This started out as a comment on Caelius’s site but it mushroomed into a full-scale post so I’m putting it here. Check out his post on original sin and his response to my query for the background.

Okay–on the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT done in 2nd cent. BC Alexandria and used widely by the early church): the midrashic tradition from which it proceeds functions by beginning with God’s initial displeasure. That is, it returns to the question of why God accepted Abel’s offering and not Cain’s. Interpreters of the time suggested that Cain’s offering was rejected because he kept the good stuff for himself and offered up the bad stuff or committed some other sort of irregularity in the offering procedure. Thus, the division language has to do with what parts of the offering Cain assigned to himself and what he assigned to God. In this view, therefore, bad liturgy *is* responsible for the world’s first murder…

There is no doubt that the Masoretic (received Hebrew) text is corrupt here and this is one of the cases where the LXX is no help at all. This is most likely because of the anthropomorphized portrayal of sin–generally speaking, the LXX didn’t like anthropomorphizing in any way that could possibly suggest a multiplicity of gods and would gloss over it or retranslate it in a more monotheistic way. I don’t have the JPS version around–I’d love to see how they deal with it.

One of the reconstructions that I have heard takes sin lurking at the door (lie as in “lie in wait…”) and that the attraction between sin and man is the same as that between woman and man. The question then remains how to best configure the ruling verb. An Indo-European language itches to put it into the subjunctive and/or future and the differing treatments of the verb in the English versions reflect the different subjunctive options—especially choosing between an optative (may/might/be able), jussive (shall), or imperative (must) force. Jerome uses the future dominaberis suggesting either a simple future or a jussive. The kicker, of course, is that Hebrew doesn’t have a subjunctive; it doesn’t conceptualize time and probability that way with reference to verbs (and I haven’t used my Hebrew in so long that I shouldn’t try to identify the form without a reference work close at hand… If I had to guess it looks like qal imperfect which can have a future sense.).

So, to round out the translation issues, it seems fitting that Gen 3:16 and 4:7 ought to be translated in strict parallel. That is, the conjunctions ought to agree and the choice of the verb mood ought to agree. Note that my favorite whipping boy, the NRSV, fails miserably on this count by offering both a different conjunction and different moods. So which conjunction? How do the two statements about desire and ruling relate to one another? Should they be joined with an “and” or a “but”? Hebrew does not differentiate; both are viable options. I lean toward “but”, myself as it complicates things. :-) [Note here a classic example of the difficulty of the plain-sense reading—either choice is grammatically and logically possible…] Now, which verb? Given the overall tenor of 3:14-19, a simple future/jussive is the most logical. However, is this the most natural reading—the plain-sense—for 4:7? It does seem a bit more conditional despite the formal parallelism. Could the NRSV actually be right (for a change)?

Exegetically where does this get us? Well, there’s no doubt that there is a parallel construction in the Hebrew text between woman and sin. It’s not one that I especially like but we would be remiss in not identifying it and working with it to see what the exegetical options are. Eve has a lust for Adam but his calling is to rule over her. Sin has a lust for Cain but his calling is to rule over it. Chapter 3 suggests that these pronouncements should be read as generalities. Ergo, women or wives have a lust for their husbands but their calling is to rule over them; sin has a lust for men/husbands but their calling is to rule over it. [And yes, it’s most definitely “rule”–the verb is mshl, the same verb used in Gen 1 to talk about the sun and moon ruling over the day & night, etc. from whence cometh interesting but way off topic issues on rabbinic astrology…] So, are wives and sin to be conflated? I’m sure many patristic authors probably thought so. I don’t, of course. Furthermore, I think this connection is a direct contradiction of Gen 2:18-25. Husbands and wives—the two-person affection unit—is constructed for mutual support and assistance. They are to help one another. Sin does not and cannot do this. Sin cannot be conflated with the wife. Thus, another model is needed.

The model that emerges is the man in tension. On one side is his wife who lusts for him. On the other is sin, also lusting for him. Is his job to master them or to master himself in regard to them? Choosing the one and putting away the other; cleaving to one, rejecting the advances of the other. In fact, this construction parallels a great deal of the rhetoric of wisdom literature. If we personify our mapping a little more, the man stands pulled between his wife and the “other woman.” Proverbs goes into great detail personifying wisdom as the wise woman, the effective householder, the canny and competent wife. Folly is personified as the adulteress, the loose woman, the “other woman.”

Now, how do we interpret this text and make meaning of it for us. We don’t live in an officially patriarchal culture so some rereading and reconstructing must be done. (I suspect one of the reasons why so many of these texts were so patriarchal is because the women didn’t read and didn’t particularly care what was written. Obviously, neither is true today.) The way that I read it is that lust is the essential paradigm for sin. (Please note that this is totally different from saying that lust is original sin.) Just as two lovers feel lust—a passionate, non-rational desire for one another—so sin and humanity have a similar relationship. Classically sin in general and original sin in particular have been discussed as a thing towards which humans have an innate proclivity. What I find so interesting in this text is that it suggests that it’s a two-way street: sin personified has a proclivity for humanity as well—it’s an active thing that plays upon our desires, tempting and seducing us, not an inanimate thing to which we are drawn. As humans striving to be faithful we must master our own lusts and direct them to the appropriate object of our desire, the partner and helper with whom we become one. Furthermore, my reading of the paradigm would suggest that receiving help from the partner is an addition to mastering sin itself. Of course, in the background of all discussions of partners and helpers is the relationship between the soul and God of which the partner-relationship is a shadow.

There’s more here and this deserves more work but this is where it’s at for the moment.

I
Mea Culpa [whack] You know the drill…
I am heartily sorry for these my misdoings–especially those things left undone. I am truly sorry and I humbly repent. Yes, my new boss let us out early on Friday (yay!) and thus no random wacky Friday quiz. A big thanks to lutherpunk for picking up my slack…

btw–I’m Hades.

II
Dissecting Blame
Oh my, folks are just get started with the finger-pointing… That’s another sordid feature of disasters like these–people who know absolutely nothing about the situation spout off all sorts of verbal diarrhea about what wasn’t done, what was done, what was done half-heartedly and especially who’s to blame. Never one to sit by when an interesting conversation is going on–I thought I’d add my own uninformed drivel to the pile… [And just as a note, I haven’t been following the blame game so I’m spouting off on the top of my head here…It’ll be interesting to see which major faction my drivel sounds like. :-D]

Two words: States’ Rights. If you’ve ever spent time in the South, you know how important those words are to Southerners. After all, (just ask ’em) the War Between the States wasn’t about slaves, racism, etc.; it was about States’ Rights. The power of the Old Democrat party (i.e., pre-LBJ) in the South was about…States’ Rights. In a political system like ours there is an inevitable and I would argue necessary tension between Federalism and national responsibilities as opposed to States’ Rights and local responsibilities. Although Federalism essentially prevailed in the US, there’s still quite a bit of power at the other levels and the existence of Congress–both houses–is constructed to inject local politics into the Federal level.

All that having been said, I think Bush’s response sucked. It was really bad. But the scope of the disaster was not fundamentally his responsibility. That is, he acted as a poor leader in this time of crisis, but I do not blame him for the crisis. I think that there are two major failures here and lessons to be learned.

First, I see this as a failure at the state and local levels. They were the people who lived there–they knew what needed to be done. It’s not as if Louisiana has no Congress-dudes [that’s the correct gender-neutral form, fyi] to lobby for money for construction projects. This is a problem that can and should have been corrected a while ago. Furthermore, the local leadership–didn’t. The inevitable comparison does kinda make this apt. In New York, things held together; in New Orleans, they didn’t. There are a host of factors and differences between the two especially the breakdown in communications (such a shame that disaster crews don’t have *satellite* phones that can’t get knocked out if cell towers go down…) but Rudi was there, was visible, and held things together until more help could arrive. Who was there in New Orleans? Who took control? Who could people look to as a voice of authority who was willing to speak the truth to the people and inspire them in the face of tragedy? From my dry armchair it appears that superior leadership produced superior results.

Second, I really worry about what has happened to the homeland defense moneys allocated after Setpember 11. Let’s face it, with the amount of money parcelled out there ought to have been plans in place. New Orleans should have been thinking about what to do if terrorists went after the levees in addition to hurricanes. Supposedly they ran a drill not to long ago. What gives? Makes you wonder how that money was spent…To put a finer point on it, I sure hope that the officials in my area know what the hell they’re supposed to do in case of emergency. And I hope that they clue us in too…

III
Dissertation Progress
I got a hold of this History of OE Lit over the weekend. Good stuff. Lots of good bibliography in there to shore up parts I feel weakest in. One of the epiphanies is the realization of just how much of the OE corpus was designed to be fundamentally oral. From to poems to the sermons, I’d say the vast majority of it was oral literature rather than written. I wonder what that means…

IIII
And (a) Justice for All [a great album too, btw!]
Rehnquist. Oh boy. Yes, this sure is a liberal’s worst nightmare–W gets to pick two justices… As I thought before, though, I think that the court is too aware of its own importance to really run amok in one direction or another. I believe (and truly hope) that no matter who gets put on it that the court will shuffle itself in order to remain centrist.

Let me preface this by admitting that, yes, I’m one of few Anglicans I know who votes Republican. Not always–but often. I believe that a strong corporate sector is a benefit to society as a whole. Remember, corporate America isn’t just a horde of faceless automatons powered by greed, it’s the way that we create and maintain a decent standard of living for the majority–though not all, of course–of Americans. Corporations do need to be called to account and the best way to do it is with our checkbooks, not legislation. Or at least a judicious blend. Certainly legislation alone is not the answer. No, we have to think about what we buy and how we spend our money and also to be vocal about our spending choices.

That having been said, what are you doing now to reduce your use of fossil fuels? The loss of life in New Orleans and the cultural losses in and around that city are dire; these should be our foremost and immediate concerns. There may well be a long-term warning here too (in addition to lessons about building below sea level…). Another thing that this emergency is doing is demonstrating once again American over-dependence upon fossil fuels. The most obvious sign is the dramatic and drastic rise in the price of gas. I hate to see what heating is going to be like this winter. Part of this is due to the refineries in the Deep South, the importance of NO as an oil port, and also the destruction of oil rigs in the gulf. Another significant factor is fear–the oil companies and others know that we know this and can play on our fear.

Some of the academic bloggers have been recently writing quite a bit about the notion of peak oil and the current energy situation. Yes, I still call it a situation rather than a crisis because I don’t think it is at a crisis point yet. But neither should we be actively helping it reach the crisis point. So…what are you doing about it?

Now, the answer to this problem does not solely with Detroit/Tokyo/Seoul or with the way we use our cars although this is obviously a big part of the equation. But how about your lighting? How does that electricity get made after all? And what is that material that your fingers are on right now and that surrounds your monitor? Hmmm, plastic isn’t it…Ya know, that stuff really doesn’t grow on trees…

Naturally, I’m not asking this because I *have* an answer. But it is something that we seriously need to think about. What can we do and what are we doing?

I can’t say anything more that has not already been said; others have covered events far better than I am capable of doing. Nevertheless, here’s a link and a prayer:

O God, whose fatherly care reacheth to the uttermost parts of the earth: We humbly beseech thee graciously to behold and bless those whom we love, now absent from us. Defend them from all dangers of soul and body; and grant that both they and we, drawing nearer to thee, may be bound together by thy love in the communion of thy Holy Spirit, and in the fellowship of thy saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.