Wherein Joseph's family takes residence in Goshen, the famine worsens, and Israel prepares to die
After meeting with several members of Jacob's family, Pharoah allows them to move to Goshen. It is the best land in Egypt and they prosper and multiply.
The rest of Egypt is not as fortunate, however. The famine that has been devastating the land for years gets even worse. Each time the people come to Joseph for help, they have less and less to offer in exchange for food. Eventually Joseph has to take possession of their land, and everybody (besides priests) become servants of Pharaoh.
Years pass, and Israel reaches the point where he knows he will soon die. He tells Joseph that he does not want to be buried in Egypt, but instead in the burial place of his fathers.
---
The Lost finale was a few weeks ago, and I, like many of the show's fans, was disappointed. There are a couple reasons for this, but my number one complaint is that the show didn't wrap up enough of its mysteries. What was the point of the Dharma Initiative? What did Walt have to do with anything? What was up with that bird that screamed Hurley's name in that one episode? The list goes on and on.
I guess as I get closer to the end of Genesis, I'm kind of feeling the same way about this book. I want everything that I've read to have mattered in some way. To add up to some greater, important message.
To a large degree, I feel like most of the stories in Genesis have accomplished this. You can draw a clear line all the way from Adam to Joseph and see how we have come to where Genesis has brought us. And themes of faith, family turmoil, searching, and transiency have been explored throughout.
But there certainly have been detours and dead ends as well. Did we really need three wife-sister narratives? What was up with Abraham and Abimelech arguing over that well? Was it that necessary that we know Eber lived thirty-four years and begot Peleg? I'm also starting to wonder if all this famine business is going to add up to anything.
It's probably fruitless to hope that everything in the Bible matters in equal measure. Sometimes it's going to revelatory and mind-expanding, but other times it's going to be boring and extraneous. And I think when you're reading a book of the Bible you hope to reach the final page and have this big "Aha!" moment where everything ties together in a nice tidy bow. But I suspect that I'm just going to end up finding out that the sideways universe was purgatory (so to speak).
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Genesis 46, or, "Who's Joe Daddy"
Wherein Jacob is reunited with Joseph
Jacob has a dream where God tells him to take all of his family to go meet Joseph in Egypt, where a great nation will be made for them.
Jacob complies and gathers his vast family (70 in all, and the Bible lists the name of each and every one of them), and they head to Egypt. When they arrive, there is a joyous reunion between Joseph and Jacob. Joseph tells his family that he will try to get the Pharaoh to allow them to settle in the land of Goshen.
---
I have to remind myself that the Bible isn't just a book of stories. It's a catalog, a reference book, a written record of things which were important to ancient Hebrews.
That's why sometimes it's about as interesting to read as a phone book. Here in Genesis 46, we get another long genealogical list of names. I suppose if you were the one writing Genesis, you'd probably want to write everything down, including all the names of people in important families. But for us modern readers, it is hard to see the possible value in knowing that Eri was a son of Gad. Or the exact names of Baeriah's two sons (Heber and Malchiel). As I'm writing this though, I do find it interesting (although not in the way the Bible intended, I'm guessing) that this chapter only bothers to list the names of Jacob's male descendants.
Also in this chapter is another weird factoid about the ancient world. Here, Joseph tells us that "all shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians." Why?
This was the best answer I could find, courtesy of the blog of Marlin and Sally Vis:
Jacob has a dream where God tells him to take all of his family to go meet Joseph in Egypt, where a great nation will be made for them.
Jacob complies and gathers his vast family (70 in all, and the Bible lists the name of each and every one of them), and they head to Egypt. When they arrive, there is a joyous reunion between Joseph and Jacob. Joseph tells his family that he will try to get the Pharaoh to allow them to settle in the land of Goshen.
---
I have to remind myself that the Bible isn't just a book of stories. It's a catalog, a reference book, a written record of things which were important to ancient Hebrews.
That's why sometimes it's about as interesting to read as a phone book. Here in Genesis 46, we get another long genealogical list of names. I suppose if you were the one writing Genesis, you'd probably want to write everything down, including all the names of people in important families. But for us modern readers, it is hard to see the possible value in knowing that Eri was a son of Gad. Or the exact names of Baeriah's two sons (Heber and Malchiel). As I'm writing this though, I do find it interesting (although not in the way the Bible intended, I'm guessing) that this chapter only bothers to list the names of Jacob's male descendants.
Also in this chapter is another weird factoid about the ancient world. Here, Joseph tells us that "all shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians." Why?
This was the best answer I could find, courtesy of the blog of Marlin and Sally Vis:
The herdsman’s herd was a threat to a plowman’s field of barley or wheat. Because there was no room for the herdsman’s herd in the cultivated areas of Egypt, the occupation of shepherd became something abhorrent to the Egyptians. So the keepers of cattle had to be separated from the keepers of the crop.Basically, a shepherd's herd could potentially ruin land where crops were being grown. The Egyptians, unlike the Canaanites, didn't trust shepherds to be responsible enough to protect cultivated lands. Goshen was a land north of Egypts cultivated fields, sufficiently separated from them, and so that is where Joseph relocated his family, most of whom were shepherds.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
GENESIS 45, or "Peace out, bro"
Wherein Joseph finally reveals the truth to his brothers
Moved by Judah's pleas, Joseph clears the room of everyone except for his brothers. He then tells them the truth: he is Joseph, the brother that they believed to have been dead (or possibly enslaved).
After that, there's a lot of astonishment, explaining, and hugging. Joseph tells his brothers to go back to Canaan and bring their father to Egypy, where their family will be given the best land of the nation.
The brothers do as Joseph asks, with the chapter concluding with Jacob about to travel to Egypt, hoping to see Joseph before he dies.
---
This is a pretty straightforward chapter, and I'm struggling to think of something further I can say about it. So instead of exploring something relating to the chapter, how about another name of God, hmm?
Since the last time we visited this topic we focused on El Shaddai, a name for God that might have come from the word "destroy," lets focus on the kinder, gentler "Shalom," which is most simply translated as "peace."
Though the word "shalom" occurs many times in the Old Testament, it is only used as a name for God once, in Judges 6:24: "So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites."
More than referring just to peace, "shalom" comes from the Hebrew root "shalam" which means "safe" and "complete." It can also be used as way of saying hello or goodbye. Even though shalom can be used to express all these things, since it is a name of God, one must be careful when and how it is used. For example, uttering a name of God in an unholy place, such as a bathroom, is strictly forbidden under Jewish orthodoxy.
Moved by Judah's pleas, Joseph clears the room of everyone except for his brothers. He then tells them the truth: he is Joseph, the brother that they believed to have been dead (or possibly enslaved).
After that, there's a lot of astonishment, explaining, and hugging. Joseph tells his brothers to go back to Canaan and bring their father to Egypy, where their family will be given the best land of the nation.
The brothers do as Joseph asks, with the chapter concluding with Jacob about to travel to Egypt, hoping to see Joseph before he dies.
---
This is a pretty straightforward chapter, and I'm struggling to think of something further I can say about it. So instead of exploring something relating to the chapter, how about another name of God, hmm?
Since the last time we visited this topic we focused on El Shaddai, a name for God that might have come from the word "destroy," lets focus on the kinder, gentler "Shalom," which is most simply translated as "peace."
Though the word "shalom" occurs many times in the Old Testament, it is only used as a name for God once, in Judges 6:24: "So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites."
More than referring just to peace, "shalom" comes from the Hebrew root "shalam" which means "safe" and "complete." It can also be used as way of saying hello or goodbye. Even though shalom can be used to express all these things, since it is a name of God, one must be careful when and how it is used. For example, uttering a name of God in an unholy place, such as a bathroom, is strictly forbidden under Jewish orthodoxy.
Monday, February 15, 2010
GENESIS 44, or "What the Sheol?"
Last we left Joseph and his brothers, they were together in Egypt with the bros still unaware of Joe's true identity. Now it's time for the brothers to leave again. Before they do, Joe tells one of his servants to plant a small piece of treasure into Benjamin's bag.
The brother's leave, but before they can get too far, Joseph sends some soldiers to catch up with them. The soldiers search their bags, and sure enough, they find the treasure.
The brother's are hauled back to Egypt where they are brought before Joseph, who accuses them of stealing. Judah pleads with Joseph, saying that he will bear Benjamin's punishment for him.
---
One thing that I've been on the lookout for while working my way through Genesis is any mention of Hell. It's such a fundamental Christian concept that you'd think it would be written about somewhere towards the beginning of the Bible.
This hasn't been the case. So far there's been NO mention of Hell.
There have, however, been a few mentions of "Sheol," which up until now hasn't caught my eye - mostly because the NIV translates it as "grave" and only gives footnotes identifying the word more accurately as "Sheol." Here in Gen 44, Judah tells Joseph, "And so, should I come to your servant, my father, and the lad be not with us, since his life is bound to the lad's, when he saw the lad was not with us, he would die, and your servants would bring down the gray head of your servant, our father, in sorrow to Sheol"
So what is Sheol? From what I gather, Sheol doesn't exactly mean grave, nor does it mean hell, nor heaven. It seems to be a conception of the afterlife though, with most sources I found describing it as a place where the dead congregate. The website jewishencyclopedia.com offers that Sheol might come from the Assyro-Babylonian word "Shu'alu," which was also used to describe a place for the dead.
I find it interesting that the Bible has a word for the afterlife that isn't Heaven or Hell. Was Sheol meant to simply be a generalized term that encompasses both Heaven and Hell? Or does it open up the possibility that there is some third kind of afterlife that could await us? Or was Heaven and Hell created sometime after the events in Genesis?
I can only keep reading and hope to find out.
The brother's leave, but before they can get too far, Joseph sends some soldiers to catch up with them. The soldiers search their bags, and sure enough, they find the treasure.
The brother's are hauled back to Egypt where they are brought before Joseph, who accuses them of stealing. Judah pleads with Joseph, saying that he will bear Benjamin's punishment for him.
---
One thing that I've been on the lookout for while working my way through Genesis is any mention of Hell. It's such a fundamental Christian concept that you'd think it would be written about somewhere towards the beginning of the Bible.
This hasn't been the case. So far there's been NO mention of Hell.
There have, however, been a few mentions of "Sheol," which up until now hasn't caught my eye - mostly because the NIV translates it as "grave" and only gives footnotes identifying the word more accurately as "Sheol." Here in Gen 44, Judah tells Joseph, "And so, should I come to your servant, my father, and the lad be not with us, since his life is bound to the lad's, when he saw the lad was not with us, he would die, and your servants would bring down the gray head of your servant, our father, in sorrow to Sheol"
So what is Sheol? From what I gather, Sheol doesn't exactly mean grave, nor does it mean hell, nor heaven. It seems to be a conception of the afterlife though, with most sources I found describing it as a place where the dead congregate. The website jewishencyclopedia.com offers that Sheol might come from the Assyro-Babylonian word "Shu'alu," which was also used to describe a place for the dead.
I find it interesting that the Bible has a word for the afterlife that isn't Heaven or Hell. Was Sheol meant to simply be a generalized term that encompasses both Heaven and Hell? Or does it open up the possibility that there is some third kind of afterlife that could await us? Or was Heaven and Hell created sometime after the events in Genesis?
I can only keep reading and hope to find out.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
GENESIS 43, or "A God by any other name..."
Wherein Joseph's brothers return to Egypt.
Wow, has it really been half a year since I last blogged? At this rate, I'll be done with the Bible by the time I'm as old as Methuselah! (HAHAHAHA... Eh, sorry... Bible humor isn't always the funniest).
Even though my contributions to this blog aren't always frequent, it's never too far from my mind. And this Christmas, the best girlfriend in the world gave me The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb (yes, that R. Crumb), which is what I'll be using for the remainder of my Genesis entries. I took it as a not-so-subtle hint from both her and the man upstairs that I should really get around to finishing this darned thing.
Okay, so let's dive in....
With the famine in full swing, Israel requests that his sons return to Egypt so that they can buy more food. The only caveat is that the brothers know that they will not be allowed back unless they bring their youngest brother Benjamin. As was the case in Genesis 42, Israel is not thrilled by this idea. But their situation is dire, and so Israel allows Benjamin to go too.
The brothers head to Egypt where they again meet with Joseph (remember that they don't know recognize him though). Joe is so overwhelmed by the sight of Benjamin that he runs off into his room and cries. Afterward, he regains his composure and treats his brother to food and wine, giving Benjamin five times as much to eat as the others.
---
A couple of interesting things to note here:
1) I always get a kick out of the passages of the Bible that offer some random detail. In Gen 43, Israel tells his sons to bring Joseph "some balm and some honey, gum and ladanum, pistachio nuts and almonds." Evidently these were things that were fit to give one of the most powerful men in Egypt.
What the heck is ladanum? Wikipedia sez:
I think that I've covered this before, so forgive me if I have, but there are in fact many names that God goes by in the Bible. Me personally, I used to just think of "God" as "God", or maybe "The Lord", but I certainly didn't realize that in Hebrew, "God" actually goes by many names, and each of them have a different meaning, and thus, describe a different facet of God's nature.
Some of these names are: YHWH, Elohim, El, Adonai, Ba'ai, Ẓeba'ot, Shalom, and as we've already discussed, El Shaddai. I will hopefully explore all the names of God in future posts, but for the time being let's focus on El Shaddai, since that is the one used in Gen 43.
Simply put, "El" can be translated as "God" and "Shaddai" can be translated as "Almighty", so put together, "El Shaddai" literally means "God Almighty."
But let's dig a little deeper, shall we?
Shaddai is a word that may have derived from several other Hebrew words, the first of which is "shad." In Hebrew, "shad" means "breast", and one can see how this could make sense within the context of God being nourishing and parental. The second word is "sadu", meaning "mountain", suggesting strength, power, and enormous size. There is also at least one more possibility that the word comes from the root verb "shadad", which means to "overpower" or "destroy" - a distinctly different flavor from the kinder, gentler "shad".
Resources:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/name_god.cfm#link2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html
Wow, has it really been half a year since I last blogged? At this rate, I'll be done with the Bible by the time I'm as old as Methuselah! (HAHAHAHA... Eh, sorry... Bible humor isn't always the funniest).
Even though my contributions to this blog aren't always frequent, it's never too far from my mind. And this Christmas, the best girlfriend in the world gave me The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb (yes, that R. Crumb), which is what I'll be using for the remainder of my Genesis entries. I took it as a not-so-subtle hint from both her and the man upstairs that I should really get around to finishing this darned thing.
Okay, so let's dive in....
With the famine in full swing, Israel requests that his sons return to Egypt so that they can buy more food. The only caveat is that the brothers know that they will not be allowed back unless they bring their youngest brother Benjamin. As was the case in Genesis 42, Israel is not thrilled by this idea. But their situation is dire, and so Israel allows Benjamin to go too.
The brothers head to Egypt where they again meet with Joseph (remember that they don't know recognize him though). Joe is so overwhelmed by the sight of Benjamin that he runs off into his room and cries. Afterward, he regains his composure and treats his brother to food and wine, giving Benjamin five times as much to eat as the others.
---
A couple of interesting things to note here:
1) I always get a kick out of the passages of the Bible that offer some random detail. In Gen 43, Israel tells his sons to bring Joseph "some balm and some honey, gum and ladanum, pistachio nuts and almonds." Evidently these were things that were fit to give one of the most powerful men in Egypt.
What the heck is ladanum? Wikipedia sez:
In ancient times, the resin was scraped from the fur of goats and sheep that had grazed on the cistus shrubs. It was collected by the shepherds and sold to coastal traders. The false beards worn by the pharaohs of ancient Egypt were actually the labdanum soaked hair of these goats. Later long poles with leather or cloth strips were used to sweep the shrubs and collect the resin which was later extracted. It was used to treat colds, coughs, menstrual problems and rheumatism.2) In his version of Gen 43, R. Crumb has opted to use the phrase "El Shaddai" instead of "God". This is actually much more accurate than using the word "God" - which is how the King James Version of the Bible has it written in Gen 43 - because El Shaddai is how the original Hebrew identifies God in this passage.
I think that I've covered this before, so forgive me if I have, but there are in fact many names that God goes by in the Bible. Me personally, I used to just think of "God" as "God", or maybe "The Lord", but I certainly didn't realize that in Hebrew, "God" actually goes by many names, and each of them have a different meaning, and thus, describe a different facet of God's nature.
Some of these names are: YHWH, Elohim, El, Adonai, Ba'ai, Ẓeba'ot, Shalom, and as we've already discussed, El Shaddai. I will hopefully explore all the names of God in future posts, but for the time being let's focus on El Shaddai, since that is the one used in Gen 43.
Simply put, "El" can be translated as "God" and "Shaddai" can be translated as "Almighty", so put together, "El Shaddai" literally means "God Almighty."
But let's dig a little deeper, shall we?
Shaddai is a word that may have derived from several other Hebrew words, the first of which is "shad." In Hebrew, "shad" means "breast", and one can see how this could make sense within the context of God being nourishing and parental. The second word is "sadu", meaning "mountain", suggesting strength, power, and enormous size. There is also at least one more possibility that the word comes from the root verb "shadad", which means to "overpower" or "destroy" - a distinctly different flavor from the kinder, gentler "shad".
Resources:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/name_god.cfm#link2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
GENESIS 42, or, "Nice Joe versus Mean Joe"
Wherein Joseph is reunited with his brothers, sort of
For Courtney's sake, I'm trying to go easier on ol' Joe. So, I'll be generous and chalk up his slightly schizophrenic behavior in this chapter to conflicting emotions about his brothers. You'll notice that he switches from "Nice Joe" to "Mean Joe" pretty quickly:
Feeling the effects of the famine like everyone else, Jacob sends all but one of his sons to Egypt in order to buy grain (the distance from Egypt to Canaan was somewhere between 250-300 miles, btw. Hardly a trip 'round the block to the convenience store). There they are faced with Joseph, now a powerful ruler and administrator of the food reserves. Joseph recognizes his brothers, but they don't recognize him. He pretends not to know them (Mean Joe). The brothers bow down to him, just like in the dream Joseph had as a kid.
In a turn of the proverbial tables, Joseph throws his brothers into prison, accusing them of being spies (Mean Joe). After three days he releases them (Nice Joe). But to prove they aren't spies, the brothers are forced by Joseph to return to Canaan and bring back the last of their brothers, Benjamin (Mean Joe). Joseph gives the bros grain, provisions for their journey, and surreptitiously places silver in their bags (Nice Joe).
Before they leave Egypt, the bros discuss how they are most likely being punished for their misdeeds against Joseph years ago, and Reuben gets all "I told you so!" about it. Joseph is moved to tears by this (Nice Joe). He then sends them on the beginning of the their 600 mile round trip journey across the desert (Mean Joe).
They return to Jacob and give him the bad news: Benjamin must go back to Egypt with them. Jacob is less than thrilled with the idea.
For Courtney's sake, I'm trying to go easier on ol' Joe. So, I'll be generous and chalk up his slightly schizophrenic behavior in this chapter to conflicting emotions about his brothers. You'll notice that he switches from "Nice Joe" to "Mean Joe" pretty quickly:
Feeling the effects of the famine like everyone else, Jacob sends all but one of his sons to Egypt in order to buy grain (the distance from Egypt to Canaan was somewhere between 250-300 miles, btw. Hardly a trip 'round the block to the convenience store). There they are faced with Joseph, now a powerful ruler and administrator of the food reserves. Joseph recognizes his brothers, but they don't recognize him. He pretends not to know them (Mean Joe). The brothers bow down to him, just like in the dream Joseph had as a kid.
In a turn of the proverbial tables, Joseph throws his brothers into prison, accusing them of being spies (Mean Joe). After three days he releases them (Nice Joe). But to prove they aren't spies, the brothers are forced by Joseph to return to Canaan and bring back the last of their brothers, Benjamin (Mean Joe). Joseph gives the bros grain, provisions for their journey, and surreptitiously places silver in their bags (Nice Joe).
Before they leave Egypt, the bros discuss how they are most likely being punished for their misdeeds against Joseph years ago, and Reuben gets all "I told you so!" about it. Joseph is moved to tears by this (Nice Joe). He then sends them on the beginning of the their 600 mile round trip journey across the desert (Mean Joe).
They return to Jacob and give him the bad news: Benjamin must go back to Egypt with them. Jacob is less than thrilled with the idea.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
A Word From Courtney
Regarding my last post about Genesis 41, my friend Courtney sez:
Maybe my problem with the Joseph story has more to do with how passive he is. I feel the other heroes in Genesis made more choices, and then either suffered the consequences or reaped the benefits of those choices. Adam chose to bite into the fruit of knowledge. Abraham chose to sacrifice his son. Ol' Joe on the other hand seems to be lead around more by circumstance than choice.
I've heard it said before that one of the keys to writing a good story is to make sure that your characters are actively choosing to do things. So maybe this is why the Joseph story is falling flat for me.
That, and I still think he's kind of a spoiled blabber mouth.
Follow me on twitter! twitter.com/bibleorama
"Wait a minute here... God isn't testing him? his brothers want to kill him but settle on selling him into slavery? then he gets thrown into jail? you're right, piece of cake :) But Abraham never got thrown into jail..."Okay, I'll admit. A couple of years in the slammer is no easy ordeal. I'll give Joseph that.
Maybe my problem with the Joseph story has more to do with how passive he is. I feel the other heroes in Genesis made more choices, and then either suffered the consequences or reaped the benefits of those choices. Adam chose to bite into the fruit of knowledge. Abraham chose to sacrifice his son. Ol' Joe on the other hand seems to be lead around more by circumstance than choice.
I've heard it said before that one of the keys to writing a good story is to make sure that your characters are actively choosing to do things. So maybe this is why the Joseph story is falling flat for me.
That, and I still think he's kind of a spoiled blabber mouth.
Follow me on twitter! twitter.com/bibleorama
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
GENESIS 41, or, "Dream On"
Wherein Joseph soothsays his way into Pharaoh's good graces
Here's the basic rundown of Genesis 41:
Pharaoh has a disturbing dream involving cows. The next day, he sends for all the wise men and magicians of Egypt, but unfortunately they are unable to interpret the dream. The magicians were heard to say:
"I've made a huge mistake"
Then the chief cupbearer remembers Joseph and tells Pharaoh about his talent for dream interpretation. Joe is summoned and tells Pharaoh that his dream means that there will be seven years of prosperity and then seven years of famine. So it's best if they stockpile food during the years of prosperity.
Pharaoh makes it so, appointing Joe as his right hand man. When the famine comes seven years later, Egypt has their food surpluses ready and are able to make it through the harsh seven years.
---
As far as Biblical forefathers go, Joseph is kind of a wimp. God isn't him testing him all that much. He isn't asking Joseph to sacrifice his own son, like Abraham. God isn't wrestling with him in the desert, like Jacob. God just seems to give him this great gift of being able to interpret dreams without Joseph really earning it in any way.
I'm just saying: the story of Joseph so far is a bit of a snoozer, and I'll be glad to move onto the next patriarch.
Follow me on twitter! twitter.com/bibleorama
Here's the basic rundown of Genesis 41:
Pharaoh has a disturbing dream involving cows. The next day, he sends for all the wise men and magicians of Egypt, but unfortunately they are unable to interpret the dream. The magicians were heard to say:
"I've made a huge mistake"
Then the chief cupbearer remembers Joseph and tells Pharaoh about his talent for dream interpretation. Joe is summoned and tells Pharaoh that his dream means that there will be seven years of prosperity and then seven years of famine. So it's best if they stockpile food during the years of prosperity.
Pharaoh makes it so, appointing Joe as his right hand man. When the famine comes seven years later, Egypt has their food surpluses ready and are able to make it through the harsh seven years.
---
As far as Biblical forefathers go, Joseph is kind of a wimp. God isn't him testing him all that much. He isn't asking Joseph to sacrifice his own son, like Abraham. God isn't wrestling with him in the desert, like Jacob. God just seems to give him this great gift of being able to interpret dreams without Joseph really earning it in any way.
I'm just saying: the story of Joseph so far is a bit of a snoozer, and I'll be glad to move onto the next patriarch.
Follow me on twitter! twitter.com/bibleorama
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Donation Exploration
Wherein I go all non sequitur again
You may have noticed that I started writing about things other than Genesis within the pages of this blog. Sometimes I feel like I come across a religious-related article or I'll have random thoughts that I want to share, and I don't know where to put them. So, if it's alright with you, I'd like to be able to once in a while blog about something that might not be exactly pertinent to the chapter of Genesis I happen to be exploring in a given week. I tried starting a "Bonus Articles" blog separate from this one to be the catch-all for this kind of thing, but I think it's asking too much of you, dear readers, to always be checking two blogs rather than one.
Please feel free to leave feedback in the comments section about this decision (the three of you who actual read this blog. Hi Erin!)
Anyway...
As a few of you may have heard, Conan O'Brien recently took over for the Tonight Show (yay!). I've been catching almost every episode so far, and there was something in a bit last Tuesday that caught my attention:
Conan's a donor! For those of you who may not know, being a donor means that after you die, your organs and tissue may be transplanted into others who need them. The most commonly transplanted organs are the kidneys, liver, heart and lungs. Skin, bone, heart, and other types of tissue are used for myriad medical reasons.
This has always been something that I've been meaning to look up, and possibly do. Then, this very week, I just so happened to get my new license in the mail. Included in it was a little informational brochure on becoming a donor, which told me that I can "save up to eight lives as an organ donor and improve another 50 lives as a tissue donor."
Sounds pretty good to me. Though there's something a little creepy about the thought of my body being carved into spare parts after I die. But I guess at that point I'll be, you know, dead, so you I't really care.
Further, there are religious implications to consider. That's one thing that I found compelling about Conan being a donor. Isn't he Catholic? And don't Catholics have something against being a donor? Something about "your body is a temple" or something like that?
Let's check!
For the most part, organ donation is fine under Catholic dogma. What I was surprised to learn is that it's not so much post-mortem organ donation that is problematic, but donation that occurs when you are still alive. You see, back in the day, Thomas Aquinas put forth the "Principle of Totality", which goes a little something like this:
"An individual may not dispose of his organs or destroy their capacity to function, except to the extent that this is necessary for the general well-being of the whole body. Destroying an organ or interfering with its capacity to function prevents the organ from achieving its natural purpose."
But at the same time, he proposed the concept of "Double Effect", a somewhat complicated doctrine that essentially permits good actions with bad side effects, so long as the good outcome of the good action outweighs the bad side effects.
The Catholic church's position is that it is permissible, admirable even, for a person to donate an organ so long as it does not cause serious harm to the donor. In other words, if you have two kidneys, and donating one won't kill you, go for it. You can't, however, donate both your kidneys at once. Principle of Totality can be overruled (in part) by Double Effect.
What if donating an organ doesn't kill you, but merely mutilates you? This is a gray area. According to www.catholiceducation.org:
"Because these donations require a transplant from one living person to another, a moral dilemma involving the principle of totality arises. According to this principle, the parts of the body are ordered to the good of that specific body. Therefore, the surgical mutilation of a donor for the good of the recipient must not seriously impair or destroy bodily functions or beauty of the donor.
For example, both eyes are necessary for certain visual functions. A living person would seriously impair his ability to see if an eye were donated to another. Such a sacrifice would detract from the wholeness or full functioning of the donor's body. It would be a bad means to a good end, and therefore morally wrong."
In other words, no mutilation.
Another gray area? While it's perfectly permissible to donate an organ after you die, there has been a lot of debate over how to determine when someone dies. You see, the Church has this thing with people killing other people - they're against it. But what exactly defines "killing" another person? To know that is to know how to clearly and specifically define living beings versus non-living beings. And how do you do that? Do you categorize life as "things that have a consciousness"? What is "consciousness"?
You can see the philosophical rabbit hole that this line of thinking can lead us down. Suffice to say that defining death is tricky. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
In an address to the International Congress on Organ Transplants in 2000, Pope John Paul II gave the scientific community a big ol' raspberry by stating, "[Death] results from the separation of the life-principle (or soul) from the corporal reality of the person. The death of the person, understood in this primary sense, is an event which no scientific technique or empirical method can identify directly."
Read again, "no scientific technique or empirical method can identify directly."
To Johnny's credit, he does go on to state that there are certain scientifically measurable and observable events that happen after "death", in the vague "soul shuffling off the mortal coil" Catholic sense of the word, occurs. This includes the total cessation of brain activity. Which, actually, is the common medical definition of death anyway.
So if you're Catholic, and you want to donate an organ, just remember two things: If you're alive, don't mutilate or kill yourself, and if you're dead, make sure you're dead.
Of course, the emphasis of this blog is on what's actually written in the Bible. What does the scripture say about organ donation?
The answer is, not much. While there is much written in the Bible about the virtues of charity in general, it's fair to say that back when the Bible was written, people couldn't even conceive of organ transplants. I did find a few sites promoting donation that suggested some lines of scripture, including "we can enter heaven without having every part of our bodies present" (Mark 9:47). One suggested that the first transplant took place in Genesis - God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve. That seems like a bit of a stretch though.
Alright, if Catholics are on board with organ donation, what religions aren't? As far as I can tell, just one: Shinto.
The BBC sez:
"The Shinto faith is very much bound up with the idea of purity, and the wholeness of the physical body. Organ transplantation is comparatively rare in Japan because the body after death is impure according to Shinto tradition.
Shinto traditions also state that interfering with a corpse brings bad luck Families are concerned that they might injure the relationship between the dead person and the bereaved (known as the itai) by interfering with the corpse. This means that many followers of Shinto oppose the taking of organs from those who have just died, and also would refuse an organ transplanted from someone who has died."
---
Know when I update my blog and feel cool doing it by following me on my new Twitter account!
twitter.com/bibleorama
You may have noticed that I started writing about things other than Genesis within the pages of this blog. Sometimes I feel like I come across a religious-related article or I'll have random thoughts that I want to share, and I don't know where to put them. So, if it's alright with you, I'd like to be able to once in a while blog about something that might not be exactly pertinent to the chapter of Genesis I happen to be exploring in a given week. I tried starting a "Bonus Articles" blog separate from this one to be the catch-all for this kind of thing, but I think it's asking too much of you, dear readers, to always be checking two blogs rather than one.
Please feel free to leave feedback in the comments section about this decision (the three of you who actual read this blog. Hi Erin!)
Anyway...
As a few of you may have heard, Conan O'Brien recently took over for the Tonight Show (yay!). I've been catching almost every episode so far, and there was something in a bit last Tuesday that caught my attention:
Conan's a donor! For those of you who may not know, being a donor means that after you die, your organs and tissue may be transplanted into others who need them. The most commonly transplanted organs are the kidneys, liver, heart and lungs. Skin, bone, heart, and other types of tissue are used for myriad medical reasons.
This has always been something that I've been meaning to look up, and possibly do. Then, this very week, I just so happened to get my new license in the mail. Included in it was a little informational brochure on becoming a donor, which told me that I can "save up to eight lives as an organ donor and improve another 50 lives as a tissue donor."
Sounds pretty good to me. Though there's something a little creepy about the thought of my body being carved into spare parts after I die. But I guess at that point I'll be, you know, dead, so you I't really care.
Further, there are religious implications to consider. That's one thing that I found compelling about Conan being a donor. Isn't he Catholic? And don't Catholics have something against being a donor? Something about "your body is a temple" or something like that?
Let's check!
For the most part, organ donation is fine under Catholic dogma. What I was surprised to learn is that it's not so much post-mortem organ donation that is problematic, but donation that occurs when you are still alive. You see, back in the day, Thomas Aquinas put forth the "Principle of Totality", which goes a little something like this:
"An individual may not dispose of his organs or destroy their capacity to function, except to the extent that this is necessary for the general well-being of the whole body. Destroying an organ or interfering with its capacity to function prevents the organ from achieving its natural purpose."
But at the same time, he proposed the concept of "Double Effect", a somewhat complicated doctrine that essentially permits good actions with bad side effects, so long as the good outcome of the good action outweighs the bad side effects.
The Catholic church's position is that it is permissible, admirable even, for a person to donate an organ so long as it does not cause serious harm to the donor. In other words, if you have two kidneys, and donating one won't kill you, go for it. You can't, however, donate both your kidneys at once. Principle of Totality can be overruled (in part) by Double Effect.
What if donating an organ doesn't kill you, but merely mutilates you? This is a gray area. According to www.catholiceducation.org:
"Because these donations require a transplant from one living person to another, a moral dilemma involving the principle of totality arises. According to this principle, the parts of the body are ordered to the good of that specific body. Therefore, the surgical mutilation of a donor for the good of the recipient must not seriously impair or destroy bodily functions or beauty of the donor.
For example, both eyes are necessary for certain visual functions. A living person would seriously impair his ability to see if an eye were donated to another. Such a sacrifice would detract from the wholeness or full functioning of the donor's body. It would be a bad means to a good end, and therefore morally wrong."
In other words, no mutilation.
Another gray area? While it's perfectly permissible to donate an organ after you die, there has been a lot of debate over how to determine when someone dies. You see, the Church has this thing with people killing other people - they're against it. But what exactly defines "killing" another person? To know that is to know how to clearly and specifically define living beings versus non-living beings. And how do you do that? Do you categorize life as "things that have a consciousness"? What is "consciousness"?
You can see the philosophical rabbit hole that this line of thinking can lead us down. Suffice to say that defining death is tricky. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
In an address to the International Congress on Organ Transplants in 2000, Pope John Paul II gave the scientific community a big ol' raspberry by stating, "[Death] results from the separation of the life-principle (or soul) from the corporal reality of the person. The death of the person, understood in this primary sense, is an event which no scientific technique or empirical method can identify directly."
Read again, "no scientific technique or empirical method can identify directly."
To Johnny's credit, he does go on to state that there are certain scientifically measurable and observable events that happen after "death", in the vague "soul shuffling off the mortal coil" Catholic sense of the word, occurs. This includes the total cessation of brain activity. Which, actually, is the common medical definition of death anyway.
So if you're Catholic, and you want to donate an organ, just remember two things: If you're alive, don't mutilate or kill yourself, and if you're dead, make sure you're dead.
Of course, the emphasis of this blog is on what's actually written in the Bible. What does the scripture say about organ donation?
The answer is, not much. While there is much written in the Bible about the virtues of charity in general, it's fair to say that back when the Bible was written, people couldn't even conceive of organ transplants. I did find a few sites promoting donation that suggested some lines of scripture, including "we can enter heaven without having every part of our bodies present" (Mark 9:47). One suggested that the first transplant took place in Genesis - God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve. That seems like a bit of a stretch though.
Alright, if Catholics are on board with organ donation, what religions aren't? As far as I can tell, just one: Shinto.
The BBC sez:
"The Shinto faith is very much bound up with the idea of purity, and the wholeness of the physical body. Organ transplantation is comparatively rare in Japan because the body after death is impure according to Shinto tradition.
Shinto traditions also state that interfering with a corpse brings bad luck Families are concerned that they might injure the relationship between the dead person and the bereaved (known as the itai) by interfering with the corpse. This means that many followers of Shinto oppose the taking of organs from those who have just died, and also would refuse an organ transplanted from someone who has died."
---
Know when I update my blog and feel cool doing it by following me on my new Twitter account!
twitter.com/bibleorama
Saturday, May 2, 2009
GENESIS 40, or, "Do not interpretations belong to God?"
Wherein Joseph takes up dream interpretation
Joseph is still stuck in jail when Pharoah's chief cupbearer and chief baker are thrown in with him. One night, the two new prisoners each have strange dreams. When they awake, they lament to ol' Joe that there is no one around to tell them what the dreams mean. Joe chides them, saying "Do not interpretations belong to God?" and then he proceeds to make interpretations.
I won't bore you with the details, but essentially, Joe tells the cupbearer that his dream was a good sign: in three days he will be freed and restored to his old job. The news isn't so good for the poor baker. In three days, he will be executed.
In three days, Joe's interpretations prove to be true.
---
As I noticed in the previous post, Joseph's story is shaping up as a more lyrical, well-told part of Genesis than the stories previous. Evidently, I'm not the first person to notice this. Quoteth Wikipedia:
"Structurally, Genesis consists of the "primeval history" (chapters 1-11) and cycles of Patriarchal stories - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.[2] The narrative of Joseph stands apart from these. Scholars believe that it reached its final form in the 5th century BC, with a previous history of composition reaching back possibly to the 10th century."
Aha! The story of Joseph may come across as more polished because it was written later and evolved more. Truth be told, I diligently tried to find a secondary source to backup Wikipedia's claim, and failed, so take it as you will. But it does make sense.
This brings up an important question: If historians can empirically prove that the Bible has been changed since it was first written, how must that alter our reading and interpretation of it? Most people would like to believe that POOF the Old Testament appeared and then a couple of thousand years later POOF the New Testament appeared. But, according to a many historians, that just doesn't seem to be the case.
This will be a topic of great discussion on the virtual pages of this blog, and I'm only going to devote a short amount of time to it right now, but this is as good a time as any to get this subject rolling.
I dug up two competing quotes on this topic for sake of comparison:
"How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes-sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways" -- Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus
In his book, Fabricating Jesus, author Craig A. Evans takes direct aim at Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, hoping to debunk it:
"The truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels but on the resurrection of Jesus. And the historical reliability of the Gospels does not hinge on the inerrancy of Scripture or on the proof that no mistake of any kind can be detected in them."
Personally, I take issue with the logic of Evan's claim. He says that the important thing isn't to believe that the Bible lacks errors, but to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. But, if he accepts that the Bible does have errors, then how can he be sure that Jesus was indeed resurrected? I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't resurrected, only that Evan's argument won't be convincing anyone who doesn't already believe in the resurrection.
More to come on the Biblical inerrancy debate in future posts.
FYI: Since Genesis 40 is about dream interpretation, I thought it would be fun to look up the dream meanings of various things from the Bible. All these come from dreammoods.com
GOD - To see God in your dream, signifies your spirituality and expression of your feelings about divinity. God also symbolizes an untouchable, unreachable, and unattainable notion of perfection. Thus such a dream may highlight your struggles and attempts with trying to be perfect.
To dream that you are worshipping God, signifies repentance of your actions and errors.
To dream that God speaks to you, signifies feelings of guilt, eternal punishment, and damnation.
To dream that you are a god, implies your own special talents which you have not yet recognized or have not fully developed. Alternatively, it suggests your feelings of superiority over others. You think you are above others and have a tendency to look down on people.
JESUS - To see Jesus in your dream, foretells that your greatest desires and goals will be realized. This dream serves to console and strengthen you in your times of adversity, hardship and struggle. You will rise above any situation and circumstance and become victorious.
To dream that Jesus speaks to you or that you are praying with Him, signifies that you will be blessed with true peace of mind, joy and contentment.
CROSS - To see a cross in your dream, signifies suffering, martyrdom, death, and/or sacrifice. Perhaps your dream is telling you that you have a cross to bear. Ask yourself what is causing you to suffer or what is causing you great difficulties.
Joseph is still stuck in jail when Pharoah's chief cupbearer and chief baker are thrown in with him. One night, the two new prisoners each have strange dreams. When they awake, they lament to ol' Joe that there is no one around to tell them what the dreams mean. Joe chides them, saying "Do not interpretations belong to God?" and then he proceeds to make interpretations.
I won't bore you with the details, but essentially, Joe tells the cupbearer that his dream was a good sign: in three days he will be freed and restored to his old job. The news isn't so good for the poor baker. In three days, he will be executed.
In three days, Joe's interpretations prove to be true.
---
As I noticed in the previous post, Joseph's story is shaping up as a more lyrical, well-told part of Genesis than the stories previous. Evidently, I'm not the first person to notice this. Quoteth Wikipedia:
"Structurally, Genesis consists of the "primeval history" (chapters 1-11) and cycles of Patriarchal stories - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.[2] The narrative of Joseph stands apart from these. Scholars believe that it reached its final form in the 5th century BC, with a previous history of composition reaching back possibly to the 10th century."
Aha! The story of Joseph may come across as more polished because it was written later and evolved more. Truth be told, I diligently tried to find a secondary source to backup Wikipedia's claim, and failed, so take it as you will. But it does make sense.
This brings up an important question: If historians can empirically prove that the Bible has been changed since it was first written, how must that alter our reading and interpretation of it? Most people would like to believe that POOF the Old Testament appeared and then a couple of thousand years later POOF the New Testament appeared. But, according to a many historians, that just doesn't seem to be the case.
This will be a topic of great discussion on the virtual pages of this blog, and I'm only going to devote a short amount of time to it right now, but this is as good a time as any to get this subject rolling.
I dug up two competing quotes on this topic for sake of comparison:
"How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes-sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways" -- Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus
In his book, Fabricating Jesus, author Craig A. Evans takes direct aim at Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, hoping to debunk it:
"The truth of the Christian message hinges not on the inerrancy of Scripture or on our ability to harmonize the four Gospels but on the resurrection of Jesus. And the historical reliability of the Gospels does not hinge on the inerrancy of Scripture or on the proof that no mistake of any kind can be detected in them."
Personally, I take issue with the logic of Evan's claim. He says that the important thing isn't to believe that the Bible lacks errors, but to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. But, if he accepts that the Bible does have errors, then how can he be sure that Jesus was indeed resurrected? I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't resurrected, only that Evan's argument won't be convincing anyone who doesn't already believe in the resurrection.
More to come on the Biblical inerrancy debate in future posts.
FYI: Since Genesis 40 is about dream interpretation, I thought it would be fun to look up the dream meanings of various things from the Bible. All these come from dreammoods.com
GOD - To see God in your dream, signifies your spirituality and expression of your feelings about divinity. God also symbolizes an untouchable, unreachable, and unattainable notion of perfection. Thus such a dream may highlight your struggles and attempts with trying to be perfect.
To dream that you are worshipping God, signifies repentance of your actions and errors.
To dream that God speaks to you, signifies feelings of guilt, eternal punishment, and damnation.
To dream that you are a god, implies your own special talents which you have not yet recognized or have not fully developed. Alternatively, it suggests your feelings of superiority over others. You think you are above others and have a tendency to look down on people.
JESUS - To see Jesus in your dream, foretells that your greatest desires and goals will be realized. This dream serves to console and strengthen you in your times of adversity, hardship and struggle. You will rise above any situation and circumstance and become victorious.
To dream that Jesus speaks to you or that you are praying with Him, signifies that you will be blessed with true peace of mind, joy and contentment.
CROSS - To see a cross in your dream, signifies suffering, martyrdom, death, and/or sacrifice. Perhaps your dream is telling you that you have a cross to bear. Ask yourself what is causing you to suffer or what is causing you great difficulties.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
This I Used to Believe
The most recent episode of This American Life involves a phone conversation between a deeply religious and a deeply non-religious person. What they talk about covers a lot of the tough, gnawing questions that I also have.
EXCERPT
Ira Glass and his non-religious guest talking about why people die when they do.
IRA: What if it's as simple as, for people who believe in God, God takes people at different times and that doesn't mean that God doesn't have some plan for you?
GUEST: See that makes more sense to me than anything he ever said in our conversation.
IRA: Well that's very sad because I actually don't believe in God.
GUEST: [laughs]
---
Check it out HERE (listen to the whole thing, or skip to act 2 for the story on religion)
EXCERPT
Ira Glass and his non-religious guest talking about why people die when they do.
IRA: What if it's as simple as, for people who believe in God, God takes people at different times and that doesn't mean that God doesn't have some plan for you?
GUEST: See that makes more sense to me than anything he ever said in our conversation.
IRA: Well that's very sad because I actually don't believe in God.
GUEST: [laughs]
---
Check it out HERE (listen to the whole thing, or skip to act 2 for the story on religion)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
GENESIS 39, or, "Mrs. Potiphar, you're trying to seduce me"
Wherein we witness the Bible's first account of sexual harassment in the workplace
The Ishmaelites who captured Joseph take him to Egypt where he is sold as a servant to Potiphar, the captain of the guard for Pharaoh. Though now a lowly servant, God is still with Joseph, blessing everything he does. Because of this he exceeds at his job and becomes Potiphar's most favored and trusted servant.
"Joseph was well-built and handsome" the Good Book tells us, and so he quickly catches the eye of Potiphar's wife, who tries to get Joseph to sleep with her. Joe, being the stand-up guy he is, refuses. The wife gets more aggressive, grabbing Joe by the cloak. Joe (in not exactly the most manliest of moves in the Bible) runs away from her, leaving the cloak in her hands.
The wife later shows the cloak to Potiphar, claiming that it is evidence that Joe tried to seduce her. Furious, the captain throws poor Joe into jail. While in jail, Joe is treated well because God is still with him.
---
I suppose there's a lesson to be gleaned from this chapter - be righteous and God will stay with you. But most of all it's just a good story.
Chapters like Gen 39 reinforce my growing belief that the Bible is not a rule book - not entirely, anyway. Sometimes it just wants to entertain.
The Ishmaelites who captured Joseph take him to Egypt where he is sold as a servant to Potiphar, the captain of the guard for Pharaoh. Though now a lowly servant, God is still with Joseph, blessing everything he does. Because of this he exceeds at his job and becomes Potiphar's most favored and trusted servant.
"Joseph was well-built and handsome" the Good Book tells us, and so he quickly catches the eye of Potiphar's wife, who tries to get Joseph to sleep with her. Joe, being the stand-up guy he is, refuses. The wife gets more aggressive, grabbing Joe by the cloak. Joe (in not exactly the most manliest of moves in the Bible) runs away from her, leaving the cloak in her hands.
The wife later shows the cloak to Potiphar, claiming that it is evidence that Joe tried to seduce her. Furious, the captain throws poor Joe into jail. While in jail, Joe is treated well because God is still with him.
---
I suppose there's a lesson to be gleaned from this chapter - be righteous and God will stay with you. But most of all it's just a good story.
Chapters like Gen 39 reinforce my growing belief that the Bible is not a rule book - not entirely, anyway. Sometimes it just wants to entertain.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
GENESIS 38, or, "Masturbation is (not?) a crime"
Wherein we detour into the life of Judah and his sons.
Taking a break from the story of Joseph, Gen 38 focuses on his brother Judah, who leaves his family and gets hitched to a woman named Shua. They have three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah.
Er is married to a girl by the name of Tamar, but shortly afterward God puts Er to death for being "wicked." Judah then tells Onan to sleep with Tamar to produce an offspring for Er. Onan has some scruples with this, and so let's just say that he "pulls out" when he is with her. Because of this, Onan is soon put to death by God (for wickedness, of course).
Tamar goes to live with her father at Enaim. Later on, Judah is passing through and Tamar decides to disguise herself as a prostitute and sleep with him (only later does Judah realize he had sex with his daughter-in-law. Oops!). She becomes preggers and gives birth to two sons: Perez and Zelah.
---
Okay, this chapter has special significance to me. When I was a teenager, my clique consisted of both religious and non-religious folks and there was great debate about whether it was right or wrong to masturbate. The "wrong to masturbate" side cited the fact that the Bible classified it as a sin. The "right to masturbate" side cited the fact that masturbation is "totally awesome."
One of my friends was on the fence about the issue so he went straight to the source - good ol' Genesis 38. As it turns out, a group of kill-joy Roman Catholics in the medieval era interpreted Gen 38 as illustrating that both masturbation and coitus interruptus are sinful, and that interpretation has stuck ever since. But, as my friend and I discovered when we looked it up ourselves, that reading doesn't really hold water.
Here's Gen 38:6-10
"Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.
Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."
You can make up your own mind, but the passage seemed to us to be saying that it was Onan's disobedience, not the fact that he "spilled his semen", that got him put to death. And thus a giant weight was taken off our shoulders.
GENESIS 38 in pop culture: In David Foster Wallace's magnum opus "Infinite Jest" the United States has been renamed "The Organization of North American Nations" or O.N.A.N.
P.S. Thanks to MumDoris for motivating to get off my butt and blog some more.
Taking a break from the story of Joseph, Gen 38 focuses on his brother Judah, who leaves his family and gets hitched to a woman named Shua. They have three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah.
Er is married to a girl by the name of Tamar, but shortly afterward God puts Er to death for being "wicked." Judah then tells Onan to sleep with Tamar to produce an offspring for Er. Onan has some scruples with this, and so let's just say that he "pulls out" when he is with her. Because of this, Onan is soon put to death by God (for wickedness, of course).
Tamar goes to live with her father at Enaim. Later on, Judah is passing through and Tamar decides to disguise herself as a prostitute and sleep with him (only later does Judah realize he had sex with his daughter-in-law. Oops!). She becomes preggers and gives birth to two sons: Perez and Zelah.
---
Okay, this chapter has special significance to me. When I was a teenager, my clique consisted of both religious and non-religious folks and there was great debate about whether it was right or wrong to masturbate. The "wrong to masturbate" side cited the fact that the Bible classified it as a sin. The "right to masturbate" side cited the fact that masturbation is "totally awesome."
One of my friends was on the fence about the issue so he went straight to the source - good ol' Genesis 38. As it turns out, a group of kill-joy Roman Catholics in the medieval era interpreted Gen 38 as illustrating that both masturbation and coitus interruptus are sinful, and that interpretation has stuck ever since. But, as my friend and I discovered when we looked it up ourselves, that reading doesn't really hold water.
Here's Gen 38:6-10
"Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.
Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."
You can make up your own mind, but the passage seemed to us to be saying that it was Onan's disobedience, not the fact that he "spilled his semen", that got him put to death. And thus a giant weight was taken off our shoulders.
GENESIS 38 in pop culture: In David Foster Wallace's magnum opus "Infinite Jest" the United States has been renamed "The Organization of North American Nations" or O.N.A.N.
P.S. Thanks to MumDoris for motivating to get off my butt and blog some more.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
GENESIS 37, or, "Here Comes That Dreamer!"
Wherein the Bible gets the Broadway treatment
You can't be a Biblical patriarch without favoring one son over your others and thus instigate a violent and ruinous sibling rivalry. You just can't.
To wit. Jacob singles out his favorite son Joseph by giving him a swanky coat (of the "amazing technocolor dream" variety). His other sons get jealous. Then Joseph has two dreams in which he is being bowed down to. This doesn't help the situation. Joseph is kind of a spoiled blabber mouth to tell you the truth.
In reaction, his brothers plan to kill him. One of them, Ruben, asks that they simply throw Joseph down a water tank and leave him alive. This sounds good enough to the other brothers, so this is what they do.
For Joseph though, things turn from bad to worse when the brothers see a caravan approaching and they decide to sell off their smug sibling to the merchants ("Hey, at least we didn't kill him!" is their logic).
They then take Joseph's robe (coat, or whatever), dip it in goats blood and show it to their father Jacob to trick him into thinking that his favored son was mauled by some wild animal.
Genesis in Pop Culture: Joseph's story is plot to the musical, "Joseph and the Amazing Technocolor Dream Coat". I've never seen it, but it looks pretty incredible. Here's a track list of the songs:
* Overture (not on the recording)
* Prologue
* Any Dream Will Do
* Jacob and Sons
* Joseph's Coat
* Joseph's Dreams
* Poor, Poor Joseph
* One More Angel in Heaven
* The Journey to Egypt (Bill Kenwright Touring Version Only)
* Potiphar
* Close Every Door
* Go, Go, Go Joseph
* Entr'acte (not on the recording)
* Pharaoh's Story
* Poor, Poor Pharaoh
* Song of the King (Seven Fat Cows)
* Pharaoh's Dreams Explained
* Stone the Crows
* King of My Heart (2007 London staging and subsequent UK tour only)
* Those Canaan Days
* The Brothers Come To Egypt
* Grovel, Grovel
* Who's the Thief?
* Benjamin Calypso
* Joseph All the Time
* Jacob in Egypt
* Finale: Any Dream Will Do / Give Me My Coloured Coat
* Joseph Megamix (for curtain call in some big productions)
And here's a clip from a recent TV production starring Donnie "A Little Bit Rock 'n Roll" Osmond.
You can't be a Biblical patriarch without favoring one son over your others and thus instigate a violent and ruinous sibling rivalry. You just can't.
To wit. Jacob singles out his favorite son Joseph by giving him a swanky coat (of the "amazing technocolor dream" variety). His other sons get jealous. Then Joseph has two dreams in which he is being bowed down to. This doesn't help the situation. Joseph is kind of a spoiled blabber mouth to tell you the truth.
In reaction, his brothers plan to kill him. One of them, Ruben, asks that they simply throw Joseph down a water tank and leave him alive. This sounds good enough to the other brothers, so this is what they do.
For Joseph though, things turn from bad to worse when the brothers see a caravan approaching and they decide to sell off their smug sibling to the merchants ("Hey, at least we didn't kill him!" is their logic).
They then take Joseph's robe (coat, or whatever), dip it in goats blood and show it to their father Jacob to trick him into thinking that his favored son was mauled by some wild animal.
Genesis in Pop Culture: Joseph's story is plot to the musical, "Joseph and the Amazing Technocolor Dream Coat". I've never seen it, but it looks pretty incredible. Here's a track list of the songs:
* Overture (not on the recording)
* Prologue
* Any Dream Will Do
* Jacob and Sons
* Joseph's Coat
* Joseph's Dreams
* Poor, Poor Joseph
* One More Angel in Heaven
* The Journey to Egypt (Bill Kenwright Touring Version Only)
* Potiphar
* Close Every Door
* Go, Go, Go Joseph
* Entr'acte (not on the recording)
* Pharaoh's Story
* Poor, Poor Pharaoh
* Song of the King (Seven Fat Cows)
* Pharaoh's Dreams Explained
* Stone the Crows
* King of My Heart (2007 London staging and subsequent UK tour only)
* Those Canaan Days
* The Brothers Come To Egypt
* Grovel, Grovel
* Who's the Thief?
* Benjamin Calypso
* Joseph All the Time
* Jacob in Egypt
* Finale: Any Dream Will Do / Give Me My Coloured Coat
* Joseph Megamix (for curtain call in some big productions)
And here's a clip from a recent TV production starring Donnie "A Little Bit Rock 'n Roll" Osmond.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
GENESIS 36, or, "So-and-so begat so-and-so"
You know the drill by now
This is another chapter where we learn the names of the descendants of an important figure in the Bible. This time, it's Esau.
Interesting things to note here: We are told that "Esau took his wives from the women of Canaan". Canaan, remember, is the land of the descendants of Ham, Noah's cursed son and believed by some to be the father of the African people. This reinforces Genesis' theme of "Good Brother/Bad Brother". There is the chosen lineage that God favors, and then there are the others. Without a doubt, Esau falls into the "other" category, where Ham also fell.
I've noticed that sometimes the Bible will throw in funny little asides while laying out these lineages. Like here, in GEN 36:24, we have "The sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah. This is the Anah who discovered the hot springs in the desert while he was grazing the donkeys of his father Zibeon"
I like imagining someone from the olden times reading that and going, "Oh... that Anah"
BONUS: Today, I'll leave you with a miniaturized version of a gigantic diagram that outlines the genealogy of the Old Testament. See the full resolution diagram HERE on the University of Minnesota Duluth website (Go bulldogs!).
This is another chapter where we learn the names of the descendants of an important figure in the Bible. This time, it's Esau.
Interesting things to note here: We are told that "Esau took his wives from the women of Canaan". Canaan, remember, is the land of the descendants of Ham, Noah's cursed son and believed by some to be the father of the African people. This reinforces Genesis' theme of "Good Brother/Bad Brother". There is the chosen lineage that God favors, and then there are the others. Without a doubt, Esau falls into the "other" category, where Ham also fell.
I've noticed that sometimes the Bible will throw in funny little asides while laying out these lineages. Like here, in GEN 36:24, we have "The sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah. This is the Anah who discovered the hot springs in the desert while he was grazing the donkeys of his father Zibeon"
I like imagining someone from the olden times reading that and going, "Oh... that Anah"
BONUS: Today, I'll leave you with a miniaturized version of a gigantic diagram that outlines the genealogy of the Old Testament. See the full resolution diagram HERE on the University of Minnesota Duluth website (Go bulldogs!).
Friday, October 24, 2008
Genesis 35, or, "Everybody Dies"
Okay, not "everybody," but quite a few.
Namely, Rachel, Isaac, and a bunch of innocent townsfolk.
With Jacob's sons having just slaughtered every man in a nearby ruling tribe, God decides that it's time for him and his family to get the heck out of Dodge. God tells Jacob to flee to Bethel, the site where the stairway to Heaven was revealed to him (See Genesis 28). Jacob packs his family up and they hightail it out of there.
Just to make sure nobody follows them, God then kills everybody in the nearby towns.
Okay, to be fair, this is my interpretation of this passage. The actual verse reads: "the terror of God fell upon the towns all around them so that no one pursued them." I suppose you could take this as meaning that God spared their lives, yet paralyzed them with fear. Kind of like Gotham City at the end of Batman Begins. If God were Scarecrow, the villain.
Anyway.
Jacob and his family vamoose. On their way to Bethel, Rachel dies while giving birth to one last son, Benjamin. And then, when the family reaches Bethel, Isaac dies as well.
---
FYI: Rachel's tomb is still in existence and is the third holiest site in Judaism. You can visit a website about it HERE. There, you can learn more about the tomb, buy a pizza for an Israeli soldier, or, if your name happens to be Rachel, sign up for their project to collect the names of every Rachel in the world. Mazel tov!
Namely, Rachel, Isaac, and a bunch of innocent townsfolk.
With Jacob's sons having just slaughtered every man in a nearby ruling tribe, God decides that it's time for him and his family to get the heck out of Dodge. God tells Jacob to flee to Bethel, the site where the stairway to Heaven was revealed to him (See Genesis 28). Jacob packs his family up and they hightail it out of there.
Just to make sure nobody follows them, God then kills everybody in the nearby towns.
Okay, to be fair, this is my interpretation of this passage. The actual verse reads: "the terror of God fell upon the towns all around them so that no one pursued them." I suppose you could take this as meaning that God spared their lives, yet paralyzed them with fear. Kind of like Gotham City at the end of Batman Begins. If God were Scarecrow, the villain.
Anyway.
Jacob and his family vamoose. On their way to Bethel, Rachel dies while giving birth to one last son, Benjamin. And then, when the family reaches Bethel, Isaac dies as well.
---
FYI: Rachel's tomb is still in existence and is the third holiest site in Judaism. You can visit a website about it HERE. There, you can learn more about the tomb, buy a pizza for an Israeli soldier, or, if your name happens to be Rachel, sign up for their project to collect the names of every Rachel in the world. Mazel tov!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Genesis 34, or, "The Bible Suddenly Turns Into a Frank Miller Comic"
Jacob's sons go vigilante
One day, Jacob's daughter Dinah walked off into the area around their home to mingle with the other women of the land. While out, she caught the eye of the local ruler Shechem, who took her and "violated" her. He took a shine to her (he's a big romantic, evidently), and not quite understanding that this isn't the proper way to court a woman, he and his father Hamor go to see Jacob about a possible marriage between the couple.
By the time Shechem and Hamor arrive, Jacob and his sons have already learned of what happened to Dinah. Shechem is willing to offer them anything in exchange for a marriage with Dinah. Jacob's sons tell him that if he and all the males of his family get circumcised (again, a sign of one's pact with the God of Abraham), then they will give their sister over to him. Shechem accepts their terms and wasting no time he goes off and circumcises himself and the men of his family.
I imagine that recovery from a modern circumcision must be painful, so I can't even begin to think of what it must have been like back in the Biblical days (no anesthetic!). While the guys are all nursing their manhoods back to health, Jacob's sons seize the opportunity to invade Shechem's home, kill all the men in his family and ransack all their stuff.
There ain't no turning the other cheek about it. This is blood-thirsty revenge.
Pop Cultural References to Genesis 34: The Red Tent, by Anita Diamont. A book based (loosely) on the story of Dinah.
One day, Jacob's daughter Dinah walked off into the area around their home to mingle with the other women of the land. While out, she caught the eye of the local ruler Shechem, who took her and "violated" her. He took a shine to her (he's a big romantic, evidently), and not quite understanding that this isn't the proper way to court a woman, he and his father Hamor go to see Jacob about a possible marriage between the couple.
By the time Shechem and Hamor arrive, Jacob and his sons have already learned of what happened to Dinah. Shechem is willing to offer them anything in exchange for a marriage with Dinah. Jacob's sons tell him that if he and all the males of his family get circumcised (again, a sign of one's pact with the God of Abraham), then they will give their sister over to him. Shechem accepts their terms and wasting no time he goes off and circumcises himself and the men of his family.
I imagine that recovery from a modern circumcision must be painful, so I can't even begin to think of what it must have been like back in the Biblical days (no anesthetic!). While the guys are all nursing their manhoods back to health, Jacob's sons seize the opportunity to invade Shechem's home, kill all the men in his family and ransack all their stuff.
There ain't no turning the other cheek about it. This is blood-thirsty revenge.
Pop Cultural References to Genesis 34: The Red Tent, by Anita Diamont. A book based (loosely) on the story of Dinah.
Monday, October 20, 2008
GENESIS 33, or, "Brotherly Love"
JACOB: "Dude, my bad."
ESAU: "No dude, seriously, totally my bad."
After worrying and worrying about how his brother will accept him, Jacob finally meets with Esau. To Jacob's surprise, Esau greets him with a warm embrace, and the two brothers are moved to tears by their reconciliation. All past transgressions between them are forgotten.
That's about the long and the short of this chapter. I've mentioned before how warring brothers is emerging as a theme in Genesis, and here with Jacob and Esau we have the first time that a pair of siblings have resolved their rivalry amiably. We'll have to see what happens with Jacob's son Joseph to discover if this is Genesis' last word on fraternal relations.
BONUS: Celebrate Jacob and Esau's reunion with this nifty online coloring book!
ESAU: "No dude, seriously, totally my bad."
After worrying and worrying about how his brother will accept him, Jacob finally meets with Esau. To Jacob's surprise, Esau greets him with a warm embrace, and the two brothers are moved to tears by their reconciliation. All past transgressions between them are forgotten.
That's about the long and the short of this chapter. I've mentioned before how warring brothers is emerging as a theme in Genesis, and here with Jacob and Esau we have the first time that a pair of siblings have resolved their rivalry amiably. We'll have to see what happens with Jacob's son Joseph to discover if this is Genesis' last word on fraternal relations.
BONUS: Celebrate Jacob and Esau's reunion with this nifty online coloring book!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
GENESIS 32, or, "Wrestlemania"
Jacob heads back home, brawls with the All-Mighty
You may remember from Genesis 27 that Jacob had to flee his home because his brother, Esau, was threatening to kill him. Well, now that Jacob is going home again he thinks things might still be a little awkward between him and his sibling. Jacob sends people ahead of him to shower Esau with gifts to butter him up and hopefully hedge that murderous rage that's been building up for the last several decades.
When Jacob is left alone a man comes and wrestles with him. They fight until the dawn, when Jacob finally pins the man down and demands a blessing. The man turns out to be an angel of God (or perhaps even God himself), so the man/angel/God blesses Jacob and gives him a new name.
As I have written before, there are several interpretations to this passage, but the one I like most is that the chapter is urging us to question and "wrestle" with the ideas of the Bible. It's a story about the importance of struggling toward meaning.
Are You Ready to Rumble?: Come to fisticuffs with God like Jacob did in this nifty flash game! Watch your hip!
Link: PlayMyGame
You may remember from Genesis 27 that Jacob had to flee his home because his brother, Esau, was threatening to kill him. Well, now that Jacob is going home again he thinks things might still be a little awkward between him and his sibling. Jacob sends people ahead of him to shower Esau with gifts to butter him up and hopefully hedge that murderous rage that's been building up for the last several decades.
When Jacob is left alone a man comes and wrestles with him. They fight until the dawn, when Jacob finally pins the man down and demands a blessing. The man turns out to be an angel of God (or perhaps even God himself), so the man/angel/God blesses Jacob and gives him a new name.
As I have written before, there are several interpretations to this passage, but the one I like most is that the chapter is urging us to question and "wrestle" with the ideas of the Bible. It's a story about the importance of struggling toward meaning.
Are You Ready to Rumble?: Come to fisticuffs with God like Jacob did in this nifty flash game! Watch your hip!
Link: PlayMyGame
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
GENESIS 31, or, "Fun with Flickr!"
I gave myself three rules for this post:
1) Take the seventh word from each verse of Genesis 31
2) Use Flickr Commons to search for the top picture relating to that word
3) If Fickr Commons doesn't come up with anything, use Google Image search
Here is the result:
Genesis 31 Recap: Jacob flees his uncle's home with Rachel and Leah, Laban chases after them, but with a little deception, Rachel gets him to leave them alone.
1) Take the seventh word from each verse of Genesis 31
2) Use Flickr Commons to search for the top picture relating to that word
3) If Fickr Commons doesn't come up with anything, use Google Image search
Here is the result:
Genesis 31 Recap: Jacob flees his uncle's home with Rachel and Leah, Laban chases after them, but with a little deception, Rachel gets him to leave them alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)