Yesterday I was suprised to learn that we are supposed to post some notes in our blogs, so here are a couple selected notes:

1 - we are supposed to take notes in our blog - that's my first note

2 - the importance of the well story (this happens throughout the early Bible)

3 - the theme of youth triumphing over age, often in a subversive, as Bloom says "trickster" manner

4 - it strikes me that the vocal blesssing (as evidenced by the story of Esau's blessing) is an example of the power of the spoken word

5 - the idea of the mother in league with the son against the father parallels Greek mythology

Reading through Genesis 21 and Exodus 12 it strikes me that there is some Christian symbolism and/or foreshadowing involved. As you might remember, in Genesis 21 we have the story of Abraham's command to sacrifice Isaac. The theme of a father willing to sacrifice his only son, and the faith behind which eventually will secure victory for the children of Israel seems to parallel the story of a Father who is willing to sacrifice his only Son, the faith behind which will give everlasting Victory for the children of the Father. The sacrifice is halted and God substitutes a ram - the adult incarnation of a lamb - which takes the place of Isaac. Perhaps this ram is a metaphor in and of itself. The figure of Abraham also seems to represent mankind in this story, as God makes a covenant with Man wherein because of his faith, God will in turn give him the opportunity for salvation by sacrificing his own son. This could be interpreted as an allegory; the story could be seen as an early reference to the Christian model of salvation.

Also, in Exodus Chapter 12, we have the story of the original Jewish Passover, which follows the description of the final plague in Chapter 11. In order for the plague of the death of the firstborn to pass over the houses of the Isrealites, they need to kill a lamb and wipe its blood upon each house. In this way, the blood of the lamb would save God's people, much as in the Christian tradition, where the blood of the Lamb saves Christians. It is also interesting that the plague killed the firstborn - which, in some way, seems to parallel the death of God's firstborn and the averted death of Abraham's first born. When the Passover was finished, "the Lord said to Moses: Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the Israelites, of human beings and animals is mine." This obviously has a lot to do with the primogenative Isreali tradition, with its emphasis on the right of the first born, but it also draws very interesting connections to the idea of the sacrifice of the first born.

Obviously this is not a new concept, I'm sure that many in our class have made this connection, but I do find it interesting that the Passover is a Jewish holiday, not a Christian holiday. It would seem that this story would appeal more to the Christian tradition because of its Messianic overtones than it would to the Jewish tradition.

Reading Ahead.....

Reading ahead to Song of Solomon, I have to say that this (very brief) book confirms to me that the Bible is indeed a very diverse piece of literature to say the least. I wouldn't say the book stands at odds with the values expressed in the remainder of the Old Testament or the New Testament, especially the Old Testament, because there are hundreds of instances in the Old Testament where sex itself is mentioned, and usually without any negative connotation. The interesting part about Song of Solomon is that it is one of the only holy books that I can think of that is dedicated not to God, but to the romantic love between a man and a woman. Growing up in a pretty devotedly Christian household, I had read the Bible often and as kids, when we got bored during Sunday school, my friends and I would read funny verses to each other under our breath - like the verse from our Harper Collins translation (7/8)"You are stately as a palm tree and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches" - which sounded funnier in our NIV version: "Your stature is like that of a palm, and your breasts are like clusters of fruit. I said I will climb the palm tree and take hold of its fruit." That was about all I remember about Song of Solomon or Song of Songs.


Now reading back through the book I am struck as to the nature of the lovers' statements, who are presumably characters created by the author. The female, for instance, mentions yearning for her lover (3/1), "Upon my bed at night I sought him whom my soul loves." And no, she isn't talking about seeking God in prayer. Also she seems to want her partner to make love to her, which sounds more erotic in the NIV translation (7/11) - "Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside, let us spend the night in the villages. Let us go early to the vineyards to see if the vines have budded, if their blossoms have opened, and if the pomegranates are in bloom- there I will give you my love." This verse becomes more suggestive when you take into context the fact that throughout the book the male (lover) and the female (beloved) characters have been comparing one another to fruit, so when the beloved speaks of vines budding and blossoms opening, one naturally looks to the symbolism of the flowering and budding of the body, and one can not help but think of sexual connotations.


I was always taught that the Bible taught that to really lust after anything that wasn't the knowledge of God was a sin. See Matthew 6/31:" But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." I was taught that to dwell all day on something other than God was a sin in the eyes of Scripture, i.e. don't go thinking about some girl all day, which is something the male character does in this text, and that the beloved admits to doing: "I will seek him whom my soul loves." Taking into account the fact that Christ stayed chaste throughout his life, and that he said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery'. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" it would seem that he might not approve of what the male is doing in the text either, though it could be argued that, in effect, what Christ was really getting at was that you shouldn't go around fantasizing about other mens' wives, hence the reason that he says to lust after a woman is adultery, which means the breaking of the martial code, and not simply a sin, which would imply that perhaps it is perfectly healthy to lust after your own wife (a concept which I don't think any Christian would deny.) Paul later writes in the NIV 1 Corinthians (7/1) : It is good for a man not to marry or in the Harper Collins: It is well for a man not to touch a woman". He goes on to say that marriage and marital sex are, in effect, a concession to the weak, because of sexual immorality, and writes: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." He says it outright: to flame with passion is an evil thing.

And yet, throughout the whole book of Song of Solomon, the verses are filled with passion, with desire, with yearning for a lover's touch. I would pick specific verses of the text, but nearly every single verse (except when the "friends" of the couple remind us not to awaken love before it is ready) is an example of poetic sexual love. The whole book is a celebration of the love which Paul calls a neccessary evil. One of the things that has troubled me about all of organized religion is that those who are the chief teachers of its principles seem to want to take the joy and passion out of love and sex. I think that if we are to take a look at the entire Bible, then to harrumph at the idea that passionate romantic love is a Biblical concept would be incorrect, because the entire text of the book is a celebration of the human-physical-earthly-erotic concept of desire, one presumably breathed into the soul of every human, if indeed God created man, breathing life into his body.

A Matter of Interpretation

In reading Bloom, I found it interesting that he doesn't elaborate much on why the traditional view that Moses wrote the Torah was such a firmly entrenched belief. I decided to try to find out what some supporters of this view gave as evidence for their beliefs. I immediately found that though I had thought that it was an easily surmisable view that the Bible might not have been too implicit in its statement that the first five books of scripture were at least dictated, if not physically written, by Moses himself, yet, after reading the how the Bible referenced the Pentateuch itself it actually seems a bit of a stretch to argue that later authors did not neccessarily believe this themselves. If, indeed, this is the case, it seems only logical that this issue would become a much more important faith issue, because it would point to the fact that if Moses hadn't at least dictated the books, then the Bible could not be considered infallable, because the writers of the book were mistaken as to the origins of the law and history to which they referred. On ReligiousTolerance.org I found a list of these bible verses that support the notion that Biblical writers believed Moses wrote the Bible:


Exodus 17:14 "Then the Lord instructed Moses, 'Write this down as a permanent record...'"
Exodus 24:4 "Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord's instructions."
Exodus 34:27 "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down all these instructions, for they represents the terms of my covenant with you and with Israel.'"
Leviticus 1:1 "The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle and said to him, 'Give the following instructions to the Israelites...'"
Leviticus 6:8 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Give Aaron and his sons the following instructions...'"
Deuteronomy 31:9 "So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests."
Deuteronomy 31:24-26 "When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book..."
Passages elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures:
Joshua 1:7-8 "...Obey all the laws Moses gave you."
Joshua 8:31-34 "He followed the instructions that Moses the Lord's servant had written in the Book of the Law..."
Joshua 22:5 "...obey all the commands and the laws that Moses gave to you."
2 Chronicles 34:14 "...Hilkiah the high priest...found the book of the Law of the Lord as it had been given through Moses."
Passages in the Gospels which show that Jesus and John the Baptizer believed Moses to be the author:
Matthew 19:7-8 "...why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?", they asked. Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted divorce...'"
Matthew 22:24 "Moses said, 'If a man dies without children...'"
Mark 7:10 "For instance, Moses gave you this law from God..."
Mark 12:24 "...haven't you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush..."
Luke 24:44 "...I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true."
John 1:17 "For the law was given through Moses..."
John 5:46 "But if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me because he wrote about me. And since you don't believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?"
John 7:23 "...do it, so as not to break the law of Moses..."
Passages elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures:
Acts 26:22 "...I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen..."
Romans 10:5 "For Moses wrote..."


It would seem that if the documentary hypothesis is actually true, it would refute the words of Jesus himself, because several times Jesus affirms that Moses did the writing, as in Luke 24, when he states that "I told you that everything written about me by Moses...must all come true." I think the message of all of these verses, taken together, is rather clear. The Bible references itself as written by Moses. To argue otherwise seems quite the stretch. Thus, the authorship of the Pentateuch becomes itself a faith issue. I am not arguing as to which hypothesis is true, I am simply arguing that the acceptance of documentary hypothesis must been seen as a faith issue, whether that seems convienent for the sake of the class or not.