The Covenant (continued)

I was reflecting on Genesis 15:12-21
—

¹² As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. ¹³ Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. ¹⁴ But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. ¹⁵ You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. ¹⁶ In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

¹⁷ When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. ¹⁸ On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- ¹⁹ the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, ²⁰ Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, ²¹ Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

It is apparent from the text that the covenant and the visitation by the Lord came in a dream. During this entire sequence Abraham is in a deep sleep. It begins when he falls into a deep sleep as the sun sets and the dream continues without any indication that Abraham awoke.

Covenant and the promise ...

The Lord makes a covenant with Abram in Genesis 15 promising that he will have a son.
¹³ Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. ¹⁴ But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. ¹⁵ You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. ¹⁶ In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."
In addition to the promise of descendants Abram is promised the land. ... "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- ¹⁹ the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, ²⁰ Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, ²¹ Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."
In chapter 16 we find the story of Hagar, Sarai, Abram's wife's, Egyptian maidservant, who Sarai gives to Abram as a concubine and bears him a son, Ishmael, when he is 86.
The whole story is fascinating if somewhat implausible at least to modern ears. We have no exposure to the marginal life of a herdsman in an arid land. Nor do we have direct experience of the social conventions of that far off time. The importance of heirs and children loomed much larger then perhaps. Abram clearly has a dramatic encounter with God, but the way God's promise will work out remains a mystery for him. Note too the prophecy of the Egyptian bondage and the fact that the Amorites will only be displaced when their sin has reached its full measure.
God is making dramatic and difficult promises to Abram, but note that the promises are in some way contingent on justice. The Israelites will only displace the Amorites when the sin of the Amorites has reached full measure. We have the promise of a true lineage, the prophecy of a four hundred year exile, and a restoration and displacement into a promised land.
This is a retrotext of course. Traditionally Genesis is part of the Torah and tradition says it was authored by Moses. Scholars dispute this today, but note that if it were written by Moses at least the first part of this would be history and not prophecy, although recounted as if it were tradition.
I really don't have a view myself of the authorship or the degree to which Moses was simply retrotelling the known history back into an earlier time as opposed to recounted a story of a tradition, a prophecy now fulfilled and one yet to come. Then again it may be the work of a later author for which all was history. We don't really know, and it really doesn't matter to the story only to its historicity. I is incumbent upon us to reflect on the fact that historicity is not necessarily important, nor is a story false because it is told after the fact instead of before the fact. Events can be interpreted in either way. Ancient texts are difficult enough without demanding that we know everything about their authorship, a demand that is both unreasonable because it is impossible. All we have are the texts and our own conjectures.

Abram Meets Melchizedek Figure of Eternal Priesthood

In Genesis 13 Lot and Abram decide to go their separate ways and Lot settles in the Jordan plain and Abram to Canaan which the Lord gives to Abram. Genesis 13:14-16 [14 The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. ]
After this in chapter 14 we find Abram saving Lot who has been carried off by a coalition of four kings who had attacked a combined force of five kings. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and their cities were looted and Lot and his possessions were also seized because he was living in Sodom.
Abram comes to Lot's rescue with a force of 381 trained men. The small size of this force puts the whole account into some perspective.
In Genesis 14:18-20 we find the mysterious figure of Melchizedek
[ Then Melchizedek king of Salem [i.e. Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.

20 And blessed be God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand."
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.]

There are only ten references to Melchizedek in the bible. This one, one in Psalm 110:4, and the eight references in the epistle to the Hebrews.

Psalm 110 of David

1 The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."

2 The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion;
you will rule in the midst of your enemies.

3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth.

4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

5 The Lord is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.

6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.

7 He will drink from a brook beside the way ;
therefore he will lift up his head.

The figure of Melchizedek appears to be eschatological since his name is associated with eternity. The epistle to the Hebrews will associate this mysterious figure with Christ and the sacrifice of bread and wine offered in Jerusalem by Melchizedek becomes a prefigurement of the Eucharist and Christ the eternal high priest.

The Infancy Narratives

As I mentioned there is much ado about nothing in the scholarly treatment of the infancy narratives because of the fact that the two evangelists, Matthew and Luke handle the story so differently. However there are no real conflicts in the two stories especially when you realize that that stay at Bethlehem could easily have extended over a period as long as two years prior to the flight into Egypt.

In reading the two treatments a direct harmonization can be accomplished in the following fashion:
Lk 1:26-38 The Account of the Annunciation and Mary is told that Elizabeth is pregnant.
Lk 1:39-56 Mary Visits Elizabeth staying about 3 months (Mary 3+ months pregnant)
Mt 1:18-25 The Birth of Jesus Christ (Matthew's account up to Joseph accepting Mary into his house)
Lk2:1-7 Journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census and the birth of Jesus

Note that here we have the first apparent conflict between the two accounts. Luke begins in Nazareth and sends Mary to Elizabeth back to Nazareth thence to Bethlehem for the census. Matthew by contrast seems to begin in Bethlehem and stay there. He is actually silent about their location until after the birth of the child.

Lk 2:8- 20 The Shepherds and the Angels (Matthew is silent about this)
Lk 2:21-38 Jesus Presented in the Temple (Birth + 8 Days) (Matthew is silent about this and the prophecies of Simeon and Anna)
Mt 2:1-12 The Visit of the Magi (Birth +|- up to two years probably a year)

To reconcile the two accounts one only has to assume that Joseph and Mary stayed on in Bethlehem which is near Jerusalem for a year or so while the child was small. This is certainly reasonable since one does not like to make long journeys with an infant if one doesn't have to, especially on foot. Since Herod ordered male children up to 2 years of age killed it is clear some time had passed since the Magi had seen the star and Herod was uncertain of the child's age.

Mt 2:13-18 The Escape to Egypt (Joseph in accord with an angelic visitation in a dream flees with Mary and the child to Egypt) by now the child is between one and two and likely can walk.
Mt 2:19-21 The Return to Nazareth ( Circa 4 BC when Herod Died) and finally we can conclude with the passage from Luke:

Lk 2:39 39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.

It is reasonable to ask where the difficulty is? There are several usually cited. One is the dating of Quirinius as governor of Syria when this first census took place. I won't bother with that, but Quirinius was in the area in the proper time frame and it is not difficult to harmonize all the dates. The only other questions involve the silence in Luke about the Magi, Herod's attack and the flight into Egypt. Some of these fit Matthew's plan and ideas about what is significant more than Luke's. Luke is writing to Gentiles who don't care much about Jewish customs and ways while Matthew is writing earlier and trying to link Jesus to prophecy. He may know about their original home in Nazareth and yet also know they had lived a significant time in Bethlehem and the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem of Judea. It may be as simple as that.

So there are not very many problems. I heartily recommend the book The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament by John McHugh for those who seek more reading on the general subject.

Is there error in scripture?

I have not the vaguest idea whether scripture can be or is in error in part or not. I am inclined to say that insofar as it is truly the communication of a supremely good God that it is not in error and insofar as it is a human production it is almost certainly in error in part. But I don't claim to be able to tell which is which and whether even what I've just said is true or not.

So how do I go about it, i.e. reading scripture? Well I read it as if it is error free on the supposition that anything I really need to know will be correct. I also read it with discernment based on the innate sense of right and wrong that God has given each of us. If something doesn't seem to make sense to me, I don't automatically assume it is wrong, I assume that it doesn't make sense to me, i.e. I acknowledge my lack of understanding. There are many things in scripture that are obscure to us because we live such different lives so much later on the time line. Straightforward customs of ancient times, things that would not need to have been explained to anyone and are just understood will completely pass us by. Occasionally some of these are pointed out by the author, likely others simply mystify us even to the point of not being translated.

The scholars of the late nineteenth century decided that the bible was full of doubtful material. All those miracles for example could not be true. What happened was a whole lot of rethinking of biblical material always questioning the accuracy of the accounts. Theories were advanced of a long period of oral tradition before the accounts were written down. Now in fact there is no particular reason to believe in a long period of oral tradition. Nothing we know of demands it except the suppositions of skeptics to begin with. Tradition has assigned the accounts to eye witnesses or those who knew eye witnesses. There is no particular reason to doubt the traditional assignments except that it would call into question the theory of oral tradition.

I want to take a particular case in point and talk about it. That is the rather timely case (since it is within the Christmas Season) of the Nativity accounts. There are two accounts of the birth of Jesus, one in the gospel of Matthew and the other in the gospel of Luke. Christians typically conflate the accounts and scholars say that the accounts are irreconcilable. Now I think it is pretty silly to claim that they are irreconcilable when the average person reading the accounts doesn't leap to the conclusion that something is wrong. I think the reason for that is that harmonizing the accounts, far from being particularly difficult, is actually fairly easy. There are no outright contradiction only silences which disquiet scholars who are used to printed texts and instant communication. The ancient world wasn't like that. Books were expensive since each had to be individually written out. One did not multiple details that were irrelevant to one's purposes so it is not at all surprising that two writers writing at different times for different purposes might give different accounts of the same story, Matthew writing for a Jewish audience and Luke writing for a Gentile audience. If we keep those factors in mind we can almost immediately see why the accounts differ. The details in each case that are left out are details of little interest to the other evangelist because his audience is different. It is also quite possible that their own sources differed and that they were simply unaware of some details and so didn't touch upon those matters they did not know in common. We'll look a bit more closely at these two Nativity accounts in the next post.

An Aside on Biblical Interpretation and the Nature of Revelation

Before going too much further it might be worthwhile to say a few words about biblical interpretation and the nature of revelation. Let me divide that into a few steps:

Step 1: Definition of Revelation — I am defining revelation (here understood as Divine Revelation) as a communication between God and man. Now God is the primary agent in such a communication. God has all the properties of God which make everything he says certainly true and so forth. But communication has two side and the other side is human. Human beings are fallible. There are plenty of occasions in the bible where God is not understood by the human side of the equation. So step one is a communication from a perfect God to an imperfect human or humans.

Step 2: The Communication of the Revelation to Succeeding Generations — requires that it be written down or remembered as an oral tradition. This requires a chain of accuracy to be maintained if the communication is not to be distorted. In Christian circles it is assumed that the revelation is preserved in accuracy by the action of the Holy Spirit. Exactly how this happens is a matter of theoretical concern and one has to overcome the existence of an awful lot of variants in the texts to take it too literally. This is particularly true of whole passages which appear in some manuscripts and do not appear at all in others.

Step 3: The Interpretation of the Revelation by Each Generation — is where the rubber meets the road. We can't even interpret William Shakespeare with perfection, English has changed so much. Why do we think we can interpret scripture which comes to us from ancient Hebrew or koine Greek or Aramatic over a span of many millenia?

I only raise these issues because they are real ones. One can't always wave one's hands and say "It's a miracle!" The divisions of the churches over iota's is a history of tragedy and suffering. A bit less hubris seems called for. Since this blog is not just for Christians, nor even just for believers, I am taking a rather low road. My definition of scripture will be books held by the Judeo-Christian tradition as inspired. This only selects the books. Then I will treat them as one might treat any other books giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are what they claim to be, insofar as they make any claims at all. It is appropriate to point out that scripture typically doesn't identify itself as scripture. Moreover, many books not in the canon are quoted within the canon as if they are authoritative, ex. the book of Enoch.

Here is a link to a site that presents a Catholic view of revelation. Click Here I don't know anything about it as I just stumbled upon so my link is not a recommendation. I add more links as I stumble upon them.

Abram and the Covenant

The prehistory of Israel continues with the story of Abram who becomes Abraham patriarch of Israel. Abram is son of Terah of Ur of the Chaldees, and Abram is the older brother of Nahor, and Haran. Haran died before his father but not before he begat Lot, Abram's nephew. I'm not qualified to comment technically, but various genetic markers suggest that there is DNA evidence for a common ancestor to the Hebrew and Arab peoples that is contemporary with the biblical Abram See Here
Terah took his children and their wives to the land of Canaan to Haran. The death of Terah at the age of 205 in Haran ends Genesis 11. The question of dating comes into play. When did the historical Abraham walk the earth? Obvously this is a highly speculative question that requires a lot of cross referencing of events, locations, individuals and the like. We will explore these questions in the following order:

• Dating of Abram/Abraham
• Abram's Story
• The Covenant