My OT class (priests, ritual, Moses, Earth, Torah)

[Aqualung]

This is a thread I'm going to use to post the interesting stuff I'm learning in my introduction to the OT class. I'm sticking it here because people can debate these things if they want. I'll pretty much post in order of the class, with seperate posts covering seperate topics.

[Aqualung]

The OT (the Hebrew Bible or Tanak) is quite a complex document. It is comprised of the Torah (the law), the Prophets (nevi'im), and the Writings (Ketuvim).

When looking at writings, one must understand that historical texts can either be diachronic or synchronic. Diachronic texts are what we tend to think histsorical texts should be. They are linear and they show stuff as it is in time. Synchronic shows things outside of time. It stresses things that are always true, no matter what time it is.

There are two sources for our modern day Bibles. The first is the Masoretic text (sorry about the spellings if I botch things; I'm reading from my notes, and when I take notes I don't bother to spell correctly). This was written in Hebrew. The second is the Septuegint, a Greek tranlsation made at about the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria.

Hebrew is a semitic language. The Semitic languages are related in much the same way as the romantic languages. For example, I speak spanish, and when I hear people talk in Italian I can usually figure out what their saying.

The OT is taken from 4 different textual sources. The first is called "The J source." This is the Yahwist source (called J because it was "discovered" by a German). These are the earliest writings and are dated to somwhere around 950 BCE, give or take about 50 yrs. The Yahwist uses the term Yahweh to refer to God, all the time. Yahweh is essentially God's first name. The Yahwist uses it even when referring to things that happened before the Isrealites learned that Elohim was called Yahweh. (It's like if I had a teacher who in the past I had to call Mr. Smith, and then later we became good enough friends to where I could call him John, I might still refer to him as John when I'm talking about things he did when to me he was still Mr. Smith.) The Yahwist was writing while Israel was the greatest nation on earth, and was sponsered by King Solomon.

The Elohist (E source) is the second source. This was written around 850 BCE, after the North and the South had split. He writes in distinction to the Yahwist in that he only uses Elohim when referring to God. He finds the Yahwist use of the more personal name to be innapropriate.

Then came the P source (priestly) around 550 BCE. This source was written while Israel was in exile. When Babylonia conquered Israel, they took with them the Israelite intelligentsia, like the priests. The P source is based on the JE source and on the priests own commentary. It uses Elohim before Exodus 3 (when Elohim reveals himself as Yahweh) and Yahweh after that.

The there's the D source, but I haven't learned anything about that yet.

[Aqualung]

Genesis 1 is a P source. This means it was written by the priests while in exile to the Babylonians. The Babylonians had a yearly ritual wherein the entire city would go for a 6 day festival. Everybody had to go, and nobody could work. During this festival, the Babylonians would act out their creation myth. This myth says that the earth and the heavens are two halves of a god that a different god slew, and that the men who the god then made were made to be slaves. When they acted it out, the Babylonians always made sure that the King played the God (showing him to be powerful, god-like, and war-like), and the Israelites always played the men (to show that they were just slaves). The Israelites perhaps then would go home and tell each other this creation story to booste their spirits. This P-source creation story can be seen as to contrast the Babylonian creation myth. For one, Genesis 1 shows a very calm creation. It's not violent, and everything comes into creation with just a word or two. In fact, it's so non-warlike that man can't even kill beasts for food, but instead they are to live completely on plant life. Also, it shows that man is created in God's image. They weren't created to be slaves, but rather to be God's representatives on earth. It's interesting that the P-source stresses that ALL humans are created in God's image. ONe would think that after being so mistreated by the Bablylonians, they would tell eachotehr that we're the good ones, we're the ones who should be enslaving them but instead they stress that all man was created in god's image. Another interesting point is that the earth is created in 6 days, the same length of time taht the Babylonian festivities lasted.

[Aqualung]

Genesis 2, unlike 1, was a J source, so it was written while Israel was the greatest nation on earth. As a bit of background, it's interesting to note that the Ceriphs and the Cherubs were essentially angelic body guards. They were not the sort of angels you would want to meet in a dark alley at night. The Ceriphs were snake like, although they walked upright. The "snake" who tempted Eve was actually a Ceriph, a divine being, such as perhaps Lucifer might have been.

This story is quite different than the P source. For one, it doesn't have the humans being created in God's image, but instead just has them as dirt things. God is described as a potter who takes up some dirt (adamah) and uses it to make man (adam). Then, god made a helper for him. But why? For one, adam was genderless, or rather he was both genders. He was single and unitary. So God had to split him. (this chapter is all about eliminating short cuts. It's a short cut for Adam to be unitary. It's hard work for him to have a wife.) He creates ish (man) and isha (woman). Then comes the first covenant of the Bible (covenant comes the word berith, or birtu, meaning shackles). God can't accomplish his purposes without eliminating the shortcuts and then having people overcome them through covenants. Another shortcut that is eliminated is by taking the snake and making him crawl on his belly. The man must also now sweat for his food (eliminating that short cut) and the woman must have pains in her birth.

And that was what we covered in class today.

[Jayhawker Soule]

What you are describing is Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis, popularized by Richard Elliott Friedman in Who Wrote the Bible. You should be aware that more and more people are beginning to think it somewhat overstated.

Still, you might want to invest in Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View Into the Five Books of Moses - the Torah with JEDP color-coded.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

What you are describing is Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis, popularized by Richard Elliott Friedman in Who Wrote the Bible. You should be aware that more and more people are beginning to think it somewhat overstated.

What do they think is the less overstated hypothesis? Or is it just a general feeling that it is bad, and there's a ton of theories as to why?

Originally Posted by JS

Still, you might want to invest in Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View Into the Five Books of Moses - the Torah with JEDP color-coded.

Yes, I may. That looks like a very interesting book to read. Thanks for all that interesting stuff!

[Ulver]

I'm essentially taking the same course at my University. It's very interesting to note what parts in Genesis come from the J or P source and how that relates to the subject being addressed in that particular chapter.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Ulver

I'm essentially taking the same course at my University. It's very interesting to note what parts in Genesis come from the J or P source and how that relates to the subject being addressed in that particular chapter.

Feel free to add other stuff that you learned in your class, but at least keep in chronological. Like, don't go talking about what you're learning in Isaiah before the thread gets there.

[i believe in tranquility]

hey man did you want this here:

So about God being male:
The dominant voice of God the Father comes from Jesus. So to analyze his speech we must look at his circumstances. Jesus already had a biological mother (the Virgin Mary), and Joseph is viewed as Jesus's "step" father. This leaves no other solution for Jesus to call "God" his father. But here is where I think that people have made somewhat of a mistake. Just because Jesus called God his father, does not imply that we have to, because we have bioligical mothers AND fathers. The Jews said that God is repectabely indescrible. Which makes perfect sense since God is the "unknown". So to get an understanding of God we can take a look at creation. Now make sure that you note the difference in the two DIFFERENT creation stories in Genesis. This is shown in the most common bible accross the church (New Revised standard Version)

The first:

Genesis: 1:26-27

And God said, "Let is make humankind in our image, according to ourl ikeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the world animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them...
------------------------------------------------------

First, in the hebrew language which the Old Testament was translated from, the word "man" refers to humankind. The word "he" translates into Yahweh, who was decribes by the Jews to have no sex (because of humans incapability to describe there creator).

Second, we see that God created humankind in his image. This possibley can mean that God has a human figure to him (something that I wouldnt doubt, because of it seems to be clearly stated). But the most important thing to draw from what is said here is that he created humankind in his own imageimplying that humans INCLUDE FEMALES, this means that God could possibly MALE and FEMALE or MALE nor FEMALE, i would tend to lean towards the NOR, becasue again GOD is indescrible.



The SECOND CREATION STORY: Genesis 2:15

"Another Account of the Creation:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it..."

This creation story is Known as the Adam and Eve story (COMPLETELY different from the 7 day creation story).

As most know, this creation story states that God made Adam, and through Adam God made Eve (out of man). This implies that woman should be in service of man (which alot of people, including my slef, beilve is incorrect).





MABYE WE CAN ANALYZE THIS BETTER HERE....i dont know...