Monday, September 30, 2024

Excerpt from James F. McGrath, "John of History, Baptist of Faith" (2024)

  

In Islamic authors, the story is about the bubbling blood of John the Baptist rather than Zechariah. In Christian tradition, the story pertains to Zechariah the father of John, while in Judaism, much the same story is told about the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles. If the story was originally about John the Baptist, it may be that the author/editor of the Protoevangelium was the first to turn it into a story about John’s father, as a way of concluding his infancy story now focused on Mary and Jesus. From there it passed in turn into Judaism, per Kalmin’s hypothesis. In Ethiopic versions, the punishment is carried out by Titus, while other strands of the tradition tend to make it Nebuchadnezzar. In the Mandaean Book of John, the destruction of Jerusalem is also mentioned, although not clearly associated with the murder of John (never mentioned in Mandaean sources to my knowledge) or with the persecution of his movement (although see 23:19; 35:133-34 where there may at least be hints of the latter as the reason). (James F. McGrath, John of History, Baptist of Faith: The Quest for the Historical Baptizer [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024], 192 n. 90)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

James F. McGrath on Luke 1:15 and John the Baptist

  

. . . Luke’s assertion (1:15) that Luke never claims about Jesus, may indicate that the Baptist movement did indeed pioneer the idea that John was, if not a celestial being incarnate, one who was connected to the heavenly realm from his conception and thus rightly characterized as “a sprout planted from on high.” (James F. McGrath, John of History, Baptist of Faith: The Quest for the Historical Baptizer [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024], )

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

James F. McGrath on John 5:1-18 (cf. Mark 2:1-12)


 

The version in the Gospel of John highlights what is merely implicit in Mark, namely, that the man was not required to immerse in flowing water in order to be forgiven. The Gospel of John does this by placing the man near a mikveh that he was unable to enter, with Jesus telling him to get up and carry his mat away home with no command that he immerse himself. The man’s reference to being unable to get into the water when it is agitated because of his immobility, so that others get in first and block his access, was puzzling to at least one scribe who introduced the detail about an angel descending to stir up the waters and give them healing power. Without that addition, the story may be read as one in which the man is seeking forgiveness for sin through baptism, and his only hope is the Pool of Bethesda beside which has been laid. The water would be considered living water only when the sluice gate was opened and the pool replenished with water that flowed from the valley. Jesus heals him, with the lack of requirement of immersion in flowing water made even more explicit than in Mark. Even if this is the significance of these gospel narratives, it is difficult to determine whether the trajectory leading from Mark to John is due to a departure from John’s practice by Jesus, or later Christian’s departure from the practice of John and Jesus. Moreover, if the Pools of Bethesda were an 339 (which is uncertain) that would readily explain both why the man sought healing there and why Jesus did not have the man be baptized there. In short, while there are possible hints of diverging Christian and Baptist practices, we cannot be sure the New Testament gospels provide evidence for it at such an early date that they involve disagreement between the historical John and Jesus. (James F. McGrath, John of History, Baptist of Faith: The Quest for the Historical Baptizer [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024], 122-23)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

 

James F. McGrath on Matthew 11:11

  

The saying about John as the greatest, and then about the least in the kingdom, makes the best sense when it is understood to involve a temporal/eschatological contrast. Two options present themselves. One possibility is that the focus is on the privilege those have who will be alive to see the kingdom of God fully dawn, an advantage that John, having been executed, missed out on. As an analogy, one can imagine someone saying that among those born of women there was none greater than Moses, yet the last of those who entered the promised land was greater than he. The point would not be that Moses’s greatness was being affirmed and yet immediately denied, but that those who entered the promised land had a privilege Moses did not. Another possibility is that the statement means that as great as John is with the present age, the least in the kingdom of God when it fully dawns will then be greater than John the Baptist is now. The greatness of the very least of those who enter the kingdom of God, once they are transformed into that new kind of existence, will exceed the greatness of the greatest person to live in human history, mainly John. The Gospel of Thomas uses a future tense in the saying: the last in the kingdom will become higher or more exalted than John. (James F. McGrath, John of History, Baptist of Faith: The Quest for the Historical Baptizer [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024], 24-25)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

 

Ronald Hendel on Genesis 11:3

  

11:3. Each one said to his neighbor, “Come, let us mold bricks and bake them in fire”—for bricks served as stone for them, and pitch served as mortar for them. . . . The narrator’s explanatory aside—“for bricks served as stone for them, and pitch served as mortar for them”—introduces the issue of translation; that is, it annotates the speech for the comprehension of its audience. The details concern the materials used for architecture in Mesopotamia versus Israel. Bricks baked in fire (i.e., kiln-fired mudbricks) were the durable building material used in southern Mesopotamia, since stone deposits were rare and forests nonexistent (Moorey 1994: 302-32). In Israel, stone was plentiful and was the preferred building material; so the narrator translators the Mesopotamian custom into Israelite terms—they use baked bricks joined together with pitch, whereas we use stone joined together with clay-based mortar.

 

With this explanatory aside, the story adds authentic detail to the Mesopotamian setting, and at the same time it foregrounds the linguistic dimension. The words in the speech correspond to their culture, which must be translated to be comprehensible in our culture. The difference of cultures and lexicons is intimated in this aside, bringing our attention momentarily to the differentiated world that is the outcome of the story. (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 392, 393)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Patreon

Sunday, September 29, 2024

"Forging a Dream: The Fabrication of Mosiah Hancock's Premortal Vision"

The Mormon Dialogue forum has a thread with a paper on the premortal vision (purportedly) by Mosiah Hancock:


Forging a Dream: The Fabrication of Mosiah Hancock's Premortal Vision, a Paper by Jeremy Talmage


 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Friday, September 27, 2024

Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 53 before AD 1000

  

Source

Date

Individual

Messiah

Israel

Vicarious Suffering

Reference

Talmud

c. 300-600 CE

Yes*

No

No

No

Shekalim 5:1

Talmud

c. 300-600 CE

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Sanhedrin 98b:14

Talmud

c. 300-600 CE

No**

No

No

No

Berakhot 51:11

Talmud

c. 300-600 CE

No

No

No

No

Berakhot 57b

Talmud

c. 300-600 CE

Yes**

No

No

Yes

Sotah 14a:7-10

Targum of Jonathan on Isaiah

c. 150 BCE—c. 350 CE

Yes

Yes

No

No

Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 52:13

Tanchuma Toldot

c.500-800 CE

Yes

Yes

No

Unclear

Tanchuma Toldot 14:1

Peshikta

c. 600-900 CE

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Driver and Neubauer

Midrash Ruth Rabbah

c. 700-950 CE

Yes

Yes

No

Unclear

Midrash Rabbah Ruth 2:14

 

Table 12. Summary of major Rabbinic literature on Isaiah 52:13-53:12 before 1000 CE

*Rabbi Akiva ** The one who the Lord delights in ***Moses

 

Source: Nick Meader, Resurrection: Extraordinary Evidence for an Extraordinary Claim (Eugene, Oreg.: Resource Publications, 2024), 237-38

 

 

On why the Jewish interpretation changed after AD 1000:

 

One explanation is Rashi—probably the most influential scholar in Jewish history. He likely pioneered the claim that the servant of Isaiah was Israel alone. Jewish persecution during this period may have impacted Rashi. In 1096, he witnessed the death of many friends and family by Crusaders seeking a source of income for their travels.

 

Reinterpretation of Isaiah 53 had several benefits. It delegitimized the arguments of Christendom that Jesus was the Messiah of Isaiah 53. How could that be true, if the Jewish people had all along concluded the passage was about Israel? It also encountered suffering Jews. (Ibid., 240)

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) on 1 Timothy 3:15

  

For the Church is compared to a column as to something that, by stability and firmness, preserves the truth sincere and pure and secures all the faithful in the truth against all oppressors of it whatever. But if the Church could err, how, I ask, could the faith of believers or the truth of things to be believed, depend on it? But that this is the opinion and sense of Paul seems so clear from the words that it scarce needs any exposition or persuasion, but only the reading of an unperturbed mind. Hence all authors as well as ancient as more recent declare that the Church is said to be the pilar of truth on account of it being immoveable in the truth. But it is called the ground, either because it has the truth made firm my prodigies and virtues which could be done by no other than by God himself, as Ambrose expounds, or because by it all believers are made firm in the truth, as is rightly taught by St. Thomas, and as is indicated by Chrysostom when he says: “The pillar of the world is the Church, which contains the faith to be preached; indeed, the truth of the Church is the pillar and ground.”

 

And more clearly Theodoret says: “HE called the Church the assembly of believers, whom he said were the pillar and ground of the truth, because as founded on Peter, they remain fixed and immoveable; and they preach the truth of the dogmas by the very realities.” And Jerome also adds on the same place: “The Church is called the pillar, on which now alone holds up the building.” Next Augustine, con.1 on Psalm 110, treating of the words, “He has founded the earth on its firmness,” interpreting by ‘earth’ the Church, he expounds: “It will not be caused to fall for ages of ages, because it is predestined to be the column and ground of the truth.” Therefore, because it cannot decline from the truth in those things that it believes firmly and holds to be revealed by God, it is for that reason the pillar and ground.” (Francisco Suarez, Defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faither Against the Errors of Anglicanism, 2 vols. [trans. Peter L. P. Simpson; New York: Lucairos Occasio Press, 2013], 1:61-62 [Book 1, Chapter 4])

 

 

[W]e showed that the first words are understood of a visible Church wherein someone can behave; but the word ‘which’ refers to the same Church; therefore the visible Church is pillar and ground of the truth, and hence it is perpetual, because, as I showed above, this property can never be separated from the Church. Add that this property can never agree with the Church is the Church is at tome time to be invisible; for it is the pillar and ground of the truth by always and without fail teaching the truth and correcting errors; but it could not do this with authority and efficaciously if it was invisible, for there could always be doubt whether it was the true Church speaking. (Ibid., 1:90 [Book 1, Chapter 7])

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) Affirming a Dictation Model of Biblical Inspiration

  

 

Second, because although it may be that those books were written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, antiquity alone cannot infallibly show that they are pure in the way the Holy Spirit put them forward and that they have not, in the course of time, have corrupted, or have not by chance, or negligence, or lack of skill, or the malice of the enemies of the faith, especially Jews and heretics, been polluted. (Francisco Suarez, Defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faither Against the Errors of Anglicanism, 2 vols. [trans. Peter L. P. Simpson; New York: Lucairos Occasio Press, 2013], 1:111 [Book 1, Chapter 9], emphasis in bold added)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Ronald Hendel on Genesis 4:1

  

The diction of this verse also ties together several themes of the Garden of Eden story. The man (hā’ādām) knew (yāda) his wife, that is, they had sex—perhaps for the first time, although this is not highlighted. This fulfills the rule “Therefore a man . . . cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (2:24). (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 213, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Patreon

Thursday, September 26, 2024

Ronald Hendel on Genesis 2:11-14 and the Location of the Garden of Eden

  

2:11-14. These verses name the four branches and their locations. They provide a geographical setting for the Garden of Eden that seems real, as if one could follow these clues and rediscover it. However, the directions are impossible, and the locations is eternally elusive (Propp 1990: 193). The ancients may have thought that the Tigris and the Ephrates had a common source, but the Gihon (under any construal of its location) does not, nor does the Pishon (which seems to be purely legendary). In other words, assessing these geographical clues, the Garden of Eden cannot be located. These geographical details describe the garden as a sacred center, a source of the world’s fertility, but at the same time a place that differs from ordinary geography. (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 168)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Patreon

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Ronald Hendel on Eden being "the Garden of Plenty"

  

The word ‘ēden derives from the root ‘dn, which means approximately “to be fruitful, abundantly provisioned” (Millard 1984; Greenfield 1984). An Aramaic inscription from (Tell Fekheyre)uses the verb m’dn (in the D-stem) to mean “to make abundant” (equated with Akkadian muttaḥḥhidu). The idea of abundant food and bounty coheres with the use of this root in Hebrew. The Garden of Eden is therefore “The Garden of Plenty,” referring to its lush and abundant vegetation. This is an aspect of its paradisical quality, which corresponds with Yahweh’s presence and care. (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 163)

 

 Compare the above with:


Ziony Zevit on the Garden of Eden being called "Bountiful"

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Patreon

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Ronald Hendel on Genesis 2:7

  

The creation of hā’adām explicitly associates him with hā’ādāmā (“the soil,” as with his “absence” in 2:5). The repetitions of these words create a Leitwort effect in the story. The words echo each other (and are probably etymologically related by the root ‘dm, which has a basic meaning of “red,” although this is not significant in the narrative). From this likeness comes many aspects of human nature. The most tangible sense is that humans are physical creatures, made of soil. This earthy, fleshy quality of humans distinguishes them from Yahweh, who is a nonmaterial being, dwelling in heaven (e.g., 11:5, “Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower”). By Yahweh forming the human from the earth’s soil, he defines humans as categorially different from gods. This difference—and the human desire to overcome it—is the focal point for the transgression, transformation, and punishment in the story.

 

The resolution of this crisis in the finitude of life outside of Eden is foreshadowed in the human’s earth nature, as Yahweh God articulates in his judgment, “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (3:19). This earth’s soil is the human’s origins and destiny. The woman is included in this destiny, since she is implied in the concept of hā’adām, both because of the word’s collective meaning and because of her origins as “bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh” (2:23). All humans must die. Further, the man must work the soil in pain, by the sweat of his brow (3:17-19). Once again, hā’adām oscillates between its collective and its singular (and gendered) meanings. In the complex relationship between hā’adām and hā’ādāmā , we see a philosophy of life is the ancient agricultural society, a painful realism in its understanding of human origins and destiny. (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 160-61)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Patreon

Monday, September 23, 2024

Ronald Hendel on Genesis 1:1

  

1In the beginning, when God created the heaven and the earth—2the earth was desolate chaos, and darkness was over the face of the ocean, and a wind of God was soaring over the face of the water—3God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 105)

 

. . . as Barr (2013:180-81) has observed, words for remote time commonly lack the definite article even when they are semantically definite (e.g., mērē’šît, “from the beginning,” Isa 46:10). Hence bərēʾšît could be grammatically definite without the definite article. But the absolute reading, “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth,” taken as a punctual event, is contradicted by the subsequent references to heaven and earth. The earth exists in 1:2, but it is a desolate chaos. Heaven is created on the second day (1:6-7), rendering the punctual reading of 1:1 unlikely. But the view of 1:1 as a punctual event has its defenders, taking the creation to be an inchoate heaven and earth (Wenham 1987:12-13; Day 2013:7-8). It is also possible to regard the absolute reading as a rubric or superscription for the whole account, rather than as a punctual event (so Jenni 1989; Barr 2013:178-82; Gertz 2018: 36-37); similarly, Westermann 1985: 97), but this sits awkwardly with the description of the earth in 1:2 as tōhû wābōhû (“desolate chaos”) and lacks the analogies in biblical prose narrative. Early translators and interpreters adopted various exegetical strategies to resolve the difficulties of the meaning of the absolute reading, which was usually taken to be the natural reading in postbiblical Hebrew (see Anderson 1990; Kugel 1998: 44-47).

 

The construct reading, in which bərēʾšît is the head of a temporal cause, makes good sense in context, followed by the background clause in 1:2 and the first punctual clause in 1:3. The introduction with a temporal cause is common in other biblical and ancient Near Eastern creation myths, including Gen 2:4b, “On the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven,” and Enuma Elish, “When the heavens above did not exist. / And the dearth beneath had not come into being” (Lambert 2013:50-51). This construction in Hebrew suits the solemnity of the occasion. For these and similar reasons, most modern treatments prefer this reading (e.g., Ewald 1879: §332d; Joüon and Muraoka 1993: §129p3; Speiser 1964: 12-13; Bauks 1997: 81-86; Holmstedt 2008).

 

The postbiblical “forgetting” of the Classical Hebrew construction eventually gave rise to the idea of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) (Kugel 1998: 60-63). This idea  (“seems to be first expressed in 2 Macc 7:28: “God did not make them [heaven and earth] out of existing things.” But the phrase “existing things” (ontōn) may refer to formed matter in contrast to unformed primordial matter (Winston 2001: 60). (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 108-9)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Patreon

Sunday, September 22, 2024

Ronald Hendel on Man being Created in the Image and Likeness of God in the Book of Genesis

  

The physical, spiritual, and political senses often coalesce in the ancient Near Eastern usage of the term “image of god,” which usually refers to the king. This term is a royal epithet in Mesopotamian texts, describing the king as the image (ṣalmu) of a god: for example, ṣalmu ša šamaš (“the image of Shamash”), ṣalam Enlil (“the image of Enlik”), ṣalam Marduk (“the image of Marduk”), and ṣalim Bêl (“the image of the Lord”) (see Bird 1997: 135-38; Garr 2003: 145-49; Machinist 2006; Schellenberg 2011: 106-13). The epithet describes the king as the chosen instrument of the god to rule the earth, the earthly representation of the gods’ greatness and perfection. In all respects, according to an Old Babylonian letter, “the king is the mirror (muššulí) of the god” (Lambert 1960: 282). Mesopotamian statues of the king often depict him as the physical mirror image of the high god, and these royal statues were sometimes treated as objects of worship (Winter 2010: 2.167-87). In his person, as Machinst (2006: 162) writes, “[the king’s] body serves as the statue of the god.” The king’s perfect body expresses the political sense of the “image of god.” As Pongratz-Leisten (2015: 222) comments, “This virtual image of royal perfection . . . served to advance the notion of homogeneity in action between the gods and the king.”

 

In Egypt, the pharaoh is sometimes described as the “image” of a high god (Hornung 1982: 135-42; Schellenberg 2011: 98-106). This suits the royal ideology in which the king was a god, an earthly incarnation of Horus. The wisdom text “Instruction to Merikare” (ca. 2011 BCE) expands this royal connotation, describing humans collectively as made in the creator god’s image: “They are his images, who came from his body” (Lichtheim 1976: 106). (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 132)

 

On Gen 5:3:

 

The sequence “he fathered a son in his likeness, according to his image” strikingly reformulates its source text (1:26) and applies it to human procreation. God had said, “Let us make a human in our image, according to our likeness” (1:26). The last two words are bəṣalmēnû kidmûtēnû (“in our image, according to our likeness”). Genesis 5:3 reformulates this sequence (reversing the words and prepositions) to bidmûtô kəṣalmô (“in his likeness, according to his image”). The result is an extension of the concept of God’s creation of humans in his image to the father’ procreation of sons in his image. (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 246)

 

 

 

The Image of God

 

The P myths have a different orientation on the interrelationships of sex, honor, and civilization. The P work is theocentric and architectonic, in contrast to J’s focus on the messy complexity of the lived world. In P, sex, honor, sin, and civilization are related in varying ways to the larger order of the cosmos. God creates the human world as a harmonious part of the larger cosmic order, but because of creaturely imperfection it devolves into disharmony. To solve this problem, God issues new commands, setting into motion a sequence of covenants, which provides a structure of moral and ritual laws that protects this fragile harmony.

 

Human sexuality in P is oriented by the dual position of humans in the created order: they are living creatures created by God, and they are representatives of God on earth. When humans are created on the sixth day. God gives them the blessing to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28), entailing sexuality, as it does for the animals created on the fifth day (1:22). Since it is a blessing, sexuality is consonant with the goodness of creation. Procreation, in a sense, continues God’s work of creation through all time, following his command to “fill the earth” with life.

 

The increase of civilization in P seems to be a natural consequence of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28; similarly 9:1, 7). The refrain of the P Table of Notions lists the descendants of Noah’s sons “according to their families, languages, lands, and nations” (10:20, 31). Here the diversity of human languages and peoples is a positive good, serving to fill the earth. Sexual fruitfulness entails the growth of civilization.

 

Moral evil surfaces in the flood story. God says to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with violence because of them” (6:13). Unlike the J flood story, the moral corruption in the P story comes from all the kinds of living creatures, for “all flesh had corrupted its way on earth” (6:12). The content of the creatures’ violent ways becomes visible only in the covenant after the flood, when God gives laws to regulate killing and murder. Humans and other animals are allowed to kill for food, but humans must not eat the blood, since, as later explained, “the life of flesh is in the blood” (Lev 17:11). The violent bloodshed of humans is prohibited, in terms that invoke their creation in the image of God:

 

Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
for a human will his blood be shed,
for in God’s image he made humans. (Gen 9:6)

 

The final poetic line, which comes after a circular inclusion, serves as the motive for the prohibition. The law against bloodshed is rooted in the principle of humankind as God’s image. This law, a central part of the Noachian covenant, limits the problem of violence that caused the flood. Human bloodshed and murder are departures from the moral code implicit in the order of creation.

 

The P primeval narrative links together the domains of sexuality, honor, sin, and civilization but in a configuration different from that in the J stories. The organizing concept is the original harmonious order of creation, whose capstone is the creation of humans in the image of God. The code of morality stems from this central core. (Ronald Hendel, Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 1A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024], 40-41)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Patreon