Hello!
I am not a trained Bible scholar, but I have started writing a Bible commentary of my own. I'm looking for a community online that would be open to me posting installments of this commentary, in order to get well-informed, sensible, sympathetic, but also incisive feedback. I say "conservative" because I am not at all interested in (frankly I'm positively bored) what is called "Bible criticism," but I am strongly interested in clarifying unclear texts and solving difficult problems, coming to grips with them in a way that is respectful to the text. I'm not assuming this is that place, but maybe it is. Any pointers to a forum well suited for this sort of thing?
In case it matters to someone, the commentary is in Q&A format, and here are some samples:
God, being the source of all, is surely not in need of rest; being limitless, it seems he could do anything without effort. Why, then, does the text say in Gen. 2:2 that he “rested”?
Indeed, it is very probably not because he needed a rest. Probably, the traditional explanation is correct: he was demonstrating to mankind what man should do: observe the sabbath, the weekly day off. The following sentence underscores this. The text anthropomorphizes God in this way, in a few different places, e.g., when it says “repents” and is “grieved” that he made man, on Gen. 6:6. There are also physical anthropomorphisms; perhaps indeed God has no literal “face,” despite being said to have one (e.g., Lev. 20:6).
The details of the offerings at Gen. 4:3-4, and other details from the chapter, greatly resemble what is required under the Mosaic law. What are we to make of this?
Without giving a long list, it is worth observing that sacrifices were meant to be offered with faith and contrition; that “the fat” of the sacrifice was offered; that “first fruits” were offered; that Israelites were required by law to care for their brothers; that murder was severely punished; that blood revenge was prevented through the practices of sanctuary cities; etc. All these details seem to point up the fact that God used earlier events in Genesis as a kind of template on which the Mosaic law was based. It certainly seems as if the details would be viewed that way by students of the Mosaic law glancing back at Genesis. It is also possible that the author of Genesis, also having authored Deuteronomy, would expect the business about the city Cain escaped to (at Gen. 4:17) to be read alongside the “sanctuary city” rules of Deut. 19. Indeed, even the very word, or קוּם or qum, translated “rose up,” can also be found at Deut. 19:11: “But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die… .” One must, of course, bear in mind that the author of Genesis was aware of God’s law, even it had not be handed down yet in the narrative. This does not, of course, mean that the antediluvian patriarchs were aware of or lived under the law—certainly not in detail.
How did God accomplish the scattering abroad from Babel (Gen 11:8-9)?
At least part of the answer is that God confused the language of the inhabitants of Babel. But that just raises the question how he did that, too. How he accomplished these ends, we are not specifically told and there is no way to know for sure. But we should bear in mind that God often accomplishes things through unwitting human agents. It seems to me that, if this was the first city and tower of the post-Flood world, and if they told themselves they would make a name for themselves and reach to heaven, they had grand ambitions, as Moses would have known the Babylonians did have. Different men might well jockey for position as leader; and one might well get the notion of using different words for things, as signs of allegiance and as a secret code indecipherable to enemies. Thus ambition would lead to speaking in competing codes; as a result, trust would evaporate and work would stop. The scattering would come when the people began to view each other as not just rivals, but as dangerous enemies. And that is just what we might expect of Noah, who was still on hand if all of living humanity were united, and his more decent offspring. They certainly would not trust the likes of Ham, Canaan, and especially Nimrod. Moreover, Noah might tell the people that God intended that they split up and go their separate ways. But, of course, this is all purely speculative. Again, we simply do not know.
Again:
Would this forum be good for what might end up being 20-40 Q&As of that sort per week? Or can anyone out there recommend a good one where I could get some good feedback and mutual enlightenment?
I am not a trained Bible scholar, but I have started writing a Bible commentary of my own. I'm looking for a community online that would be open to me posting installments of this commentary, in order to get well-informed, sensible, sympathetic, but also incisive feedback. I say "conservative" because I am not at all interested in (frankly I'm positively bored) what is called "Bible criticism," but I am strongly interested in clarifying unclear texts and solving difficult problems, coming to grips with them in a way that is respectful to the text. I'm not assuming this is that place, but maybe it is. Any pointers to a forum well suited for this sort of thing?
In case it matters to someone, the commentary is in Q&A format, and here are some samples:
God, being the source of all, is surely not in need of rest; being limitless, it seems he could do anything without effort. Why, then, does the text say in Gen. 2:2 that he “rested”?
Indeed, it is very probably not because he needed a rest. Probably, the traditional explanation is correct: he was demonstrating to mankind what man should do: observe the sabbath, the weekly day off. The following sentence underscores this. The text anthropomorphizes God in this way, in a few different places, e.g., when it says “repents” and is “grieved” that he made man, on Gen. 6:6. There are also physical anthropomorphisms; perhaps indeed God has no literal “face,” despite being said to have one (e.g., Lev. 20:6).
The details of the offerings at Gen. 4:3-4, and other details from the chapter, greatly resemble what is required under the Mosaic law. What are we to make of this?
Without giving a long list, it is worth observing that sacrifices were meant to be offered with faith and contrition; that “the fat” of the sacrifice was offered; that “first fruits” were offered; that Israelites were required by law to care for their brothers; that murder was severely punished; that blood revenge was prevented through the practices of sanctuary cities; etc. All these details seem to point up the fact that God used earlier events in Genesis as a kind of template on which the Mosaic law was based. It certainly seems as if the details would be viewed that way by students of the Mosaic law glancing back at Genesis. It is also possible that the author of Genesis, also having authored Deuteronomy, would expect the business about the city Cain escaped to (at Gen. 4:17) to be read alongside the “sanctuary city” rules of Deut. 19. Indeed, even the very word, or קוּם or qum, translated “rose up,” can also be found at Deut. 19:11: “But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die… .” One must, of course, bear in mind that the author of Genesis was aware of God’s law, even it had not be handed down yet in the narrative. This does not, of course, mean that the antediluvian patriarchs were aware of or lived under the law—certainly not in detail.
How did God accomplish the scattering abroad from Babel (Gen 11:8-9)?
At least part of the answer is that God confused the language of the inhabitants of Babel. But that just raises the question how he did that, too. How he accomplished these ends, we are not specifically told and there is no way to know for sure. But we should bear in mind that God often accomplishes things through unwitting human agents. It seems to me that, if this was the first city and tower of the post-Flood world, and if they told themselves they would make a name for themselves and reach to heaven, they had grand ambitions, as Moses would have known the Babylonians did have. Different men might well jockey for position as leader; and one might well get the notion of using different words for things, as signs of allegiance and as a secret code indecipherable to enemies. Thus ambition would lead to speaking in competing codes; as a result, trust would evaporate and work would stop. The scattering would come when the people began to view each other as not just rivals, but as dangerous enemies. And that is just what we might expect of Noah, who was still on hand if all of living humanity were united, and his more decent offspring. They certainly would not trust the likes of Ham, Canaan, and especially Nimrod. Moreover, Noah might tell the people that God intended that they split up and go their separate ways. But, of course, this is all purely speculative. Again, we simply do not know.
Again:
Would this forum be good for what might end up being 20-40 Q&As of that sort per week? Or can anyone out there recommend a good one where I could get some good feedback and mutual enlightenment?
