Parashat Noach
A Flood and a Tower. These are the two central narratives within this week's parashah. Noach is rich with lessons for our day, connections to other biblical events, and full of historical allusions within the greater ancient Near East.
The most central narrative within the parashah is of course the account of the flood, of Noah and his family, and the salvation of all living creatures through the building of an ark (a wood vessel). This story alone is so rich with details - but due to time - that post will have to wait until next year. Rather, what I would like to do is just quickly touch on a few interesting points.
The Ark
The ark that Noach builds is called in Hebrew a Tevah (תבה). This word only appears in two places in the entire Torah. Where is the other place? In Exodus. The only other time the word Tevah is used is in reference to the reed "basket" Moshe is placed in by his mother and hidden in the river, only to be later discovered by Pharaoh's daughter.
This was intentional. The use of the word Tevah is meant to connect these two stories. So what are the connections between the two narratives? Both of these are mysterious "vessels." They are literally boxes. When you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Torah, it is not a typical ship. It is a box. They are both covered with pitch. Both are also "divinely directed." Meaning, neither of them are guided by human means. The ark has no ors, or any type of steering mechanism. The reed basket Moshe is placed in is also divinely directed, left to the current of the river.
Both figures emerge from their respective Tevah to become a type of redeeming figure - a savior of humanity. And both are recognized for their obedience and faith to HaShem. The Torah wants to make clear that Noach is a redeeming figure similar to Moshe. The use of these connections also ties the whole narrative (and all the intermediate narratives) together.
I have not event touched on the connection of the Biblical flood account to other flood accounts known throughout the world, let alone the Ancient Near Eastern flood account of Utnapishtim.
The Tower of Bavel
The other narrative central to this week's parashah is the Tower of Bavel. According to the Torah, a great "tower" was built in the plain of Shinar, intended to reach up into the heavens. G-d destroyed the tower and scattered the people across the earth, and confused their languages because of their intentions.
The reference to Shinar is believed by scholars to be ancient Sumer (one of the earliest great civilizations), and more broadly to Mesopotamia as a whole. Interestingly, the tower is called Bavel, most likely a reference to the Mesopotamian city with the same name - Bavel (Babylon).
According to the Biblical account, the purpose for building the Tower was to reach the heavens so they could make a name for themselves (Gen. 11:4). Scholars have long connected this story with the great Mesopotamian temples, known as Ziggurats – which were massive stepped pyramid structures. Ziggurats were places where priests offered prayers, offerings, and sacrifices to the Mesopotamian pantheon of gods.
Another interesting possible connection is that the great ziggurat in Babylon was called "E-sag-ila," meaning, "the head that reaches the gods." The same concept behind the biblical account. Maybe this is further insight into the reason G-d destroyed the Tower of Bavel???
So, what are we to make of all this?
The Scriptures contain a wealth of historical allusions and references. It is fascinating just how many there really are when you are familiar with ancient Near Eastern civilizations. But these narratives were included for particular reasons - theological reasons. They were meant to demonstrate to their ancient listeners (our ancestors) that the G-d of Israel was in fact the G-d of the flood account, which was known throughout the world. And the narrative of the Tower of Bavel is meant to demonstrate that the G-d of Israel is greater then the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, and was meant to explain the reason for various people and languages spread throughout the world.
May we, like Noach, learn to hear from HaShem. May we also be bold enough, like Noach, to act on whatever G-d asks of us. HaShem may not ask us all to build an ark, but sometimes G-d asks of us tasks that are often just as difficult in faith and action. The lesson of this parashah is that difficult faith is rewarded, and that the same all powerful G-d is also active in the world around us today to help us through life's most difficult trials.
Chodesh Tov and Shabbat Shalom!
Joshua,
You addressed the similarities you find between Noah and Moses. I'd like to address the differences our Sages of blessed memory found.
Noah is introduced to us as an "ish tzadik" or a righteous man. He did what G-d told Him to do. He built the ark, and then He got into it with his own family. When he got out, his defining choice was to get drunk, and then to curse his own son. He did not plead with G-d for mercy on behalf of his cohort, the rest of humanity. And so, in the end, he was branded "ish ha'adama", a man of earthliness, rather than spirituality and righteousness, and his death was announced without the fanfare of Moses'.
Moses, on the other hand, grew spiritually. He was introduced to us as "ish mitzri", an Egyptian, and by the time he died, the Torah was calling him an "ish ha'elokim", a man of G-d. What a directional difference! What explains the dichotomy? Our sages point out that Moses didn't decrease in His commitment to serving G-d over his own personal desires, but increased. And when G-d was ready to eliminate Moses' cohort, Moses intervened with G-d on their behalf. Noah cared about himself and his family (before he really went downhill), Moses cared about G-d's creations generally.
According to the "new testament", Jesus didn't really lead the Jews at all; he just claimed to be their king. And of course he prayed...to himself...that the Jews be spared for not coronating and even worshiping him. But here we have a former student of Israel's most righteous rabbis throwing off the yoke of Torah and raising disciples who publicly transgress the sabbath. To whatever extent the sages rated Noah as a failure relative to Moses, Jesus, if he existed, was a far greater failure than Noah ever could have been said to be.
Anonymous,
Obviously there is only so much I can write in a short blog post.
I would however like to briefly respond to three of your simplistic and dismissing claims:
1) "Jesus didn't really lead the Jews at all ... "
Even some of the greatest minds of our times (both Jewish and non-Jewish) have noted the great contributions the life and work of Yeshua have given humanity. You do not have to have faith in his messiahship to recognize his contributions. For a guy who "did nothing" aside from the tremendous theological works, he raised up 12 Jews who turned the world upside down, introduced the nations to a concept of Mashiach and the G-d of Israel.
2) "A former student of Israel's most righteous rabbis throwing off the yoke of Torah and raising disciples who publicly transgress the sabbath."
This claim has no support within the NT itself nor scholarship. Rather, Yeshua upheld Torah, taught others to do so ("Don't think that I have come to do away with Torah ..." Math. 5:17-19, etc.), was raised in a devout family, and continued to live halichically his whole life. For more on this see the great scholarly works of Geza Vermes, Amy-Jill Levine, James Charlesworth, etc.
Additionally, all the followers of Yeshua for the first few hundred years following his death and resurrection were devout Jews who continued to live Jewish lives, offer sacrifices in the Temple, and worship in synagogues. What later became known as "the Church" - a separate Gentile entity from Judaism took several hundred years to complete (see Daniel Boyarin's "Borderlines"). This is confirmed by the NT itself. For example this passage from Acts 21:20: "See how many tens of thousands of believers there are among the Judeans, and they are all zealous for the Toah."
All the textual evidence and scholarship points to the exact opposite of your claim.
3) "Jesus, if he existed ... "
Let's be clear. Although I believe with certainty in their existence, there is no direct evidence outside the Biblical text for the Patriarchs, Moshe, or a number of other Biblical figures. We have indirect archaeological and historical support, but no direct evidence they existed.
Whereas, we have more evidence for the existence of a "historical Jesus" than any other biblical figure. He is cited by Roman historians, Jewish sources, and we just may even have his brother's ossuary with Yeshua being mentioned (see the recent article in JPOST - http://xrl.us/JPOST).
Anonymous - It is possible to not have faith in the Messiahship of Yeshua. Fine. But to deny his existence, historical import, or details of his life just points to your own ignorance and weakens your credibility.
It is one thing to argue on a theological level against the claims of Yeshua or his followers. But you really do not have a leg to stand on regarding your other claims. For there are even passages in the Gemara that support his existence, etc.
Unless, of course you are now also calling into question the existence of the Gemara???
Joshua,
I'd like to apologize for whatever I've written that prompted you to categorize my remarks as simplistic, dismissive, ignorant and damaging to my own credibility. That was not my aim.
If it's true that Jesus seduced a dozen followers into worshiping him, that would actually not translate into his having reigned over the Jewish people. What is evident from the "new testament" accounts of Jesus leading forbidden sabbath travel expeditions during which his followers transgressed additional prohibitions of the Law by harvesting snacks along the way is that he held the Mosaic Law in contempt, even as he spoke out of the other side of his mouth an insistence that other people should obey it. That's just one more contradiction in the Christian bible. We've corresponded about some of the others already.
I want to clarify that we cannot rule out that Jesus actually existed. I simply stated that the evidence supporting his existence is too weak to be relied upon. That contrasts starkly with the evidence that Moses existed, because every Jewish family today has it from their forebears directly back to Sinai that they saw the man. There is no parallel to that level of evidence in the Christian world for Jesus. And, having established that Moses certainly did exist, and was literally conversational with G-d, we also have basis for believing that Abraham and others who predated Moses but were included in Moses' reports from G-d at Sinai actually existed. But for Jesus, we only have Paul's word, decades after the supposedly life altering events transpired without any contemporary historians, who were at that time actively documenting matters of great and trivial import, didn't make a peep about Jesus. The evidence, the basis for believing, is quite different between the two religions.