BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Home Bible Study: Genesis

  
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
 
This Sunday
03:41 / 03.05.07
Anybody else just love the Jacob/Esau story for how pop and dysfunctional it is? From the name-for-soup bit to Jacob's waking to ladder/angels and in some translation's God's actually living in the rock he lies his head on, through to his wives more or less bargaining and whoring him for corn... it just keeps rolling along like little else in the book. It's just fraught with wacky meaning and Jacob's never a very good guy, but he's our guy, but I get the feeling we're supposed to think he's a good guy, or at least, better than his red soup drinking, hirsute and out of luck brother. Except, of course, that Jacob knows he done wrong, hence the fear at a return/reunion.

Loads better to me, as a story, than Lot's adventures, which is essentially a parable about how Lot's very good at taking orders and women will inevitably be turned into pillars of salt or thrown outside to the lusty/incited/curious crowd of ne'er-do-wells to preserve the quiet night of important men.

Or old I invented wine and then I got royally smashed and his awkward zoology project.
 
 
grant
14:35 / 03.05.07
Jacob indeed rocks.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:34 / 04.05.07
Princess Swashbuckling See, what I found interesting in this is that God looks unreasonable again. Humans are awful so I'm going to kill the cows and trees too? I don't know, it just seems a bit, silly. It just doesn't seem to be the same as New Testament God.

Didn't God give the world and the animals and anything else they could get their hands on to Adam and his offspring? So God is not only killin' the immoral dudez but taking away their stuff too. It's a bit like with Job, God effectively steals all his stuff to see what he does.
 
 
jentacular dreams
16:33 / 12.09.07
Just re-reading and was struck by how powerfully lonely the end of genesis 7 sounds.

[23] Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

[24] The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

The idea of the ark - a giant boat to its inhabitants, but pitifully tiny compared to the global ocean, and so fragile has been explored a lot in science fiction and metaphorical references to the earth in space, but this is the first time I've really been moved by the image.

Assuming anyone's still interested in continuing this, the last part of the Noah story is a little odd.

[20] After the flood, Noah began to cultivate the ground, and he planted a vineyard. [21] One day he drank some wine he had made, and he became drunk and lay naked (or shamed/disgraced) inside his tent. [22] Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and went outside and told his brothers. [23] Then Shem and Japheth took a robe, held it over their shoulders, and backed into the tent to cover their father. As they did this, they looked the other way so they would not see him naked.

[24] When Noah woke up from his stupor, he learned what Ham, his youngest son, had done (or done to him / made of him). [25] Then he cursed Canaan, the son of Ham:
“May Canaan be cursed!
May he be the lowest of servants to his relatives.”

[26] Then Noah said,
“May the Lord, the God of Shem, be blessed,
and may Canaan be his servant!
[27] May God expand the territory of Japheth!
or [27]God shall enlarge Japheth (King James)
or [27]God doth give beauty to Japheth (Youngs Literal)
May Japheth share the prosperity of Shem,[i]
and may Canaan be his servant.”

[28] Noah lived another 350 years after the great flood. [29] He lived 950 years, and then he died.

Here he ranks his progeny, wishing slavery on his grandchild Canaan, and prosperity on his sons Shem and Japheth (who's name the footnotes say sounds like Hebrew for 'more and more' or 'extend'). Some commentators say that this was a prophecy rather than a curse - that Noah saw that the Caananites would be driven out by the decendants of Shem. The DRB on the other hand quotes Hebrew tradition, saying that Canaan, being then a boy, was the first that saw his grandfather's nakedness, and told his father [H]am of it; and joined with him in laughing at it: which drew upon him, rather than upon the rest of the children of Cham, this prophetical curse. It also states in a slight contradiction that while Noah's drunkeness was not sinful, as he didn't know how strong the wine would be, that the passage teaches that we should all try to cover up the sins of our spiritual parents - something which I think sits at odds with some passages in exodus-leviticus. The New American Bible has footnotes suggesting that this is again actually two accounts, one in which Ham is to blame, the other Canaan, which were then merged into one.

The Rashi also has an interesting commentary, implying that Ham may have abused his father in some fashion whilst he was unconscious. Their translation uses "small son" rather than youngest, and the interpretation is derogatory. One interpretation is that Ham castrated his father, as he feared other brothers who might kill him or his brothers, much as Cain killed Abel. Either way, like Adam, Noah's family (both presumably archetypes) is clearly somewhat dysfunctional. Both new starts begin to come undone within the first generation, and in both cases inequality raises its ugly head.
 
 
grant
17:37 / 13.09.07
Elder sons really don't do well in the Torah. It's weird.
 
 
grant
18:53 / 13.09.07
I wonder if there's any significance about the fact that we start off Gen 8 with the first meat eating and end with the cursing of an eldest son's eldest son. Cain was cursed by God, not Adam, if I'm remembering right.

Although wait -- looking there, I don't see *who* Noah's eldest is. Is it actually Shem?

Oh, dude, I think it is. Hmph.

And check out this race-based reading. I don't know *where* they get their etymology from, but they do quote references to Egypt as "the land of Ham."

Also of interest is a footnote from the NAB:
[18-27] This story seems to be a composite of two earlier accounts; in the one, Ham was guilty, whereas, in the other, it was Canaan. One purpose of the story is to justify the Israelites' enslavement of the Canaanites because of certain indecent sexual practices in the Canaanite religion. Obviously the story offers no justification for enslaving African Negroes, even though Canaan is presented as a "son" of Ham because the land of Canaan belonged to Hamitic Egypt at the time of the Israelite invasion.

The passage is not just interesting because it was used as a rationale for the practice of slavery, but also because condemnation of Canaanite sex religion is a Very Big Deal in hermeneutics dealing with homosexuality in scripture.

For those new to that idea, here's a nutshell: there's a school of theology that points out that while the Old and New Testaments explicitly forbid same-sex activity, the prohibition always appears to be a religious one, not one having to do with personal conduct. In other words, the prohibition really *seems* to do with same-sex activity in the context of religious rituals (idolatry), and not to do with what we'd recognize as homosexual relationships nowadays.

So, if this passage is the root of that prohibition, it might well be significant.
 
 
Princess
19:07 / 13.09.07
My Bible has all of the names down as races too. And I think it's NIV. So it's not a controversial translation of the passage.
 
 
grant
19:08 / 13.09.07
Funny, too - in Genesis 10, a descendant of Ham is listed as the first "potentate" or "city-builder."

Nimrod: probably Tukulti-Ninurta I (thirteenth century B.C.), the first Assyrian conqueror of Babylonia, the note says. He may have been a mighty hunter by the grace of God, or he may have been setting himself against God which might explain why his name means "let us revolt," meaning he's either a tyrant or a Luciferian figure or both. (Note: that last link comes from a frankly peculiar site, but I see no reason not to trust the translations of the sources quoted there.)
 
 
grant
13:53 / 14.09.07
So, I suppose the genealogy of Genesis 10 is showing us the tribal origins of race (or at least "race" in the sense of "nation"). We've had where living things come from, where knowledge came from, where rules for family relations (and corresponding violence) came from, and where rules for what you should eat (or how you should eat and drink) came from.

Genesis 11 is where languages and cities came from.

The story of Babel is told in nine lines.

Everybody speaks the same. They reach a valley where they start building with bricks.

This brick business - it's great! They start building on a grand scale "to make a name for ourselves and not be scattered."

Plan backfires horribly - God says: "Bricks? Now they are UNSTOPPABLE! Or at least presumptuous," so He gives them too many names for things, thus scattering them.

And the place was named "Babel" which is partially done as a slam against the Babylonians who enslaved Jews a few millennia later and partially as an ironic "making a name" since it sounds like a word that means "confusion."

Notes I found interesting:
[4] Tower with its top in the sky: a direct reference to the chief ziggurat of Babylon, the E-sag-ila, signifying "the house that raises high its head." Babylonian ziggurats were the earliest skyscrapers.

[9] Babel: the Hebrew form of the name "Babylon"; the native name, Bab-ili, means "gate of the gods." The Hebrew word balil, "he confused," has a similar sound. Apparently the name referred originally only to a certain part of the city, the district near the gate that led to the temple area.

Things that surprised me: I should've known this, but I'd completely forgotten that BRICKS are so closely tied to NAMES in this story. Is this where that Levi-Strauss bricoleur business came from? It had to have been.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:36 / 14.09.07
Going back a step, the Rashi also backs the view of Nimrod as a statist and tyrannical luciferian (reiterated by a 900AD Islamic historian), who was instrumental in the building of the Babylonian tower. Going over to wikipedia, there's a reference that the bitumen mortar used for the tower's construction was waterproof - making it quite a blasphemous construction, evidence that its builders doubted both Gods word, and planned to make it as high as heaven, making it a fortress against future global flood. Various authors ascribe him to be the forfather of the Huns, the first hunter (and thus the first to eat meat), and hero of the first war (between Hamites and Japhites), which resulted in his being made king, leading to his spiritual corruption.

He is also considered the enemy of Abraham by both Jewish tradition and in the Qu'ran. The tale in the Jewish encyclopedia bears a slight echo of Herod and more so of Kamsa, enemy of the child Krishna, whilst another tale has him try to burn Abraham alive (Abraham is unharmed, like Prahlad[a], the devotee of Vishnu in the story of Vishnu's Nara Simha incarnation). He is also considered as a mythological counterpart to orion. More at the Jewish encyclopedia article listed above.
 
 
grant
15:50 / 14.09.07
...making it a fortress against future global flood....

Ooooh. Dude. They doubted.

And this bit from your link:
It was then, elated by so much glory, that Nimrod changed his behavior toward Yhwh and became the most flagrant idolater.

reminds me again of the Solomon story.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:55 / 14.09.07
They were also big on idolotry apparently. Probably something that wasn't reduced by the confusion of tongues. I wonder to what extent this chapter links in with the concept of holy languages?

For added entertainment, some authors say Nimrod once tried to storm heaven, riding in a chest towed by four eagles (or vultures). There's a fantastically comic image in there somewhere.

[edit] This new edit function is going to lead to a lot of cross posting.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:55 / 14.09.07
This new edit function is going to lead to a lot of cross posting.

See!
 
 
grant
17:04 / 14.09.07
I'm not cross at all.

Uhuhuhuh.



Anyway, I should also point out, I suppose, that all this stuff is taking place in what is now Iraq - areas around Baghdad, actually. We're up to the birth of Abraham in Ur of Chaldea, which is an area where the Tigris and Euphrates reach the ocean - Nasiriya and Basra are in there.
 
 
grant
15:13 / 17.09.07
So, Genesis 12 is where that whole Holy Land trouble starts (unless you want to say it started in Eden).

Abram goes forth with his wife and nephew, and camps under a terebinth, which is a tree related to the pistachio, similar to an oak, used to make turpentine.

Like Buddha under the bo, he has a divine visitation - "All this will be yours!" Unlike Buddha, this is God and not Mara the Tempter talking, so Abram builds an altar.

Then, there's a famine, so he leaves the land and goes into Egypt. This may be a mistake.

He's got a hot wife, so, anxious, he says, "Honey! Tell 'em you're my sister! It'll be safer that way!"

And men come and check her out and tell the Pharaoh she's hot, so the Pharaoh gives Abram all kinds of great stuff as a bride-price and takes Sarai home.

But then God punishes the Pharaoh with seven plagues. And the Pharaoh says, "Dude! Why you make this trouble for me? If I'd known she was your wife, I wouldn't have been messing with her!"

And Abram gets to keep his stuff and his wife, but has to leave the country.


This seems really dodgy to me. I mean, like, The Grifters-style dodgy. What the heck is Abram playing at? How is the Pharaoh anything other than a rich, powerful mark?
 
 
jentacular dreams
17:47 / 17.09.07
Note that some of the presents Abram recieves are slaves - presumably Caananites? The Jewish Encyclopedia cites Rabbinical literature saying that Hagar was among them.

The (Barnes notes (NB, the commentary itself is slightly eyebleedy in its assumptions of what 'the East' is like, and how attractive Egyptian women are/were) suggest that this was basically all Abram's fault. God directed him as far as verse 9 and Abram followed God with all his heart, leaving behind his country, relatives and lands (which can be seen as being symbolic of sin, and rebirth), but when he headed into Egypt in verse 10 he did so to escape the famines, and knowing he did this without instruction he feared he was no longer protected, so he developed this cunning plan to avoid harm coming to him. By cursing Pharaoh, God illustrated that Abram and his wife were still protected by God, and that faith in one's own schemes is never a replacement.

Interestingly, the plagues visited upon pharaoh were at the behest of Sarai (on account of Sarai) and this plague seemed to be some sort of painful veneral condition. The of Barnes Notes above seems to believe that Sarai was taken from Abram, and thus Pharoah was guilty of invading his 'guest's privacy and household, as presumably Sarai was not given up willingly.
 
 
grant
18:19 / 17.09.07
Hahahahaha!

At a distance of three or four thousand years, with all the development of mind which a completed Bible and an advanced philosophy can bestow, it is easy to pronounce, with dispassionate coolness, the course of conduct here proposed to be immoral and imprudent. It is not incumbent on us, indeed, to defend it; but neither does it become us to be harsh or excessive in our censure.

Thank you, Mister Barnes!


The NAB does make this note:

Among the Hurrians, with whom Abraham's clan lived in close contact at Haran, a man could adopt his wife as his sister and thus give her higher status.

Which is kinda fascinating.
 
 
grant
18:46 / 18.09.07

In Genesis 12, I just noticed there's something funny going on in the beginning:
2 "I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you."

Since Abram is ABRAM, not ABRAHAM yet.
Clever.

Genesis 13: Abram's family is so darn wealthy, they have to spread out!

They hike to the place where he set up the altar, Abram sets up his household there, while his nephew Lot hies off to Sodom, where they're WICKED.

(Unspecified as to how, exactly - we'll get to that in a bit.)

Abram, now with more room, gets another visit from God, who says his descendants will get everything he can see and will multiply like grains of sand, like the dust of the earth, which is a beautiful image.

And he camps by ANOTHER terebinth and sets up ANOTHER altar to mark this SECOND promise of the land.

Which makes this chapter seem like it was an alternate version that got edited in later.
 
 
EvskiG
19:53 / 18.09.07
Damn it, too busy to add too much here.

But here's the most important non-Biblical story about Avram/Abram/Abraham, the first Jew, from the Genesis Rabba:

Terah, the father of Abraham and Haran, was a dealer in images as well as a worshipper of them. Once when he was away he gave Abraham his stock of graven images to sell in his absence. In the course of the day an elderly man came to make a purchase. Abraham asked him his age, and the man gave it as between fifty and sixty years. Abraham taunted him with want of sound sense in calling the work of another man's hand, produced perhaps in a few hours, his god; the man laid the words of Abraham to heart and gave up idol worship. Again a woman came with a handful of fine flour to offer to Terah's idols, which were now in [the] charge of Abraham. He took a stick and broke all the images except the largest one, in the hand of which he placed the stick which had worked this wholesale destruction. When his father returned and saw the havoc committed on his 'gods' and property he demanded an explanation from his son whom he had left in charge. Abraham mockingly explained that when an offering of fine flour was brought to these divinities they quarrelled with each other as to who should be the recipient, when at last the biggest of them, being angry at the altercation, took up a stick to chastise the offenders, and in so doing broke them all up. Terah, so far from being satisfied with this explanation, understood it as a piece of mockery, and when he learnt also of the customers whom Abraham had lost him during his management he became very incensed, and drove Abraham out of his house and handed him over to Nimrod. Nimrod suggested to Abraham that since he had refused to worship his father's idols because of their want of power, he should worship fire, which is very powerful: Abraham pointed out that water has power over fire. 'Well,' said Nimrod, 'let us declare water god.' 'But,' replied Abraham,' the clouds absorb the water and even they are dispersed by the wind.' 'Then let us declare the wind our god.' 'Bear in mind,' continued Abraham, 'that man is stronger than wind, and can resist it and stand against it.'

Nimrod, becoming weary of arguing with Abraham, decided to cast him before his [Nimrod's] god -- fire -- and challenged Abraham's deliverance by the God of Abraham, but God saved him out of the fiery furnace. Haran too was challenged to declare his god, but halted between two opinions, and delayed his answer until he saw the result of Abraham's fate. When he saw the latter saved he declared himself on the side of Abraham's God, thinking that he too, having now become an adherent of that God, would be saved by the same miracle. But since his faith was not real, but depended on a miracle, he perished in the fire, into which like Abraham he was cast by Nimrod.

--- ---

What the hell -- one more story, from the Midrash Rabba. Most of it has the style of a classic Jewish joke (which I guess it is).

When Abram arrived in Egypt (Genesis 12:14)

And where was Sarah? Abram had locked her in a chest. When he arrived at the gates of Egypt, the tax officers said to him: "What are you transporting in this chest?" Said he to them: "Barley."

Said they to him: "You're carrying wheat!"

Said he to them: "So charge me the tariff for wheat."

"You're carrying peppers!"

"Take the tariff for peppers."

"You're carrying gold!"

"Take the tariff for gold."

"You're carrying silks!"

"Take the tariff for silks."

"You're carrying pearls!"

"Take the tariff for pearls."

Said they: If he didn't have something truly precious, he would not accept whatever we ask for. At that moment they said to him: "You're not moving from here until you open the chest and show us what's inside."

As soon as Abram opened it, the entire land of Egypt glowed from Sarai's radiance.
 
 
grant
17:11 / 19.09.07
Great story. What a hottie! The fact that she's in a trunk sounds vaudevillian.

Haran and Abram in the fire remind me of Daniel & Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo. Dudes in furnaces.
 
 
EvskiG
21:22 / 01.10.07
Just wanted to note the spectacular new book How to Read the Bible, by James L. Kugel. A modern, scholarly trip through the Old Testament.

Just started it, but it's absolutely brilliant.

Here's a New York Times review. A selection:

"Kugel says that there is essentially no evidence — archaeological, historical, cultural — for the events in the Torah. No sign of an exodus from Egypt; no proof that Israelites ever invaded, much less conquered, Canaan; no indication that Jericho was ever sacked. In fact, quite the contrary: current evidence suggests that the Israelites were probably Canaanites themselves, semi-nomadic highlanders or fleeing city dwellers who gradually separated from their mother culture, established a distinct identity and invented a mythical past."
 
 
grant
14:07 / 02.10.07
Man, I'm actually more interested in the paragraph immediately above that one:

In this reading, the conflict between Jacob and Esau isn’t a true story of sibling rivalry but an account of why, at the time the story was written down, the Israelites had such hot and cold relations with the Edomites, a nearby tribe identified with Esau. Similarly, the “mark of Cain” that God places on Cain after he murders Abel, promising sevenfold vengeance for anyone who harms him, was probably a tale designed to highlight the brutality of the Kenites, Israel’s notoriously fierce neighbors.

Stands to reason.
 
 
jentacular dreams
16:37 / 24.10.07
*bump*

So 13 - 14?

Chapter 13: Lot and Abram go back out of Egypt, staying at the same places as on their journey in (some say paying their debts as they went). But both are now rich in livestock and servants, and the land cannot support both parties. Their herdsmen begin to quarrel so they agree to seperate, Abram gives Lot the choice of which direction he will take - he chooses the lush Jordan plain (which then contained Sodom and Gomorrah, who even then were evil and sinful). v14. And the Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Please raise your eyes and see, from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward. 15. For all the land that you see I will give to you and to your seed to eternity. 16. And I will make your seed like the dust of the earth, so that if a man will be able to count the dust of the earth, so will your seed be counted. 17. Rise, walk in the land, to its length and to its breadth, for I will give it to you." So Abram pitched camp in Hebron and built an altar....

Aside from the obvious moral of wealth dividing the two, and another promise to Abram about his descendants, I can't see much worth discussing here, but if anyone disagrees I'd be happy to try and find another layer underneath it.

Chapter 14: The four kings of Shinar (Bablyonia), Ellasar, Elam, and Goiim (or 'Goyim', a city containing men of many nations) waged war against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim & Bela (Zoar) in the valley of the Dead Sea. It seems that for twelve years the latter five had been paying tribute to Kedorlaomer (king of Elam), but they rebelled, leading to war. Interestingly, Amraphel, who is said by the Rashi to possibly be Nimrod, is not leading this army (Barnes notes, linked to earlier in the thread, suggests that the Hamite Amraphel is a descendant of Nimrod, whilst Kedorlaomer is probably a Shemite, therefore the Hamites have already succumbed to the Shemites). That said the four invading Kings are, one presumes, more righteous than those they fight against.

So out comes Kedorlaomer and his armies, smiting as they go (RIP: the Rephaim (a giant race?), the Zuzim, the Emim, Horites, Amalekites, and Amorites). They meet Sodom et al., mutual smiting ensues, ending with the retreat (and death?) of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah.

So the invaders are victorious. They loot the cities they have invaded. They also loot Lot, who was living in Sodom. But Og, a Rephaimite survives, and comes to tell Abram of the attack and the kidnapping of Lot and his posessions (which includes his family and household). Abram raises a small army* and sets out.

* The verse at this point says: 14.When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

[from the Rashi] "trained men" Heb. חִנִיכָיו It is written חִנִיכוֹ [in the singular], his trained man, (other editions: It is read). This is Eliezer, whom he had trained to [perform the] commandments, and it [חִנִיכָיו] is an expression of the initiation (lit. the beginning of the entrance) of a person or a utensil to the craft with which he [or it] is destined to remain...

"three hundred and eighteen" Our Sages said (Gen. Rabbah 43:2, Ned. 32a): It was Eliezer alone, and it [the number 318] is the numerical value of his name.

"went in pursuit as far as Dan" There he became weak, for he saw that his children were destined to erect a calf there (Sanh. 96a). The reference is to I Kings 12:29: “And he (Jeroboam) placed one in Beth-el, and the other he placed in Dan.” [/Rashi].

Abram's force attacks the kings during the night, and the attack is made of win! He recovers Lot, his family, servants and posessions. At this point an interesting thing happens:

17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). 18 Then Melchizedek (Rashi: Shem, Son of Noah?) king of Salem (Jerusalem) brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High ("El"/"Elion"), Creator [/Posessor] of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand."

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (which to me almost reads like a bit of comic relief?)

21 The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself."

22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, 'I made Abram rich.' 24 I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me—to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre. Let them have their share."

So there's bread and wine (later served both at the Tabernacle and at Mass, so this may have been ritual rather than refreshment?) from the priest (Melchizedek, who may or may not be Shem, but who despite a minor mention is very well regarded. Note that as king of Jerusalem, here mentioned as Salem [also "Peace"], he is also the King of Peace. Note that the breaking of bread is also a sign of peace, obvs.). Aside from that, Abram refuses a share in the spoils of battle (though he does not deny a share to those who fought with him, nor Melchizedek's share), because of his faith in God's promise to make him rich, and at the same time avoids becoming indebted to Sodom in any way.

The blessing is also interesting. It bears some resemblance in structure to Noah's blessing of Shem, though I wonder whether this similarity is more a result of both being penned by the same author(s)? Other authors note that Abram's swearing by the Lord to the King of Sodom could constitute testimony.

P.S. (Pseudo?)historically, the victory of Abram may have buffered Egypt from babylonian agression, allowing it's development.
 
 
EvskiG
00:40 / 25.10.07
Chapter 13:

Aside from the obvious moral of wealth dividing the two, and another promise to Abram about his descendants, I can't see much worth discussing here, but if anyone disagrees I'd be happy to try and find another layer underneath it.

Genesis 13 has caused a fuckload of trouble over the years, since many Zionists use it ("I give all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever") as a Biblical justification for Jewish ownership of Israel.

Chapter 14:

The four kings of Shinar (Bablyonia), Ellasar, Elam, and Goiim waged war against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim & Bela (Zoar) in the valley of the Dead Sea.

This chapter is weirdly inconsistent with the rest of the story of Abraham. It's the only chapter where the otherwise mellow Abraham gets his war on. What's more, instead of YHVH or Elohim, the later part of the story (with Melchizedek), calls God El Elyon (אל עליון) -- "God Most High" -- which is pretty uncommon in the Bible. In fact, it's a common title for the Ugaritic god El.

All the names in this section are legendary groups who were supposed to live in the Transjordan. The Valley of Siddim doesn't exist (or at least isn't known today). The names of the Canaanite kings are alliterative pairs (Bera/Birsha and Shinab/Shemeber). Bera means "in evil" and Birsha means "in wickedness," so these names might not be perfectly historical.

And fans of Michael Moorcock -- note that the King of Ellasar is Arioch.
 
 
grant
13:17 / 26.10.07
How unique is Melchizedek's status as priest and king?
 
 
EvskiG
14:41 / 26.10.07
Melchizedek is a weird one.

As far as I know he's unique, a sort of a John the Baptist to Abraham.

His name is sort of a combination of melech, king, and tzedek, righteous. So he's Righteous King. If you see Tzedek as a proper noun, he might be equated with a particular Canaanite god, and therefore would be a humanized version of a god-king worshipped by the ancestors of Abraham and the Hebrews.

In Genesis 14, he blesses Abraham in the name of El Elyon, which might have been intended by the writers as a way of equating Elohim/YHVH with El of the Canaanite pantheon, and/or showing that Elohim/YHVH and Abraham had superseded, or at least were superior to, El and other Canaanite gods, like Tzedek, and the King of Jerusalem.

Psalm 110, which is a pretty early Jewish writing attributed to David and traditionally interpreted as addressed to Abraham, says "You are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek." Rashi interprets that as meaning that because of the blessing of Malchizedek, a priest-king (or even a god-king), Abraham's descendants will be priests and kings.

Possibly because of his former god status, he often was treated as a sort of mysterious quasi-angel or messiah figure, like Elijah. I think he's referred to this way in the Dead Sea scrolls, and some of the mystical cults originally based on him eventually may have focused on Jesus instead.

He eventually gets co-opted in the New Testament (Hebrews 7), where early Christians describe him as "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest for ever." They use him to show that one can be a priest without being a Jew descended from the Levitical line (which didn't exist at the time of Abraham).
 
 
grant
16:14 / 26.10.07
Interesting. The only other figure I know of that could come close to becoming a priest-king is Solomon, the king who built the Temple.

That wikipedia article made my head hurt - if Melchizedek instructed Abraham in the Torah, and Abraham and Melchizedek are characters in the Torah, then... what? I understand there's the Torah and then there's the Torah, but still.
 
 
EvskiG
20:59 / 26.10.07
Solomon wasn't a Cohen/Levite, so he couldn't be a priest.

Malchizedek was around before the Levites existed, so those rules didn't apply to him.

Can't find a full copy of the Genesis Rabba online, so I can't check the story about Malchizedek instructing Abraham in the Torah. But another source (Midrash Tehillim) says that what Malchizedek taught Abraham was the principle of charity -- as per the tithe he made.
 
 
EvskiG
17:58 / 29.10.07
if Melchizedek instructed Abraham in the Torah, and Abraham and Melchizedek are characters in the Torah, then... what? I understand there's the Torah and then there's the Torah, but still.

Poked around a bit. According to some legends Melchizedek supposedly instructed Abraham in the moral precepts and laws that eventually were codified in the Torah.

There are all sorts of theories about how Abraham (who by definition was righteous) followed Jewish doctrine before it was handed down to Moses. Some say he was instructed by Melchizedek. Some say he simply intuitively knew the law. Some say he learned each new law as God told it to his angels. But my favorite (which I can't find right now) says Abraham somehow absorbed the law through his kidneys as he slept.
 
 
EvskiG
18:08 / 29.10.07
Here we go, Genesis Rabbah 61:1:

"God conditioned Abraham's two kidneys to act like two sages, and they were instructing him and counseling him, and teaching him wisdom (Torah) all night, as it is said, 'I will bless the Lord, who has counseled me, even by night my kidneys have instructed me.'"

(Reference to Psalm 16:7 -- usually translated as "heart.")
 
 
grant
18:17 / 29.10.07
Oh, that's awesome.

I wonder if that relates to the Urim/Thummim business.

Twin stones....
 
 
jentacular dreams
18:52 / 30.10.07
Isn't that primarily in the Church of the Latter Day Saints? I though that the Hebrew descriptions of the Urim / Thummim was a lot more vague?

Still, on the subject of kidney stones (does anyone have full access to this article?). Also according to this, the KJV calls the kidneys reins.

Before we move on, worth noting that Abraham also gives Melchizedek the first tithe.
 
 
grant
20:59 / 30.10.07
I though that the Hebrew descriptions of the Urim / Thummim was a lot more vague?

I don't think I know what the Mormons say about 'em, but they're mentioned fairly clearly in Exodus, I think.
 
 
EvskiG
21:15 / 30.10.07
does anyone have full access to this article?

There's a similar, fascinating article (with a hefty bibliography) here:

The Kidneys in the Bible: What Happened?.

Damn those translators who tried to hide the secret Biblical history of the kidneys!

worth noting that Abraham also gives Melchizedek the first tithe

The use of pronouns in the relevant sentence ("and he gave him a tithe from all") actually makes it unclear who tithed to who.

Some commentators say Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, others say vice-versa. There's actually a fair amount of debate about this in Judaism, although, as per the Book of Hebrews, Christianity takes the former position.
 
 
jentacular dreams
17:27 / 31.10.07
Sorry Grant, can't find a description of the Urim 'n' Thummim in Exodus. Can you remember a passage number? All I've been able to find is Exodus 28:30 [link to NIV]. Youngs literal translated Urim and Thummin as "lights and perfection" in this verse.

One addition, I did a bit of a search on kidneys and religion, spirituality and mythology and aside from another couple of restricted access Nephrology articles, the only thing I found was this this on birch trees which basically says they are considered a spiritaully purifying force and according to folklore the leaves and sap can be used to clear or prevent kidney stones (purifying/clearing the conscience?). Mind you it often seems that most folklore doesn't divide up the spiritual and physical cleansers as much as one might be tempted to today.
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply