In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Thus begins the preeminent book (The Hebrew Bible) in the history of mankind. A sacred book that has been more often cited than read, and more read than understood.
This discourse will attempt to explain Creation, and specifically the first human being. In other words, it is the beginning of a beginning.
I have come to understand that the conflict in interpretation, aka commentary, of the Hebrew Bible, or Torah,[1] is man made. This conflict can be understood in the context of a Non sequitur. A Non sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning “it does not follow.” It means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise(s). Nowhere is this more in evidence than rabbinic interpretation and commentary of mankind’s creation.
The account of Creation is so fundamentally rooted in Judaism’s consciousness that any attempt to consider it from solely an intellectual distance is immediately seen as suspect, and even amateurish. However, much contemporary commentary, in my view, as it relates to Creation, has been tendentious. In this sense, the historiographical shift from the literal to a figurative symbolism, shows the notion that mankind’s creation was not what it was. In terms of Creation, the contrast between literal and symbolic is easily understood. However, it is increasingly clear that contemporary interpretations have acquired a more ideological inclination.
It needs to be said; the assertion that man can faithfully interpret G-d is naive at its best, and egotistical at its worst. An assertion is not a valid justification. Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction. For example, the statement that ‘everybody would agree.’ The assertion establishes an a priori as a fact that in fact may not be true, or at very least cannot be verified as true. An individually intuitive perception is not sufficient. To simply assert something or some action is good, is not proof, nor is it even reasoned justification. Hence, it is only a supposition, an assertion, and certainly not a certainty. In this light, thus can we begin to interpret G-d’s meaning in Genesis.
As Harold Bloom[2] cogently discerned, ‘to read in the service of any ideology is not, in my judgment, to read at all.’
It is problematic to interpret Genesis as only figurative language. The plain sense of the Book of Genesis text (Torah) does not support this interpretation. Instead, Genesis is a literal account given to Moses from G-d. It is the only book in the bible that Moses was not an active participant in, and as such, is exhaustive and unabridged by definition.
The point is, some commentary try to work out what happened in each hour of the creation of Adam on the sixth day. But here they delved way beyond the information in Genesis (text). In fact, this is the problem in much of the commentary to Genesis. The commentary does not reflect the text, and, in fact, goes way beyond.
A primary example, is Bereishit 1:27, Human Beings, “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Yet, the Chumash[3] states in its text[4] that “He created them as a single, androgynous being comprising both male and female bodies, attached back to back.” This is a contradiction with the text,[5] and therefore must be suspect and taken as conjecture. It would only be correct in the sense that Eve was later created from Adam’s “bone and flesh.”[6] Yet, that is not what the Chumash says or implies. Clearly, man was created first – the first human being was a man, and not an androgynous being! No where in Genesis does it say that the first man, Adam, was partly male and partly female in appearance, or in any other feminine aspect.
Moreover, Genesis says “ he created him,” not he/she, or it. “Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”[7] The fact is that Genesis recounts creation as “his nostrils,” and “the human,” not humans. “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” Again, it is man and him, singular, not them. G-d did not put “them” in the Garden of Eden. “And the LORD God said: It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help(er) meet for him.”[8] If “Eve existed along with “Adam,” why would G-d say ‘that the man should not be alone,’ and why would the helper need to be created?
Genesis tells us, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.“And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.”[9] G-d created Eve from the rib and flesh of Adam. The first women did not exist at the same time that the first man was created.
By attempting to reduce Creation to a politically correct ideological distortion that man was an androgynous being, one is only too prone to limit non-bias intellectual scrutiny. Within that framework nothing is easier then capitulation to interest group politics. But, in reality, critical analysis and Devine understanding are not so simple.
As previously stated, the Chumash avers that “He created them as a single, androgynous being comprising both male and female bodies, attached back to back.”[10] However, it is not believed that a closing of ranks by rabbinical commenters is ipso facto validity to adopt an illogical assertion – that the first man was an androgynous human being. In other words, an illusion and invalid assertion does not confirm respectability of an opinion, regardless of how many times you repeat it. Again, the first women did not exist at the same time that the first man was created.
Creation when recounted by means of politically correct ideological distortions, are often used as a veil of ideology, which then hides the real meaning of the event. Such is the case of this understanding of Creation.
The purpose of this discourse is to interpret and understand Creation void of ideological sentiments. And, to debunk a pathological state of cognition in which ideology takes precedence over the genuine search for truth.
[1]The Greek term is Pentateuch, which means five scrolls.
[2]Harold Bloom (b. 1930) is an American literary critic Professor of Humanities at Yale University.
[3]Chumash, Chabad House Publications, Los Angeles, CA, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2015.
[4]Ibid. Page 11
[5]Genesis 2:18
[6]Genesis 2:21 – 24
[7]Genesis 2:7
[8]Genesis 2:1
[9]Genesis 2:22
[10]Chumash, Chabad House Publications, Los Angeles, CA, Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2015, Page 11.
No comments:
Post a Comment