Be sure to pick it up at SBL!

 

The original of this work can be found here. More can be found at 20 Calvin and Hobbes Mashups | ForeverGeek.

 

Gen. 2.18   Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air.

This is a part of my slowly developing series on Genesis. I am skipping, for the moment, God’s command to the Man that he not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil since I will address that when the serpent addresses the Woman.

It is always amazing to me how my students and even parishioners, many of whom think they know this story intimately, have never noticed that God, realizing the Man needs a helper, begins with animals and not with the woman. It doesn’t take long, however, to see why the story moves in the manner that it does. It is not, as I cheekily imply in my sub-title, that God does not realize what the Man’s needs are. Rather it is the Man who does not yet understand his needs.

Non Sequitur by Wiley

The process of learning is one that is best done experientially. There are some, and I am not one of them, who can hear some fact or be told a truth and they immediately internalize and comprehend it. Most of us not only benefit from being told something but also require the experience of it ourselves. For example, you could describe in great detail would be like to parachute out of a plane but until I do it for myself I won’t truly know what that experience is. Or, more relevant to this discussion, and all too true in my own life, you could tell me how beneficial exercise is and how much better I will feel having exercised on a regular basis but until I have tried it myself (and let’s face it, for the day or so after I first begin taking such advice) I won’t really know the truth of such assertions.

So the Man does not yet realize what he is missing by not having a helpmate. By going through the process of becoming familiar with the animals  the man begins to understand for himself exactly what a true partner or helper should be like. Each of the animals has its own role and can be a comforter or a helper and even a companion to a certain extent for the men. Yet none are his equal.

The rabbinic commentaries noted this as well. The midrash on this passage found in Ber. Rabbah 17:4 describes the Man’s growing awareness.

Then he paraded them again before him  {Gen. 135}  in pairs, [male and female]. Said he, ‘Every one has a partner, yet I have none’: thus, BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND A HELP MEET FOR HIM! And why did He not create her for him at the beginning? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that he would bring charges against her, therefore He did not create her until he expressly demanded her. But as soon as he did so, forthwith THE LORD GOD CAUSED A DEEP SLEEP TO FALL UPON THE MAN, AND HE SLEPT (II, 21)

But I would also suggest that it’s not that the Man is getting to know the animals so well that he can recognize that they are not a fit for him. Rather I think that the Man is going to know himself. When I met the woman who would become my wife she and I had both recently been engaged other people. It took us a short few months to realize that we love one another and want to get married to each other. I used to think that the reason for this was because each of us through our period of dating and engagement have gotten to know other people well enough to begin to know what to look for in a spouse. Creating, if you will, a checklist by which one could “shop” for a partner. But, and I have to say I came to this realization through conversation with my wife, it was not that I got to know women better rather than the process of considering whether or not I wanted to marry this woman (not the woman who did become my wife) I was in fact getting to know myself better. Then when I did meet a woman who would become my wife I was ready for her and she was ready for me. We both agree that if we had met even two years earlier than we did it is highly unlikely that we would have even consider dating one another let alone get engaged within six months of meeting each other.

The way Genesis 2 presents the story and the way in which God allows Adam to learn for himself is precisely why I love the Hebrew narrative so much. In fact, I suppose we could say that Genesis itself operates much the way in which God brought the animals before Adam. We are not told ahead of time whether or not a patriarch or matriarch is making the right decision or is in keeping with God’s will for them rather we have to experience the story and their lives as they unfold in the narrative. It is only upon reflection that we can really understand what the text is telling us. Consider whether or not Rebekah was right to conspire with her youngest son against the elder and her husband. The biblical text never tells us whether or not that was the right or wrong thing for her to do. I think, however, that upon reflection we might well come to the conclusion that it was not the proper choice, even though we know that it was indeed Jacob whom God had chosen.

To put it another way, Genesis must be experienced.

 

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?

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

Then we [two men having just met] had talked for about an hour about politics and God; for men always talk about the most important things to total strangers. It is because in the total stranger we perceive man himself; the image of God is not disguised by resemblances to an uncle or doubts of the wisdom of a moustache.

Given the recent discussions about the image of God lately, it struck me. I like the way that Chesterton equates “man himself” with “the image of God.” I also like notion that we can be distracted from seeing God in others by their moustaches or other such appearance.

 

Gen. 2.4   These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up…

In keeping with the tone already set with this series, I will not delve too deeply into the text critical issues here. Suffice it to say that there is debate as to whether Gen. 2:4a is the end of the first narrative of the beginning of the second. In practice it makes little difference. (I would look at it from the other direction. The second story more likely begins with Gen. 2.4b ‏בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם. Also, while the use of “toledot” ‏תוֹלְדוֹת is clearly important for understanding the structure of Genesis a lengthy discussion here is not necessary for comprehension of the passage.)

Gen. 2-3 clearly represents a different perspective on how this world began. It is so clearly evident that it did not require post-Enlightenment scholars antagonistic to religion to notice the fact, rather ancient and medieval commentators regularly noted and drew meaning from these contrasting accounts.

Bloom County by Berkeley Breathed

Meaning

As usual the question is how do we read the text and that, in turn, is driven by why we are reading the texts. If we are reading the text for the purpose of lower criticism then we will focus upon the differences in language and style. If we are reading the text to glean meaning from it, either for understanding what its meaning might have been for the ancient audience or for ourselves today, then the differences in the text are important but in a very different way. I will focus upon the latter type of reading.

When critical essays are written on this matter what is often overlooked is that the ancient redactor(s) were not stupid people. They would have recognized the differences between these two accounts. If they had been concerned with harmonizing them they would have done so. Instead we have two accounts, side by side, that present the same event (more or less) but with different views. Attempting to harmonize them, however, also desaturates the narratives and removes the value of each in the same way as attempting to read Gen. 1 as a scientific account. By contrasting and comparing the two we find not evidence of sloppiness rather certain core messages that are shared. That, however, will be for another post. Today, and for the next several posts, I want to focus upon Genesis 2-3 as it stands on its own.

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. Gen. 2:7

Of course as soon as we turn to the text it is awfully difficult not to compare the description of God that we have here with that in Gen. 1. Here we find that it is ‏יהוה אלהים who is the creator. The creation of the environment is dealt with in a single introductory phrase “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” How God made “the earth and the heavens” is not considered and the focus of the narrative moves almost immediately to the creation of the Man. There is, however, no doubt that the author understands God as the sole agent. It is the LORD God who makes and who causes it to rain.

So the image is of a fully formed domain but with no vegetation, it is a muddy place watered by irrigation. Into that morass God stoops and “forms” the man. Many rightly note that the term ‏יצר means “to form or fashion” and is used to describe the act of a potter. The image is clear, God has literally gotten his hands dirty as he creates the Man. It is out of the “dust of the earth” ‏עפר מן האדמה that he creates the Man and even the term “Man” ‏האדם reflects his origins. (Many have suggested the translation “Earthling” to capture this within the English language. I can’t help but think of poor B SciFi movies when I hear the term so I shall forgo its use. But it conveys the idea.) The foundations of humanity of basic and organic. Created first but out of nothing more elegant than mud.

But then God breathed into his nostrils….

 

bibliobloggers on Robert Crumb: few mentions of his sexism and racism

Bibliobloggers are talking up a storm about Robert Crumb’s comic book of Genesis.  But none of them has mentioned Crumb’s sexism or his rape portrayal or his antisemitism or his other racism.

Given my ignorance admitted above and the fact that I only just received the book today I had no reason to comment upon any of the various -isms listed by Gayle. As I read the book now, or more accurately view the images, I will take these things into consideration. It of course brings up the age old questions of authorial/artist intent and how much we should allow our (pre)conceptions of the author/artist influence our reading of their work.

So, until I have a chance to really study Crumb’s Book of Genesis, my verdict will just have to wait.

 

Genesis – Sexy, violent, and groovy.

Yup, that about sums it up. That describes not just the Book of Genesis but R. Crumb’s new graphic reading of Genesis that is due out today. This news has hit the biblioblogosphere with a vengeance, as we might imagine, with many rather predictable responses. Rev. J. W. Curmudgeon says that it is “simply appalling.”

The most offensive bit?  The portrayal of God as some sort of weird hippy long-haired freakazoid.

Well, how would you depict God visually? You probably wouldn’t but I think the endeavor is laudable even if I may not like Crumb’s version. I might like it, I don’t know since I do not have a copy yet (ordering it this morning). I can say that it has this major fact going in its favor: He has used the entire text of Genesis and offers no verbal commentary or interpretation (the translation is Robert Alter’s according to J. Hobbins, which is not a bad translation by any means).¹

Crumb’s illustrated version carries a warning, “Adult Supervision recommended for Minors.” I tend to think that all versions of the Bible should carry such a warning. NPR quotes Crumb as saying,

“[It's about] ruling elites, victimizing people in sadistic ways, which is human beings at their nastiest. They have power over others, and they derive pleasure from inflecting pain on other humans. That’s about as nasty as people get,” he said.

Nothing to disagree with in that statement. Far from believing that those who might read a comic form of the Bible should just “leave it alone” artistic representation of the Bible is a difficult and sometimes rewarding endeavor. This is true whether it is in music (Handel’s Messiah seems a popular musical offering, doesn’t it?) or art (let’s just point to the Louvre). As I said, the fact that Crumb did not alter the text will make this particularly interesting. If you are familiar with Crumb’s art then you knew that the women will be busty and the men hair hippies, but that is as much a reflection of our cultural interpretation as the Pieta is of its own time.

So I am withholding judgment but looking forward to getting a copy of this. Who knows, maybe we could even use it for our summer book reading project for the honors college.

Other links:

• Norton Publishing’s official page for “The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb.”
• The New Yorker article with images of Gen. 1-3 posted in “The Depository.“
• Official New Yorker link, if you have a subscription, a free New Yorker blog entry on the subject.
• Boing Boing’s coverage.
• The New Republic’s review by none other than Robert Alter. “The translation that appears in the completed book is for the most part mine, as Crumb duly notes at the beginning of his brief introduction. From time to time, though, he introduces a word or phrase from the King James Version or from another translation, and he also sometimes tinkers–always a little disconcerting to a translator–with my version.”
• Forward.com’s review

 

1. Update: According to Norton’s site the text is an eclectic one. That will make it all the more interesting to see what he has done. “Originally thinking that we would do a take off of Adam and Eve, Crumb became so fascinated by the Bible’s language, ‘a text so great and so strange that it lends itself readily to graphic depictions,’ that he decided instead to do a literal interpretation using the text word for word in a version primarily assembled from the translations of Robert Alter and the King James bible.”

   Update 2: From Alter’s review, see links, “The translation that appears in the completed book is for the most part mine, as Crumb duly notes at the beginning of his brief introduction. From time to time, though, he introduces a word or phrase from the King James Version or from another translation, and he also sometimes tinkers–always a little disconcerting to a translator–with my version.”

Well worth the 20 minutes or so. Direct link to the MP3 file.