Bible Historical Genesis - Essay Example

Your Number 3 May 2007 Historical Genesis Believers in the Judeo-Christian creation story have long sought physical evidence of its ancient inspiration. Even today, many people are convinced that they can pinpoint the exact location of Mt. Ararat with the petrified remains of Noah’s ark perched on top. As much as they may want to believe such stories, most modern scholars understand that such substantiation is probably impossible. However, in works such as Reading the Pentateuch by John J.McDermott, we can come to understand the historical basis for such stories, and to derive a better comprehension of the origins of the Bible and the motivations of those who originally transcribed these oral traditions. Historic reading of the flood myth shows us how the ancient Israelites understood their place in the universe, their relationship to God, their relationship to other nations, and God’s feelings toward and desires for them. A historical reading of the story of Noah can tell us many things about the ancient Israelites. McDermott explains how comparing the Biblical account of the flood to a similar and undoubtedly related story in the epic of Gilgamesh helps demonstrate the worldview of the ancient Israelites. First of all, the prevalence of such tales across a diversity of cultures suggests to modern readers “that there must have been some wide event behind them” (McDermott 31-2). However, as tantalizing as this information is, it is not specific to the Pentateuch. More interesting are the differences between the two views of God and intention. In particular, the Gilgamesh account portrays a world with many gods, who do not always agree, and who do not entirely control the universe. There is an element of chaos and lack of control in the Gilgamesh account, with a renegade god and an unplanned survivor. The Genesis account, on the other hand, naturally speaks of one, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all merciful god who set out to create the exact flood and the exact result delineated in the story of Noah. This represents a huge shift in religious thought. In Gilgamesh, the flood “is simply an arbitrary act” (McDermott 33) while in Genesis it is done for the purpose of giving “creation a second chance to live righteously” (McDermott 33). In Gilgamesh, the survivor is an accident, while Noah is part of God’s plan. In Gilgamesh, the flood “was so terrifying that even the gods were frightened and retreated to the high heaven” (McDermott 32); in Genesis, God “remembered Noah and all the wild animals and domestic animals that were with him on the ark, and God passed a wind over the Earth and the water decreased” (Friedman 45). From this, we can understand that the Israelite’s world view of a merciful and all-powerful god was in opposition to earlier portraits of arbitrary and conflicted multiple gods. The Israelites believed things happened for a reason, while the Babylonians saw the gods as also at the mercy of a random and unknowable universe. The Israelite god presumed that the people retained a scrap of goodness, and could be convinced to act in certain ways. The Gilgamesh epic has a more nihilistic bent; it scarcely matters what men do, because the gods don’t love them in the same way, and furthermore, the gods do not have complete control over the world anyway. They are more powerful than humans, but not omnipotent. The god of the ancient Israelites was, first and foremost, omnipotent. The deliberate nature of the flood in Genesis helps shape the Israelite understanding of who God was and what God wanted from them. Noah is chosen because of his virtue: “He was unblemished in his generation” (Friedman 42). On the other hand, “the earth was corrupted before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Friedman 42). From this was can understand that Noah alone was unblemished. The rest of his generation was corrupted with violence. God, in giving humans free will, has created a situation in which humans may choose to displease God. With infinite power, God chooses to erase the slate and start over, “to wipe out the human…from the face of the earth…because I regret that I made them” (Friedman 42). We see the relationship between man and God according to the Israelites; our bad behavior causes God to believe us a mistake. There has been “a disruption of the proper order of the universe” (McDermott 33), not caused by God, but offensive to God. God wants men to be more like Noah; by destroying all who are not like Noah, God is trying to set an example for future generations. The most important difference in the two stories is the aftermath. Gilgamesh discovers evidence of the flood because he wants to know about immortality, and he learns that no one was intended to survive. Forcing the survivor to “live far away, at the mouth of the rivers” (McDermott 35), the gods seek to hide their mistake from mortals. Only the hero, Gilgamesh, can learn the truth about the gods in this case. In Genesis, however, Noah’s survival is deliberate, and instead of hiding the story from the world, God makes a visible covenant: “the rainbow will be in the cloud and I’ll see it, to remember an eternal covenant between God and every living being of all flesh that is on the earth” (Friedman 47). The ancient Israelites took the story of the flood and the phenomenon of the rainbow as reminders that God cared about them, that God wanted them to be good, and that God would never completely forsake them. The narrative “emphasizes that there is one God, in control of all forces of the universe, who will use that control to try to restore humanity to righteousness. The world is not an arbitrary place where humanity might come to an end at any time for no reason at all” (McDermott 35). Another interesting marker in the Genesis story is the coda concerning Noah’s vineyard. God intended the flood to wash away all evil on Earth. In this story, we see that evil is still possible, despite the housecleaning that’s been done, but more importantly, we see that free will is not only still possible, but still of great importance in the divine plan. Noah chooses to plant grapes, get drunk, and “be exposed inside his tent” (Friedman 57) whereas his youngest son sees his nakedness and chooses to tell his brothers. This is a bad choice, although it is hard for modern readers to completely understand his sin. On the other hand, his older brothers “took a garment and put it on both their shoulders and went backwards and covered their father’s nakedness” (Friedman 57). This is clearly an example of filial duty. So the story here highlights details seen later in the Pentateuch: an emphasis on honoring ones parents side by with a precedence setting penalties for disrespect. Even more importantly, this story helps us to understand the Israelites geographic sensibilities. Since they were often at odds with their neighbors, who were, strictly speaking, also their cousins in many senses, this story helps to establish the dominance of one people over another, and therefore, of one people over the land. The wicked son, Ham, is the father of Canaan, and Noah proclaims, “Canaan is cursed. He’ll be a servant of servant to his brothers” (Friedman 57). Ham himself, as Noah’s son, is not cursed. However, all his descendants are cursed. The sin of their ancestor is so great it must continue to color the nation for all time. In this way, the Israelites could explain God’s assertion that they had a greater right to the land of Canaan, as this story proves that “God intends the Israelites to rule over the Canaanites because of the depravity of the Canaanites” (McDermott 36). This is an extremely important precedent, since the Israelites, few in number, later went down to Egypt, where they were fruitful and multiplied, and then returned to Canaan a numerous people, with the idea that they must displace the already numerous and prosperous people who had remained in the Canaan while they were slaves in Egypt. Whatever the Israelites do to the Canaanites, they can do it with the knowledge that they are simply carrying out God’s plan and punishing the wicked. In this same vein, the chapter that follows this story and relates the descendants of Noah explains what the ancient Israelites understand about the peoples of the world. From each of Noah’s three sons, they saw the ancestry of the different nations that surrounded them. Their organization “represents political realities at the time it was composed, not actual racial or linguistic groups” (McDermott 37). In other words, the Israelites could categorize those who must always be their enemies as the sons of Ham. Where political expedience required that they be allies with other nations, the story of the descendants of Noah backed up the relationship between disparate cultures. Where the land requirements of the Israelites suggested they must dominate another culture, the story not only justified, but actually required such a course. A historical reading of the Pentateuch cannot show us a complete picture of the ancient world. However, it can help us better understand its authors, including their views on God, the views on the rest of the world, and their understanding of how the universe worked. The ancient Israelites saw themselves as God’s chosen people, doing God’s bidding, with the certainty that they would remain so provided they follow a certain code of righteousness. The story of Noah illustrates this beautifully. Read More