.
Poetreader made the comment: “Scripture is strikingly clear that Abraham was brought up to serve his father's polytheistic gods, and did indeed receive what he had from the true God by special revelation. That is the very heart of his story.”
Only one place in Scripture refers to Terah as an idol worshiper. Abraham is never referred to as an idol worshiper, so we should exercise suspicion here, since the weight of Scripture and extra-biblical evidence is against such a claim. Abraham left his father’s house as a response to God’s call, and THAT is the heart of the story. We are not told what he expected, but since Abraham and his ancestors were rulers, and since Nahor received Terah’s territory, it is likely that Abraham sought a kingdom of his own. To gain that kingdom, he needed a son. So, here we have the Gospel: By faith and obedience in this life we receive a Kingdom and it is the Kingdom of the Son of God. Isn’t this the heart of the Story?
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
NOTES
1. "Torah" means that which is thrown by the hand of the Moreh (oracle or prophet). Abraham received guidance when he pitched his tent at the Oak of Moreh. The word "Torah" is usually rendered guidance or instruction, but the word is also associated with a prophet sitting under a tree. These treses were at the sacred center (See Eliade's research). Abraham pitched his tent at the “Oak of Moreh” between Ai and Bethel (Gen. 13). Likewise, Deborah who deliberated on behalf of Israel, judged from her tamar (date nut palm) between Ramah (meaning high or lifted up) and Bethel (meaning house of God).
2. Teraphim were ancestor statues, still commonly used among Africans, but the ancestors are not worshiped in the sense that is suggested about Terah and Abraham. The reverance shown to the ancestors of the ruler-priests is not unlike that shown by Christians to saints and martyrs to whom they turn for intercessions. There is a darker side to this however, observed in Africa today and experienced by St. Paul in Philippi (Acts 16:16-18), where demons are invoked and false prophets declare through demon possession.
3. Fr. Hart mistakenly assumes that Abraham's patriarchal people traced bloodline through the fathers. This overthrows the significance of the Virgin-birth of Christ. While social status, office and trade were received from the father, bloodline was traced through the mother. So Jesus was a carpenter, following Joseph's trade, yet the Son of God, not the son of Joseph.
Alice C. Linsley
Who was Abraham?
Fr. Robert Hart said “Abram was a pagan, a worshiper of idols, until God revealed Himself to him, and revealed His purpose through him. The text is clear that he had, until then, worshiped his father's gods.”
Abram swore by the “God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth” that he would not take booty after the defeat of Chedor-Laomer and his allies. He said, “…not a thread, not a sandal strap will I take of what is yours, for you to be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich” (Gen. 14:22). To swear using this formula in reference to himself as Abram, indicates that he was a righteous man, not a pagan.
Further, Abram’s first action after arriving in Canaan (his mother’s homeland) was to seek guidance from the Moreh[1] (teacher, seer, prophet) at the Oak at the “holy place at Shechem” (Gen.12:6). The next verse states: “The Canaanites were in the country at the time” so it is evident that this account is written well after Abraham lived there.
We also have these words: “Abram put his faith in Yahweh and this was reckoned to him as righteous” (Gen. 15:6). We note that here too he is still called ‘Abram.’ The idea that Abraham was an idoler worshiper comes from a midrash of the Common Era, centuries after the Pentateuch was written. It indicates that Abraham realised that his father's idols (Teraphim)[2] had no power and perceived that there is but one God.
Genesis is like the law tablets that were broken in two. To gain the big picture, one must put the two parts together. Seemingly contradictory things are said about Abraham, yet together these statements help us to understand who he was. For example, Abraham speaks of himself in Canaan as an alien living among the Hittites (Gen. 23:3), yet when addressing him, the Hittites speak of him as a “prince of God” among them. Of course, both are true of Abraham since he had not lived in that region from his childhood, but his mother’s Horite people were regarded as elect or chosen to serve God. They are the likely origin of the concept of a 'nation of priests.'
God also is spoken of in contradictory ways. In Psalm 104:2, we are told that Yahweh is robed in light, but in Psalm 18:11 we are told that He made darkness his covering. If we ignore one of these statements we gain a partial picture. We must look at details, some of which seem to contradict the dominate view. We must also discern patterns, such as these binary opposites, as they present to us how the ancient Semites thought.
Abraham was a Horite. The Horites were devotees of Horus, called “Son of God,” and they anticipated His coming from their bloodline. As bloodline was traced through the mother, the expectation was fulfilled in the Virgin Mary, daughter of a priestly line.[3]
It has been difficult to piece together the origins of our Messianic Faith because critical information is missing about the chiefs who were the contemporaries of Reu, Serug and Nahor (see here.) The information that is missing pertains to Abraham's mother's people who controlled a region between Mt. Hor (northeast of Kadesh-barnea) and Mt. Harun (near Petra). Genesis 10:30 tells us that these were the clans whose dwelling place extended from Mesha "all the way to Sephar, the eastern mountain range." They are called Horites (Egyptian Khar) in Genesis 14:6, and 36:20, and in Deuteronomy 2:12. Numbers 33:27-28 mentions 'Terah' as a place near Mount Harun (Mount of Aaron in Jordan).
Besides being the name of Abraham's father, Terah is also the name of an Arabian tribe (Terabin) that dwells chiefly between Gaza and Beersheba (Keturah's home). This information links Terah to Joktan and Sheba, from which Terah took his wife, Abraham's mother. It also suggests that Terah's mother was a daughter of a Horite chief named Terah and Terah's patrilineal cousin, since she named her first-born son Terah after her father according to the cousin bride's naming prerogative.
Poetreader made the comment: “Scripture is strikingly clear that Abraham was brought up to serve his father's polytheistic gods, and did indeed receive what he had from the true God by special revelation. That is the very heart of his story.”
Only one place in Scripture refers to Terah as an idol worshiper. Abraham is never referred to as an idol worshiper, so we should exercise suspicion here, since the weight of Scripture and extra-biblical evidence is against such a claim. Abraham left his father’s house as a response to God’s call, and THAT is the heart of the story. We are not told what he expected, but since Abraham and his ancestors were rulers, and since Nahor received Terah’s territory, it is likely that Abraham sought a kingdom of his own. To gain that kingdom, he needed a son. So, here we have the Gospel: By faith and obedience in this life we receive a Kingdom and it is the Kingdom of the Son of God. Isn’t this the heart of the Story?
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
NOTES
1. "Torah" means that which is thrown by the hand of the Moreh (oracle or prophet). Abraham received guidance when he pitched his tent at the Oak of Moreh. The word "Torah" is usually rendered guidance or instruction, but the word is also associated with a prophet sitting under a tree. These treses were at the sacred center (See Eliade's research). Abraham pitched his tent at the “Oak of Moreh” between Ai and Bethel (Gen. 13). Likewise, Deborah who deliberated on behalf of Israel, judged from her tamar (date nut palm) between Ramah (meaning high or lifted up) and Bethel (meaning house of God).
2. Teraphim were ancestor statues, still commonly used among Africans, but the ancestors are not worshiped in the sense that is suggested about Terah and Abraham. The reverance shown to the ancestors of the ruler-priests is not unlike that shown by Christians to saints and martyrs to whom they turn for intercessions. There is a darker side to this however, observed in Africa today and experienced by St. Paul in Philippi (Acts 16:16-18), where demons are invoked and false prophets declare through demon possession.
3. Fr. Hart mistakenly assumes that Abraham's patriarchal people traced bloodline through the fathers. This overthrows the significance of the Virgin-birth of Christ. While social status, office and trade were received from the father, bloodline was traced through the mother. So Jesus was a carpenter, following Joseph's trade, yet the Son of God, not the son of Joseph.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Response to Comments at The Continuum
Alice C. Linsley
(This is the first of my responses to comments made at The Continuum, here.)
How are we best to understand the Gospel?
While the Gospel is universal, the context of Christianity is essentially Afro-Asiatic. To understand the Gospel in its fullness, we must understand the context of those to whom the promise of a Savior was made. These were Abraham’s people, some of whom held close to the promise and others who apparently did not; just as today we have believers and non-believers. Nothing has changed!
"Salvation is of the Jews” because the Jews preserved the record of Abraham’s people in the Hebrew Bible, and because the Son of God was made incarnate as a Jew, that is a man of Judah, according to the ancient prophecies.
What is the cultural context of Abraham’s People?
It is not Babylonian or Chaldean, although these are Afro-Asiatic languages. Since Abraham’s ancestors came out of west central Africa, the cultural context of Abraham’s people is essentially African. And Africa includes Egypt. The cultural context is clearly NOT Indo-European, since none of the languages or people groups listed in Genesis 10 are Indo-Europeans. All are in the Afro-Asiatic language family. Further, as someone has noted, Hebrew developed from the ancient Canaanite alphabet, which is also in the Afro-Asiatic family and closely related to old Egyptian.
Abraham's people weren't Jews. They were Horites and they were related by blood and marriage to other African groups such Sheba and Jebu (Jebusites).
Abraham and his ancestors were rulers in the Afro-Asiatic Dominion which stretched from west central Africa to the Indus River Valley. One of the traits of these rulers is that they maintained their own priests, and as Fr. Robert Hart points out, both ruler and priest were later called meshiach in Hebrew. Their unique kinship pattern insured that the Son of God would be born of their priestly lines. The lines of priests intermarried and the ruler-priests had 2 wives. (Remember that Elkaniah had 2 wives: Peninnah and Hannah.)
The ruler-priests were careful in marrying only the daughters of priests because they believed that the promised Son of God would be born of their bloodline and bloodline was traced through the mothers. In other words, they married that Meshiach might be born. He would be born a priest forever of the order of Melchizedek, Priest of Salem (also not Jewish). “Come thou redeemer of the earth, come testify thy Virgin-birth, all lands admire, all times applaud, such is the birth that fits a God."
What has this to do with the meaning of God's revelation to the Church?
The promise concerning the virgin birth wasn't an idea that the Apostles created, nor one they borrowed. It was a belief of Abraham’s Horite people. The Horites were devotees of Horus, who was called the “Son of God.’ The B’nai Israel and the Church are built on this belief which is traced back to before the time of Noah (over 12,000 years ago).
Expectation of the Son of God was spread by Horite priests (‘har wa’) across the Afro-Asiatic Dominion. They were the first missionaries. In anthropology, this is called ‘cultural diffusion.’ Here we find that from ancient times, the Promise was universal. The Promise establishes catholicity of the Faith and catholics uphold the universality of the Promise.
It is true that Christianity has had many different cultural contexts, in different historical periods, but as one interested in what Genesis has to say, the origins or etiology of the Gospel is what concerns me.
The promise of the Son of God preceded Abraham. He trusted God to leave his family in Haran because he was a man of faith. The promise of a kingdom and of a ‘Son’ was not a special revelation to Abraham. It was his received Tradition, and the same one we have received, only now more fully, as Christ has been made Man and is known to us as Jesus ben Joseph, born in Bethlehem (originally a Horite settlement).
Special Revelation of Received Tradition?
Traditional societies which revere the wisdom of the ancestors don't have the synthetic religions that we find in Western civilization: groups like the Mormons or Scientology which have fabricated histories and cobbled together seductive notions of reality. These groups seek to establish new familial traditions, claiming special revelation. They do not develop organically within the great religious traditions of the world and along the lines of family hertitage. Instead, they seem intent on shoving those aside or claiming equal authority with them.
If we go back far enough in time we find basically two religious traditions: one involving priests and the other involving shamans. While priests and shamans serve similar functions within their communities, they represent distinctly different, even opposite worldviews. Underlying shamanism is the belief that there are powerful spirits who cause imbalance and disharmony in the world. The shaman’s role is to determine which spirits are at work and to find ways to appease the spirits. This may or may not involve sacrifice of animals.
Underlying the priesthood is belief in a single supreme Spirit to whom humans must give an accounting, especially for the shedding of blood. In this view, one Great Spirit (God) holds the world in balance and it is human actions that cause disharmony. The vast assortment of ancient laws governing priestly ceremonies, sacrifices, and cleansing rituals clarifies the role of the priest as one who offers sacrifice according to sacred law. The law represents received tradition preserved through the priestly lines.
The catholicism of East and West can be traced to Father Abraham and his people, the ancestors of Christ our God. The Genesis genealogies speak of the ruler-priests who preserved and passed along a tradition concerning the appearing of the Son of God. Their blood flowed through the veins of Joachim and Ana, the parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
The origins of the faith of the Son of God came to Abraham, not as special revelation, but as a tradition received from his forefathers. The distinctive traits of this tradition align remarkable well with the key features of catholic faith and practice.
Article VII is one of the best of the Articles of Religion found in the Book of Common Prayer, especially this part: “Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.” Indeed.
(This is the first of my responses to comments made at The Continuum, here.)
How are we best to understand the Gospel?
While the Gospel is universal, the context of Christianity is essentially Afro-Asiatic. To understand the Gospel in its fullness, we must understand the context of those to whom the promise of a Savior was made. These were Abraham’s people, some of whom held close to the promise and others who apparently did not; just as today we have believers and non-believers. Nothing has changed!
"Salvation is of the Jews” because the Jews preserved the record of Abraham’s people in the Hebrew Bible, and because the Son of God was made incarnate as a Jew, that is a man of Judah, according to the ancient prophecies.
What is the cultural context of Abraham’s People?
It is not Babylonian or Chaldean, although these are Afro-Asiatic languages. Since Abraham’s ancestors came out of west central Africa, the cultural context of Abraham’s people is essentially African. And Africa includes Egypt. The cultural context is clearly NOT Indo-European, since none of the languages or people groups listed in Genesis 10 are Indo-Europeans. All are in the Afro-Asiatic language family. Further, as someone has noted, Hebrew developed from the ancient Canaanite alphabet, which is also in the Afro-Asiatic family and closely related to old Egyptian.
Abraham's people weren't Jews. They were Horites and they were related by blood and marriage to other African groups such Sheba and Jebu (Jebusites).
Abraham and his ancestors were rulers in the Afro-Asiatic Dominion which stretched from west central Africa to the Indus River Valley. One of the traits of these rulers is that they maintained their own priests, and as Fr. Robert Hart points out, both ruler and priest were later called meshiach in Hebrew. Their unique kinship pattern insured that the Son of God would be born of their priestly lines. The lines of priests intermarried and the ruler-priests had 2 wives. (Remember that Elkaniah had 2 wives: Peninnah and Hannah.)
The ruler-priests were careful in marrying only the daughters of priests because they believed that the promised Son of God would be born of their bloodline and bloodline was traced through the mothers. In other words, they married that Meshiach might be born. He would be born a priest forever of the order of Melchizedek, Priest of Salem (also not Jewish). “Come thou redeemer of the earth, come testify thy Virgin-birth, all lands admire, all times applaud, such is the birth that fits a God."
What has this to do with the meaning of God's revelation to the Church?
The promise concerning the virgin birth wasn't an idea that the Apostles created, nor one they borrowed. It was a belief of Abraham’s Horite people. The Horites were devotees of Horus, who was called the “Son of God.’ The B’nai Israel and the Church are built on this belief which is traced back to before the time of Noah (over 12,000 years ago).
Expectation of the Son of God was spread by Horite priests (‘har wa’) across the Afro-Asiatic Dominion. They were the first missionaries. In anthropology, this is called ‘cultural diffusion.’ Here we find that from ancient times, the Promise was universal. The Promise establishes catholicity of the Faith and catholics uphold the universality of the Promise.
It is true that Christianity has had many different cultural contexts, in different historical periods, but as one interested in what Genesis has to say, the origins or etiology of the Gospel is what concerns me.
The promise of the Son of God preceded Abraham. He trusted God to leave his family in Haran because he was a man of faith. The promise of a kingdom and of a ‘Son’ was not a special revelation to Abraham. It was his received Tradition, and the same one we have received, only now more fully, as Christ has been made Man and is known to us as Jesus ben Joseph, born in Bethlehem (originally a Horite settlement).
Special Revelation of Received Tradition?
Traditional societies which revere the wisdom of the ancestors don't have the synthetic religions that we find in Western civilization: groups like the Mormons or Scientology which have fabricated histories and cobbled together seductive notions of reality. These groups seek to establish new familial traditions, claiming special revelation. They do not develop organically within the great religious traditions of the world and along the lines of family hertitage. Instead, they seem intent on shoving those aside or claiming equal authority with them.
If we go back far enough in time we find basically two religious traditions: one involving priests and the other involving shamans. While priests and shamans serve similar functions within their communities, they represent distinctly different, even opposite worldviews. Underlying shamanism is the belief that there are powerful spirits who cause imbalance and disharmony in the world. The shaman’s role is to determine which spirits are at work and to find ways to appease the spirits. This may or may not involve sacrifice of animals.
Underlying the priesthood is belief in a single supreme Spirit to whom humans must give an accounting, especially for the shedding of blood. In this view, one Great Spirit (God) holds the world in balance and it is human actions that cause disharmony. The vast assortment of ancient laws governing priestly ceremonies, sacrifices, and cleansing rituals clarifies the role of the priest as one who offers sacrifice according to sacred law. The law represents received tradition preserved through the priestly lines.
The catholicism of East and West can be traced to Father Abraham and his people, the ancestors of Christ our God. The Genesis genealogies speak of the ruler-priests who preserved and passed along a tradition concerning the appearing of the Son of God. Their blood flowed through the veins of Joachim and Ana, the parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
The origins of the faith of the Son of God came to Abraham, not as special revelation, but as a tradition received from his forefathers. The distinctive traits of this tradition align remarkable well with the key features of catholic faith and practice.
Article VII is one of the best of the Articles of Religion found in the Book of Common Prayer, especially this part: “Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.” Indeed.
The Continuum Dismayed
There is an interesting conversation running on Genesis at The Continuum. There are a few good rants and no small measure of dismay about my comments. This surprised me because often my comments there are ignored.
I hesitate to continue the conversation there as the piece posted comes from Louis Tarsitano’s widow and the discussion should focus on what Father Tarsitano has written. I regret that my comment took the thread off course.
I'll respond to the comments here at Just Genesis, for it is clear that those who have commented have not read my research.
Exams are almost over! I'll comment as soon as possible.
I hesitate to continue the conversation there as the piece posted comes from Louis Tarsitano’s widow and the discussion should focus on what Father Tarsitano has written. I regret that my comment took the thread off course.
I'll respond to the comments here at Just Genesis, for it is clear that those who have commented have not read my research.
Exams are almost over! I'll comment as soon as possible.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
About Commentaries on Genesis
A reader of Just Genesis has asked which books would be worth acquiring for his library. I have listed the commentaries on Genesis that have merit here. I've also reviewed numerous commentaries, including: Martin Luther's, John Calvin's, John Wesley's, Herman Gunkel, Leon Kass' and Patrick Reardon's.
Here is what the reader asks :
I'm now officially addicted to your web site! Have you written any books?
I'm working on my book - The Ancestors of God. However, I need time to finish it. I teach 8 classes a semester so you can imagine that time to write isn't something I have in abundance, especially this time of the year with final exams and final papers.
I'd like to ask you for some book recommendations (aside from the Bible!). I'm interested in all good history books relating to the Bible, from Genesis through the 3rd or 4th century AD, that you might recommend. I know there's probably not one single book that gives an in depth discussion of such a vast time - I'm slowly building a library, but I'd like to buy books with merit. What I've been finding are either very high level books that leave me with more questions than answers, fundamentalist books that teach a hyper-literal reading, or seemingly scholarly books that teach a biased history bent on tearing down the faith, not illuminating it.
What an accurate description on the available literature! And I couldn't have written a better rationale for the material presented at this blog. It fills the gap. I hope a potential publisher is reading this! : )
Here is a list of books that I recommend as the 'first purchase' books to build a good library on Genesis:
Creation and the Patriarchal Histories
Patrick Henry Reardon
Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2008.
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 1
Andrew Louth. ed.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 2
Mark Sheridan, ed.
Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002
Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1 (Adam to Noah)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.
Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II (Noah to Abraham)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.
(This volume includes a Fragment of Part III. Cassuto died before he was able to complete his Commentary on the Pentateuch.)
The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History
Hermann Gunkel; William Herbert Carruth
New York: Schocken Books, 1970.
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
John H. Walton
Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
I hope this is helpful, dear reader, and thanks for your support!
May your Nativity Feast be blessed.
Here is what the reader asks :
I'm now officially addicted to your web site! Have you written any books?
I'm working on my book - The Ancestors of God. However, I need time to finish it. I teach 8 classes a semester so you can imagine that time to write isn't something I have in abundance, especially this time of the year with final exams and final papers.
I'd like to ask you for some book recommendations (aside from the Bible!). I'm interested in all good history books relating to the Bible, from Genesis through the 3rd or 4th century AD, that you might recommend. I know there's probably not one single book that gives an in depth discussion of such a vast time - I'm slowly building a library, but I'd like to buy books with merit. What I've been finding are either very high level books that leave me with more questions than answers, fundamentalist books that teach a hyper-literal reading, or seemingly scholarly books that teach a biased history bent on tearing down the faith, not illuminating it.
What an accurate description on the available literature! And I couldn't have written a better rationale for the material presented at this blog. It fills the gap. I hope a potential publisher is reading this! : )
Here is a list of books that I recommend as the 'first purchase' books to build a good library on Genesis:
Creation and the Patriarchal Histories
Patrick Henry Reardon
Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2008.
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 1
Andrew Louth. ed.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 2
Mark Sheridan, ed.
Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002
Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1 (Adam to Noah)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.
Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II (Noah to Abraham)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.
(This volume includes a Fragment of Part III. Cassuto died before he was able to complete his Commentary on the Pentateuch.)
The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History
Hermann Gunkel; William Herbert Carruth
New York: Schocken Books, 1970.
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
John H. Walton
Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
I hope this is helpful, dear reader, and thanks for your support!
May your Nativity Feast be blessed.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Ancient Canaanite Inscriptions
Professor Frederick Dobbs-Allsopp, (Princeton Theological Seminary) is the official epigrapher of the archaeological expedition to Wadi El-Hol. He is responsibile for deciphering and publishing the Canaanite inscriptions found at Wadi El-Hol in Egypt.
The inscriptions found on several stones indicate that alphabetic writing was used in Egypt as early as 4000 years ago. The alphabetic inscriptions from Wadi El-Hol are the product of early Canaanites who worked on tombs. They were likely related to the nobles who were buried in these tombs.
John Coleman Darnell (Yale University) and his wife discovered the inscriptions. Professor Darnell stated, “These are the earliest alphabetic inscriptions, considerably earlier than anyone had thought likely."
It will be interesting to learn of the connection between these inscriptions and those found at Elephantine. Pepinakht-Heqaib lived on the island of Elephantine toward the beginning of the First Intermediate Period. The following statement, dated to c. 2800 BC, is found on the inscription of Pepinakht-Heqaib: "Never did I judge two brothers in such a way that a son was deprived of his paternal possession."
Could this Pepi-nakht-Heqaib be the same person as Pepi II (reigned c. 2278 BC–c. 2184 BC), who married his half-sister? Very likely, since nakht (nok) means powerful in Egyptian and applies to rulers. In Hebrew it takes the form ha-nok, which means the chief. The name originally referred to the chief of the Nok civilization in west central Africa which predates the Chaldeans by at least 4000 years.During the Second Intermediate Period (17th-15th c. BC), coinciding with the time of biblical Joseph, the Egyptians experienced an influx of Canaanites. These Semites had settlements in Tanis, Avaris and el-Yehudiya. The Egyptians called the chiefs of these settlements "Hyk Khase", the origin of the term "Hyksos."
The kinsip pattern revealed in Genesis provides considerable evidence that the Hamite, Kushite and Canaanite nobles were related by blood and marriage.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
David Plotz on Genesis One
David Plotz, writing for Slate Magazine, blogs on the Bible. His comments on Genesis are often hilarious. Here's a sample:
You'd think God would know exactly what He's doing, but He doesn't. He's a tinkerer. He tries something out—what if I move all the water around so dry land can appear? He checks it out. He sees "that it was good." Then He moves on to the next experiment—how about plants? Let's try plants.
This haphazardness may be why Creation seems so out of order. If God made light on the first day, what was giving the light, since the sun doesn't appear until the fourth day? And God tackles the major geological and astronomical features during the first two days—light, sky, water, earth. But Day 3 is a curious interruption—plant creation—that is followed by a return to massive universe-shaping projects on Day 4 with the sun, moon, and stars. The plant venture is a tangent—like putting a refrigerator into a house before you've put the roof on.
Does the Lord love insects best? They're so nice He made them twice: On Day 5 He makes "the living creatures of every kind that creep." Three verses, and 24 hours later, He makes "all kinds of creeping things of the earth."
"Creeping" is all over these last few verses of Creation. God tells His newly minted man and woman that they rule over world and its creatures, including, as the King James puts it—"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." What a superb phrase! It's perfect for insects, terrorists, and children.
You'd think God would know exactly what He's doing, but He doesn't. He's a tinkerer. He tries something out—what if I move all the water around so dry land can appear? He checks it out. He sees "that it was good." Then He moves on to the next experiment—how about plants? Let's try plants.
This haphazardness may be why Creation seems so out of order. If God made light on the first day, what was giving the light, since the sun doesn't appear until the fourth day? And God tackles the major geological and astronomical features during the first two days—light, sky, water, earth. But Day 3 is a curious interruption—plant creation—that is followed by a return to massive universe-shaping projects on Day 4 with the sun, moon, and stars. The plant venture is a tangent—like putting a refrigerator into a house before you've put the roof on.
Does the Lord love insects best? They're so nice He made them twice: On Day 5 He makes "the living creatures of every kind that creep." Three verses, and 24 hours later, He makes "all kinds of creeping things of the earth."
"Creeping" is all over these last few verses of Creation. God tells His newly minted man and woman that they rule over world and its creatures, including, as the King James puts it—"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." What a superb phrase! It's perfect for insects, terrorists, and children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
