Giants!

"Here there be giants!" --Gen. 6:4

Old Testament
Book 1: Genesis
Chapter 5: Genealogy Adam to Noah
Chapter 6: God hires Noah
Chapter 7: The Flood
Chapter 8: Noah lands, and kills half the animals he just saved

In chapter 5 Noah is born. This is the first of the boring genealogy chapters. One interesting thing is that for some reason Enoch does not die, he is taken alive by God. Now, the note says "[the passage] clearly implies that [Enoch] was taken alive to God's abode" (Gen. 5:24 n. 2). Although it does clearly say he did not die but was removed from earth by God, it actually implies nothing about going to "God's abode." This is, I think, another example of the Catholics reading into, even reshaping, the meaning of the old testament. I've heard before, I don't know where, that in the old testament there is no conception of heaven (nor Satan for that matter). When you died, you were dead, like in real life. Let's keep an eye out for that as we read. Anyway, this claim that the verse implies heaven is a fabrication.

One of the most fascinating things to me about reading a fairly scholarly edition of the bible is the notes on the origins of the various parts of the bible. (Remember what these books are. They are ancient documents dug up and pieced together. --Pieced together twice, first by the original compilers of the bible, then again in the last few hundred years by archaeologists looking for source materials. Archaeology is a fascinating field, very similar to cosmology and astronomy. The task in both is to take the most meager of evidence and construct entire narratives about what happened thousands (or billions) of years ago.)

The note on this chapter says that it is a "relatively late 'Priestly document.'" The purpose of the chapter is to bridge the genealogy from Adam to Abraham. "Priestly" means it was added to the book much later, when the original writers (editors) were compiling and shaping the book to fit the lessons they wanted to teach. The truly amazing thing to me about notes such as this is that they explicitly admit, in black and white, right there in the text of the bible, that the thing was written and compiled by humans in order to fit a certain agenda.

The note points out how many of the names in this genealogy are similar to ones in chapter 4, but in a different order. It also mentions how this genealogy parallels "Babylonian tradition." What is that evidence of? Is it evidence of the "historical truth" of the bible? Or is it evidence of the contrived and man-made nature of the bible? It cuts both ways, doesn't it!

I love Noah's three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It's impossible not to imagine Moe, Larry, and Shemp.

***

Chapter 6 is sort of the beginning of the transition in Genesis from ancient myths to a different kind of story that is more about human relations. This chapter is amazing for so many reasons. First, of course, the giants of Gen. 6:1-4. Uh, what? Where to begin?! The "sons of heaven"--who are THEY?! Other gods? Gods brothers and sisters? His friends? His children?! (What happened to "only begotten son"?) It's also the first of the hard-core raunchy stories of Genesis. The "sons of heaven" come down to earth and see how hot the "daughters of man" are, and "take them for wives"--whether forcibly or not is unclear. They impregnate the women (more cross-race or cross-species sex), and the offspring are these giants. What happened to these giants?

I want to be clear--I don't mind these stories, I think they are fun and what make the bible entertaining. What baffles me is how Christians maintain that all the bible is true. They have to go to such elaborate lengths to convince themselves that every word is true. Some won't even allow for the metaphoric nature of these stories. They spend a lot of time arguing how the creation story is possible--they don't even mention this one, which is at least as silly.

The point of course is that the old testament is just a collection of ancient myths. No different from Native American myths, or Greek myths, or any others. They are entertaining stories that have lessons and help to explain the unexplainable. The idea that even today people still believe these stories is truly, truly mind-boggling, isn't it? The stories are fun, same as Aesop's Fables or Dr. Suess stories, but there are entire radio networks, entire television stations, entire careers, entire industries, billions of dollars a year, devoted to the truth of these stories. How do we even begin to approach the question of how that is possible? It's a question, obviously, I will be contemplating often as I read this book.

Three more aspects of this flood story fascinate me. First, morality. Second, God's personality. And third, the mundane impossibility of it all.

I had never noticed this issue of the origin of morality before, but it keeps cropping up. In this chapter God gets so disgusted with man's wickedness, and "no desire that his [man's] heart conceived was ever anything but evil" (Gen. 6:5).

Man's wickedness? In his heart nothing but evil? What does that mean? This story simply makes no sense. God made us. He made the world. As I said yesterday, what is the nature of this "evil"? There are only two possibilities. Either one, this concept of good and evil is something outside of God--something that exists separate from him. It's not his definition of good and evil, it's the definition of good and evil. Is that what is meant? There are two problems with that. First, obviously, if this notion of good and evil exists outside of God, then God can't be all-knowing, all-powerful, and so on. It's not that God is the universe, he simply exists inside the universe, same as us. That fits very well with the Garden of Eden story, and explains why he was so fearful of us eating from the tree of life--he's not infinitely better than us, he's only one step up the food chain from us. Second, what on earth is this notion of good and evil? It existed before creation, before man and woman. Yet what "evil" is that God is talking about here, the thing that disgusts him so much, is entirely human in nature: murder, sex, theft, lying. How could the universe have had a moral precept regarding sex outside of marriage before God created man and woman? That is a very troubling thing to contemplate. Who was God talking to in chapter one? One would imagine the concepts of good and evil that God is dealing with in his life are entirely different from ours. Is there really a moral tenet regarding coveting thy neighbor's wife where God lives?! Does God live in the suburbs, or an apartment building? Do you think he rents or owns? Does he get mad at his neighbor for not trimming the tree? Is his neighbor's wife really that hot? Does she sunbath in a skimpy bikini during the summer? Who can blame God, the way she parades around like that half naked? It's almost like she's asking for it.

It is very hard to reconcile the notion that morality pre-existed creation, with our belief in God as all-powerful, all-knowing. The other possibility for the nature of this evil that was rampant before the flood, then, is that God created a system of morality to go along with the rest of creation. We needed rules, so he decided on some: no killing, no sex outside of marriage, no theft, etc. There are, again, some problems with this. First, it means that our particular system of morality is arbitrary. God could easily have come up with different rules, why not? He could have said it was sinful not to have sex with at least three strangers a week, sinful not to kill those you dislike. Why not? Is that idea strange, blasphemous? If your reaction to this suggestion is that the rules have to be as they are, they couldn't be the alternatives I just described, then we are right back where we started--the morality is inevitable, and therefore pre-dates creation and God.

It's possible, alternatively, that the morals spring from creation as God created it. The alternatives I described might be possible in some world, but not this one that God did in fact create. Okay, maybe.

But that leads me to the second thing I wanted to begin to explore: God's personality. This is one of the most baffling things to me about the entire story. Gen. 6:6: "[When God saw how evil people were,] he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved." He regretted it? That makes no sense to me. It defies explanation. God created us. We aren't equals. What on earth emotional attachment could he possibly have to us? Imagine you make a model train set in your basement, or a doll house. The train jumps the track and crashes through the model depot. Are you going to REGRET MAKING THE THING?! What kind of emotional disturbance or psychosis would you have to have to attach that much importance on this little game of yours?

In addition is the obvious point that he made us. How can he get angry for doing what we've been programmed to do? Even if he programmed us with free will, that's still how he created us. How could any creator--of a train set or the world--grieve when his creation does something he built into the thing in the first place? As a programmer I would be delighted to witness my program thinking on its own. What does it say about God that he does not like it when we think on our own? What kind of desperate, self-centered, emotionally stunted parent would be angry with their children for becoming their own person?

God's personality, obviously, is something that crops up time and again in the bible. We'll have plenty more opportunity to talk about it.

Finally, quickly, is the mundane impossibility of it all. Noah took two of EVERY creature onto this ark? The story can't possibly be true. How did Noah build the thing? With God's help you say. Perhaps, but that's not what the bible says. It says that God told him to do it, not that he and Noah would do it together. Gen. 6:14-16. And it was Noah's job to gather the creatures--the elephants, the penguins, the apes living in the jungles of Thailand, the mosquitoes, the mice, the North American bison, and the South American parrots. That was Noah's job.

(This by the way, is contract #2 in the bible. It is a more formal contract. God tells Noah what to do, then says, "I, on my part, will . . ."--that is called "consideration" in contract law. An exchange of promises. Then he makes covenant #1: he promises not to kill them along with the rest of the world. This covenant is not a contract, because there is no consideration on Noah's part. It is an empty promise, and hence is unenforceable. You think God didn't know that?!)

Well, these first chapters really do introduce all the themes that will be running throughout the bible. A lot needs to be said here. Hopefully once we settle into the real characters of the story, Abraham and his children, less will need to be written every day. I won't be able to keep this up!

I want to make one last comment. Again, all of my discussion isn't to criticize the stories themselves. They are great, fun, interesting stories. That would be like criticizing a Grimm Fairytale because mirrors can't really talk, or a kiss wouldn't really cure a poison-induced paralysis. That's not the point of the stories. The problem, again, is that people actually believe these stories are true. I love the stories, but they are so obviously not true, impossibly, internally illogically not true, that the amount of energy expended attempting to prove the opposite is truly shocking. It's interesting to listen to callers to some of the bible call-in shows on the radio, when the caller knows it doesn't make sense, but knows it's supposed to make sense. The expert will spend 30 minutes explaining in great, flawless bible logic how inevitable it all is, then tell the caller that ultimately you just have to have faith in it.

--bibletoenail


Textual Notes:
- Gen. 6:5-8:22 n.5--fascinating. The story here is a patchwork of two sources--the "Yahwist" source, and the "Priestly document." Consequently there are many repetitions and inconsistencies in the story, such as the number of animals taken into the ark. Again, this is just proof of the editorial intent behind the text. Most fascinating, however, is that this note says that both of these sources can be traced ultimately back to the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic! Wow. And again, it's just beyond question what this bible actually is.

- Gen. 6:15 n. 7--Wow, there really was an ancient story of the flood. Not just in general, but in the particulars! This note says the Babylonian ark was an exact cube--120 cubits in length, width, and height. Well, I must say that ark is way cooler than Noah's big boat.

- Gen. 6:19--God tells Noah to bring on board two of every kind--one male and one female. How could Noah tell the male mosquito from the female? Can you? By the way, what happened to all the plant life?

- Gen. 7:1-3--more unexplained morality--"clean" versus "unclean" animals.

- Gen. 7:11--Another of my favorite passages. See, the authors of the book thought that there was water above the sky, above the "dome" that was made in Gen. 1. So to make it rain, God opened windows in the dome and the water fell down. I love that.

- Gen. 8:1--A strange comment--"and then God remembered Noah [after 150 days]"--what is God doing during that time? What is he busy with when he forgets about us?

- Gen. 8:4--150 days adrift at sea, and Noah lands just down the street from where he took off? Hm. . .

- Gen. 8:6--Since I was a little kid, I have never understood why Noah waited 40 days after landing to open the door in his boat. It always reminds me of the astronauts in the space shuttle, who sit there on the tarmac for like 15 minutes after landing. I always wonder, why don't they get out?

- Gen. 8:20--Uh, Noah just went through all that, with TWO of every kind of animal, and the first thing he does after landing is kill half of them for a sacrifice to God! (Presumably they had babies on board, but still.)

- Gen. 8:21--When he smells the sweet odor of all that burning flesh, he says to himself, "Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man's heart are evil from the start." No shit, Sherlock. Since I figured this out two chapters ago, I have to once again question the omnipotence of God. He is so abusive--explodes in anger, kills everyone, literally, then regrets it.

- Gen. 8:22--Now wait a minute, he promises right here (an empty promise without consideration, to be sure), that he will never again kill everyone. But the entire Christian faith is based on the anticipation to exactly that day, when God DOES kill everyone again!

- Gen. 8:21 n. 3--Interesting. When God says man is evil from the start, the note says it's unclear whether that means since the beginning of the human race, or from the early years of each individual.


Quotables:
"Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him." --Gen. 5:24
"The sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose." --Gen. 6:1
"The sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man." --Gen. 6:4
"[God] regretted that he had made man." --Gen. 6:6
"You alone in this age have I found to be truly just." --Gen. 7:1
"The floodgates of the sky were opened." --Gen. 7:11
"The desires of man's heart are evil from the start." --Gen. 8:21