Bible Read Through Thoughts — 01

 

Some of us from the Lindisfarne Community have decided to follow a reading plan that allows one to read through the entire Bible in a year (it’s been several years since I’ve done that). I’ll be posting my thoughts here in a series labeled #BibleReadThroughThoughts. I hope you will join us! The link for the plan we’re using is here. It defaults to the New Revised Standard Version but you can change the translation by clicking the wee down arrow to the right of the Bible translation.

For my readings, I’ve chosen the Septuagint (LXX) 2012 version for the Old Testament readings and the Common English Bible for the New Testament.

                                   

01 January 2022 — 

Old Testament

Genesis 1.26 (LXX2012):[1] And God said, “Let us make man (άνθρωπον, anthrópos) according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion (κατακυριεύσατε) over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth.”

Two things: 1) The Greek word translated “man” is άνθρωπον and it means, “man, also the generic term for ‘mankind’; the human race; people, including women and men (Mt 4:19, 12:12, etc.).

According to HELP Word-studies — 

 

... the word anthrōpos relates to both genders (male and female) as both are created in the image of God – each equally vested with individual personhood and destiny (cf. Gal 3:28). Accordingly, the Bible uses (ánthrōpos) of a specific man, woman, or class (type, group) of people – i.e. mankind in general (inclusive of every man, woman, and child; see also 1 Cor 11:7). (Note: anḗr specifically refers to a male and gynḗ to a female.)

 

[ánthrōpos (“man”) answers to the Hebrew term, `adam – and (anḗr) answers to the Hebrew term `ish.

 

K. Wuest, “There are two words in Greek which mean “man,” anēr, which refers to a male individual of the human race, and anthrōpos, which is the racial, generic term, and which has the general idea of ‘mankind’ ” (3, Great Truths to Live By, 46).]

What this means, then, is that Genesis 1 is about the creation of humanity and not “Adam,” the single human male.

And 2) The Greek word translated “dominion” is κατακυριεύσατε and it means, “to bend down.” Again, according to HELPS Word-studies, in this context, it means, “properly, exercise decisive control (downward) as an owner with full jurisdiction.”

It’s sad to me that we have used the word “dominion” to mean to “do with as we please” instead of a trusted “owner” caring for those left in their charge.

Genesis 1.29-30 (LXX2021): And God said, Behold I have given to you every seed-bearing herb sowing seed which is upon all the earth, and every tree which has in itself the fruit of seed that is sown, to you it shall be for food. 30And to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the flying creatures of heaven, and to every reptile creeping on the earth, which has in itself the breath of life, even every green plant for food; and it was so.

There are two things that I like in this passage. First, it seems that everyone — humans and animals — was vegetarian “in the beginning.” Second, “all the wild beasts … and … all the flying creatures … and … every reptile on the earth … has … the breath of life.” This is one of the things that made me look at nature completely differently. Especially when considering that God looked at creation and it was, “… very good” (verse 31).

When I started studying Celtic Christianity, this was the thing that struck me. That our origins as a species, and all of creation itself, is “very good.” That’s the deepest part of everything — the spark of the Divine Light (vv. 3-5). John Philip Newell noted that the ninth-century Irish theologian and poet, John Scotus Eriugena taught that:

[The creation account in Genesis 1] is a meditation on the ever-present mystery of creation. To say that light is created on the first day is to say that light is at the heart of life….it is the essence or centre from which life proceeds. At the heart of all that has life is the light of God.

Continuing on with Genesis — 

Genesis 2.4 (LXX2012): This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God (κύριος θεός, kurios theos) made the heaven and the earth …

This begins what many scholars call “the second creation story.” There are so many differences between these two stories (specifically, the order of creation is quite different) that I agree. Some people try to skirt around this by saying something like this is a summary of what happened in chapter 1. Others look at this as the creation of the covenant people of God whereas the first account was creation in general. I mean, I could lean more into the second than the first because that view takes into account the differences, at least, and we have the first mention of the κύριος θεός, the “Lord God.” I’ve held both views in the past.

The word translated “Lord,” is κύριος (kurios) and it means, “a person (owner or master) exercising absolute ownership rights.

In the Greek text, there is a distinction between the word “Adam” and the word “man.” That is to say, “Adam” appears to be a proper name whereas “man” is just the generic term. To my mind, this comes from the Hebrew text upon which the Septuagint or LXX was translated.

Furthermore, according to Marg Mowczko the word for “man” (hā·`ā·ḏām) changed and became gendered (ish) only after the creation of the woman (issha). You can see this reflected in verse 23, “And Adam said, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of her husband.” The word “husband” contains this note: “In the Hebrew, the reason of (sic) the name appears. She shall be called Issha (woman/female) because she was taken out of Ish (man/male).”

Genesis 3.6 (LXX2012): And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate, and she gave to her husband also with her, and they ate (emphasis added).

I point this out anytime someone tries to blame women for the “fall.” Adam was “with her” and he could have stopped it but he didn’t. Therefore he’s just as guilty as she is (if one’s looking to lay blame).

Genesis 3.12 (LXX2012): And Adam said, The woman whom you gave to be with me—she gave me of the tree and I ate.

Those same people I just mentioned point to this verse as “proof” that it was the woman’s fault. But upon examination, one can see that Adam was actually blaming God — “The woman whom you gave to be with me…”! In essence, Adam is saying that this wouldn’t have happened if God hadn’t given Adam the woman. 

Genesis 3.17 (LXX2012): And to the woman [God] said, I will greatly multiply your pains and your groanings; in pain you shall bring forth children, and your submission shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.

People often cite this verse when they talk about “God’s plan” for the family. I’m quick to point them back to Genesis 1 where both male and female were given equal duties and status. Genesis 3.17 is not God’s ideal, it’s God’s punishment but this “curse” has been removed by the work of Christ (Galatians 3.10ff).

New Testament

Matthew 1 — 

I note four women mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy — Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary, his mother. There are a couple of things I find interesting about this. First up is, of course, why were there only four women mentioned?! Where were the other women? There were obviously 42 generations of them like there were of the fathers.

Secondly, it’s interesting to note that, even today, traditional Jewish lineage is traced through the mother’s side and not the father’s. The rather simple reason for this is that was the way the “ancient” world “worked.” We may not care for that and I’m so thankful for all of the good changes that have come out in response to the dominance of patriarchy, but that was just not how the ancient peoples of the Bible viewed the world. It’s a disservice to us, to the ancient peoples, and the Bible when we impose our views of equality and fairness upon the text. Biblical patriarchy should be seen as a window into how far we’ve come because of the work of Jesus and the people of The Way and how far we’ve yet to go.

Matthew 1.22-23 (CEB):[2] Now all of this took place so that what the Lord had spoken through the prophet would be fulfilled: 23Look! A virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will call him, Emmanuel (Emmanuel means “God with us.”).

Here’s one of the most “problematic” passages in the nativity story for quite a lot of people. When we look this passage up in the Hebrew Scriptures contained in almost all of our Bibles, we’ll see a problem. In Isaiah, we read — 

Isaiah 7.14 (CEB): Therefore, the Lord will give you a sign. The young woman is pregnant and is about to give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel.

The Hebrew word translated as “young woman” here is עַלְמָה (almah) and it means just that, a young woman. People have pointed to this and claimed that the writer of Matthew changed the text to fit their theology. However, that’s not true at all. The simple fact that it’s different in Hebrew is because the writer of Matthew was not using the Hebrew text — they were using the Greek! Here’s what it says in the LXX — 

Isaiah 7.14 (LXX2012): Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel (emphasis added).

Why did the writer of Matthew (and the rest of the NT authors and editors for that matter) use the LXX instead of the Hebrew text? Because it was readily available! The LXX was produced roughly in the 3rd to 2nd century BCE. The Masoretic Text, the one our Hebrew Scriptures use, was not completed until almost 1000 years after the LXX. Some people have speculated that the Jews of the time wanted to distance themselves from the Christians so they started work on the Masoretic Text. As author Keith Giles states —

Maybe we should take some time to at least mention that the Masoretic text was created [read “modified”] by the Jewish Rabbis much later as a reaction to the rise of the Christian sect. In other words, there was an obvious and not-so-subtle attempt to scrub references from the Old Testament scriptures that might seem to support the early Christian religion centered around Jesus as the Messiah.

~~~

In the Love of the Three in One,

Br. Jack+, LC

_________

[1] Scripture quotations marked (LXX2012) are taken from the Septuagint in American English 2012. The Septuagint in American English 2012 is in the public domain and may be freely copied, published, etc.

[2] Scripture quotations marked (CEB) are taken from The Common English Bible. Copyright © 2011 by Common English Bible. Used by permission.