Written with (almost but not quite?) an excess of humour the post takes up Rashi's remarks that the first word of Scripture 'says nothing other than "explain me"!'
I used Rashi's approach in the sermon I preached on Gen 1:1.1-3 (the first three words of Gen 1:1) for the latest CareyMedia video series on "Gospel" (the new series is not available yet, but you can watch one of the previous series on Blip.tv. So I loved Rabbi Harris' commentary. In particular I was grateful for his opening paragraph to discover a passage and interpretation I had not noticed before:
There is a verse that I love to invoke whenever I teach about "the poetics of biblical narrative," and it doesn't come from this week's portion (but who's keeping score, anyway?). Instead, it is found in the first extended legal section, Parashat Mishpatim (Exod. 21–24). Loosely translated, this is the text: "In all charges of misunderstanding . . . whereof one party alleges, 'This is it!'—the case of both parties shall come before God" (Exod. 22:8); the Hebrew phrase underlying the words "this is it!" is: כי הוא זה (ki hu zeh). The verse seems to be addressing a case in which no one side has a total claim on the truth; in such a case, then, one is bidden to consider both possibilities.Do read the rest!
Labels: bible.reading, gen 1, genesis
¶ 8:05 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
thanks for that, brilliant!
What do you make of it?
[The MP3 was produced by a husband and wife team, and together with a very good essay explaining and justifying the performance it was submitted for the last assignment in the Genesis class I taught recently. I shared some of the thinking behind this assessment on Theologians without borders.]
Labels: audio, audio.bible, genesis, teaching
¶ 4:12 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
The question ran something like this:
The emperor Domitian had a coin made to celebrate his son's divinisation showing the boy sitting on a globe - presumably representing the earth, with 7 stars around him.Of course, the image is typical of a tradition of picturing gods seated on globes, see for example the coin representing Victory seated on a globe (from the page on coins from the time of Nero from the Classics Dept. at Monmouth College).
The Romans like other ancients believed the Earth to be flat.
Why was a globe used?
The Romans regularly used "orbis", a circle, ring, or disk, in the phrase orbis terrae, terrarum "the circle of the world" to mean the whole earth.
For of course, as I had forgotten, and the student did not know, the story which claims that before Columbus people "all" believed that the Earth was flat is simply a myth.
A Greek, Eratosthenes (c 276 to 195 BCE) estimated the Earth's circumference by getting measurements taken of the Sun's position in the sky at two different places Syene (now Aswan, Egypt) and Alexandria which is directly north of Syene. From the difference (and assuming that the Sun is so far away that light is parallel in the two places) he got a value close to the current measurements. (There is a good well documented presentation of this and the whole history of the "flat earthers" on Donald Simanek's site.)
Most early Christians, in the Roman empire, largely following Aristotle, accepted that the earth was round. Though at least Tertullian and others argued that the Bible spoke of it having four "corners" etc. so it must be flat.
So it is no surprise that Roman coins pictured the globe as round, that was the majority view among educated people at the time! And indeed continued to be, though perhaps not for much longer if the "Creation Scientists" have their way and require us all to use Scripture in ways that were never intended to teach us "science".
[to Del.icio.us]
Was the BBC reading your blog? Within hours after your post they had posted this!
By 
Peter Kirk, at
August 5, 2008 9:44 AM
I am getting some interesting comments from students, so tomorrow I plan to show the class these.
Genesis 1-11:
Genesis 12-50:
What do you think? Do these begin to capture some of the distinctives of the two sections of the book? Or do they rather reinforce the common themes of the whole work?
It would also be interesting to look at the different strands (at least P and J) so does anyone know how I can get hold of electronic copies of P Genesis and J Genesis in English translation?
Labels: bible, biblical.studies, genesis
¶ 4:26 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Françoise Mirguet's topic was "The divine monologues in Genesis: An interrupted sequence". She presented the monologues, noted that the cease at 18:17-18, and explored their function in the telling of Genesis, arguing that the reason they cease is that the last monologue represents the moment when God elects a dialogue partner in Abraham.
I am not quite convinced by the case she argued, but convinced enough that I look forward to reading the published version to see if I am then convinced - at least I think there is a "case to answer"...
[to Del.icio.us]
Labels: gen 1, genesis, open.biblical.studies
¶ 2:12 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Thanks for those links. As you have noted earlier they're intriguing - especially the בָּרָא discussion. I wish I could have more time to plunge into them.
I look forward to borrowing your copy of Walton's monograph when you've acquired it. :-)
By Stephen G, at
May 6, 2008 10:37 PM
I found that Walton's lecture at Wheaton pulled together his ideas well also, and plan to use it with the Genesis class so they can enter into the discussion: http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 6:25 AM
The first is Duane's abnormally interesting, and credulous(?), Isaiah 38:9-20: An Abnormal View in which he provides a strong sketch of arguments that might be made to claim that Hezekiah actually wrote part of the Bible in his own hand. (At the moment I hope he does expand the post to a paper, it would be fun to hear the discussion! And perhaps I will as I continue to follow the blogs over the next few days/weeks :)
The second I am also noting for my Genesis class reading list (for next semester) where John (Hobbins) asks: Does Genesis 1 describe the creation of things or the assignment of functions to things? A Response to John Walton frankly he takes John (Walton)'s special pleading more seriously than I would, but he provides a really good clear discussion that I want my students to follow.
Two fine examples of why (biblio/biblia)blogging is both fun, and useful!
Labels: biblical.studies, genesis, is.38, isaiah, open.biblical.studies
¶ 2:00 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Tim,
Thanks for your interest in my post on Isaiah 38:9-20. I continue to think about developing this into a paper. The main problem is one of methodology. Whatever is going on here, it is likely too underdetermined to say much of anything with certainty. As to "credulous:" I tried to be as equivocal as possible and still be more or less coherent. I doubt very much that Hezekiah wrote any or much of this. Some part of it may, I say "may," go back to him. Despite a complex history of editing, even in Isaiah, every text began with something. My underlying purpose in doing this post is to (continue to) lay some groundwork for something quite different. What that is will unfold over time.
By Duane Smith, at
May 5, 2008 3:48 AM
The word was probably badly chosen, what I meant to mean was that I find the argument intriguing, fairly convincing, but only because it is an idea I like. If I am properly critical there are too many "probables" in it that maybe multiply together into an "unlikely".
But I still think discussing it is abnormally interesting and could be fun. (And useful too, if only in that it might help clarify some of the issues, such as the distribution and nature of literacy in the Iron Age Levant.
By Tim, at
May 5, 2008 6:11 AM
Dr. Walton is "the man" - just had to say it.
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 1:50 AM
I haven't met him, though he writes and speaks (judging by the Wheaton 'cast http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/ ) clearly and simply yet with interesting and useful ideas - a great combination when one finds it in my book :)
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 6:27 AM
By the way (I just got pinged for using BTW in an email, so for the rest of the day I'm typing it in full ;-) here are a couple of the pictures I refer to (in passing) in that 'cast:
The Leaning Tower of Babel
by Joanna Hastings Jan 18-21 2001
http://comnet.org/PNetwork/Fireside01.html [link now dead]
(Advertisement for a play)
[to Del.icio.us]
Today I'll focus on 1:27, the heart of the account of the creation of humanity (1:26ff.) Although there has been debate it seems to me clear that the chapter is prose not poetry.1 However, the arguments are much less clear for 1:27.
I won't repeat (except particularly good phrases ;-) John's fine presentation, just summarise it:
- 1:27 is formed of three lines each of 2+2 word units
- these elements are not co-ordinated, mere juxtaposed
- "each part repeats and at the same time builds on the preceding part" (I am less careful than John, so I'll call it parallelism!)
- the sign of the accusative is repeated three times in one verse!2
- the vayyiqtol form of verb is rare in poetry
- the rest of the chapter is highly repetitive too
- John sees (if I understood right) the four beat lines as atypical of poetry - here I disagree with him, I think four beat (I'd prefer to say word unit) lines are commoner in more recent poetry, perhaps especially of the 2+2 sort we have here.
Yes!
By which I mean that a hard and fast distinction between prose and poetry is no more appropriate in Hebrew than in English. And this verse stands somewhere near the centre of the blurry boundary zone between them. (As does much prophetic speech.) I'll acknowledge that I have oversimplified in the past, simply calling this verse "poetry". [I am about to start yet a second sentence with a conjunction, grammarians beware ;-) - why is English so pernickety about unnecessary detail?] But, I would have erred equally (if oppositely) if I had called it "prose". It is both and neither.
Which means, I think, that we are to take its "parallelism" quite seriously:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים | אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ
בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים | בָּרָא אֹתוֹ
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה | בָּרָא אֹתָם
and he created | God || the human | in his image
in the image | of God || he created | him
male | and female || he created | them
The repetition of different forms meaning "he created" (or perhaps - see John's post - "formed") the common subject ("God", repeated by the verbs "he created") as well as the rhythm give a strongly parallelistic feel already.
So, in what does the image of God consist in humanity? Evidently not appearance or any other such surface and changeable quality - for it is in humanity as "male-and-female", as the puzzling change from singular to plural ("him" to "them") signals. It can only be in this very unity in diversity. Sexuality is both the "image of God", and as Jerome reminds Christian theologians: "Sexual categories do not apply to the Godhead." [* to another post ]
1. On this and other scholarly and technical matters do see John's article/posts "Is Gen 1:27 Poetry?" and the more recent "Genesis 1:26-28 - Exegetical Odds and Ends", Wayne's post "translating the poetry of Gen. 1:27" and the fine discussion it elicited in the comments and David Clines (1968) classic "The Image of God in Man". [RETURN]
2. See my posts: The new magical imperial toolkit: percentages, prose and poetry and The new magical imperial toolkit: part 2 [RETURN]
[to Del.icio.us]
Tim, lurking in the DML is a copy of:
Jónsson, Gunnlaugur A. The Image of God: Genesis 1:26-28 in a Century of Old Testament Research Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series ; 26. Stockholm Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988.
Might be helpful to you.
By Stephen G, at
May 1, 2007 10:05 AM
Thanks, if I follow this up more it's something I'll need to get hold of!
By Tim, at
May 3, 2007 9:26 AM
PS, to any future students reading this, I don't expect this quality of execution for the assignment, though I dream of getting it and astoundingly often do!
[to Del.icio.us]
The proposal rests on two false assumptions:
- that שַׁדַּי shadday is somehow etymologically or morphologically related to שָׁדַיִם shadayim (it is not notice the doubled ד d)
- that such a morphological connection of itself implies a connection of meaning, Barr laid into that one long long ago ;-)
... by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob,Here the echoes of שַׁדַּי shadday "Almighty" with שָׁדַיִם shadayim "breasts" resonates strongly, and perhaps is echoed more weakly (in sense if not by sound) with the "eternal mountains" and "everlasting hills" of the next verse. The effect is perhaps to mitigate the exclusively male patriarchal feel of the blessing - especially since שָׁדַיִם shadayim is paired with that most female of words רָחַם racham "womb".by the name of the Shepherd,25 by the God of your father, who will help you,
the Rock of Israel,by the Almighty (shadday) who will bless you26 The blessings of your fatherwith blessings of heaven above,
blessings of the deep that lies beneath,
blessings of the breasts and of the womb.are stronger than the blessings of the eternal mountains,
the bounties of the everlasting hills;
may they be on the head of Joseph,
on the brow of him who was set apart from his brothers.
So, not a "breasted god", but a God who consistently and persistently fulfils the ideas of this blessing in the gift of childbirth and motherhood. (For YHWH is persistently described as the giver of birth, even as the midwife of human life, and even or most poignantly when fertility of the womb is withheld.)
__________________________________
1. Organised by the new Centre for the Theology of Gender and hosted by Tyndale-Carey Graduate School in July. [RETURN]
Labels: bible, gender, genesis, god
¶ 7:34 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
What about the pun in the charge in the Song of Solomon - thought to be a hidden reflection of El Shaddai? The deer of the fields (aylot hasadeh) sounds like El Shadday - this would seem to indicate that the Hebrews were sensitive to 'sounds like' and might well have played charades - so the doubling of the daleth does not seems convincing - wasn't that a Masoretic marking anyway - i.e. post-consonantal text?
By Bob MacDonald, at
April 12, 2007 7:55 AM
My guess is that "shadday" is related to Akkadian šadu, "mountain." Note šaddu, "mountain dweller."
By Duane, at
April 12, 2007 12:03 PM
Bob, I guess in Song 2:7, as in the Genesis passage there are other textual signs that suggest the word play, in Song 2:7 the preceding echo of בִּצְבָאוֹת bisba'ot with בְּצִבְאוֹת bisib'ot seems to predispose us to hear the echo you point to. My point is that such echoes impact the effect of a word or phrase in a particular context, but do not suggest its meaning (unless the same echo is fairly frequent, perhaps).
So, Shadday does not mean "breasted god", though in this passage the echo encourages us to remember God's connection to birthing and motherhood.
I think this would be true even if we ignore the doubling of the daleth, though I do think that this Massoretic indicator is yet another factor. It is the usage of Shadday elsewhere, usually with no hint of "breasts" that means I do not see this proposal as a good one for the word/name's meaning.
By Tim, at
April 12, 2007 2:26 PM
Please correct spelling of "Masoretic" spelling in comments is a pain as I am in the habit of correcting after, when I see the words large ;-)
By Tim, at
April 12, 2007 2:28 PM
Edward T. Babinski:
I agree, "Breasted God" is too literal. But leaving out the word "God," might there still be a connection between the words for "mountains" and "breasts?" Certainly the French saw the similarity as evidenced in their language.
The Hebrew word for “mountain” is “shaddai,” and if you add one consonant on the end (the common ending for body parts that occur in pairs), you get, “shaddayim,” the Hebrew word for “breasts.” The French also have a word, “titans,” that refers to both mountains and breasts as in the “Gran Titans.”
Moreover, the Hebrews appeared to have favored women with large (dare I say "mountainous") breasts:
My breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favor.
- Song of Sol. 8:10
Laban had two daughters: and the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favored. And Jacob loved Rachel.
- Gen. 29:16-17
Apparently Rachel was not only beautiful but was also “well favored,” which was the same terms employed by the author of the Song of Solomon when describing “breasts... like towers.”
Rejoice with the wife of your youth. Let her breasts satisfy you at all times... Why embrace the bosom of a foreigner?
- Proverbs 5:19-20
Also note what Marvin H. Pope wrote in his article, “The Bible, Euphemism and Dysphemism In” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. I:
Poetic allusions to the most intimate of female charms are sometimes overlooked or studiously ignored by translators. In the Song of Songs 2:17 the lady invites her lover to be like a gazelle on “cleft mount(s)” and in 8:14 the invitation is to “spice mound(s).”
The lady of the Song speaks of her unguarded vineyard (1:6), and there is frequent reference (2:16; 4:5; 5:1; 6:2) to the garden(s) where the lover grazes, not among “lilies” (as traditionally understood), but on the lotus, an ancient and famous sexual symbol. The body part praised as a rounded crater (mixing bowl) never to lack mix (7:2) is hardly the navel but a receptacle not far below. The all-spice part(s) of the lady (4:13) are not “shoots” but a “groove” or “conduit” [the vulva].
Song of Songs 5:4 states, “My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him” which is suggestive of intercourse…”Hand” appears as a euphemism in another part of the Bible which states, “You have loved their bed, You have looked on their manhood [literal Hebrew, ‘looked on their hand’].” (Isaiah 57:8, NASB) And the Dead Sea scrolls refer to a member of the Hebrew religious community at Qumran being fined for exposing his “hand.”
There is even sexual suggestiveness in the use of the word “couch” in Song of Songs 1:12-13 (which states, “While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance.”--RSV). The double entendre meaning of “couch” is illuminated by Rabbi Judah’s ancient remark that Jerusalem men were lewd: “One would say to his colleague, ‘On what did you dine today? On well-kneaded bread or on bread not kneaded; on white wine or dark wine; on a broad couch or a narrow couch; with a good companion or a poor companion?’” “All these queries,” Hisda explained, refer “to fornication.”
Also note the following verses:
Let us get up early to the vineyard... There will I give thee my loves. The mandrakes give a smell and at our gates [or doors] are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved.
- Song of Songs 7:12-13
“Gates” or “doors” are euphemisms for the genitalia. And the two-pronged “mandrake” root is crotch-shaped. Since ancient times “mandrakes” have been related to sexual potency. Take Genesis chapter 30 in which Jacob’s barren wife tells him she has “hired him [a child] with mandrake.” Speaking of “pleasant fruits,” notice how “breasts” are described as “clusters of grapes,” and be sure to keep an eye on further appearances of “fruit” in the Song of Solomon:
Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts like clusters of grapes... I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also your breasts shall be as clusters of the vine.
- Song of Songs 7:7-8
As the apple tree among the trees of the world, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
- Song of Songs 2:3
Fellatio?
The smell of your nose, like apples.
- Song of Songs 7:8
Translated literally it’s puzzling. “Noses” do not “smell like apples.” The Anchor Bible dissects the linguistics, concluding that this refers to the scent of a woman’s “vulva.” The reference to “apples” also mirrors verse 2:3 where the female “sits in the shadow” of the male’s “apple tree” and finds his “fruit” “sweet” to her “taste.” Should not her “fruit” smell equally as “sweet” to him?
Your navel [literal Hebrew, “groove” or “slit”] a rounded crater, may it never lack punch!
- Song of Songs 7:2
Cunnilingus?
Just noting all of the euphemisms makes one pause before simply tossing out any possible connection or recognition in the ancient Hebrew's mind between "breasts" and "mountains."
Edward T. Babinski
