biblical matters
Spent all of yesterday at the Festival of Ideas, with a break halfway through to view a beautiful exhibition, Belonging, (can’t recall the name of the artist), in a building within the grounds of the botanical gardens near the tropical house.
In the Festival tent I bought a book, Testament, which had nothing to do with the forums I attended (Ross Adler, Julian Disney, Kathy Laster and Deirdre Macken on philanthropy; John Murray on epidemiology, Africa and fiction writing; John Quiggin, Deirdre Macken, Peter Botsman and Feisel Abdul Rauf on affluenza). It’s a condensed version, apparently, of the Revised English Bible, a highly regarded version first published in 1989.
As a proselytising atheist I’ve always been more at odds with Christianity than with other religions, purely because of the weight of its presence in my culture.
I’ve always felt, though, that I needed to have some understanding of the basic texts of Judeo-Christianity, to argue any case more thoroughly. Of course I’ve also been reluctant – why waste my time reading this text when I might get so much more, say, out of David Chalmers’ The Conscious Mind, or the brain books of Susan Greenfield, or any number of texts, political or scientific or historical or fictional? I can’t answer that except to say that I’m drawn to it at the moment, and who knows if it’s only a whim?
Now I’ve just read the first chapter of Testament, ‘Creation and Fall’, which includes the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the flood, and the tower of Babel, and already I’ve struck trouble aplenty. Some of it is old stuff to me, eg what was the point of putting a mark on Cain, ‘so that anyone happening to meet him should not kill him’, when the only other humans on Earth were his mum and dad? (To which there appears to be an answer – Adam and Eve soon had another son, Seth, to replace Abel, and he in turn, somehow, had a son Enosh. Possibly daughters weren’t worth the mention. Anyway, Adam lived 930 years altogether and had other kids [Genesis 5:4-5]).
More interesting for me are these lines:
Leaving aside the small issue of eternal life here, why does God say ‘one of us’? This use of the plural is also to be found in Sarah’s NIV (New International Version, first published in the seventies), which includes copious study notes, but no mention is made of this intriguing hint of polytheism, surprise surprise.
The King James version (Genesis 3:22) also employs this plural. Some scholars neatly suggest that the Trinity is being referred to. Others whip up a host of angels.
There’s another, more powerful hint of polytheism, though, at the beginning of the Noah story, in Testament (and presumably also in the Revised English Bible (REB):
Now, this use of the plural, gods, may not be so easily explained away as the trinity etc. And of course there’s also the question of who might be referred to as their sons. The NIV (Genesis 6:2) simply uses ‘sons of God’, as does the KJV. Of course there’s plenty of exegesis of Genesis 6:2-4 to be found, and it gets weirder – in Testament it continues thus:
The term ‘Nephilim’ is apparently translated as ‘giants’ in KJV. But note the second plural in Testament. Again the singular is used in KJV and NIV.
The godbotherers clearly find this passage as perplexing as I do. To take a typical comment from one of their sites:
I’m more interested though in the use of the plural here. Unfortunately even the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (SAB) doesn’t mention the possibility of a plural here, though of course it makes hay over the contradictions about the one and the many sons. The New American Bible (NAB) writes ‘the sons of heaven, with the footnote – ‘literally the sons of the gods or the sons of God, i.e. the celestial beings of mythology’.
Some light is shed here by a Biblical scholar, Trevor Major, who has this footnote:
Major has in fact written a whole thesis on this passage of genesis, but from the perspective of a confirmed godbotherer out to refute those nasty liberal scholars who’re trying to undermine the Truth of the Good Book by claiming pagan and other influences and intrusions. He charmingly points out that ‘It would not occur to these writers that perhaps the Bible’s rendering is based on the original event and is accurate because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit’. He sure does have a point there! And of course he’s only complaining about liberal believers, not out and out secularists like me.
In the Festival tent I bought a book, Testament, which had nothing to do with the forums I attended (Ross Adler, Julian Disney, Kathy Laster and Deirdre Macken on philanthropy; John Murray on epidemiology, Africa and fiction writing; John Quiggin, Deirdre Macken, Peter Botsman and Feisel Abdul Rauf on affluenza). It’s a condensed version, apparently, of the Revised English Bible, a highly regarded version first published in 1989.
As a proselytising atheist I’ve always been more at odds with Christianity than with other religions, purely because of the weight of its presence in my culture.
I’ve always felt, though, that I needed to have some understanding of the basic texts of Judeo-Christianity, to argue any case more thoroughly. Of course I’ve also been reluctant – why waste my time reading this text when I might get so much more, say, out of David Chalmers’ The Conscious Mind, or the brain books of Susan Greenfield, or any number of texts, political or scientific or historical or fictional? I can’t answer that except to say that I’m drawn to it at the moment, and who knows if it’s only a whim?
Now I’ve just read the first chapter of Testament, ‘Creation and Fall’, which includes the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the flood, and the tower of Babel, and already I’ve struck trouble aplenty. Some of it is old stuff to me, eg what was the point of putting a mark on Cain, ‘so that anyone happening to meet him should not kill him’, when the only other humans on Earth were his mum and dad? (To which there appears to be an answer – Adam and Eve soon had another son, Seth, to replace Abel, and he in turn, somehow, had a son Enosh. Possibly daughters weren’t worth the mention. Anyway, Adam lived 930 years altogether and had other kids [Genesis 5:4-5]).
More interesting for me are these lines:
The Lord God made coverings from skins for the man and his wife and clothed them. But he said, ‘The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; what if he now reaches out takes fruit from the tree of life also, and eats it and lives forever?’
Leaving aside the small issue of eternal life here, why does God say ‘one of us’? This use of the plural is also to be found in Sarah’s NIV (New International Version, first published in the seventies), which includes copious study notes, but no mention is made of this intriguing hint of polytheism, surprise surprise.
The King James version (Genesis 3:22) also employs this plural. Some scholars neatly suggest that the Trinity is being referred to. Others whip up a host of angels.
There’s another, more powerful hint of polytheism, though, at the beginning of the Noah story, in Testament (and presumably also in the Revised English Bible (REB):
The human race began to increase and to spread over the earth and daughters were born to them. the sons of the gods saw how beautiful these daughters were, so they took for themselves such women as they chose.
Now, this use of the plural, gods, may not be so easily explained away as the trinity etc. And of course there’s also the question of who might be referred to as their sons. The NIV (Genesis 6:2) simply uses ‘sons of God’, as does the KJV. Of course there’s plenty of exegesis of Genesis 6:2-4 to be found, and it gets weirder – in Testament it continues thus:
But the lord said, my spirit will not remain in a human being for ever; because he is mortal flesh, he will live only for a hundred and twenty years.’ In those days as well as later, when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of mortals and children were born to them, the Nephilim were on the earth; they were the heroes of old, people of renown.
The term ‘Nephilim’ is apparently translated as ‘giants’ in KJV. But note the second plural in Testament. Again the singular is used in KJV and NIV.
The godbotherers clearly find this passage as perplexing as I do. To take a typical comment from one of their sites:
Many have been confused about the identity of these "sons of God". This section of Scripture has puzzled and perplexed a great number of scholars and Bible students for centuries. Some immediately assume the "sons of God" must be fallen angels, but we have already discovered that the Bible teaches that this can't be talking about angels since they don't even have sex with each other, which means that they certainly don't have sexual intercourse with human beings either! It is true that the book of Job uses the phrase "sons of God" in connection with angels, but that is the only book in the whole Bible where this can be found. It's dangerous to build a belief on just one portion of the Bible; You need to compare Scripture with Scripture in order to get the whole meaning and idea of a certain teaching or principle.
I’m more interested though in the use of the plural here. Unfortunately even the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (SAB) doesn’t mention the possibility of a plural here, though of course it makes hay over the contradictions about the one and the many sons. The New American Bible (NAB) writes ‘the sons of heaven, with the footnote – ‘literally the sons of the gods or the sons of God, i.e. the celestial beings of mythology’.
Some light is shed here by a Biblical scholar, Trevor Major, who has this footnote:
The expression “sons of God” is taken from bene-ha’elohim, while “daughters of men” is derived from benoth ha’adham. While few would argue with the common rendering of the latter phrase, some would say that the former should read “sons of the gods” or “lesser gods.” Although a reference to a plurality of gods or god-like characters may be inferred, the word ‘elohim in the Old Testament most often refers to the One God of the Israelites, and hence the former usage cannot be used to affirm the pagan definition as the only option.
Major has in fact written a whole thesis on this passage of genesis, but from the perspective of a confirmed godbotherer out to refute those nasty liberal scholars who’re trying to undermine the Truth of the Good Book by claiming pagan and other influences and intrusions. He charmingly points out that ‘It would not occur to these writers that perhaps the Bible’s rendering is based on the original event and is accurate because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit’. He sure does have a point there! And of course he’s only complaining about liberal believers, not out and out secularists like me.
posted by Stewart at 5:55 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home