1. I’m reading Bringing the Hidden to Light: Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller. Stephen Geller teaches at Jewish Theological Seminary, which is one of my alma maters. I heard some of these studies when I was there. Others, I wanted to hear but didn’t get a chance to do so. (Lucky for me I found this book!) And others I’m encountering for the very first time.
The essay I read today was Tzvi Abusch’s “Biblical Account of Prehistory: Their Meaning and Formation.” Tzvi Abusch teaches at Brandeis University. I heard him deliver this lecture at JTS.
Abusch’s thesis is that the Yahwist source (J) and the priestly source (P) in the Book of Genesis’ pre-history present different depictions of God as a parent.
According to Abusch, J’s God doesn’t want humans to grow up. He tries to keep them subservient in the Garden of Eden, but they eat from the Tree of Knowledge, which blows that plan. God prefers Abel’s shepherding to Cain’s attempt to exert power over the land through farming, for God doesn’t like for humans to exercise power, as that threatens God’s own power. When humans do wickedly, God destroys them through the flood, except for Noah and his family, of course. God then learns that he needs humans for their sacrifices, and humans learn to serve God and keep him happy. God also resolves his insecurity issues, for his ability to send the flood convinces him that he has nothing to fear from humans. God therefore resolves to tolerate human wickedness, and not to destroy humanity ever again in a flood. And yet, are God’s insecurity issues fully resolved? God seems pretty afraid of humans’ power when they unite to build the city of Babel!
In P, by contrast, God creates humans as mature and powerful—in God’s own image. But humans get out of hand. They have lots of sex and reproduce rapidly, living at long lifespans. God gave them dominion, but they exercise that dominion wrongfully, doing violence to one another. God was an absentee parent, but he becomes convinced that he needs to set limits on human beings. He does so by limiting their lifespans, and also by setting limits on what they can kill after the flood: they cannot eat blood, nor can they kill human beings.
In the Mesopotamian legend of Atrahasis, we see a similar sort of issue, as gods and human beings walk a tight rope. The gods need human beings for their sacrifices, which are the gods’ food. Human beings also take certain gods’ place as laborers. And yet, people become numerous and loud, disturbing the gods’ sleep. The god Enlil responds by sending a flood to destroy humanity. The god Enki preserves Atrahasis and others. In the end, a balance needs to be reached: humans can live, but limits must be set upon them. Death, sterility, and infant mortality were made to restrict human overpopulation.
All three of these stories (in their own way) are about a search for balance. For Abusch, the lessons we can learn concern the tension in humanity between our power and our vulnerability. Yet, in all of this, there’s a loving God who is our parent. At the same time, Abusch refers to an “existential dilemma” in which we are “alone and not yet fully integrated into our world.”
At JTS, I didn’t ask questions at lectures, for I was too timid. I probably overcompensated for this at Hebrew Union College, to the distress of my colleagues! The question I remember going through my mind during Abusch’s lecture was: “So what kind of God are we left with? A trial-and-error deity? What can we do with that?” I also had the impression that Abusch was being humanistic: applying the story to real-life in a way that left God out of the picture. I wasn’t totally right on this, for Abusch does mention a loving God, who is our parent. But I can see how I walked away from the lecture with the impression that I had, for it ended on an existential note, using the term “alone”.
2. I just watched ABC’s This Week, which I had taped this morning. It featured an interview with two organizers of the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.” One is the wife of the controversial Imam who is behind the project, and her name is Daisy. The other is a Jewish lady, who is connected with a Jewish Community Center in New York City. She is advising Muslims on how they can build a Muslim community center, which is what the “Ground Zero mosque” will be.
They appeared to be reasonable people. Daisy said that she is meeting with the families of 9/11 victims, and yet she expressed dismay at American Islamophobia. She said that she will continue with the project because too much is at stake.
She also explained her husband’s comments in a 60 Minutes interview that American foreign policy was partly to blame for 9/11. She said he was referring in that interview to the CIA’s support for Osama Bin-Laden in the 1980′s.
I too am dismayed at Islamophobia, but I do wonder something: why did the Imam and his wife choose to put the center two blocks away from Ground Zero? Is that a coincidence, as there are many buildings close to Ground Zero? Or is it making a deliberate point about 9/11? Opponents of the “mosque” have definite ideas about this, for they believe that the Imam is showing deliberate insensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims, as if he’s trying to flaunt Muslim superiority. But what is the answer of those who are behind the project?
3. I learned from ABC This Week that James Kilpatrick has passed away. Kilpatrick was a conservative commentator and syndicated columnist. But my liberal eighth grade English teacher enjoyed his essays about the art of writing.