www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings A real human sacrifice under Jewish Law

Sure, you make sense, I am just not sure how to answer.

Ah.. See.. it just popped into my mind.

Let us take an example.

Let us say that you are a composer. A Mozart� and let us look at your composition.

You sit - mind open to inspiration - and something comes to you. You begin to hear it in your hear and you mind does some arranging in order to bring it out. As your mind does this - you write it down note for not from your mind as your mind examines that inspiration.

The part of the mind - is to be true to the inspiration. The minds work is to bring it out to your inner ears � and the part of your hands are to play it out here - in the world of the senses - and so your score it on paper.

A true item of art work echoes within us. It is not just sounds to our ears but it is like a string on and instrument that when plucked causes the strings near it to vibrate in sympathetic harmony - just as something within our own spirit and emotions echoes something which is much more than just �sounds� that the ear hears.

Truthfully - we can pick up a recording of Mozart and hold it up and say �Here is Mozart�s song.� and we would be right. But if we had the recording and the written score side by side on the table - between the two it would be more right to pick up the written score and say �Here is Mozart�s song� then it would to pick up the recording and say that.

Now - between the written score (made by Mozart) and that experience that Mozart has of his song in his own mind = which would be more properly - �Here is Mozart�s song.� ? Since the score is essentially a copy of the original hearing of it that was in Mozart�s mind - we must say that what Mozart experienced in his mind when he wrote the score out - is �Here is Mozart�s song.� Are you following me so far?

Since the score is the exterior and physical copy of what exists in Mozart�s �ears of the psychological mind� - and what he heard and arranged in his mind is but a copy of that higher inspiration he was experiencing in his person (that most interior �I�) - then what is really most properly the �song� is that experience of it as inspiration of which the mind is simply a tool used to bring it out into the external.

Now - let me show you that one more time in another way.

The Ark of the Covenant.

Generally when we say The Ark of the Covenant - we mean the golden box within which Moses place holy objects. The word Ark means �container� - so its meaning is �Container of The Covenant�. Let us look at this for a moment.

It was the way of things at the time that the king of a nation sat upon a throne. Within the seat of that throne was stored a written Covenant - and agreement of sorts between the King and his people on how each was to act - the King in his governing and the people in being governed. It was no less and in fact the same with the golden Ark of the Covenant in as much as it to was a throne and seat (the Mercy Seat) except no human sat upon it - instead - a cloud of mystery descended upon the seat. The was the Shekina (translated meaning the mysterious presence of God). This presence was Providence� Providence was the King of Israel and the presence of Providence was what was enthroned upon the seat of the Ark.

The Ark (golden box and seat) of the Covenant (the Container of the Covenant) held within it the stone tablets upon which was written something and to prevent these tablets from breaking or wearing away the gold covered interior they were incased in a frame of wood. This frame of wood was also called �The Ark of the Covenant�. meaning the Container of the Covenant. What the wooded frame encased was the stone tablets - and these stone tablets were called The Ark of the Covenant (the Container of the Covenant) and upon these stone tablets were the writing and that writing itself was called The Ark of the Covenant (The Container) �. A bit litle the Russian dolls which are one inside the other huh?

Now so far - we have identified the REAL - Ark of the Covenant - as whatever was written on the tablets. Whatever it was written there - was the agreement between the King (Providence) and the people governed (the Jews of Israel). A kind of �If you act so and so then I will act so and so.� - a Covenant meaning a voluntary agreement where both parties will act in agreed upon ways and acting in these ways comprising the - governing and its benefits.

Now just as the REAL music of Mozart is what the written score represents and not the paper or the ink itself - in the same way what was written on these tablets (�I will act so and so and you will act so and so��) - the Covenant itself is not the tablets or the word symbols scratched into it - but the real life - doing - of the �You act so and so and I will act so and so..�.

Just like our example of Mozart - the doing of this covenant is not in the physical acts - nor in the psychological mind - but exists and originates in the spirit - the person - and most explicitly - in the will. Or will to live this covenant may be expressed from the will outwards and express itself in our physical acts (ceremonies, clothing, talk, actions) but as we all know the performance of physical acts and talk etc.. are not necessarily - in themselves - the expression of that will. And often seem to be but are not.

OK.. Now - back to your question.

Scripture, when read in context, records only one human sacrifice that is bound to the covenant. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That event IS the covenant in full real life - action. That is the point of all of John�s book of Revelations - which book uses Jewish traditions and prophecy - and traces the fall of Adam - the history of Israel - and ends with the decent of the New Jerusalem being the self same event of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Notice that the new heavens and new earth come about during earthquakes and the raising of the dead etc� which description fits to a T the description that John gives in his gospel for the immediate events of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Daniel and Ezekiel begin the �coming of the son of man� and John - using what words and images they used - completes the coming of the son of man - in the historical event of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ - is foreseen - within the Old Testament. It is not guessed at nor predicted (in the way we might predict the outcome of a boxing match of football game). It is actually witnessed in some real way by these prophets who wrote about it. I concur with some of the early fathers who tell us that in the old testament (old testimony of witness) that they are portions written by the prophets that display the fact that what they wrote was in oracle (written verbatim of what they heard) and can be none other than Jesus Christ �speaking� to them about Jesus� own experience of his own crucifixion and resurrection. Witness the prophet Hoesa (mis-spelled) who was paid 30 pieces of silver while being a bad Shepard and God�s voice said to him �Throw it away - throw it on the temple floor for it is the slave-price which they paid for me!� and it is fact that the 30 pieces of silver paid to Judas was the cost of a slave - paid in order to seal the betrayal upon Judas� head as to make false legal record that they had purchased a slave from Judas and THEY were innocent of the fact that it was Jesus of Nazareth. By this it appeared on record that Judas did the deed - and not they - they were but the victims of Judas� - �plans�.

Back to our question at hand.

As I have shown you (I think you had read it) the sacrifice of Isaac - appears in Genesis - and Genesis is a cosmogony. It is not �history� as we would write it. It is rather what is behind history and animates what we call history (which to us is the physical events played out in time). Genesis is to history what Mozart is hearing in his head compared to what Mozart scores on paper to be played.

In the narration of Genesis - Isaac - IS scarified (a burnt offering) and dies - to be resurrected again three days later beside the Well of Living Waters (the Hebrew meaning of the name of the Well). And Isaac�s resurrection becomes the type of all - Temple ceremonies and Temple sacrifices (if we look at history). The narration of the sacrifice of Isaac is - itself - but a reflection of the event it reflects - which is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There is only - one - covenant. Moses wrote about it and Jesus lived it. And what Moses wrote about was Jesus living it. To someone �stuck� upon the experience of the events of the senses as being all there is to reality - this makes no sense� how can something that did not yet happen be present to someone before it takes place??

What is this - one - covenant - ? - that Jesus ended the Jewish historical exclusivity to - and brought to the other nations (the gentiles) ?? It is this - �He who does the will of my father - is my brother - mother - sister - and co-heirs to heaven with me.�

And back we go to �what is this will - of God� and we go to the Ark of the Covenant - that the Will of God is the governing - and that governing is done via the will of Providence - which John identifies as the same thing as the Word - through which all things come to-be. That Word - being the person resurrected Jesus Christ Himself.

Confused? No need to be. It is all rather simple in as much as Providence (which we today call - reality and divorce from God) is a person. And all events which come to you each day are authored and arranged by this Person with the one simply intention to form you (by the hammer of experiences) into an image (since we are talking about Will then the �images� is to be of the same-will) as God. But since we have free-will - our part is a cooperation. It MUST be a cooperation. It must become at some point - a knowing cooperation (because we must know something - in order to knowingly cooperate with it).

No. There is only one covenant - expressed several ways (witnessed to)� and only one human sacrifice bound to it. Yet - in a way - that sacrifice must extend into us - in some way. We will be called upon by �reality� and its situations and events for occasional sacrifices (discomfort) while we are cooperating with the Will of Providence. Providence (as well as reality) is an - experience - a human experience - and not a set of rules that should be analyzed and turned into a law book of mental rules that we physically act out. In this way salvation or sanctification - is a coming-to reality more and more - ands in as much as Providence is available to every human - sanctification and salvation is not the exclusive privilege of any particular social church membership. See? - how ridiculous and what a waste of time that to seeks ones only holiness in �my doctrine is better than your doctrine� when no-doctrine unless one is already living a life of cooperation with Providence. All churches that look to Christ - are members of the body of Christ. � stones in the invisible Temple building. Each having a roll to act just as the hand has its roll - and the foot its roll - and the head its roll - etc. Isn't it St. Paul who said how foolish it is for the hand to wish it were a foot?

Reality is the best therapy of the spiritual life. Reality - a person - is certaintly the best thing we can conform to. And we need not setup complicated rules for this - it (Reality) does the work for us if we only offer some cooperation. We need not know high intellectual arguments and doctrines all we need to is let God do his work on us and have some type of willing cooperation. The cisk man need not know all the compunnds present in some medice - all he need do is take the medice and he gets well. A saint does not spend his time learning to argue doctrines withe better elequence - he is rather more concerned day by day with his conscience as regards situations of daily events.

By the way - it is the narration of the events of Isaac that are being looked at when Jesus was saying that scriptures spoke about him rising in 3 days. Isaac is the prophecy of the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus - par excellent. It is no wonder that all physical Temple ceremonies were patterned after Isaac and in that way figured what Isaac was patterned after. Jesus.

This is my opinion on the matter and that does not mean that I successfully live it myself. I hope my answer - made some sense to you. This is all written about in Caussade�s book Abandonment to Divine Providence and by some saints (Conformity to God�s Will by Saint whatshisname) and most especially by the Doctor�s of The
Church.

I am 'attempting' to make an audio of Abandonement to Divine Providence - and perhaps add some comentary in order to 'translate' it up to our modern concepts. Put it in 'plain' words for us today.

-ray

Ray, Would you mind explaining what you mean here?

Scripture clearly states that Isaac was not actually slain...that Abraham was stopped from doing that, and a ram was offered in Isaac's stead...

Yes - what you write is the assumption (become 'gospel truth' of the English based translations since the 17th century (when the English translations began).

The lack, at the time, was they thought they were translating a history as they would write it. Something almost entirely from a physical view of events. However Genesis (Bereshith or 'generation') is a cosmogony which is something they knew nothing about except a little of the Greek and a smatter of Egyptian which they viewed as entirely fanciful or pagan myth (made up). They also lacked the further knowledge of Hebrew we now have and they did what was human - they translated from the experience of their own lives - in Western Europe - with little knowledge of daily Jewish life at the time the things were written. What they did was a - start - and we are grateful - the trouble enters when these translations become �The Word of God� and an idol by which men build rules for themselves and these rules now take the place of God. In any event of that argument let us move on. In the same way I gave example of Mozart and his written score - the bible in translation has become �The Word of God� in stone and a trusted rule by which to measure and judge other things (for example doctrine or if Peter�s bishopric had been given some type of leadership). It is an old argument that the scriptures are simply the testimony of witnesses (as inspirited as they were) and scripture is secondary to the church that wrote them just as the author of a letter is more to be trusted as to the meaning of the letter than someone who lives far away and of another time and culture who happens to read the letter. These things only make sense and are inline with Council teachings. In any event - John�s gospel tells us what the Word of God is - it is a living Providence - and the bible is only the �Word of God� secondarily to that. Just like the Ark of the Covenant was more so the meaning of the tablets and far less the golden box that contained them. These things are called such by virtue of what the contain - but each has its limitations compared to the original article. It is the Word of God (Jesus Christ alive and among us in the expression of Providence) that John identifies that has with him the fullness and meaning of scripture - far less our own reading and trying to figure it out by our own social based experiences.

In any event all that�

Quite right. Genesis as a cosmogony does not teach how creation came about in its mechanics - knowing that might satisfy our scientific curiosity - but that does not help us at all with �getting to heaven�. The purpose of Genesis is to teach us how it is that we turn away from God and how it is that we turn back to God. How we as individuals (and as whole humanity each one) turned away from Providence (God�s governing of reality) to our own self-Providence. Our exile from the All-Providing of the spiritual Eden - to the self-Providing with the sweat of our brow (by our own labor).

Dozens of reliable commentators - Jews and early Christian - having known something of its structure and interpretation - have said that it is has a symbolic (spiritual) depth. It would take too much space to quote too many of them � so I will just quote a few who can be trusted. These quotes are from people much closer to biblical antiquities than we are and we are foolish to dismiss them (as scholars of today often do). We are far better off saying to ourselves �These people knew something! And it is up to me to find out how he meant what he said!� I am sure you are aware that most scholars of today dismiss completely the idea that Moses himself wrote all of Genesis (as early Jewish and Christian tradition claims) and believe that Genesis is instead a patchwork of plagiarized myths and legends. (J&P theory). Yet even Jesus claims on the road to Emmaus that Moses wrote Genesis (�beginning with the book of Moses and then all the prophets - Jesus explained to them�. Etc..). Scholars have a tendency to dismiss what they do not understand - and most in biblical research do not understand neither the structure nor the purpose of a cosmogony. But it is also true that it has not helped in one bit that Genesis has been taken a shot at by so many people who have found some unusual aspect of it and gone to town with that as if decoding a document left on earth by aliens (for example: Bible Codes - a complete misunderstanding of the methods that scribes at that time checked their copies).

�They are all the same one day repeated to complete the number six or sevenfold, namely, the six-fold principles of the works of God and the seventh principle of His rest." [ Saint Augustine - The City of God ]

"For by his most conspicuous and brilliant word, by one command, God makes both things; the idea of mind, which speaking symbolically he calls heaven, and the idea of sensation, which by a sign he named earth."
[Philo - Allegorical Interpretation, 1 IX, 22 speaking about the line regarding God creating the heavens and earth.]

Josephus tells us about the narrations of Genesis that the meaning of the �first story of creation� (the 6 days) was known by only a few and that with the second narration �Moses begins to speak philosophically�� because it IS a philosophical (we would call it theological in as much as it subject includes the actions of God) and it was written in the form of philosophy at its time - which is - a cosmogony.

I could add to this list Moses Maimondies, Origen, Pseudo-Dionsys, Saints Peter and Paul when they explain some of the �figures� of Genesis, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor - and many more. But it should suffice the Roman Catholic that the Papal Institute of Biblical Studies recognizes Genesis as a cosmogony that displays a literal meaning, a moral meaning, and a spiritual meaning (RE: The Catholic Catechism on the meaning of scriptures).

Genesis is a cosmogony in ennead form. A form very similar to what early form of �wisdom� writing which the earliest Eastern monks called a �Century.�

Genesis is a spiritual history of The Jews - and not a physical history of events as we would write it. Exactly what that means I do not have the space to say.

In any event - Back to Isaac.

The narration of a cosmogony has a literal outer shell. It is a mnemonic for remembering the narration. And the translators were right to try and preserve that literal narration. Of course once you take the original out of the language it was written in - you have taken away most everything but - the outer shell. And if you did not know what a cosmogony was in the first place nor how a cosmogony is structured - then you are left with only an outer shell which display peculiarities in the text� and it would seem to you to be your job to - smooth - the text for a better translated literal meaning.

If one knows what a cosmogony is, what its purpose is, and one has the ability to research the language, and one has trusted commentaries who recognized portions of it - then one can begin to - somewhat - restore its meaning. Of course - any explanation of its restored meaning to people who do not have the same research and knowledge of the Hebrew and early Hebrew customs - the explanation is mostly without anchor in that person - and mistaken translation which has long ago become sacristant - will tend to remain.

If Abram actually existed at all - it is mostly a mote point - in as much as it is the spirit of Abram which is important. �High Spiritual Father� is the personification of his name. His spirit in us all - is that which fathers the rest in us. All begins with Faith - and that is what Abram personifies. Faith - in place of sure intellectual knowledge. Sara is the same as faith (in the intellect) and she is Hope in the will (motivation). Just like Adam and the �woman� (Ish and Ishsa in the Hebrew) Abarm and Sara have a name change (Abraham and Sarah) dome by adding �ah� to each name - there are reasons these things happen in a cosmogony and they relate to changes - is us. In any event� Isaac (the son of the Promise) - did you every do the math? At the time that the English text said that Abram put Isaac on his shoulders and walked up the mountain - Isaac would have been more than 33 years old! And Abram something past 100! (Abram was 88 when Hagar bore Ishmael and 99 when Sara became with child, Sarah dies at 127 and Ishmael is 13 when Abraham was 99 - this makes Isaac 33 and Abram well past 100). The day I see a 33 year old man being carried up a mountain by an old man past 100 - you can shoot me. There is obviously something wrong with the common translation of this narrative as - history.

Imagine! Sara in her 80�s when she became pregnant with Isaac. She said herself how ridiculous it was to give a child to an old woman with dried up breasts. In fact - she expresses that God was �mocking her� - had made a mockery of her. And THAT is the real meaning of Isaac�s name (it is right there in the Hebrew text just the same as the meaning of Noe�s name is right near his name) - its meaning is something like �God has mocked me.� or something like �God mocks me�. It is certainly not �I laughed� or �laughter� or whatever mistake the original English translators made and other translators perpetuate. Sara (in the narration) does not laugh at all - she sorrows at how this dried up old woman would be mocked by others by having a baby at her age.

�And Sarah said �God has made a mockery of me - and everyone who hears of it will laugh at me.�� - that is more accurate. Isaac�s name means �God has made a mockery of me.� and here is the origin of the prophetic nature of the fact that Jesus would be made a mockery. (Is it Isaiah who said he would be mocked??) anyway�

In the narration - Abram and Isaac go up the mountain (hill, mound, rock, etc..) and only one comes down - Abram. Now there are many things in the Hebrew which I shall skip over - but note this� when God says �Let not your hand harm the boy.� the meaning in the Hebrew is �You don�t do it - I will do it.� We assume that God stopped Abrams hand and the boy remained unharmed - when in the Hebrew the meaning is that God tells Abram that Abram is not to kill the boy - God will officiate the sacrifice - God himself will do it.

Now I certainly can�t convince or prove to you what I say is true - in so short a space. Especially because it goes against what some to-be-trusted authorties have said about it. So I will only be able to make you wonder� perhaps.

In the Letter to The Hebrew - Peter talks about the sacrifice of Isaac. In, Peter is speaking to Jews about the Temple and Temple ceremonies. And Peter clearly portrays the Old Testament, and especially Genesis, as signs and prophetic pre-figures of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And then Peter zeros right in to Isaac being the most notable pre-figure of the sacrifice of Jesus. All these things Peter is talking about are connected. The sacrifice of Isaac is that which all Temple ceremonies were patterned after - and Isaac himself is patterned after - the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (ground zero).

As Peter relates he says �Wherefore indeed from one there became, and having died also, as many as the stars of the heavens in multitude�� which is to say �from one (Isaac) and him having died also! Came as many as the stars of heaven��

Check the Greek. The English translators insert something like �having been as good as dead� because they felt they had to smooth the text to collaborate the way they translated the story of Isaac. But the Greek clearly give it that Peter believes that in the narration of Isaaac - Isaac dies. (Hebrews 11:11-12) And so it is - because in the Hebrew of the narration of Isaac - Isaac does die. A burnt offering. And it is God (not Abraham) who takes his life. And when Sarah hears of it - she dies of a broken heart. In the narration Isaac is the one buried in the tomb that Abraham purchases (I think, I can�t remember, but I think Sarah and Isaac are both placed in the tomb)� and three days later - he is alive again because of the �living waters� (the name of the well).

Here - in the narration of Isaac - is the prophetic pre-figure of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - here in what all Temple ceremonies are patterned after - and that is WHY and what Peter is telling them in the letter to the Hebrews. That is - that all Temple ceremonies actually point - through Isaac - to the death and resurrection of Jesus. So it is time to leave the �imitation� behind and get onto the real thing - Jesus Christ.

And to boot - line 17 �By faith has-offered-up Abraham [the] Isaac {when] being tested.�

The Greek word for �has-offered-up� is specifically a burnt sacrifice, a burn oblation. The meaning here is that the motivation was done by faith - and the deed was done 'has-offered-up'. Past tense - completed. It does no say or mean that Abraham's did not need to complete the act because his faith or intention was enough. It says that his motivation was faith (believeing that something which logic tells you can not be - can actually come to be by the power of God).

If Abraham killed his only son through Sarah - how then could God fulfill his promise to make future son's of Abraham - through Isaac?? Can a dead Isaac have sons? THIS is the item where Abraham had faith... that somehow - God could do what he said (as many as the stars) even as Isaac would die before he has fathers even one son.

Twice now in Hebrews Peter is sure of himself �has died� �was offered up in burnt oblation� - and Peter continues �and his only begotten-son was offered up..� - making it here three times where Peter is dead sure that the deed - was done.

And line 18: �as to whom it was spoken - �In Isaac shall be called to thee they seed.� reckoning that even from [the] dead to-raise was-able God.� - What dead? Isaac - dead.

My apologies to a ton of Christian scholars who believe that Isaac walked away alive and only the intend was necessary as a sign of faith. I believe that Peter knew much better than they know - what the narration of Isaac was about and how to read it and it is clear by redundancy that Peter read it as Isaac having - died.

The apostles faced the same - situation. How whould Jesus father an entire church - and be King of Isarel as the messiah - when he had just died on the cross and is even now buryed in a tomb!??

I hope I have tied all of the Letter to the Hebrews together for you. Temple cerimonies, the death and resurrection of Isaac, the death and resurrection of Jesus - and leaving the imitation behind for the - real thing.

This of course is my opinion. If you would like to read my research paper on it - let me know. It has much more detail.

-ray

(an additional note)

to be included with the above is the fact that the priesthood of the Temple derives from the priesthood of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac - and as Peter said in Hebrews - it is imperfect now that Jesus Christ had been revealed as the son of God.

The revelation to the Jews through angels (meaning oracles, prophecy, divination through Urim, the budding of the Rod of Aaron, etc�) and those things of the Moses dispensation were imperfect echoes of Jesus Christ - and now that Jesus Christ had come to the Jews and been crucified and resurrected by God - these imperfect things had done their part (pointed to Jesus Christ) and should be left behind - for the real thing (Jesus Christ) which they were based upon as leading up to.


The priesthood of the Temple was based upon and derived from the priesthood of Abraham and his sacrifice of Isaac - an event which is part of the cosmogony of Moses.

The physical or literal possibility of the literalness of any actual physical history of that event (Abram sacrificing Isaac) is not a concern of the text. The Hebrew language is perfectly capable of recording history properly and accurately - and the narration of the biblical event here treated - is not written in that historical form (although English translators try to bend it to be that way). It is rather written in the literary style of a cosmogony and is to the prophets and to Jesus Christ himself (explained on the road to Emmaus �beginning with the book of Moses (Genesis) and then all the prophets - Jesus explained to them about his death and resurrection�) - it is to them a prophecy of mocking, sacrifice, and resurrection - of the Son of Man (Jesus� human nature).

Does this mean that the narration of Abraham and Isaac has no physical and historical reality ? no it does not mean that. It simply means that - compared to its spiritual meaning - any physical and historical or literalness - is far secondary to the text and used to give full understanding to to its primary meaning - the spiritual meaning.

Now it is probable that several people reading this will say "this is contrary to what the fathers of the church have taught" and my reply will be that the magisterium of the church has not guaranteed any of the opinions of these early fathers on Isaac. But if you are looking for the 'mind of the church' on the narration of the sacrifice of Isaac - then the interpretation of Jesus and Peter should be the start of it and any opinion too far away from Jesus and Peter begins to lose its root in the mind of the church no matter by whom held or how long.

This is the way I see it.
-ray

I believe Isaac's life was "redeemed" by the blood of the ram, by one who died in his stead....I believe this is a type of our own redemptions, where we are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus, who died in our stead.

I don't want to argue, but I don't agree, and I think your teaching sounds dangerous. Do you have any backing from scholars and the Church on this interpretation?

Ray, what method are you using to interpret the Scripture? May I ask you to explain more about the "translation" of Scripture you are using...and the "code" you are using to decipher its meaning?

I'm very concerned here.....

Unity In Christ

Codes ??
You use 'codes'??

Don't use codes - that is not safe at all in my opinion - but suit yourself.

For the Hebrew language of the Old Testament and the Greek for the New you can use �Bible Works� as very reliable and comprehensive. A great interlinear Greek is The Revised Standard Version published by Marshall. A good start in Hebrew is the Kregel Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament (Genesis-Exodus). Of course there are reliable Jewish sources for the Hebrew language for research purposes, after all it is their language, including Moses Mainonides Guide for The Perplexed which is well respected (however it is difficult for the novice as well as Puedo-Dionisus is difficult for the novice),

A wonderful treatment of just the Narration of Noah is A Study Of The Interpretation Of Noah and The Flood In Jewish and Christian Literature by Jack P. Lewis. It is the most comprehensive study I know and gives every existent church father on the meaning of Noah, as well as tons of early Jewish commentary and much more. An epic work - but hard to find. Good luck. No you can�t borrow my copy.

For those just beginning I recommend these sources�.
Augustine treats of Genesis in his City of God, Gregory of Nyssa treats of portions within his �Life of Moses�, Jesus, Peter and Paul treat many pre-figures of Genesis in the New Testament and they can be trusted but unfortunately are often not by modern scholars. Many of the published line of �Western Spiritual Classics� on early Church fathers are valuable for research.

There are several reliable online Biblical research Journals starting with this one http://www.bsw.org/index?l=71
http://www.bsw.org/index?l=72

For the understanding of early monastic Wisdom literature you might consult a Cistercian library or publications because The �Century� form comes down to us from the Thebans (the first Chrstian desert fathers) through what is now the Cistercians. The Century form died out in Northern France many moons ago but good examples of its use remain in such as Symon The New Theologian and Maximus the Confessor. Stay away from Nostradamus who uses a corrupted form to hide his Alchemy.

One might also try the publications from The Journal of Ecclesiastical History and their publication �The Transmission by The English Carthusians of Some Late Midieval Spiritual Writings� but Eastern based Wisdom literature was disappearing by then.

For the study of cosmogony in general you might consult the Yale Egytological Studies series and especially James P. Allen�s �The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts� - but you should be well grounded in the traditional Church resources before examining this one. Mr. Allen can be reached at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York where he is a curator.

Many early church documents that came out of Alexandria (where the first catechetic school was established by Mark) are valuable. Here is a fairly good online resource and it is free http://www.ccel.org/

No doubt you already know about Philo and Josephus. Philo gives an exhaustive exposition of Genesis as he understood it. �The Works of Philo� translated by C.D. Yonge and published by Hendrickson is comprehensive and very economical for study and reference purposes as regards Philo�s opinions. Josephus on Genesis is valuable for the common understanding of Genesis by the teir of priesthood he was in - not that Joephus was a wiz-kid at studies. But he was sincere. The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo's The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promotes the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 CE) even lists him as a church Father.

One of my most valuable books is the writings of Saint Anslem - and his items on Genesis - but I doubt you will find any copies at all. It is long out of print. I do not lend that one out. Anslem held the Chair of Philosophy after Thomas Aquinas.

For details of Jewish Temple ceremonies there are several Christian and Jewish resources but for general purpose of study for the novice the book �The Temple and its Services� by Endershim is very good and well respected. His first hand research was asounding. He is considered a valable asset not only by good Christian scholars but Jewish scholars as well. His efforts have preserved many details of Temple service that would have been lost by now. While I may not have spelled his name correctly (it has been a long time) I believe reprints are available and I saw it somewhere on the net for free too. If I remember correctly Endrshim was of the strongest opinion that Temple services were patterned on Isaac and ultimatly through that to Christ. Of course he was not the only one who had come to that result.

A wonderful novice book for understanding the Old Testament is �Understanding The Old Testament� (imagine that!) by Bernard Anderson and published by Prentice-Hall. I believe it is a standard seminar used book.

For those things which are Catholic resources let yourself be guided by some knowledgeable Catholic priest in good standing. For those things which are Orthodox resources let yourself be guided by a knowlegable Orthodox priest in good standing - and give yourself plenty of time. Years.

There are a ton more reliable resources but they also take years and are too many to list here. There are also tons more foolish books and opinions that will just confuse the heck out of one and mislead one into someone�s personal opinion who has a personal stance to justify - but if one sticks close to the Magisterium of the Church and stick close to those whom the Church herself uses as reliable - he should be safe. How anyone might use these resources and their results are entirely in their own hands. Again, stay away from �codes� and Kaballah and occult - and sift everything through the Magisterium of the Church where the Church has decided to make pronouncement. Without that one will be drifting without anchor. Disregard most modern books on Genesis published by smarty-pants and go back to the origin. With some dedication and sincerity and humility (trust the Magistrium) anyone may make relatively safe progress. Any Christian should do his part of the cooperation in his own spiritual formation and this type of study is great food for meditation and prayer and a wonderful protection to keep one safe from some common misconceptions that he will be pressured to comform to. Oh - yes - cooperation with daily Providence is essential - that is what it is all about.

Needless to say - my opinions regarding Genesis are my own and open for discussion by being posted here. No one is required to believe them. If they concern anyone then they can be ignored which is much safer. It is not nessesary for faith. There is much value to the commonly believed interpretation and it takes no research to gain from it.

Cheers.
-ray

Some times we all forget a bit that this is a discussion board where it is OK to bring up topics for discussion and it is OK to present an argument for a view point. Discussion is expected. Even brisk discussion.

I do not think that anyone should really base his faith on the contents of a discussion board nor judge anyone elses faith by the contents of a discussion board which discussion does not substitute for authoritive teaching nor proper education.

Just reminding myself.

Let us all (myself included) not take ourselves too seriously.

I hope, that from time to time I raise items for consideration and and thought and further research and study by those intereted in progress in the early history of scriptural interpretation and study. I would guess that most time I do not. But I do enjoy people who differ and present challenge and civil argument for another view.

-ray

Ray,

From an Eastern perspective the Septuagint is definitive. The Hebrew translation does not have (or should not have) any bearing on our interpretation of scripture.

Fr. Deacon Lance

No, I don't use a code, but I thought that you were using one.....

It sounded like you thought that a non-literal understanding came from using some special "code" or method of interpreting Scripture.....

Hey, Ray, I don't want to cause an offense...but I really can't understand where the Bible even implies some of the things you say....

Wishing you a happy, joyful, Holiday season.

Unity In Christ

I am not sure what you are saying here that the �Hebrew translation� does not have any bearing on the interpretation of scriptures. The Hebrew is the original scripture here and the Septuagint is the translation. You seem to be speaking as if the Hebrew is a translation of the Septuagint.

What I think that I should understand from you is that - the Eastern Church�s interpretation of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament - supercedes any other Jewish translation or any Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament - for the Eastern Church.

Yes? This is what you meant for me to understand?

This kind of policy works pretty well in the Roman Catholic church where she is very clear through the Magisterium about what portions of scripture she has chosen to be definitive in the interpretation of.

I do not think that you meant to say that the Hebrew language, or Hebrew sources, or Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament - have had any bearing on the Eastern Church interpretation of the Old Testament as if one could be completely divorced from the other.

All that seems reasonable to me.
-ray

Ray,

Yes, but also:

The Septuagint is from the 3rd century B.C., the Hebrew Masoretic text is from the 9th century A.D. The Masoretic text is not the original Hebrew text. The Septuagint is a more accurate translation of the original Hebrew texts of the same era and I think the Dead Sea Scrolls bear this out. Also it is the Septuagint that is quoted by the New Testament authors. This reason alone ends the debate for the Eastern Church. The Byzantine Church objects to using the Masoretic texts for liturgical purpose let alone Theology.

Fr. Deacon Lance

OK.. I see what you are saying. Thanks for that clarification.

Cheers.
-ray

Fr. Deacon Lance & Forum members,

In what regard does the Eastern Church hold on the Latin Vulgate, in comparison to the Septuagint ?

I read somewhere that the Psalms in the Vulgate are very close to Septuagint.

Hope this is inline with the thread.


james

Well - only in the sense of understanding what portions of it are what kind of literature and how that style literature helps one to determine how it should be read, and gives context to interpretation and meaning.

For example - most of the prophets often use a standard style of Hebrew poetry in many places. In the English translations it is almost impossible to delineate what portions are poetry, what portions dialog between the prophet and God, and what portions are the prophet encouraging or explaining things to the people. Some English translations now make attempt to delineate the poetry and some English translations still do not. I do not know how the Septuagint treats these sections. It is easier to determine who the speaker is when one knows the Hebrew custom of structure of dialog used.

Some of the books are apocalyptic in style (Example: Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelations). Some are historic chronicles (example: Kings and Chronicles) some are personal letters (the Epistles) some are concerned with laying down social laws (like Leviticus) some are Wisdom literature (Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, etc) some are Liturgical literature meant to be used in Temple services (Psalms) some are about spiritual growth (Song of Songs, Job, etc..) and arose within the different school of the prophets or communities like Quarum.

And the gospels of course are the personal experiences of the apostles having been with Jesus Christ as well as being a historical chronicle - but the historical chronicle of the gospels is secondary to the personal experience of Jesus that the apostle had - so anyone expecting to read them as totally accurate historical cronicals will have difficulty and find discrepancies while missing their intent and purpose. In the worst case they may get frustrated and dismiss the gospels as inaccurate and contrived myth and propaganda.

Genesis is the only cosmogony while Revelations is somewhat related to Genesis by having a similar literary structure. It seems plain that the misinterpretation of these two books have caused the most trouble within Chritianity as a whole. Literal? Historical? Figurative? Allegorical? Predictive of future events in history? divorced from the culture within which these were written and what type of literature thay are and the methods appropriate to what type of literature they are - makes the misinterpretation of these two books inevitable. Compounded by the tendency for people to think that their savation depends upon haveing faith in a particular interpretation - than it can seem tp them to be a failure of faith not to adhere to that particular interpretation embraced by thier church or group. Leading to divisions of the body of Christ - all done in the name of the Holy Spirit and God. Each one beliving that they are the group being faithful to God.

It is common human sense that each book is read a bit differently by knowing what style of literature it is and what the pupose of that style of literature is. I would not call this the use of codes (knowing its sturcture and purpose) while I would say that there are methods appropriate to it that have to do with its structure, language and purpose. As example a letter usually begins with a personal salutation and greeting and then moves into the subject of the letter and closes with more personal chatter. Spiriual treates like Job usually begin by setting up a situation that seems very historical in fact but is only related to actual historical fact in degrees - the purpose of the book is not its historical crnology or record so the author may change some of these details to better fit the purpose of the book.

As far as the Hebrew text - well yes there are rules and �methods� to follow and to be aware of and personal choices to be made when translating any language to another.

I find that most people without any real research or study - just assume that the books of the Old Testament are arranged in chronological order (first this happened and then this happened and next this happened) and of course they are not arranged that way but rather into three sections according to subject, which three sections are themselves further divided into three or four more division of subjects. I expect that the Septuigant follows these divisions.

My personal opinions of the details of the narration of Isaac or Peter�s letter to the Hebrews or what the ceremonies of the Temple represented - do not contradict the theology of the Church and in many areas confirm and lend context to the theology of the Church. Yup - it may not be easy to see that through my yaking of so many dry details.

In the Roman Catholic world - the theology of the Church, while united to scriptures in many ways, does not depend upon scriptures and the Church does not mold herself to anyone�s or any group�s particular understanding, interpretation, or translation of Scriptures. At one time it was tied to the Latin translation for reasons to have a common translation amoung the many languages used in the Roman Catholic world. Cuurently there is an American Roman Catholic Bible in English but when the Vatican quotes scriptures in its offcial documents it mostly uses the Revised Standard version for it more internationaly understood English.

In the Roman Catholic world scriptures are secondary to the theology of the Church. An expression and witness of that theology - but not the origin or definitive factor of that theology. In the Roman Catholic world the Church, and specifically the Magistrium and Councils, are the origin of theology as guided by the presence of Christ. So the research and study of scriptures does not carry with it any inherent threat to Church theology, doctrine or faith.

I do now understand from this discussion, a bit better, some Eastern churches views of scripture as they differ from the Roman Catholic view. And priviledge to spend time with some well educated Orthodox clergy who do fantastic biblical research within the biblical languages and cultures of the time - I am now more aware of why Orthodox biblical scholars are careful with what they say in public and are such a tight knit community amoung themselves.

I assume that each biblical veiw is appropriate for each church community.

Thanks and Peace to you my good friend and the good Deacon - who do discuss - and make me think.

-ray