1 the Book of Origins
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes 1 The Book of Origins More expansive versions of the parts of this chapter were previously presented at the following academic conferences: “The Pre-patriarchal Narrative in the Book of Genesis: Humanity without Chosenness,” Northeastern Political Science Association (2007); “The Abraham Narrative in the Book of Genesis: The Obscure Origins of a World Historical Ethnos,” Northeastern Political Science Association (2006); “The Jacob Narrative in the Book of Genesis: Politics without Law,” New York State Political Science Association (2006); “The Joseph Narrative in the Book of Genesis: A Gem of Several Facets,” Illinois Political Science Association (2004). 1. The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and Notes by Everett Fox (New York: Schocken Books, 1995); Robert Alter (ed.), The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004); Public Affairs Television, Talking about Genesis: A Resource Guide (New York: Doubleday, 1996); Burton L. Visotzky, The Genesis of Ethics: How the Tormented Family of Genesis Leads Us to Moral Development (New York: Crown, 1996); Alan M. Dershowitz, The Genesis of Justice: Ten Stories of Biblical Injustice that Led to the Ten Commandments and Modern Law (New York: Warner Books, 2000); Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003); Thomas L. Pangle, Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003); George Anastaplo, The Bible: Respectful Readings (New York: Lexington Books, 2008). 2. Except as otherwise indicated, biblical translations are from Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (JPS) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988). (“Tanakh” is an acronym for the major divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures: Torah [the five books of Moses], Nevi’im [the Prophets], Kh’suvim [the Writings].) Except where common usage requires otherwise, my transliterations follow the Ashkenazic rather than the Sephardic pronunciation. 3. Nosson Scherman (ed.), The Chumash (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 1996 [the ArtScroll or “Stone” Edition—so named because published under the patronage of Mr. Irving I. Stone]), pp. 109, 180–81. Rashi = Rabbi 236 NOTES Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040–1105), a leading Torah commentator; Nachmanides = Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (1194–1270), commen- tator and leader of Spanish Jewry (Scherman, p. 1301). (“Chumash” from hamisha [five] = the Torah). With a few exceptions, I follow the common convention of using the capitalized word LORD to refer to the tetragrammaton YHWH, the exact pronunciation of which is no longer known. 4. The division of the Hebrew Scriptures into numbered chapters and verses is the work of early Christian editors, but has been accepted by Jewish translators and is followed here. 5. See, for example, Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Harper & Row, 1989). Pangle suggests that the two different accounts are a deliberate attempt by the Redactor to warn the reader that contradiction is unavoidable and, therefore, that to grasp the meaning of the biblical text requires illumination by divine grace (p. 18). 6. For a more elaborate and philosophic discussion of this pattern, see Leo Strauss, “On the Interpretation of Genesis” and “Jerusalem and Athens,” in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, edited by Kenneth Hart Green (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 362–67, 382–84. 7. J.H. Hertz (ed.), The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (London: Soncino Press, 1981), p. 2. 8. Jules Harlow (ed.), Siddur Sim Shalom: A Prayerbook for Shabbat, Festivals, and Weekdays (New York: Rabbinical Assembly, United Synagogue of America, 1985), p. 326. Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, II.13–24. Moses Maimonides = Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (1135–1204), Aristotelian philosopher and one of the foremost medieval Torah scholars (Scherman, p. 1301). 9. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDBG) (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979), p. 912; Fox, p. 11 n 1. Cf. the famous adage at Ps. 111:10, “Reishis hokhmah yiras Adonai— The beginning of wisdom is fear of the LORD,” from which Kass’ book takes its title. 10. The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Translated Out of the Original Tongues; with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised, Conformable to the Edition of 1611, Commonly Known as the Authorized or King James Version (Cleveland: World, n.d.), p. 5; Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures, Carefully Translated after the Best Jewish Authorities by Isaac Leeser (New York: Hebrew, 1909), p. 1; Hertz, p. 2; Fox, p. 13; Scherman, p. 3; JPS, p. 3. 11. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (IDB) (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), 2:57–58. 12. Of course, as Hobbes notes, there is scarcely an object or experience that cannot be, and at some time has not been, deified (Leviathan, NOTES 237 chap. 12). Kass observes that the creation of Man is also not specifically said to be good (p. 31) and explains the omitted praise of the heavens as an implicit rebuff of pagan cosmologies that revere the sky and the awe-inspiring, powerful, and seemingly immortal objects within it (pp. 40–45). We can combine the two omissions. The heavens and man are the likeliest beings to be mistaken for or to lay claim to divinity. 13. This explanation is both less ethnocentric and less taxing on our general credulity than Resh Lakish’s. On the other hand, it still packs much theological content into a single Hebrew letter, which may in the end be no more than a scribal attempt to break the monotony of a four-times-repeated verbal pattern, or to produce a psychic tension in the reader’s soul that prepares us “musically” for the approaching end of the story. 14. That is, flawless. Kass suggests the contrary at this point (p. 37). But perhaps the assumption of a perfect God overburdens the text. What if “good” simply means (however intellectually unsatisfying it may be) pleasing to God? Perhaps the very quality that makes man “in the image of God,” and that accounts for the fact of Creation at all, is the capacity for self-dissatisfaction. Kass later glances in this direction, when he calls attention to the statement at Genesis 6:6 that God “repents” His creation of man and the other animals (p. 162). 15. The Masoretic text is a standardized version of the Hebrew Scriptures including a system of punctuation, vowel points, and cantillation marks that was developed in Palestine and Babylonia between the fifth and ninth centuries CE. IDB, v. 3, pp. 295–99. 16. Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: HarperPerennial, 1988), p. 17. 17. Midrash = a selection of legal and narrative rabbinic teachings from ca. 70–ca. 500 CE (Scherman, p. 1300; Johnson, pp. 150–51). 18. Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis: The World of the Bible in the Light of History (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), p. 12. For an account of various rabbinical, Christian theological, and literary attempts to deal with the character of Creation, see Pangle, chap. 2 (“Creation and the Meaning of Divine Omnipotence”), pp. 29–47. 19. Vilna Gaon = Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman (1720–1797) (Scherman, p. 1303). 20. The word adam itself is the generic term for human being, and, like the Greek anthropos, is not gender specific (BDBG, p. 9; cf. Gen. 5:1). 21. Kass, noting that this poem is spoken about but not directly to the woman, treats it as an expression of self-centered exuberance (pp. 102 ff.). But the point may be overstated. Eve is present when he speaks these words (Gen. 2:22); love poetry may surely employ indirect communication; and overheard statements are occasionally important in these narratives (cf. Gen. 18:9–15; 27; 42:18–26). The official 238 NOTES explanation for fashioning Eve is that “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18), which I take to mean that Man would not be happy as a solitary being. Does this observation qualify the statement in the cosmological account that Man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27)? Does it imply that this solitary Deity, who, unlike pagan gods, has no divine consort, is not happy? See Jules Gleicher, “Moses Rhetor,” Interpretation 31, no. 2 (Spring 2004), pp. 133–34. 22. For what I believe is the standard Christian answer, see Augustine, City of God, XIV. 21–23. 23. Professor Larry Arnhart observed, in a lecture he gave at Rockford College, the poetic justice of the childbirth part of Eve’s fate. What makes human childbirth especially painful is the relatively larger size of the human infant’s head, which is (metaphorically) needed to contain this additional knowledge that our animal cousins lack. 24. Judah Gribetz et al. (eds.), The Timetables of Jewish History: A Chronology of the Most Important People and Events in Jewish History (TJH) (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), pp. 24, 28, 32. 25. The New Strong’s Concise Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1985), p. 542. 26. For some thoughts on Cain as a great innovator, see Anastaplo, pp. 36–37. 27. But cf. Kass, pp. 103–104 n 7. 28. If Jabal’s identification as “the ancestor of those who dwell in tents” is comprehensive, then he is an ancestor of Noah (Gen. 9:20), and the generations of Cain and of Seth would need to have intermixed prior to the Flood. For an interesting discussion of such intermixtures, see Kass, pp. 156–158. 29. The logical link is that just as kings exercise arbitrary sexual dominion over their subjects’ daughters, so commoners will behave toward the living beings that they rule.