Feeling the heat

“The most likely reason for these connections between fire and anger is that both are related to heat. The most common verb for ‘anger’ in Biblical Hebrew is חרה [HRH] (in the Qal, Niphal, and Hithpael stems; see also the nouns חרון ,חרי [hry, hrwn). Both this root and its counterparts in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Arabic, and Aramaic carry the underlying meaning ‘burn’. Another very common word for ‘anger’ is חמה [HMH]. The root from which this word most likely derives (יחם [YHM]; see also חמם [HMM]) and its Semitic counterparts refer to ‘being warm’ or ‘being hot’. Both חרה [HRH] and חמה [HMH] appear to be ways of metonymically referring to anger by mentioning a perceived physiological effect of this emotion, namely, feeling hot.

Another reason for linking anger and fire is that the biblical text portrays both of them as destructive.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 70

Blood lust

“The Hebrew Bible associates anger with levels of destruction and violence not seen in ordinary American English conversation about anger. Many words referring to extreme forms of violence appear frequently with terms for anger. This correlation is present not only with the word הרג [HRG] ‘kill’. One also finds it with the terms
שמד ,חרם and כלה [HRM, ShMD, KLH] which can refer to utter destruction, the complete extermination of others, and the killing of people that leaves no survivors. These terms have much in common with what today is called genocide...

“Most of the cases linking שמד ,חרם and כלה [HRM, ShMD, KLH] with anger posit a causal relationship, in that extreme violence results from anger. This connection between anger and overwhelming violence has at least some contrasts with American English’s use of words for anger. For example, within official discourse, Pentagon spokespersons rarely, if ever, portray themselves or their troops as angry with a bloodlust that seeks the total annihilation of another group of people. However, battle rage is found with some degree of frequency in both the Hebrew Bible and the inscriptions of the ancient Near East.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , pages 68, 69

<idle musing>
I don't know; I suspect if you read some comments on a few blogs, you would see a good bit of blood lust. Think of the ones where they seem to relish the idea that so-and-so is going to "roast in hell." And some of the political comments can get pretty nasty, as well...
</idle musing>

Discerning minds want to know

“What the ancient actors saw as literal and what they saw as metaphorical is not easy to establish; this is a problem that confronts much of the research on religious texts...”—Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, page 55

<idle musing>
Yep. We can infer, but we might be wrong. I suspect we are more often than we are willing to admit...
</idle musing>

Easy access--not!

“...in contrast to Greek and Roman cults where everybody could easily walk into the temple, in Mesopotamia access to the temple was severely restricted. For the average citizen, cooperation with the temple was limited to economic transactions, because the temples functioned as banks in lending money to individuals. The average citizen, aside from this, did not generally participate in the cult of the deity. The performance of family religion was primarily located within private households. Street sanctuaries, as attested in the topographical list of Babylon, may have served the needs of the individual to address the deities of the local pantheon or even the god of the family. The encounters among the patron deity, the members of the local pantheon, and the individual were thus restricted to the periods of the festivals, during which the gods left their temples to be carried in processions, linking various cultic localities. This complex situation of divine hierarchies and relationships in the life of the individual is reflected in the prayer literature, in which the personal god of the individual served as an intercessor with higher-ranking gods of the pantheon...”—Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, pages 28-29

<idle musing>
Yes, the ^dingirLAMMA, the personal guardian deity which morphed into the guardian angel of modern popular culture. I've said it before, but it bears repeating, in the ancient world, you wanted the major deities to ignore you and you did that by propitiating the ^dingirLAMMA who then ran interference for you...

This is a really fascinating book. I'm not quite half-way through, but it contains much good food for thought...
</idle musing>

Jealousy and anger

“The statistical evidence linking jealousy with anger in the Hebrew Bible is remarkable. Of the 70 verses in which קנא ,קנאה or קנוא [qn'h, qn', qnw'] appears in the Hebrew Bible, 23 contain a word for anger. Thus, in approximately one-third of the appearances of קנא and its cognates in the Hebrew Bible, anger is also explicitly mentioned. As a point of reference, consider צדקה/צדיק/צדק [tsdq, tsdyq, tsdqh] (‘righteous[ness]’) and מׁשפט [mshpt] (‘justice’), which many interpreters have recognized as being closely related to one another. The Hebrew Bible links קנא ,קנאה and קנוא [qn'h, qn', qnw'] with terms for anger with greater frequency (33% of the time) than it links דקה/צדיק/צדק [tsdq, tsdyq, tsdqh] with מׁשפט [mshpat] (twenty-one percent of the time). In fact, words from the root קנא [qn'] are approximately 15 times more likely to appear in a verse that refers to anger than in a verse from the Hebrew Bible as a whole.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 65

Perception is the key word

“Although the cause of biblical anger is unknown in many cases, the majority of texts do explain the basis for anger. In these cases, nearly every instance bears a point of commonality: anger results from a perceived wrongdoing. Here, the word perceived is crucial. It suggests that one must consider the perspective of the individual who is angry, rather than adopting an exterior perspective. For example, Potiphar becomes angry with Joseph because he perceives that Joseph has done something wrong, even though he is innocent (Gen 39:19).”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 54

<idle musing>
Perception is everything. We need to let the Holy Spirit take us outside ourselves and see the world from a bigger perspective. That, of course, runs totally counter to the materialistic viewpoint that runs rampant in our society this time of the year!
</idle musing>

caveat lector!

“When interpreters extract emotion concepts from one sociolinguistic context and simplistically transport them to another, then the source text becomes a hollow shell filled by the values and assumptions of the target audience. Words such as irrational enter commentaries, even though they do little more than distract readers from the text itself. Translators may never produce a casualty-free text—wounds and scarring will undoubtedly be present. At the same time, translators have the ethical responsibility of avoiding the destruction of key elements in the text they translate. The Hebrew Bible has much to teach audiences today, but these audiences will learn little if they do not understand the text on its own terms.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , pages 46-47

Various thoughts

Recently seen around the blog world:
Lonnie worked yesterday, Christmas. Here's his thoughts, with which I can't argue:

I am working this Christmas.  I'm looking forward to it.  Why would I, a professing Christian, be glad I am working instead of being where I OUGHT to be?   First off I have a job!  I am very happy and thankful to have a job this year.   But of greatest importance: I'm a Christian.  Who else, besides a Christian, do you want folks to meet?   Do you want a pissy atheist to face the harried, tired, hurting, lonely and stressed Christmas shopper?   Who else is going to give folks "Good will toward mankind?"  I'm keeping Christmas by allowing the Holy Spirit to show God's good will toward the corner of the world he's put me in.

Meanwhile, Peter Kirk references a BioLogos discussion that has this interesting comment:

Totalizers use their classrooms to preach that if all people are perfectly rational they will all ultimately agree. Usually there is some sort of declaration that the progress of knowledge has one glorious end: light and magnetism will be understood, democracy and capitalism will prove to be the best systems for all situations, and natural selection will answer all questions about life. All rational people ride one train of progress together. Tentative Investigators, in comparison, are wimpy. Ask them a question and they give you at least two answers joined by “on the other hand.” The Totalizers are the more popular teachers, their books are easier to read, and the news media finds them easier to interview. Tentative Investigators are like cats. They can’t be herded and can rest easy in the midst of household chaos.

To which Peter adds, “While it would be too strong to accuse all Totalizers of being fundamentalists – and indeed some Christian Totalizers have quite different doctrines from Christian fundamentalists but similar attitudes – it is this assertion of certainty that one is correct and arrogant dismissal of other opinions that underlies fundamentalisms of all kinds.” What more can one say? He's right on the money there.

And Peter Leithart has this observation from Wendell Berry about modern christianity.

Despite its protests to the contrary, modern Christianity has become willy-nilly the religion of the state and the economic status quo. Because it has been so exclusively dedicated to incanting anemic souls into Heaven, it has been made the tool of much earthly villainy. It has, for the most part, stood silently by while a predatory economy has ravaged the world, destroyed its natural beauty and health, divided and plundered its human communities and households. It has flown the flag and chanted the slogans of empire. It has assumed with the economists that ‘economic forces’ automatically work for good and has assumed with the industrialists and militarists that technology determines history. It has assumed with almost everybody that ‘progress’ is good, that it is good to be modern and up with the times. It has admired Caesar and comforted him in his depredations and defaults. But in its de facto alliance with Caesar, Christianity connives directly in the murder of Creation.

As always, do take the time to read the entire post on all of these in order to get the context.

Will we ever learn?

Probably not, as is shown by this post on Out of Ur:

It amazes me that in less than a century Christians have gone from opposing over-consumption at Christmas to demanding it be done in Christ’s name alone. The explanation may be in the numbers. Two-thirds of the U.S. economy is based on consumer spending, and 50-75 percent of most retailers annual profits are generated during December. This means the weeks before Christmas are the high holy days of consumerism. If Christians engaged the Advent season as they did in generations past, by modeling moderation and self-denial or by ignoring the holiday altogether, it would likely destroy (what remains of) the economy.

<idle musing>
Come let us worship the almighty dollar and its son, the profit margin, and the third in the unholy trinity, self-indulgence...

Note: I see that Alan Knox also picked this one up. He has some good comments on it, as well.
</idle musing>

Emotion as a marginalizing factor

“...the perceived connection between emotionality and irrationality serves to silence groups who are outraged and angered by the injustices committed by people with power. Even when the marginalized are not expressing such anger, the characterization of them as emotional (and therefore irrational) serves to reinforce their marginalized status. Thus, when discourses describe women as more emotional than men, they appeal to a broader set of assumptions within Western society that reinforces the culturally inferior status of women.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 37

<idle musing>
It's the hidden assumption that he is getting at here: emotional = irrational = inferior because rational is what homo sapiens means. I question that we are rational beings! At least, when I look at the world, it doesn't seem like it...
</idle musing>

Where has the emotion gone?

“With the growth of consumerism, corporate management, and the service-sector, the American middle class adopted an emotional style that places great stress on concealing emotional reactions, especially in the workplace, where they could interfere with generating profits. Marked by an intolerance of emotions, this emotional style deems individuals who display emotional intensity to be vulnerable, childish, and irrational. This emphasis on dispassion has translated into other spheres of life beyond the workplace. However, because emotions could not be completely excised from the human experience, American leisure was reshaped to allow for emotional expression through contrived means such as sporting events, movies, television, rock music, and amusement parks, all of which further contribute to generating profits in a consumer society.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 36

<idle musing>
This time of the year, especially! Come worship the almighty dollar and/or the sports team of your choice—preferably both! And show your worship by spending lots and lots of money...see previous post.
</idle musing>

The ideal ruler

Is well described in Psalm 72:

May he defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
may he crush the oppressor...
For he will deliver the needy who cry out,
the afflicted who have no one to help.
He will take pity on the weak and the needy
and save the needy from death.
He will rescue them from oppression and violence,
for precious is their blood in his sight... Psalm 72 (TNIV)

<idle musing>
Hmmm...I fail to see anywhere in there that (s)he will line their own pockets—or the pockets of the ones who backed him/her!. Obviously an oversight on the part of God, isn't it!

Or, maybe not:

Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?—James 2 (TNIV)

Then why are the rich held up as so blessed by God? I fail to see it in scripture...I must be missing something—for which I can't help but praise God!
</idle musing>

Indeed, we are superior; just ask us

“By assuming that English terms are somehow universal or the best representations of reality, one can quickly enact violence when translating and interpreting foreign works because the networks of association presupposed by the source language are often missed. This type of interpretive practice subtly embodies neocolonialist discourse, wherein the Western model is assumed to be universal, and foreign conceptions are perceived as mere reflections of Western norms. Such unselfconscious appropriation of Western emotion categories serves only to reinforce Western ideologies about the self, the individual, and the perceived dichotomy between reason and emotion.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 28

<idle musing>
I love his introductory stuff. We're on page 28 and he hasn't even really touched on Genesis—but what he has said is wonderful!
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

"...early Christianity was not a 'religion of the Book,' but rather 'the religion of the Spirit and the living Christ'"The Biblical Canon, page 33 (compliments of Jim Baad)

Set them aside!

“...to understand an ancient text on its own terms, interpreters must set aside their modern assumptions about emotions, removing the blinders that obstruct the associated common-places inherent in the text’s original language and culture. As much as possible, interpreters must draw attention to the various associations that particular terms carry with them in the source language.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 25

<idle musing>
I would broaden that to say, as much as possible, interpreters must set aside their modern assumptions—Period! I know it is impossible to be totally objective, but we must allow the Holy Spirit to surface our hidden assumptions...
</idle musing>

traduttore tradittore

“Individuals who work extensively with foreign languages have stressed the violent nature of translation. They have described translation as both damaging the original work and warping the target language. They explain that the transference between languages is never perfect. There are always losses. Despite great precautions, casualties invariably take place. One of the most well-known individuals to speak of violence in translation is Saint Jerome. He compares the translator to a conqueror who invades the foreign, takes captive thoughts and meaning, and brings them back to Latin soil.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 19

<idle musing>
The title of the post is an Italian proverb that means "the translator is a traitor"—too true, I fear. Not that the modern translations of scripture are wrong; they aren't. But, the overlap between languages is never one-for-one, consequently, caveat lector (let the reader beware).
</idle musing>

Idle musings on a Monday...

Scot McKnight has been looking at the warning passages in Hebrews lately. In the fourth installment, he says:

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree on this point: each person needs to persevere. The oddest thing has happened in American Evangelicalism: it has taught, whether aloud or not, the idea of “once saved, always saved” as if perseverance were not needed.
In other words, it has taught that if a person has crossed the threshold by “receiving Christ” but then decides to abandon living for Christ, that person is eternally secure. This is rubbish theology. Perseverance is an indicator of what faith is all about: a relationship that continues, that is marked by steady love. No one equates marriage with a wedding day statement of intent, and no one should equate faithfulness with a decision.

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! “Once saved always saved” is used far too often to extract a magical prayer out of someone, or to count scalps in some spiritual contest. “I see that hand, God bless you brother/sister” is a cop out for real discipleship...
</idle musing>

And Alan Knox blogs about Christmas as celebrated versus Christmas as recorded in scripture. He ends with this:

But, we should recognize the difference between nice stories/traditions, and Scripture. From talking with many people, most don’t know the difference when it comes to the story of Jesus’ birth.

I wonder if this reflects people’s general knowledge and understanding of Scripture…

<idle musing>
I wonder, as well...I hope it isn't an accurate reflection, but I fear it is...
</idle musing>

Human anger in Genesis

"While God is portrayed angrily in many books of the Bible, the book of Genesis contains no explicit, actualized references to divine anger. Although some parts of Genesis may imply that God is angry (for example, chaps. 3, 4, 6, 11, 18– 19), none of them explicitly refers to the divine being in this way. The only time Hebrew terminology for anger is used of God in Genesis is in 18:30 and 32, where Abraham, while requesting that innocent people be spared from impending destruction, asks that the deity not become angry with him for making this request. The text suggests that God obliges Abraham and does not become angry. All of the other explicit references to anger in Genesis pertain to humans.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 12

<idle musing>
An interesting observation. I had never noticed that before. God doesn't even get angry in Genesis 3. Does that have ramifications for the theories of atonement?! Just an
</idle musing>

More about that river in Brazil

Amazon is getting some (justly!) bad PR this week. Here's a nice sample from Publishers Weekly:

Publishers and distributors have called the latest negotiations with Amazon the most adversarial to date...Many publishers and distributors said they have not, and cannot, cave to this newest set of demands from Amazon. The fear, though, is that the retailer could take punitive action...Although publishers fear seeing their titles disappear from Amazon--for many in the industry the retailer accounts for 20% to 25% of their business--some say the demands the retailer is making are impossible to meet and would nearly wipe out all of their profits there anyway. Furthermore, as some have noted, changing wholesale terms with Amazon, could present a legal issue...publishers are prevented by the Robinson-Patman Act from favoring one account over another with notably different wholesale terms...

More problematically, for many in the industry, the latest talks with Amazon are being described as less of a dialogue than a dictation of terms. As one source explained, the talks have boiled down to "what publishers can do for Amazon, and not what Amazon can do for publishers." Most ironically, the new terms would allow Amazon to continue to gain market share as it always has: driving book prices down. As one source put it: "If Amazon wants to improve its margins, it should cut back on the discounting."

<idle musing>
As long as Americans worship the dollar more than anything else, Amazon will continue to dominate. But, when you no longer have local businesses to employ people and therefore no money for roads and schools and other items in the public infrastructure, whom are you going to blame? You will have to blame yourself!

As I like to say, Genesis 3 happened...
</idle musing>

Anger management?

“...the emotion of anger appears in Genesis not merely to embellish story lines or add color to characters but to express a multifaceted message about the ethical significance of anger. The text does not give readers simplistic instructions about what to do with anger but instead is quite realistic about the limitations that individuals face and the paradoxes presented by this emotion. Genesis presents anger as an emotion that arises from one’s moral sensitivities in response to the perception of wrongdoing. At the same time, the text presents anger as a great threat to the moral life. Genesis warns readers about the dangers of anger, but it never suggests that one can lead a life free from anger. Instead, it portrays every patriarch and many of the matriarchs as having significant encounters with this emotion, presenting them with dilemmas that defy easy resolution. It depicts anger as an inevitable part of a world marked by profound limitations. It also invites readers to imagine ways of alleviating anger. It suggests that humility and generosity may ameliorate the worst outcomes of anger, and it illustrates the possibility of reconciliation after anger has caused harm. At the same time, it is painfully realistic about how difficult, threatening, and short-lived human attempts at ending anger may be.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 7

<idle musing>
There's an important line in there: "Genesis presents anger as an emotion that arises from one’s moral sensitivities in response to the perception of wrongdoing." Yep, it's the perception that counts. Real or imagined, the hurt is real to the person experiencing it—that's why God has to change our perception of reality before change can occur...
</idle musing>

Amazon advantage?

I've been meaning to post this for about a week...



<idle musing>
What a deal! You get 5% back on your price! Another proof that nobody's really home at Amazon; it's just programming. Want real help on a book? Try Eisenbrauns or a local bookstore. We sell books because we know books!
</idle musing>

In the end, forgiveness

“In the final chapter of the book [of Genesis], readers encounter the opposite extreme, forgiveness. There, Joseph and his brothers forgive one another after a long history of jealousy, anger, deception, and abuse. Jacob is at death’s door, and Joseph’s brothers fear that Joseph is harboring anger against them and plotting to kill them after their father’s death, much as Esau planned to do with Jacob (50:15; see 27:41). So Joseph’s brothers claim that their father has ordered Joseph to forgive them (50:16–17). When Joseph hears their words, he weeps. The brothers offer themselves as Joseph’s servants (50:18; see also 32:19[18], 21[20]), but Joseph instead speaks graciously to them and reassures them that he will provide for both them and their children. It is a moment of reconciliation offered just before the book closes, allowing readers to see Joseph as an anti-Cain—a brother who has all the power and all the reasons to harm his brothers but instead turns away from anger and, despite the inherent difficulties, offers forgiveness. Whereas Cain suggested that he never was and never should have been his brother’s keeper, Joseph shows himself to be in precisely this role, providing protection and provisions for his brothers in a foreign land.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 4

Anger, part one

“In Gen 4:1–16, readers receive their first glimpse of life outside Eden. There, anger takes center stage as Cain becomes enraged when God ignores his offering but regards his brother’s offering. God intervenes and speaks to Cain about his anger, which is quite remarkable given that the divine word in Genesis is reserved for the most significant of developments, including the creation and salvation of the world. In sharp contrast to divine words elsewhere, God’s speech in chap. 4 falls flat. Cain refuses to heed God’s warning. He kills his brother although Abel has done nothing wrong. Fratricide represents one extreme on the spectrum of what can happen as a result of anger.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , page 4

<idle musing>
Interesting observation about how often God speaks—and under what circumstances—in Genesis...and that it gets ignored in this case. Again, I am drawn to Hebrews, where we are warned not to harden our hearts against God speaking.
</idle musing>

Hang in there!

Be still before the LORD
and wait patiently for him;
do not fret when people succeed in their ways,
when they carry out their wicked schemes.
Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
do not fret—it leads only to evil.
For those who are evil will be destroyed,
but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.—Psalm 37:7-9 TNIV

A new book

Still on Genesis, though :)

“There are several reasons why emotions were overlooked for much of the 20th century...a hallmark of Western assumptions about emotions is that they are irrational. As such, scholars have not seen them as a particularly important area of exploration. Individuals have set emotions in contrast to reason, seeing the former as private and subjective, with the potential for displaying characteristics that are primitive, immature, animalistic, and even pathological. Third and consequently, as Niko Besnier remarks, academic style calls for muted emotions. When the very medium by which academics express their thoughts tends to minimize the expression of emotions, it is hardly surprising that emotions have not been at the forefront of research. Fourth and closely related, traditional academic research has emphasized the importance of serving as a detached observer. Such an emphasis has led to ignoring and even “tidying up” the emotions. Fifth, modern Western societies place great emphasis on efficiency of labor and advances in technology. Within these cultures, emotions are often seen as an impediment to achievement. They thus do not receive priority in many research agendas.”— From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis , pages 2-3

In the What is Church department...

Alan Knox asks an interesting question about how we think about what we do:

...what is it about having something sanctioned by the church that makes it seem more important, more holy, more official? Is it simply something that people have been brought up to think? A group of co-workers meeting for prayer during lunch is great, but it’s not quite the same thing as a prayer meeting at church. A few friends gathering to study the Bible is awesome, but wouldn’t it be even better if it was a church sponsored “Bible Fellowship Club Meeting”? You’re taking some food to a family in need? That’s amazing! But, why not take part in the church’s benevolence program? The committee meets every fourth Tuesday.

<idle musing>
Interesting, isn't it? It reflects the importance we place on labels—and how important it is to examine those labels to see if they are accurate!
</idle musing>

And, in a guest post on Alan's blog, Chris muses

We work hard to put together friendly events like Fall Festivals and I hear people say things like “if we can just get them on the campus…” While I think it’s nice to do things for the community, I don’t think that if a non-Christian just steps foot on campus, they’ll suddenly meet God in a way that they can’t off campus. I think there’s also the idea that if people come to our worship event, they’ll be ministered to by “professional” ministers, and that this is more effective.

We continue to inadvertently teach, through our methodology, that 1) God is most present here at the Church building, 2) God is MORE present when our productions are better planned, polished, and executed, 3) You’re being most Christian when you attend an event on a church campus, and 4) “real” ministry is carried out by the full time church employees.

Because we believe that the organization and its few leaders carry out the most effective ministry at the organization’s events, there’s a focus on bringing people in rather than on equipping people and sending them out. Evangelism has come to mean “inviting people to a worship gathering.”

We continue to do all of these things in spite of the fact that we KNOW that what we’re doing isn’t creating many new believers or turning believers into more Christlike people.

<idle musing>
Mind you, I am not “anti-church”—how can I be? It was God's idea! But, I think we need to rethink what church is and why it exists. If we think it is a building, or something we “go to” once or more a week, I suggest that the New Testament should be re-examined; that certainly isn't what is taught there!
</idle musing>

In the end...

“The basic ancient cosmological environment claims that humanity exists to serve deity. This is what I have referred to as the “Great Symbiosis,” in which people are expected to serve the needs of the gods (housing, clothing, food), and in return the gods protect and provide for the people. But service can conceivably take many forms. The Mesopotamian picture was service as slave labor designed to meet the needs of the gods. Egyptian cosmological literature does not deal with this issue, but the more general Egyptian picture indicates the importance of the priesthood and of the rituals for meeting the needs of the gods. In Genesis, humanity is created to serve God, but human service stems from a relationship in which God first meets individuals’ needs. In this view, God has no needs. Eventually in Israelite thinking, the Great Symbiosis is replaced with a Covenant Symbiosis, in which God meets the Israelites’ needs as the people are faithful to the covenant. A final element of the distinctive picture is the fact that a blessing is pronounced on humanity instead of a burden of service being imposed on them. This blessing, however, deals with familiar topics in the ancient world.”— Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, pages 196-197

<idle musing>
That's the final excerpt from Walton's book. I hope you enjoyed it—I certainly did. Maybe you should consider buying it; it would make a great Christmas present :)
</idle musing>

There is only one word for this

and that is "evil." I'm talking about Amazon's latest assault on ethics via their "price check" app—and here are two people who do a better job of explaining why it is unethical than I can...

From Time's Entertainment page (do take the time to read the whole thing):

But sometimes a customer will pick up a book, examine it, maybe read the first few pages, and then casually take a photo of it with their smartphone. At first, because I am a naïve and trusting individual, I thought the customers were just particularly taken with the cover art. But after witnessing the practice a number of times, I realized this was not the case, and that the browsers in question were being sneaky. This, according to New York Times reporter Julie Bosman, is called ‘showrooming’ by some booksellers (though I had never heard that phrase). You could also call it something else — “evil.” The general idea is that customers have started to use the bookstore as a place to handle, but not purchase, merchandise, like a Ferrari dealership, where you don’t actually expect to drive one home off the lot. According to a recent Codex Group survey, 39% of those who purchased a book on Amazon looked at said title in a bricks-and-mortar store first before heading online.

And, from the American Booksellers Association, an open letter (again, go read the whole thing):

We could call your $5 bounty to app-users a cheesy marketing move and leave it at that. In fact, it is the latest in a series of steps to expand your market at the expense of cities and towns nationwide, stripping them of their unique character and the financial wherewithal to pay for essential needs like schools, fire and police departments, and libraries.

<idle musing>
Hey, if you live near a bookstore, use it. Of course, if they don't carry what you are looking for, they can order it. Or, if you are looking for obscure ANE or academic biblical studies stuff, use Eisenbrauns. We are family owned, pay taxes, support the community, and even have live human beings who can answer your questions—well, usually we can answer your questions!

Oh, by the way, a recent study in Maine found that 58% of the money from buying locally goes back into the local community. However, if the "local" business is a national chain, that drops to 33%. I just wish I could find that link again...
</idle musing>

Enuma Elish

“Given the prominence that has historically been given to Enuma Elish in the study of comparative cosmologies, it is striking how little of Israelite cosmology is traceable to Mesopotamian sources or ideas alone. Naming activity in relation to creation may be more prominent in Mesopotamia, but it is not absent from Egypt, and the same observation can be made about temple rest.”— Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, page 195

The role of humanity

“...in the realm of divine rule, the monotheism of Genesis inevitably results in a different description of the station of deity. The primordial waters are neither deified nor personified; nor are any other elements of the cosmos. Similarly, the Israelite view of deity results in a different understanding of functions in the cosmos. The God portrayed in Genesis 1 does not set up the cosmos to function for himself but for humanity alone, though his presence in the ordered cosmos is important for maintaining this order. Finally, the role and station of humanity in the cosmos is different. The archetypal presentation in Genesis relates people to God only through his image, thereby delegating to them a ruling role in the cosmos (not just over other people); furthermore, it views them as serving deity not by meeting his needs but by caring for sacred space. Thus, Israel shares with the rest of the ancient Near East the idea that cosmology deals with questions regarding human archetypes, but the archetype that is developed has a different shape entirely.” — Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, pages 194-195

Some book links

A few that came to my attention today:

About libraries and books, from Inside Higher Ed:

Somehow, books signify a more intentional and contemplative relationship with knowledge. It’s partly because nobody shoves a message about a pizza party or a note about a funny video between the pages as you are reading. And unless you are a skilled reader of endnotes and unusually impatient, it’s less tempting than when online to interrupt your reading of one text to go looking for another in mid-sentence. Books just seem calmer, slower: slower to write, slower to read, more sustained in their narrative style than what fits onto a computer screen. It could well be because they are not really in the business of advertising, as Google and Facebook are, and they don’t fret about dominating the attention economy. They are more patient about discovery and don’t count readers by the eyeball.

Or, how about ignoring ethics to make a buck? Amazon is letting you sell your soul for $5.00. I'm sure they will get a lot of takers :( In fairness, this offer doesn't apply to books, but I'm sure it will soon...

Amazon’s Price Check app, which is available for iPhone and Android, allows shoppers to scan a bar code, take a picture of an item or conduct a text search to find the lowest prices. Amazon is also asking consumers to submit the prices of items with the app, so Amazon knows if it is still offering the best prices.
“We scour online and in-store advertisements from other retailers, every day, year-round,” said Sam Hall, director of Amazon Mobile. “Now, we are enabling customers to use the Price Check app to share in-store prices while they search for the best deals.”
While Amazon’s applications and its $5 incentive can be viewed as friendly to consumers, physical retailers will see it only one way — as an attack.

<idle musing>
That's right, tell people to walk into a retail store, do their research for them, walk out without buying anything, then purchase it on Amazon, get 5% off. Sounds good, right? Unless you are the local business, which, by the way, employs local people, pays local sales tax and income taxes that pave the streets you drive. To them it is nothing less than an attack...doesn't this seem unethical?!
</idle musing>

More thoughts on the cosmos as temple

“In reality, it could be claimed that, by reading Genesis 1 in the context of ancient Near Eastern temple building, the canonical flow of the Hebrew Bible or even the entire Christian Bible comes into clearer focus. Levenson, for instance, notes the inclusio that is present in the Hebrew Bible:

Perhaps it is not coincidence that the Hebrew Bible begins with an account of the creation of heaven and earth by the command of God (Gen 1:1) and ends with the command of the God of heaven “to build him a Temple in Jerusalem” (2 Chron. 35.23 [sic 36.23]). It goes from creation (Temple) to Temple (creation) in twenty-four books. [Levenson, “Temple and the World,” 295. For the Christian canon, one could point to a similar inclusio with the end point being the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21–22.]

The Genesis account is distinguished from the temple theologies of its ancient Near Eastern context by virtue of the application of the temple identity to the entire cosmos; in the Hebrew Bible, the temple is much more than just the hub of the cosmos that sometimes represents the whole; it is the entire cosmos.” — Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, page 192

Hidden rituals

Just read a good description of ritual yesterday (yes, I know the book is 10 years old!). It fits in well with my thoughts on a national secular religion and the picture that I'm posting below:

The basic formal properties include: repetition, acting (which involves doing, not just thinking or speaking), special behavior or stylization, order, evocative presentation style or staging, and a collective or social dimension. By virture [sic] of these properties, ritual is a “traditionalizing instrument,” that is, it makes what is expressed thereby acceptable and common. It hides the novelty and even radicalness of new ideas and acts. It also allows those of diverse social groups, even strangers, to participate together and feel commonality and solidarity. In addition to any direct teaching it may include, ritual communicates latently about morality, authority, the legitimacy of the social order, and the nature of social reality. And not only does it reflect these social aspects, it transforms society by its performance. Because they are dealing with secular ritual, the authors [Sally Moore and Barbara Myerhoff] avoid the problematic inclusion of the supernatural in the list of characteristic elements. But they do note how even secular ritual is connected with the notion of the sacred. The sacred may be partly defined as what is unquestionable. Ritual, and what it communicates, is similarly unquestionable, at least when it functions properly.—Ritual in Narrative, pages 10-11 (emphasis mine)

Now, with that in mind, look at the inscription on the wall behind Lincoln...



Civil religion, anyone? Who says we don't deify our heroes! By the way, that picture was taken by me Sunday afternoon, so I can vouch for its authenticity.

Now, stop and think about the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, the rituals involved in displaying the flag, etc...

The most important line in the quotation above was the last one that I highlighted—"Ritual, and what it communicates, is similarly unquestionable, at least when it functions properly"—if you never thought about any of the things I'm raising in this post, then ritual did its job only too well. As Christians, our loyalty is first and foremost to God, and the pledge of allegiance is an admission that our primary loyalty is to the state...OK, I'm done; go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong, if you can.

The goal of creation

“In the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1, it often appears to readers that they are left with only vague theological notions when they finally arrive at Day 7. The main work has been done in the preceding six days, the climax has been reached and passed (creation of people), and all that remains is a theological etiology for the Sabbath or for the length of the week. In a purely material ontology, the seventh day is not part of “creation” because nothing is made on that day. It is only an esoteric postscript.

“However, if the text is read in light of a functional ontology that relies on a temple identity, we discover that Day 7 is far from a postscript. The climax of a temple inauguration is when the deity enters his prepared residence and rests there, as he assumes the rule of the cosmos from his temple-throne. The former acts are mere preliminaries to this grand finale.“— Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, page 190

<idle musing>
Read Hebrews with this in mind! Jesus enters the temple and stays, seated! What a climax!
</idle musing>

Hearing God

Nice follow-up to a good little series of posts on hearing God by Roger Olson:

"I think that, for the most part, evangelicals have taken the easy way and chosen to chase the Holy Spirit into the Bible."

<idle musing>
Yep. That sums it up nicely. The Holy Spirit is too dangerous if you let him loose! Keep him safe by chasing him into the Bible!
</idle musing>

Not borrowed

“To claim that both the Bible and the ancient Near Eastern texts draw on a similar cognitive environment and describe the processes of “origins” in similar ways in no way suggests that Genesis “borrowed” from Gudea or any other piece of ancient Near Eastern literature. To insist that these similarities could only be the result of borrowing is a gross misunderstanding of appropriate methodology, something that I have attempted to make clear from the beginning of this book. Instead, the Israelites shared with the rest of the cultures of the ancient world certain basic concepts about temples, rest, and cosmos that are naturally reflected in an account such as Genesis 1. The claim is not that Genesis 1 borrows the literary form of temple-inauguration accounts but that it is informed by the same cognitive environment that can be observed in contemporary (in the broad sense of that term) temple-inauguration accounts. The fact that so much in common can be observed is evidence of the broad range of the cognitive environment.”— Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, pages 183-184

Musings on DC from DC

I had just finished reading Migrations of the Holy on the plane as we were descending into DC. I had mixed emotions. On the one hand, the architecture and view is pretty impressive: the Capitol building, the Washington Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, the Potomac river. All muster up feelings that are best described as pride. Yet, my citizenship is in heaven—something that Cavanaugh's book is very good about.

How do we as Christians interact with the nation-state that we live in? I'm not sure Cavanaugh has it all right, but he is headed in the same direction I am. But, because of his high church background, I think he places too much emphasis on the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion and baptism. And, I'm sure I don't agree with him about sin in the church! I'm far too Wesleyan/Anabaptist/Believer's Church to say that sin should be expected in the Church. Still, definitely worth the read, although strongly philosophical in content...

As I like to do when I can, I wondered the area a bit after setup. We're in the Woodley Park area, for those of you who know DC (I don't!). It's a nice neighborhood to walk around in. It reminds me of Hyde Park in Chicago, without the fear of being mugged :) I walked about 4 miles, stopping at a Safeway to pick up a few bananas and a micro-greens salad. There are supposed to be some good vegan restaurants in the area, but the one I had decided to eat at was having a reception that closed it to the public. Oh well, there's always tomorrow.

I must say, CVS owns this neighborhood; I saw 3 of them, with a fourth one opening in late December. Sorry, Lonnie, not a single Walgreens to be seen...

How are we doing?

Just read this today:

“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.
“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
“Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.
“If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.”—Exodus 22:21-25 [Hebrew 20-24]

<idle musing>
Not doing so well, are we?
By the way, I included 22:21 because the Hebrew word order is interesting:
‏ זֹבֵ֥חַ לָאֱלֹהִ֖ים יָֽחֳרָ֑ם בִּלְתִּ֥י לַיהוָ֖ה לְבַדּֽוֹ
translating it in the Hebrew order would give us:
The one sacrificing to the gods must be destroyed, except (the one who is sacrificing) to Yahweh alone. OK you Hebrew linguists, comment on that for me—I'm looking at you, John and Rob : )
</idle musing>

The larder

I didn't take a picture of our home canned goods at the beginning of the year, but here are some pictures from about 3-4 days ago. All the empties were full earlier this fall.



The smaller bookshelf is for empties. The tall shelf has the "tools of the trade" for canning.


This is a closeup of the sauerkraut fermenting. It is from our own cabbages and should be done in about 2 more weeks.

Without the presence of God...

“As is the case in temple construction, the mere completion of the material construction phase does not produce a functioning temple. Only when the functions are identified, the functionaries installed, and the deity has entered the temple does it begin to function. This is creation as it was understood in the ancient Near East. Even in the biblical picture of creation in Genesis 1, the manner in which the material stuff of the cosmos came into being and the time involved in this process had little significance. The amount of time is unspecified, and the manner in which the material stuff came to exist is also unspecified. Creation takes place when the cosmos/ temple is made functional for its human inhabitant by means of the presence of God.”— Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, page 183