Due Feb 9
Biblical epic 1
Reading: Genesis 12-35—Abraham of Ur vs. Gilgamesh of Uruk; Abraham’s progeny: Ishmael & Isaac, Esau & Jacob (Blackboard: HebrewScripture2.pdf)
Writing: Respond to ONE of the following prompts. Keep your response short, posting as a reply under the appropriate heading in the comments section:
- Oddities: quote a line or cite a plot event that strikes you as strange and offer a comment or insight about it.
- Abraham and Gilgamesh come from the same region of Ancient Sumer, but these two heroes seemingly couldn’t be more different. Highlight a difference that strikes you as culturally significant in distinguishing the ancient Hebrews from the other peoples of Mesopotamia. Or highlight an unexpected similarity, if you spot one.
- Assuming that Abraham exemplifies “Biblical heroism” (as per question 1), do his descendants Isaac and Jacob show the same qualities or different ones? Focus on a particular incident or detail.
- In this section of Genesis we follow the line that will produce the nation of Israel, from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob. But both Isaac and Jacob have older brothers—Ishmael and Esau. How does the narrative present these other children? In answering, point to a specific moment or phrase.
Oddities
⤹Click the reply button just below.
An event that strikes me as strange is that as I read along the scripture, I realize that predominantly the women conceiving are giving birth to sons, and only once throughout the scripture is a daughter being born mentioned. In the scripture during chapter 30, we are aware of the constant battle between Rachel and Leah over who gives Jacob sons. This is where it states, “And afterward she bore a daughter, and she called her name Dinah” (Genesis 12-35 12). I find this very interesting and strange because I find it so surprising that even the slavegirls can give their husbands sons, and what shocked me most was when Rachel struggled to give Jacob a child. Finally, when she does, it happens to be a boy. This leads me to believe it was common to have a boy during this time, and I find it odd that there were so many sons being born and conceived around the same time.
I agree, but I also think that sons have a different meaning in the story that explains their relevance: the birth of a son means the continuation of a lineage. God tells Abram, “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you through their generations as an everlasting covenant to be God to you and to your seed after you” (Genesis 17:9). In other words, God makes an agreement with Abram that will last throughout his descendants. For this to happen, though, Abram needs to have a son, who has a son, who has a son, and so on. This was a patriarchal-centered society in which men were seen as the legal carriers of inheritance and lineage. Even though daughters did have the same blood as their fathers, they weren’t seen as having the same duty because they would marry into another family and continue another lineage instead. Although maybe not as much as boys, girls were still born. It’s just that daughters weren’t centered on to the extent that sons were because of their role in society at the time.
“Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ ” (Genesis 22:2) This quote displays an odd moment, this is because at this part, God is asking Abraham which is Isaac father to kill him. This strikes me because Isaac is the child that God promised Abraham to give him and Sarah, this makes it so shocking and ironic. This perhaps illustrates how faith is being obedient and loyal to God, it is about trust not his logical reasoning. Abraham is never told why God chose Isaac but his obedience shows total dependence on God even when the request sounds wrong and impossible. Further, God’s stopping the acts shows how he does not want human sacrifice but he is testing the devotion.
A very odd happening occurs when men who I assume are God’s messengers arrive at Lot’s house, and the angry men of Sodom demand he hand the messengers over to them. It is unclear what the mob means to do to the messengers, but it is clear that there is a threat of violence. Subsequently Lot says to them, ‘“Please, my brothers, do no harm. Look, I have two daughters who have known no man. Let me bring them out to you and do to them whatever you want. Only to these men do nothing, for have they not come under the shadow of my roof-beam?”’ (Genesis 19:7). This struck me as incredibly odd, that Lot would offer up his two presumably very young virgin daughters to essentially be raped and abused by the mob. This makes it clear that in the ancient Canaanite culture, women were clearly totally the property of their fathers and husbands, and that this is an extremely patriarchal society. However, even taking that fact into account, this is still a very strange happening, as daughters would still have some degree of value for their ability to be married off. Therefore it shows a degree of devotion in Lot to the Lord, for him to be so concerned about preserving the Lord’s men that he would sacrifice his daughters in order to do so.
Abraham contrasted with Gilgamesh
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A big difference between Gilgamesh and Abraham is their attitude towards God. Gilgamesh is all ways trying to become one himself whilst Abraham is complacent in his place as a mortal, albeit he is promised his descendants will be as numerous as the stars. He looks to serve his God, not become one. For example he is told to sacrifice Isaac and instead of protesting he simply “rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey and took his two lads with him” (Genesis 22:3) fully prepared to follow Gods word and kill his own son. I think this shows different culture values between the Hebrews and other Mesopotamians. I think the Hebrews valued order and following their leaders whilst the others, including those in Uruk, valued personal freedom and ambition.
While I agree with your assessment of the differing natures of Abraham’s and Gilgamesh’s relationship with divinity: obedience vs constant defiance, I think that they both value immortality. For Gilgamesh, this is exemplified in his battle with Humbaba, the slaying of the Bull of Heaven, and his journey under the mountain. These acts were all done in an attempt to level himself with the gods and achieve immortality, no matter the consequences. Abraham, on the other hand, did everything he could to achieve his promised immortality through his bloodline by blindly following God. Every instruction he received from him, he took in stride and with full faith, “God will see to the sheep for the offering, my son” (Genesis 22). He was willing to kill his son, no matter the consequences. Both Gilgamesh’s and Abraham’s actions are indicative of their insatiable desire for immortality.
A difference between Gilgamesh and Abraham that strikes me as culturally significant in distinguishing ancient Hebrews from the other peoples of Mesopotamia is the difference in their societal status. Abraham is a common man, a shepherd, while Gilgamesh is an almost god-like figure in power and strength, showcasing how ancient Hebrews prioritized moral duty and common values over glory or power. Additionally, Gilgamesh seeks to escape death, become godlike, or preserve his legacy through brave acts, while Abraham seeks to preserve his legacy through his family, the spread of his seed. This idea further emphasizes how ancient Hebrews didn’t prioritize power in the same way that the Sumerians did. That being said, this does also pose a similarity, as they both do possess the want to preserve their own legacy in some way, exemplifying both societies desire to remain unforgotten.
Isaac or Jacob contrasted with Abraham
⤹Click the reply button just below.
As a first time reader, I notice Abraham’s righteous and devoted character. The first thing you can tell right away is he is very obedient and faithful to the lord, to the point where he is willing to sacrifice his own son, Isaac under the lord’s order. Ironically, I think Isaac is similar to him in this way as Isaac is also portrayed as a very devoted man to god. To add on to Abraham’s charcater, we can also depict from the way he offers to let his Nephew, lot choose the side of land he wants first that he is a very selfless man and put others he cares about ahead of himself. More distinctively though his character of being a peacemaker for the people was shown when he spoke up against god to defend the innocent people of Sodom when he says “Far be it from You to do such a thing, to put to death the innocent with the guilty, making innocent and guilty the same. Far be it from You! Will not the Judge of all the earth do justice?” to stop the destruction of Sodom. On the other hand, our first understanding of Jacob isn’t very positive as he first decieves his father, Isaac, through abusing the fact that Isaac is blind and pretends to be his older brother in order to recieve his blessing. To me this establishes his character early as being mischievous and deceitful, which contrasts heavily from the righteous charcater of Abraham.
What to Make of Ishmael and Esau?
⤹Click the reply button just below.