Last time, in class, we read very carefully creation stories in Genesis. There are two different stories which have different language and narrative. In terms of creation story, I always had trouble to figure out whether the creation in the Bible is true, if so how it can be two different stories, how can be explained. Especially, it was hard to explain to church members. Do we believe this creation as a fact? Also, many Christians have made an argument between creationism and Darwinism. However, I think they are comparing religion to science. Coogan also points out that ever since the Bible came to be considered authoritative, the account of creation in six days has often been taken as a scientifically accurate account of the beginning of our universe, but they were writing a religious rather than a scientific text. (Coogan, 31) In the class, we found one interesting point in the first account of creation. In the first day, there is light but the sun was made in third day.

Also, I support the idea that Coogan brings up in his book that the purpose of the second account of creation is to answer some perennial human questions: why are humans afraid of snakes? Why do they wear clothing? Why are the sexes attracted to each other? Why is life so difficult and childbirth so painful? Why do we have to die?

From this regarding, I could read this creation stories that can still happens today. I believe that creation is not finished unless we ask what it means to be.

The theory that Israel’s origin lies in a socio-economic revolution has been gained attentions. By Mendenhall and Gottwald claims of this theory prefers to see the Israelite combatants as mainly indigenous Canaanite peasants who had recently converted to worship of Yahweh and had withdrawn from Canaanite society. Mendenhall supposes the revolution triggered by the covenant made at Sinai between Yahweh and a small group, a “mixed multitude,” who had escaped from bondage in Egypt. The term of covenant between Yahweh and the newly-formed community were such that they created “a solidarity of loyalty which was attractive to all persons suffering under the burden of subjugation to a monopoly of power which they had no part in creating” (“Hebrew conquest” 74)

However, it is hard to find supporting sources and narrative in the bible. Mendenhall also mentions that the biblical tradition give no hint of migration during this period from any other sources than Egypt.

I, as a person who like “Minjung theology”, which is liberation theology in Korea in which “Minjung” is a group of oppressed and lower class people, was fascinated by this theory. But I think it still needs to be evaluated in some part. I think the theory of revolting peasants is a valuable frame work to see the settlement of Israel but needs to be examined in terms of its relationship to the biblical traditions.

 I think this is very familiar story. From my experience, it is used to stress that if you pray very hard, God will listen to your prayer and answer you. But I think this is not all about the story. Through this narrative, I could read the family system and ideology at the time, of course. Also, what I interested in is that childbearing is more important for woman than for man in this story. Interestingly, it is not directly forced for Hannah to have a child, but the narrator said that she wept because the Lord had closed her womb. Even though her husband loved Hannah more than Peninnah, for Hannah, childbearing is crucial role and honor rather than having more portions.

Thus, I am not that comfortable with the story because for me, it seems to support the system which I think should be changed. However, as I look other comments on this story, I have shifted my perspective. Coogan indicate that although, it is clear that Hannah shares the larger society’s values of a woman’s validation through childbearing, especially of a male, within the roles that Israelite society assigned to women she is very much an independent actor. (Coogan, 200) Also, Women in Scripture acknowledges that she proves herself independent and resourceful, never abandoning her goals or demeaning others as a means to achieve them. She demonstrates women’s activity in family ritual practice. She discloses social responsibility by making a vow that is upheld by her husband.(91)

(Interestingly, my previous writing is about that childbearing was a punishment for women, but today it is important way to have honor. In any case, I could find the value of biblical interpretation.)

As you may know, the book of Joshua is written by the Deuteronomistic historian. It has a particular narrative to show their theology or belief which is called as etiological narrative. Etiological narrative is short narratives that explain by means of the narrative itself the origins of religious rituals, and other aspects of ancient Israelites life. (Coogan, 163) One of the etiological legends is associated with Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho who had sheltered the spies. According to Joshua chapter 2 and 6, we can read that family who belongs to Rahab was spared since Rahab hid messengers. And the book said that “she lived in Israel to this day”. Coogan asserts that “probably originating as an answer to the question of how a Canaanite group became part of Israel, this note is remarkable”. Also, he points out that even though this narrative is incorporated into the book of Joshua, it is more likely that he as originally only a local hero.

Besides, I would like to talk about reading Rahab who live in the context. She has significant role in the narrative. She is drawn as a model believer though she is a Canaanite. From her narration, we can assume that she already heard the reputation and rumor about Joshua and his people so she believe that Canaanite would be destroyed by those people.

In fact, I feel uncomfortable with this story. Because she is an indigenous woman and spies and people with Joshua is somehow colonizer. As a person who have experienced postcolonial situation directly and indirectly, I can understand how she felt and why she did that. She might be very afraid about being attacked by strong people I her view. She could resist the people but she helped them so that she can be advantaged by them. Reading Rahab itself challenges me to think about whether I support the colonizer or oppose, or mixed. Also, this story encourages me to think about what I have to do in my actual life in postcolonial world. I would like to keep developing this idea in further study.

Genesis 3 is well known for the story of “fall of human being”. Especially, I would like to talk about Eve. Christian theology has played an important role in supporting and perpetuating sexism. This story of Eve also has supported the idea that women are naturally in subordinate status.

While I am doing my exegetical paper on Eve’s curse, I found that I unconsciously accept the idea in my mind that Eve was cursed. But what was Eve’s curse? I would simply say that there is no curse on Eve. According to the Genesis 3, the word ‘being-cursed (‘rwr) appears two times; one was given to serpent and the other is to ground. Then what Eve was told can be interpreted as punishment by disobedience, not a curse.

People usually understand and believe that there are two curses (?) on the first woman, Eve — as well as on all women– childbearing and male domination. God told Eve that “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing’ in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”. This verse should be interpreted in the context of Ancient Israel and the in literary account. Briefly, I would like to point out some ideas that I was interested. One is what the text said, “Increase pangs”. Increase than what? How could you explain it? When God said that, it presumed that the woman has already experience of pain in childbearing. Another point is that interpretation of the word ‘desire’. Many scholars argue that the word ‘desire’ would rather interpreted ‘desirable’ meaning she is attractive to your man, yet he can rule over you. Thus, this is warning woman due to her powerful allure.

Eve representing all the women should be understood in different way. By doing this theological thinking we can free her and all the women from given curse. I would like to develop these ideas in my paper.

  There are controversial interpretations about the servant of Yahweh in Isaiah. Bernhard Duhm segregated four passages as servant songs: 1) Isaiah 42.1-4, 2) 49.1-6 3) 50.4-11, and 4) 52.13-53.12. (Coogan, Brief introduction to the Old Testament, 334) He hypothesized that these songs had been composed by another author and added to Second Isaiah at a later stage. Coogan argues that the identification is interpreted by two critical approaches. One is that the servant is an individual, and the other is the servant as a kind of literary figure, a personification of the nation of Israel. He also finalized that “the variety of possible interpretations makes clear that there is no certain identification of the servant, and we should also allow for the possibility that the ambiguity is deliberate.” (Coogan, 335)

  In the discussion in class, we had a hard time getting the idea of which voice is whose. Also it was interesting to see the tense. All works to find new critical point of view made me fascinated. As Coogan states, I think one needs to read this notion of servant of Yahweh in various ways and we cannot underestimate the deliberated ambiguity. One thing which is clear to me is that servant of Yahweh is not automatically pointed as Jesus.

Googan states that scholars have characterized several passages in Jeremiah as “confessions” in 11.18-12.6, 15.10-21, 17.14-18, 18.18-23, and 20.7-18. He argues that “many scholars have viewed these passages as soliloquies that provide insight into the prophet’s psyche-his deep unhappiness with the message he was commissioned to deliver, his prayer for divine retribution on those who opposed and persecuted him, and his enduring commitment to the divine call although it was not something he had sought”.

Also, the New Interpreter’s bible mentions that Jeremiah’s laments provide a glimpse into the inner struggle of those figures who were called by God to an often demanding and terrible task. Through the vivid portraying inner anguish, it offers readers something of the cost of obedience to the prophetic calling.

This is why I am prone to identify myself with Jeremiah in some way. I will strongly keep proclaiming prophetic message, at the same time, I would struggle thinking whether I am going right way. Through his confession, I see myself and my struggle. Some people say that Jeremiah was the true prophet, and I think his confessions made him toward that.

In this process, I think it is important to read this text within the social religious context at the time when Gomer and Hosea lived. Also, it is crucial to apply to today and analyze from my point of view. I think this is what ideological critique does.

I am not comfortable when I read Hosea in the relationship with God/Israel and Hosea/Gomer. From my experience in Korea (maybe some has the same experience), general interpretation of Hosea is that God loves Israel though Israel kept betrayed God and God shows his love through the relationship between Hosea and Gomer who committed adultery and whom Hosea patiently love as God does. This was all about Hosea I was told. For me, showing God’s love in this way is more violent approach to understand God.

Gale A. Lee mentioned in the New Interpreter’s Bible that “it seems inconceivable to associate the passion that characterizes God’s love for Israel with what are euphemistically labeled crimes of passion. If one brackets the fact that Hosea 2 is about the God/Israel relationship, reading it as a story about a male/female relationship, the descriptions of male brutality come suspiciously close to real cases of domestic violence. We cannot simply reverse the images and see God as the faithful wife and Israel as the adulterous husband”

What I hear from Hosea is that a wife is just one of possessions of husband with that he can do anything he wants, any severe punishment and humiliation. That is the assumption that scripture tells us. However, I just want to finish this writing asking random questions; first, how come does she love another man regarding verse 5? (I can glimpse that it represents how Hosea treats Gomer and her children, what bring her to lovers?). Second, what if husband commit adultery, does it really matter as much as Hosea curses in this chapter? Is it acceptable to others to get angry and make punishment like Hosea?

Especially, as I was reading Job, the ambiguity of the last answer of Job in 42:1-6 stuck in my mind. Newsom introduces some ideas of these verses in the New Interpreter’s Bible. She introduces grammatical ambiguity in verse six in which almost every word is susceptible of more than one interpretation. (Newsom, NIB, 628)

According to her explanation, there are several possibilities with the words translated “despise” or “reject” (ma as) and the phrase translated “I repent of…” (wenihamti al) in NRSV. The word “ma as” normally requires an object, but none is present in verse six. Thus, it must be supplied by context. Also, the last phrase “wenihamti al” may be translated “I repent upon/on account of,” “I am consoled concerning,” “I have changed my mind concerning,” or “I forswear.” On top of that, the expression “dust and ashes” has different metaphorical meanings. It can be the meaning of human mortality, especially human condition as contrasted with divine being. Also, it can be the expression of where Job placed or the symbol of mourning.

Taking all the account of these possibilities, she suggests following way of translation:

1) Therefore I despise myself and repent upon dust and ashes (in humiliation)

2) Therefore I retract my words and repent of dust and ashes (the symbols of mourning)

3) Therefore I reject and forswear dust and ashes (symbol of mourning)

4) Therefore I retract my words and have changed my mind concerning dust and ashes (human condition)

5) Therefore I retract my words, and I am comforted

From this observation, I realize that one cannot simply translate this verse in the way of thinking that Job just acknowledged God’s power and repented what he had done. What is new for me is that there is possibility to see this last verse differently. It seems to me somehow Job declared that he would take his own way anyhow, or at least, he is not satisfied with the God’s answer but he accept it, because Job will never know with his knowledge and understanding.

I also agree with Newsom’s idea that Job is able to perceive a world in which the vulnerability of human existence, but in terms of creation within which the chaotic is restrained but never fully eliminated. Thus it is fitting that Job should speak of a change of mind and perhaps of consolation concerning the human condition. His final words signal his appropriation of the vision of reality and the nature of God disclosed in the divine speeches.(629)

I used to think that this book gives simple (?) lesson that God is much greater than human beings, and human beings cannot fully understand God’s plan and work. Now I can glimpse the value of this book, why this is called as wisdom literature. It is deeply related our daily real life and it should be continued to ask ourselves to seek what wisdom is. In this sense, I believe that the book of Job open the answer for human being to seek wisdom.