Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.17 AVERAGE
4.17 AVERAGE
This is a really evocative history of Yahweh, drawing on the Bible, NE texts, and later Christian and Western depictions of the Bible, using the lens of the body. Stavrakopolou focuses on different body parts in each section, moving back and forth between the different bodies of evidence. I think the kind of general thesis--Yahweh was originally a Near Eastern god who was part of a pantheon and had a body--is obvious enough, but as someone semi-familiar with biblical texts, I found Stavrakopolou's readings persuasive and interesting; she has a knack for illuminating familiar texts in different ways and finding the hidden archaicisms of the Bible that lie behind the redactional layers, like the text on the birth of Abel, which clearly says Yahweh was his father, but has been read in a different manner for centuries. Sometimes, the texts stray a bit too far away from the NE, and I think that's kind of a weakness; as you get into medieval and later christianity, it's not so clear the degree to which those texts are part of the same conversation. But overall, it was good, persuasive, and accessible.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
Overall, I don’t regret the time I spent reading this book but it’s best understood as a simple introduction to the subject. Asserts some things she never really proves. Many things that she is merely theorizing she chooses to state as uncontested fact.
Weird to me that she leans so hard into attempting to vocalize the Tetragrammaton - feels almost disrespectful to modern Jewish audiences who would never, as well as being only a best guess anyway. Would’ve been super easy to introduce Adonai terminology early on in the same way she introduces El.
Weird to me that she leans so hard into attempting to vocalize the Tetragrammaton - feels almost disrespectful to modern Jewish audiences who would never, as well as being only a best guess anyway. Would’ve been super easy to introduce Adonai terminology early on in the same way she introduces El.
challenging
dark
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
A fascinating read about God's body – the God of the Old Testament and Jewish/Christian's faith and how he became more abstract as religious ideas evolved. The God’s of the ancient world included El, Baal and Marduck who were related to God. God even had a wife and children! He was a God of violence and jealousy and VERY human. The author has structured the book according to body parts starting with the feet and provides stories, myths and historical sites to explain how these body parts evolved into the abstract God of the New Testament and today.
Whilst I liked this book and found it fascinating, and it shows how ridiculous fundamentalists are who believe the bible is the literal world of God! However, while very well-researched it was quite academic in its writing, and I think provided too much detail at times. But the closing statement really struck a core with me – we made God in OUR image!
Whilst I liked this book and found it fascinating, and it shows how ridiculous fundamentalists are who believe the bible is the literal world of God! However, while very well-researched it was quite academic in its writing, and I think provided too much detail at times. But the closing statement really struck a core with me – we made God in OUR image!
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
medium-paced
This was a great book in many ways, but a nagging issue, an overemphasis on one talking point, and what I believe is an incorrect interpretation of the Book of Job in the last chapter ultimately cost it a star. I’d rate this 3 1/2 if you let me be precise. (Since we can't do half stars, and the average rating is even higher on Yellow Satan than here, it got 3 stars there, and I reserve the right to downgrade the 4-star here.)
With that, let’s dig in.
It’s easy to forget that the God of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)/Christian Old Testament — who continues as God the Father for Trinitarian Christians in the New Testament — has a literal corporeal body. Fundamentalist versions of both Judaism and Christianity of course bury this deeply.
So, too, does “traditional” critical theology. Its Enlightenment basis is as willing to explain away this fact with words such as “allegory” and “anthropomorphizing.”
Wrong move, says Fransesca Stavrakopoulou in “God: An Anatomy.”
Yahweh (she seems to hint at, but doesn’t openly embrace, some version of the Midianite hypothesis) is just as embodied as Baal or Marduk. More importantly, he’s just as masculinely male, complete with penis. As part of this, she notes that “hand” as well as “foot” is often a biblical synonym for “penis,” as in other southwest Asian religious works. And Yahweh waves his penis. He wields it. He is procreative with it.
And — like Egypt’s Amen but unlike his Mesopotamian god counterparts — sometimes, Yahweh is a solo procreator. No Asherah or other female involved. Besides the Genesis 2-3 creation myth, Stavrakopoulou cites the story of Jeshurun from Deuteronomy, as well as passages from Job and Jeremiah. With Jeshurun being Israel, of course, Yahweh wasn’t literally seen as fathering each individual member of the nation. (OTOH, Dt. 32 reads more like an adoption and nurturing story than a birth story. Sidebar: Reading it with fresh eyes, it’s clearly a story written eons after Israel’s purported escape from Egypt.)
Beyond sexuality and creation, she also talks about Yahweh as an embodied war leader, soaked on blood, and often shown as arguably being addicted to violence. Again, she shows plenty of ANET parallels.
The nagging issue? Probably at least 80 percent of endnotes refer to Bible passages. FOOTnotes — using that word correctly — would have been MUCH more convenient. (In-line citations, common at least in US biblical criticism writings, would have been better yet.) In a certain number of cases, I was familiar with the verse, even in Stavrakopoulou’s translation. But, I couldn’t remember the exact Bible passage. Seriously, this came close to losing the book a star by itself.
And, occasionally, I didn’t totally trust her translation. And, that ties with her perhaps overemphasizing not just feet, but entire legs, as euphemisms for genitals. Specifically, it was Song of Songs 5:10-16 that was a bridge too far for me. My modern translation has verse 15 as “His legs are alabaster pillars,” after verse 14 talks of the lover’s arms. She translates that as “genitals.” (That said, there are far more off the wall takes: https://explorethefaith.com/song-of-songs-chapter-5/. That’s not only off the wall, but obviously incorrect, and I’m not prudish, nor de-bodifying.) But at other times, Stavrakopoulou is willing to occasionally going beyond "literal" to "literalistic."
Then, I just don’t agree with her on the “framing” of Job.
Stavrakopoulou claims that Job knows Yahweh is assaulting him. Actually, let's not call the verbal challenges an assault, but just an interrogation.
And, taking the standard philosophical definition of knowledge as justified true belief, Job actually knows bupkis about the physical assault — his loss of family, wealth, etc. Therefore, he does not know he is under assault from the eye of god.
Plus, if we are indeed taking Job literally, of course, Yahweh and the Satan have a bet. This isn't even sloughing off evil onto the Satan, contra Stavra, as Yahweh puts limits on what he can do. And, again, as we have it today, it's a bet, not Satan punishing evil.
Interestingly, we're never told the amount of the wager. Is it for the Satan to get a day on the throne of Yahweh, a day with his feet on Yahweh's footstool, to riff on discussions by Stavra?
It must also be remembered that the Angel of Yahweh is called a Satan in confronting Balaam in Numbers.
All points to remember. (There is a “Babylonian Job” story from way back, but it doesn’t have the equivalent of a Satan in it at all; no other SW Asian myth parallels Job.) And, Job is too early, likely started, at least, in the 6th century BCE, to have been highly influenced by Zoroastrianism to lead to Satan as a dualist figure. After all, the prose opening talks of him coming before Yahweh along with “the sons of God.” Therefore, the Satan as a figure for "sloughing off" of evil from a non-Calvinist, or non-Second Isaiah Yahweh, doesn't totally ring true.
So, all in all, speaking as a semi-academic — master’s degree, knowledge of Biblical languages, etc.? I’d rate this 3 3/4 if you let me be precise.
==
Finally, although I normally don’t judge a book by its cover? In this case, like some other reviewers? Binding is HORRIBLE.
With that, let’s dig in.
It’s easy to forget that the God of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)/Christian Old Testament — who continues as God the Father for Trinitarian Christians in the New Testament — has a literal corporeal body. Fundamentalist versions of both Judaism and Christianity of course bury this deeply.
So, too, does “traditional” critical theology. Its Enlightenment basis is as willing to explain away this fact with words such as “allegory” and “anthropomorphizing.”
Wrong move, says Fransesca Stavrakopoulou in “God: An Anatomy.”
Yahweh (she seems to hint at, but doesn’t openly embrace, some version of the Midianite hypothesis) is just as embodied as Baal or Marduk. More importantly, he’s just as masculinely male, complete with penis. As part of this, she notes that “hand” as well as “foot” is often a biblical synonym for “penis,” as in other southwest Asian religious works. And Yahweh waves his penis. He wields it. He is procreative with it.
And — like Egypt’s Amen but unlike his Mesopotamian god counterparts — sometimes, Yahweh is a solo procreator. No Asherah or other female involved. Besides the Genesis 2-3 creation myth, Stavrakopoulou cites the story of Jeshurun from Deuteronomy, as well as passages from Job and Jeremiah. With Jeshurun being Israel, of course, Yahweh wasn’t literally seen as fathering each individual member of the nation. (OTOH, Dt. 32 reads more like an adoption and nurturing story than a birth story. Sidebar: Reading it with fresh eyes, it’s clearly a story written eons after Israel’s purported escape from Egypt.)
Beyond sexuality and creation, she also talks about Yahweh as an embodied war leader, soaked on blood, and often shown as arguably being addicted to violence. Again, she shows plenty of ANET parallels.
The nagging issue? Probably at least 80 percent of endnotes refer to Bible passages. FOOTnotes — using that word correctly — would have been MUCH more convenient. (In-line citations, common at least in US biblical criticism writings, would have been better yet.) In a certain number of cases, I was familiar with the verse, even in Stavrakopoulou’s translation. But, I couldn’t remember the exact Bible passage. Seriously, this came close to losing the book a star by itself.
And, occasionally, I didn’t totally trust her translation. And, that ties with her perhaps overemphasizing not just feet, but entire legs, as euphemisms for genitals. Specifically, it was Song of Songs 5:10-16 that was a bridge too far for me. My modern translation has verse 15 as “His legs are alabaster pillars,” after verse 14 talks of the lover’s arms. She translates that as “genitals.” (That said, there are far more off the wall takes: https://explorethefaith.com/song-of-songs-chapter-5/. That’s not only off the wall, but obviously incorrect, and I’m not prudish, nor de-bodifying.) But at other times, Stavrakopoulou is willing to occasionally going beyond "literal" to "literalistic."
Then, I just don’t agree with her on the “framing” of Job.
Stavrakopoulou claims that Job knows Yahweh is assaulting him. Actually, let's not call the verbal challenges an assault, but just an interrogation.
And, taking the standard philosophical definition of knowledge as justified true belief, Job actually knows bupkis about the physical assault — his loss of family, wealth, etc. Therefore, he does not know he is under assault from the eye of god.
Plus, if we are indeed taking Job literally, of course, Yahweh and the Satan have a bet. This isn't even sloughing off evil onto the Satan, contra Stavra, as Yahweh puts limits on what he can do. And, again, as we have it today, it's a bet, not Satan punishing evil.
Interestingly, we're never told the amount of the wager. Is it for the Satan to get a day on the throne of Yahweh, a day with his feet on Yahweh's footstool, to riff on discussions by Stavra?
It must also be remembered that the Angel of Yahweh is called a Satan in confronting Balaam in Numbers.
All points to remember. (There is a “Babylonian Job” story from way back, but it doesn’t have the equivalent of a Satan in it at all; no other SW Asian myth parallels Job.) And, Job is too early, likely started, at least, in the 6th century BCE, to have been highly influenced by Zoroastrianism to lead to Satan as a dualist figure. After all, the prose opening talks of him coming before Yahweh along with “the sons of God.” Therefore, the Satan as a figure for "sloughing off" of evil from a non-Calvinist, or non-Second Isaiah Yahweh, doesn't totally ring true.
So, all in all, speaking as a semi-academic — master’s degree, knowledge of Biblical languages, etc.? I’d rate this 3 3/4 if you let me be precise.
==
Finally, although I normally don’t judge a book by its cover? In this case, like some other reviewers? Binding is HORRIBLE.
challenging
informative
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
informative
medium-paced
challenging
informative
slow-paced