Post by Maggie on Sept 13, 2013 19:53:20 GMT -6
I am always taken by surprise when readers of the Old Testament's stories treat it as something that can be read with no understanding of the literary character of the stories preserved in it and no understanding of the culture in which they were produced. I always plead with the non-believers to read a poem like a poem, a story like a story, a historical narrative like a historical narrative and a book of laws like laws. In other words, different types of writing need to be read in ways appropriate to them. I pity the poor doctor who tries to find a treatment for cancer in the pages of Through the Looking Glass What a feat of interpretation it would be to derive such a thing from:
Jabberwocky would be misused terribly as a medical text! Yet something similar happens when many readers approach the Old Testament. So I want to clear up some misunderstandings about the episode of the Tower of Babel in case any of our IGI brethren look in. I will borrow from the commentary of Robert Alter, who is one of the best known Old Testament scholars in this country. His translation and commentary, The Five Books of Moses (New York : Norton, 2004), is one that everyone interested in those books should have. His interpretation lines up with those I have read from other Jewish Old Testament scholars.
I suppose the first thing that a modern reader needs to know is that the "Tower," as described, is modelled on the Mesopotamian ziggurat (one of the wonders, says Alter, of ancient technology). The author of the story in Genesis has made it a fable of God intervening, yet again, to keep mankind from going wrong. Alter says that those who think the builders of the Tower are trying to reach heaven are wrong-- they are misunderstanding a hyperbolic formula that can be found in Mesopotamian inscriptions to celebrate their high towers. In other words, he sees this story as a criticism of "urbanism and the overweening confidence of humanity in the feats of technology" which, of course, can turn man from dependence on God to the belief that he doesn't need God. God's response to such hubris is to scatter men all over the earth which puts an end to the building of the city, as well as the building of the tower.
Of course, it is easy to find variations on the interpretation that is probably most familiar to Christians. We tend to see it as a story explaining the different languages and divisions of mankind. But the story does not seem to support that reading very well. Chapter 10 is famous as the "Table of Nations". It had already explained how the different sons and daughters of Noah had branched out and formed every nation on earth, each with its own distinct language. Chapter 11 seems to flatly contradict the history given in chapter 10. But does it? The author of Genesis was not stupid. He knew perfectly well what he had just written. It is safe to assume that he had a reason for telling the story of the tower in this specific point of his narrative. We are told that the "they" (unnamed descendants of Noah) were moving west and decided to settle in the land of Shinar and build a great city and tower, "lest we be scattered over all the earth". God sees and thwarts the plan. Is this part of the background history that wasn't recounted in chapter 10?
It is interesting that the author concludes the story quickly, does not dwell on any moral to be drawn from it, but immediately goes on to recount Shem's lineage. In fact, with this story of the creation of the nations, we are moving from the universal history of mankind into the Patriarchal period. Just as there were ten generations from Adam to Noah, now a second ten generations begins with Shem and will end with Terah. There are all sorts of interesting symmetries here as Prof. Alter points out. Noah had three sons; so will Terah (Abram, Nahor and Haran). He also points out that life spans are cut in half and then cut again as time goes on, until we reach normal human life spans with Abram's generation. The author is doing this, because his narrative is "preparing to enter recognizable human time and family life" (p.60).
So, as always, consulting a couple scholarly commentaries has richly rewarded my reading of these chapters. I recommend it highly.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Jabberwocky would be misused terribly as a medical text! Yet something similar happens when many readers approach the Old Testament. So I want to clear up some misunderstandings about the episode of the Tower of Babel in case any of our IGI brethren look in. I will borrow from the commentary of Robert Alter, who is one of the best known Old Testament scholars in this country. His translation and commentary, The Five Books of Moses (New York : Norton, 2004), is one that everyone interested in those books should have. His interpretation lines up with those I have read from other Jewish Old Testament scholars.
I suppose the first thing that a modern reader needs to know is that the "Tower," as described, is modelled on the Mesopotamian ziggurat (one of the wonders, says Alter, of ancient technology). The author of the story in Genesis has made it a fable of God intervening, yet again, to keep mankind from going wrong. Alter says that those who think the builders of the Tower are trying to reach heaven are wrong-- they are misunderstanding a hyperbolic formula that can be found in Mesopotamian inscriptions to celebrate their high towers. In other words, he sees this story as a criticism of "urbanism and the overweening confidence of humanity in the feats of technology" which, of course, can turn man from dependence on God to the belief that he doesn't need God. God's response to such hubris is to scatter men all over the earth which puts an end to the building of the city, as well as the building of the tower.
Of course, it is easy to find variations on the interpretation that is probably most familiar to Christians. We tend to see it as a story explaining the different languages and divisions of mankind. But the story does not seem to support that reading very well. Chapter 10 is famous as the "Table of Nations". It had already explained how the different sons and daughters of Noah had branched out and formed every nation on earth, each with its own distinct language. Chapter 11 seems to flatly contradict the history given in chapter 10. But does it? The author of Genesis was not stupid. He knew perfectly well what he had just written. It is safe to assume that he had a reason for telling the story of the tower in this specific point of his narrative. We are told that the "they" (unnamed descendants of Noah) were moving west and decided to settle in the land of Shinar and build a great city and tower, "lest we be scattered over all the earth". God sees and thwarts the plan. Is this part of the background history that wasn't recounted in chapter 10?
It is interesting that the author concludes the story quickly, does not dwell on any moral to be drawn from it, but immediately goes on to recount Shem's lineage. In fact, with this story of the creation of the nations, we are moving from the universal history of mankind into the Patriarchal period. Just as there were ten generations from Adam to Noah, now a second ten generations begins with Shem and will end with Terah. There are all sorts of interesting symmetries here as Prof. Alter points out. Noah had three sons; so will Terah (Abram, Nahor and Haran). He also points out that life spans are cut in half and then cut again as time goes on, until we reach normal human life spans with Abram's generation. The author is doing this, because his narrative is "preparing to enter recognizable human time and family life" (p.60).
So, as always, consulting a couple scholarly commentaries has richly rewarded my reading of these chapters. I recommend it highly.
The time period in which Moses would have lived predates the texts we have by about 400 years. That doesn't mean that those books don't reflect and preserve a historical core. That historical core could well have come from Moses or his contemporaries but it simply cannot be straight from his pen, either. Moses, of course, could not have written about his own death. The literary complexity of the stories also argues against mosaic authorship. So no, I do not think he wrote the books as we have them.