Jeremy Thompson Catholic PhD in Biblical Languages, Programmer, Runner

In todays’ reading, Moses encounters the Lord in a burning bush that is not consumed. The Lord identifies himself by saying “I am the God of your father…” In the phrase “God of your father,” we find what Albrecht Alt identified as one of the distinctive elements of the faith of Ancient Israel. There is a certain level of complexity to this issue that I do not want to go into here, but to get a good summary you might check out this link to a limited preview of the text In Search of God in Google Books (scroll down a little). What I mainly wanted to point out in relation to Alt’s work is that having a “God of the fathers (i.e. ancestors)” was a distinctive element of Israel’s faith because many of the deities in surrounding areas of the Ancient Near East were gods of “places.” In other words, these gods were tied to particular sites, such as Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc.

Having a “God of fathers” rather than a god of a particular place is one of the elements of the faith of Ancient Israel that helped it to endure.  If you have a god of a particular place and that place is destroyed, then what of your god?   Or, in the case of Israel, if you have a god tied to a particular place and you are exiled from your place, what of your god?  Do you then worship the gods of the place to which you have been taken? Do you bow down before Marduk?  Yet when you have a “God of fathers” that god can be worshiped as long as the lineage of the ancestors is carried on.  One can imagine what comfort Ancient Israelites who had been taken away in the Babylonian Exile might have taken when hearing texts like the one we encounter this morning: “I am the God of your father…”

If interested, you might be very fortunate to find an inexpensive used copy of Alt’s work:

Today’s Old Testament lectionary reading provides one of my favorite parallels between the Old Testament and other writings from the Ancient Near East. I am not sure why this one stands out to me in particular when there are a lot of other interesting parallels out there. I think that maybe it has to do with the fact that it is one of the more transparent parallels. The lectionary reading is the story of the Egyptian pharaoh seeking to kill the male children of the Israelites, particularly about how Moses escapes this fate by being placed in a basket/ark, which is then placed in a river. For this story, there is an Ancient Near Eastern parallel in the Legend of Sargon. For those unfamiliar with this text, you would do very well to read it. There is a free online translation of the text here.

I hope that you will use the link above as an opportunity to begin getting acquainted with Old Testament Parallels.  If you are interested in looking at more comparisons like this in more detail, you might check out these compilations of Ancient Near Eastern texts:

The lectionary reading for today comes from Exodus 1. In this passage, a “new pharaoh” reigns over Egypt who does not know Joseph. To say that there has been a significant amount of debate over the years about who this pharaoh was and about the historicity of the Exodus would be perhaps the understatement of the century. With that said, the purpose of this post is to introduce the my readers to this debate, and as such the primary link in this post will present information that may be “old hat” to some professional academics (though depending on one’s area of specialization it could also be very helpful for academics like myself as well). For an introduction to the debate about the identity of the “new pharaoh” as well as the broader issues related to the historicity and dating of the Exodus, I would suggest that you begin with this set of posts on Higgaion, the blog of Dr. Chris Heard (begin reading from the bottom and see explicitly Part 2 of the Extended Review for the issue of the Pharaoh of the Exodus).

The posts are a response to a video entitled The Exodus Decoded.  I would recommend watching the video if you get a chance along with reading the blog posts (I believe that Chris links to the video on the History Channel website at some point in the posts).  However, I will preface this debate by saying that scholars generally fall somewhere on a sliding scale.  At one end of the scale are literalists who believe that the Exodus story happened exactly as the Hebrew Bible records.  At the the other opposite end are those that believe that the Exodus did not occur at all.  In the middle are more moderate scholars who believe there is some kernel of truth to the Exodus story, but that it did not happen as recorded in the Biblical story.  In terms of dating, there are scholars that hold to a 15th century date, a 13th century date, or no date at all (i.e. if they do not believe that the Exodus actually happened).  In my reading, I have found the 13th century date to be a consensus among those who believe there is some historical accuracy to the story.

I am no archaeologist.  And, I cannot read most of the primary source materials related to this issue in their original languages.  All that I am able to do for the most part is read the story in the Hebrew Bible and read the interpretations of this account provided by secondary sources (e.g. Dr. Heard).  And to state my position, I fall somewhere in the camp of the moderates.  I believe there is some historical kernel of truth to the story, but that it did not happen exactly as the Bible records it.  Some elements of the story simply do not make sense to me except as later theological reflection on some historical kernel (e.g. 2.5 million people leaving Egypt at the time of the Exodus).  Yet I think it is helpful to go through posts like those of Dr. Heard along with the video to be exposed to all sides of the current debate.

If you would like to explore this issue further using audio, I would recommend picking up Eric Cline’s audio course entitled A History of Ancient Israel in the Modern Scholar series from Audible.com.  His overall approach to the history of Ancient Israel is a moderate one.  He gives the Biblical stories a hearing, but also attempts to corroborate these stories with external sources.  To get this course free with a trial, click HERE.

Today’s lectionary reading from the Old Testament is Amos 7.12-15. It is one of the more revealing passages in the book bearing his name because it shows several obstacles to the people listening to his message. I will look briefly at three:

1. Amos was from the Southern Kingdom of Judah preaching to the Northern Kingdom of Israel.  In the passage, Amaziah is the priest of Bethel, which is in the Northern Kingdom (vs. 10).  He tells Amos to flee to the Southern Kingdom of Judah, which is where Amos hails from (from Tekoa – see below).  Thus, this made it difficult for the people in the Northern Kingdom to listen to Amos.  “He’s an outsider coming in and trying to tell us how to live.”
2. Amos was a rural preacher.  We read in this passage that Amos is a “shepherd and a dresser of Sycamores.”  Earlier in the book we read that Amos is from Tekoa (Amos 1.1), which was more of a rural area.  Yet much of his ire is directed toward the more “metropolitan areas.”  For example, he calls out Samaria, which was the capital of the Northern Kingdom, in 3.9, 4.1, 6.1, and 8.14.  This again adds to the reasons the people do not want to listen to him.
3. Amos was not of the class of prophets.  The translation of Amos 7.14 is famously difficult.  It could either read “I am no prophet” or “I was no prophet.”  There is no helping verb in the Hebrew.  Yet the point seems clear, that there was a social group/class of prophets in Israel and Amos was not a part of it.  We read about one of these groups prophets in places like 1 Kings 22 and Jeremiah 27-28.  These were royal prophets who turned out to be little more than “Yes Men” for the Israelite kings.  The people often liked the messages of these prophets because they were favorable.  Amos’ message, however, is not favorable, again adding to the people’s reluctance to hear him out.

From these considerations it is easy to see that Amos’ task was not a pleasant one.  Hopefully, regardless of one’s religious convictions, or lack thereof, we can all find courage in Amos’ example to cry out against injustice despite being out of place, or less educated, or in the presence of those who would give a more favorable message.

A little over a week ago I blogged that I had downloaded The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs with one of my June Audible.com credits. And, I have to say that it is one of the best books that I have read recently. It is an honest attempt by a person who considered himself an agnostic to live the Bible as literally as possible for one year. In the process he reveals both the loftiest aspects of religious of belief and also the dangers. The author is witty and honest, especially about his own shortcomings (one of the best features of the audiobook version is that it is read by the author himself).

I do not want to spoil the book for you because I hope that many of you will read it, but I would like to relate one of the more entertaining anecdotes.  Jacobs decides that he is going to try and literally fulfill the Bible’s commandments to stone adulterers and blasphemers.  He knows that he cannot do this with large stones, so he decides to choose small ones.  When he is out in New York a man asks him what he is doing, and he must be honest, according to the Bible, so he tells the man what he is doing.  The man then proceeds to tell Jacobs that he is an adulterer and asks if Jacobs is going to stone him.  Before Jacobs can do anything the man takes one of Jacob’s own rocks and throws it at him.  Once Jacobs regains his composure he takes a rock and hits the man in the chest with it.  He then relates his feelings about the incident afterwards.  They are mixture of both satisfaction and disgust.

This and many of the other stories make the book a worthwhile read (or listen).  Even if you do not agree with Jacobs at many points I think that you will find it helpful to see an outsider attempt to live out the commandments of the Bible.  If you are interested in checking it out, follow the links below:

Get The Year of Living Biblically with an Audible Free trial

Today’s responsorial Psalm is Psalm 33 of which only parts are given in the readings. As I read the Psalm, as well as the reading from Genesis 42-43 this morning, I could not help but feel an inner tension. The common element in both the Genesis reading and Psalm 33 is famine. In Genesis 42-43, Joseph’s brothers have gone down into Egypt to get grain in order to escape famine. Psalm 33.18-19 (NRSV, note the end of verse 19) reads as follow:

18 Truly the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him,
on those who hope in his steadfast love,
19 to deliver their soul from death,
and to keep them alive in famine.

The famine in Genesis appears to be a natural phenomenon, whereas the one in Psalm 33 may be caused by siege due to references to armies earlier in the text (vv. 16-17). This all seems fairly straightforward until one goes back to verses 6 and 7 and reads:

6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and all their host by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle;
he put the deeps in storehouses.

The Psalm begins with the Lord being extolled for his creation, especially his work in forming the seas. The question then emerges concerning how good the Lord actually made the world if he made it to be susceptible to famine. I am familiar with all of the theological explanations for this, but none of them appear in this passage. The author simply moves from the Lord being great and wonderful for creating the world the way that he did and allowing none of his plans to be brought to nought to trusting in the Lord to save from famine. The result of all this is trusting the Lord who created a world susceptible to famine to save from famine.

I am not trying to say that there are no explanations for this. I am just noting that none of the explanations seem to be here. This just seems to be a tension that the author of Psalm 33 has come to live with, such much so that it is not even noted as a problem.

Today’s lectionary reading is one of the most enigmatic in the entire Hebrew Bible. It is the story in which the patriarch’s name is changed from Jacob to Israel. There are all sorts of questions that remain after reading the passage. Who is the man with whom Jacob wrestles? How should the name Israel be translated? How does one punctuate the explanation of Jacob’s name change? What was the original purpose of the story?

After examining several commentaries dealing with this story I am convinced that some of these questions may lay beyond our grasp. Take for example the name Israel. The divine element in this name is El, which means God. There is some dispute over the meaning of the root used to form the name. Is it “struggle” or “rule”? In the most common form, we are left with something like “God will rule/strive” or “Let God rule/strive.” However, in the context of the story, if the root is translated “struggle” it makes more sense to have Jacob as the subject, i.e. “he struggles with God.” Commentators seem split on how to take this name.

Thus, with difficult questions brought up by the passage, is there any core meaning that can be ascertained? I think there is, and I think it lies in a point brought out by Von Rad. Von Rad notes that many expositors view this passage as an answer to the prayer that Jacob utters in 32.9-13. Jacob is afraid of the hand of his brother. And, I think the overall point of this passage is to reassure Jacob. If Jacob is able to wrestle with this “man/deity” and be successful, he really need not worry about his brother Esau. So, the name change from Jacob to Israel serves as a reminder to Israel that he will be successful in his dealings with men (i.e. Esau) because he has struggled with God (or God has struggled with him dependent on the translation of the new name).

For a preview of Von Rad’s commentary, check it out here at Google Books. You can read the whole entry related to this passage.

If you read lectionary readings for today, you may have recognized Psalm 91, which has inspired a significant amount of music over the years. So, I have embedded a YouTube video with some accompanying music if you would like to listen to it today. Honestly, I am not much on the video, but the song is nice. It is Eagle’s Wings, which has become a staple of Christian worship music (in North America at least). Enjoy.

Today’s lectionary reading from the Old Testament comes from Ezekiel 2. In it we find the most common title applied to Ezekiel by the Lord. This title is “Son of Man,” which is a complex phrase in the Old Testament especially when one takes into consideration the usage in Daniel 7.13. However, the usage in Ezekiel is a bit more straightforward. It means something along the lines of “human being,” or if you want to go a bit further, “mere mortal.” The phrase is used in the early chapters of Ezekiel to contrast the majestic deity from the lowly prophet.

In light of this usage, it is interesting the New Testament authors used this somewhat demeaning title from Ezekiel as one of the most common phrases to refer to Jesus.  Of course, it is possible that they saw the usage from Daniel as the most pertinent.  However, it is also possible that they saw in Jesus “the Son of Man,” as in “the human being.”  Perhaps it is that they saw in him what it meant to be fully human.

I have recently decided to make comments on some weekly lectionary readings in my blog posts, though I will continue to post on other matters as well. Today’s responsorial Psalm is Psalm 135, which gives a good illustration of the presence of henotheism in the Bible. Henotheism is a big word, but it basically means that if a group of people worships one God while not denying the existence of other deities.

Many people operate under the mistaken assumption that Israel was always monotheistic in Biblical times; however, Psalm 135 as well as other texts demonstrates that this was not always the case.  For a substantial span of their history they were actually henotheists.  The strongest statements on monotheism do not come until Second Isaiah, e.g. “I am the Lord and there is no other” (Is. 45.6).  Yet in Psalm 135.5 one reads, “For I know that the Lord is great, and our Lord is greater than all gods.”  The fact of the matter is that it took some time for montheism to develop in Israel.  And, even some of the statements that have traditionally been taken as montheistic (i.e. the first of the ten commandments) are likely not statements of monotheism at all, but rather fit better into the context of henotheism.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, I know for a fact that Christine Hayes covers this topic in a significant amount of detail in her Introduction to the Old Testament (perhaps almost an entire lecture).  A link can be found on the courses page of this site.