Announcement

Collapse

World History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to World History 201.

Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.

This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.

The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Noah: Is this a good movie? Is it good ancient history?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    For what it's worth...
    BOX OFFICE: ANTI-GOD 'NOAH' DIVES, 'GOD'S NOT DEAD' SOARS

    by JOHN NOLTE 12 Apr 2014

    In its second weekend, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is in a fight for the top spot with new release "Rio 2." Both sequels are circling $40 million-plus weekends. No surprise there. But proving you can only fool people for so long, in its third weekend, director Darren Aronofsky's creepy attempt to fool the public into believing his anti-God "Noah" was a biblical tale ran aground with a paltry $7.1 million weekend.

    As of Monday, Russell Crowe's Gnostic bait-and-switcheroo will sit somewhere around $84 million. That will officially put it behind the pace of Russell Crowe's previous big-budget flop "Robin Hood," which managed to only reach $105 million at the North American box office.

    "Noah" is now in real danger of losing money. Between its $125 million production budget and promotional budget likely in the $50 to $75 million range, the anti-God epic needs to gross something close to $400 million worldwide just to break even. Depending on how many countries remain for the film to open in, as of now $400 million is a long ways off.

    Going forward, "Noah" is also facing serious headwinds. The Vatican newspaper just blasted the film, a lousy CinemaScore rating of "C" usually means terrible word-of-mouth, and after fooling moviegoers and many in the Christian media through its first weekend, the word is now out that "Noah" is an attack on God, not biblical.

    Meanwhile, a truly Christian film, "God's Not Dead," continues to soar at the box office. In its fourth weekend, the story of a student's confrontation with an atheist teacher (played by Kevin Sorbo) grossed $5.3 million, for a total of $40.7 million. With a production and promotional budget that totaled $4 million, "God's Not Dead" has to be closing in on a record as far as return on investment.

    The rest of the story is here.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by John Reece View Post

      Meanwhile, a truly Christian film, "God's Not Dead," continues to soar at the box office. In its fourth weekend, the story of a student's confrontation with an atheist teacher (played by Kevin Sorbo) grossed $5.3 million, for a total of $40.7 million. With a production and promotional budget that totaled $4 million, "God's Not Dead" has to be closing in on a record as far as return on investment.
      The Blair Witch Project ROI probably blows that one away (though they may have spent more than that on promotion once it took off).
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        A simple 'no' would suffice. I skimmed AIG's piece - Mattson's is far more damning in that he demonstrates that the movie draws heavily from Gnosticism - which, last I looked, was still heretical.

        Seriously, the obsession with AIG is silly. There are a number of Christian and related sources that have raised objections so the issue is hardly one of following AIG.


        Sorry. Misread what you said as that AiG didn't have a problem with it

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #94
          I know some here have complained about the environmental theme included in this movie, but this is acceptable as a midrashic theme. See, eg, the Midrash Rabbah on Qohelet 7,13:


          בשעה שברא הקב"ה את אדם הראשון נטלו והחזירו על כל אילני גן עדן ואמר לו ראה מעשי כמה נאים ומשובחין הן וכל מה שבראתי בשבילך בראתי, תן דעתך שלא תקלקל ותחריב את עולמי, שאם קלקלת אין מי שיתקן אחריך

          When God created the first human beings, God led them around all the trees of the Garden of Eden and said: “Look at My works! See how beautiful they are—how excellent! For your sake I created them all. See to it that you do not spoil and destroy My world; for if you do, there will be no one else to repair it.”

          Translation by the American Jewish World Service

          http://www.on1foot.org/text/kahelet-rabbah-713

          Note also how the midrash is itself rather contradictory to the plain sense of Qohelet 7,13.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I know some here have complained about the environmental theme included in this movie, but this is acceptable as a midrashic theme. See, eg, the Midrash Rabbah on Qohelet 7,13:


            בשעה שברא הקב"ה את אדם הראשון נטלו והחזירו על כל אילני גן עדן ואמר לו ראה מעשי כמה נאים ומשובחין הן וכל מה שבראתי בשבילך בראתי, תן דעתך שלא תקלקל ותחריב את עולמי, שאם קלקלת אין מי שיתקן אחריך

            When God created the first human beings, God led them around all the trees of the Garden of Eden and said: “Look at My works! See how beautiful they are—how excellent! For your sake I created them all. See to it that you do not spoil and destroy My world; for if you do, there will be no one else to repair it.”

            Translation by the American Jewish World Service

            http://www.on1foot.org/text/kahelet-rabbah-713

            Note also how the midrash is itself rather contradictory to the plain sense of Qohelet 7,13.
            Other than as an annoying PC additive, I don't think anyone disagrees that good stewardship includes good environmental protection. The Gnosticism is a much more concerning issue with the movie.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              Other than as an annoying PC additive, I don't think anyone disagrees that good stewardship includes good environmental protection. The Gnosticism is a much more concerning issue with the movie.
              What were the gnostic overtones in the film?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                What were the gnostic overtones in the film?
                http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/20...-for-the-devil

                Mattson does a much better job than I could addressing your question.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  Other than as an annoying PC additive, I don't think anyone disagrees that good stewardship includes good environmental protection. The Gnosticism is a much more concerning issue with the movie.
                  I think some have labelled its environmental theme reason enough not to see the movie.

                  But, OK, I think enough time has passed that I can allow myself to discuss this in a little more depth. (SPOILER ALERT):

                  Personally, I do not think the movie is gnostic, which is not an easy term to pin down. Mattson himself must acknowledge that there’s a whole continuum, and I do not interpret Aronofsky’s film anywhere near the gnostic end of the continuum.

                  I would not necessarily label Jewish monists, Neo-Platonists, and mystics as gnostic. Mattson’s gnostic interpretation is just that, his interpretation, and I don’t think it is a particularly good interpretation of the film. He interprets the lava monsters (which I could not stand), in which spirits, temporarily trapped in material bodies, eventually repent and return to their initial angelic state, as illustrating Aronofsky’s whole perspective. But that is an interpretative mistake in my opinion as it does not acknowledge that the creation and environmentalist theme clearly affirms the goodness of all creation, and which is certainly a much more pervasive and fundamental perspective of the film. While that is the nature of these characters (which I dislike immensely), one must admit that the Sons of God and the Nephillim are rather difficult to interpret even in the Bible and here Aronofsky uses some allusive language from the Book of Enoch and probably some left over CGI software from the Transformer movies.

                  Likewise, Mattson’s interpretation of Aronofsky’s portrayal of the Creator is based on only one character’s perspective, Noah’s (obviously an important character), but Noah eventually and very clearly repents of his one-time very limited interpretation of God’s intent and recognizes the God of Love who commands procreation. Nowhere does Aronofsky ever portray God himself as being in fact as Noah believes him to be during some of the movie. Yes, Noah goes a little stir crazy on the ark, and some will certainly find that insulting, but it is an acceptable midrash of the text in which God repents of creating man and does not immediately announce his true salvific purpose. What is Noah or the reader to think in the meantime? That’s the question that haggadic midrashim frequently try to answer and the midrashic process allows and invites, sometimes even demands, that contradictory answers be considered and frequently maintained. Noah’s temporary derangement is a chilling portrayal of how religion can go wrong sometimes, and I thought that was a valuable part of this midrash. It also allows other biblical themes to be brought in, eg, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac in accord with his view of God’s will (note the change from Elohim to YHWH at the crucial point in that story). I did not see any indication that Aronofsky intended the Creator to be seen as an evil, lesser god or demiurge and Noah, even in his delusion, always knew that God was intent upon saving material and living creation, thus not indicating a gnostic metaphysical dualism.

                  Mattson says the Bible is not Aronofsky’s text, and it is very true that the Bible is not his only text, but it is clearly one of his texts. (He later acknowledged his statement was hyperbolic.) Mattson does not fault the studio for false advertising, as some do, but rather admits it was never advertised as The Bible’s Noah or The Biblical Story of Noah. But he faults Aronofsky for allegedly but understandably allowing the studio to assume that his film was a Biblical story. That’s a little contradictory. The studio did not advertise the movie as The Biblical Story of Noah even ‘though they assumed it was? It’s also very naïve. Who on God’s green earth believes that a studio or producers do not review the scripts? But I don’t disagree with others who feel that the studio might have allowed people to assume that the film was more purely Biblical. But that too was a little naïve on the part of those who would not typically inquire about a filmmaker’s reputation.

                  As for the snakeskin being an allusion to Ophites, Cainites, Sethites, and Naasseni, I don’t really know what to make of that and would like to hear Aronofsky’s explanation. Is this a reference to Jewish or Christian (or both) gnostic groups. I did not think of this possible allusion during the movie and just thought the snakeskin was merely intended as a mysterious element. I did not get the impression that the serpent was seen as a deity in the film. The serpent actually shed its skin in order to be able to appear young and better able to deceive Eve so the snake skin may not have been considered as evil, perhaps it was even recognition of how not to be deceived again. At any rate, the knowledge of good and evil obtained is part of the human condition and tradition. I don’t think Moses or John 3,14 were being alluded to, but those too are rather mysterious verses that may suggest midrashic interpretation to some.

                  Bottom line, I would never endorse this movie for anyone wanting to see a purely Biblical movie, but for those who appreciate midrash (some modernist and fundamentalists certainly do not), who like movies that purposefully interpret a book differently, even very, very much differently, who want to get a feel for a postmodern inter-textual and syncretistic approach to Noah and the Watchers, and most importantly who have a mature faith grounded in the Bible, good theological instincts, and a constant prayerful connection to God, you just might like it.

                  Did I mention that I was not terribly fond of the Watchers being portrayed as Transformer lava monsters?
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Dr. Mattson's speculation is probably right-on in a lot of places, but I guess I didn't come away from the film with the same impressions.

                    The glowy Adam and Eve didn't make me think of disembodied persons, but a symbolic representation of the pure and innocent state of Adam and Eve until they ate the fruit.

                    I'm certain the fallen angels were Nephilim not Archons. I'm not familiar with any texts that claim Archons were embodied in molten earth (I guess the same can be said for Nephilim though). Are there any texts that mention embodied Archons at all?

                    I don't doubt Kabbala influence on the script, but is that strictly the same as gnostic influence?

                    A lot of the Kabbala influence that Dr. Mattson sees you could take from the Bible as well. The division of evil and good between the lineage of Cain and Seth is set forth in Gen. 5, and in some readings of the beginning of Gen. 6.

                    I don't know exactly what the snake skin is supposed to represent (other than a sort of tefillin) but I'm not convinced by Mattson's argument that the serpent is symbolic of the greater God (Wisdom/Sophia/what have you).

                    My biggest problem with the assertion that Noah is Gnostic propaganda is that, if true, its poorly represented. The major focal point of the film, from beginning to end, is the preservation of the earth and the animals therein. The material nature of the earth and animals would have been considered just as corrupt by the Gnostics as the material state of humanity.

                    Mattson writes:

                    But Noah fails “The Creator.” He cannot wipe out all life like his god wants him to do. “When I looked at those two girls, my heart was filled with nothing but love,” he says. Noah now has something “The Creator” doesn’t. Love. And Mercy. But where did he get it? And why now?
                    First problem with this is, Noah is never commissioned in the film to wipe out all life. He's commissioned to save life on the earth, both animal and man. He later comes to the realization (not voiced by the Creator) that he and his family are as corrupt as those he's saving the world from, and so, humanity deserves to end. The film ends with a message of hope for humanity, and a change of Noah's heart based on what the Creator really desires.

                    Second problem, why would the lesser Creator desire the destruction of the material world he created? Wouldn't that be the desire of the greater, non-material God?

                    Coincidentally, while trying to refresh my memory about certain scenes in the film, I came upon this rebuttal to Dr. Mattson's article called No, Noah is not Gnostic. (Say that ten times fast!)

                    I haven't read through it all, but this stuck out to me:

                    Source: Peter T. Chattaway

                    The second major problem with Mattson’s attempt to impose a Gnostic reading on Noah is that he gets certain basic plot points wrong.
                    Most significantly, in his discussion of the snakeskin relic, he writes that Noah “killed Tubal-Cain and recovered the snakeskin relic” immediately before he went to kill his grandchildren, only to discover that he could not do it because he loved them instead. Mattson suggests that Noah’s love is a form of enlightenment that comes to him because he is finally under the influence of the snakeskin again.

                    There’s just one problem with this argument: Noah does not, in fact, have the snakeskin at that point in the film. Ham does. Noah does not get the snakeskin back until some time later, when Ham sees him drunk and naked by the beach.

                    So, the snakeskin plays no role whatsoever in Noah’s “enlightenment”.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Last edited by OingoBoingo; 04-23-2014, 12:17 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Great reply robrecht. Guess I didn't need to post, since you nailed my thoughts on the film exactly (even down to the Transformers/Nephilim silliness).

                      The article I linked actually goes into what the serpent skin may have represented:

                      Source: Peter T. Chattaway

                      The snakeskin is an odd element in the film, I admit. It wasn’t in the early screenplay that leaked a couple years ago, and it isn’t in the graphic novel.

                      And the fact that the snakeskin comes from the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve does seem to complicate things somewhat. Shouldn’t it be a symbol of evil? Why does the film make it out to be a symbol of something good, instead?

                      On this point, I defer to my friend Ryan Holt again:

                      When the film gives us glimpses of the Garden of Eden, the snake originally glows like Adam and Eve, only to shed its luminous skin and become a dark black. The visual metaphor seems clear; the serpent abandons the glory of creation to become a creature of evil, and humanity soon follows after it. So the snakeskin reminds Noah and his family of the Eden that was lost, a testament to creation’s original perfection.

                      My friend Steven D. Greydanus makes a similar point in his review of the film:

                      The serpent is connected with one of the film’s odder bits: a snakeskin, shed in Eden by the serpent, preserved as a family heirloom by the righteous line of Seth and passed down to Noah by his father. Doesn’t the snakeskin represent evil? Not necessarily. The serpent was created good and then shed that goodness to become the tempter. The skin it wore when God created it is not a token of evil, but of original goodness — and thus a true relic of paradise and a token that evil is always a corruption of goodness, never a thing unto itself.

                      To this I would add that Gnosticism presents the serpent’s role in the Garden of Eden as a good thing — indeed, if memory serves, the Gnostic Jesus even claims that he himself was that serpent — whereas the film points in the exact opposite direction.

                      The film clearly states in its opening title sequence that “temptation led to sin” — and both the film and the graphic novel clearly link the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge with the murder of Abel by Cain. And the violence committed by Cain is a recurring visual motif throughout the film, culminating in Tubal-Cain’s final effort to kill Noah, in which Tubal-Cain strikes a pose very similar to that of Cain’s.

                      So on multiple levels, Aronofsky’s Noah is utterly at odds with Gnostic thought.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Comment


                      • Yes, that's a good interpretation of the snake skin. I didn't realize that it too had been glowing initially and did not glow for Tubal-Cain, but is encouraging that a few of us independently did not necessarily assume this to be symbolism of evil.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Yes, that's a good interpretation of the snake skin. I didn't realize that it too had been glowing initially and did not glow for Tubal-Cain, but is encouraging that a few of us independently did not necessarily assume this to be symbolism of evil.
                          Ari Handel, the film's co-author, addressed what the snakeskin meant for him here.

                          Originally posted by Ari Handel
                          When Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden, it says God gave them a garment of skin—sort of a parting gift from God to mankind as we leave Eden and go out into the world. So we wondered what that was—and as we looked at commentaries about it, one of the common ones was that it was the skin of the snake. We wondered why that would be, and it occurred to us that God made the snake. The snake was good, at first. But then, the Tempter arose through it. In our version, we have the snake shed that skin, and the shed skin is the shell of original goodness that the snake left behind when it became the Tempter. It’s a symbol of the Eden that we left behind. It’s a garment to clothe you spiritually.
                          Originally posted by Genesis 3:21
                          And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
                          A shed snakeskin doesn't seem like a very effective garment to me, and thus not a great elaboration on the text of Genesis 3:21. What do you think?

                          Mattson responded to Handel's comments here.

                          As for the observation that the environmentalist theme doesn't fit easily with Gnostic ideas about the physical world being evil: I agree. That's the trouble with meshing ancient worldview material with modern worldview material. In the Relevant Magazine article I linked above, it sounds like Handel (and possibly Aronofsky) were appropriating the "glowing Adam" idea just as a way of saying that there's good inside everyone, battling to get out. That's a point of contact with Gnosticism's "spirit=good," but it doesn't mean that Handel and Aronofsky are full-blown second century Gnostics transported into the 21st Century. It means that artists appropriate whatever symbols they find at hand, for purposes of their own. They're subverting Gnosticism while simultaneously subverting the Old Testament Scriptures that Gnosticism itself subverted in a different manner.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                            Ari Handel, the film's co-author, addressed what the snakeskin meant for him here.

                            A shed snakeskin doesn't seem like a very effective garment to me, and thus not a great elaboration on the text of Genesis 3:21. What do you think?
                            Chattaway replies to Mattson's reply to Handel here. I really think that Mattson's grasping at straws on the whole Gnostic issue, and a number of reviewers (including Christians like Chattaway) are attempting to set the record straight. You're right that a shed snakeskin doesn't seem like very effective garment, but as Chattaway points out by way of Dr. Avivah Zornberg:

                            Source: http://rabbib.com/media/writings/RabbiB-ClothesHumanExistence.pdf

                            The problem that the midrash intends to resolve is the origin of the first clothes. Described as “coats of skin,” they seem to depend on death: some animal has been killed and flayed to make these first human garments. Since death has not yet entered the world, the midrash solves the problem with the figure of the sloughed skin of the serpent. That is, the skin foreshadows death, represents the serpent’s consciousness of death-in-life. In effect, the facade of the serpent goes to make dignified coverings for human beings. The paradox is striking: the serpent, all deception, representation, plausible language, verbal display, is reconstructed into an attribute of human dignity.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                              A shed snakeskin doesn't seem like a very effective garment to me, and thus not a great elaboration on the text of Genesis 3:21. What do you think?
                              I am not familiar with this particular midrash and I'll have to look at your links later, but in the meantime, I don't think the snakeskin should be understood as the entirety of the garments made by God for Adam and Eve. Note also that Handel here seems to emphasize its function as more of a spiritual symbol:
                              God made the snake. The snake was good, at first. But then, the Tempter arose through it. In our version, we have the snake shed that skin, and the shed skin is the shell of original goodness that the snake left behind when it became the Tempter. It’s a symbol of the Eden that we left behind. It’s a garment to clothe you spiritually.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                                When you get around to it, post the citations, please. I'm not familiar enough with it to look things up without a lot of time and effort I don't have time for right now, but I would like to read up.
                                OK, I've finally gotten around to looking up some of the references that I was looking for. With respect to the supposedly gnostic Kabbalah theme of Adam and Eve being luminescent spirits. This is a much older motif that is found in Jewish/Christian inter-testamental literature. The earliest occurrence I've been able to track down is actually a midrashic interpretation supposedly based on an aurally indistinguishable textual variant on Gen 3,21 attributed in the Great Midrash on Genesis to a 1st century Torah scroll owned by the great scribe, Rabbi Meir. He says that that a single (silent) letter of the text was different, instead of a silent ayin (ע), the scroll he speaks of had a silent aleph (א). Thus:

                                ויעש יהוה אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבשם
                                ויעש יהוה אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות אור וילבשם


                                Though the text would sound exactly the same (in some dialects, including modern Hebrew), the change in letter changes the meaning of 'skin' to 'light':

                                And the Lord God made for Adam and his woman tunics of skin [light] and he clothed them.

                                This was later understood to be their original clothing of glory prior to their disobedience, and hence we find intertestamental texts such as 3 Baruch 4,16 (cf also Ephraim the Syrian) speaking of Adam being condemned on account of the tree incident and being stripped (literally 'made naked') of the glory of God (τῆς δόξης θεοῦ ἐγυμνώθη)
                                http://ocp.tyndale.ca/3-greek-apocalypse-of-baruch#4-4

                                This, like much of the celestial Adamic imagery, has messianic implications, ie, the Messiah as the second Adam. It is said in the Pesikta de Rav Kahana that ‘The robes with which God will clothe the Messiah will shine from one end of the world to the other and the Jews will use its light and remark on his majestic clothing.’ Hints of this is already seen both in Q 17,24 (as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day) and in the synoptic Transfiguration narratives. And the ‘garment of immortality’ (ἔνδυμα τῆς ἀθανασίας), Hist Rech 12,3) that was originally Adam’s prior to the Fall, will once again be ours at the resurrection according to Paul (ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν, 1 Cor 15,53-54).
                                http://ocp.tyndale.ca/history-of-the-rechabites#12-12

                                We see this garment of glory in all the Aramaic Targumim (free midrashic translations from the Hebrew) of Gen 3,21, but in Aramaic the word ‘glory’ does not imply light. Thus it is in this linguistic tradition that we find the other midrashic interpretation of this verse that features more prominently in the movie Noah. Specifically in the Targum Pseudo Jonathan, we see the infamous serpent skin:

                                ועבד ייי אלקים לאדם ולאיתתיה לבושׁין דיקר מן משׁך חויא דאשׁלח מיניה על משׁך בישׁריהון חלף טופריהון דאישׁתלחו ואלבישׁינון


                                And the Lord God made (miraculously?) for Adam and for his wife for clothing of majesty from the skin of the serpent, which he had pulled from him, upon the skin of their flesh, instead of that (garment of) their childhood which he had taken, and he clothed them.

                                Thus God killed no beasts to make their clothes, but rather used the snake’s skin, which as a punishment, God had made to be shed every seven years (Tg Gen 3,14). Thus there is no reason to think that this midrashic element reflects any allusion to Ophite Gnosticism. Just good old fashioned Aramaic midrash.
                                http://targum.info/pj/pjgen1-6.htm
                                Last edited by robrecht; 05-04-2014, 02:46 PM.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X