So now the work begins in earnest. I wish that I could do the entire blog first and then edit and post the whole thing, because I know that as I continue my style and depth of analysis will change a bit, and I already wish it could be more uniform than I know it's going to be. But the entire work will take quite some time, and I might as well just take you on the journey in real time, more or less. So here are some notes about my writing style, biases, and my thoughts about what the content will look like in general.
When I write, I try to make the text look the way it would sound if I were talking to you. I use a lot of caps, bold, italics, ellipses and parentheses. So don't ignore them; they're my verbal inflections. I'll make liberal use of humor, moderate use of sarcasm, and language that some would consider vulgar. But those words are part of my speech and thought, so I will be dropping some four letter words from time to time. Don't expect grammatically correct proper English at any rate. I use slang when I speak, and therefore I use slang when I write.
As you already know, I think that The Bible is mythic storytelling. I do not believe that it was divinely inspired. I don't believe that there was a supernatural being in existence to inspire anything in the first place. I believe that very few of the moral prescriptions contained in The Bible are relevant to us in the 21st century. So my interpretation will reflect this viewpoint. But of course, my commentary will also necessarily consider and of course contrast my interpretation with many interpretations that believers may subscribe to. In particular, I'll make sure to comment on my beliefs before and after reading The Bible for the first time, and my beliefs now.
I will capitalize God as a proper noun when I used it as a name, but I will not capitalize his pronouns. That's just silly.
The contents will not display the full extent of my Bible scholarship. But I want people to actually read this, so I don't want to bore anyone to tears.
I'll blog reasonably sized chunks; however much I can read and comment on in the amount of time I have. I'll try to do this on days when I have a few hours to spare. I'll comment on entire books, entire chapters, individual chapters, groups of verses, individual verses, whatever I think deserves some attention. But I'll also skip chapters and verses, if there's nothing I want to comment on.
I'll refer to The New Oxford Annotated Bible as the NOAB. I will also make reference to the documentary hypothesis. I recommend reading at least the introductory section of the Wikipedia article. Although there are other theories (with a small 'T') being advanced, from what I have seen, the documentary hypothesis is best supported, and explains the most.
It would be best if my readers could follow along in their NOAB as well, but other translations will suffice. The only other translation I've read is the KJV and the NOAB is quite different. The differences aren't just to update the archaic English, but to correct errors in translation. So in many cases the meanings of verses will change significantly from the KJV. I don't have to patience to go through both translations and comment on the differences, so go out and get the NOAB! You can find it at any bookstore because it is THE academic study Bible. You'll have the added benefit of getting the read The Bible along with me, if you're never read it from cover to cover. And I would love for any believers following this blog who haven't read The Bible cover to cover to read along with me in the NOAB. Minds may be blown when we get to the New Testament.
This is definitely intended to be interactive. I want your comments, corrections, criticisms, or commendations. My writing is about what I think, but tell me what you think.
So with no further ado, here is the The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
Genesis
This is the Hebrew people's account of their own origins, based on their oral traditions. These oral traditions are, of course, much older than the texts, and if we could hear them told the way they were millennia ago, they might be indistinguishable from other oral traditions from the time period. Unfortunately, I have to start right off the bat glossing over one of my favorite areas of religious scholarship, but I'll try to mention a few interesting things before moving on. I would say that it's indisputable that the Pentateuch is a composite work. The Hebrew people were no more a unified culture at the time of the Bible's construction than they are now. Each tradition that contributed to the texts had their own cultural idiosyncrasies, their own laws, their own interpretation of their deity(-ies), and their own narrative of their history. We will notice how different traditions place emphasis on different aspects of their culture and the relationship with their god.
Their concept of God wasn't what we think of when we refer to the Hebrew god today. Just like the other peoples in Canaan, the Hebrews were polytheistic. They believed in their god, but they also believed in all the gods of all the other cultures around them. They just held that their god was the biggest, best, most powerful, and indeed the father of all the other gods. So when you read about Baal, Nergal, Ashima, Nibhaz, Tartak, and Adrammelech, realize that the Hebrews believed that these gods actually existed. But you'll notice that as we read on, the text will change from assuming that these other gods exist but are inferior to El/YWVH, to denying that they exist at all. Judaism became monotheistic. And at the time, that was just crazy talk. How dare they insist that their god was the only one that existed? It was certainly arrogant of them. And can't you just smell the origins of anti-semitism because of this arrogant belief? I doubt that the idea was invented by any one priest, but slowly evolved from the belief that their god was superior to the others. And just who is El? And who is YWVH (Yahweh)? Well they both refer to the Hebrew god in the Bible. But El was worshipped by other cultures, too. He even had a wife!
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to tease you with that discussion and move on. I highly recommend further reading on this topic. I'm gonna borrow from a video posted on Evid3nc3's YouTube channel in saying that most people from the Judeo-Christian tradition cannot even begin to understand what they mean by the term "God". His professor suggested that Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" is a good place to start.
Chapters 1 & 2
There are a few key concepts to note in the first two chapters. For one, we probably all know by now that there are two creation stories. The story in chapter 1 is more detailed and was written later than the overview contained in chapter 2. Let's notice how God creates: he speaks things into existence. God said, "let there be light; and there was light." That's how God gets down, he speaks and stuff happens. Speech and words can be sacred. This idea will be revisited. Along the same lines, so is breath. Jews have no problem with abortion because they believe that life begins when you take your first breath. God breathed the breath of life into man's nostrils.
As far as the creation story itself…well it's a myth, just like all the other creation stories of all the other religions of the world. It didn't happen in the last 10,000 years, and it certainly didn't take place in 6 days. The order is bassackwards, too. Plants created before there was a sun, birds created before other land animals, and of course humankind given godlike dominion over them. We've come to realize that apparently, God gave bacteria dominion over us.
So woman was created from the rib of man right? Well, the Hebrew word for rib actually may have been used as a euphemism for the penis bone, or baculum. It's long, it's curved…get it? The ancient Hebrews had cut up enough animals to realize that we're the only ones who don't have a penis bone (and spider monkeys). So this explains why man doesn't have one: God used it to create woman. I think that phrase is more poetic – woman was created from the penis bone of man.
Chapter 3
1
The story says that the serpent was the craftiest animal. This is written as a characteristic of the animal. There is no mention of Satan speaking through the snake. The annotations mention that it was later that people interpreted this as Satan speaking through the snake. It's all very similar to animistic religions that assign different anthropomorphic traits to animals. You know the traits – Ants are thrifty, grasshoppers are lazy, foxes are crafty, snakes are shifty, lions are noble, rabbits are quick and clever, etc. I suspect that THE most ancient supernatural beliefs were probably animistic. The point I want to make here is that the story is saying that this was a talking snake – not Satan. The snake itself is doing the deceiving. Just like all the talking animals in other folk religions, and in children's fairy tales. Christianity here is like bad fan fiction, imposing its own interpretation (whether there is room for interpretation or not) in order to form it's version of the supposed continuation of the story.
7
This is where their eyes were opened and they realized that they were naked. Genesis 2.25 mentions that when they were created, they were naked but not ashamed. It is obviously pointing this out to contrast with 3.7. So when it says that they weren't ashamed by their nudity, are we to imply that they were supposed to be? Well once they learn the difference between "good and evil," suddenly they are ashamed of their nudity. This implies that there is something to be ashamed about…that nudity is bad or inappropriate in some way. But people wouldn't think that there is anything wrong with being naked unless they were taught that as small children. There are cultures in Africa and South America where everyone is naked. They don't wear clothing as much as ornamentation. Their genitals and breasts are not covered. So these people don't know the differences between good and evil?
The annotations note that their nakedness is pointed out to illustrate their uncivilized status. "[C]lothing [is] is a mark of civilization in nonbiblical primeval narratives." So is the bible promoting their uncivilized status as preferable?... Mmm, yes and no. We'll talk about this a little more in a bit.
Does anyone have a good argument why nudity is bad or inappropriate? I can't think of a good one that doesn't somehow disparage cultures that don't wear clothes. But I can think of a good reason why most societies do wear clothes. Unlike most other primates, and most other mammals in fact, humans are mostly hairless, and we do not have large stores of fat under our skin. Look at where humans evolved, and all the naked people still live: in the tropics. It's warm and there is no winter. These people also have plenty of melanin to protect against sun damage. Everywhere outside of the tropics, you'll need to wear clothes for at least part of the year. If you doubt this, try standing naked even in a room that is a "perfect" room temperature of 72°. You'll be surprised at how well our clothes actually insulate us. Clothes are needed for warmth, not to "cover your shame."
8
"They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden."
Wait, WHUT?! Walking? God was physically walking through the garden? 0_o Was he naked? Hmmm, is he circumcised? Everything about God is perfect, right? What does the perfect penis look like? I mean he HAS to have one, right? God created man (specifically males, that is) in his own image. So he's gotta have a holy phallus, presumably uncircumcised. Does he get the Brazilian? I bet God is hairy as all get out. I mean he's a middle eastern male! You just get that old WHITE guy image out of your head right this instant. The ancient Hebrews had never encountered the peoples who would go on to be Europeans. Whatever their god was, he was NOT European. Hard to get that image out of your head, isn't it? You'll notice that the idea of who or what God is will become more and more nebulous as time passes. Because let me tell ya, back when their earliest oral traditions began, God was a dude. He had a body, he could walk around, he could be wrestled (as we'll see later). Therefore he had a face, he had hands, he had feet, he had body hair…he had a penis. But our concept of God has become so nebulous that the questions I was asking and the assertion that he must have had a penis seem absurd.
14
Snakes do not eat dust.
22 - 24
Ok, the humans fucked up and ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Now it is apparent that God actually fears humans becoming immortal by eating fruit from another magical tree: the Tree of Life. Bet you didn't realize there were two different trees, did you? I know I didn't until the second time I read The Bible. So he banishes him from the garden, and puts one of those freaky cherubim and a flaming sword to keep them out for good. OK…why the hell did you MAKE the tree to begin with? Seriously. We're gonna call this "The Sauron Blunder." And he's actually concerned that the people will eat it and become immortal. Couldn't he just…oh I don't know, make the fruit completely innocuous with a snap of his finger? I mean he completely set them up to fail by LETTING them eat from the first no-no tree. That's stupid enough. But there's another no-no tree (the Tree of Life) that he absolutely can't let them eat from. So rather than make the tree disappear or something, he puts up a defense system involving a hideous monst- I mean angel, and a flaming sword. And of course, the story couldn't possibly allow for them to eat from that tree, because people don't live forever. So as you have guessed, this is the Hebrew people's explanation for why people don't live forever. And now that they've pissed God off by eating from the first no-no tree, they are forever denied access to immortality. I mean…it was RIGHT THERE. Not that we were allowed to eat from it ANYWAY, but now we REALLY can't eat from it. So much for "free will" huh? Apologists argue that God wanted them to have free will and that's why he allowed the incident with the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil to go down. Apparently he can't take the chance that we could become immortal (for SOME unknown reason…as you'll see, God apparently feels that he doesn't owe his sentient, intelligent, curious beings explanations for anything)!
I won't get into the free will argument right now. It's not hard to show it for the nonsense that it is, but I want to continue for now.
Of course, I know that none of this weirdness actually happened. This is the Hebrews' explanation for the human condition. It answers a few questions I posed earlier. Yes, The Bible does imply that civilized man is bad. This entire story is about man's evolution from uncivilized to civilized. Their contention is that becoming civilized necessarily involves severing the connections established earlier in the story between God, Man, and Earth. Everything was hunky-dory at first, but humankind's own nature is the reason why life is so hard. Hey, they had to come up with SOME kind of explanation for why life sucks so hard. Because trust me, we
can't fathom how shitty life was for the average person living in the ancient world. You're born, you work your ass off just to be barely able to feed yourself and your family, then you die…and return to dust. Note that it says nothing about an afterlife. It says you return to dust. The ridiculousness of heaven and the offensiveness of hell are invented later. But remember that theme when you read the origin myths of other cultures. They all attempt to explain why life sucks BALLS. Here is the Hebrew myth explaining that.
Chapter 4
1-16
And here we have the story of Cain and Abel. Even as a kid I was completely confused by why God liked Abel's offering of the firstlings of his flock, but did not like Cain's offering of fruits and vegetables. Why would he play favorites like that? Can't you imply from the text that before "the fall" Man and Eve only ate fruit? (Adam is apparently the Hebrew word for "man"… he is actually not explicitly named by God!) I have occasionally heard Christian apologists argue that predation didn't happen until after "the fall". So doesn't that mean that when everything was perfect, nobody ate meat? Doesn't that mean that carnivory is a corruption of how God intended for things to be in the first place? Shouldn't he like the fruit more than the meat? Why doesn't it explain why God likes Abel's offering better?
Yeah, apologists can throw out the silly 'free will' argument for the Garden of Eden debacle, but what's the argument for why God screwed Cain over? He set him up to fail so that he could make an example of him? Umm, yeah…in a nutshell, that's the explanation. I've read a few, and they make my head hurt. The intellectual flaming hoops that people will jump through to make excuses for God's capricious, malicious behavior leave me awestruck. Would you set up one of YOUR children to fail so that you can could then punish them severely to serve as an example to your other children?
But this isn't nearly the worst of God's behavior. Cain did kinda screw himself up with the obviously premeditated murder and all. But I'm not happy with God's unexplained divine preference, and his allowing Abel to be killed. He could have stayed Cain's hand and then punished him for wanting to kill Abel. But no.
Who mourns for Abel?
19
"…Lamech took two wives…"
Polygamy. Apparently OK here. God did not voice his disapproval at all. Why aren't Jews and Christians polygamous? Maybe somewhere later God will denounce polygamy…I guess we shall see.
Chapter 5
This is a second recounting of the first generations from creation to flood. This is from the Priestly source, which I may refer to as 'P'. This is the tradition that the first creation account (1.1—2.3) is drawn from.
Here is where we have that list of people before the flood who lived to be like 900 years old and what not. When I first read this when I was 12, I just believed it. I remember thinking, "Wow, people sure did live a long time back then!" Didn't question it at all. Why would I? It's right there in The Bible! I look at it now and I'm aware that this is mythic storytelling. There are Babylonian writings that have similar lists of heroes before the flood who lived to be similar ages. It's enlightening that the NOAB annotations point out the parallels with myths in other cultures.
Chapter 6
1-4
Ok this is just some freaky-deaky stuff right here. The "sons of God" started checkin' out some of that hot human ass, and decided they wanted some. The knocked up some of the women and apparently gave birth to some ancient, unnamed "warriors of renown". These unholy divine-human unions also produced a race of giants called the Nephilim. That's right…motherfucking giants. Somebody needs to write some fan fiction about this! This would have been a really cool part for them to go into detail about! Seriously! A good fiction writer could have a field day with this period of time! Well, the question is, how do we know that there wasn't more of an account of this weird interspecies shagging? At any rate, divine-human copulation is found in almost every mythology. I just think it would have been more interesting if they delved into it more in Hebrew mythology.
[Update: After this writing I learned that the "Book of Enoch" IS about this weird shit that Genesis glossed over. Talks about all the weirdness that ensued when these angels came down and started screwin' around. I may have to blog it someday!]
5
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." Well, The Bible's right about that
6
"And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."
Wait, what? Sorry? Grieved? Heart?? He's definitely feeling some very human emotions here, the most problematic of which is 'regret'. Let's hope he doesn't feel some of the BAD human emotions…he doesn't, right?
So about that regret. Ummm, how can an all-knowing being regret something? How can he be sorry that we ended up the way we ended up when it was he who created us the way we are. Even if you wanna jump back on the 'free will' argument, which I'm not going to be able to ignore for very much longer, he still created us with the tendencies to act however it is we act. And what about the whole omniscience angle? Ask any modern adherent to any of the Abrahamic religions and their definition of God will include omniscience. I'm gonna call bullshit at this point. If God regrets doing something he is NOT omniscient. Will The Bible later claim that he is omniscient? Because so far, he is not.
7
I'm sorry I made you…please die now.
8
"But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord."
Which is absolutely inexplicable, in light of subsequent events.
So that's all for now. We'll pick up right where God explains his plan to murder everything alive, and what Noah's role in this plan will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment