Isaac Blessing Jacob (1638) by Dutch artist Govert Flinck, a pupil of Rembrandt who borrowed from his style. |
The Critical Bible
A personal examination and commentary on the Bible and biblical topics from a critical perspective using science, history and literary analysis.
Thursday, July 16, 2020
Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
The Evolution of Abraham
Every superhero has an origin story that explains how they got their superpowers or what motivates them. Nations also have origin stories. Israel has more than one origin story.
This seems like a curious claim. Isn’t the Bible the origin story of Israel? Yes, but as we have seen, the Bible has preserved competing traditions.
Competing Origins
The oldest origin story for Israel is the cycle of narratives surrounding Jacob in Gen 25-35. Judging by the historical context, the substance of the Jacob cycle appears to have been written down at the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 7th century BCE. After cheating his older brother of birthright and blessing, Jacob flees to the land of the Arameans, acquires wives and children and livestock, and obtains recognition as his own tribe (Gen 31). The final chapters have Jacob reconciling with his brother and connect him to sacred sites such as Peniel, Shechem and Bethel.
The Jacob cycle is a complete legend of Israel’s origin. On its own, it explains the existence of the twelve tribes and which are the most important, proves their rights to the hill country of central Palestine, recounts the founding of the main sanctuary at Bethel, and so on. But this Israel is not the one we know from other traditions in the Bible. This Israel is not a community of believers nor a warring nation, but a tribe struggling for recognition.
Compare the origin story of Jacob with the better-known origin story of Moses and the Exodus. Moses, too, had to flee to a foreign land where he married the daughter of a desert sheikh, only to finally return to his homeland with a mission. But Moses is not a patriarch, his sons play no role in the formation of Israel. According to the Exodus story, one is not a son of Israel through genealogy but by hearing the call from YHWH through his prophet Moses. Israel’s origins lie not in the tents of Laban, but in Egypt and the desert.
If this theory of competing origin stories sounds highly speculative to you, there is some hard evidence to support it. In chapter 12 of the Book of Hosea (end of 8th century BCE), the prophet invites his audience to choose between the competing and conflicting legends of origins. Hosea’s challenge closes with this:
Jacob fled to the land of Aram,
there Israel served for a wife,
and for a wife he guarded sheep.
By a prophet YHWH brought Israel up from Egypt,
and by a prophet he was guarded.
Hosea seems to be asking his audience: Who do you want to be? Biological descendants of a scoundrel or a people called by God? He hoped to persuade his audience to choose Moses but, in the end, Israel refused to choose one origin story over the other and kept both.
Abraham: The Promise by Israeli artist
Zvi Leonhard (https://zviandariane.com/). God uses the dust of the earth and stars of the heavens as metaphors for descendants beyond measure (Gen 13:16; 15:5) |
Growth of the
Abraham Legend
Is the Abraham cycle yet another origin story?
First of all, the Abraham cycle is not as old as the Jacob cycle. References to Abraham don’t appear outside Genesis until Ezek 33:23-29 and Is 51:1-3 (both 6th century). The Ezekiel reference says Abraham came to possess the land. The reference from Isaiah says YHWH blessed Abraham and Sarah and made them parents of multitudes. In both citations we see expressed the dual theme of the Abraham cycle: the land and offspring.
Despite the fact that the references are 6th century, biblical scholars believe that the origins of the Abraham legend were formed around the same time as the Jacob cycle (8th-7th centuries BCE). The core set of narratives (Gen 13; 16; 18-19; and 21:1-4) is centered on Hebron and the sacred oak of Mamre. Abraham (under his original name of “Abram”) has two sons, but only one belongs to Israel. Through Lot, Abraham is also related to the Moabite and Ammonite people. If the Abraham cycle is an origin story, it is not just an origin story of Israel.
Based on the core narratives, Abraham is an indigenous hero of the south. Isaac, too, is a legendary hero of the south, centered around Beersheba. Early on, Isaac was joined to the Abraham cycle as Abraham’s son. What remains of Isaac’s story (Gen 26) and was recast as narratives involving Abraham (Gen 20 and 21:22-34). Outside of Gen 26, Isaac only appears as either a son of Abraham or a father of Jacob.
After the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians in 721 BCE, the survivors brought their national origin story (the Jacob cycle) to the southern kingdom of Judah where it was merged with the combined Abraham-Isaac cycle. During the Babylonian exile, the conjoined Abraham/Jacob cycle of stories was modified to reflect a promise of land because the Israelites were no longer in possession of the land. A Babylonian backstory was provided for Abraham. The divine command that came to Abraham in Ur to go forth to Canaan was a call for the exiles to leave Babylon and return to the promised land.
With the addition of the primeval history and Joseph narrative, Genesis became a prequel to the Exodus story.
The Ecumenical Patriarch
While it may have started as legends of a southern hero, the Abraham cycle evolved into something else. What is his ultimate role in the OT?
One clue can be found in a curious note (Gen 15:9) made upon the death of Abraham:
His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, east of Mamre, the field that Abraham purchased from the Hittites.
We thought we had seen the last of Ishmael back in Gen 21:8-21 when he and his mother Hagar had been expelled to the desert. At a story level, the purpose of Ishmael's exile was leave Abraham only one remaining son when God called for a sacrifice (Gen 22). Yet the P source brings Ishmael back into the story as a reminder that Abraham is not only the father of Israel or Judah or the Jews, but is the ancestor of many nations.
According to an interesting article by Albert de Pury, Professor for OT studies at the University of Geneva, Abraham was ultimately seen as an “ecumenical patriarch.” In contrast to other traditions that found their way into the Bible insisting the promised land must be taken from the Canaanites in a war of conquest that ends in the extermination of all the land’s former inhabitants, Abraham is seen as peacefully co-existing with the various Canaanite clans. He is the father of or is closely related to neighboring nations such as the Arabs (Ishmael is the ancestor of the twelve tribes of the Arab federation), the twelve tribes of Israel (through his grandson Jacob), Edomites (through his grandson Esau), Midianites (through his second wife Keturah), and Ammonites and Moabites (through Lot).
De Pury uses the adjective “ecumenical” in the sense of “worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application.” As the father of many nations (Gen 17:5), perhaps a better adjective – although more technical – for Abraham’s role in Genesis would be “transethnic” or “transnational” patriarch.
The more commonly-used meaning of the word “ecumenical” is “of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches.” It is in this sense that the term “ecumenical patriarch” is appropriate for how Abraham is viewed today. Abraham is venerated by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. If the children of Abraham can focus on him as a symbol of what we have in common rather than what divides us, the world will be a better place.
Thursday, June 4, 2020
Paying a Lot to Buy a Plot
I had originally intended to skip over Gen
23 because Abraham’s negotiations to acquire a burial plot for Sarah didn’t
seem terribly interesting. Yes, in the grand scheme of things the biblical
author wanted to make the point that the death of Sarah resulted in Abraham
purchasing land of his own, an incremental step in the fulfilment of God’s
promise of the land to Abraham. But I didn’t think I could write 1000 words on
it.
Then I read the transcript of a lecture on Gen
23 Meir Sternberg delivered in 2011 that changed my mind. Meir Sternberg is
Professor of Poetics and Comparative Literature at Tel Aviv University. Along
with Robert Alter (mentioned in my previous
article), he is one of the most prominent proponents of a literary approach
to understanding the Bible.
Sternberg points out that Sarah’s burial site, the cave of
Machpelah, is only mentioned in Genesis and nowhere else. The Bible is not
interested in establishing a cult of the dead as in Egypt. So why does the biblical
author spend twenty verses discussing a real estate deal?
They didn’t say “yes”, but they didn’t say “no”
The first couple of verses in Gen 23 inform us that Sarah
died in Hebron at the age of 127. Abraham needs a place to bury his wife, so he
approaches the town’s Hittite leaders. As negotiations begin (vv.
3-6), Abraham acknowledges that, as a resident alien (“stranger and
sojourner among you”), he has no citizenship rights. Therefore, he petitions the
Hittites to give him property for a burial place. The word “give” in Biblical
Hebrew is ambiguous. It could mean “give” as a gift and it can also mean “give”
me to purchase.
The Hittites answer him with flattery (“you are a great
prince among us”) as a way of politely pointing out that Abraham is a wealthy
man and not merely a poor sojourner. They also offer the use of any of their
grave sites (“none of us will refuse you his grave”). Perhaps because they do
not know if Abraham is asking for a gift or for a purchase, they do not say
they will “give”, only that “no one will refuse”.
On the one hand, it sounds great. If Abraham needs a grave,
they can provide a grave. But Abraham wants a burial site (“landed property”)
and all they are offering is his choice of tombs.
“I give it to you”
A second round of negotiations (vv.
7-11) is in order. Abraham has his eye on a particular cave owned by a
Hittite named Ephron. We learn later this double cave (“Machpelah” means “double”)
faces Mamre, which was one of the first places where Abraham settled in Canaan
(Gen
13:18). He was still residing there when he received a visit from three
strangers announcing the future birth of Isaac (Gen
18:1). The spot certainly must have held a sentimental meaning for Abraham.
Abraham asks the leaders of the Hittites if they can
approach Ephron on his behalf. The cave is at the end, on the boundary of his
field. It’s not like the cave is in the center of Ephron’s field and he will
have to work around it. Abraham is saying, “Sell me the cave and I will be out
of your way. I will pay full price. I’m not asking for a gift.”
As it so happened, Ephron is sitting among the men at the
city gates where business is done. “You want to buy the cave? I’ll give you the
field as well.” He literally says “I give it to you” three times. Sounds
generous, right?
Ephron does not want to sell just the cave. Selling the land
to Abraham would grant him citizenship rights, it would set a precedence, it
would break the status quo. Who knows? Maybe it will lower property values and
he’d never be able to sell his field in the future. No, if Abraham wants the cave,
he has to make it worth Ephron’s while. He needs to buy the entire field.
What’s a million
dollars between friends?
We now enter the third and final round of negotiations (vv.
12-18). Abraham only wanted to purchase the cave, but if he can only get it
by purchasing the field, then that is what he will do: “I will give you the
price of the field.” If Ephron is making an offer in good faith, he will name
his price. But if he has no intention of selling Abraham land at any price,
then he will have to withdraw his offer in the eyes of the entire community.
Ephron shows his true colors and names his price: four
hundred shekels of silver. “What is that between me and you?” To give you some
idea of the price Ephron is asking, King David paid fifty shekels (2
Sam 24:24) for the site of the future Jerusalem Temple. That was hundreds
of years later for prime real estate in the heart of Jerusalem and here Ephron
is asking eight times that for a field on the outskirts of Hebron. What’s a
million dollars between friends?
Did Ephron name an outrageous price to call Abraham’s bluff,
so he will fold and go home? Or is Ephron price gouging? We don’t know, but Abraham
doesn’t try to bargain down to a fair price. He weighs out 400 shekels (about
4.5 kg or almost 10 pounds) of silver and gets the title deed to Ephron’s
field. (Interestingly, the purchase price of 400 shekels is one shekel for each
of the four
hundred years God told him Abraham it would be before his descendants would
finally inherit the land of Canaan).
The meaning of it all
Why does the Bible spend all this time telling us this story
of a real estate deal?
A running theme throughout the entire Abraham cycle is the
dual promise of the land of Canaan and descendants to inherit it. After a long
time, God finally came through on his promise to provide Abraham with a son,
Isaac. And then God
tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice this long-promised son.
And while God has promised Abraham that the entire land of
Canaan will one day belong to his descendants, when Sarah dies and he needs a
place to bury her, a promise of land in the distant future doesn’t help at all.
He needs a place to bury his wife now. And to get it, he has to go hat in hand
and demean himself playing a game the Hittites have rigged against him.
The moral of the story is that God will deliver on his promises, but don’t expect Amazon next-day delivery. And there will be suffering involved.
Thursday, May 21, 2020
Hail and Well Met
One of the books that became a major influence on how I
approach the Bible is The
Art of Biblical Narrative by Robert Alter.
A professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, Alter sees the
OT with the eyes of a literary critic, subjecting the biblical texts to the
kind of critical analysis one might apply to the works of Shakespeare. The
texts display literary artistry and are not simply cobbled together from various
sources.
In chapter 3 of the book, Alter speaks of something
I’ve written about in previous
articles, how the same story gets told two or three times, sometimes with
the same characters:
Three times a patriarch is driven by famine to a southern region where he pretends that his wife is his sister, narrowly avoids a violation of the conjugal bond by the local ruler, and is sent away with gifts. Twice Hagar flees into the wilderness from Sarah’s hostility and discovers a miraculous well and that story itself seems only a special variation of the recurrent story of bitter rivalry between a barren, favored wife and a fertile co-wife or concubine. That situation, in turn, suggests another oft-told tale in the Bible, of a woman long barren who is vouchsafed a divine promise of progeny, whether by God himself or through a divine messenger or oracle, and who then gives birth to a hero. (p. 49)
Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear
Alter provides a modern-day example that particularly stuck
with me over the years. Think of the gun-slinging hero in Westerns, able to
draw and outshoot the bad guys before they can even pull their triggers. In a similar analogy
I used way back when I began my blog five years ago, suppose that centuries
from now, only a dozen Western movies have been preserved. In all but one, the
hero has such a “hyperreflexive arm”. In the one exception, the hero has a
withered arm and has taught himself to shoot from a rifle slung over his back.
Alter imagines that, having studied the surviving samples of
20th-century Western cinema, future scholars might hypothesize these
are all derivations of one original story of a hero with lightning reflexes.
The oddball story of the rifleman with a withered arm would be a variant from a
different source tradition.
Unlike these imaginary scholars of Western cinema studies,
we who have seen untold number of Westerns from the Lone Ranger to Matt Dillon
know that the image of the quick-on-the-draw gunfighter is a convention in that
genre. When you have a major departure from the convention, the uniqueness
tells you something about the character or story. In this case, it might be the
hero’s determination to overcome a physical handicap or the rifle provides some
advantage over the typical six-shooter.
Alter calls these conventions “type-scenes” and identifies
several in the Bible: “the annunciation … of the birth of the hero to his
barren mother; the encounter with the future betrothed at a well; the epiphany
in the field; the initiatory trial; danger in the desert and the discovery of a
well or other form of sustenance; the testament of the dying hero” (p. 51).
Betrothal type-scenes
Alter spends the rest of the chapter discussing a particular
convention he calls the “betrothal type-scene” in which the hero of the story
meets his future bride at a well in a foreign land. He draws water for the “girl”
(how she is usually referenced) who then rushes home bringing news of the
stranger. The stranger is invited to a meal, after which the betrothal between
the stranger and the girl is finalized.
I’ll skip over the first betrothal type-scene in Genesis for now and
return to it later. In the second example (Gen
29:1-20), Jacob, escaping from his brother’s wrath, arrives at a well in a
foreign land. Rachel arrives to water her flock but a large stone covers the well’s
mouth. Jacob moves the massive stone and waters her flock. After Jacob informs
Rachel that he is her kinsman, she runs to tell her father, Laban. The closed
well is a metaphor for Rachel’s closed womb and Jacob’s labor in moving the
stone foreshadows the various obstacles he will need to overcome in securing his
bride and making his fortune. Stones also feature prominently in the Jacob
cycle of stories.
The third example comes from Exodus (2:15b-21)
where Moses, escaping from Pharaoh’s wrath in Egypt, arrives by a well in
Midian. Zipporah and her six sisters come to water their flock but are driven
off from the well by shepherds. Faced not just with an inanimate obstacle but
with enemies, Moses drives off the hostile shepherds and waters the flock of
Zipporah and her sisters. How Moses rises to the challenge is entirely appropriate
for someone who has killed an Egyptian taskmaster, will later face off with
Pharaoh to liberate his people, and become Israel’s military commander for the
next forty years. That the tale is briefly told is typical of how the Torah
doesn’t dwell on Moses’ personal life.
Rebekah takes charge
Now that we have reviewed a couple of examples, let’s return
to the first betrothal type-scene (Gen
24:10-61) and see how it differs from the simpler stories we just examined.
The main difference is that it is Abraham’s servant – instead of
Isaac – who travels to the foreign land. The servant showers Rebekah with gifts
that her brother is quick to notice. This is revealing of Laban’s grasping
nature and why he will later become one of Jacob’s obstacles.
Alter says this is the only example in the Bible of a
surrogate meeting the future bride. This is fitting because Isaac is a passive
and shadowy figure in Genesis. We last saw him about
to be sacrificed at God’s request. He’s not mentioned again until this betrothal
episode, and then he only appears at the end to take Rebekah as his wife. Isaac
appears in Gen 26 but these are recycled stories (wife-sister, treaty with
Abimelech, dispute over wells, and origin of the name of Beersheba) from the Abraham
cycle. Isaac plays a part in Gen 27 in which Jacob steals his blessing from
Esau, but by then Isaac is old and blind.
The other major departure is that Rebekah draws water for
the stranger (= the servant) instead of the other way around. The number of actions (11
verbs in the four verses of vv. 16-20) Rebekah takes (drawing water, filling her jar, pouring,
giving drink, etc.) are emblematic of the dominant role she later plays
(taking, cooking, dressing, giving) in the story of securing the blessing for
her favored son, Jacob (Gen 27). As the most-controlling of all the matriarchs,
it is appropriate that she dominates her betrothal scene.
Jesus the Bridegroom
Being a professor of Hebrew literature, Robert Alter limits
his analysis to the OT. But if we include the NT, we see something that looks
like a betrothal type-scene in the story of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman
at the well in John
4:1-42. Once again we have a stranger (Jesus) in a foreign land (Samaria)
who is sitting beside Jacob’s well about noon when a Samaritan woman arrives
to draw water. A conversation ensues, after which the woman leaves her water
jar behind and returns to the city to inform its citizens of the stranger she
just met. Moved by her testimony, they invite Jesus to stay with them for a
couple of days.
A major difference in this version is that, instead of a
maiden, we have a five-times married woman. There is no actual exchange of
water, although the subject of water is the lynchpin of the dialogue that ensues
in which Jesus contrasts the stagnant water of the well with his living water (the
gift he has to offer). The episode ends not with a betrothal contract but with
the townsfolk coming to believe in Jesus.
Understanding the literary conventions puts the modern reader of the Bible in the mind of the originally intended audience. When we watch a Western and see the hero face off with the bad guy on a dusty street in front of a saloon, we expect a shootout. Similarly, when the ancient audience saw the hero arrive at a well in a foreign land, they expected he would meet his future wife there. Knowing how the scene is supposed to play out, the audience – modern or ancient – revels in any twists from the standard convention. As the saying goes, “God is in the details.”
Friday, May 15, 2020
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
About a year ago I read a movie review of Mary Magdalene, directed by Garth Davis (Lion). I was busy that weekend but thought I’d check it out the following weekend. After a one-week run at theaters in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the closest theater still showing it was in San Antonio. A five-hour road trip was not in cards, so I resolved to catch it on cable and finally had that opportunity when it recently appeared on Showtime.
My impressions were that it is an amazingly quiet movie, hushed tones, very understated. As would be expected of a movie focused on a female character, it is a feminist movie in that Mary defies cultural rules imposed on women and is treated as an equal to the male disciples. The movie is a little revisionist because Mary is not presented as a reformed prostitute (how she is typically portrayed in popular media) or the wife of Jesus (a major theme of Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code). But mostly the movie is a re-envisioning of the gospel story as seen through the eyes of one of Jesus’ female disciples.
What do we know about Mary Magdalene?
The NT sources don’t tell us a whole lot about Mary Magdalene:
- Had seven demons driven from her (Lk 8:2)
- Among the women who travelled with Jesus and financially supported his ministry (Lk 8:1-3)
- Among the women who witnessed the crucifixion (Mt 27:55f; Mk 15:40f; Jn 19:25)
- Went to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body and found the tomb empty (Mt 28:1-8; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-11; Jn 20:1-3)
- Witnessed the risen Jesus and told the apostles about it (Mt 28:9-10; Jn 20:14-18)
Poster from the 2018 UK release of Mary Magdalene |
The portrait of Mary in Mary Magdalene
In the garden He appeared to Mary Magdalene, who loved him in life, who witnessed his death on the cross, who sought him as he lay in the tomb, who was the first to adore him when he rose from the dead, and whose apostolic duty was honored by the apostles so that the good news of life might reach the ends of the earth.
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Abraham Unbound
The traditional understanding of the Akedah is that God never intended for Abraham to slaughter Isaac but was testing his faith. By trusting in God and not withholding his son, Abraham demonstrated his fear of God. Abraham is praised for being prepared to do whatever God asks, even at great personal cost. Some interpreters take it further and claim the story is a polemic against child sacrifice: God is demonstrating to Abraham that he will never ask a parent to murder their own child as an offering.
I don’t agree that the narrative is intended as a condemnation of the idea of child sacrifice. Even if God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, when asked to do it Abraham didn’t argue with God over the justice of killing an innocent the way he did when told about the impending destruction of Sodom. Any interpretation of Abraham’s actions needs to begin with the understanding that a deity’s demand for a child sacrifice was not an absurd or unusual request in ancient times. It is not surprising that Abraham accepted God’s command without question.
Monday, March 2, 2020
The Ages of Man
Hagar in the Wilderness by Camille Corot (1796-1875). This represents about 1/12 of the entire painting which is more of a landscape study. |