In The Beginning

My New Year’s resolution for 2012 is to read the Bible in a year. I suppose I’m not off to a great start considering it’s January 3, but I’ll do two days of reading today and two days of reading tomorrow, and we’ll just plug through. One of my Catholic friends suggested that I keep a blog of this endeavor. I aim to please (kind of), so here it is. The way I see it, this could either turn out to be really interesting or really boring. Only time will tell.

I asked around for some suggested one-year reading schedules, and I’ve more or less arbitrarily picked this one. I like that it goes through the Old Testament (hereafter OT) and New Testament (NT) simultaneously. I’m itching to get to the Jesus stuff, so this way I don’t have to be impatient about that for most of the year. Besides, I’ve tried reading the Bible front-to-back a couple times before, and I always just feel exhausted after all the begatting in Genesis.

So, without further ado, let’s jump into…

OT: Genesis 1-4

http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Genesis_belgium1972.jpgI really don’t want this to turn into a stereotypical atheist rampage of stupid scientific minutiae, but in all honesty, I have to admit that my very first thought about Genesis 1:2-3 was chemical in nature. There is obviously a lot to be said about the age of the earth and the nebular hypothesis and evolution and all that jazz, but we’ve heard all that before. One criticism I haven’t heard before – and the one that jumped out at me immediately – involves the order of creation of water and light. In the second verse, “it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters”; it’s not until the third verse that “God said, ‘Let there be light.’ And so light appeared.” Chemistry isn’t my strong suit, but I do know that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, and I know that oxygen couldn’t exist until it was created through nuclear fusion inside stars. And I know that stars make light. In other words, you can’t have water before you have light.

Obviously none of that matters if you take Genesis metaphorically. One of the reasons that the nitpicky science-obsessed skeptics never get very far with moderate Christians is that the atheists don’t seem to understand that many Christians take large portions of the Bible metaphorically, and so aren’t at all bothered by supposed “errors” in the science therein. After all, as Galileo argued, quoting Cardinal Baronius, “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” I can easily accept that idea – although, frankly, I can’t see how it would have been too much more trouble for God to throw some scientific facts in just to bolster everyone’s confidence. But we’ll let that slide.

Even assuming huge swaths of the Bible are meant to be taken metaphorically, the challenge that ensues is to separate the metaphors from the literal bits. I’ve tried to figure out how this is done, but it eludes me. I and several other non-religious students brought up this issue in a discussion with a Christian student group last summer, and the “answer” we kept getting back was basically “you’ll know it when you see it.” Another pro tip I’ve heard for biblical exegesis is that prayer will elucidate the text, but I haven’t exactly had smashing success on that front, so I’m going to need a different strategy. I’m hoping that this year I’ll get better at magically knowing metaphorical truth from literal truth. And I’m always open to tips, so feel free to comment below.

So, back to creation. Most people know what happens here – God makes everything and sees how good it is. I’m brought back, inexorably, to the Euthyphro dilemma: are good things good because God likes them, or does God like good things because they are good? What does it really mean to say that “God saw how good it was” (Genesis 1:10 et alia) that he had separated the waters from each other and so on?

Genesis 1: Creation of earth, seas, heavens, plants, animals, in the wrong order.

Genesis 2: Creation retold in a slightly different but still incorrect order, with a focus on on Eden and humans. God makes Adam, gives him all the plants in Eden to eat except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God makes animals to be helpers for Adam, but none of them is the perfect helper for him, so God anesthetizes Adam, removes a rib and sutures the wound, and turns the rib into Eve, who is finally the perfect helper for Adam. Adam and Eve are down with nudity.

Genesis 3: The snake, “the most intelligent of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made” (Genesis 3:1 – apparently intelligence is a bad thing, just like knowledge of good and evil?), tells Eve that she should eat the forbidden fruit. The snake claims the only reason God told humans not to eat the fruit is that it would make them “like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4 – Prometheus, anyone?). Adam and Eve eat the fruit, and then suddenly figure out that they’re naked and flip a shit, because apparently knowing good from evil means being infected with stupid social taboos stemming from fear and ignorance of our own bodies. Adam and Eve make themselves fig leaf panties and hide from God, which seems like a pointless exercise if there ever was one. God punishes everybody (a tradition he will continue throughout the OT, if I’m not mistaken): he makes the snake slither on its belly, he makes women endure painful childbirth and submit to their husbands, and he makes the fields less fertile so men will have to learn agriculture and work for their food. (One of these things is not like the others….) God makes better clothes for the humans and kicks them out of Eden so they can’t become immortal like him by eating from the tree of life. God is really invested in his own monotheism, I guess, because so far everything he’s done in relation to humans seems to be about keeping them down and preventing them from ascending to godliness – first by denying them knowledge, then by denying them immortality. That’s kind of lousy and selfish, IMHO.

Genesis 4: Adam and Eve get it on and produce Cain, a farmer, and Abel, a shepherd. Each one sacrifices one of his products to God, but God arbitrarily decides Abel’s gift is great and Cain’s sucks. Cain is understandably upset, but God berates him and tells him to “do the right thing” (confirming my suspicion that Spike Lee is God). God warns Cain that “if you don’t do the right thing, sin will be waiting at the door ready to strike!” (Genesis 4:7) but doesn’t at all explain the concept of “sin” for Cain’s benefit. This is where, if the Bible were an essay I was grading, I would scribble “Define your terms” in the margin in judgmental red ink. Cain takes Abel outside and kills him, which is admittedly an overreaction. God asks Cain where Abel is (even though he must know, right? so I guess it’s a test?), at which point Cain invents the snotty teenage retort: “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s guardian?” (Genesis 4:9). And then I miss the King James Version’s more eloquent “my brother’s keeper” but keep reading the Common English Bible because that’s what my friend’s pastor’s church’s reading group is doing. God punishes Cain by making him a nomad, and Cain complains that “anyone who finds me will kill me” (Genesis 4:14), which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense since the only other people on earth at this point are Cain’s parents, Adam and Eve. But apparently it makes sense to God, who marks Cain and decides that anybody who wrongs him will be punished sevenfold. Cain then “settled down in the land of Nod” (Genesis 4:16), which totally contradicts God’s announcement about thirty seconds earlier that Cain “will become a roving nomad on the earth” (Genesis 4:12). After Cain settles down, he gets it on with his wife (with no clues as to who his wife is or where she came from, but she can only possibly be either his mother or his sister since nobody existed before his parents, which leads me to conclude that the land of Nod is in West Virginia). Cain and his mystery wife have an inbred son named Enoch. Everybody proceeds to have too many kids to keep track of. Lamech confusingly tells his wives that he killed two people and therefore Cain (his great-great-great-grandfather, I believe) will be punished sevenfold and he himself will be punished seventy-sevenfold. I’m completely in the dark on this part. Anyway, Adam and Eve have Seth, their third son, and after Seth has a son, “people began to worship in the LORD’s name” (Genesis 4:26), which I guess they hadn’t been doing before, even though they’d all been having cozy chats with God.

Highlights

I love when Adam calls Eve “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” in Genesis 2:23. We would do well to remember that, genetically, we’re all 99.9% bone of each other’s bones, flesh of each other’s flesh. And non-human organisms aren’t too far removed. Our biological interconnectedness should remind us to take a wider view of the family. Think how much more pleasant the world would be if everybody perceived their kinship with every other organism on the planet.

Lowlights

Genesis 1:27 is a hotbed of injustice and backwardness. “God created humanity in God’s own image,” thereby inflating everybody’s egos and dooming all non-human organisms to second-class citizenship and general mistreatment; then, to make matters worse, “male and female God created them,” thereby enshrining the bigoted, socially constructed heteronormative gender binary in scripture. This verse is an epic fail all around.

NT: Matthew 1-2

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Project+L+11th+Annual+Benefit+Gala+Tomorrow+-h5ajFSYUgNl.jpgMatthew 1: Most of this chapter is literally just a list of Jesus’s paternal ancestry. I’m too tired to check the math right now, but supposedly “there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen generations from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile to Babylon to the Christ” (Matthew 1:17). Then follows an account of the nativity that’s a little different from what I’ve heard before. Mary and Joseph were engaged – not married – when Mary got preggers “by the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). Joseph is nice and doesn’t want to “humiliate” Mary, so he plans to “call off their engagement quietly” (Matthew 1:19). But before he gets around to it, an angel appears to him in a dream and tells him Mary is a virgin pregnant with God’s kid and he should marry her and raise the kid, who will be awesome and “save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). This is all in fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 which said that a virgin would give birth to a son called Emmanuel (meaning “God with us”). Joseph does as he’s told and marries Mary, but doesn’t get jiggy with her until after she squeezes out Jesus.

Matthew 2: After Jesus is born, the magi come to Jerusalem and ask Herod where “the newborn king of the Jews” is (Matthew 2:2). Herod and everybody else in Jerusalem is “troubled,” but “all the chief priests and the legal experts” (Matthew 2:4) set everyone at ease by explaining that, according to OT prophecies, the Christ must be born in the town of Bethlehem in the territory of Judea. Herod tells the magi to go find Jesus and report back so he can go honor him too. The magi follow the star to Jesus and give him birthday presents, but are “warned in a dream not to return to Herod” (Matthew 2:12), so they go home by a different route. An angel appears to Joseph in a dream (like always) and tells him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt, because Herod secretly wanted to kill Jesus, not honor him. You sneaky Herod! This apparently fulfills another prophecy. When Herod finds out the magi betrayed him, he has all the boys in Judea aged 2 and under killed, which fulfills yet another prophecy. When Herod dies, another angel appears to Joseph in another dream and tells him the coast is clear. He takes Mary and Jesus to the city of Nazareth in Galilee so that Jesus, according to prophecy, can be a Nazarene.

Highlights

It’s nice to know Joseph was such a gentleman.

Also, one of the many prophetic fulfillments in Matthew 2 actually fulfills two OT prophecies: Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. It’s sort of cool that the same prophecy is in the same chapter and verse of each of those two books, I guess.

Lowlights

Genocide. I still don’t understand why it is allowed to happen under the rule of a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God. God couldn’t hide all the Judean toddlers until Herod died or something?

Advertisements

10 Responses to In The Beginning

  1. Matt says:

    As for literal vs. metaphorical, Origen (early Christian priest and commentator) proposed reading all Scripture both literally and allegorically. Not a bad idea. If something can be falsified on the literal level, still keep the allegorical. As for what the allegorical is, that’s where two millennia of theology and scholarship come in.

    As for the literal incoherence of the structure of Genesis and its content, it’s important to remember that much of that content is quite a bit pre-Biblical. The Bible, Jewish thought, and Christian thought have dealt with it in many ways. I think the most compelling interpretation is to see it as a statement of existential alienation from human potential and aspirations, hampered by our own struggles with the material world and with our disobedience to God. Whatever reading one goes with, it’s got to be pretty abstract to be rationally sustainable.

    St. Augustine also noted early on that this cannot be a literal account of creation. Even before we get to water before the sun, we have the first day where there is no sun. But, as St. Augustine noted, the concept of ”day” is absurd in the absence of the sun. Ergo, interpret.

    Interpretation matters. Ditto that with genocide etc.; there is scant historical evidence that the Jews ever practiced it on a wide scale in ”Biblical times”, and Christians have long had theories of just war and the immorality of killing in general. Whatever early Jewish authors and early readers in either religion were doing, it wasn’t advocating for blind killing.

  2. Edelweiss says:

    This is great. But you misread Genesis 1:27. God creating humanity “male and female” simply means that both men and women are made in God’s image. It has nothing to do with heterosexuality or heteronormativity. Anti-gay Christians may choose to interpret it as referring to the male/female union, and then claim that this uniquely manifests the image of God, but that is not in the text itself. Other than that, excellent post all around.

  3. Hannah Minks says:

    This is so much fun! I have every intention of keeping up with this endeavor of yours, Link.

    Highlights:
    The idea that Spike Lee is God. The interjection of “you sneaky mom” via amusing hyperlink. Your use of pictures (especially Matthew Broderick). Your commentary in general is a thoughtful blast!

    Lowlights:
    *cricket chirp*

    Okay, now for more substantial comments. I am particularly intrigued by figuring out when to decide if something is a metaphor and when it is literal. This is something I chew on frequently. What resonates with me most is something a professor of mine always says. We’ll finish reading scripture that might be more difficult to believe and he’ll say, “Do I think this really happened? Well, I don’t know. Maybe. Is it true? Absolutely.” So I figure there’s always something to be gleaned from scripture, and the question at the end of the day for me isn’t, “Was that literal or figurative?” To me, that’s getting caught up in the nuances. Literal, figurative, it’s all gravy. That’s stuff for the back burner. For example, first and foremost, I think the beatitudes are the most beautiful thing Christianity has to offer, and I think they’re the reason I’m ultimately okay with my subscription to Christianity. Oh, and sure…I guess that means I take them literally, if you’re interested in that. To me, those questions are secondary to the primary task of discerning what resonates most loudly within you when reading the scriptures.

    Fun Genesis tidbit: another professor of mine shared an interesting observation about God getting all hot and bothered after Adam and Eve at the fruit. She said that God didn’t become angry until Adam and Eve refused to take any responsibility for their actions. Adam’s all, “Yeah I ate it, but only because Eve gave it to me!” Then Eve’s all, “Yeah, I gave it to him–but only because the serpent tricked me!” In this case it’s not so much about the fact that they ate the fruit, but that they kept pointing fingers. Interesting…maybe.

  4. cissyhuang says:

    So I’m much more of a lurker than a commentator, but I wanted to acknowledge the novelty of Minks’s prof #2’s observation on God’s anger to me, at least. I think we all get taught/catch on that God told A&E not to do x, they do x, God gets wicked wrathful = disobedience is bad. But prof 2 posits avoidance of responsibility, or perhaps lack of ethical self-awareness, as the more accurate catalyst for divine punishment. God is probably pissed when we don’t listen to him, but is he even more pissed when we don’t own up to it?

    Thanks for sharing, Minks!

  5. chelseyrf says:

    Beautiful work, Chelsea! I can’t wait to read on. I feel comforted, full of joy, and ready to start blogging for the Unelectables now!

  6. Pingback: Matthew 1-3 « Jack Reads the Bible

  7. Pingback: Fabio and the Amazing Technicolor Loincloth « Blogging Biblically

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: