Genesis

I am enjoying the reading thus far.  Though the assignment doesn’t really call to examine the footnotes, I’m finding the process slow going, because I can’t look away.  Robert Alter’s notes are interesting to say the least, and they really serve to complement the familiar, yet foreign, text.  I am having a difficult time approaching the text as literature, and I’m sure it is something I will struggle with throughout the class.  Go figure, a history major can’t stop looking at ancient texts through a historical context looking glass.

Starting out, I wasn’t sure if the reading of this text was more or less difficult than other versions of Genesis that I’m familiar with.   Many of them are based off of the King James Version, and I always found some sort of poetic, yet archaic, language in it.  This brings that to a new level.  In the To the Reader section, Alter mentions that he is attempting to stay truer to the original Hebrew.  Granted, it is still an interpretation, by staying truer, he is trying to convey an idea of the original poetry while paying attention to the nuances of the original language.  Throughout the text, his footnotes contain his best idea at what subtle differences in words mean, thereby creating a different language than what we’re used to; different words than what we’re used to.  To give just one example, look no further than the first page (page 3).  He chose the words “welter and waste” to describe the world because he believes the original Hebrew literature was meant to rhyme, so he did his best to show us with alliteration.

As I began reading through, I kept an eye out for similarities with Gilgamesh.  In Gilgamesh, the character Enkidu was torn from nature and purity when he was seduced by the prostitute, Shamhat.  Though he may have been civilized through that act, he lost his connection to nature and even some of his power.  In Genesis, it is well known that Adam and Eve lost their innocence and home in the garden when they tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  The footnote of line 15 in chapter 3 helped me make a stronger connection than I originally knew existed.  Yes, I made a comparison of the fruit and Shamhat both leading to a loss of purity, but there is also that relationship with the wild that we lost, not unlike Enkidu.  “It is the first moment in which a split between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is recorded” (13).

Something that has always interested me is the Nephilim, which are first mentioned on page 27.  These are the offspring of celestial beings (angels) and humans, and are “heroes of yore, the men of renown”.  They are often described as giants, and I can’t help but make comparisons to other stories and discoveries.  Gilgamesh was two-thirds god, and a giant of a man.  This could actually be extended to Greek myth as well, what with Achilles having a deified bloodline and towering above his comrades.  Both are men of renown.  What’s more, the book of Enoch and Giants (not included in our typical canon, but found with the Dead Sea Scrolls) include what appears to be the name Gilgamesh, which raises more questions.  For now, this will just serve as a side note of something I find interesting.  There are, however, writings by Herodotus that suggest Orestes and Ajax (relevant to Homer’s works) may have been something of giants themselves.  I digress.

It is easy to see many of the similarities of Genesis and Gilgamesh: the ark, the flood, the offering at the end.  There are many dissimilarities in these as well.  One of the main ideas in Gilgamesh was that civilization and structures were things of beauty.  Every time something like this happens in the Bible, God knocks us down a peg.  Something like the tower of Babel would have been an amazing feat, but the narrator seems to push against urbanization.  Alter briefly goes over this in a note at the top of page 47.

This has been a great read thus far, but it seems much of my efforts have been in reporting, so for now I will finish the reading and return to put more of my thoughts here later.

My first question revolves around importance and consistency.  After reading some notes, it seems there is no etymology given for the name Abel.  Does this mean that the greatest purpose of including him in the Bible was that Cain ended him?  Aside from that, there is the inconsistency of Cain, worrying about running into others.  Is it acceptable that we just glean over the fact that knowledge of other humans beyond the “founding family” basically ruins the idea of a founding family?  It seems rather important.

Assuming that many have read this text before, based off of your previous readings, was this more difficult to get through, or easier? Why?  Did you find this translation more interesting, and how much time did you actually take to read Alter’s notes?

What do you think the importance is with all the deception in stories involving children and siblings?  Look for examples in Cain/Abel, Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau, Joseph/other Brothers