Targuman Rotating Header Image

November, 2009:

Genesis 2 – The Nature of Man

Gen. 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. … 15   The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

Finally continuing on with my occasional series on Genesis I want to avoid working on my SBL paper consider the nature of the Man created. As I mentioned last time, humanity’s origins are basic and organic, we are from the dust of the earth, even if as individuals we are not the salt of the earth. We are not only creatures that God has made, but we are of the same substance as the rest of creation. The plants created in verse 9 come from the earth ‏מִן־הָאֲדָמָה and the animals created in verse 19 are even “formed” from the earth, as was the Man. Yet from the beginning the Man was set apart from the rest of the animals since he contained the very breath of God.

God breathed into the Man life. ‏וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃ ” He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Man alone of all the creatures made possesses the breath of God and it is this that gives Man life. Humanity alone possesses this unique trait. But what does that mean? Without a detailed discussion of ancient conceptions, it is sufficient to observe that breath is what provides life and is often equated with the very substance of sentience (however it might be conceived).1

While “breath” is often equated with “spirit” in discussing Genesis, it is important to actually read the text. Whereas Gen. 1:2 describes the wind/breath/spirit of God ‏וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים hovering over the deep, in this passage it is not רוח but נשמה. So רוח may be appropriately (depending upon context) translated with either of those terms, נשמה is always “breath.” That breath, however, is what animates and gives life to creatures (see HALOT) and the Man received this breath directly from God.

Of course as I write this I feel the need to hedge my comments even further by noting (to myself if no one else) that it is נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים and not, for example, נִשְׁמַת יהוה. This is “the breath of life” so perhaps I should not have said “the very breath of God.” That having been said, I think the act of God himself breathing thus into the nostrils of the Man is unique and distinct. It shows it is not only humanity’s life that comes from God, but our very essence.

So in Gen. 2 we do not find, as we did in Gen. 1, any suggestion that we are in “the image of God” or statements about our dominion over all creation. Instead the Man is a creature created in almost exactly the same fashion as the rest of creation. Almost. All other created things were made after and for the Man and were not given נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים.

The Man was created with an explicit purpose, or at least immediately given a job. “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.” As I once heard Tony Blair say in justifying government sponsored work programs, humanity was made to do work. The Man’s primary tasks at creation was to maintain and protect the Garden that God had created for him.

Next time I will begin to consider the nature of that work. Teaser: Did you ever consider why this perfect garden needed to be tilled?

life before eve

non Sequitor by Wiley

non sequitur by Wiley

 
  1. But I would be remiss if I did not point out that the biblical curmudgeon Koheleth says, “For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity.” Eccl. 3.19 []

(re)Settled in NOLA (and pictures from Katrina)

If you follow my twitter feed (and no reason you should, do you really want to know what I ate last night?) you would know that after some flight delays I landed in NOLA yesterday afternoon. Depending upon how long you have read this blog you may not know that I spend my first 9 years of employed life as a professor at Tulane University.

Yesterday I spent some time getting settled and then went out to get a wonderful meal with one of our grad students from Penn State.  (Dante’s Kitchen is a great restaurant, reasonably priced and well worth a cab ride: http://danteskitchen.com/) We then walked around Tulane’s campus which is just a beautiful as ever. Today I will visit with some old friends and then the real SBL fun begins tomorrow morning. If the sessions I attend are very good the chances of tweets and posts will decline (I will be too engaged!) but if not…well, I might become the most prolific blogger in the Crescent City.

Entrance

Entrance to our neighborhood following Katrina. Our neighbors were very proactive.

My paper will be on Monday in the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah joint session with Exile (Forced Migrations) in Biblical Literature 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Room: Studio 2 – M. I will be speaking about the use of Law in Ezra-Nehemiah to foster the recovery and restoration of Jerusalem (and Judaism) in comparison with the slow recovery of New Orleans and how modern clergy used Scripture to help their communities cope with loss and move forward.

Until then, if you are interested, some of my pictures from pre-post Katrina are here and from the first Mardi Gras post Hurricane Katrina are here and here.

 

SBL Section Title

Now that I am ensconced in my hotel room I have some time to glance through the conference program. So far one section title stood out enough to merit a comment (leaving aside the plethora of gratuitous use of “liminal”):

21-127 “Recovering Female Interpreters of the Bible”  - So these are women biblical scholars who are finding their way out of the addiction that is interpretation? (Reminded me of the cute/trite phrase I often here in Episcopal churches, “I am a recovering Catholic.”)

 

Relics in space

[Still procrastinating...]

I was drawn to this Wired article by the title, Russian Cosmonaut’s Blog Much Funnier Than NASA. But it was the flying cross that caught my attention. Cool, eh?

The blog, as translated by Russia Today, includes pictures from the ISS — and covers a much different array of topics than you usually see in NASA press releases or Twitter feeds. A recent post detailed the “holy symbols” in the Russian area of the station, illustrated by photos of icons and crucifixes floating in zero gravity.

holy-icons“We have four holy icons on the Russia segment. We also have the gospels and a big cross,” wrote Maksim Suraev. “And I have a reliquary cross in my cabin. A priest gave it to me at Baikanur before the launch. Father Job told me a piece of the original cross on which Jesus was crucified is contained in mine.”

You can see another picture of the cross and the cosmonaut’s blog at Russia Today.

 

The Questionnaire

Don’t ask me how I got to this (since I will tell you: from reading this comic) but I thought this was interesting. Turns out James Lipton of Inside the Actors Studio asks this series of questions. From Wiki:

While most of the show is a one-on-one interview conducted by Lipton, this is followed by the host submitting a questionnaire to the guest. The questionnaire concept was originated by French television personality Bernard Pivot, after the Proust Questionnaire. The ten questions Lipton asks are:

  1. What is your favorite word?
  2. What is your least favorite word?
  3. What turns you on?
  4. What turns you off?
  5. What sound or noise do you love?
  6. What sound or noise do you hate?
  7. What is your favorite curse word?
  8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
  9. What profession would you not like to do?
  10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

By the way, do you see how honest I am? I could have simply gone to the Proust Questionnaire and made you all think, “Wow, he is smart!” But the fact is I t’ain’t. Remember, I stumbled on this from a comic. Still, I think it is an interesting list, don’t you?

So I will give it a try. I am not going to tag anyone with this, but all are free to pick it up while they are procrastinating on their SBL paper, studying for midterms, or grading papers.

  1. Mollycoddle
  2. “you?” Because it is usually preceded by “You wouldn’t mind, would you?”
  3. My wife
  4. Meetings
  5. Solo electric guitar, old school rock or jazz type.
  6. Alarms
  7. Frass, as in “rassanfrassin”
  8. Mystery writer
  9. Henchman
  10. “Well done good and faithful servant.” Cliché? Perhaps, but that is all I desire.