Tag: Biblical Interpretation

Posted on

“He Will Swallow Up Death For Ever”: Struggles with Death in the Baal Epic and the Bible

Stele of Baal Hadad

I’ve tried to draw attention to various examples of ancient biblical cultural engagement with this blog. Here I want to take up one of the most challenging and perplexing instances of this, and also one of the most ultimately beautiful and symbolically rich. In this post, we will consider Isaiah 25 and how it resonates with the Baal Epic from Ugarit.

Baal Hadad, Rival to Adonai

Stela of Baal Hadad, God of Storm and Fertility

Before I show how this beautiful section of Isaiah depends on the Baal Epic, let me offer a few words on the religion that produced this pagan poetry, from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible. If you have heard of Baal before, it is probably in the context of the narratives about ancient Israel’s proclivity to worship him as a rival to their own God. The story of the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings is an especially vivid account that depicts the attraction that Israel had for Baal.

The reasons that Baal proved to be seductive are quite apparent if you understand what it is that he offered. Baal Hadad (“Hadad” is his proper name; “Baal” is a title meaning “lord”) was the deity who ruled over storms and all sorts of fertility. As a consequence, we discover that in the mythology he is constantly struggling against forces of infertility, like Yam (the salty, inundating sea) and Mot (“Death,” allied to the scorching summer sun). At one point in the story, a lesser god of fertility, Athtar, tries to take his throne, and this deity seems to symbolize water drawn up from wells, an artificial source of fertility, if you will. Even in much later rabbinic literature, non-irrigated fields are referred to as “fields of Baal.”

All this alone is enough to make Baal Hadad a charismatic deity. But the real cause of his popularity is that Canaan has an extremely well-defined weather pattern. It typically only rains between the months of October and April. Sometimes it rains very much in those months. When it does, crops are fruitful, and there will be plenty of food for all. But when it doesn’t rain enough, people get could get desperate. If it’s February, say, and you haven’t had an inch of rainfall yet, you would naturally want to seek help from a higher power, and beg for the release of those “latter rains.”

And, consider this: even if you were devoted to YHWH, the Creator, and God of your ancestors, you might conceive of Him as a sort of “jack-of-all-trades.” As powerful as Adonai is, He isn’t a specialist. He advertises Himself to be the only God Who really matters, the Lord of all. But in an emergency, when it begins to feel like Adonai has either forgotten you, or maybe can’t manage this particular problem, you can fall prey to the temptation to invoke an expert to solve this problem. Israelites who did this probably weren’t abandoning Adonai completely. They were simply turning to the other gods for particular problems. And more than any other god, Baal was the most attractive competitor for Israel’s devotion.

Baalism’s Dark Side

I’ll eventually get to the Baal Epic, and it will be easy to see how much I esteem this ancient work of poetry. This is why I want to make very clear right here that the cult of Baal Hadad was the focal point for many of the immoral behaviors that the Torah condemns.

The Baal Epic, as powerful as its symbols are, and as beautifully composed as it is, is an essentially amoral narrative, with an amoral hero. The moral universe of this text is downright Nietzschean. It celebrates Baal’s rise to power as he takes down one rival after another. Other Ugaritic texts concern themselves with questions of justice for the poor and vulnerable in society. There is not a whiff of justice in the Baal Epic. Even Shapsh, the god of the sun who typically champions righteousness, is depicted as little more than the lackey of the god of death, Mot. (This is logical, because there is a dichotomy in the text between the fertiltiy of Baal’s winter storms and the barren, sun-drenched summer).

Although necromancy doesn’t show up in the Baal Epic, this text provided a mythical backdrop for this type of divination. (Other Ugaritic texts describe rituals for inviting the spirits of the dead to a sacrificial banquet). Tombs have been discovered in Ugarit with holes drilled into them, probably for pouring libations and possibly foodstuffs through.

One of the major characters in the Baal Epic (and other Ugaritic literature) is the virgin-goddess Anat, Baal Hadad’s kid sister. Anat is a blood-thirsty and capricious deity. In another text, The Tale of Aqhat, she murders a young man because she covets his bow. In the Baal Epic, we first encounter her mowing through soldiers for fun. The poem describes heads and hands of these warriors flying through the air like locusts as she plows through them. When she concludes this battle, she sets up a banquet in her house, and invites young men for more carnage right there at the dinner table. Finally, when sated with war, she pours out the “oil of peace” into a bowl, and mops up the gore from the floor, walls, and furniture. Today, when we take such passages out of context, it is difficult to keep in mind that Anat is not a villain in the story, but one of the heroes who helps Baal achieve his dominion over the world.

And one of the ways that Anat does this is by finding a heifer with which Baal can mate before his battle with Mot. It seems like the idea is that by doing this, Baal leaves some of his life essence here on earth in the calves that he conceives. Anat slaughters a bevy of animals later in the story in her attempts to bring Baal back from the underworld. The text is fragmentary, but perhaps these calves are among the ritual victims. If so, the idea here is that the life Baal places in the womb of this heifer is later spilled out so as to give him the leverage he needs to ascend from the realm of the dead. Poetically and mythically, the idea works. But it all depends upon a ritual act of bestiality.

But the most disturbing aspect of the Baal cult is actually not explicitly mentioned in the Baal Epic, and that is child sacrifice. Once again, there is a poetic and mythic logic to it all. In a terrible drought, when it looks as though Baal is withholding his gifts of fertility, one might be tempted to bargain with him thus: “If I give you the product of my own fertility as a sacrifice, promise, I beg of you, to pour out your own fertility upon our barren land.”

For years there has been debate as to whether or not Canaanites actually committed such a heinous act. Many scholars have supposed that this was all a vicious slander that anti-Canaanite propaganda cooked up, first among the Hebrews, and later in Roman anti-Punic rhetoric.

But the archaeological evidence suggests otherwise.

A tophet from Carthage, where child sacrifice seems to have been practiced.
A tophet from Carthage, where child sacrifice seems to have been practiced. From the Biblical Archaeological Society: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/did-the-carthaginians-really-practice-infant-sacrifice/.

In tophets in Carthage, a Phoenician (Northern Canaanite) colony in North Africa, archaeologists have discovered hundreds of buried clay pots filled with the charred bones of infants. When I was studying at Ben-Gurion University, one of the archaeology professors delivered a lecture on this, and showed us inscriptions on these pots that said, “lmlk lb’l,” i.e., “for a moloch offering, for Baal.” (Moloch probably isn’t the name of a deity, but was actually the name of a type of sacrifice. The root mlk in Semitic languages means “king. So, a moloch offering was probably a “royal” offering). Interestingly, these child sacrifices were most common in the oldest layers. As time progressed, it seems that lambs were substituted in the place of the children.

In the Bible, Canaanite religion is depicted in grim and shocking ways that emphasize all of these immoral practices. Leviticus 20 is a great place to find all of these things (and more) clustered together. Unless you know something about Canaanite religion, these commandments can seem pretty random and arbitrary. (That’s surely why the editors of the NIV anemically label this chapter “Punishments for Sin”). But there’s a common theme behind these commandments against offering children as sacrifices, committing bestiality, and even the warnings to abide by the dietary code: Leviticus 20 is there to keep Israel separate from their Canaanite neighbors.

The Baal Epic

So, caveats acknowledged, allow me to provide a summary of the Baal Epic here, keeping in mind that the text is really fragmentary, and some of what follows amounts to conjecture.

Basically, the Baal Epic tells the story of how Baal’s shrine was established on Mount Tsaphon, and how he rose to power over all of the seventy sons of Il and Athirat. The narrative hinges around two major conflicts, one between Baal and Yam, the god of the sea, and the other between Baal and Mot, death. Both powers stand in the way of Baal Hadad’s forces of fertility.

Once Baal has disposed of Yam, he proceeds to go about building his mountain shrine/palace. This takes some doing, because first of all he has to get what amounts to a divine building permit from Il, the father of the gods. Il is reluctant to comply. It is not immediately evident why this is the case. Perhaps it is because Il favors Baal’s rivals. (Mot bears the epithet “Il’s beloved”). Personally, I think that it is because of his consort, Athirat, who would prefer to place her darling son, Athtar, on the fertility throne. (Later in the story, Athtar, who probably represents both Venus and the waters of irrigation, does attempt to sit on Baal’s empty throne, and discovers to his dismay that he is too small to sit on it and reign in Baal’s stead; Isaiah 14:13 seems to have incorporated this myth into the taunt-song against “Lucifer,” the “star of the morning”). In any case, with some violent coercion from little Anat, Il comes around to approving the construction of Baal’s palace.

Baal commissions the craftsman of the gods, Kothar-wa-Hasis, to build the temple for him. There is some back and forth between them about whether or not Baal’s home should have a window. Kothar-wa-Hasis thinks it should, but Baal resists the idea. Eventually, Kothar-wa-Hasis prevails. The window seems to be important for allowing Baal’s life-giving precipitation out into the world, but there may be another narrative function for the window. Jeremiah 9:21 speaks of death climbing in through windows. It’s possible that one of the lost fragments of the Baal Epic featured a scene in which Mot does just this.

In any case, the shrine is completed, window and all, and Baal invites all of the gods to a giant banquet to inaugurate it. Well, he invites nearly all of the gods. Mot’s name is conspicuously absent from the guest-list.

After the party is over, after the gods have returned to their homes, after all of the sacrificial meat has been consumed, and after the vats of wine have been drunk dry, Baal gets cocky. Sitting on his throne, he eyes the East, home of his rival, Mot, and he sends messengers to him to announce his coronation. But he gives them a stern warning.

But take care, divine servants:

Do not get too close to Divine Mot,

Do not let him take you like a lamb in his mouth,

Like a kid crushed in the chasm of his throat.

CAT 1.4, column VIII, lines 14-20, as translated by Mark Smith in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry

The problem with Mot is his insatiable hunger. He swallows up anything that gets near him. This is certainly a powerful mythic image for death! (And one that proved to be quite enduring, as we shall see).

Mot’s rejoinder to Baal is to the point.

Is my appetite the appetite of the lion in the wild,

Or the desire of the dolphin in the sea?

Or does it go to a pool like a buffalo,

Or travel to a spring like a hind,

Or, truly, does my appetite consume like an ass?

So will I truly eat with both my hands,

Or my portions amount to seven bowls’ worth,

Or my cup contain a whole river?

So invite me, O Baal, with my brothers,

Summon me, O Hadd, with my kinsmen,

To eat food with my brothers,

And drink wine with my kinsmen.

So let us drink, O Baal, that I may pierce you.

[… .]

When you killed Litan, the Fleeing Serpent,

Annihilated the Twisty Serpent,

The Potentate with Seven Heads,

The heavens grew hot, they withered.

So let me tear you to pieces,

Let me eat flanks, innards, forearms.

Surely you will descend into Divine Mot’s throat,

Into the gullet of El’s Beloved, the Hero.

KTU 1.5, Column I, lines 14-35

Tangent on Isaiah 27:1

Before we move on, please take note of that bit about Litan. This is the same reptilian monster that the Hebrew Bible calls “Leviathan.” And Isaiah 27:1 features a pretty close quotation from this section of the Baal Epic, although there YHWH, and not Baal, is the hero who vanquishes the dragon of the sea.

In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Isaiah 27:1, RSVCE

This section of Isaiah is part of what we call the “Isaian Apocalypse,” and the Baal Epic exerted a lot of influence over the whole thing. (More on that in a bit).

Baal’s Demise

Eventually, Baal does indeed descend into the throat of Mot. The consequences are immediate and devastating. An extended drought ensues, and all of the crops die. People and animals begin to starve to death. This adversely affects the gods, who enjoy the sacrificial offerings that result from the earth’s fecundity.

Baal’s death has transformed Il into a nostalgic Baal-fan-boy. He sits mourning and moping on his throne, cutting himself with a knife. (This is another Canaanite practice expressly condemned in the Torah).

Anat mourns, as well, but not like Il. Instead, she sets out in search of her brother. As she wanders the mountains, she comes upon his broken and defeated body. With the help of Shapsh, she loads him upon her shoulders and carries him back to his abode on Mt. Sapan. There, she buries him and performs the sacrificial funerary rites, slaughtering seventy each of buffalo, (the Ugaritic here suggests that the oryx may be intended), bullocks, sheep, deer, ibex, and donkeys.

Three days later, (!!!), Anat does something very strange: she goes looking for the brother that she has just buried. Accordingly, she goes straight to Mot, and demands that he disgorge Baal. Mot protests that he could hardly control himself, his appetite was so strong.

And so the drought continues for months more, until Anat hunts down Mot again. But this time, she does not interrogate him, but attacks him.

She seizes Divine Mot,

With a sword she splits him,

With a sieve she winnows him.

With a fire she burns him,

With millstones she grinds him,

In a field she sows him.

The birds eat his flesh,

Fowl devour his parts,

Flesh to flesh cries out.

KTU 1.6, column 2, lines 30-37

Baal’s Return

Immediately after Mot’s destruction, Il has a dream in which “the heavens rain oil, the wadis run with honey.” He understands this to mean that Baal has resurrected. Anat sets out to find her revived brother. As she does, she cries out “Iy zbl B‘l arṣ?”, i.e., “Where is the Prince, Lord of the Earth?” (Incidentally, the name of King Ahab’s notorious Phoenician queen, Jezebel, is taken from this part of the poem; in Hebrew/Canaanite, her name is pronounced “Iyzebel“).

We don’t have the portion of the poem in which Anat finds Baal, although it seems that she gets help from Shapsh once again. When the story picks up coherently, Baal is violently throwing down the “sons of Athirat” and the “young of Yamm” who have attempted to take his throne in his absence. Finally, he ascends to his throne once again and restores fertility to the parched earth.

All is well for seven years.

Not Exactly “Happily Ever After”

Somehow, at the end of these seven years, Mot returns, as well, and he immediately seeks a rematch with Baal. He accuses Baal for being the whole reason that Anat killed him and desecrated his body. As revenge, he demands one of Baal’s brothers, or maybe Baal himself, and storms off to gorge on human beings in the meantime.

Baal prepares a feast for Mot, under the illusion that he has slaughtered and prepared some of his own brothers for him. In fact, he has done so with Mot’s very own brothers! After Mot devours them, he somehow discovers the truth of the matter, and in his outrage, bears down on Baal to destroy him for good.

The battle between the two gods is violent and brutal. They “gore each other like buffalo” and “bit each other like serpents.” Finally, Shapsh cries out from heaven, like a celestial referee, and warns Mot that if he continues to challenge Baal, Il will surely strip him of his divine authority. Trembling, Mot sulks away, allowing Baal to resume his supervision over the forces of fertility.

Most scholars believe that this conclusion is not intended to have a sense of finality. Mot is still out there, threatening Baal’s life-giving forces. Indeed, the entire myth seems to symbolize the cycle of life and death that we see every year in the seasons, as well as the frequent experience of drought and famine followed by abundance with which everyone living in the ancient Levant was familiar.

So, at the end of the Baal Epic, Mot is not really defeated. He’s just subdued.

“He Will Swallow Up Death For Ever”

Now that we are familiar with the Baal Epic, we are prepared to appreciate what Isaiah does with it. As stated earlier, the part of Isaiah that is most influenced by the Baal Epic is the Isaian Apocalypse, chapters 24-27. At the heart of this text, there is a dramatic image of a feast prepared by the Lord on Mt. Zion. The imagery is evocative of all of the feasting in the Baal Epic.

6 On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. 7 And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken.

Isaiah 25:6-8

Isaiah 25:8 explicitly mentions Mot. (The Hebrew word for death, mavet, is a precise cognate of Mot’s name). But Isaiah does more than just crib from the Baal Epic. Here, Mot, the terrifying swallower of all of the peoples, is himself swallowed. And unlike his encounters with Baal, Mot won’t come back from this one: “He will swallow up death for ever.” There is a finality to Mot’s defeat here that the Baal Epic does not dare to consider.

Jesus: More than Baal

Early Christianity probably didn’t have any of these Baal traditions readily at hand like the author of the Isaian Apocalypse did, but the Church preserved a lot of the symbolism in surprising ways, infusing them with new meanings that proclaimed the Gospel.

St. Paul is an early example of this. He cites (an alternate reading of) Isaiah 25:8, but appends to it a taunt-song that addresses “Death” as an anthropomorphized figure.

51 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is thy victory?
O death, where is thy sting?”

1 Corinthians 15:51-55

Those words, as far as we know, were composed in the Christian era, but they certainly would not be out of place in a piece of Ugaritic epic.

In the centuries that followed, the drama of Christ’s victory over death was celebrated in similarly mythic terms, especially in speculation over just what happened when He “descended into hell.” One of the earliest examples remains among the most colorful, as well, from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Just look at what happens when Jesus arrives at the gates of hell:

VI (XXII)

1 When Hell and death and their wicked ministers saw that, they were stricken with fear, they and their cruel officers, at the sight of the brightness of so great light in their own realm, seeing Christ of a sudden in their abode, and they cried out, saying: We are overcome by thee. Who art thou that art sent by the Lord for our confusion? Who art thou that without all damage of corruption, and with the signs (?) of thy majesty unblemished, dost in wrath condemn our power? Who art thou that art so great and so small, both humble and exalted, both soldier and commander, a marvelous warrior in the shape of a bondsman, and a King of glory dead and living, whom the cross bare slain upon it? Thou that didst lie dead in the sepulchre hast come down unto us living and at thy death all creation quaked and all the stars were shaken and thou hast become free among the dead and dost rout our legions. Who art thou that settest free the prisoners that are held bound by original sin and restorest them into their former liberty? Who art thou that sheddest thy divine and bright light upon them that were blinded with the darkness of their sins? After the same manner all the legions of devils were stricken with like fear and cried out all together in the terror of their confusion, saying: Whence art thou, Jesus, a man so mighty and bright in majesty, so excellent without spot and clean from sin? For that world of earth which hath been always subject unto us until now, and did pay tribute to our profit, hath never sent unto us a dead man like thee, nor ever dispatched such a gift unto Hell. Who then art thou that so fearlessly enterest our borders, and not only fearest not our torments, but besides essayest to bear away all men out of our bonds? Peradventure thou art that Jesus, of whom Satan our prince said that by thy death of the cross thou shouldest receive the dominion of the whole world.

2 Then did the King of glory in his majesty trample upon death, and laid hold on Satan the prince and delivered him unto the power of Hell, and drew Adam to him unto his own brightness.

But perhaps the Christian visual arts have most retained the Ugaritic imagery of death. Consider this depiction of the harrowing of hell:

This image of death (and it is not unique) is essentially identical to Mot, the great swallower of humanity. The illumination portrays Jesus serenely disgorging Mot’s stomach of the souls awaiting redemption, beginning with Adam and Eve, our first parents.

Of course, our celebration of Easter is riotous with imagery of fertility that just barely glosses over our older, pagan celebrations of the oncoming of Spring. Eggs, bunny rabbits, and flowers are not symbols of resurrection, but of the more general power of life that bursts out around us after the “death” of winter. Jesus, Lord of Life that He is, has thus usurped the impostor, Baal Hadad, and proven Himself to be the True God of all, including life and fertility.

What impresses me with the way that the Gospel has taken up these pagan motifs is that, rather than simply dismissing them as in error, Christianity affirms what was good and true about the longings expressed in the old myths. C.S. Lewis wrote about this phenomenon, and called those longings the “happy dreams of pagans.” The Gospel doesn’t just fulfill the promises of the Old Testament, but the promises envisioned, however dimly, in every culture around the world.

But Jesus is always more. The Baal Epic ends with a hopeful, but ultimately ambiguous conclusion. Baal reigns to provide fertility to the world, but the reader can’t help but suspect that it won’t be long before Mot has swallowed him up yet again. Not so with the Gospel. Jesus has utterly vanquished death, and can never be threatened by it again. (And He doesn’t need any help from a little sister, either!). As Christians, we can revel in His victory, anticipating our own eventual triumph over Mot.

Posted on

“Their God Is the Belly”-St. Paul and Ancient Greek Theater

The ancient theater in Philippi. St. Paul demonstrates his familiarity with Greek drama in his letter to the church in Philippi.

One of the things that fascinates me in biblical research is the numerous points of contact between the biblical text and literature from the cultures surrounding ancient Israel. Because I am an Old Testament scholar, that usually means literature from places like Ugarit, Sumer, and Babylon. But I love Greek stuff, too, and a passage I found in Euripides’s Cyclops has really excited me.

Cyclops is the only satyr play that we have in its entirety. Satyr plays seem to have developed from ritual enactments of stories of Bacchus that were a part of the annual Dionysian festivals. They are a strange hybrid of tragedy and raucous, raunchy comedy, with the chorus taking the part of sexually voracious satyrs in ridiculous costumes that over-emphasized a certain part of the male anatomy. Cyclops is still as funny as it was when it was presented two and a half millennia ago. Part of the genius of the play is that it draws together two beloved stories, Odysseus’s adventures with the cyclops Polyphemus, and Bacchus’s abduction by pirates. In Cyclops, Bacchus’s old companion, Silenus, and all of the satyrs, have gone looking for Bacchus, and gotten themselves enslaved by Polyphemus on Mt. Etna, working as shepherds for his famed flocks of giant sheep. Most of the humor occurs in the conversation between Silenus and Odysseus, which culminates in Silenus excitedly getting drunk on wine that Odysseus uses to purchase some food for his men.

When Polyphemus does show up, the humor, though more grisly and dark, persists for a while. Silenus protests that he did not give Odysseus and his men a sheep and cheese from Polyphemus’s stores, but that they beat him up and plundered them, and appeals to his cheeks, swollen and ruddy with wine, as evidence of their violence.

And then, suddenly the play is shot through with grim terror. Listen to Odysseus describe the horrific scene to one of the satyrs:

Now when that hell-cook, god-detested, had everything quite ready, he caught up a pair of my companions and proceeded deliberately to cut the throat of one of them over the yawning brazen pot; but the other he clutched by the tendon of his heel, and, striking him against a sharp point of rocky stone, dashed out his brains; then, after hacking the fleshy parts with glutton cleaver, he set to grilling them, but the limbs he threw into his cauldron to seethe. And I, poor wretch, drew near with streaming eyes and waited on the Cyclops; but the others kept cowering like frightened birds in crannies of the rock, and the blood forsook their skin.

From the translation of E. P. Coleridge

Euripides’s most powerful lines in the play are reserved for Polyphemus, in my opinion. Polyphemus had already become an established symbol of crimes against hospitality. But Euripides digs deeper, and attributes Polyphemus’s cruelty to a more fundamental character flaw, impiety.

Polyphemus declares his independence from the gods immediately after Odysseus attempts to appeal to a sense of piety and justice that he supposes is universal among intelligent spirits. His blasphemies are shocking, and extend even to his father, Poseidon!

Plague take the headlands by the sea, on which my father seats himself! Why hast thou put forward these arguments? I shudder not at Zeus’s thunder, nor know I wherein Zeus is a mightier god than I, stranger; what is more, I reck not of him; my reasons hear. When he pours down the rain from above, here in this rock in quarters snug, feasting on roast calf’s flesh or some wild game and moistening well my up-turned paunch with deep draughts from a tub of milk, I rival the thunder-claps of Zeus with my artillery; and when the north wind blows from Thrace and sheddeth snow, I wrap my carcase in the hides of beasts and light a fire, and what care I for snow? The earth perforce, whether she like it or not, produces grass and fattens my flocks, which I sacrifice to no one save myself and this belly, the greatest of deities; but to the gods, not I! For surely to eat and drink one’s fill from day to day and give oneself no grief at all, this is the king of gods for your wise man, but lawgivers go hang, chequering, as they do, the life of man! And so I will not cease from indulging myself by devouring thee; and thou shalt receive this stranger’s gift, that I may be free of blame,-fire and my father’s element yonder, and a cauldron to hold thy flesh and boil it nicely in collops. So in with you, that ye may feast me well, standing round the altar to honour the cavern’s god.

St. Paul, the Philippians, and Polyphemus

Paul makes an obvious allusion to Euripides’s Cyclops in Philippians 3:19.

Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

Philippians 3:19, RSV

Paul seems to assume that his audience will be familiar with this play. Philippi does boast of an ancient theater, which is still used for performances today.

Archaeological Site of Philippi: The Theater. From https://news.gtp.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Philippi-Theater.jpg.

Paul’s description of the “enemies of the cross of Christ” (vs. 18) maps nicely on to Euripides’s Polyphemus. In the play, Polyphemus gets drunk on Odysseus’s wine, and is immediately transformed into a sexual deviant who “glories in his shame.” (Specifically, he attempts to rape Silenus; this is, for the most part, played for laughs). Of course, Polyphemus’s speech above amply demonstrates that his “mind is set on earthly things.” The result is the destruction of his eye, and, it is implied, his eventual and ultimate demise that follows his blindness.

Taking this into consideration gives Paul’s words in Philippians 3 considerably more “pop.” He seems to be saying more than that the opponents of the Gospel are carnal gluttons. Rather, with a twinkle in his eye, he’s depicting them as cannibalistic, blasphemous monsters a la Polyphemus. His use of pagan literature to skewer pagan culture in this manner is deliciously subversive. Conversely, the Christian faithful who now find themselves in numerous predicaments plotted for them by their cyclopean neighbors are on a spiritual odyssey towards their authentic homeland. After all, “our commonwealth is in heaven,” (vs. 20).

So, on the one hand, there is a parallel between the Christian believer and Odysseus: both heroes are far from home and beset with vicious, predatory villains who blaspheme the heavens with their single-minded pursuits of pleasure. On the other hand, the Christian’s hope is not in her wits, but in her Savior: “from [heaven] we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (vs. 20). The drama of the Christian life, in the end, features a deus ex machina. Just when all seems hopeless, we trust that Jesus will swoop down from the heavens to rescue His just ones, and to condemn the wicked.

Paul’s Eclecticism

Saint Paul, by Peter Paul Rubens

In conclusion, once again I find myself awed by Paul’s erudition. We all know of his command of the Old Testament scriptures. His Pharisaic education accounts for his seemingly effortless ability to generate midrashic exegesis in ways that bump right up against the material in Mekhilta d’ Rabbi Yishmael or the Talmuds, compiled centuries later. But somewhere, he seems to have read classical Greek, pagan literature, and become so familiar with it that he can invoke it with great power. This doesn’t fit the stereotype of Pharisaic cultural engagement in the first century. Surely, Paul’s citation of pagan sources deserves more attention than it has yet received, if for nothing else than it might help Christians think through our engagement with our own culture.

Posted on

“In Your Life, Our Father, We Rejoice”: Insight on the Fall of Adam from Kirta

The Fall of Adam. The story of Kirta from ancient Ugarit sheds light on the doctrine of original sin.

For a few weeks now, we have been discussing the Tale of Kirta from ancient Ugarit. As I read this story again, I keep seeing new connections with Old Testament texts, and even Christian theology. In this post, I discuss another part of the story of Kirta that sheds more light on the cultural context of the story of the Fall of Adam.

First, let’s have a quick summary. Kirta has gone to Udum and stolen away princess Ḫuraya for his bride. On the way there, he made a vow to Aṯirat, the queen of the gods, to secure his success in this venture. But once he had Ḫuraya safe at home in Ḫubur, and once she had borne eight children for him, he enjoyed all of the blessings of domestic bliss, and completely neglected to fulfill his vow. Aṯirat has cursed him with mortal sickness in retaliation.

What is interesting is the result this has for the land of Ḫubur. In column 5 of CAT 1.16, we hear about a terrible drought that has afflicted Ḫubur.

Look to the earth for Baal’s rain,

To the field, for the Most High’s rain!

…

They raise their heads, the plowmen do,

Up toward the Servant of Dagon:

“The food is all spent from its storage;

The wine is all spent from its skins;

The oil is all spent from its [casks].”

Translation of Edward L. Greenstein in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, Vol. 9 in the SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series

It really does seem that a kind of sympathetic magic is in play here. As the king languishes, so does the very earth over which the king rules. Two of Kirta’s children express this as they bewail his illness.

In your life, our father, we rejoice.
As long as you do not die, we have joy.

My personal translation of column 2, lines 36-37

Kirta and Original Sin

Perhaps this can help us understand the ancient Near Eastern roots of our doctrine of original sin. It helps if we think of Adam as a king, the ruler over creation. Like Kirta, Adam breaks a covenant agreement with his God. Like Kirta, the result is slowly developing, yet certain, death. But also like Kirta, Adam’s sin has dreadful consequences for the earth over which he rules.


17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
    and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
    ‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
    in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return.

Genesis 3:17-19, RSV
The Fall of Adam. The ancient Ugaritic Tale of Kirta sheds light on the doctrine of Original Sin.

Kirta’s sin and oncoming death brings a curse on the territory of Ḫubur and the people over whom he rules. Adam’s sin and death has even more dreadful consequences, because he had sovereignty over the entire world, and he represented each one of us, his children, in his act of rebellion. As the old New England Primer puts it, “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”

Spiritual Kingship and Original Sin

I confess, I have struggled with the doctrine of original sin for as long as I have been a Catholic. (For the most part, the independent Christian Churches in which I grew up rejected this ancient teaching). I fully accept it as part of the faith handed down from the Apostles, but I do find that I am still stubbornly sympathetic to the old critical voices that I have heard call it into question. In particular, some of the ways that we have talked about original sin in the West can make it seem as though God has saddled us with the guilt of our parents. It can feel as though we have been punished for crimes that we did not personally commit.

Recent readings and re-readings in Augustine and Aquinas have convinced me that these critiques of the doctrine of original sin are based on caricatures, not an authentic and fair treatment of the dogma. Yet, I have grown in my conviction that this is one of those doctrines for which various models can serve, and we would do well to think about it through various approaches.

Kirta opens the way to yet another model, I think. If we think of the story of the Fall in terms of Adam’s spiritual kingship, things begin to make a lot of sense. From an ancient Near Eastern perspective, the inter-connectedness of society is a much more palpable reality than the individuation that characterizes our own culture. The hub of this communal experience was the king himself. The king was not just the political leader of his people. He was, in a certain sense, the distillation of his people into one, concrete person. As it goes with the king, so it goes with the people, and vice versa. If the king is just, his people are regarded as just. If the king suffers punishment for his sin, so does the nation.

Kirta and Christ

This concept of spiritual kingship is the basis for all of those stories in the Old Testament where God punishes the people because of their king. The story of David’s illicit census and the plague that ensued (2 Samuel 24) is perhaps the most vivid example. For the modern West, especially for us Americans who have such a deeply ingrained aversion to monarchy, this is bound to present a stumbling block to appreciating these texts. But, conversely, it is also bound to prevent us from fully receiving the Messianic promises of the Old Testament, as well, because they operate on the very same principle.

St. Paul tells us that Jesus is the “New Adam” (Romans 5:14). I think that Kirta can help us better understand how Adam is a type of Christ.

At least part of how Jesus redeems us (and the cosmos) is by virtue of His kingly representation of each of us. At the beginning of human history, Adam as our king and ancestor, rebelled against God and brought death to the cosmos and to his children. Jesus came as Adam’s successor, and in His perfect obedience, reigns as the perfectly just King. You and I were not personally involved in Adam’s rebellion, and yet, because he represented us, the ramifications of that rebellion trouble us (and the world we live in) to this day. But, praise God!, though you and I are not personally involved in Jesus’ years of ministry on the earth, because He represents us, the ramifications of His obedience and justice also stream towards us, giving us life. Though we are still aware of the languishing cosmos, we have good grounds for hoping in the possibility of flourishing now and in to eternity.

There is good reason that God chose to redeem His people first in the Exodus and then in Christ’s death and resurrection in this beautiful spring season of the year. Nature herself bears witness to the restoration of life and fecundity that Jesus has secured in His victory as the King of Heaven and Earth. Gradually, the curse that fell on the earth because of Adam’s sin and death is being replaced with the blessing that follows upon Jesus’ obedience and everlasting life.

Posted on

Lady Ḫuraya and Lady Wisdom

In my last post, I shared about the ancient Ugaritic text that tells the tale of Kirta, king of Ḫubur. In that post, I focused on Lady Ḫuraya, a wife that he takes by force from the royal family of Udum. I talked about how my wife had observed that one of the descriptions of her sounds a lot like the Virtuous Woman of Proverbs 31.

Later in the text, as Kirta is dying of a terrible sickness, he commands Lady Ḫuraya to prepare a banquet. The description is once again evocative of a text from Proverbs, this time the feast of Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 9.

An Icon of Holy Wisdom, as described in Proverbs 9.

Here is my translation of the text from Kirta:

He rests his feet on the footstool
and shouts to his wife:

“Listen, O Lady Ḫuraya.

Slaughter the fattest of your cattle.
Open the wide bottles of wine.

Shout to my seventy bull captains,
to the eighty deer captains,

The bull captains of great Ḫubur,
Ḫubur the glorious.”

Lady Ḫuraya listens.

She slaughters the fattest of her cattle.
Opens the wide bottles of wine.

She brings in his bull captains to him.
She brings in his deer captains to him.

The bull captains of great Ḫubur,
Ḫubur the glorious.

They enter the house of Kirta.

…

She reaches for the drinking bowl.
She wields a knife over the meat.

And Lady Ḫuraya speaks:

“I have called to you to eat and drink
at a sacrificial banquet for Kirta your lord.”

CAT 1.15 4

Compare this to Proverbs 9:1-6

9 Wisdom has built her house,
she has set up her seven pillars.
2 She has slaughtered her beasts, she has mixed her wine,
    she has also set her table.
3 She has sent out her maids to call
    from the highest places in the town,
4 “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!”
    To him who is without sense she says,
5 “Come, eat of my bread
    and drink of the wine I have mixed.
6 Leave simpleness, and live,
    and walk in the way of insight.”

Proverbs 9:1-6

This is really not terribly surprising. It is quite apparent that Proverbs has drawn its motifs from much older traditions. The Virtuous Woman is something of an incarnation of Lady Wisdom. And both of them have a literary ancestor in Lady Ḫuraya.

Posted on

Ḥuraya, a Woman of Virtue in the Ugaritic Tale of Kirta

The Entrance to the Royal Palace of Ugarit

Recently, I introduced my family to a text that I have been studying for years, the Tale of Kirta. (Has anyone else ever discussed this around their dinner table?). This is a (now fragmentary) epic written in ancient Ugarit, probably in the 14th century BC. It tells about Kirta, the king of Ḫubur, who loses his wife and then all of his children in a series of disasters. (This is reminiscent of Job, of course). Mourning over the disappearance of his dynastic line, he cries himself to sleep. Il, the father of gods and men, comes to him in a dream with detailed instructions. Kirta is to assemble a huge army and march on Udum (perhaps a cognate to biblical Edom). When he gets there, he is to threaten Pabuli, the king of Udum, into providing his daughter Ḥuraya as a new wife for Kirta. Then he will be able to rebuild his family and provide an heir to his throne.

The Entrance to the Royal Palace of Ugarit
Disdero (talk · contribs), CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Today, over Sunday brunch, we read and discussed the first column of the second tablet in the tale. It tells how the people of Udum bewail the departure of their beloved Princess Ḥuraya. They especially remember all of her kind deeds to vulnerable citizens among them.

Here is my translation of these lines:

She reaches out her hand to the hungry.

She reaches out her hand to the thirsty.

…

As a cow lows for her calf,

as soldiers for their mothers,

so do the Udumites mourn.

CAT 1.15 1.1-2, 5-7

As we were discussing this, my wife, Robin, made a magnificent connection. Ḥuraya is praised for precisely the same activities practiced by the woman of virtue in Proverbs:

She opens her hand to the poor,

    and reaches out her hands to the needy.

Proverbs 31:20

Kudos to my own wife of virtue for helping me read the Tale of Kirta in a new light after so many years.

Posted on

Conspiracy Theories Are Dangerous-More on CERN and the Supposed End of the World

After I published my last post about CERN, people started sending me even more information arguing for this. As I was looking through some of this material, I wound up clicking on a link to this tragic story. It is about a girl who took her life in 2008 because of conspiracy theories about CERN. She was anxious about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. She was convinced that it might cause the end of the world. This happened in India, and evidently, several news agencies there had run sensational stories reporting this as a serious possibility.

The CMS detector on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. CERN has been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, including many circulated by Christians.
The CMS detector on the Large Hadron Collider. From https://news.fnal.gov/2015/04/u-s-scientists-celebrate-the-restart-of-the-large-hadron-collider-2/.

Before she died … she had been worried by the doomsday predictions.

She said she had watched programmes suggesting the Big Bang experiment might cause a great earthquake and great holes.

“She said she could not bear to see the destruction of all that was dear to her.”

“Girl suicide ‘over Big Bang fear,'” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7609631.stm, September 11, 2008.

Conspiracy Theories Can Have Dreadful Consequences

I took a frivolous tone in my last post on this subject. But this serves as a reminder that spreading misinformation can have dreadful consequences.

In fact, perpetuating falsehood like these conspiracy theories is a violation of the Eighth Commandment (Exodus 20:16)!

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,

    but those who act faithfully are his delight.

Proverbs 12:22

Conspiracy Theories about CERN on SkyWatch News

There is a shocking irony to all of this. I became aware of this story about the girl’s suicide in a sensationalized news-story published by a Christian media agency. What they do with her death to perpetuate their own conspiracy theories is simply ghoulish.

It did not help that the LHC was named after the Hindu destroyer of worlds “Shiva”, a fact that prompted a teenage girl in India … to commit suicide.[iv]

Notice how SkyWatch has put footnotes in their story. This provides an illusion of research and substance. But when you follow the notes to their sources, they don’t always say what SkyWatch says they do. For instance, the BBC story about the suicide doesn’t mention Shiva at all. But SkyWatch says that the LHC is named after him (it’s not). And it says that this is what provoked her to take her own life. When facts are not at hand to support their conspiracy theories, they generate them.

I find this to be very disturbing, even sacrilegious. To twist the facts for the sake of producing garbage click-bait articles like the one in question is already immoral. To spice up a fake story about conspiracy theories with a family’s tragedy is journalistic grave-digging.

“What Do We Know from the Bible about Additional Dimensions?”

SkyWatch includes a half-hour video on this story’s page. It is basically a long advertisement for a book-length version of the sensationalism in this news story. In the video they contribute to more of the strange theology that accompanies their conspiracy theories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En_hhmcpLcc&feature=emb_title

At about 4 minutes, it starts to get really strange, at least from the perspective of biblical theology. Derek Gilbert is the guy in charge of the whole thing. He asks his researchers, “What do we know from the Bible about additional dimensions?” One of the researchers, Josh Peck, responds. “The term ‘extra-dimensional’ and the term ‘spiritual’ are pretty much synonymous when we talk about the spiritual realm or the spirit world or even heaven. That’s what physicists are talking about when they say extra dimensions. It’s the same thing, just looking at it from different angles.”

But this isn’t what the Bible means by “spirit” at all. In fact, “spirit” or “spiritual” can mean a handful of different things in the Scriptures. But I am certain that “extra-dimensional” simply isn’t one of these categories. This is what happens when you try to map science-fiction onto the Bible. It doesn’t work.

I suspect physicists would take just as much umbrage at the suggestion that “extra dimensions” really means “the spirit world.”

Spirits Do Not Exist in Another Material Dimension

I talked about this in my last post. There is nothing physical about “spirit.” There is nothing there for physics to measure or manipulate or interact with. It doesn’t matter how far down you get into the molecular level. Nor does it matter how many dimensions you propose for the material world around you. The spiritual world and the physical world are two completely different things.

To put it a bit differently, spirits don’t exist in a different material dimension. So, no, what theologians mean by spirit and what physicists mean by extra dimensions are not “the same thing.”

CERN and Lots and Lots of Gods in Christian Conspiracy Theories

There are plenty of other sensationalist errors and imprecisions on this page. I have seen many of these elsewhere in my strange journey into the bowels of these conspiracy theories. They propose that “CERN” is actually a nod to an ancient Celtic deity, “Cernunnos.” They also focus on the statue of Shiva on the grounds of CERN. Shiva and Cernunnos then become a point of analogy with all kinds of other deities.

Shiva has been compared to Dionysus, another fertility god associated with vegetation, forest, streams, and dancing—powers also attributed to Cernunnos. … Dionysus … is a type of beast-god (one who inspires his followers to behave as “beasts”…. As with Osiris and Nimrod, Dionysus journeyed to the underworld—in this case, to rescue his mother. Semele is yet another moon goddess, and she fits the Semiramis/Isis/Danu/Diana model.

One thing I have to confess: SkyWatch provides an impressive chain of associations. It all reminds me of this.

The SkyWatch school of sensationalist evangelism, right here.

Saint-Genis-Pouilly, the Portal to Hell? Christian Conspiracy Theories Say Yes

SkyWatch also finds significance in the place names associated with CERN. Part of the facility butts up against the town Saint-Genis-Pouilly. According to SkyWatch, “Pouilly” refers to Apollo, and this relates to “Apollyon.” We read about this demon in Revelation 9.

Apollyon in Revelation 9

And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key of the shaft of the bottomless pit; 2 he opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft.

3 Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth; 4 they were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those of mankind who have not the seal of God upon their foreheads; 5 they were allowed to torture them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torture was like the torture of a scorpion, when it stings a man. 6 And in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death will fly from them.

7 In appearance the locusts were like horses arrayed for battle; on their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, 8 their hair like women’s hair, and their teeth like lions’ teeth; 9 they had scales like iron breastplates, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle. 10 They have tails like scorpions, and stings, and their power of hurting men for five months lies in their tails. 11 They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abad′don, and in Greek he is called Apol′lyon.

Revelation 9:1-11, RSV

The Jura Mountains in Christian Conspiracy Theories

Apart from tenuous geographical and pagan connections, a lot of what SkyWatch says in this article is just bizarrely wrong. Saint-Genis-Pouilly sits in the foothills of the Jura Mountains. SkyWatch says that this is appropriate. Supposedly, “Jura” comes from an Old Norse word meaning “beast.” “Dionysus, Cernunnos, and, to a degree, Osiris are all ‘beast’ gods.” Plus, “if this CERNunnos Illuminati experiment succeeds, it will open the gateway to a beast.”

And then, in the very same paragraph (!!!!) the author says that “Jura” actually “refers to the Latin word for ‘law.'” This allows the author to invoke even more pagan deities.

This is another reflection of the ancient goddess Columbia, Athena, Maat, Themis, Dike, and all those who are “Lady Justice,” a deity that weighs our souls in the balance. The Jura Mountains loom over the CERN campus like ancient judges who oversee the construction and implementation of the new Babylon Portal.

But the truth is, “Jura” has a well-known and simple etymology. “Jura” actually just comes from the Celtic root jor-, “forest” (Hölder, H. 1964. Jura – Handbuch der stratigraphischen Geologie, IV. Enke-Verlag, 603 pp, 158 figs, 43 tabs; Stuttgart).

Apollyon Is Not Apollo!

Stretching the Limits of Etymology

More fun with names follows in the article. Apollo emerges as a really important figure for SkyWatch because of the supposed connection of Saint-Genis-Pouilly with that god. SkyWatch and others tell us that the ancient, Roman name of this town was “Apolliacum.” The Romans are supposed to have established it as a cult-center for Apollo. (The only information on Apolliacum that I can find is from sites pushing the CERN conspiracy theory. If anyone knows anything more about this and can help me out, I’d really appreciate it).

The truth is, the Greeks did indeed eventually associate Apollo’s name with the Greek word for destruction in ancient, popular etymology. And this word provides the same root for “Apollyon” in Revelation 9:11. But SkyWatch connects non-existent dots, and produces this stunner. “Apollo, or Apollyon, is listed in the book of Revelation as belonging to the king of the hybrid-fallen angel creatures that rise up from the pit—Abyss—when it is unsealed.”

Apollyon is Satan

No! Apollyon is not Apollo. In the Church Fathers, there is general consensus that this is just another name for Satan, “Destruction.” See, for instance, Alcuin of York’s commentary on this passage. But SkyWatch News introduces a whole, bizarre mythology into scripture interpretation that rivals anything that Stan Lee ever dreamed up. SkyWatch wraps up this story with another bizarre theory. They say that what is happening in Revelation is actually a reanimation of Nimrod. He is the mighty hunter of Genesis 10:8, who tradition associates with the Tower of Babel. Supposedly, according to SkyWatch, Nimrod is the inspiration for mythological figures as diverse as Apollo, Gilgamesh, Cernunnos, and Osiris. And none other than this same Nimrod is “returning as king of the locusts (hybrid fallen angels) from the pit!” So, the real villain of Revelation is not Satan, but Nimrod redivivus.

Hybrid Fallen Angels

Oh, did you notice those “hybrid fallen angels”? That’s part of another elaborate science fiction theory that they have introduced into biblical interpretation. I don’t want to mess with much of that here. But to sum up, SkyWatch builds up a whole, complicated doctrine of angel/human hybrids from one verse, Genesis 6:4. They propose that angels have conducted genetic experiments by introducing their own genetic code into the human race. Genesis 6:4 is a difficult passage that I might deal with at another time. Suffice it to say, whatever the intent of the Bible, it can’t mean angels were introducing their DNA into humans. Angels don’t have DNA.

Knowing a Little Bit of Hebrew Can Be Worse than Knowing No Hebrew

Like most modern biblical mistakes, this one involves a misunderstanding of a Hebrew word. SkyWatch News knows how to use Strong’s Concordance, evidently, but they don’t know how to use it well. So, while developing their crazy Nimrod theory, they observe something in Genesis 10:8. It tells us that “Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth” (KJV). They observe that that phrase “began to be” comes from the Hebrew root chalal. But then they draw a wrong, completely nutty conclusion. They say that chalal “implies sexual profanity or genetic pollution—and a process. … Nimrod most likely was a product of a profane mating of fallen angel (god) and human.”

True enough, the root meaning of chalal has to do with pollution or profanation. And it can have a sexual meaning. But, as in all languages, Hebrew words develop their own senses through history. These are often quite different from the roots that they began with. When chalal appears in the hiphil stem, it often has nothing to do with pollution. It usually simply means “to begin.”

Here is a good example, from Deuteronomy 3:24. “O Lord God, thou hast only begun to show thy servant thy greatness and thy mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as thine?” If we read sexual profanation into Genesis 10:8, we’ll have to do the same with Deuteronomy 3:24. (And the same is true of scores of other verses). I don’t think that anyone wants to suggest that God is doing anything kinky with Moses in Deuteronomy 3:24.

Conclusion

Christians, we don’t have any business perpetuating this kind of falsehood. We are making a laughingstock of ourselves by giving this sort of sensationalism a podium. We are distracting ourselves from matters that are more worthy of our attention. Worst of all, we could be endangering the lives, or at least the quality of life, of sensitive souls. Some people agitate themselves with this sort of thing. St. Paul tells us that love rejoices in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6). If the love of Christ fills us, it should draw us to truth and repel us away from lies. Maybe we find ourselves occupied with sensationalist pseudo-news and fake theology. If so, we need to examine to what extent His love reigns in us.

Posted on

Faulty Old Testament Texts and the New Testament

Saint Paul, as painted by Diego Velázquez. Paul quotes a faulty Old Testament text in Romans 12:19.

The New Testament cites the Old Testament on its every page. My critical edition of the Greek New Testament has an appendix. In it, there are over thirty pages taking note of all of these citations and allusions. But biblical researchers who believe that the Bible is divinely inspired eventually run into a problem. Many of these citations do not strictly follow their Old Testament sources. Sometimes it is apparent that they are using a free translation of their own. At other times they engage in a sort of midrash that produces a composite text from numerous sources. But there are instances where the authors seem to use a text that is deficient in terms of textual criticism. Could the New Testament authors actually have quoted faulty Old Testament texts?

A Faulty Old Testament Text

I follow Drew Longacre’s good work over at OTTC: A Blog for Old Testament Textual Criticism. Several years ago he posted a really nice paper there on Deuteronomy 32:35-37. He makes a strong argument for the background of the Septuagint’s translation of these verses, especially in verse 35. The Revised Standard Version, like almost every other translation, follows the standard, Masoretic Hebrew text:

35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense,

    for the time when their foot shall slip;

for the day of their calamity is at hand,

    and their doom comes swiftly.

Deuteronomy 32:35, RSV

Longacre, for all sorts of reasons, argues that the Greek Septuagint is probably closer to the original sense of the Hebrew:

In the day of vengeance I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you.

Deuteronomy 32:35, from the Sir Lancelot Brenton translation of the Septuagint.

There are a few differences, but I’ve put the important ones for our purposes here in bold.

Longacre’s strongest argument for preferring the Septuagint here is that it offers a tighter, Hebraic parallelism than the Masoretic text. If you go back and read both of the versions above, I think that you will quickly see what he is talking about. In the Hebrew text, it is really simple to account for the shift from “in the day of vengeance” to “vengeance is mine.” It is the difference of only a few letters. And it makes more sense for the letters to fall away and render the current Masoretic text than for a scribe to supply more letters in a pre-Septuagint Hebrew text.

Deuteronomy 32:35 in the New Testament

But this is just where we have our problem. Usually, when the New Testament cites the Old, it does so with the Septuagint. But in the two places where the New Testament quotes Deuteronomy 32:35, it does not. The first is Romans 12:19, where Paul writes,

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Saint Paul, as painted by Diego Velázquez. Paul quotes a faulty Old Testament text in Romans 12:19.
Saint Paul, as painted by Diego Velázquez. Paul quotes a faulty Old Testament text in Romans 12:19.

The other is Hebrews 10:30:

We know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.”

The Implications: Faulty Old Testament Texts in the New Testament

There are several things that are interesting about these two verses. First of all, they demonstrate that the proto-Masoretic text at Deuteronomy 32 had already in the pre-Christian period crystallized into the text-form that rabbinic Judaism preserved into modern times. (When you consider that the space between these citations and the oldest Torah manuscript is nearly 1000 years, that’s pretty significant). This also means that many of the faulty Old Testament texts also become an integral part of this manuscript family.

Secondly, apparently both Paul and the author of Hebrews intentionally chose a text that was closer to the proto-Masoretic text than the Septuagint. This is significant because both of these books have numerous citations from the Septuagint. But they either re-translated Deuteronomy 32:35, or made use of another Greek translation that was closer to the proto-Masoretic text with which they were familiar.

And this is the big problem. If scribes corrupted the proto-Masoretic text of Deuteronomy 32:35, then isn’t the fact that these New Testament authors directly cite it a mark against the divine inspiration of the texts they are composing? Isn’t this a manifest error in the Bible? Could inspired authors really cite faulty Old Testament texts?

Should It Bother Us that the New Testament Cites Faulty Old Testament Texts?

This is the sort of thing that brought on my faith crisis so many years ago. But today, this doesn’t really bother me. I do think that this is probably a corruption in the proto-Masoretic manuscript family, and that these New Testament authors did perpetuate this corruption in their citations of Deuteronomy 32:35. Paul was a brilliant rhetorician. He wasn’t a textual critic.

But I think we should take this one step further. I would argue that the quoting of this manuscript error in the New Testament also took place under the providential inspiration of the Holy Spirit, just as everything else that the biblical authors and editors wrote.

Perhaps I feel this way because I have been reading too much midrash. The rabbinic sages were aware of textual irregularities in their biblical manuscripts, and instead of worrying so much about how this could happen to their sacred texts, they considered that God allowed this as part of His plan. So, the scribal mistakes are inspired, too.

Midrash Provides a Way Out

A classic example is 1 Samuel 13:1. “Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign.” That’s how the RSV renders the faulty Hebrew text. But in the Hebrew, it literally seems to say that Saul was one year old when he became king. That’s obviously not the case. Saul’s age has disappeared from the text.

Enter midrash. In Yoma 22b of the Babylonian Talmud, there is a delightful explanation for this scribal error.

It is written: “Saul was one year old when he began to reign” (1 Samuel 13:1), which cannot be understood literally, as Saul was appointed king when he was a young man. Rav Huna said: The verse means that when he began to reign he was like a one-year–old, in that he had never tasted the taste of sin but was wholly innocent and upright.

So, the Talmud provides a spiritual explanation for the obvious fault in the manuscripts. Saul was not literally a year old, but he was innocent of sin like babies are.

The Talmud’s Response to Midrashic Skeptics

Now, you might just be skeptical about the validity of this interpretation, especially if you have studied the historical-critical exegetical methods of our day. And if that is the case, you’re in good company. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak felt just the same as you. In fact, this was his response: “You could just as well say that he was like a one-year-old in that he was always filthy with mud and excrement.” But be careful before you reject the interpretations of the rabbis of old! Just look at what happened to poor Rav Naḥman after he said this:

Rav Naḥman was shown a frightful dream that night, and he understood it as a punishment for having disparaged Saul. He said: I humbly submit myself to you, O bones of Saul, son of Kish, and beg your forgiveness. But once again he was shown a frightful dream, and he understood that he had not shown enough deference in his first apology. He therefore said this time: I humbly submit myself to you, O bones of Saul, son of Kish, king of Israel, and beg your forgiveness. Subsequently, the nightmares ceased.

Relax: The Holy Spirit Is in Control

I think that we can do with the New Testament citations of Deuteronomy 32:35 something like what the rabbinic sages do with 1 Samuel 13:1. Paul and the author of Hebrews assumed wrongly that the proto-Masoretic text of this verse with which they were familiar was correct. It was an honest-to-goodness human error. But the Holy Spirit allowed this because you and I needed to hear what Paul has to say in Romans 12:19.

And we need to hear, specifically, what he has to say from that faulty text. Vengeance is God’s alone. You and I have no right to pursue revenge when we suffer even the greatest of outrages. Instead, we are called to trust the God of justice to call everyone to account in His own providential working in history. This is a difficult, but necessary aspect of the Christian life. And this is not a message that was originally a part of the Book of Deuteronomy. But thanks to the New Testament perpetuating and enshrining this manuscript error, it is a message that is now an integral part of Christian ethics.

Posted on

Prophetic Zionism

A picture of the author praying at the Western Wall during his last visit to Jerusalem. In this article he argues for prophetic Zionism.
Praying at the Western Wall during my last visit to Jerusalem.

The Personal Context for “Prophetic Zionism”

If you know me or have read much of anything on this blog, you know that I am very fond of Judaism and Jewish culture. In fact, I am Catholic today largely in part to exposure to Jewish culture and liturgy. My wife and I lived in Beer-Sheva, Israel for nine years while I completed my graduate studies in the Hebrew Bible at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. This was a great privilege. Some of our closest friends are still in Israel. All of this is the background for what I have to share here about “prophetic Zionism.”

And we also have close friends who are Palestinian. Needless to say, with friends like these, we have had numerous interesting discussions about the current political situation between the state of Israel and the Palestinians!

I remember one day in particular on which I visited a friend in Bethlehem. We had met a few years earlier when he was studying in the US. I had deeply offended him because I was now studying in an Israeli university, learning Hebrew, and living among “the enemy.” Nothing I said could mitigate his disappointment in me. It was an uncomfortable conversation that has never come to resolution between us. But that evening my wife and I invited another friend to have dinner with us. He is a passionate Zionist. In our small talk, I mentioned that I had been to Bethlehem to visit a friend. I thought that he was going to leave immediately!

Wisdom Measured by Weeks, Months, Years, and Decades

A Picture of My Friend, Fr. Paul Collin, Who Helped Me Develop My Thoughts About Prophetic Zionism
Image from https://www.catholic.co.il/?cat=&view=article&id=17932&m=

Some time later I was sitting and discussing these things with our parish priest at St. Abraham’s Church in Beer-Sheva, Fr. Paul Collin. (Just last spring he went to his reward, and I miss him dearly; may his memory be for a blessing). I wanted to know how Catholics are to approach these problems with the mind of the Church.

Fr. Paul’s response has helped me more than anything else. “When a person visits Israel for a week, they go back and write an article for a travel magazine. If they stay for a month, they return home and produce a travel book. If they stay here for a year, they can manage to write an entire book about the political crises here. But if you have lived here for more than ten years, you realize that the wisest thing you can do is keep your mouth shut, because you don’t really understand what is going on, and you certainly don’t know how to solve the problems here.” (As I recall, he confessed that he had heard this somewhere else, but I can’t track down the source. Perhaps someone can help me?).

An Alternative to Conventional Perspectives: Prophetic Zionism

I did not quite make it to the ten year mark, and so I suppose that I did not acquire the wisdom to keep my mouth shut. But I want to confess with all humility that I do not really understand the Arab-Israeli problem. The more I learn about it, the more bewildering it is. I know people who have suffered tragedies on both sides. In this article, I am going to do my best to avoid particular, contemporary issues like the two-state solution and Israeli settlements. I would like to think that this is because on these things, at least, I have taken Fr. Paul’s advice to heart. More likely it is because I am a coward.

But in broader terms, it seems to me that Christian support or opposition to the return of the Jewish people to their homeland polarizes around the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel. In this article, I am intentionally attempting to move these goal posts. Instead of the traditional Zionism that we immediately think of, I want to propose an alternative to help Christians consider what the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel might mean for them. I am calling this alternative “prophetic Zionism.”

An Outline of Prophetic Zionism

By “prophetic Zionism” I intend the following:

Israel’s Covenant Status the Basis of Prophetic Zionism

The Jewish people remain God’s chosen people even now. St. Paul says,

As regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:28-29).

God has confirmed this special status with an indelible covenant. Actually, He has confirmed it with multiple covenants. The first of these covenants was with Abraham. Genesis 17:7-8 is explicit in stating that this covenant is both everlasting, and involves the bestowal of land.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8 And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

The Return of the Covenant People to Their Covenant Land

The return of the Jewish people to their inheritance is indeed a prophetic sign. (Thus the term “prophetic Zionism”). Jesus Himself seems to predict that His people will come back to Israel.

Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24).

That phrase “times of the Gentiles” is interesting, and we will have to deal more with that below.

Ezekiel 36

This return is not predicated by the virtue of the Jewish people returning to their homeland. One of the most vivid predictions of the return is found in Ezekiel 36. When we read this text carefully, we see that God will pour out His grace of conversion on Israel after they return to the Land.

24 For I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

28 You shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29 And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses; and I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. 30 I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominable deeds.

What Makes Prophetic Zionism Different: Disentangling the Promise of Restoration from the Secular Jewish State of Israel

Nota bene: None of this has anything to do with a secular Jewish state. I think it is a serious mistake to understand these covenant promises in a strictly nationalistic manner. The prophets never envision anything like the modern state of Israel. Instead, they foretell the restoration of the Davidic dynasty in its ideal state. As a Catholic Christian, I heartily confess my faith that this prophesied government subsists in the Church as ruled over by Jesus the Messiah. Like all human systems of government, including our own, the state of Israel stands in opposition to the reign of Jesus in numerous ways.

The Government of Israel Has Been Instituted by God … Like Every Other Government

Even if the state of Israel is not an ideal political system, in His providence God has been using it to achieve His righteous purposes, as He does with all human governments. What Paul says of the Roman government in Romans 13 applies to Israel’s government, as well:

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

The Government of Israel Can Serve God’s Purposes and Still Not Be Ideal

It seems to me that the particular purpose for which God has used Israel is to encourage His people to return to their inheritance.

But remember: Paul is writing this in regards to the very government that will eventually behead him for his subversive activities! Revelation 13 describes this same government as a satanically inspired monster! And make no mistake, as with all human governments, there is plenty about the state of Israel that bears the odor of the beast of Revelation 13.

Romans 11

For Catholic Christians, any discussion about the future destiny of the Jewish people has to include St. Paul’s prophecy in Romans 11.

25 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, 26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

The reference to the “full number of the Gentiles” reminds us of Jesus’ words in Luke 21:24. Considering the connection between Luke and Paul, this parallel seems to be intentional. It seems very likely that Paul believed that the return of Israel to their homeland would accompany an even more dramatic spiritual restoration.

The Land Belongs to … God!!!

Technically, according to the Scriptures, the Land of Israel does not belong to the Jews, (or any other people!), but to God alone. “The land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me” (Leviticus 25:23). The use of “strangers and sojourners” here is key, because these words usually designate foreigners. So, though God has given Israel an explicit legal right to dwell in this land, their legal status is not terribly different from that of aliens.

Finally, according to Ezekiel 47, foreign peoples living in Israel are to be granted equal rights with the Jewish people!!!!

21 So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to you as native-born sons of Israel; with you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe the alien resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, says the Lord God.

Prophetic Zionism and Catholic Dogma

These statements, taken together, constitute what I intend by “prophetic Zionism.” It is distinct from what usually falls under the titles of “Christian Zionism” or “biblical Zionism” in that it is intentionally aloof towards classical, secular Zionism as enshrined in the modern state of Israel.

I must confess that “prophetic Zionism” is not part of the defined dogma of the Catholic Church. It is merely my attempt to take seriously the things about Israel that I find written in the Scriptures. But the Catholic Catechism does explicitly anticipate the spiritual restoration of Israel as a necessary eschatological development:

The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all Israel”, for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their “unbelief” toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.”

St. Paul echoes him: “For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the Gentiles”, will enable the People of God to achieve “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”, in which “God may be all in all”.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 674

Conclusion

This “‘full inclusion’ of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation” does not require the return of the Jewish people to their homeland. But I think the fact that Paul’s words in Romans 11 about the “full number of the Gentiles” echo what Jesus says in Luke 24:21 about Jerusalem being trodden down by the Gentiles until their time is fulfilled strongly suggests that they are connected.

For excellent commentary from a different perspective, check out what Jimmy Akin had to say about this several years back. He focuses on the legal ownership of the land and the legitimacy of the Jewish state, however. As stated above, Torah is pretty clear in its assertion that the land does not belong to any particular nation, but to God alone. And part of what I am trying to do here is demonstrate that the covenant-right of the Jewish people to live in the land of Israel is not essentially dependent upon a Jewish state exerting sovereignty over this territory.

But I do anticipate some objections, and I will try to deal with a few of these below.

Anticipated Objections

Didn’t the death of Jesus put an end to the Law of Moses and the Old Covenant?

No. We have to take Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17-18 seriously:

17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Some commentators have attempted to identify the crucifixion with “all” being accomplished. But this is not a natural reading of the text. Surely Jesus is simply saying that Torah remains in force until the end of time. Here I appeal to my principle of the kerygmatic burden. Does it really make sense that the Gospel author would include three extensive chapters of Jesus’ exposition of Torah if everything that He had to say there was now defunct? Likewise, in regards to the covenant with Israel, there is ample testimony in both the Old and New Testament that this covenant will never be repealed. We already saw that God promised Abraham an everlasting covenant in Genesis 17:7. Paul confirms that this covenant is irrevocable in Romans 11:29.

Wasn’t God’s covenant with Israel conditional?

No. But this will require a bit of explanation. First of all, there is undeniably a conditional aspect to all of God’s covenants. He does not force us to remain in relationship with Him. So, yes, we can remove ourselves from the benefits of the covenant. Deuteronomy 28 offers a vivid illustration of this conditional aspect.

1And if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God.

In the verses that follow, He describes these blessings in detail, and he describes the curses that attend disobedience in even more detail. But the entire testimony of the Bible demonstrates that even when Israel is unfaithful, God is faithful to His covenant. One example is Hosea 11:

8 How can I give you up, O E′phraim!
    How can I hand you over, O Israel!
How can I make you like Admah!
    How can I treat you like Zeboi′im!
My heart recoils within me,
    my compassion grows warm and tender.
9 I will not execute my fierce anger,
    I will not again destroy E′phraim;
for I am God and not man,
    the Holy One in your midst,
    and I will not come to destroy.

The New Testament confirms this in 2 Timothy 2:13:

If we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.

So, God never repeals His covenants, but we can remove ourselves from the benefits of covenant blessing.

Isn’t the Church the new Israel?

No. This supposition is often supported with a misuse of a statement from the Vatican II document Ad Gentes section 5 (later cited in paragraph 877 of the Catechism): “The Apostles were the first budding-forth of the New Israel.” But of course the Apostles were all a part of Old Israel, as well, so the intent here probably has to do more with the correspondence of the Twelve Apostles to the Twelve Patriarchs of the Tribes of Israel. It is a renewal of Israel, but not a replacement of Israel with something else. And this is abundantly clear in Romans 11.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. … 24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

So, there is one tree, Israel. God didn’t uproot Israel and replace it with another tree, the Church. No, Gentile Christians have simply been grafted onto the ancient trunk of Israel.

Posted on

The Cosmos Is a Temple

The Tabernacle: The cosmos is a temple.

I recently provided a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 based on the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish. In that post, I focused on the author’s intention to create a counter-myth to Enuma Elish. But that was not all that the author was trying to do in Genesis 1. Perhaps his biggest message is that the entire cosmos is a temple.

The Tabernacle: The cosmos is a temple.

This idea that the cosmos is a temple appears explicitly in the second chapter of Midrash Tadshe, a short rabbinic commentary on Genesis: “The Tabernacle was made in parallel to [God’s] creation of the cosmos.” It goes on to say that the Holy of Holies corresponds to the highest heaven (the abode of God) and the outer courts correspond to the material world.

Gottwald Agrees: The Cosmos Is a Temple

But I first encountered this notion of the cosmos as temple in Norman Gottwald’s book, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-literary Introduction. My dear professor, Wilbur Fields assigned this book in our Introduction to the Old Testament course as a kind of foil to the fundamentalist readings of the Old Testament for which he was arguing. I remember harboring guilty feelings because I found a whole lot that Gottwald said to be compelling. The thing that most enchanted me was his approach to Genesis 1. This makes up a relatively small portion of his book, but it was the first time that I became aware of the riches of inter-textual interpretation.

The Construction of the Tabernacle Reflects the Construction of the Cosmos

What Gottwald points out is that the recurring phrase “and it was so” in Genesis 1 looks an awful lot like the phrase “as the Lord had commanded, so had they done it” that appears in Exodus 39:43. This passage in Exodus is about the construction of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. At every stage of the completion of the Tabernacle, a phrase very similar to that one appears. For instance, at the beginning of Exodus 39 it says, “they made the holy garments for Aaron; as the Lord had commanded Moses.” The correspondence is especially tight when considering that everything in Genesis 1 “was so” as a direct result of a verbal command from God. The same holds true of the Tabernacle. The Lord gives a verbal command to Moses as to how to construct the furniture of the Tabernacle, and the artisans do it just so.

That’s as much as Gottwald says. But this opens up more considerations for these passages. Consider the order of the days of creation and the furniture of the Tabernacle.

Day One: God Creates by Separating Things

The first day establishes things that will be given form later. All of these figure significantly in the function of the Tabernacle. First of all, these verses establish the basic pattern of creation. God creates by separation. This Hebrew verb (le-havdil) describes one of the roles of the priest, to distinguish between various things. Perhaps Leviticus 10:10 expresses this most explicitly. “You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean.” In a sense, the entire career of the Hebrew priest is bound up in this activity of separation. So, here the text depicts God as creating order in the cosmos by performing a priestly work. Inversely, this conveys that when the priests carry out their work of distinguishing properly, they maintain this cosmic order. The cosmos is a temple, and the Temple is cosmic.

The Liturgical Calendar in Genesis One: If the Cosmos Is a Temple, then It Needs a Calendar

The next thing that really grabs my attention is the fact that God establishes a calendar on the first day of creation. For the Hebrews, the main function of the calendar is liturgy. To really get a sense of just how liturgical Genesis One is, you should read Numbers 28-29, which lays out a detailed sketch of Israel’s festal calendar. If you do this right after having read Genesis 1, the parallels will be obvious. But, note that almost everything in Numbers 28-29 has to do with the sacrificial schedule in the Tabernacle. Again, that is a clue for us as to how to think about the story in Genesis 1, and how it depicts the cosmos as a temple. But it also suggests that the liturgical calendar and the sacrifices that are built into it are a means of participating in the original work of creation.

We’ll return to the waters and the light later on.

Day Two: The Firmament

On the second day, God creates the firmament. The purpose of the firmament is once again to separate, to distinguish between the waters above and below the firmament. There is no firmament in the Tabernacle. But the verbal root for the word translated “firmament,” rq”a’, does show up twice in association with the Tabernacle. Rq”a’ means “to hammer out into a sheet.” This is significant, because the verb only appears eleven times in the entire Hebrew Bible. First, Exodus 39 tells us how Bezalel hammered out gold leaf so that he could turn it into thread for the ephod.

The Ephod

2 And he made the ephod of gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen. 3 And gold leaf was hammered out and cut into threads to work into the blue and purple and the scarlet stuff, and into the fine twined linen, in skilled design.

The Ephod. The cosmos is a temple.
The Ephod, a kind of breastplate worn by the high-priest.

The Bronze Covering for the Altar

Then, in a more grisly passage in Numbers 16, we hear about the censers that Korah and his company used to offer incense before the Lord. They challenged the Aaronic privilege to the priesthood, and as a consequence, fire came out from the ark of the covenant and consumed them, Raiders of the Lost Ark style. Because these men had consecrated these censers to God, they could not simply dispose of them. Instead, craftsmen hammered them out and turned them into a covering for the altar of sacrifice.

37 “Tell Elea′zar the son of Aaron the priest to take up the censers out of the blaze; then scatter the fire far and wide. For they are holy, 38 the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives; so let them be made into hammered plates as a covering for the altar, for they offered them before the Lord; therefore they are holy. Thus they shall be a sign to the people of Israel.”

39 So Elea′zar the priest took the bronze censers, which those who were burned had offered; and they were hammered out as a covering for the altar, 40 to be a reminder to the people of Israel, so that no one who is not a priest, who is not of the decendants of Aaron, should draw near to burn incense before the Lord, lest he become as Korah and as his company—as the Lord said to Elea′zar through Moses.

Day Three: God Creates Seas

The bronze laver in the tabernacle.
The bronze laver, with which priests washed their hands and feet before offering sacrifice in the Tabernacle.

On the third day, God creates the seas. These correspond to the bronze laver in the Tabernacle, and the molten sea in Solomon’s Temple. (Midrash Tadshe states this unequivocally). Both the laver and the sea were round. Midrash Tadshe says that this was a reflection of the firmament that encircles the disc of the earth, surrounded by the seas. It was thirty cubits in circumference, in accord with the thirty days in a month. It measured ten cubits in diameter. This, too, has a cosmic significance according to Midrash Tadshe: Israel sustains the cosmos by performing the Ten Commandments. (Coincidentally, in the Hebrew text of Genesis, God also creates the universe with ten utterances).

The brazen sea from Solomon's Temple.

The priests in the Tabernacle and Temple used both of these vessels to ritually wash their hands and their feet before offering sacrifices. The sea, because of its size and height, probably had a pool surrounding it into which water from the sea was run for this purpose. (In the Mass, our priests do this very thing, with much less water, at the beginning of the Eucharistic liturgy, to signify that they are offering the supreme sacrifice that Jesus made at Calvary).

Midrash Tadshe also says that the vegetation that God creates on the third day find its correspondence on the Table of Showbread. It even says that there are six loaves for the six months of winter produce and six for the summer. (They grow produce all year round in Israel).

The Table of Showbread from the Tabernacle.
One conception of the Table of Showbread. The twelve loaves are at either side of the table. In the middle is an ark containing frankincense.

Day Four: God creates the Luminaries, the Menorah of the Cosmos as Temple

On the fourth day, God creates the luminaries of the heavens. Midrash Tadshe tells us that these the Menorah, the lampstand that illumined the Holy Place, mirrors these. Not only this, but the two bronze pillars, Boaz and Jachin, represent the sun and the moon, respectively.

The Menorah as depicted on the Arch of Titus.
The Menorah as depicted on the Arch of Titus. From http://cojs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/arch-temple-menorah.jpg.

Day Five: God Creates Birds and Sea Creatures

On the fifth day, God creates the creatures of the sea and the birds of the air. The cosmos begins to be populated. Priests will offer some of these creatures (pigeons and doves) in the Tabernacle as sacrifices in worship.

Day Six: God Creates Land Creatures for Sacrifice and Human Beings to Serve as Priests in the Cosmos Temple

The same is true of the land creatures God makes on the sixth day. Most of these are unclean, and consequently unsuitable for sacrifice. But Torah separates a select few for this purpose: cattle, sheep, and goats. And then, to crown the work of creation, God creates human beings in His image as the priests who will offer these gifts back to Him in sacrifice in the cosmos-temple.

The liturgical calendar of creation reaches its pinnacle on the seventh day, when God ceases from His labor, providing a model for His people to follow. To truly bear the image and likeness of God is to rest from our labors, as He does, and to reconnect with Him on the Sabbath, in the temple cosmos. All of the labors of the week are for the sake of enjoying the peaceful communion afforded by the Sabbath.

Midrash Bereshit Rabbah and the Literary Structure of Genesis One

Before wrapping this up, I’d like to draw attention to another aspect of the structure of Genesis One. The ancient collection of rabbinic commentary known as Midrash Bereshit Rabbah offers intriguing insight on this count. Although it doesn’t directly relate to the theme of cosmos as temple, it demonstrates that the ancient sages were not preoccupied with literalistic interpretations of Genesis One. They recognized it to be a carefully crafted literary work.

Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 12:5

Rabbi Nehemiah, a man from the village of Sihon, offered this midrash on Exodus 20:11, “Because in six days the LORD made the heaven and the earth, etc.”: These three things were the foundation of His creation of the cosmos, and they waited for three days, and brought forth three generations.

According to the house of Hillel: the earth was created on the first day, and waited three days, the first day, the second, and the third, and brought forth three generations, trees and grasses and the Garden of Eden. The firmament was created on the second day, and waited three days, the second day of creation, the third, and the fourth, and brought forth three generations, the sun and the moon and the constellations. And water was created on the third day, and waited three days, the third day of creation, the fourth, and the fifth, and brought forth three generations, birds and fishes and Leviathan.

Rabbi Azariah did not say the same thing. Instead, on the day that the LORD made heaven and earth there were two things that were the foundation of His creation of the cosmos, and they waited for three days, and their work was completed on the fourth.

According to the house of Shammai: The heavens were made on the first day, and waited three days, the first day of creation, the second, and the third, and their work was completed on the fourth. And what completed their work? The luminaries. The earth was made on the third day, “and the earth brought forth …” (Genesis 1:12). This was the foundation of His creation. And it waited three days, the third day of creation, the fourth day, and the fifth, and its work was completed on the sixth. And what completed its work? Adam, as it is said, “I made the earth, and created Adam upon it” (Isaiah 45:12).

Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 12:5, my personal translation

The Literary Structure of Genesis One in Tables

There are actually two different schemas for understanding Genesis 1 presented by two rival schools in that text. Both of them actually work, and perhaps both reflect the author’s intent. What Midrash Bereshit Rabbah is saying is that there is a structural correspondence between the first days of creation and the last ones.

Day 1: Earth FoundedDay 2: Firmament FoundedDay 3: Water Founded
Day 3: Earth populated with TreesDay 4: Firmament populated with SunDay 5: Water produces Birds
Day 3: Earth populated with GrassDay 4: Firmament populated with Moon Day 5: Water populated with Fishes
Day 3: Earth finished with Garden of EdenDay 4: Firmament populated with ConstellationsDay 5: Water populated with Leviathan (“tanninim“)
The House of Hillel’s schema for the literary structure of Genesis One
Day 1: Firmament FoundedDay 3: Earth Founded
Day 4: Firmament completed with luminariesDay 6: Earth completed with Adam
The House of Shammai’s schema for the literary structure of Genesis One

The Cosmos Is a Temple

The cosmos, then, is a temple. And the temple is a microcosm, i.e., a miniature universe. Sacred spaces like the Tabernacle sanctify the common places outside of their bounds. Animals that are sacred, like pigeons and bullocks, when the priest offers them in sacrifice, sanctify the common creatures who are not destined for the altar. Sacred times like the Sabbath sanctify the common days of the workweek. The priests of the Tabernacle and the priests ministering at our Eucharistic altars sanctify us common folk. All of this provides a means for every aspect of creation to actually be turned back to the glory of God in worship. God made you in His image to participate in this cosmic liturgy.

Posted on

Reading Genesis 1 Literally

Genesis 1 in a 1620 edition of the King James Bible. Reading Genesis 1 today is much more contentious than it was in 1620!
Genesis 1 in a 1620 edition of the King James Bible. Reading Genesis 1 today is much more contentious than it was in 1620!
Genesis 1 from a 1620 edition of the King James Bible

I recently received feedback to my post on my crisis of faith from a good friend. This post wasn’t really about reading Genesis 1. But it did address that obliquely. My faith crisis was brought on by a realization that some of the evidence that I had received for young earth creationism as a child was bogus. My friend points out that he had nearly the opposite experience. He was taught as a child that “the creation story was not literal and had to be ‘interpreted.'” Later, he adopted belief in young earth creationism.

In this post, I’d like to focus on this very wide-spread notion among Christians of a more progressive or mainstream bent that reading Genesis 1 literally is not appropriate. Many of them would say that it has to be interpreted symbolically. Sometimes well-meaning believers attempt to make their faith look respectable. Thus, they try to make Genesis 1 square with modern evolutionary science. Even if they don’t take this approach, it is very common for Bible interpreters to reduce the entire text down to pure symbol. They completely abandon any shred of a literal, primary sense.

Reading Genesis 1 Literally, not Scientifically or Symbolically

I think that both of these approaches are a mistake. Personally, I have no problems at all with evolution. But you just can’t find anything evocative of modern scientific theory in the biblical text. (That goes for the pseudo-science of young earth creationism, too, however). But that doesn’t mean that reading Genesis 1 isn’t legitimate. So, in this post, I am going to argue that Genesis 1 is an inspired text with authentic, divine revelation. I am also going to argue that as such, it has a literal sense to which biblical interpreters have to give proper attention. They must do this before proceeding forward to any spiritual senses the text might have. In so doing, it will become evident that this literal sense has nothing to do with any of the distracting concerns of the evolution/intelligent design debate.

The Literal Sense

To begin with, we have to define what we really mean by “reading Genesis 1 literally.” Then we have to distinguish it from strictly literalistic interpretations of the Scriptures. Although they sound very similar, these are not the same thing. By “literal sense,” I am mostly referring to the “Author’s Intended Meaning.” I’ve already discussed this a bit elsewhere.

The truth is, even texts whose authors never intended for them to be read in a woodenly literal manner have a literal sense. Just consider this example from Song of Songs 2:

1I am a rose of Sharon,
a lily of the valleys.

2 As a lily among brambles,
    so is my love among maidens.

3 As an apple tree among the trees of the wood,
    so is my beloved among young men.
With great delight I sat in his shadow,
    and his fruit was sweet to my taste

Now, obviously the author of these lines did not intend for us to actually believe that this is all about a botanical love affair between a rose and an apple tree! This text has a rather clear literal sense. Simply put, it is erotic poetry. It uses abundant metaphors to convey its celebration of romantic love. But those symbols convey the author’s intended meaning. Of course, both Jewish and Christian interpreters have reveled in deeper, spiritual interpretations hidden in these words. But those spiritual interpretations depend upon the literal, erotic sense.

How Should We Go about Reading Genesis 1?

Returning to reading Genesis 1, the first thing that we have to acknowledge is that the author’s intended meaning cannot possibly have anything to do with the modern scientific method. This is because he just wasn’t familiar with it. So, there can’t be any kind of evolutionary process described in symbolic terms there. On the other hand, the author isn’t using his own, particular scientific terminology in ancient Hebrew, either. (Baraminology is a particularly egregious attempt to say this sort of thing). No, whatever the author’s intended meaning is, it has nothing to do with science as we conceive of it today.

If the author of Genesis 1 is not intending to say something scientific, what is he trying to say? How would we ever determine that? How should we go about reading Genesis 1?

Clues from Enuma Elish

Our first clue is the fact that Genesis 1 evokes another creation story in unmistakable ways. This story is from ancient Babylon. It is known by its opening line, Enuma Elish, “When on High.”

Now, before I proceed any further, I need to dispense with two widespread misconceptions about Enuma Elish. The first is the very popular idea among skeptics that Genesis 1 is simply a cheap “knock-off” of the Babylonian story. Ever since George Smith widely disseminated a version of Enuma Elish in the nineteenth century under the title Babylonian Genesis this idea has enjoyed popular appeal. But anyone who has carefully read both of the texts will tell you that the differences between them are far more striking than their similarities. No, the author of Genesis 1 is aware of Enuma Elish, and intentionally uses some of the vocabulary and even the cosmology of the text, but all with a mind to subvert its ideology. The result is a piece of literature that transcends its source material in breathtaking ways.

Dispelling Weird, Fundamentalist Ideas about Enuma Elish and Reading Genesis 1

Fundamentalists have also perpetuated some weird ideas about Enuma Elish. I don’t hear this as much as I used to, but some Bible teachers have said that the Babylonian author of Enuma Elish actually had been reading Genesis 1, or maybe was familiar with the traditions that lay behind Genesis 1. I think that it will become apparent why that cannot be the case as I proceed. But let me say here that it is extremely unlikely that anyone in Mesopotamia would want to bother with the religious traditions of the Hebrews.

First of all, there is a serious language divide. Although Hebrew and Akkadian are both Semitic languages, it’s not as though someone from Babylon could pick up a Hebrew text and read it without much difficulty. The differences are substantial. But apart from that, from the perspective of the empires of Assyria and Babylon, Israel was merely a backwater people who posed the annoying problem of occupying some of the most strategic territory in the Levant. There is simply no evidence that anyone from Mesopotamia exhibited any curiosity about the traditions of Israel until the Christian era. If they copied Genesis 1, this would be a remarkably singular incident in ancient history.

All of the evidence points to the influence going in the other direction. Enuma Elish was probably written long before Genesis 1. The author of Genesis 1 seems to have been well-acquainted with it.

Enuma Elish

Utter Chaos

Let me offer a brief summary of Enuma Elish. It begins with utter chaos. Nothing existed in the beginning, not even the gods. Somehow, from the midst of this nothingness the two primeval waters emerged. Abzu, the fresh waters, mingled his waters with Tiamat, the sea. Their union engendered the first gods. These gods had their own children, and so on. Eventually the cosmos was chock-full of rowdy, juvenile deities carrying on and having raucous parties.

The Demise of Abzu

Abzu got irate. He couldn’t get any sleep because his progeny were too noisy. So he and his vizier Mummu conspired to kill all of the gods. Tiamat tried to talk them out of it, but they were too committed to their plan.

Unfortunately for Abzu, one of the gods, named Ea, learned of his plot. He created a counter-plot. With his magic, he slew Abzu. Then he poured him into the well of the earth. He used Mummu as a cork to keep him imprisoned there.

Marduk

Tiamat grieved over Abzu, but soon settled into a new life. That was, until Marduk came along. Marduk, the grandson of Ea, was a precocious young god. Ea doted on him, and gifted him with his very own bag of winds. Marduk loved to take it to the beach and let the winds toss dirt into Tiamat’s waters and whip them into frothy whitecaps. Eventually, she too became irate, and decided to create an army to destroy the gods.

Tiamat Strikes Back

First, she married another monster like herself, a consort named Kingu. And then she proceeded to create one brood of warriors after another. There were scorpion-men and fish-headed men and bull-headed men and mushmahhu dragons. (With venom for blood! Shudder!).

Marduk with a cute, little mushmahhu dragon.
Marduk, with a cute, little mushmahhu dragon.

The Beer Party Counsel of the Gods

Once again, Ea and the gods found out about Tiamat’s plan. But this time, they were genuinely scared. They convened a council. (The description sounds a lot more like a beer party, to be honest). And then they selected Marduk as their champion to march out against Tiamat. Marduk happily volunteered on the condition that the gods would bequeath upon him the power of divine fiat. They did so, and then he tried it out by speaking a star into existence, and then speaking it out of existence. Then he rode forth in his chariot to meet Tiamat.

The Battle Between Tiamat and Marduk

The battle was a bit anticlimactic, actually. With all of her monster-troop behind her, and with Kingu at her side, Tiamat swooped upon Marduk with her maw gaping wide. He released his winds into her jaws, and then, when they had blown her up like a balloon, he shot her with his arrows. Her army immediately surrendered. (He subsequently pressed them into his own service).

Marduk Creates the World

It is at this point that Enuma Elish begins to sound especially familiar to those of us who have read Genesis 1 carefully. Marduk, after slaying his ancestress, considered and decided to construct a cosmos from her corpse. He began by cutting her in half. The top half he took and made the waters that appear above the earth, the sky. The bottom half he poured into the basins of the earth, and they became the sea. And then he proceeded to mold the land that peeked above the waters into the great land masses.

When he had completed his work of creating the earth, he conceived another project. He imagined a life of luxury, with slaves to build things for him whenever he wanted, and to bring him good things to eat. The thing to do was to craft such slaves. And so he took Kingu, Tiamat’s consort, and slit his throat. As his black blood poured out of the gaping wound, he collected it into a bowl. Then, he shaped the blood into lumpy, black-headed people. And that, according to Enuma Elish, is the origin of human beings.

Marduk Enthroned

Enuma Elish concludes with a hymn. The black-head people built Bab-ilani, the “gate of the gods,” and began to worship the deities there. (You have heard of Bab-ilani. You call it “Babylon”). And then they chant the fifty names of Marduk in his temple. This is the real theme of Enuma Elish. It’s all about how Marduk emerged as the great god of Babylon.

Parallels and Differences Between Enuma Elish and Genesis 1

Parallels

There are a huge number of parallels between Enuma Elish and Genesis 1. Let’s list a few of them.

  • Both stories begin with chaos, and conclude with an established order.
  • “Tiamat” is from the same Semitic root as the Hebrew word for “deep,” tehom.
  • A divine wind/spirit blows over the deep in both stories.
  • Both creation stories feature dragons. (In Genesis, the “great sea monsters” of verse 21 are obviously related to Tiamat and her mushmahhu dragons).
  • In both stories, the heavenly waters and seas are sundered from one another and placed in their respective domains in the cosmos.
  • Like Marduk, God has the power of divine fiat.
  • Both stories culminate in liturgy. (Enuma Elish ends with the hymn to Marduk. The creation story in Genesis concludes with the Sabbath.

Differences

The differences between these stories are immediately apparent, as well. By focusing on the differences between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, it begins to become evident what the author’s intended meaning was, and how we should go about reading Genesis 1.

The Minor Differences

  • In Genesis, unlike Enuma Elish, the chaos is not primeval. “In the beginning God ….” And God doesn’t have any grandparents, either.
  • The deep and the chaos do not pose any real threat to God. There is no combat. The sea monsters are created by God’s hand.
  • The tehom has been “demythologized.” It is not a deity, but the primary building material for creation. When God divides the waters into sea and sky, it is not a violent act at all.
  • This is somewhat controversial in Old Testament research right now, but I am convinced that the “divine wind” in Genesis 1:2 (Ruach Elohim) is already setting the stage for the fuller revelation of the Holy Spirit. In any case, it is not just a natural wind like the ones in Marduk’s bag. The God of Genesis 1 is not a storm god, but the transcendent and unique Creator God Who reveals Himself to Moses as Being.
  • Marduk has the power of divine fiat, but he doesn’t actually use it to create a dang thing! In contrast, Genesis 1 proclaims that everything is created by the Word of the Lord.

The Major Differences

  • Perhaps the biggest difference in the stories has to do with the creation of humankind. In Genesis, God creates us in His own image and likeness. In Enuma Elish, humans are made from monster blood. Moreover, God does not create humans to be his slaves, as Marduk does. Instead, we are made to be his vassal rulers over the earth.
  • Enuma Elish depicts worship as slavery. The gods are hungry, and it is our duty to feed them. The gods are powerful and fickle, so we lavish praise on them to appease them and keep them happy with us. In contrast, Genesis 1 depicts worship as rest.
  • The purpose of creation in Enuma Elish is a bit of a mystery. It feels a bit as though Marduk does it because he is looking for something to do. But in Genesis, God creates the world as a Temple in which humanity will worship Him. (More on this to come).

Reading Genesis 1 in Light of the Author’s Intended Meaning

So, why would the author intentionally echo so much of Enuma Elish if he ultimately rejects its world-view? I am convinced that the echoes are intentional. He knows that his audience knows the Babylonian account of creation. So he has chosen to subvert it in dramatic ways. His vocabulary and the sweep of the story have just enough in common with Enuma Elish to force us to come to grips with what is wrong with that story. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he has produced a counter-myth that infinitely transcends its “source material” and contradicts it at its most salient points.

I suppose that Genesis 1 was written by a priest exiled to Babylon. We know that Nebuchadnezzar pressed the elite members of Judaean society into his personal college of scribes. (The first chapter of Daniel preserves memories of this indoctrination process). So, this young priest had been forced to learn the very difficult language of Akkadian, probably by copying and re-copying Enuma Elish day in and day out. Eventually, he said, “Enough! This is a lie!” And then he wrote the most beautiful creation account ever composed in protest.

The Unique Revelation in the Literal Reading Genesis 1

Just consider the number of things that God revealed through this anonymous priest and his story of creation.

  • Creation ex nihilo.
  • God’s eternal existence.
  • The very beginnings of Trinitarian theology: God creates everything by the power of His Word and the mysterious participation of the “Spirit of God” blowing over the primeval waters.
  • The astonishing dignity of human beings created in God’s image and likeness.
  • The goodness and purpose of material creation.
  • The identification of worship with rest in and with God.

So, yes, Genesis ought to be interpreted literally. Its authentic message is unparalleled. But that message has nothing to do with science as we conduct it today, and very little to do with history. No, the literal sense of Genesis is a theological statement, and a supreme challenge to the pagan worldview of ancient Babylon … and the pagan worldview of the 21st century.