An alternative history in Genesis? [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

View Full Version : An alternative history in Genesis?

RichardWorthington

20-08-2008, 08:44 AM

This is a good point... if we look at the Book of Revelation, a prophecy of the future, there is little there that we would dare to interpret literally and Fathers who left commentaries on the Book of Revelations sought hidden/symbolic meaning in the images presented in the book. If we apply the same principle to the Book of Genesis (1-2) and view it through the eyes of the Fathers, we will see that all of them either interpreted it literally or did not deny literal interpretation.

I, too, believe in a literal Genesis (Yuri converted me by describing the beauty hidden under the letter!!) but I am not a Creationist by any stretch of the imagination: to me trying to understand humanity or God by using proofs from creation (whether evolutionary or ‘creation-ary’) is a simple denial of the Spirit of life. God fundamentally has not given us inspired books (although these exist), but He has given us His Spirit …

St Jerome has written the following:

A firmament is constructed between heaven and earth, and to this is allotted the name heaven, … and the waters which are above the heavens are parted from the others to the praise of God. Wherefore also in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel there is seen above the cherubim a crystal stretched forth,(Ezek. i. 22.) that is, the compressed and denser waters. …

In Eden a garden is planted, and a fountain in the midst of it parts into four heads.(Gen. ii. 8, 10.) This is the same fountain which Ezekiel later on describes as issuing out of the temple and flowing towards the rising of the sun, until it heals the bitter waters and quickens those that are dead.(Ezek. xlvii. 1, 8.)

When the world falls into sin nothing but a flood of waters can cleanse it again. But as soon as the foul bird of wickedness is driven away, the dove of the Holy Spirit comes to Noah(Gen. viii. 8, 11.) as it came afterwards to Christ in the Jordan,(Matt. iii. 16.) and, carrying in its beak a branch betokening restoration and light, brings tidings of peace to the whole world.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LXIX.html

I do view Genesis as real, and as real as the book of Revelation. However, I can not help but get the feeling that someone turned Genesis from reading like an apocalypse into a text reading like a story. As can be seen from the above, Jerome also believes in Genesis, but his Genesis is a world which we now know as visions. Our physical world is merely a poor reflection of the world of the Visions: the world of Visions is the original world created very good by God (my current guess is that this is the world and universe before the big bang).

Fr Seraphim Rose in his big book on Genesis is quite adamant that Genesis 1-11 be interpreted realistically, even though symbolic interpretations can also be used. However, in his commentary on Revelation 22:1 ("he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.") he can only give symbolic interpretations, "This symbolically depicts the grace of the Life-giving Spirit". At the end of the chapter he notes that this is the same river as that mentioned by Ezekiel 47:12 - which Jerome above believes is the very same river as that in Eden! ("The Apocalypse", Archbishop Averky & Fr Seraphim Rose, p. 277 & 283)

I think there is a fundamentally flawed approach to both Genesis and Revelation: Genesis must be adhered to literally, Revelation must be adhered to symbolically. Yet St Jerome links the river mentioned in both as being the same.

So for a breath of fresh air, as Revelation can be interpreted as referring to historical events (e.g. the Jewish War of 66-70AD and Rev. 12:6, p. 180), I would like to give below my ideas of how a sizeable portion of Genesis 1-11 is actually a ‘story-fied’ version of ancient Jewish history. Genesis seems to me to be one big ‘what went wrong’ story, with elements of the original creation and Fall and Flood, and elements of Israelite history, the lapse into idolatry, the destruction of the temple, the rebuilding of the temple, etc. Genesis has indeed been ‘story-fied’ hiding a double history!

Before judging me too harshly, ask this: how many coincidences does it take to go beyond a coincidence?

As ever, I have been profoundly impressed by the approach of Dr Margaret Barker (http://www.margaretbarker.com).

Richard

RichardWorthington

20-08-2008, 08:54 AM

Genesis chapter 1:1-2:3

Exodus 40:17-34 describes how the tabernacle of the Lord was set up. Yet it clearly mirrors the six days of creation:

Like God at creation, the people began to build the tabernacle on the first day of the year. On Day One was created the basic structure of heaven and earth, waters, abyss, light, darkness and heavenly powers; on the first day of building, the frame and covering of the tabernacle were set up, establishing the basic structure. On the second day, the firmament was created and in the tabernacle the ark was screened from view by the veil. By implication, the ark and the veil represented heaven, just as Cosmas said several centuries later. On the third day, God created the dry land and its vegetation (Gen. 1.9-13; Jub. 2.7 says he created the Garden of Eden), and in the tabernacle a table was set up in the outer area where bread, the fruit of the earth, was offered. On the fourth day, the LORD created the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1.14-19), and the seven-branched lampstand was set in the tabernacle which the people knew was a symbol of the sun, moon and planets (Philo, On Gen. 1.10). After this point the pattern is not so clear, but there can be little doubt that the whole creation had a heavenly archetype and that both were represented in microcosm in the temple and tabernacle. The human, Adam, created on the sixth day, was the high priest.

Page 20 from the book http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/Revelation.htm

I think I can improve on the symbolism for days one, five, and six. First day one:

Gen 1:1 IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

The heavens: "And he spread out the tent over the tabernacle and put the covering of the tent on top of it" (Exd 40:19). The tent was made from the same material as the veil, and the priest’s tunic (Paul mentions that the veil of the temple was the flesh of Christ).

Let there be light: "he brought the ark into the tabernacle" (Exd 40:21). The ark was covered in gold, and so I think represented the glory of God shining.

The waters: "a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Rev 22:1). There was a symbolism of a river coming out from God’s throne: somehow could there have been such a symbol of water in the tabernacle, flowing from the Ark of the Covenant?

Day five:

Gen 1:21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.

The relevant part in Exodus is the following:

Exd 40:26 He put the gold altar in the tabernacle of meeting in front of the veil;
Exd 40:27 and he burned sweet incense on it, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

At first sight, this has nothing to do with the sea and birds. However, the incense used in burning contained onycha (Exd 30:34) which is "the covering or shell of a kind of muscle found in the lakes of India" (from Strong’s concordance, Blue Letter Bible (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07827&t=kjv)). Additionally the incense was to be salted (Exd 30:35; some translations interpret the word here as ‘tempered’ or ‘mixed’). And it seems likely that salt would be gathered from the Dead Sea, a.k.a. Salt Sea (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/new_choice.pl?button=yes&book=Gen&chapter=14&verse=3&Dict=ET0000991%235987%26.Easton%26Entries&Select.x=34&Select.y=17). So this is a possible reference to the sea and its creatures. For birds, we have that "clouds fly forth like birds" (Sirach 43:14).
(See also this post where I link the fifth day with the priestly basin used for washing.)

Day six:

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind.

Exd 40:29 And he put the altar of burnt offering before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, and offered upon it the burnt offering

On the altar animals were burnt as a sacrifice.

Finally observe that:

Exd 40:34 Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

God rested on the seventh day, God’s rest refers to His uncreated glory.

So, the erecting of the tabernacle is related to Genesis chapter 1. Which influenced which? The tabernacle would never have been built how it was unless there had been a prior belief in the specific creation of God, but then again perhaps the Genesis account has been shaped by the erecting of the tabernacle!

Read Genesis chapter 1 again - with new eyes of a double history: the start of creation and the start of the worship of God!

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

20-08-2008, 11:00 AM

Dear friends,

It is with some trepidation that I see another thread related to Genesis and creation beginning. Over the past year, a tremendous number of threads on this topic have been started, almost all of which ended up becoming generalised discussions on creation and/or/vs. evolution.

Of such conversations, from the Creation, the Cosmos and Human Nature (http://www.monachos.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=297) area alone we have:

Creation and evolutionary theory, I (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4551) - 413 posts
Creation and evolutionary theory, II (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4903) - 404 posts
(http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4903)
Genesis: truth and metaphor (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1493) - 194 posts
Genesis literally (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4915) - 26 posts
The eucharistic refutation of creationism and evolution (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5014) - 29 posts
Animal death before the fall? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4519) - 47 posts
Noah's flood: global or local? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4610) - 82 posts
Evolution as a viable component in the creation of life (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4916) - 9 posts
Adoptionism and biology: an interpretation of Darwinism? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4696) - 13 posts
Evolutionism (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2645) - 7 posts

That's over 1,200 posts (and to this we might add the current discussion in the Nature of God area, entitled Can God lie? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5255), which is starting to lean in the same direction), in threads that - despite being started with different titles and areas of focus - all tended to end up addressing the basic evolution/creation question. Needless to say, somewhere long before post 1,000, the discussions had grown rather circular and repetative.

For this new thread, then, in order to avoid simply stirring up and tromping over well-trodden ground, can I request that all participants make a special effort to keep strictly to the topic of the relationship of Genesis to the laws and practices of worship, and not to use it as a thread for additional redress of the creation/evolution issue.

Particularly in a forum dedicated to patristic heritage and testimony, remembering that discussion of Genesis and creation does not always (or even primarily) equal a discussion on the science of creation, is an important reclaiming of a patristic focus.

Many thanks, INXC, Dcn Matthew

Father David Moser

20-08-2008, 03:28 PM

[/U] Our physical world is merely a poor reflection of the world of the Visions: the world of Visions is the original world created very good by God (my current guess is that this is the world and universe before the big bang).

That's not Orthodoxy - that's Platonism. Plato taught that the physical world was only an imperfect expression of the ideal - that the multitude of creatures are various attempts to portray the "real" ideal. This leads not to Orthodoxy, but to gnosticism.

Fr David Moser

RichardWorthington

20-08-2008, 03:34 PM

That's not Orthodoxy - that's Platonism. Plato taught that the physical world was only an imperfect expression of the ideal - that the multitude of creatures are various attempts to portray the "real" ideal. This leads not to Orthodoxy, but to gnosticism.

Fr David Moser

Dear Father,

I think we agree with each other: the physical world that God created was very good - and the bit that remains unfallen (the firmament) is still very good.

I am just thinking of the effects of the Fall ... the world now is very imperfect, that's all. Even so, the 'very good' still shines in it. Christ partook of the fruits of the physical world when He took upon Himself a physical body, which He will keep for ever.

:)

Richard/Alban

Antonios

20-08-2008, 06:59 PM

Dear Richard,

I enjoyed reading your posts above. What you wrote was very interesting.

In Christ,
Antonios

John King

21-08-2008, 07:12 PM

"Particularly in a forum dedicated to patristic heritage and testimony, remembering that discussion of Genesis and creation does not always (or even primarily) equal a discussion on the science of creation, is an important reclaiming of a patristic focus."

But science and Faith are not always at odds on The Creation. When I first read Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time I saw the hand of God in his explanation of the 'big bang'. Hawking's theory is that in the beginning there was an infinite void. In the midst of that void appeared a minuscule point of energy (which he calls a 'singularity') which potentially contained all the matter in the universe. The point of energy exploded, and the void was filled with light. As the light spread throughout the void the photons disassembled/mutated into sub-atomic particles (quarks, meson, bosons etc), which eventually coalesced into atoms (hydrogen being the first - one nucleus, one electron) and so on.

As a philosopher friend of mine always says, if the void contained nothing then that would have remained the situation for all time, so someone must have put the singularity into the void.

And my friend is an agnostic, and so I think that Hawking's theory actually moves people to think about God.

RichardWorthington

23-08-2008, 12:38 AM

As a philosopher friend of mine always says, if the void contained nothing then that would have remained the situation for all time, so someone must have put the singularity into the void.

And my friend is an agnostic, and so I think that Hawking's theory actually moves people to think about God.

Somewhere at least the concept of a Creator will need to be posed, but when we look at this universe around us it definitely was not the work of any loving God: we Christians invoke the Fall (and myself the Flood, see below).

But can things be left as "In the beginning God did something and then left it to be messed up"?

See here for my view on the beginning of the Big Bang:

The Book of Enoch states of the Flood:

I had laid me down in the house of my grandfather Mahalalel, (when) I saw in a vision how the heaven collapsed and was borne off and fell to the earth. And when it fell to the earth I saw how the earth was swallowed up in a great abyss, and mountains were suspended on mountains, and hills sank down on hills, and high trees were rent from their stems, and hurled down and sunk in the abyss. (1 Enoch 83:3-5)

And my view of the Flood is:

In the Flood of Noah, the entire universe was re-formed. However, it was not fashioned again by the hand of God but by itself, having a ‘remembrance’ of what was before, and having being handed over to the demons by our sinfulness.

The universe that then existed fell into a dark abyss - a black hole perhaps? - and then reemerged in a Big Bang as the fallen world we see today. Humanity is older than this universe, and yet created on Day 6 of creation! However, please post views on this in the thread quoted.

Many thanks for your comments.

Richard

RichardWorthington

01-09-2008, 11:48 AM

Gen 2:10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads.
Gen 2:11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there.
Gen 2:13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush.
Gen 2:14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel [Tigris]; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

The Euphrates and Tigris we know about - but what are the Pishon and Gihon? As a glance at the relevant Wikipedia entries shows, there have been numerous attempts to identify these rivers, as well as the ‘location’ of the Garden of Eden.

However, Blessed Jerome writes that

In Eden a garden is planted, and a fountain in the midst of it parts into four heads.(Gen. ii. 8, 10.) This is the same fountain which Ezekiel later on describes as issuing out of the temple and flowing towards the rising of the sun, until it heals the bitter waters and quickens those that are dead.(Ezek. xlvii. 1, 8.)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LXIX.html

His approach to the Genesis narrative is realistic but not materialistic, spiritual but not mystical. The rivers of Paradise are real, but are grasped by the Vision of the Spirit, which Ezekiel saw. Indeed reading the referred passage in Ezekiel produces the following:

Eze 47:1 THEN he brought me back to the door of the temple; and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the front of the temple faced east; the water was flowing from under the right side of the temple, south of the altar.
…
Eze 47:8 Then he said to me: "This water flows toward the eastern region, goes down into the valley*, and enters the sea. When it reaches the sea, its waters are healed.
*Footnote: valley=Arabah, The Jordan Valley. My note: presumably it is the waters of the Dead Sea that are healed.

The interesting thing about the passage from Ezekiel is that there is no river from Jerusalem to Jordan Valley or to the Dead Sea. If we were only told that the temple was at the source of a river flowing into the Jordan Valley then we would not be able to identify its place as being Jerusalem.

Therefore I think it is safe to deduce that the rivers mentioned flowing from Eden were the names of real rivers, but that their symbolic interpretation mattered more than their given location. Is this not how the book of Revelation is interpreted? So what were the original Pishon and Gihon?

First the Gihon:

Apart from the Gihon river of Paradise there is a mention of a spring near Jerusalem, significantly where King Solomon was anointed king (1 Kings 1:38-39).

About this, Dr Margaret Barker has written,

The holy place Enoch* knew must have been on the south eastern hill, above the Gihon spring, which was later known as the Virgin’s Spring, or the Spring of the Lady Mary. Enoch was not describing the ‘Temple Mount’ as we know it today.
*Referring to the Book of Enoch
…
The most important question is: Which hill was Zion? Josephus said it was the western hill of Jerusalem, the higher of the two, and that the south eastern hill was the lower city, but most scholars now think he was mistaken, and that the original Zion had been on the south eastern hill, over the Gihon spring.

Pages 13 and 14 of http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TheNewchurch.pdf

I am not the first to point out that "The spring Gihon in Zion is related in some way to the river Gihon in the story of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:13)." (see here (http://www.bibal.net/04/proso/psalms-ii/pdf/dlc_ps087-001-i.pdf), page 3). However when we realise that "Wisdom described herself as water flowing out of the temple where she was established on Zion, pouring forth her teaching " (page 12 of TheNewchurch.pdf above) and that the Temple was a symbol of the Garden of Eden, then the link does become undeniable (well, at least for me!).

The Pishon

Interestingly enough, the Pishon River is only mentioned in Genesis and Sirach 24:25. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pishon) mentions that some say it is the Ganges, others the Nile, with others a now dried up river bed in Arabia. Having read that the Gihon Spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gihon_Spring) flowed into the Pool of Siloam I could not help but feel that perhaps somehow this was linked to the enigmatic Pishon. Significantly, there were two aqueducts leading to the Pool of Siloam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Siloam).

So I read and read, thought and thought, and got nowhere. However, while I do not know Hebrew yet I had been trying to see if there might have been a transcription error by comparing letters in the Hebrew Alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet). This mainly involved memorising what appear to be pictures and trying to compare them - such is my ignorance!

The Pishon in Hebrew is:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=118&pictureid=987

(from the Blue Letter Bible (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H06376&t=kjv))

Reading from right to left the letters are P-i-sh-o-n; the various dots are vowel points, with consonants also for the ‘i’ and ‘o’. Now having tried to memorise various pictures (such is my knowledge of the Hebrew alphabet) I then noticed something frighteningly remarkable when looking under the Bible entry for ‘Shiloah’ (the Hebrew name of Siloam):

http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=118&pictureid=988

(from the Blue Letter Bible (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07975&t=kjv))

Now look at the bit I have highlighted in red. Doesn’t that look similar?! Comparing this with the letters (i.e. to me pictures) of the Hebrew alphabet yields that the word in red is K-i-sh-o-r -- yet the ‘p’ and ‘k’ at the start look similar, and the ‘n’ and ‘r’ at the end. [B]I think this is the Pishon=Kishor=another aqueduct flowing into the Pool of Siloam.

Significantly, the word ‘Kishor’ also occurs in Proverbs 31:19 (see Blue Letter Bible (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3601&t=KJV&sstr=1))

Proverbs 31:19
KJV:
She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

Peshitta (http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/OTtools/LamsaOT/20_proverbs.htm):
She stretches out her arms diligently, and puts her hands to the spindle.

Latin Vulgate (http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=22&c=31):
She hath put out her hand to strong things, and her fingers have taken hold of the spindle.

LXX (NETS) (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/25-proverbs-nets.pdf):
She extends her forearms to what is profitable, and she strengthens her hands at the spindle

The word Kishor is translated quite differently in the ancient versions from its modern translation (see underlining above). May I suggest therefore, without any knowledge of Hebrew whatsoever, that this verse should be translated as "She stretches out her arms to (as?) the Kishor=Pishon, and her hand upholds the district (its circuit?)". (The word translated ‘hold’ also means to ‘hold up, support’ (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H08551&t=kjv), and the word translated as ‘spindle/distaff’ more often means a ‘district, circuit’ (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=06418&t=KJV).) Note that the ‘Virtuous Wife’ of this section of Proverbs is in all probability Wisdom/The Daughter of Zion/Mother Church reaching out from the temple (this is inspired again by Margaret Barker)

The next part is this: assuming my ignorance is correct, then what is the significance of the Genesis account, placing the Pishon=Kishor and Gihon near the Red Sea? More soon …

Richard
PS. I will be meeting Dr Barker in a few weeks, and so will discuss my ideas then (she is a Hebrew scholar).
PPS. I originally titled this thread as "The genes of Genesis: an alternative history". Ok, so this might have sounded silly (an extension of my nature perhaps ...?!) but could one of the Moderators change the thread title back to something similar, e.g. "An alternative history in Genesis"?

RichardWorthington

02-09-2008, 09:46 PM

(following on from the previous post)

Gen 2:10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads.
Gen 2:11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there.
Gen 2:13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush.
Gen 2:14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel [Tigris]; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

The four rivers here - Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates - are only mentioned together again in Sirach 24:25-27 (indeed, this is the only other place the Pishon is mentioned):

25It overflows, like the Pishon, with wisdom,
and like the Tigris at the time of the first fruits.
26It runs over, like the Euphrates, with understanding,
and like the Jordan at harvest time.
27It pours forth instruction like the Nile,*
like the Gihon at the time of vintage.

* Footnote yields that the start of verse 27 is from the Syriac, but the Greek text is "It makes instruction shine forth like light"
Sirach 24:25-27 NRSV, from http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=86650101

It is interesting here that the four traditional rivers of Eden are mentioned alongside two others, the Jordan and the Nile. (Additionally, soon after these verses Wisdom describes herself as being "like a canal from a river, like a water channel into a garden. … And lo, my canal became a river, and my river a sea.", verses 30-31: may I suggest that the garden is the Garden of Eden?)

Now this interested me because there are six rivers mentioned. Why was I interested? Because I had previously read of seven rivers elsewhere:

Jubilees 5:24
And the Lord opened seven flood-gates of heaven, And the mouths of the fountains of the great deep, seven mouths in number.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm ; compare with 1 Enoch 89:2

1 Enoch 77:5-8
I saw seven rivers on the earth larger than all the rivers: one of them coming from the west pours its waters into the Great Sea. 6 And these two come from the north to the sea and pour their waters into the Erythraean* Sea in the 7 east. And the remaining, four come forth on the side of the north to their own sea, two of them to the Erythraean Sea, and two into the Great Sea and discharge themselves there [and some say: 8 into the desert].

(In verse 3 "the garden of righteousness" is mentioned …)

* "The Erythraean Sea … is an ancient name for the Indian Ocean or its attached gulfs, specifically, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea" (from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythraean_Sea)).
Text from http://reluctant-messenger.com/book_of_enoch.htm

So what has six got to do with seven? Look at the picture of the Menorah (seven branched candlestick of the temple) below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Menora_Titus.jpg/92px-Menora_Titus.jpg

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_%28Temple%29)

Now ignoring the base, what do you get if you turn this picture upside down? To me it could easily be a river with its delta: one main stem and six branches, making seven rivers. I would guess that the main stem river is the first river Enoch mentions, the one that flows from the west, like the river Ezekiel (chapter 47) mentioned flowing symbolically from the temple into Dead Sea.

So if all this is true, why are the six branches given in Sirach the names Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, and the Nile?

Well the Tigris and Euphrates are huge rivers, and Enoch describes the rivers as larger than all the rivers of the earth (interestingly, the second and third rivers Enoch mentions are mentioned together as flowing "into the Erythraean Sea in the east" - exactly as the Euphrates and Tigris do!).

The Gihon is the spring where Solomon was anointed King, and the location of the First Temple (see previous post). The Jordan is where the Ark of the Covenant parted the waters to allow Israel to pass into the Promised Land: therefore I guess it represents the entry into Paradise. The Nile was turned into blood by Moses: therefore I guess it represents the flow of blood and water from the Temple (the water being used to clean the blood - see page 11 of TheNewchurch.pdf (http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TheNewchurch.pdf)).

And the Pishon? I do not know, but the Pool of Siloam is where the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah was spoken (Isaiah 7:3,14) and Israel is accused of rejecting "the waters of Shiloah [Siloam] that flow softly" (8:6).

From this - if I am right - two major questions arise: Why are the Pishon and Gihon moved to Havilah and Cush? Why are the rivers Jordan and Nile omitted from the Genesis account?

The Gihon: Cush is Ethiopia, so reading Genesis like an apocalypse, may I suggest that moving the place where Solomon was anointed King to Ethiopia implies that the kingly line of descent passed there at the time of writing. No prizes for guessing what the Ethiopian kings claimed for themselves - descent from Solomon! (The date of Genesis 1-11 I would place with Ezra or shortly afterwards, though it is still part of the Books of Moses - like Solomon writing the Wisdom of Solomon, or the Letter to the Hebrews being written by Paul: the ascriptions stand as a continuity of prophethood, so to speak.)

The Pishon: I do not know what the exact symbolism of the Pishon flowing into the Pool of Siloam might be (although Jesus healing a blind man via the waters of Siloam probably had a very symbolic meaning). However, first of all, where is Havilah ("Pishon … skirts the whole land of Havilah")? "Semitic Havilah was located in Eastern Africa, modern day Ethiopia" (from Wikipedia for the Queen of Sheba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Sheba), see the map there), although the entry for Havilah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havilah) mentions Yemen, which was governed by Ethiopia at times. Either way we are back with a link to Ethiopia!

However, Genesis also says that in Havilah "there is gold. And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there". Bdellium is only mentioned again in Numbers 11:7, "Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its colour like the colour of bdellium". Reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text can give only one interpretation: this is the manna of "the golden pot that had the manna" (Hbr 9:4)! The gold of that land is indeed good - it is gold from Solomon’s Temple. Interestingly, it has been argued (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna/lThe_Pot_of_Manna) that the Pot of Manna "survived at least until the time of Jeremiah", and yet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen_Jews/lEarly_history) "The Sanaite Jews have a legend that their ancestors settled in Yemen forty-two years before the destruction of the First Temple. It is said that under the prophet Jeremiah some 75,000 Jews, including priests and Levites, travelled to Yemen". I think the two can be put together to make four perfectly well - which lends much credibility in my eyes to the claim of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to have either the Ark of the Covenant or some things related to it!

Now regarding the onyx stone, the main Biblical use of the word onyx is apparently to describe the Urim and Thummim:

Exd 28:9 "Then you shall take two onyx stones and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel: … Exd 28:11 … You shall set them in settings of gold.

Significantly, the Urim and Thummim were lost around the time of the same Jeremiah, "Talmudic sources are unanimous in agreeing that the Urim and Thummim were lost much earlier, when Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians", from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim/lHistory_of_Use).

The second question is much simpler: Why are the rivers Jordan and Nile omitted from the Genesis account? It is in the Jordan that Christ was baptised, so bringing us to the rivers of Paradise. When on the Cross, blood and water, like the Nile of old, flowed from His side, making us drink the life-giving waters of Paradise. But why omitted? During the first temple, Israel fell into idolatry, but during the second temple period they returned to idolatry, but not that of idols. I think it is an idolatry of ideas, the start of monotheism:

Malachi 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

So in other words, by omitting these rivers the writer of Genesis 2 (Ezra?) is stating that they had forsaken the Wisdom - and so the Messiah - of God.

So when you read Genesis, do indeed read it as real history, an alternative history - the history of Israel as told mingled with the creation stories. More to follow - hopefully shorter posts, but I found this one fascinating …

What are people’s thoughts on this? Is this the way Genesis should be read, being based on the approach of St Jerome? Is this more helpful than insisting everything literally happened, or literally did not happen?

Richard

RichardWorthington

25-09-2008, 11:45 PM

The Pishon in Hebrew is:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=118&pictureid=987

(from the Blue Letter Bible (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H06376&t=kjv))

Reading from right to left the letters are P-i-sh-o-n; the various dots are vowel points, with consonants also for the ‘i’ and ‘o’. Now having tried to memorise various pictures (such is my knowledge of the Hebrew alphabet) I then noticed something frighteningly remarkable when looking under the Bible entry for ‘Shiloah’ (the Hebrew name of Siloam):

http://www.monachos.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=118&pictureid=988

(from the Blue Letter Bible (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07975&t=kjv))

Now look at the bit I have highlighted in red. Doesn’t that look similar?! Comparing this with the letters (i.e. to me pictures) of the Hebrew alphabet yields that the word in red is K-i-sh-o-r -- yet the ‘p’ and ‘k’ at the start look similar, and the ‘n’ and ‘r’ at the end. I think this is the Pishon=Kishor=another aqueduct flowing into the Pool of Siloam.

FYI

I did speak with the Hebrew scholar Dr Margaret Barker, and she confirmed the possibility of my suspicions regarding the interpretation of the river Pishon.

Paul C.

26-09-2008, 09:33 AM

Somewhere at least the concept of a Creator will need to be posed, but when we look at this universe around us it definitely was not the work of any loving God: we Christians invoke the Fall (and myself the Flood, see below).

[quote]Originally Posted by RichardWorthington http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/misc/quote_magn.gif (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=65777#post65777)
In the Flood of Noah, the entire universe was re-formed. However, it was not fashioned again by the hand of God but by itself, having a ‘remembrance’ of what was before, and having being handed over to the demons by our sinfulness.

I have read from several Orthodox sources that demons do not inhabit any part of the universe beyond the atmosphere of the earth.

Just doing my bit,
Paul

Kingsley

26-09-2008, 06:40 PM

now let us talk about the apple that God said Adam &Eve should not eat
what did God mean there

Paul Cowan

27-09-2008, 01:59 AM

ummm, that they should not eat it? Call me crazy, but I think that is what he meant.

RichardWorthington

28-09-2008, 08:33 AM

I have read from several Orthodox sources that demons do not inhabit any part of the universe beyond the atmosphere of the earth.

Just doing my bit,
Paul

Thank you for your comment. I would agree whole-heartedly - after all they all want to attack us made in God's image rather than some inanimate star whizzing around!

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

However, it would seem as though there are some spiritual places where they also exist, not limiting themselves to this material universe.

Richard

Owen Jones

28-09-2008, 03:55 PM

Just a minor quibble here, but Plato's cosmology in the Timeaus does not inevitably lead one to gnosticism anymore than the New Testament inevitably leads one to gnosticism. Plato is simply saying what the Fathers are saying, that what we see in the physical world is not what is completely or fully real but a representation of it. We are created in the Image and Likeness of God. We are not just things, but images. For those who have the eyes to see...

Owen Jones

28-09-2008, 04:42 PM

M.C. Steenberg

28-09-2008, 07:48 PM

I would echo Owen's caution on Margaret Barker's hypotheses. This is not to say she shouldn't be read and considered; I find her approach very interesting in many facets, and she presents several good insights and - often - an approach that takes into account aspects many other scholars regularly omit or ignore.

However, she is extremely speculative, and often her speculations strain evidence and resources beyond what is helpful. I've only had one occasion (out of interest) to go beyond a simple reading of her works and scrutinize in significant detail some of her theories -- with respect to an article she wrote in Sourozh some years back, on the temple in Jerusalem. Without going into the details here (as I can't remember them off hand; I'd have to read the article again), it boiled down to a very shaky and highly speculative interpretation of archaeological and etymological details, not taking into account the testimony of other sources (if I remember the basic context of that article, it argued for a view of the temple that was all but utterly refuted by various early patristic sources - but again, it was long enough ago that I cannot remember much of her thesis or the specifics of my criticisms of it).

Again, I don't at all suggest Barker should be ignored or dismissed. I've quite enjoyed some of her work, and do think she has some valuable insights. However, her work has found a rather difficult reception in many circles, at least in part because a great deal of it seems driven by a kind of intense speculative drive, often with very little concrete basis.

I would certainly read with that cautionary lens. Overturning widespread views and interpretations only has value if there is substantive justification for it.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

28-09-2008, 08:04 PM

Dear Richard,

Just to give you a little critical back-and-forth to chew on in your deliberations, I some days ago printed out your post on the Pishon (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68323&postcount=9), with particular interest in the linguistic portion on the Hebrew, and passed it along to a good friend of mine who is far better with Hebrew than I. My knowledge of biblical Hebrew is workable, but I am certainly no expert and my proficiency gets worse, rather than better, as time passes (since I no longer use it with the frequency I used to). So when I had my own suspicions on your thesis in that post, that pishon was misread kishor - which I found improbable, but intriguing enough that I wanted to know more - I thought it best to give it to an expert.

Her response was this: that "this is the sort of possibility that would occur to a non-native speaker like you [she was referring to me], but not to a native. Those two words are as clear as you could want."

Just an additional perspective -- coming from someone who is Hebrew, speaks modern Hebrew as a native tongue, and is fairly expert in biblical Hebrew.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

RichardWorthington

29-09-2008, 12:51 AM

M.C. Steenberg

29-09-2008, 12:54 AM

Ah yes, Richard; I'd seen that post where you noted Dr Barker's thoughts. I thought I'd just provide another response for you to consider -- one from a Hebrew expert who's also a native Hebrew speaker, which Barker is not (so far as I'm aware).

INXC, Dcn Matthew

RichardWorthington

29-09-2008, 01:52 AM

I would caution against taking Margaret Barker en toto. There are just too many red flags. I think her approach has some validity, and confirms the temple mysticism, so to speak, of Orthodox theology. But when I find that Mormon "scholars" have taken a great interest in her work, that's just one red flag.

Many thanks for the feedback!

I naturally applied a ‘corrective’ when reading her works (the only one I have is her book on Revelation). For example, her description that the Balaam mentioned in Rev 2:14 is St Paul is fascinating - if very disturbing if true! (The Angel of the Lord met Balaam on his way, and He also met Paul on his way.) The interpretation being that the Christianity of St Paul was totally against the Christianity of the Hebrew Christians. However, there were obviously false letters of St Paul circulating, and in the early days the Hebrews Christians could well have considered that the author of the false letters was indeed the true Paul. Hence the verse in Revelation would be warning against the false teachings of the heretics - which St Paul himself was also against - yet they were not aware of the distinction as yet.

Regarding her meeting with the Mormons - yes it raised eyebrows with me too! But then I decided to watch my thoughts and feelings - and I realised that I was treating them far more harshly than I would those of other religions (e.g. I try to see points of convergence between my own Orthodox beliefs and Hinduism, New Age-ism, Rationalism, Buddhism, etc). Yet God remembers those in all the world who remember Him (with their best available knowledge) and try to live according to the obvious commandments. Surely there are some passions regarding my reaction to the Mormons that need uprooting! Lord, help me! (Or perhaps we should invent a parable of the ‘Good Mormon’ helping others when those of the ‘correct’ faith pass by … !!)

But there is an imbalance here, I think, in terms of too much confidence in gnostic texts, and the idea that somehow the Old Testament canon as we know it is somehow suspect.

I try never to quote from her use of Gnostic texts, but to find alternatives. We do not need Gnosticism to learn about Orthodoxy, but I believe that Orthodoxy can contain most of Western Christendom and Gnosticism. Appealing to Gnosticism then can help to pull people away from the one-sidedness of the West to the balance of Orthodoxy, even if Gnosticism is one-sided on the other side!

The early Fathers also had doubts on the texts as used by the Jews, preferring the Septuagint. For example, the Hebrew Psalm 40:6 has “My ears You have opened”, but the LXX - based on a Hebrew manuscript - has “a body You have prepared for Me.” (Hbr 10:5). I once read a book in which the author said that it was possible that the LXX translators has misread the Hebrew. However, perhaps certain letters were changed by those who rejected Jesus. Is this not more plausible? What other things have been obscured?

There is also a somewhat disturbing focus on esoterica which inevitably leads one away from the fundamentals -- if I may use that term -- of Christianity -- a life of virtue in obedience to the commandments. Christ's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, etc. While there are esoteric elements to Christ's life and teaching, one never wants to make this the absolute focus because this is when one inevitably backs into a kind of gnostic mysticism.

But the Fathers described spiritual visions etc but in no way did away with the commandments! I am sure she would agree. Sitting around trying to induce some spiritual state is a pathway to delusion. However, it is good to know where the commandments lead to - union with God!

A much better source I think is Origen himself -- his Biblical commentaries -- one can avoid his speculative theology if one wishes. Interestingly, in the 2d Century Origen is already correcting other Christians in terms of the true Hebraic meaning of certain Christian practices. An excellent text is Spirit and Fire, which is a thematic anthology of Origen compiled, with brief comments, by the Catholic scholar Hans Urs Von Balthasar.

She quotes from Origen also.

True gnosis according to the FAthers does not exist apart from obedience to His law. So when scholars focus on esoterica, absent this fundamental balance, look out! Even the most esoteric writings of the Orthodox Fathers are infused with obedience to the law as the common theme. Jewish scholars often accuse Christians of being antinomian. Which is an untrue, unfair criticism. Let's not make that mistake.

That is true, but obedience to God’s inner law certainly does exist without true knowledge of deification - look at the history of the West for the past 1,000 years - and the ‘western captivity’ of Orthodoxy.

Is it so wrong to assume the law and just concentrate on “that for which Christ Jesus took hold of us”? Numerous people ignore and deny any spiritual benefits and concentrate only on wrath, hell fire, and damnation, and that anything spiritual good can only happen to the saints, the rest of us being too sinful and totally deluded. This is indeed the impression some people have of certain types of Christianity!

But many thanks again.

Richard

RichardWorthington

29-09-2008, 01:58 AM

now let us talk about the apple that God said Adam &Eve should not eat
what did God mean there

Dear Mr Kingsley,

Welcome to Monachos!

I do have indeed thought about how Genesis 3 could have a double meaning, but my 'alternative history' of Israel within Genesis (like an apocalyptic text) is much clearer with Cain and Lamech.

So I will put those thoughts down first for consideration as to my sanity, rather than things which I have convinced myself of, but which are probably in themselves not convincing!

Many thanks,

Richard

Paul C.

29-09-2008, 06:40 AM

now let us talk about the apple that God said Adam &Eve should not eat
what did God mean thereApple? In movies and commercials an apple was often used because no one has a spare 'fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' to record on video film or DVD.

I know what you meant anyway.
Paul

RichardWorthington

02-10-2008, 11:06 PM

We all know the story about Cain and Abel: Cain murders his brother, and is sent into exile. However, one of his descendents Lamech takes two wives and then sings a song about someone he has murdered. Fanciful interpretations abound! However, reading Genesis 4 as a ‘story-fied’ apocalyptic text based upon a real event regarding Cain and Abel (I’m not sure about Lamech’s existence) I think solves all the strange bits of the chapter. (Note, have a cup of tea with biscuits ready - long post ahead!)

Cain and his exile (Genesis 4:11-16)

First note that around the year 800BC, Zechariah the priest was murdered by his foster brother king Joash, and that this could well be linked to the story about Cain and Abel (see the post The other Cain). However, when Jerusalem fell the prophet Jeremiah lamented, "Should the priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?" (Lam 2:20) - in ways the whole of Israel are blamed for Zechariah’s death.

Now the name ‘Israel’ can refer to both the nation and its originator, Jacob/Israel. So similarly, reading ‘Cain’ as being the nation responsible for killing Zechariah (rather than as being king Joash) gives some very simple explanations to the cryptic sayings of Genesis chapter 4. Consider the following:

Gen 4:13 And Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear!
Gen 4:14 "Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me."
Gen 4:15 And the LORD said to him, "Not so, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.

Why be fearful of being killed? - according to Genesis the population of the world could well have been in single figures at the time! Why put a mark/sign on him?

The nation of Israel went into exile (about 586BC) - "east of Eden" (Gen 4:16), i.e. east of the Promised Land into Babylon, as a fugitive and vagabond. Those that went had a mark on their foreheads (symbolically and prophetically speaking, Ezek 9:4) - this was the letter Taw ‘ת’. However, in the Paleo-hebrew/Phoenician alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet/lThe_alphabet) in use at that time this letter was written as ‘X’, although on the Proto-Canaanite alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Canaanite_alphabet/lCharacteristics) Wikipedia site it is written as a ‘+’. The Christian sign of the Cross and the ‘X’ for Christ in Greek have a very ancient symbolism!

So to speak, this was an assurance to them that God had not forsaken them even though they were in captivity. They need not fear being killed. However, interestingly enough, someone was responsible for invading Israel and destroying Jerusalem - king Nebuchadnezzar. He killed ‘Cain’ - the Israelites who did not have repentance in their hearts and so were not marked with the sign of the cross. And so what about the vengeance being taken ‘sevenfold’ on Cain's murderer? When king Nebuchadnezzar exalted himself in pride, God made "seven times pass over" him, and he went mad for seven years (Daniel 4:32).

Cain and his family (Genesis 4:17-18)

Now in Gen 4:17 we read that Cain "built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son--Enoch". Now that the name ‘Enoch/Heb. Chanowk’ (Strong’s H2585 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H02585&t=kjv)) is the same name as the Enoch taken to heaven, and that it means ‘dedicated’ or ‘initiated’, can be learnt quite easily. However, an additional easy thing to do was to see how its related words are used in the Bible.

chanak (Strong’s H2596 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2596&t=kjv)) "to train, dedicate, inaugurate"; this is the root word for the name ‘Enoch’. This is only used in 4 verses, significantly twice it is used of Solomon dedicating the Temple (1Kings 8:63 & 2Chr 7:5)

chanukkah (Strong’s H2598 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H2598)) "dedication, consecration". This is only used in 7 verses: 4 verses in Numbers chapter 7 regarding dedicating the altar to God, 2Chr 7:9 for the dedication of the Temple’s altar, Neh 12:27 regarding the dedication of the wall of the rebuilt Jerusalem, and Psalm 30:1 "A song at the dedication of the house of David".

chanukka' (Aramaic, corresponding to the above H2598, Strong’s H2597 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H2597)). This also only appears in 4 verses, significantly twice in Ezra 6:16-17 regarding the dedication of the rebuilt temple.

As such can I propose that if the ‘Cain’ of Genesis chapter 4 represents Israel, that the city ‘Enoch’ represents the rebuilt Jerusalem and its Temple after the end of the captivity?

Now if the city Enoch is Jerusalem rebuilt then things start to come together very well. The text then lists the names of the generations. It is interesting to compare them with the list of names in the genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5 (inspired by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Adam/lComparison_between_the_two_lines_of_descent)):

Seth’s Line Cain’s Line
1 Seth
2 Enosh Cain
3 Cainan Enoch
4 Mahalaleel Irad
5 Jared Mehujael
6 Enoch
7 Methuselah Methuselah (LXX, Heb. Methushael)
8 Lamech Lamech
9 Noah

Note how similar these two lines of descent are. Similar names have been interchanged in lines 2 & 3 and 4 & 5, and then appear the same names (in LXX; very similar in Heb.) in lines 7 & 8. As I am happy to take Genesis 5 as a genealogy passed down by word of mouth and taken as actual (if not, then why invent such numbers for their ages?), it would seem that the author of this genealogy wanted to make a point based on Noah’s genealogy.

Noah was the tenth from Adam. These would have been the ‘mythical pre-historical’ kings/priests of the world. Note that in the apocalyptic text of Daniel 7:24 the ten horns are ten kings, and so also Revelation 17:12; 12:3; 13:1. In the days of Noah rest would come (Gen 5:29), yet the Day of Atonement was also on the tenth day of the month heralding a "sabbath of rest" (Lev 16:29-31).

So in effect, the rebuilt Temple cult started off well with Cain’s son Enoch, implying that the first priest "walked with God" as did the Enoch who was taken to heaven, Gen 5:24. However, things then got in a mess and ended up with the seventh from Adam not being like the Enoch who was taken to heaven, but with Lamech. Yet this is not the Lamech who gave birth to Noah for our rest, but the Lamech who murdered someone (Gen 4:23).

And the list of the high priests from the rebuilding of the temple tallies with this (see Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel/lAfter_the_Babylonian_Exile), and Nehemiah 12:10-11): Joshua (=‘Enoch’), Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan. Now of course not all of the high priests were bad - some later on were clearly glorified by God. However, Eliashib (Neh 13) kept tithes from the Levites, and one of the sons of Joiada was chased out (Neh 13:28). But most significantly of all, Johanan killed his brother in the temple because he quarrelled and provoked him (Josephus ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, book 11, ch 7 (http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=11&chapter=7)), just like Cain did, and Lamech claimed to have killed a man for wounding him (Gen 4:23). Therefore Johanan is like Lamech.

The Wives of Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24)

I’ll continue this bit in another post …

Many thanks for bearing with me. This stuff is a personal hobby of mine, and I find it fascinating. I just like to share it.

Richard

RichardWorthington

07-10-2008, 11:04 PM

(continued from above; perhaps best to brew another tea?)

Gen 4:19 Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah.

Now associating Lamech with the fifth high priest after the rebuilding of the Temple puts us in the same time range as the prophet Malachi. And, strangely enough, he talks about two wives as well:

Mal 2:11 Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the Lord’s holy institution which He loves: He has married the daughter of a foreign god.
…
So He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Mal 2:14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.

Judah has dealt treacherously with the wife of his youth, and married the daughter of a foreign god.

Some brief history about the period: because the Kings of Judah and Israel married foreign women they were seduced into idolatry. After the return from captivity Israel were keen to avoid the same error, and so tried to enforce the rule that marriage must be between fellow Israelites. However, numerous people had intermarried, and it seems that the rulers were at times too harsh on people, forcing the foreign wives to leave. It is one thing to be strict with the rulers and ‘big people’ of the land, but when ordinary people have such strictness … you can imagine the feelings produced!

Now some think that these verses of Malachi are about these things. However, it is about the nation of Judah/Israel following foreign gods yet again! (What is idolatry without idols, if not monotheism, a denial of the Thrice-Holy One?) Instead of Judah "has married the daughter of a foreign god" (verse 11 above), the LXX translates it as Judah "has gone after other gods". And the phrase "wife of your youth" occurs only four times in the Bible: twice here in Malachi chapter 2, and then in Proverbs 5:18 and Isaiah 54:6.

Proverbs 5:18, "rejoice with the wife of your youth", occurs in the ‘Wisdom’ part of Proverbs, where the writer counsels us not to commit adultery with the ‘immoral woman’. Wisdom here is the same as the Word, through Whom "all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3), for "The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens" (Prov 3:19). Therefore the ‘immoral woman’ is the ‘anti-Wisdom’, so to speak: the life of Jerusalem is no longer Lady Wisdom, but "the daughter of a foreign god".

Now Isaiah 54:5-6 reads as follows, "For your Maker is your husband, The LORD of hosts is His name; … For the LORD has called you like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a youthful wife (‘wife of youth’) when you were refused". The ‘wife of your youth’ is not a generic term for any woman, but for Lady Wisdom, now known as the Church, the Body of Christ the Word. She had been forsaken, so to speak, when Israel went into exile, but Her Husband seeks Her out within humanity.

(Also, Malachi 2:15 has been variously translated, but I think that looking for a link with Mother Wisdom/Church would give a better understanding, but I’ve waffled on enough for now on this!)

So how does this relate to ‘Lamech’ and his two wives? The name of the first wife mentioned is Adah (Strong’s Hebrew word H5711 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05711)), which is the same consonantally as the next word, edah (H5712 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5712)). What is the significance of this? This word means "congregation, gathering", and is translated into Greek as ‘synagogue’. It is also used in such phrases as the "congregation of Israel". As such, it is similar in usage to the word "church", as in Deut 31:30, "And Moses spoke in the ears of all the congregation(church) of Israel" (LXX), and these two words appear together in Proverbs 5:14, "in the midst of the church and synagogue" (LXX).

As such then the name of Lamech’s first wife is The Synagogue=The Church. His second wife Zillah means shade or shadow (H6741 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H06741&t=kjv)), as in the shadow of the law (if I may interpret!). So Israel at this time was split into those who followed God and those who did everything right according to the letter of the law, but who did not follow God in their hearts. The Book of Enoch describes this also:

Enoch 89:73 And they began again to build as before, and they reared up that tower, and it was named the high tower; and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure. 74 And as touching all this the eyes of those sheep were blinded so that they saw not, and (the eyes of) their shepherds likewise; and they delivered them in large numbers to their shepherds for 75 destruction, and they trampled the sheep with their feet and devoured them.

The leaders (shepherds) in Jerusalem became blind (in Enoch 93:8 being blind is associated with forsaking Wisdom) and their offerings to God were polluted. Interestingly, "all the bread on it was polluted and not pure" would seem to mirror what Malachi says, "you offer defiled food on My altar" (Mal 1:7). So where were the good shepherds, who follow the Good Shepherd?

Adah had two children:

Gen 4:20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
Gen 4:21 His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute.

Now who are those who "dwell in tents and have livestock", if not shepherds? And David was famed for playing music in his psalms, and also a Hebrew interlinear (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen4.pdf) has "shepherd's-pipe" for "flute". In other words the true shepherds (=prophets and priests) were not those of the established temple worship. I will describe my thoughts on the names Jabal and Jubal later.

What about Lamech’s other wife?

Gen 4:22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal; he was a smith, a forger of bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal was Naamah. (LXX)

The names here are very significant. The Hebrew text names her son as ‘Tubal-Cain’ (H8423 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H08423&t=kjv)), which means ‘brought forth of Cain’ - and from what I have heard the fratricide amongst the high priestly families was higher than average! However, as can be seen, in the Septuagint his name is merely Tubal. (Therefore making the three sons’ names like a Hebrew version of "Tom, ****, and Harry"!) [****=automatic removal of the offensive shortened form of my own name Richard, i.e. D1ck - to try to get it round this problem!!]

Now I am indeed ignorant of Hebrew - and if I am right here then ignorance is perhaps one of the greatest attainments of my life!! Splitting Tubal-תובל we get ‘Tu-תו’ and ‘bal-בל’. So ignoring the vowel points, we get that ‘Tu-תו’ is a mark (H8420 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8420)) - the same word is used in Ezekiel 9:4 for the sign of the cross, as mentioned in the previous post. ‘bal-בל’ is either the god ‘Bel-בל’ (H1078 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1078&t=KJV&sf=4)), which is a short form of ‘Baal -בעל’ (H1168 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1168&t=KJV)), or a short form of "balal-בלל" meaning "confuse" (H1101 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1101&t=KJV&sf=4)). So the name Tubal may mean either ‘the mark of Bel/Baal’ or ‘the confused mark (of the cross)’. Either would indicate what Enoch and Malachi say above about the restored temple worship, that it was polluted and defiled. Tubal, being a forger of bronze and iron, is further linked to the temple because at an earlier restoration of the temple the text mentions "those who worked in iron and bronze to restore the house of the LORD" (2Chr 24:12).

Now his sister is called Naamah. This is a very significant name: it is also the name of the wife of King Solomon who was the mother of Rehoboam (H5279 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05279&t=kjv)). So what? He was the king who taxed his subjects so severely that the northern kingdom of Israel split from the southern kingdom of Judah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehoboam). And it was during the high priesthood of Jaddua the son of Johanan that a new temple was built where one had stood in the old northern kingdom! (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 11, Chapter 8 (http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=11&chapter=8))

So what about the names Jabal and Jubal? Easy one - Jubal (H3106 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H03106&t=kjv)) is the same word consonantally as the word for ‘Jubilee’ (H3104 (http://cf.blb.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3104&t=KJV)), and Jabal (H2989 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H02989&t=kjv)) is merely a consonantally shortened form of this (my paper copy of Strong’s concordance - a weighty tome indeed! - has this shortened form listed with H3104=Jubilee).

Why would this be significant? Read the following:

… an article by Margaret Barker, 'The Time is Fulfilled: Jesus and Jubilee," in which she argues that the Melchizedek tradition found in 11Q13 was indeed known and used by Jesus. Her arguments in favor of this are twofold. First, dating Ezra's return to 428 B.C.E. and reckoning the commencement of Daniel's seventy weeks (ten Jubilees) with a Jubilee shortly after this dale, in 424 B.C.E., she shows that the end of the seventy' weeks would have been in the late 60s C.E., a calculation that coheres with a tradition in the Seder Olam, in the name of Rabbi Jose, which dates the end of Daniel's seventy weeks at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in 66-68 C.E. A reckoning along these lines could have done much in the 60s to fuel the unrest that led to the Great Revolt. She also points out that by this understanding, the first week of the tenth Jubilee, which according 11Q13 is the time when Melchizedek is to return to proclaim release, comes roughly in 19-26 C.E., potentially close enough to the widely accepted date of the crucifixion of Jesus in 30 to raise the possibility that he saw himself' as the coming Melchizedek and commenced his ministry accordingly.

The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, By James R. Davila, Page 269; it is interesting to read the critique afterwards.
http://books.google.com/books?id=U7-QeffdZh4C&printsec=frontcover#PPA269,M1

The Dead Sea Scroll 11Q13 is very interesting to read. http://www.gnosis.org/library/commelc.htm

So here we see that the Ten Jubilees=Seventy ‘Weeks’=490 years start at about 424BC. (A Jubilee is 49 years.) Why mention this?

Gen 4:24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold."

Seventy-sevenfold of years is the same time span as Ten Jubilees=490 years. So if Jabal and Jubal represent two jubilees, then does this mean that these events happened in the second jubilee? The fist Jubilee would be from 424BC to 376BC, making the second from 375BC to 326BC. And when did the high priest Jaddua live, in whose priesthood the Samaritan temple was built? Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel#After_the_Babylonia n_Exile) says, "Jaddua, son of Johanan, ca. 371-320 BC". This is a very good overlap!

So having staked my sanity on this stuff, how am I doing? Will the men-in-white come for me? Not angels - but still men-in-white coming for to carry me ‘home’!! ;)

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

07-10-2008, 11:08 PM

Dear Richard,

Have you some patristic orientantion for all this? I'm a little curious how you see this interrelating to a patristic approach to the materials. (i.e., I'd be interested to see some of the fathers you think convey some of what you're speculating.)

INXC, Dcn Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

08-10-2008, 12:54 AM

Here are some comments on the Lamech of Genesis 4 (i.e. the descendent of Cain at the sixth generation; not the descendent of Seth, father of Noah, who is the Lamech of Genesis 5):

Augustine, City of God, Book 15, Chapter 20:
But in whatever manner the generations of Cain's line are traced downwards, whether it be by first-born sons or by the heirs to the throne, it seems to me that I must by no means omit to notice that, when Lamech had been set down as the seventh from Adam, there were named, in addition, as many of his children as made up this number to eleven, which is the number signifying sin; for three sons and one daughter are added. The wives of Lamech have another signification, different from that which I am now pressing. For at present I am speaking of the children, and not of those by whom the children were begotten. Since, then, thelaw is symbolized by the number ten—whence that memorable Decalogue,— there is no doubt that the number eleven, which goes beyond ten, symbolizes the transgression of the law, and consequently sin. For this reason, eleven veils of goat's skin were ordered to be hung in the tabernacle of the testimony, which served in the wanderings of God's people as an ambulatory temple. And in that haircloth there was a reminder of sins, because the goats were to be set on the left hand of the Judge; and therefore, when we confess our sins, we prostrate ourselves in haircloth, as if we were saying what is written in the psalm, My sin is ever before me. The progeny of Adam, then, by Cain the murderer, is completed in the number eleven, which symbolizes sin; and this number itself is made up by a woman, as it was by the same sex that beginning was made of sin by which we all die. And it was committed that the pleasure of the flesh, which resists the spirit, might follow; and so Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, means pleasure. But from Adam to Noah, in the line of Seth, there are ten generations. And to Noah three sons are added, of whom, while one fell into sin, two were blessed by their father; so that, if you deduct the reprobate and add the gracious sons to the number, you get twelve—a number signalized in the case of the patriarchs and of the apostles, and made up of the parts of the number seven multiplied into one another—for three times four, or four times three, give twelve. These things being so, I see that I must consider and mention how these two lines, which by their separategenealogies depict the two cities, one of earth-born, the other of regenerated persons, became afterwards so mixed and confused, that the whole human race, with the exception of eight persons, deserved to perish in the deluge.
St Basil the Great, Epistle 260 (to Optimus), section 5:

[NB: Much of this epistle deals with the question of Lamech, and the slaying of Cain]

5. Your next question is of a kindred character, concerning the words of Lamech to his wives; I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt: if Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. (Genesis 4:23-24) Some suppose that Cain was slain by Lamech, and that he survived to this generation that he might suffer a longer punishment. But this is not the case. Lamech evidently committed two murders, from what he says himself, I have slain a man and a young man, the man to his wounding, and the young man to his hurt. There is a difference between wounding and hurt. And there is a difference between a man and a young man. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. It is right that I should undergo four hundred and ninety punishments, if God's judgment on Cain was just, that his punishments should be seven. Cain had not learned to murder from another, and had never seen a murderer undergoing punishment. But I, who had before my eyes Cain groaning and trembling, and the mightiness of the wrath of God, was not made wiser by the example before me. Wherefore I deserve to suffer four hundred and ninety punishments. There are, however, some who have gone so far as the following explanation, which does not jar with the doctrine of the Church; from Cain to the flood, they say, seven generations passed by, and the punishment was brought on the whole earth, because sin was everywhere spread abroad. But the sin of Lamech requires for its cure not a Flood, but Him Who Himself takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) Count the generations from Adam to the coming of Christ, and you will find, according to the genealogy of Luke, that the Lord was born in the seventy-seventh.
I note these two examples simply because they express something of both the historical and symbolical vision of Lamech and his circumstances as found in the fathers.

As to your specific posts, Richard, it is hard to know really where to begin. There are a number of points I would ask you to clarify so as to frame-in some means of commenting more specifically:

You associate the Lamech of Genesis 4 with 'the fifth high priest after the rebuilding of the Temple': why is this? You've provided some interesting readings of the genealogies that can be taken to support this, but only if it is taken as a given presupposition. In other words, the texts you've used themselves give no indication of this timeframe or context: where are you substantiating it with something?
You substantiate your reading of the wives of Lamech by suggesting a misreading of their names (עָדָה, Adah, and צִלָּה, Zillah), or at least of the first, based on other possibilities from the consonants used. However, this seems immensely unlikely, given the amount of commentary given the text in Jewish sources. (See for example the Midrash, which gives its whole commentary and interpretation of the wives based on the traditional meaning of Adah, namely 'the one who has been deposed'.) Have you any reason other than the wholly speculative to assume this misreading? (I can think of no source, in any context, that interprets עָדָה as meaning 'the synagogue'.)
Your interpretation of 'those who dwell in tents and have livestock' (Gen 4.20) as shepherds is quite common; but in combination with a note on Jabal and Jubal, you link this (via David) to the somewhat remarkable conclusion that 'the true shepherds (=prophets and priests) were not those of the established temple worship'. How do you link 'a' to 'b' in this context, without it simply being a case of 'proof texting' -- i.e. taking a text that has nothing inherently to do with an observation, and using it to support that observation in what is an interesting way, but one which doesn't necessarily have any warrant or connection to the text itself?
You suggest that the LXX's rendering of Zillah's son as Tubal, rather than the later Hebrew's Tubal-cain (which, I note, means 'blacksmith'), makes the names of the three sons 'like a Hebrew version of Tom, D1ck, and Harry'. I'm unclear what you mean by this.
You engage in some extremely fanciful speculations regarding the Hebrew of תּוּבַל, Tubal, the name of Zillah's son: splitting it apart into perceived roots. But I can see of no reason whatever to speculate a split root of 'sign' and 'bel/Baal', etc. -- i.e., interpreting it as in some sense indicating the sign of Baal or some confusion -- given that it is based on a rather clear root that means 'to produce, to bring forth'. Have you any reason to suppose what you suppose here?
Your reading of Tubal's sister, Naamah, solely connects her name to one that occurs elsewhere -- Solomon's wife -- and through him to his son, Rehoboam, thus appearing to indicate some connection to the division of the kingdom. Yet you seem to ignore the meaning of the name here (Naamah means 'Pleasure'), as well as the commentary given on that name in, for example, the Jewish Midrash (where it indicates the practice of 'taking pleasure in idols'). Apart from the fact that the name 'Naamah' occurs elsewhere in the scriptures (which is not at all uncommon, not inherently suggestive), have you any concrete justification for reading the name here as associated with the reign of Rehoboam?
For Jubal and Jabal, the fact that these are related seems to lead you to conclusion that they are essentially identical, both meaning 'Jubilee'. A couple of things here. Jubal and Jabal are clearly related, both built off the same root (ybl - to flow, bear forth); Jubilee may be related to these words (i.e. to the same root), but given that its meaning is 'ram's horn', or the sound of a trumpted/horn, even Strong notes this has to be guessed. Gesenius' lexicon assumes it is onomatopoetic. In any case, the idea that their names would indicate two Jubilees seems extremely unlikely: were this true, it would undoubtedly have been commented upon in some of the many ancient commentaries that focused on the jubilees. Whence do you ground this?

(The passages I have quoted at the front of this message provide a different perspective regarding the 'seventy-sevenfold of years', reflecting more widespread patristic interpretation.)

In general, it seems as if your writings are employing a kind of radical speculation, based on hypothesised alternative meanings of words that seems to both ancient Jewish and Greek interpreters as less oblique. As such, I'd like to know some of the grounding of what you're writing, so as to be able to comment on it more particularly.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

08-10-2008, 09:51 AM

I forgot to mention yesterday that the basic hypothesis that the Lamech story -- drawing on Cain and Enoch -- articulates the segmented history of Israel and the Temple, seems to fly in the face of a much more central distinction that points in this direction: the three sons of Noah: Sem, Cham and Japheth. Within the text, even as the text is understood (quite rightly, I believe) to reflect the post-exilic narrative of history centred in Jerusalem, the distinction between the lines of Cain and Seth seems predominently to be concerned with confirming the varying lives, cultures and traditions of the human community (and this seems, above all, the paramount imagery of Lamech, his wives and children; the contexts of human existence this story describes, convey necessary background to understanding the whole context of the Exile). It is actually the three descendents of Noah who are taken to indicate the divided community within the chosen people proper - both by Jewish as well as patristic readers. (So it is, for example, that Japheth is directly connected to Christ by second-century AD writers, given that Japheth's 'enlargement' reflects the expanding embrace of the Church.)

INXC, Dcn Matthew

RichardWorthington

08-10-2008, 12:54 PM

Dear Fr Dcn Matthew,

Thnak you so much for your time in replying. I do appreciate it. There is much to chew on. However, I have done some more searching on the infallible internet (!) regarding my idea that pishon was misread kishor. You wrote:

I had my own suspicions on your thesis in that post, that pishon was misread kishor - which I found improbable, but intriguing enough that I wanted to know more - I thought it best to give it to an expert.

Her response was this: that "this is the sort of possibility that would occur to a non-native speaker like you [she was referring to me], but not to a native. Those two words are as clear as you could want."

However, reading the footnotes to 1Chronicles chapter 1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=1Ch&chapter=001&version=nkjv) does indeed show that misreadings can occur. I know you are not denying this, but I am merely trying to show where i am coming from.

I have found an example of where a final 'n' and 'r' are confused: Gibbar (Ezra 2:20) with Gibeon (Neh 7:25; there are also extra middle letters here).

While flipping through various genealogies (being the best source of transcription mistakes with easy verification) I did not find any examples of a 'k' and 'p' being confused, I did find these in a google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=pe+misread+kaph&btnG=Search

JSTOR: On the Interpretation of Hargas 57, 58, and 59 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2176(197007)38%3A3%3C243%3AOTIOH5%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E)
... error: beth for pe.13 In sum: On the basis of the above observations, ... pe has been misread as kaph (KWR for PWR) and yodh has been mistaken for waw ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2176(197007)38%3A3%3C243%3AOTIOH5%3E2.0.CO%3... - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=related:links.jstor.org/sici%3Fsici%3D0018-2176(197007)38%253A3%253C243%253AOTIOH5%253E2.0.CO %253B2-E)
by SG Armistead - 1970

TRAUERN ALS BEWALTIGUNG DER VERGANGENHEIT ZUR GESTALTUNG DER ... (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/vet/2002/00000052/00000004/art00004?crawler=true)
misreading of single letters are gimel and resh in Ex. 9, yod and ’ayin. in Ex. 11, úeth and samek in Ex. 18, pe and kaph in Exx. 20 and 21, ...
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/vet/2002/00000052/00000004/art00004?crawler=true (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/vet/2002/00000052/00000004/art00004?crawler=true) - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=related:www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/vet/2002/00000052/00000004/art00004%3Fcrawler%3Dtrue)
by A Gelston - 2002 - Cited by 1 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=4195233170272596609&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=3&ct=sl-citedby) - Related articles (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=related:gbIIUFd2ODoJ:scholar.google.com/&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=3&ct=sl-related) - All 4 versions (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=4195233170272596609&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=3&ct=sl-allversions)

I can not read the papers as you have to pay for them, but the brief summary in the google page looks promising, that 'k' and 'p' can be confused.

Therefore perhaps it is possible that 'Pishon' was misread for 'Kishor' (there is also a river Kishon in Israel, just for thought).

Many thanks,
Richard

M.C. Steenberg

10-10-2008, 10:49 AM

Dear Richard,

Yes, of course I acknowledge that misreadings can occur (and do, and can often be quite interesting when they do). However, understanding how they occur, and in what instances, and what might be a potential misreading and what mightn't, are skills that really come at quite a refined and nuanced level of understanding an ancient language - particularly one such as Hebrew, which to English-speaker seems so different that it is easy to 'see misreadings' everywhere. My own experience, in this language and in others, is that the less one knows about the language itself, the more one tends to see theoretical misreadings - which are often in fact a reflection of our own unfamiliarity with the language and script: the strangeness and foreignness of the language to the novice reader tends to cause one's own vaguery of understanding to promote a view that the text is more vague than it is (hence the response of my Hebrew-speaking associate on your theory of a confusion between Pishon/Kishor: "this is the sort of possibility that would occur to a non-native speaker like you [me], but not to a native"); or to take the simple physical shape of the script and of words, locate patterns based solely on that rather than on the communication of the language itself, and dissect it into new meanings (which is my basic query over your theories on עָדָה and תּוּבַל).

Two extremely simplistic examples:

In my handwriting, if I'm not paying attention, my lowercase 'r' and lowercase 't' are almost indistinguishable (best not to ask how... they just are!). It I were to write out the phrase, 'He gave the cat some food' and present it to a non-native speaker, it might be quite possible that 'cat' would appear 'car', and the phrase have an entirely different - though equally feasible, if mystifyingly bizarre - meaning. However, to a native English speaker, there would be little question at all. This I would compare to your theories on Pishon/Kishor, based on the response I've received from scholars, as well as my own reading (I realise the question of deciphering handwriting is something distinct; but I trust the general point comes across).

Similarly, attempting to locate deeper meanings simply by locating potential compounds and components in the physical shape of the script, can be drastically misleading to non-native speakers - and often is, in humorous ways. 'Catapult' has nothing to do with cats; 'disembark' has nothing to do with the outer skin of a tree; 'bowling' has nothing to do with a table place setting; etc. This is rather the sort of thing I suspect you're doing, however, with your theories on such names as עָדָה and תּוּבַל.

Classical (biblical) Hebrew is particularly confusing to potential readers, given that it is consonantal and compact: it tends to look like just a jumble of consonants essentially available as a free-for-all of potential readings and interpretations. It isn't, of course: it's a discrete language that communicates clearly within its own context. This doesn't mean it doesn't have vagueries and potential mishaps of writing and reading, which are common to all languages; but it does mean that with this language in particular, one has to become far more proficient and 'expert' in it than in some others, before one is able to discern such things effectively.

INXC, Deacon Matthew

RichardWorthington

01-02-2009, 08:40 PM

Dear Fr Dcn Matthew,

Hmmm … I think it would be best for me to try to put across why I am writing these posts (apart from keeping me off the streets … !!)

For example, consider the following story:

Once upon a time there was a man called Seth, strengthened by God, who visited the amphitheatre. The trumpets sounded like thunder and great torches of fire flashed like lightening.

Then all types of animals came out. Oxen pulled the bronze carts on which the lions were mounted, and eagles soared overhead. The animals were all painted the colour of amber, like the sun at its height.

And behind the animals came the king. He was sitting over a huge blue cloth which seemed like the waves of the sea in the wind. His throne shone with sapphires, and he himself was robed in gold. Curved stripes of precious metals surrounded him, and those present worshipped him.

Now what would anyone make of this story (other than I am completely off my rocker!)? Perhaps the man of God ("Seth") went to denounce the error of emperor-worship?

Well, interestingly enough, the name Ezekiel means "God strengthens", and Seth is the son of Adam, like Ezekiel being called "son of man". And if you read the first chapter of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1) then you might see the similarities with the whirlwind, living creatures, firmament, and Christ’s throne!

Here it can be easily seen that my little story is a ‘story-fied’ reworking of Ezekiel’s vision because we have the original text for comparison. However, I am trying to test the idea that Genesis chapters 1 to 11 are actually an apocalyptic text that has been turned into a story. What originally was there was something like Ezekiel’s vision, but it has been hidden under the veneer of a story.

"historical and symbolical vision of Lamech" (post #28): Father Deacon, do you accept that Lamech was historical, with the implication that he lived about 3000 or 4000BC, about the time of the worldwide Flood? that before him there were no stringed instruments (Gen 4:21), and that the bronze age and iron age started around the same time as him (Gen 4:22)? I think I can rightly guess that you do not!!

Yet what is the alternative? Another endless thread on literal Genesis versus mainstream science and archaeology?

The only way I can test my idea that Genesis should read like an apocalypse is to see how well a ‘sensible’ apocalyptic reading of Genesis would fit into known Israelite history.

Have you some patristic orientantion for all this? I'm a little curious how you see this interrelating to a patristic approach to the materials. (i.e., I'd be interested to see some of the fathers you think convey some of what you're speculating.)

I think I can find something very close to this: see my next post on the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’!

Many thanks for all your comments,

Richard

RichardWorthington

21-02-2009, 12:24 PM

Gen 6:1 NOW it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
Gen 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Were these ‘sons of God’ wicked children of Seth (‘Sons of God: Gen 6.1-4’ thread, post #3), or fallen angels (‘Nephilim (Genesis 6.4) - patristic commentary requested’ thread, post #5)? ‘Children of Seth’ does not seem to fit in with an obvious reading of the text, and ‘fallen angels’ poses a bigger problem: sexual attraction only exists amongst physical beings.

Or maybe there is another interpretation: the actual kings of ancient Israel were these very same ‘sons of God’, and this story is describing the corruption in pre-exilic Judaism based upon the temple visions of ‘pre-history’.

Well, this might not seem as far fetched as it sounds (hint: a few shots of vodka might help to explain this if I fail!):

The kings of Israel were called the ‘sons of God’ (a foreshadowing of Christ, the Son of God and true King of Israel):

Psalm 89:18 For our shield belongs to the LORD, And our king to the Holy One of Israel. …
Psalm 89:26 He shall cry to Me, 'You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.'
Psalm 89:27 Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.

Psalm 2:6 "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion."
Psalm 2:7 "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"

2Sam 7:14 "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son"

"the sons of God saw the daughters of men … and they took wives for themselves": by ‘daughters of men’ could be meant those wives of foreign peoples (thus contrasted with Israel, ‘sons of God’):

1Ki 11:1 But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites-- …
1Ki 11:4 For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods

1Ki 16:30 Now Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD, more than all who were before him.
Ki 16:31 … he took as wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians; and he went and served Baal and worshiped him.

"his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.": There are two interesting dates relating to this phrase:

In 722 BC the northern kingdom of Israel fell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#Assyrian_capti vity_of_the_Israelites)
In 701 BC (when Hezekiah became ill), the prophet Isaiah prophesised the destruction of Jerusalem, " ‘Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left,’ says the LORD." (Isa 38:1 & Isa 39:6; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah#Chronological_issues)
Now progressing 120 years after these two dates (i.e. subtract 120 as the years are BC) yields 602 BC and 581 BC respectively. And what event happened close to these dates? Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon pillaged the temple twice - "once in 597 BCE, and again in 586 BCE, after which he destroyed it" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_temple#Raids_and_destruction). In both cases we are only 5 years out; indeed, if it is significant, the average date between 602 BC and 581 BC is 591(.5) BC - which is exactly the same average date between 597 BC and 586 BC!!
Thus far I think we can easily see a plausible connection between Genesis 6:1-4 and the events of Israel’s exile, except for one thorny problem: if these things are related to pre-exilic corruption in Israel, then who or what on earth are the giants?!?

Interestingly enough Enoch states the following about the ‘giants’:

1 And all the others [angels] together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed 4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against 5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

Chapter 7, http://reluctant-messenger.com/book_of_enoch.htm

The giants "consumed all the acquisitions of men": could this be a reference to sacrificing to idols? The Israelites certainly made their sons "pass through the fire to Molech" (Jer. 32:35) - "devoured mankind", so to speak? Indeed, later on in the Book of Enoch we read that the giants "assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods" (19:1, where the giants are referred to as spirits, as in 15:8, "the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits"). "Sacrificing to demons as gods": is this not what idolatry is?

Indeed, the ‘giants’ of Gen 6:4 (Nephilim, H5303 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5303&t=KJV&sf=5)) only appear again in Numbers 13:33, "There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight". The inerrant Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anak) mentions that "Anak could be related to the Sumerian god Enki" (although at present a citation is needed - truly inerrant!), in which case perhaps the term ‘Anakim’ - and so also ‘Nephilim’ - could refer to the worshippers of false gods. The idols in the temple would then be termed these false gods, as Israel had fallen into the worship of the local deities. The 'giants' are then the idols which came with the foreign wives of the Kings of Israel, i.e. the 'offspring' of their marriage.

And finally, to help us place the destruction of the giants before the Flood, Isaiah helpfully mentions that the destruction of Israel is "like the waters of Noah to Me" (Isa 54:9). What a perfect way to get rid of the giants and idols: by a flood of water and a flood of Babylonians!

Have you some patristic orientantion for all this? I'm a little curious how you see this interrelating to a patristic approach to the materials. (i.e., I'd be interested to see some of the fathers you think convey some of what you're speculating.)

Well, if ‘fathers’ can refer to someone commemorated in the Church’s calendar (on Sept 28), then Baruch the scribe of Jeremiah writes the following:

24 Ah Israel, how great is the house of God, and how extensive is the place of its estate!
25 It is great and has no end; it is high and immeasurable.
26 The giants were born there, those renowned, those of old, seeing that they were large, experts in war.
27 Not these did Cod choose, nor did he give them the way of knowledge,
28 and they perished because they had no insight; they perished through their recklessness.

Baruch chapter 3, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/35-barouch-nets.pdf

Now Baruch was with Jeremiah at time of temple’s destruction, and the word ‘temple’ in Hebrew is simply ‘house’. So my question is this: what are the same giants of Genesis 6:4 ("those renowned, those of old") doing in the "house (i.e. temple) of God" around 600BC? Does what I have written above tie in with this passage? Is this sort of ‘patristic’?!?

However, if you, Deacon Matthew, would like me to reply to your points in post #28 then I would be happy to do so, but I imagined trying to illustrate my direction of thought would help to elucidate things anyway.

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

21-02-2009, 02:33 PM

I don't really have the time to get too far into these speculations; but I think that much of what I would have to say would be summed up in the fact that there are numerous Fathers who exegete the 'sons of God' in this passage (Genesis 6.4 and surrounding) as the offspring of women made pregnant by men possessed by fallen angels (demons); and there is a host of patristic and other literature on the outcome of these unions, including the 'magical' knowledge passed on to their offspring by these demonic unions.

I cannot think of any of the speculations you put forward as being supported by the patristic heritage. It sounds rather more like the standard stock of the so-called 'Temple Theology' movement.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

RichardWorthington

22-02-2009, 01:15 PM

Dear Deacon Matthew,

Thank you for taking the time to reply thus far. There are a few points which I - and probably other people interested in the 'sons of God' issue - would love to have clarified.

there are numerous Fathers who exegete the 'sons of God' in this passage (Genesis 6.4 and surrounding) as the offspring of women made pregnant by men possessed by fallen angels (demons)

I have never read this in any passage of the fathers: I went to my university library and was able to find such commentaries (Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian). I don't think Fr Seraphim Rose in his summary on this passage mentions such a patristic option. As such, I was under the impression that 'sons of God' was either 'sons of Seth' turned to wickedness, or true non-physical fallen angels.

Would you be able to produce references?

Having 'demon possessed' men as the 'sons of God' certainly would solve the sexual attraction problem of non-physical beings, although this does produce other problems. Men still can be demon possessed, and engage in sexual intercourse: yet such offspring would hardly be classed as giants, just normal human beings. So how could their offspring be classed as 'giants'?

and there is a host of patristic and other literature on the outcome of these unions, including the 'magical' knowledge passed on to their offspring by these demonic unions.

The 'infallible' Wikipedia states that, "The earliest known Paleolithic shaman(c. 30,000 BC) was female", although a good reference is provided. As this was numerous millennia before Adam is supposed to have lived, how do you reconcile the dates of Genesis for when the giants lived and such archaeological evidence for magical knowledge?

Additionally, did Noah's Flood wipe them all out, i.e. was Noah's Flood global?

It was partly in response to such 'genesis' versus 'mainstream science' that I started to see if Genesis could be read like the Book of Revelation. (For example, Orthodox Christians do accept the findings that Revelation also encodes the history of Israel just before the fall of the second temple: Fr Seraphim Rose mentions some of these in his book on Revelation. I am merely trying to do the same for Genesis, which would make certain aspects of a literal interpretation suspect as certain statements might refer to the history of Israel instead.)

I cannot think of any of the speculations you put forward as being supported by the patristic heritage. It sounds rather more like the standard stock of the so-called 'Temple Theology' movement.

Fair point: having heard Dr Margaret Barker speak - and seeing that the ancient texts she quoted were referring to deification - I instantly saw the deep and unbreakable link between temple theology and Orthodox spirituality. It makes transparent the fact that the Orthodox Faith is the continuation of the spirituality of the Israelite prophets. But as you disapprove of such a 'Temple Theology' then I shall not be putting my thoughts down here any more, although I will provide a hyperlink if I do find somewhere else to put them.

Many thanks,

Richard