These are not questions that keep me up at night, but I mainly post these questions to illustrate the questions that might arise as one reads Genesis:
1. In what sense are humans made in God's image? Genesis 1:26-27
1a. Why does God say "let us" in Genesis 1:26?
2. Why did Lot linger before leaving Sodom? Genesis 19:16
3. Why did Lot's wife look back when Jehovah clearly told Lot and his family not to look back? Genesis 19:26
4. What was Isaac meditating on as he walked in the field? Genesis 24:63
5. Why was Abram put into a deep sleep? Why did he feel a sense of horror? Genesis 15:12
24 comments:
This has started to trouble me:-
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004335028/B9789004335028_021.xml
Robert alter in interview has also highlighted many problems and that some of it is un-translatable because it makes no sense.
I am only just starting to examine it.
Alter - “The other challenge was that I’m afraid that scribal transmission has badly messed with the text of Job. There are many places where there are things that are not quite comprehensible. You have to struggle with `What am I going to do about this?’”
I'm no expert on these matters, but I think there is a lively debate among scholars concerning the textual reliability of Job, which is a different concern from the book's subject matter.
A wealth of resources listed here:
https://archive.gordonconwell.edu/library/ottc.cfm.html
In the JPS study edition page 1660, it states - "There are many difficulties in the poetry of Job, making the interpretation of words, verses, and even chapters uncertain. The rubric 'Meaning of Heb. uncertain' in this book indicates only some of the extreme instances."
Agreed, we have many textual issues in Job. However, through a comparative approach, it's possible to get a more accurate picture of the work. That is what Hartley tries to do with his Job commentary.
I'm referrring to John E. Hartley's commentary.
Regarding 1a, I was interested to here Alter say that he does not buy the plural of majesty.
You know what's the most commonly accepted Jewish understanding of Genesis 1:26. And many scholars do reject the plural of majesty explanation.
Hi Edgar, for #4, Isaac was meditating on Genesis 15:12! Ha ha
Regarding #5, The Hebrew word for “a deep sleep” is תרדמה (tardema), and the Greek word used in the LXX is ἔκστασις (ekstasis)—literally “outside oneself.”
In Abram’s case, “Jehovah then apparently spoke to him in a dream,” as seen in Genesis 15:13-16. (“Dream.” Insight on the Scriptures. wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001222#h=4 ) As verse 13 says:
“Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.”
I wrote about this briefly in connection with Adam and his תרדמה/ἔκστασις.
Splitting the Adam
https://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2019/05/splitting-adam.html
Bruce Waltke's explanation for Gen. 1:26:
26. Let us. The impersonal “let there be” (or its equivalents) of the
seven preceding creative acts is replaced by the personal “let us.” Only in
the creation of humanity is the divine intent announced beforehand. The
formula “and so it was” is replaced by a threefold blessing. In these ways,
the narrator places humankind closer to God than the rest of creation.³⁷
us. See also 3:22; 11:7. Various referents have been suggested for the “us.”³⁸ The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). That God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the Spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that better satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1–3; 89:5–6; Isa. 6:8; 40:1–6; Dan. 10:12–13; Luke 2:8–14). It seems that in the four occurrences of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen. 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. passim; Job 38:7; 1 Tim. 3:16),³⁹ and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.⁴⁰
For number 3 the issue is far more complex. The translation is also in question.
Lots wife "looked from behind him". What does that mean?
Thanks, Jim. I'm glad you also linked Abram and Adam, but then showed how their experiences likely differed. It's funny that LXX chose ἔκστασις to render the Hebrew: I need to research that issue more. As you noted, we get words like ecstatic from the Greek and the noun, ecstasy.
I liked the line about Isaac too :)
NWT 2013: "But Lot’s wife, who was behind him, began to look back, and she became a pillar of salt."
K-D: "On the way, Lot's wife, notwithstanding the divine command, looked 'behind him away,' - i.e., went behind her husband and looked backwards, probably from a longing for the house and the earthly possessions she had left with reluctance (cf. Luke 17:31-32)"
See https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.19.26?lang=bi&with=Commentary&lang2=en
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eg8kJweeplcC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=lot+%22looked+from+behind+him%22&source=bl&ots=jwwcyVim_N&sig=ACfU3U3QeO6T7g_ChDhIu_EXbc14F3nVLw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCgKyBws_oAhVJThUIHdA6C54Q6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=lot%20%22looked%20from%20behind%20him%22&f=false
Using luke as a tool for interpreting gen 19 seems a bit sketchy.
Zohar:-
"But his wife looked back from behind him." We should have expected "from behind her." What this text really means is, "from behind the Sh'chinah" (the immanent Presence of God). Thus when "his wife looked back from behind him," she turned her face to the destroying angel, and, as a result, she became a pillar of salt. For as long as the destroying angel does not see the face of a person, he does not harm that individual; but as soon as Lot's wife turned her face to look at him, she became a pillar of salt.
This part doesn't keep me awake at night either although it's interesting to me from a philological standpoint. To be honest, I also take many of these explanations with a grain of salt; I'm inclined to agree with one writer, who said that some interpretations are more likely than others. Some interpretations are just flat out improbable, if not impossible.
When you mention Luke, that's a question about hermeneutics. Jewish interpreters obviously would not include the GNT when trying to understand a text from the Tanakh. But why should Christian exegetes leave out GNT texts when seeking to understand the text? Besides, the language from K-D is set forth with due caution and only used to suggest a probable reason why Lot's wife disobeyed God. There are some things we largely know because Jesus or his followers told us. I read the text as a Christian Witness of Jehovah, not as a Jew or Muslim. But regardless, what K-D does is an accepted scholastic practice.
Hermeneutical Spiral:
https://www.academia.edu/39157520/The_Hermeneutical_Spiral--A_Comprehensive_Introduction_to_Biblical_Interpretation
When I say sketchy I mean that v31 referres to returning & not just looking back. It also does not directly mention looking back. I have read a number of books on hermanutics that mostly involve looking at how church fathers practiced it. Also frequent mention of pre-understanding.
I don't view it as my job to defend Keil and Delitzsch. However, I understand why they mentioned Luke 17:31-32, which is to show a probable reason for Lot's wife looking back. Luke 17:31 also does issue a warning about returning back or turning back (NRSV).
K-D don't cite Luke 17:31-32 to make a point about translation. Rather, the citation is included to say why she might have looked back. Jesus apparently saw some connection between vs. 31 and what he uttered in 17:32 of Luke.
Hermeneutics is a broad subject: it encompasses a lot more than the church fathers. The Jews were engaged in exegesis/hermeneutics well before Christianity started. See https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-59529106/early-jewish-hermeneutics-and-hebrews-1-5-13-the
1. I like the interpretation given by some exegetes and Hebrew bible scholars that the image is the equivalent of an image in a temple, i.e. humans are to reflect God in creation, I'm certainly open minded on this though, and of course one can draw out theological interpretations that expand on what a historical exegesis might say.
1a. I think the traditional Jewish interpretation is good, he's talking to his angels, specifically the logos as revealed in John (wisdom in proverbs), which is certainly in line with JW theology.
1. I'm attracted to the idea some exegetes/Hebrew bible scholars have presented that the "image" is the equivalent of an image in the temple, i.e. the world is a temple and humans are to reflect God in the temple, although I'm open to other interpretations and certainly accept that there could be theological readings that expand on a historical exegesis.
1a. I think the standard Jewish interpretation of God talking to his angels is a good one, and as a JW, I believe specifically talking to the Logos of John/Wisdom of proverbs.
You raise some good points, Roman.
I'm open about different understandings of the image/likeness, which I view as one and the same. My view of humans being created in God's image is mostly shaped by Col. 3:10 or verses like it, and Psalm 8, which discusses the place of mortals in Jehovah's creation.
Completely agree with your 1a.
Post a Comment