Takes on a Bible Study Program

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
61

If the tabernacle was patterned after the Garden, either such knowledge was passed down orally through the generations until the tabernacle was built, which seems impossible since the first mention of worship of Yahweh comes within the genealogy of Gen. 4, or God dictated it directly to the author. I’m not a fan of the dictation model of inspiration.

Have to disagree, though I note you’re also citing a previous cultural pattern as a model for the tabernacle.

Anyway, if the tabernacle (and later temple) was patterned after a war command tent, that makes God a god of war, not the God of peace who condemned Noah’s generation because they “filled the earth with violence” or God the Father of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.

Sumerian and Babylonian cultural influences are much more likely than Egyptian. Ancient Israel prior to the invention of alphabetic writing is filled with cuneiform clay fragments, while hieroglyphics are scarce to non-existent. The situation remained the same until Cyrus defeated Babylon for good and established his own alphabetic writing as the lingua franca of the empire. Cuneiform quickly fades away and the old Babylonian myths that Genesis 1-11 argued against likewise fade from memory.

As one example of Babylonian influence, here’s this:

Peter James and Marinus Anthony van der Sluijs, “Ziggurats, Colors, and Planets: Rawlinson Revisited,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 60, no. (2008): 57-79.

from the ziggurat at Ur. In its original form, as constructed by Ur-Namma and his son Shulgi (ca. 2100–2050 BC) of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the tower consisted of four stages. According to its excavator, Sir Leonard Woolley, the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus (555–539 BC) expanded the building into seven stages, leaving only the first level of the original intact (1925: 219; 1939: 135–43). …

In addition, a considerable body of literary and pictorial evidence documents the concept of a ziggurat with seven stages: 1. The so-called E-sangil tablet from Uruk (AO 6555) … sets out the dimensions of the temple tower Etemenanki (é . t e m e n . a n . k i) of the Esagila complex in Babylon, which was completed by Nebuchadnezzar II. Seven stages are described, with their respective dimensions (AO 6555 ll. 36–42). The height of the structure is equal to the base …

*A Late Babylonian tablet from Babylon (BM 38217; Wiseman 1972; 1991: 71; Allinger-Csollich 1998: 316–19) depicts the six lowest stages of a ziggurat. Wiseman showed that the top of the tablet, broken off, most likely showed a seventh level whose dimensions formed a cube

The cumulative effect of this evidence is difficult to brush aside.*

George, A. R. “The Tower of Babel: Archaeology, History and Cuneiform Texts.” Archiv Für Orientforschung 51 (2005): 75-95. Accessed February 26, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/41670231.

The decipherment of the E-sangil Tablet confirmed most commentators in the view that the mythical Tower of Babel was a memory of a real building, a staged temple-tower that the Babylonians knew by the Sumerian ceremonial name of E-temen-anki ‘House of the Foundation Platform of Heaven and Underworld’ …

The text may have come to have other significance. Glassner (2002) has found in it a more profound purpose, observing a cosmological allusion in the matching size of the ziqqurrat and the ark of ‡ta-napi·ti in SB Gilgamesh XI, both having bases of one ikû and both subdivided on the vertical plane into seven storeys. As he notes, the ikû is also the key dimension in the first section of the E-sangil Tablet, being the notional area of the Grand Court (kisalma¿). But there is more to it than that, for the ikû was also held to be visible in the night sky, where it was the great square of Pegasus, the celestial counterpart of both E-sangil and Babylon (George 1992: 244). …

The newly published manuscript from Babylon helps to correct false understandings that derive from Anu-b∂l·unu’s copy in the section on the nu¿ar, the temple that crowned the ziqqurrat (§6; for details see George 1992: 428-9). Other documentary evidence published at the same time can be brought to bear on the temple. Schmid’s architectural reconstruction of the tower is broadly conventional, with the temple building sitting on the terrace of the sixth stage and thereby forming its seventh stage (Schmid 1995: pls. 40-2). Schmid’s temple has four exterior gates, one in each façade. This lay-out reflects the wording of Nebuchadnezzar II’s cliff inscriptions at Wadi Brisa …

So to sum up: The ziggurat was crowned by a temple in the shape of a cube; the ziggurat’s dimensions reflected the “ark” in the epic of Gilgamesh; there were four entrances to the temple complex facing the four compass points; the ziggurat represented the foundations of heaven and earth. Any of that sound familiar?

The cherry on top is that Nebuchadnezzar II completed the restoration of E-temen-anki in Babylon just about the same time that he destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, and his son and successor Nabonidus was busy restoring the original ziggurat in Ur when Cyrus invaded and took Babylon with hardly a scratch.

62

The dictation model is flawed, but only because nowhere does scripture say that the vast majority of its content was dictated, only small specific parts. But neither is it necessary to fit the idea of the Tabernacle being patterned after the Garden; only the existence of the Creation accounts is needed.

Exodus calls Yahweh a “man of war”. And Jesus is depicted as engaging in war; we just don’t see it because our cultural presuppositions are different.

That does not contradict Yahweh being “a man of war”; Yahweh/Jesus just ‘fights’ on different terms . . . which to us humans looks a lot like losing.

63

We’ve taken this thread too far afield, so I’ll try to wrap up on my end.

Either you’re saying the creation accounts were written prior to Exodus, or an oral tradition of Eden and Adam & Eve and Gen. 1 was passed down orally. Both are problematic.

First, if the story of A&E and the Garden was an oral tradition, it’s hard to understand why Adam (not to mention Eve) is completely absent from the rest of the Old Testament. If the story predated the writing of Exodus and was as foundational as Paul made it, why no mention anywhere else in the OT? The simplest explanation (Occam’s Razor again) is that Gen. 1-11 was a later addition. That’s also the reason for my earlier focus on ziggurats and temples. The story of Babel clearly dates from around the time of the Exile. It’s likely the scribes of Israel composed all of the “pre-history” about then as a vaccine against the allure of Babylonian culture and the worship of their gods (who had apparently defeated Yahweh in battle).

Second, the focus on Egypt seems tailored to support Mosaic authorship. What other Israelite would have insight into the interior design of Pharaoh’s war command tent? Honestly, it’s an interesting parallel, but it strikes me as a scholar making more out of his discovery than is warranted.

God’s ultimate desire is to redeem all of creation and bring it to shalom.

1 Like
64

Hello seamitchell,

First of all, I admire your desire to think deeply about church doctrine. I can relate to this experience because at my own church, YEC is the official position, which I disagree with due to my own reading about the topic of science and faith. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the contents of this book. If you would like to fact-check some of the information found in the book, I would recommend researching multiple interpretations of a biblical passage that the book discusses and deciding which one makes the most sense (especially ones advocated by biblical scholars). Don’t be afraid if some of the perspectives aren’t from Christians, because as Christians we should be open-minded towards other ideas, while having firm reasons for our own faith. Finally, I also have some experience with disagreeing with a pastor in respectful dialogue. I wouldn’t recommend trying to start conflict, but don’t be afraid to ask the group leader thought-provoking questions that may be fruitful. For example, instead of saying, “This interpretation doesn’t make sense!” Say, “Wouldn’t passage x make more sense if it were saying y instead of z?” If you are willing to put your time into researching a passage, the group could definitely benefit from your analysis!

5 Likes
65

Thank you for that encouragement, Johnnyboy! I still have much to learn, and have taken a pretty deconstructive view of bible study by default in recent months. It’s useful in some sense, but it also makes me critical, which interferes with any casual reading I could hope for and sympathy for my fellow congregants’ views. I’m trying to learn when to speak and when to be quiet—especially given my lack of deep personal study compared to pastors and most of the people in this forum. That is a helpful way to frame and present different perspectives. I’d do well to remember it next time I’m in the church study!

5 Likes
66

This is much like N. T. Wright’s as well.

67

The tent was pretty much patterned after the permanent Egyptian temples, as they all had the basic design of public areas, priestly areas and a Holy of Holys. I suspect it was common knowledge and design. Most of us worship in churches patterned after Roman temples, after all, whether we know it or not.

1 Like
68

Welcome to the forum, @johnnyboy_91 . It is always good to have a new voice. We look forward to learning more about and from you!

1 Like