Basic Scripture

In chapter 3, in order to answer some objections, we needed to say a few things in passing about the Pentateuch. Especially we saw the modern views on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and something on the Documentary theory. The tendency to reject Mosaic authorship probably stems mostly from the belief that if Moses were the author, then, since he would have been an eyewitness, we would have much history in the Pentateuch. We will explore that question more fully in our chapter on Genesis.

The objections raised to Mosaic authorship (considering authorship on the broad base suggested by the Biblical Commission, which we saw in chapter 3) rest on very weak arguments, e.g., that Moses could not have recorded his own death in Dt 34. Of course not, but someone could have added that section. Again, there are expressions inserted e.g., at Dt 34:6 "until this day" that point to a later time. But when we remember the ancient Near Eastern attitude to authorship in which a later hand felt free to add things, this is hardly strange. Again, there are claims of anachronisms, e.g., mentions of the Philistines in Gen 26:14-18, who were not there at the time - but this again can be the effect of later hands. Or, the Philistines of Gen 26 may have been an earlier wave of migrants from Crete (Cf. Kitchen, op. cit., p. 80. Kitchen also on pp. 82-884 gives other ancient instances of such an "anticipation" of a name).

Interestingly, Joseph Jensen in God's Word to Israel (2nd ed. Collegeville, 1982, p. 79) repeats what has often been said, that if the Bible did not tell us about Moses, we would have to invent him, and adds that surely some great genius who worked with "heroic fidelity" must have had a part in the formation of Israel.

Meanwhile, the rejection of Mosaic authorship leads naturally to the theory of multiple documents by others, which we saw briefly in chapter 3, but need to explore more fully now.

Documentary theory: The first beginnings of the theory go back to a priest, R. Simon, who in 1678 argued from repetitions, discontinuity in chronology and logic and stylistic variations to the conclusion that there was a sort of corps of "public secretaries" whose gradual accretions up to the time of Ezra (5th century) produced the Pentateuch. His theory was not well received until 1776 when a German translation of it appeared.

H. B. Witter in 1711 suggested that the variation in names for God (Elohim/ Yahweh Elohim) pointed to different documents.

The Yahwist document (J) prefers the name Yahweh, it stresses events after the Patriarchs as the fulfillment of the promises God made to them. It speaks of God in human terms - anthropomorphisms - and speaks of God as angry and regretting that He had made man, and as coming down to see the tower of Babylon. The Elohist document (E) prefers the name Elohim, and is much less inclined to use anthropomorphisms. The Priestly Code (P) is noted for its special interest in cultic things and religious laws. Thus the Book of Leviticus would be entirely P. The Deuteronomist (D) is found especially in Deuteronomy, with influence from that view also seen in Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings. The Deuteronomist document (D) tends to be oratorical or homiletic in tone, and stresses the importance of fidelity to God's laws, resulting in reward or punishment.

These documentary beliefs were especially promoted by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) whose study of Israelite laws led him to think Israel began with a naturist religion, then the prophets introduced ethical monotheism. The Pentateuch reached full development during and after the Exile, c. 450 B.C.

He thought he could give a relative dating of the documents. He held that the law book discovered in the 18th year of King Josiah (2 Kings 22) was Deuteronomy. Many still hold this view. So he thought the D document must have been composed at that time, in the late 7th century. He did not seem to consider it could have been something much older, just discovered then. He thought the Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) documents came from the 9th and 8th centuries, respectively, in the early monarchy. He thought the books of Kings showed no acquaintance with the special laws found in the priestly code (P) but that the books of Chronicles did know it. Chronicles he said was postexilic. P seemed to him to be an advance on the provisions found in chapters 40-48 of Ezekiel, and so put the composition of P in the 5th century, after the end of the exile. Wellhausen thought an 8th century BC author could not know anything substantial about the Patriarchs, and so made a free creation in his writing.

Today, even scholars favorable to the Documentary Hypothesis admit that Wellhausen's skepticism about the historical and religious traditions can no longer be held, since advances in our knowledge of the biblical background pretty well rule out such skepticism. Wellhausen depended much on pagan panArabic parallels, for he did not really know the ancient world. Further, modern study would not favor the idea that documents were composed at definite times. The dates assigned are really, it is thought, not those of the origin of the material in the document, but mark the end of a long development, so that even P, which is considered the most recent, has much ancient material. The tendency today is to speak of traditions or sources rather than of documents.

Many still hold the documentary theory. Pope John Paul II, in his conferences on Genesis (Original Unity of Man and Woman, Catechesis on the Book of Genesis,Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1981) seems to favor it. Of course his use of these things does not constitute a teaching given to the universal Church. Further this is a matter of history, not of faith.

Many others today are strongly rejecting the theory. A major example appeared in R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOT Supplements 5, Sheffield, 1987). It was very favorably reviewed in Catholic Biblical Quarterly of Jan. 1989, pp. 138-39 by Joseph Blenkinsopp who said that it is clear that the hypothesis is "in serious trouble, with no viable alternative yet in sight." Whybray, according to the review easily showed the fragility of many of the arguments given for the theory, showed that the criteria used to tell one source from another require "an unreasonable level of consistency" in the sources themselves, so that it has been necessary to suppose a multitude of subsidiary sources. Yet the same consistency was not supposed to be found in the redactors. Whybray himself suggested the Pentateuch came from a single genius, no earlier than 6th century B.C., who used many sources, not all of them ancient. But this idea does not take into account the long development of the legal tradition in Israel.

Y. T. Radday and H. Shore, in Genesis: An Authorship Study in Computer-assisted Statistical Linguistics (Analecta Biblica, vol. 103, 1985) report the results of feeding the Hebrew text of Genesis into a computer at the Technion Institute in Israel. They conclude: Genesis has only one author. (Cf. also U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures. Jerusalem, Magnes, 1961).

A major argument for the theory comes from supposed doublets, i. e, it is claimed that creation is told twice, in Gen 1 and 2. There are two genealogies of the descendants of Adam, in chapters 4 and 5. The flood is told twice there are some inconsistencies in the number of animals and on the timetable of the flood. And Noah enters the ark twice. There are also two accounts of the selling of Joseph into Egypt.

However, these special features may be due to a well known Hebrew pattern of using concentric circles in narratives: the story begins, after a bit, it goes back to the beginning, is retold with other details. This may go on for two or three rounds. Further, Kenneth A. Kitchen, of the University of Liverpool, in Ancient Orient and Old Testament (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, 1966. pp. 112-21) has discovered similar patterns of repetition in documents from Urartu and Egypt.

As to the so-called inconsistencies in numbers of animals taken into the ark, there are two answers: a)Within the concentric ring pattern, at first a general preliminary statement is made, which is then fleshed out in the second ring, which also adds the distinction of clean/unclean animals; b)in 6:19-20 the Hebrew is shenayim - which is a dual ending (besides singular and plural, Hebrew had dual, for a pair). Now one cannot add a plural ending on top of a dual, hence we see the form which indicates pair, without saying how many pairs. In 7:2-3 we translate "seven pairs". Actually, the Hebrew has shivah shivah = seven seven. Hebrew is not rich in forms.

Another major argument proposed for the documentary theory is the variation in divine names, between Elohim, and Yahweh Elohim. Again, Kitchen has found parallels to this sort of thing in other ancient Near Eastern literature (pp. 121-22): There are three names for the god Osiris on the Berlin stela of Ikhernofret. In the Lipit-Ishtar laws Enlil is also called Nunamnir, and in the prologue to the Code of Hammurapi we have Inanna/Ishtar/Telitum; in the Babylonian Enuma elish epic, three gods have double names. The same phenomenon is seen in Canaan, Old South Arabia, and among the Hurrians and Hittites. In none of those cases do scholars try to invent two or three documents.

Those who favor the Documentary theory also point to stylistic differences: the style of the Yahwist has unified scenes bound together by a continuous thread. He prefers the concrete, is good at character portraits. The Elohist lacks the picturesque manner, has less dramatic vigor. The Yahwist goes in for anthropomorphisms, the Elohist does not. But we reply: The reasoning is in part a vicious circle: the alleged documents were differentiated on the basis of the styles - then the styles are used to prove different documents. Again, Kitchen helps us (p. 125) by showing that style variations are common in the Near East. He mentions the biographical inscription of an Egyptian official Uni (c 1400 B.C. ), which contains flowing narrative, summary statements, a victory hymn, and two different refrains repeated at suitable but varying intervals. A similar phenomenon is found in the royal inscriptions of the kings of Urartu.

To sum up: we have not disproved the Documentary theory, but we have shown that its proponents are far from proving it too.

One further question for now: Could we believe that some of the names and facts were really transmitted orally for centuries? We know definitely that such a thing is possible. For example, the first name on the Assyrian King List is King Tudia. For long it was thought he was only a legend. But now the picture has changed: An Italian archaeologist, Paolo Matthiae, began excavations at Ebla (about 35 miles south of Aleppo in Syria), in about 1963 and uncovered a major ancient civilization, almost unknown up to that date. In 1969 he showed an inscription to epigrapher Giovanni Pettinato, who quickly recognized the name of King Ibbit-Lim of Ebla. Pettinato dates the clay tablets from Ebla at about 2500 B.C. Pettinato further has found a text of a treaty between the King of Ebla, and King Tudia, founder of the first dynasty of Assyria. So we now are certain that Tudia is not legendary but historical - the Assyrian king list giving the name of Tudia dates from about 1000 B.C., while the tablet from Ebla shows Tudia made that treaty around 2350 B.C. So memory preserved correct data on Tudia for about 13 centuries. (Cf. G. Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla,Doubleday, 1981, pp. 103-05 also 70 & 73).

Roland E. Murphy, one of the editors of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (p. 4) says that today there is a tendency to think more in terms of an expansion of J, especially from E, which provided added traditions to insert, but which may have never existed independently on its own.

Finally, we should mention some current terminology that one may meet in reading. Tradition History means a study of the various stages a unit went through before being incorporated into the present form. The study of the final form is called

Redaction Criticism.

There is also a Literary Approach, which concentrates on the literary qualities of the text, and does not concern itself with questions of history or documents. Canonical Criticism concentrates on merely the text as we now have it, as the Postexilic community saw it, leaving aside all questions of its formation.

Our first move is to try to determine the literary genre of Genesis. Here we clearly must distinguish between chapters 1-11 and the rest of Genesis.

We have already seen in chapter 3, in answering objections, the statement of Pius XII on Genesis 1-11, that Genesis 1-11 is in a genre that pertains to history in some way, without being the same as the pattern used by Greek and Roman or modern historians. We saw too that John Paul II called the genre "myth", but explained he did not mean a mere fairy tale, but meant an ancient story devised to bring out some things that really happened.

We saw too the remarkable statement of 160 major scientists that the form of evolution proposed by Darwin was false, since the fossil record simply did not support it. They proposed instead an unsupported supposition of "punctuated equilibria" that is, that a species might stay the same for millions of years, and then by a sudden fluke, leap up to something much higher in the same category.

It is good to add some modern scientific work that bears on polygenism - the theory that our race came from more than one pair. Pius XII, in Humani generis in 1951 after saying that we may consider evolution provided it is not atheistic, added that we are not so free about polygenism "since it is by no means clear how such a view could be reconciled with what the sources of revelation and the actions of the Magisterium tell us about original sin, which comes from a sin really committed by one Adam, and which is passed on to all by generation, and is within each one as his own" (Enchiridion Symbolorum 3897). On reading these words, some say that polygenism is completely ruled out. Others, who mean to be loyal to the Church, notice the Pope said we may not hold polygenism since it is by no means clear how it can fit with Scripture and the Magisterium. They notice - what is true - that papal texts are framed with extreme care. And they say that the Pope may have meant to leave door open, to say that if a way should be found to reconcile polygenism with revealed truth, the objection would drop.

Teilhard de Chardin proposed evolution of human mind and character in addition to that of body, so that just before the return of Christ at the end, most of the race would be joined in a unity like that of a totalitarian state, but it would not be unpleasant, since they would be bound by love. The Holy Office on June 30, 1962 warned his works contain, "ambiguities and even grave errors," but did not forbid them or name the errors. However it is easy to refute this great error about the time before the end: Lk 18.8 says: "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" Cf. 2 Ths 2.3, with the same prediction and also the picture given in 2 Tim 3.1-4.

However, on the side of natural science some impressive evidence has come to light against polygenism. Science News of August 13, 1983, p. 101 reported that Allan Wilson of the University of California at Berkeley asserts, as a result of worldwide research on mitochondria, that we all go back to one mother, who lived 350,000 years ago. At first other scientists did not favor his view. But that has changed. Newsweek of Jan 21, 1988 in a large article reports that view is now widely accepted, except that they have lowered the age to 200,000 years ago. Of course, this would not disprove polygenism, for it could be that, e.g., 6 pairs started our race, and the lines of all but one died out. For more see Science News vol. 147, p. 326.

John Paul II, in a General Audience of Oct 1, 1986 clarified the concept of original sin. He said that it "has not the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace," that is, it is the lack of something that should be there, not a positive presence. So the transmission by heredity really means that grace is not transmitted. In the audience of Oct 8, 1986 he added that when we say our mind is darkened and our will weakened, this refers to a "relative, and not an absolute deterioration." That is, we are put down no lower than we would have been had God created our race with no added gifts beyond essential humanity. Such a nature, having many drives within it, each operating blindly, would need mortification to tame it. This disorder would make the mind relatively less clear, and the will relatively weaker.

From the cleverly designed story of Genesis, it is evident that God had given our first parents what could be called a coordinating gift, that is, a gift to make it easy to keep all the drives in their proper place. (This has often been called the Gift of Integrity). When God called, "Adam, where are you?" Adam said: "I hid myself for I was naked." God said: "How did you find that out, if you did not eat the forbidden fruit?" In other words, before and after the fall, Adam was naked. But it formerly did not bother him - he had the coordinating gift. Afterwards, without that gift, it did bother him.

Did the Hebrews see original sin in the Genesis story? Surely, they did not talk much about it. There are just a few doubtful texts in the Old Testament that could, but need not, refer to it: (Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5; Sirach 25:23; Wisdom 2:23-24 and 10:1-2). There are just a few places in the intertestamental literature (Jewish writing after the end of the Old Testament) in which we might see original sin: IV Ezra 3. 20 and 7. 46-49 (prob. late 1st century AD); II Baruch 18. 2; 23. 4; 48. 42-43; 54. 15-16; 56. 5-6 (early 2nd century AD); Testament of Adam 3.3 (2nd -5th century AD); Pseudo Philo 62.5 (prob. 1st century AD).

However, even if the Jews did not notice it, it is clearly implied in Genesis. For God had given to Adam and Eve the gift of grace, His favor. They lost it - or rather, cast it away by sin -and so could not pass it on to their descendants. To be born out of God's favor is to lack grace. And that is what original sin is. We need to notice as to the word favor, if we meant merely that God as it were smiles at us, but gives us nothing, we would do good by our own powers: the heresy of Pelagianism. So in practice, to lack His favor means to lack what He gives us, His grace.

There are other things brought out by that well-designed story, chiefly: God made all things - in some special way (leaving room for theistic evolution) He made the first human pair - He gave them some sort of command (we do not know if it was or was not about a fruit tree - that may be stage dressing) -they violated His orders and fell from favor. In addition the story tells us the psychology of every sin. For Eve knew God had said they would die if they ate it - but she believed the tempter who said that they would instead become like gods - and she looked at the fruit, and as it were said: "God may know what is good in general - but right now, I know better! I can see for myself!" So pride is the essence of every sin.

What of the names Adam and Eve? We do not know if they used those names - but that does not mean we should say there was no Adam and Eve. There was a first pair, regardless of the names they used.

Some scholars today think the writer of Genesis used some then current stories, probably from Mesopotamia. We would not have to rule out such a possibility in advance, for we have said that Genesis uses stories to convey things that really happened. We add that Vatican II (Lumem Gentium # 55) said, having in mind chiefly Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14: "These primeval documents, as they are read in the Church, and are understood in the light of later and full revelation, gradually bring before us the figure of the Mother of the Redeemer. She, in this light, is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise, given to our first parents who had sinned, of victory over the serpent (cf. Gen 3, 15)."

It is evident, especially from the use of the cf before Gen 3:15 in the parenthesis, that the Council did not want to say flatly that the human writer understood all that the Church, in the light of later and full revelation, gradually came to understand. So we could conceive of the inspired writer of Genesis as using secular stories to make his point, without understanding all that we now see in them. Yet it is beyond doubt that he did see a first sin, a fall, and some kind of promise of enmity. And elsewhere - Dei Verbum #3 - the Council seemed to take a more optimistic view of what that writer understood: "Moreover, after their fall, by promising redemption, He lifted them up into the hope of salvation (cf. Gen 3:15)." Now they could not be lifted up into hope without understanding some promise of rescue.

But if we turn to the stories that scholars favor, the chances of use by the writer of Genesis go far down. The Babylonian epic, Enuma elish,often called a creation story, shows some strong similarities in the order of things created on each day (Cf. Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis,Univ. of Chicago, 1951, pp. 128-29). However, as Heidel himself admits ,"the differences are far too great and the similarities far too insignificant" to make us suppose that the Enuma elish contributed much to Genesis.

Something much closer is the creation account found at Ebla (Pettinato, op. cit.,pp. 144 and 159): "Lord of heaven and earth, the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it, the morning light you had not [yet] made exist." However, Pettinato's translation was promptly challenged by Archi, his successor as epigrapher of Ebla (Biblical Archeology Review Nov. -Dec. 1980, p. 42).

Some today charge error in Genesis because it speaks of Abel as a herdsman, and Cain as a farmer - these developments belong much later in the history of our race, they say. Further, Genesis 4:21- 22 speaks of Jubal, the ancestor of those who play harp and flute, and of Tubalcain as the father of all who work in bronze and iron. Again, much too early. However, once we grasp the fact that Genesis 1-11 consists of stories designed to bring out some things that were really true we have no problem here. That whole stretch is designed to show how mankind was sinful from the start, to such an extent that God repented of making mankind and sent the deluge. Within this framework, then, the odd little episode of 6:1-4 in which the sons of God had children by human women is likely to be some ancient tale, which the author of Genesis found suited his purpose well - showing the wickedness of all. Who the sons of god are is much discussed. Some suggest it means sons of Seth, taking wives from the daughters of Cain. Some Fathers of the Church thought it meant angels! (e.g., St. Justin Martyr, Apology II. 5). Angels do not have bodies, but otherwise, we do not know. But the point is clear, it was an ancient tale meant to help bring out the wickedness of the race, leading right up to the deluge.

What is the genre of the deluge account? Is it just part of the sequence of ancient tales to bring out things, or is it basically historical this time? In favor of saying it is historical is the fact that flood traditions are found all over the globe. And especially the king lists of Sumer are significant. Those lists go back to at least 2000 B.C. They say there were 8 kings before the flood, reigning in five cities, a total of 432, 200 years. Among them was Enmenlu-Anna who ruled 43,100 years. After the flood, the kings became short-lived! Twenty-three kings ruled for a total of only 24,510 years, 3 months and 3 1/2 days. (Lists can be seen in ANET 265-66). Of course, such numbers were never intended to be taken at face value. What was intended we do not know - perhaps symbolic numbers? They make the great ages in Genesis 5 seem slight.

However, our interest is other. The land of Sumer, between the Tigris and Euphrates, had annual floods in those times. To speak of the flood in such a context surely stands for a king sized flood.

The Babylonian story is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh,and probably goes back to at least 2000 B.C. In both stories, there is a hero who is to be saved - Noah in Genesis, Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh. Each is told to build an ark, with detailed specifications. Then comes the cataclysm. The ark finally rests on a tall mountain. Both Noah and Utnapishtim release series of birds to see if the water has gone down. Each account mentions a dove and a raven. Each hero offers sacrifice, but there are great differences: The biblical flood is a punishment for sin; there is no motive given by the gods in the Babylonian version, it is mere caprice. In the Babylonian text, the gods cowered in fear of the flood. When Utnapishtim offered sacrifice after the flood, they came down and "swarmed like flies" around the sacrifice - the gods needed sacrifices for food. The gods admit Utnapishtim to the ranks of the gods, he becomes immortal. (The complete text of the Gilgamesh Epic can be found in Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels,University of Chicago, 1949.

We do not know the relation of the two. Perhaps the writer of Genesis took the Babylonian account, purified it of polytheistic elements, and used it. On the other hand, the two accounts could have been independent accounts of a historical flood.

But there are new discoveries today, which make the deluge certain. A high pentagon official told me he had been permitted to see high resolution photos taken from our satellite, which show the ark up on Mt. Ararat. At some seasons is it largely covered with snow. He told me further the army had sent soldiers up to the ark. They had entered it, had seen the animal stalls, and had founds its measurements are those found in Genesis.

Another set of claims is this: The Turkish government today has set up a Noah's Ark Park farther down. Ron Wyatt and associates discovered there a buried ship, of the same measurements. Using subsurface radar --with trained expert operators-- he found there is a pattern of regularly occurring spots, which he takes to be metal brackets in a pattern of lines from stem to stern, and also going crossways.

There can be no reasonable doubt about the ark seen from space. What Wyatt found is something real, but different. Though not highly trained himself, he did employ radar specialists. He has published a video showing in detail the explorations and the results (Wyatt Archaeological Research, Nashville, TN).

As to the Babylonian tower, we note that temple towers were common in ancient Babylonia. We cannot judge the historical character of this account. But we notice the clever play on words with popular etymology: Gen 11:6 speaks of it as Babel, the place where the Lord confused tongues, playing on Hebrew babel, "confusion". Yet Babylonian bab-ili meant "gate of the gods." The writer of Genesis may have been making fun of the "gate of the gods".

We notice the strong anthropomorphism in this account: God comes down to see the tower.

Genesis 12-50

Here we seem to leave the realm of mere ancient stories contrived to bring out some things that really happened. We now have the history of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Even so, we ask about the genre. Many today think it is something like epic. As we have seen, epic genre was around in those days. An epic will have a strong core of history, but yet work in some fanciful elements.

Naturally, we begin with the great patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To what age do they belong, if to any? T. L. Thompson, in The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, (Berlin, 1974) would virtually drop archaeological evidence, and date the patriarchs to the first millennium B.C. - since there is no room for them historically at such a point, it amounts to a denial. Similarly. J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, (New Haven, 1975) drops archaeology, wants to date patriarchs in first millennium.

Some would make the patriarchs mere eponymous ancestors, persons from whom the names of later tribes were derived.

Most scholars would not agree with such extreme radicalism. P. Kyle McCarter Jr. in the chapter on the Patriarchal Age, in the symposium, Ancient Israel,(ed. Hershel Shanks) published by the Biblical Archaeology Society in 1988 says on p. 16: "Most [scholars] remain convinced that the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob contain a kernel of authentic history." We already suggested something like epic genre for Genesis 12-50. And we think there is more than just a kernel of real history, even though the ambitious attempts of the school of W. F. Albright (including especially E. A. Speiser and G. Ernest Wright) to use archaeology to validate Genesis have not stood up completely against the attacks of subsequent criticism.

There is too much evidence to deny basic reality to the patriarchs. We cannot imagine why Israelites would invent the claim that Abraham's wife was his half-sister (cf. Gen 20:12) or that Jacob married two sisters (29:15-30). Leviticus 18:9 prohibits marriage with a half sister, and Leviticus 18:18 prohibits marrying the sister of one's wife, and 18. 29 calls both an abomination.

Nor would they invent some other things, such as the shameful way Jacob bought the birthright from his brother Esau and then lied to get his father's blessing. Also, the jealousy of the brothers of Joseph, and their selling him as a slave are disgraceful things.

Kitchen (op. cit, pp. 49-50 shows that seasonal occupation of the Negeb region on the SW border of Palestine is archaeologically attested from the 21st to the 19th centuries, but not for the thousand years earlier or for 800 years afterwards. Abraham and Isaac spent time in this area and were keepers of flocks and herds, and at times grew grain. So they would fit best in the period about 2100- 1800 B.C.

Especially significant is the fact that Joseph was sold as a slave (Gen 37:28) for 20 shekels. That is the correct average price for a slave in about the 18th century B.C. Before that, as shown in the Code of Hammurabi and in Mari documents, slaves cost from 10 to 15 shekels. Later they rose steadily in price (cf. Kitchen, pp. 52-52).

It is worth mentioning too that the system of power-alliances, such as four kings against five of Genesis 14, is common in Mesopotamia in the period 2000-1750, but not before or after that (cf. Kitchen, p. 45).

St. Paul often appealed to the faith of Abraham as the model of the faith we must have (Galatians 3:6; Romans 4). Indeed it was remarkable, not only when he believed go that he, at age 99, and his sterile wife Sarah, at age 90, would have a son Isaac, through whom he would be the father of a great nation, but even more so when without asking any question Abraham obeyed God's order to sacrifice Isaac when Isaac was still a little boy, too young to start the fulfillment of God's promise about a great posterity through him.

The picture of Abraham's faith corresponds exactly with St. Paul's idea of faith. Pauline faith includes four elements: belief in God's word (cf. 1 Ths 2:13), confidence in God's promise (cf. Gal 5:5), obedience to God's commands (cf. Rom 1:5), all to be done in love (Gal 5:6). Abraham did believe God's word, had confidence in His promise even when that seemed voided by the command to sacrifice, and his obedience was so great as to be willing to sacrifice his dear son, thereby, as we said, seeming to cut off the promise of a great posterity - in which he was yet required to believe.

We note in passing how different this concept of faith is from Luther's, who held faith meant merely the conviction that the merits of Christ applied to himself. The standard Protestant reference work, Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,Supplement, p. 333, gives precisely the same picture of Pauline faith as we have just done. Luther thought if one had his version of faith, he could disobey God's laws with impunity (Epistle 501). But Luther did not see that faith includes obedience -- so faith does not dispense from obedience.

There are so many other things in Genesis on which we could comment - such as a the beautiful story of Joseph, with its magnificent pay-off scene, when he reveals himself to his brothers. But we have space for just a short comment on two great prophecies, those of Gen 3:15 and Genesis 49:10.

We are fortunate in having a great ancient resource to understand these prophecies, as well as some other things in the Old Testament: the Targums. These are ancient Aramaic versions of the Hebrew text, most of them free, and including fill-ins, which show how the Jews understood the prophecies. Of course, they did this without the hindsight of seeing them fulfilled in Christ, whom they hated. So even if we knew no more about the date of the Targums, we would still be able to use them to see how the Jews themselves in ancient times understood their own Scriptures. But we do have more help. Jacob Neusner of Brown University, probably the greatest of modern Jewish scholars, in his book, Messiah in Context (Phila., Fortress, 1984) made a full survey of all Jewish literature from after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., up to and including the Babylonian Talmud, written 500-600 A.D. He found that before that Talmud, there was no interest in the Messiah. In the Talmud, interest revives, but the only one of the major prophecies mentioned is that he should be of the line of David. In contrast, the Targums see the Messiah in so many places, in much detail. It is hardly conceivable that such texts could have been written during the period in which there was no, or little, interest in the Messiah. So they must go back before the fall of Jerusalem. Some scholars think that in oral form, they go back to the time of Ezra (cf. Nehemiah 8:7-8).

Three of the four the Targums see Genesis 3:15 as Messianic, even though they cloud the picture somewhat by inserting some allegory. They say the sons of the woman will be at war with the serpent. When the sons of the woman study the Torah, they will be victorious. The serpent will strike at their heel, but the sons of the woman will smite the serpent on the head. There will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but none for the serpent. Both will make peace in the days of King Messiah. (Cf. Samson Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation,Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1974).

Vatican II, in Lumem Gentium # 55 says, as we saw above: "These primeval documents [thinking chiefly of Gen 3:15 and Is 7:14] as they are read in the Church, and understood in the light of later and full revelation, gradually bring before us the figure of the woman, the Mother of the Redeemer." So, even if the human writer of Genesis may not have seen the full import, yet the Church now, in the light of later and full revelation, does see Mary in this text - and then, of course, Christ.

All Targums see Genesis 49:10 as messianic. We translate in the light of the Targum - most modern versions seem not to utilize them: "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs [or: until Shiloh comes], and his shall be the obedience of the peoples".

Jacob Neusner, in the book just mentioned, on p. 242 says: "It is difficult to imagine how Gen 49:10 can have been read as other than a messianic prediction." So a fine Jewish scholar can see it, while so many Catholic scholars cannot. They say that the word shiloh is grammatically feminine, while the verb with it has a masculine ending. So they say the text is corrupt, they must emend it. But Shiloh is masculine in sense, even though feminine in grammatical form. And besides, there are other cases in the Old Testament where the same mixture occurs, and the same scholars do not worry about those: Jer 49:16 and Ez 1. 5-10. The pattern becomes common in Mishnaic Hebrew. Levey (op. cit. p. 8) comments that other rabbinic sources, Midrashic and Talmudic, take the passage as Messianic.

The fulfillment of this prophecy was graphic: the Jews really did have some sort of ruler from the tribe of Judah until the time of the Messiah. Then in 41 BC Rome imposed on them Herod, who was not of that tribe, was by birth half Arab, half Idumean. At first he had the title of Tetrarch, in 37 BC. got the title of King. If the Jews had not been so greatly unfaithful to God so many times over, the fulfillment probably would have been more glorious, with great kings of the line of David, all the way to 41 BC.

The genre of this book is most likely epic, though some today would completely deny that there was an Exodus at all. Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review,in the March-April issue of 1991, reports on the 1990 joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the American Schools of Oriental Research. On p. 66 he says the mood of the whole session was almost entirely negative. He said there was a "widespread negative fad" as to what could be said about Israel before the time of the monarchy. He added they would like to deny the existence of Israel before the monarchy. In fact, he said, almost bitterly, they would like to say that Israel did not exist before the time of the kings, and would do that if it were not for the Stele of Pharaoh Merneptah who made a punitive raid into Canaan around 1220, and said Israel was laid waste. It speaks of Israel as a people, not as a nation. This reminds us of the comment of Pope Leo XIII, in his Providentissimus Deus of 1893. In it (Enchiridion Biblicum 123) the Pope complained that those who are willing to see all sorts of errors in Scripture - the report mentioned says the negative people "can dispose of [the Bible] easily", yet they accept ancient secular documents as if there could be no hint of error in them. Actually, we know the boastfulness of ancient kings. No Pharaoh ever lost a battle, if we believe the inscriptions.

In contrast, Nahum M. Sarna, of Brandeis University, in his chapter "Israel in Egypt" in the symposium Ancient Israel, published by the Biblical Archaeology Society in 1988, says (p. 37) "The Egyptian sojourn cannot be fictional." For no matter what we say the genre is, no people would invent a story that they were originally just slaves, and report how unfaithful they were to God over and over again. On the other hand, as we said, no Egyptian King ever admitted a defeat in an inscription - he was a god. So the defeat of the Pharaoh by God in the Exodus would have to be passed over in silence in Egyptian records.

We could, however, say that the purpose of the writing was didactic, to teach God's power and justice as against the failures of His people. Then not every event in the book need be fully historical.

Those who would deny an exodus at all are apt to say there was merely a peasant revolt in Canaan.

But for the above reasons we do hold there was an Exodus. We add that Exodus itself (12:38) tells us that a crowd of mixed ancestry went out of Egypt with the Israelites.

When did the Exodus take place? There are chiefly two kinds of opinions:

1)the most favored view begins with Exodus 1:11 which says that the Israelites built for the Pharaoh two cities, Pithom and Raamses. Raamses may be the same as Avaris-Tanis (But this identification is controverted: Cf. John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest,Sheffield, 1978, pp. 35-48). Avaris was deserted after 1500, and was reestablished by Seti I who reigned until around 1300 - there is much disagreement about precise Egyptian chronology. Rameses II began to reign right after Seti. It is known that Rameses carried on extensive building projects, which fits with the use of Hebrews for slave labor. He also moved the capital to the delta region. This fits with the fact that the sister of Moses could easily run to her mother's house when the daughter of Pharaoh found the infant Moses in the river (Ex 2:5- 8). Also the many visits of Moses to the Pharaoh suggest a short distance. Still further when the angel of God slew all the firstborn of Egypt, Pharaoh could call for Moses in the middle of the night, and give orders to leave at once.

Also, toward the end of the reign of Rameses, Egyptian power declined notably, which would make it easier for the Israelites to engage in their attempts to conquer Canaan, than when Thutmose III (1490-36 BC) was on the throne. He conducted extensive campaigns in Canaan.

2)The other theory begins with the fact that 1 Kings 6:1 says that Solomon began to build the temple in the 480th year after the Exodus, in the fourth year of his reign. Since he probably began to reign about 961, the Exodus would come around 1437 BC.

One problem with this view is the fact that 480 looks very much like a round or symbolic number: 12 generations of 40 years each.

If we compare the proposed dates with the time the Israelites spent in Egypt, we come up with confusion. The Hebrew text of Exodus 12:40 says they spent 430 years there. But the Septuagint says that "the dwelling of the sons of Israel which they spent in Egypt and in Canaan [was] 430 years". This fits with Galatians 3:17 which gives 430 years for the period between the promise to Abraham, and the giving of the law on Sinai. That would mean only about 215 years in Egypt.

There are other problems about 430 years in Egypt: Moses and Aaron, according to 1 Chron 5:27-29 were fourth generation descendants of Jacob's son Levi. That would mean three generations with an average of 143 years each. That would clash further with 1 Chron 7:20-27 which says Joshua, the younger associate of Moses, was a 12th generation descendant of Levi's brother Joseph. Then we would have 11 generations from Joseph to Joshua averaging 39 years each. However, to the problems of this paragraph we reply that ancient genealogies were not always like ours, merely family trees. R. Wilson, in Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale, 1977, p. 166) shows that genealogies often were artificial in the ancient world, to bring out relations other than family lines.

As to these figure we can also notice that Pius XII, in Divino afflante Spiritu (Enchiridion Biblicum 559) speaks of Semitic approximation. He is right, the Semites cared little for our precision in dating. We can see that in the way in which St. Paul reports his own activities in Galatians 2:1, where he says he went to Jerusalem again after 14 years - with no indication of whether he counted that from his conversion, from his return from

Arabia, or something else. And the Hebrew of Jonah 3:4 has Jonah threatening destruction to Nineveh in 40 days. But the

Septuagint of the same text said three days. Apparently the symbolic or broad usage made both seem equivalent to the translators of the Septuagint.

It is usual to suggest that Joseph won readier acceptance in Egypt during the time of the foreign rule by the Hyksos, which began around 1720 BC, since they probably included some Semites. But this overlooks the fact that Joseph's acceptance was basically due to divine help in giving him the interpretation of the king's dreams. The Israelites, according to Exodus 1:8, began to have trouble when a new king came on the throne, who did not know Joseph. But any change of dynasty - and there were many - could give the same effect.

Some recent efforts favor the earlier date for the Exodus. John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (cited above) puts the Exodus at about 1470. This solves many problems of archeology about the cities conquered by Joshua, leaving a problem chiefly about Ai and Heshbon. Bimson replies (pp. 215-25) that the later village of Ai may not be the one destroyed by Joshua - for there was often site shift in ancient cities - and adds (p. 69) that Heshbon need not have been a fortified site at the time of Joshua.

In Biblical Archaeology Review for Sept-Oct. 1987, Bimson, joined by David Livingston, repeats his proposal, giving a date for Exodus as 1460. This would entail changing the date of the end of Middle Bronze Age II to just before 1400 - it is usually placed around 1550. However, Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review,in the March- April 1989 issue, (p. 54), in his report on the same convention mentioned above, says that Bietak, one of the worlds' leading archaeologists on Egypt, estimates Middle Bronze Age II ended about 1500 -1450 B.C. These articles in Biblical Archeology Review have generated much debate, as we would expect.

A major development was reported in Biblical Archeology Review,March-April, 1990 by Bryant Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" He claims the well known work of K. Kenyon was seriously flawed, finds the evidence really supports a fall of Jericho around 1400. In spite of the great reputation of K. Kenyon, this is quite plausible. An interview in Biblical Archeology Review,March-April, 1988, "Yigal Shiloh. Last Thoughts" reports on more serious defects in the previous work of Kenyon who had missed important remains in the City of David area of Jerusalem. For this work, Shiloh received the prestigious Jerusalem Prize in Archeology in 1987.

The Israelites are supposed to have lived 38 years at Kadesh- Barnea, the largest oasis in N. Sinai, with many acres today of fruit and nut trees. But no remains have been found there other than three ancient fortresses, the earliest probably from the time of Solomon. Cf. "Did I excavate Kadesh- Barnea" by Rudolph Cohen, in Biblical Archeology Review,May-June, 1981, pp. 21-33. He is uncertain if he found the site, found no remains there. However, it is probable that the Israelites were really in Midian at that time - many remains found there. Midian is where Moses fled from Egypt, where he married, where he saw the burning bush.

We mentioned possible site shift. Jericho was abandoned from Hellenistic times, and moved to near the springs of Ain-Sultan, onto the site of modern Jericho (Er-Riha). But in Hellenistic and Roman times, palaces and villas were constructed at still a third site nearby (Tulul Aby el-Alaiq). So there were three Jerichos.

Kenneth Kitchen (The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today,Intervarsity Press, Downer's Grove, IL, 1977, pp. 10-15) offers still more considerations. Commonly a site is not completely excavated, for it is very costly. By 1977 only 1, 1/2 acres of Ashdod had been excavated - it covers 70 acres of lower city and another 10 acres of acropolis. Only 1/10 of the site of Et-Tell, which some think was Ai, had been excavated by the same time.

So we must not be in a hurry to charge errors, with so many possibilities. And of course, the epic genre we suggested leaves room for quite a bit of looseness.

Before the Exodus, God appeared to Moses at the burning bush, and revealed His name, Yahweh. The meaning of the name is debated, it is most likely a verbal form of haya (originally perhaps hwy), meaning "to be". Some would take it as a hiphil form of the verb, meaning "cause to be." So the meaning would be either I am, or I am He who causes things to be.

There is a problem from the fact that in Gen 4:26 we read that "people began to call upon the name of Yahweh." But in Exodus 6:3 God told Moses that he did not reveal His name Yahweh to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. A possible solution: M. Dahood, in a long afterword to Archives of Ebla,pp. 276-77, suggests the name was known to northern tradition early on, but only later came to be known to the Egyptian tradition. It is also possible we have an updated form anachronistically inserted at Gen 4:26. It is also possible the name was first known and later forgotten by the time of Abraham.

The word Jehovah is merely a mistake. After the Exile, the Jews developed so great a respect for the sacred name, that the ordinary person never would pronounce it. Instead he would say Adonai, Lord. When the Masoretes centuries later invented the vowel points, they used the points for Adonai with the consonants for Yahweh, so no one by forgetting would pronounce the sacred name. If someone foolishly reads the word as written, it does come out as Jehovah.

About the plagues before the Exodus - some of these things are known to have happened by natural causes before. However, the fact that they happened at specific times in response to the commands of Moses is supernatural.

At what point did the Israelites cross the sea? The Hebrew is yam suph which may mean Reed Sea. However, when these words occur elsewhere they refer to the Red Sea or at least to the Gulf of Aqaba (cf. 1 Kings 9:26). The matter is complicated by the probable presence of variant traditions, which we saw in chapter 4.

Were the Israelites a people before the Exodus and covenant? Their own traditions make Abraham the father of all of them. However, it is clear that these two great experiences did contribute much to a sense of being a special people. (By then other elements had joined themselves to them, as we saw above: Ex 12. 38.

The route they took in the whole period in the desert is likewise uncertain: Exodus does give names, but the location of many of these is uncertain.

At Mt. Sinai they were taught great reverence: Exodus 19:9-15 forbade the people to even touch the mountain - if they did, they must be put to death. (Interesting contrast on the lack of reverence on the part of some today towards the Blessed Sacrament!).

Then God manifested His presence by thunder, lightning, and trumpet blasts and smoke. The people in fear (Ex 20:19) begged that God might speak only through Moses, and not directly to them.

Then the great covenant was made. Through Moses, God spoke (Ex 19. 5): "If you really obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, more so than all people."

Many commentators try to say this covenant was unilateral, not bilateral. They mean God imposed obligations on His people, but did not take any on Himself. They forget that God said, in effect, in 19:5, "If you do this, I will do that." God cannot give His word and then not keep it. So even though technically He does not owe anything to creatures, yet He does owe it to Himself to keep His word. The prophets in the OT often compared God's relation to His people to that of marriage. Thus in Hosea 2:18-25: "And it shall come to pass on that day, says the Lord, you shall call me 'my husband' and never more 'my Baal'... I will betroth you to me forever. '" Again, He said through Jeremiah 2:2 "Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem; I remember the covenant-devotedness [hesed - more on this word presently] of your youth, the love of your espousal." (cf. also Jer 3:1; Ez 16:8; Is 50:1; 62:5). The language of Deuteronomy 26:17-18 is so bold that most versions do not dare to render it literally. The Hebrew uses the causative hiphil form of the verb twice here: "You have caused the Lord today to say He will be a God to you... and the Lord has caused you today to say you will be to Him a people, a special possession... and to keep all His commandments." Such language seems to put God and His people both on the same plane! In spite of their reverential great fear, they also did understand He was their Father. In Is 63:16: "You are our Father. [Even if] Abraham would not know us, and Israel not acknowledge us: you, O God, are our Father, our redeemer is your name from everlasting." Here for redeemer the Hebrew has goel, which means the next of kin who in time of need has both the right and the duty to rescue his family members who are in difficulty. So God by the covenant becomes as it were a member of the family. Cf. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (tr. J. McHugh, McGraw Hill, NY, 1961, pp. 21 & 22). The word hesed, which we saw in Jer 2:2, which means the covenant relationship does express precisely that concept. The blood ceremony in which Moses sprinkled the book and people with the blood of the sacrifice indicates the belief they were becoming as it were kinsmen of God: Ex 24:3-8. (Cf. the blood transfusion we now have in the Holy Eucharist).

Interestingly, such a bilateral relationship is known even in paganism. Cyrus Gordon, in The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations (Norton, NY, 1965 p. 96) reports how King Hattusili III of the Hittites in His Apology said he and the goddess Ishtar entered into a covenant such that she would protect and advance him in return for his devotion to her, and exaltation of her. Greek heroic literature also has many cases of covenant relationship between a particular man and particular deity, e.g., Anchises and Aphrodite, or Odysseus and Athena. Similar things were common among nomadic tribes: cf. Jensen, op. cit., p. 72.

George Mendenhall, in Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954,) pp. 26-46 and 49- 76 and in Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, 1955) saw that there is a well defined pattern in the Hittite treaties of the 13th century: 1)Preamble: the Hittite king is presented, with his titles, 2)Historical prologue: gives foundations for obligations of the vassal, 3)Stipulations: list of obligations of the vassal. The vassal is often told to avoid "murmuring" and must love [=obey] the Sun (Hittite King), 4)Deposit and public reading, perhaps 3 times a year, 5)List of witnesses - numerous gods, 6)Curses and blessings.

But there is no place in the Old Testament in which all of these provisions are found in that order. Rather, the material is spread out a bit. Dennis J. McCarthy, in Treaty and Covenant,(Biblical Institute, Rome, 2nd ed. 1978, esp. pp. 241-76), pointed out correctly that similar situations in different cultures can call forth similar responses.

The covenant does have a legal form, but it was a work of love. For to love is to will good to another for the other's sake. God spelled out what things were needed, in the nature of things, to make the people to open and capable of receiving what He so generously wanted to give. Otherwise, they would run into the evils present in the nature of things for wrongdoing.

Exodus also contains the Ten Commandments and a large body of other laws. Joseph Jensen (op. cit., p. 86) says that the tradition that represents Moses as the great lawgiver in Israel "is undoubtedly an accurate one." But then as society developed, new laws were needed for new situations. However they all kept the same relation to the covenant. This was not deception, it was a way of saying that these things came under the basic authority of Moses. Much later, the oral law, very large, was also attributed to Moses. When we recall the kind of language we saw in chapter 4 from apocalyptic passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel, we will not be surprised at such a way of speaking as that which we see for Moses and laws.

What of the fact that many laws closely resemble older codes, such as that of Hammurabi (c 1725 BC)? The remark of Dennis McCarthy on covenant, cited above, that similar situations call forth similar responses applies here - that is, these laws were framed to cover the same kind of circumstances as those envisioned by Hammurabi's Code. Some laws were given in flat form, and are called apodictic; others were in case law form:... if someone does thus... then.... It is the case laws that most resemble the Code of Hammurabi.

Some authors do not read carefully enough Ex 20:24-25 and Dt 12 and as a result say there is a conflict. Exodus, they say, permits many places of sacrifice, while Dt speaks of only one. But if we read carefully we find that in Dt. 12, especially at verses 10-11, that God tells them that after they have crossed the Jordan and after God has given them rest from their enemies -which would come only in the time of Solomon, then they shall have an altar only in the place which God will choose.

Exodus 12:37 seems to give the number of Israelites who departed in the Exodus as 600, 000 men on foot, not counting women and children. That would probably result in a figure of two to three million total. But the entire population of Egypt at the time was about 3 million. One explanation is that the number comes from gemetria, that is, adding up the numerical value of the letters of bene ysrael, which would be 603, 000. But this does not seem to be consistent with other passages. Another suggestions is to take the word elef to mean families. Still another suggestion is to say the number is magnified, multiplied by ten, for the honor of God. Then we would have 60, 000, a manageable figure. Since the genre seems to be epic, this proposal is quite plausible. Interestingly, the Greek historian, Herodotus, tells us (7. 185) that the Persian army in the second invasion of Greece had 2, 641, 610 fighting men, and that when we add the number of those providing supplies, the grand total was 5, 283, 220 men.

Some are surprised at the talion law - eye for eye etc. - in Ex. 21:23 ff. The answer is that it was actually a means of holding down much more severe measures apt to be taken.

Finally, St. Paul in 1 Cor 10 sees several prefigurings - prophecies by action instead of by words - in Exodus, chiefly, of Baptism and Eucharist. And of course the paschal meal prefigures the Last Supper.

Leviticus

Leviticus interrupts the narrative of the Exodus. It is almost entirely laws. The Old Testament contains 613 commandments, of which 247 are in Leviticus. If that seems a great number we could think of the output of the U. S. Congress.

The chief things that are not laws are the description of the ordination of Aaron and his sons, and the deaths of sons of Aaron.

Chapter 8 describes the ordination ceremony for Aaron and for his sons. On the octave, the 8th day after the ordination, a special sacrifice was offered.

But in chapter 10 the sons of Aaron offered profane fire, fire that was not holy, to the Lord. Then fire came forth from the presence of the Lord, and slew them. This was to teach the absolute holiness of the Lord: everything must be perfect. Then, remarkably, in chapter 16, God tells Moses that even though Aaron is the High Priest, he must not go freely whenever he wishes into the sanctuary beyond the veil. He must do it only once a year, with the proper ritual, on the day of Atonement.

Again, a powerful lesson in reverence - a contrast with the careless attitude of some towards the Holy Eucharist, immeasurably greater than the mere veil.

The whole book of Leviticus is really concerned with making everything perfect for the Lord. This applies even to the rules of Levitical cleanness, which seem so strange to us, in chapters 11- 15. The rules about unclean animals which were not to be eaten may reflect some ideas of care for health. One item prohibited was pork, and we know that if proper care is not taken, there is danger of trichinosis.

The most remarkable commands in the book are in chapter 4, which, deals with the concept of sheggagah, involuntary sin. Today people are apt to say: If a person acts in good faith, that is all right, do not bother. But Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, takes a different attitude.

Chapter 4 deals with several types of cases in which someone - the priest, the whole community, the prince, a private person - violated a command of God without realizing at the time that he was doing it. When he finds out, reparation must he made by offering a sacrifice of the prescribed type. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary at this point (p. 64) comments well that any sin - whether voluntary or not - is a violation of the covenant relationship. Hence the wrong had to be righted. It was the Holiness of God who loves all that is right in itself that willed this. A text of Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar (from c. 170 A.D., but citing Rabbi Meir, early in the same century, in Tosefta Kiddushin 1:14) says: "He [anyone] has committed a transgression. Woe to him! He has tipped the scale to the side of debt for himself and for the world." The Holiness of God wants this scales rebalanced. A sinner can begin to rebalance by giving back stolen goods, or by giving up a pleasure he could have had, to replace a stolen pleasure. But only a divine Person incarnate could fully rebalance the scale for even one mortal sin. The Father was not obliged to provide this, but He willed to do so. (The concept that sin is a debt is common in the Old Testament, intertestamental literature, in the New Testament - the Our Father - and in Rabbinic and Patristic literature. Pope Paul VI, in his Constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina,of Jan 9, 1967, explicitly taught this need of rebalance. Cf. our comments on debt in chapter 5).

For a sin committed be yad ramah,with a high hand, the Old Testament provided no atoning sacrifice: cf. Numbers 15:30. We think too of the Epistle to the Hebrews 10:4: "It is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take sins away."

It is interesting to review a few instances of the concern for sheggagah.

Genesis 12:17 reports that God struck Pharaoh and his household with severe blows because, in good faith, he had Abram's wife Sarai. Tobit's wife had been given a gift of a goat by her employer, but Tobit (2:13) insisted she give it back, since he merely suspected it was stolen. Psalm 19:12-13 says: "Even though your servant is very careful in keeping them [the commandments], yet: Who can detect his unknown transgressions [shegioth]? Purify me from my unknown faults."

In the intertestamental literature, the Testament of Levi (3:5) speaks of the archangels, "who minister and make propitiation... for the ignorant sins of the righteous." The Psalms of Solomon (3:8-9) says the just man constantly searches his house "to completely remove all iniquity he has done in error. He makes atonement for ignorance by fasting and by afflicting his soul."

Our Lord Himself in Luke 12:47-48 says: "The slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready to fulfill it will get a severe beating. But the one who did not know it but did things [objectively] deserving blows will get off with fewer blows." In the picture of the last judgment in Matthew 15:44, those on the left plead ignorance - their plea is rejected. In 1 Cor 15:9 St. Paul calls himself the least of the apostles for persecuting the Church - which he did in ignorance, thinking he was zealous for God. In 1 Cor 4:4 Paul says: "I have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent." He means he may have committed sins without realizing it.

Patristic literature has many instances. Pope St. Clement I, in his Epistle to Corinth 2:3 "You stretched out your hands to the almighty God, begging Him to be propitious, in case you had sinned at all unwillingly." Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 6:6) says if one repents, God will forgive sins of ignorance. The Eastern Rite Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has a prayer before the Epistle: "Forgive us every offense, both voluntary and involuntary."

Numbers

Numbers takes up again the narrative of Exodus, with some additional laws interspersed, usually in some relation to the matter of the narrative. At the end of the book, the Israelites are opposite Jericho.

Miriam and Aaron oppose the authority of Moses in chapter 12. They said it was not only through Moses that God spoke: He also spoke through them too (What a modern picture!). God rebuked them at the meeting tent. When He left, Miriam was a leper. Moses prayed for forgiveness; God ordered her to be confined outside the camp for seven days, and then she was cured.

In the next chapter, 13, spies are sent out to look over the land. After 40 days they returned, and said the land indeed flowed with milk and honey, but the people were giants, and the cities strongly fortified. The people believed the report, and wanted to return to Egypt. Moses and Aaron fell prostrate in prayer. Joshua and Caleb, who had been among the scouts, told the truth about the land. God gave the others a punishment: Only Joshua and Caleb would be allowed to enter the land. The rest must turn back to the desert, and remain 40 years until all would have died off, except Joshua and Caleb.

Another revolt, in chapter 16, was led by Korah, joined by Dathan and Abiron. Moses challenged them to a test: they were to take their censers to offer incense; Aaron would do the same. Then he called on God to make known His will. The earth opened and swallowed up Korah and the men who belonged to him. Then fire came forth and killed 250 who were part of the revolt.

With incredible hardness, the next morning the people murmured that Moss had killed the people of the Lord!. So God sent a plague that consumed 14,700 people. Aaron offered incense, and the plague stopped.

When they came to Kadesh (chapter 20), Miriam died. the people murmured again, for lack of water. Moses and Aaron at God's order assembled them before a rock. Moses struck the rock twice, and water came out. God told them because they were not faithful - perhaps a lack of faith in striking the rock twice, when once was enough - neither Moses nor Aaron would enter the promised land.

Moses sent a request to the King of Edom to allow them to pass through - Edom was descended from Esau, brother of Jacob. Edom refused, so the Israelites detoured. When they came to Mount Hor, Moses took away the priestly robes of Aaron and put them on his son Eleazar. Then Aaron died. Soon the people murmured again. God sent saraph serpents which bit them, so that they died. Moses prayed for help. God told him to make a bronze serpent and put it up on a pole. Anyone bitten who would look at the serpent would live.

This of course was a prefiguration of the cross, which brings salvation to all. Some have worried that the first commandment forbade making images - and here Moses made one, by order of God. But we must notice that the command was not against all images, but only forbade making images to worship. After some victories by the Israelites, Balak, King of Moab, sent for a pagan seer, Balaam, and offered him pay to curse the Israelites. God warned Balaam not to do so, and he refused the king's offer. The princes of Moab came a second time. God told Balaam he might go with them, but had to do what God ordered. Balaam's ass balked at going, and Balaam beat the ass. Then God opened the mouth of the ass, and the ass protested at the beating. Balaam said he would have killed the ass if he had had a sword. Then an angel appeared to Balaam, told him to go ahead, but speak only what God willed. So, Balaam blessed the Israelites. The King of Moab protested. Balaam then blessed Israel again. Balak again protested. But Balaam gave an oracle saying: "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter out of Israel. It will crush the brow of Moab and the skulls of the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be conquered, and Seir conquered... but Israel shall grow strong."

Even Targum Onkelos,which is sparing in seeing Messianic prophecies, along with the other Targums, sees that the star was a prediction of the Messiah.

Soon many Israelites worshipped Baal of Peor in Moab, and had illicit relations with the women there as part of the worship. God ordered them executed for this. Twenty-four thousand died.

Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy is in a way an in-between book, it is the conclusion to the Pentateuch, but it also looks forward to Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings. It does this by its insistence on rewards and punishment for keeping or violating the Law, and for its almost fervent pleas to keep the Law.

Deuteronomy uses the literary form of a series of speeches by Moses, when the Israelites are on the point of entering the promised land. It ends with the death of Moses. Some have foolishly said that therefore Moses could not have written it. But it is evident that if he did write Deuteronomy - we are not sure - another hand could have added that last bit, much like the case of the last chapter of the Gospel of John.

The name Deuteronomy comes from the Greek title, which means "second law". It is essentially a resume of the previous story of the Exodus and the desert years.

Second Kings 22-23 reports that in about 622 B.C. during the reign of Josiah King of Judah, a law book was discovered in the temple. When Josiah heard it, he said the Lord must be angry, for they were not fulfilling it. So he had it read in the temple before all, and renewed the covenant, and carried out a religious reform. Many think the book found was Deuteronomy, perhaps only the second address of Moses, which is 4:44 to 26:19. The same account is given also in 2 Chronicles 34-35. That version seems to say the reform began even before the finding of the book. But when we consider the genre of these works, such a difference is not significant. The great purpose of the books is to teach that fidelity to God brings reward, infidelity brings punishment. Many examples are given to bring out and underscore this theme.

Some think that when the northern kingdom fell with the fall of Samaria in 721, Levites fled south carrying deuteronomic traditions. Such a circle would have been present during the time of the good king Hezekiah (715- 687). Hezekiah made a reform anticipating that of Josiah. But then the evil king Manasseh went back to pagan practices and even persecuted those loyal to God: cf. 2 Kings 21. So the loyal went underground, and put their traditions into a book, the one found under Josiah. We should notice that when the Israelites were under Assyria, they would be required by Assyria to put the worship of Assyrian gods into Jerusalem.

In chapter 4, Moses strongly urges the people to keep the Law, for then the other nations will say: This is really a wise and intelligent people for having such a law. Psalm 119 is nothing but an extended praise of the law. Later Judaism highly praised wisdom, and even personified it, e.g., in Wisdom 9:9-18: "With thee is wisdom, who knows thy works, and who was present when thou didst make the world... Send her forth from the holy heavens... For she knows and understands all things... For the reasoning of mortals is worthless... for a perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthly tent burdens the thoughtful mind."

The idea that the law contains wisdom is wonderfully true. For God does not give His commands just to exercise authority: our obedience does Him no good. Yet He wants us to obey for two reasons: 1)His Holiness loves all that is right and good, and it is right and good that creatures obey their Creator; 2)He, being Generosity, loves to give us abundant good things. But His giving is all in vain if we are not open to receive. His commandments explain what is needed to be open to receive. They also steer us away from the evils we would encounter in the very nature of things if we did not obey. For example, after a drunk comes a headache; after much premarital sex, there is great danger of a loveless marriage. For to love is not a feeling - even though feelings tend to go along with it - rather it is to will good to another for the other's sake. To use another's body for sensory pleasure, thereby putting him/her into a state such that if death came, they would be miserable forever - this is not willing good, it is closer to the opposite. Hence St. Augustine wrote well, in Confessions 1. 2: "Every disordered soul is its own punishment."

The Shema is found in Dt. 6:4-5: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength." Every Israelite would recite this daily. As we learned from the Hittite treaties, to love God meant to obey Him.

The most dominant feature of Deuteronomic theology appears strongly in 4:24-27. Moses tells them that if after they have entered the land they make and worship an idol: "I call to witness against you heaven and earth, that you will quickly perish utterly from the land... The Lord will scatter you among the peoples and you will be left few in number." Dt. 29:21-27 repeats the threat in even more dramatic form: The Lord will make the land sulphur and salt. "And the nations will ask: Why did the Lord do this to this land?... And the answer will be: Because they forsook the covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt." Later, in 1 Kings 9, when Solomon had completed the great temple, God appeared to him and said He would put his eyes and heart there for all time. But He added that if Solomon or his children would turn and not keep the commandments, then: "I will cut off Israel from the land I gave them and will cast out of my sight the temple which I have consecrated to my name. Israel will become a proverb among all peoples... They will say: Why did the Lord do in this way to this land and to this house? Then they will say: Because they forsook the Lord their God who brought their fathers up out of the land of Egypt."

The same sad and frightening threat appears again in almost the same words in Jeremiah 22:4-9. Finally Our Lord Himself wept over Jerusalem (Lk 19:41- 44): "And approaching it, and seeing the city, He wept over it saying: "If you yourself had known in this day the things that are for your well-being. But now, they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you and your enemies will surround you with a palisade and will straiten you on every side and will cast you down to the ground, you and your children in you, and will not leave a stone upon a stone, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

Some foolish commentators, convinced there can be nothing supernatural, no such a thing as a real prophecy, say this prophecy of our Lord is so clear, it must have been made up after the event. They forget that in any ancient siege this is the normal thing: an army surrounds the city until it no longer can hold out. Compare also the sad implications of the images of the two olive trees in the Epistle to the Romans, 11: 17-18.

In Dt. 5:2-3 Moses told them that God made the covenant not just with their fathers, but was making it with them that day. Since the covenant is a two- sided pact, this is clear: God wanted them to ratify the same covenant He had once made with their ancestors (cf. Ex. 19:5).

In Dt. 5:9-10 we meet the mysterious promise of God to punish the iniquity of the fathers down to the third or fourth generation, but to bless the good for a thousand generations. How does this fit with the later words of God to Jeremiah, in 31:29-30, saying that they must reject the proverb: the Fathers ate sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge. Rather, each one will suffer only for his own iniquity?

There is no problem with the favorable side, blessings for a thousand generations. But as to the punishment for three or four generations, even though God does not positively inflict it upon children for the sins of their parents, according to His words to Jeremiah, yet the effect is apt to happen in other ways. First, children brought up by wicked parents are apt to learn the bad ways of the parents. Also because a predisposition to sin, even to crime, can be transmitted by biochemical inheritance. We see this from a remarkable report in Science News (August 20-1983, pp. 122- 25) telling how a chemist from Argonne Laboratories went to Stateville Prison, in Illinois, took hair samples from violent criminals, found a remarkable correlation between highs and lows of some trace elements and violent behavior. (Cf. a similar report in Science News of Nov. 10, 1990, p. 293, on data from Archives of General Psychiatry of November, 1990).

Some are shocked at the severity of the ban (Hebrew herem), a theme found in many places, e.g. in Dt. 7:1-5, where God ordered them to destroy the nations in the land of Canaan, without mercy. Two things are to be noticed. First, God wants them to be free of the temptation - which later experience showed was fatal - of joining in the idolatrous worship of those nations. Second, God is the supreme Lord of life. If He wills to end the lives of any persons, that is His right. And we recall that in Genesis 15:16 God promised to give them the land, but not until after the fourth time-span (Hebrew dor,which can mean either generation or period of time). He said He would wait, because the sins of the Amorites had not yet reached their fullness. For even one mortal sin, a person merits death. If his sins reach their fullness, go the limit, this is all the more fully true. As to the deaths of children: life is a moment to moment gift from God. If He just stops giving, or uses a human instrument to end it, there is nothing wrong.

Finally, there is the dramatic account in chapter 34 of the death of Moses at the age of 120. He went up Mt. Nebo and saw the promised land, but God had told him because of an infidelity (Numbers 20:11-12) he would not be permitted to enter it. So by command of God Moses died there.

Copied from EWTN with permission.
HTMLized by Luke Wadel, Aedificatio: On the Basis and Beauty of Catholic Belief.