“Bloodbath” – The Author’s Response

The author of the book, Created in HIs image – Kept by Covenant, has responded to my criticism.  

Stewart Diesel-Reynolds wrote the following:

“Bloodbath” – The Author’s Response

Gen 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” (KJV)

Allow me, if you will, to preface my response with a few short quotes from the Introduction to my book, “Created in His Image … Kept by Covenant.”

“Although this study may challenge your theological principles in many ways, it is not designed to criticize your theology nor your Christian or Jewish upbringing – IT IS DESIGNED TO STIMULATE THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS WITHIN YOU AND TO CAUSE YOU TO THINK A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND WHAT THAT RELATIONSHIP REALLY MEANS. I am not asking you to accept everything I have to say “hook, line and sinker,” but in the same way I am challenging you not to accept everything you have been taught up until now, “hook, line and sinker”! … If nothing else, allow this study to set you off on a journey of study and exploration into the things of God and a real search for the truth.”

What is the Bible? (I am speaking here primarily of the Tanakh or what Christians refer to as The Old Testament.) More than simply being a Hebrew book, it is also a JEWISH book, it is a compilation of Jewish literature written over multiplied centuries containing vivid imagery, poetry, beautiful metaphors, enlightening allegories, hyperbole, puns etc. which in themselves conjure images apparent only to those to whom they were written. Firstly it consists of Torah, commonly referred to as The Five Books of Moses, although personally, I believe that although Moses was undoubtedly the author of much of what makes up Torah, what we today call Torah was penned by scribes many years subsequent to Moses and thus unavoidably must include influences emanating from their context, culture and interpretation. Secondly, Nevi’im or the prophets which begin to date from just after the death of Moses, and thirdly the Ketuvim or writings which contains early literature like the Book of Job and later books like Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles which were written after the Babylonian exile 539 BCE. It probably was not compiled into any sort of “book” or rather “library” until somewhere around the time of the return of the remnant of Judah from Babylon to Jerusalem and was probably done so under the influence of Ezra in an asserted effort to restore and preserve Jewish religion, nationalism and identity. It is a book primarily about the Jewish people and their God, the One True God, Yehovah YHWH. It is about their origin and their promised end, it tells of their fortune and misfortune, of their kings and their judges, their prophets and their heroes, their obedience to their God and their rejection of Him, their blessing and their cursing. In short, one cannot attempt to understand and interpret the text written on the pages of this book without first the acknowledgement that it is saturated with the beliefs, the stories, the traditions, the “emunah” – (steadfastness produced by their intimate knowledge of YHWH God), the culture nay, the very essence of what it is to be Jewish. The spirit of who they are and who they hope to be, leaps from the text in pictures, stories, beliefs and even myths rendering it impossible to interpret this text without application of this spirit – the very spirit of Judaism. It is thus not without reference to all of this that we should interpret Torah.

Why have I spent an entire page on this rather wordy exposition stating facts of which, I am sure you are aware? Well the simple fact of the matter is my book, “Created in His Image – Kept by Covenant” has its basis and is grounded in the very writings of this culture. The so-called “doctrinal and ecclesiastical stupidities” emanating from Chapter One of my book and so labeled in the criticism of the same, have their origin in about 2400 years of this Jewish culture, commentary and scholarship which has been preserved for us in commentaries such as some of those used as reference works in the writing of my book, namely “Bereishis” by Rabbi Mier Zlotowitz [ISBN #9780899063621] Encyclopedia Judaica and many others clearly referenced.

Specific reference to the material in Chapter One of my book can be found on the following pages in Volume One of Bereishis: p. 36; p.40; p.63; p.69; p.72-73; p.91; p.104; p.106.

Is this the Oral Law about which some are so sensitive? No! It’s just Jewish commentary on the book of Genesis and bears consideration when reading Torah. It is looking at Genesis through the eyes of those who wrote it, interpreted it and lived it through the ages. It is by no means “novella” nor is it based in “kabbalah”, which only appeared in about the 12^th century. It is looking at the book of Genesis in a very Jewish and specific way in an attempt to gain a perspective and understanding outside that of a technical and mechanical analysis of the script. In my opinion it is as important for us to understand the intellectual and cultural perspective and interpretation at the time of their writing as it is to understand this at the time of their origin. It is common knowledge that we don’t have the “original” Torah nor, for that matter, the Prophets nor the Writings and so we have to allow some latitude in interpretation as we bridge one stage in the development of a culture with the next. This interpretation is, I believe, preserved for us in the literature and interpretation passed down to us in publications like Bereishis and others which must be entered into the equation of our overall understanding of God’s word.

I make my perspective perfectly clear in the course of my book, for example, here is how I introduce the section on Kabbalah. (p.48):

“Before we move on I would like to open up another fascinating window of insight into reading and understanding the Hebrew text. (Remember all these things are tools which help us to understand more clearly what we are reading in the Word of God.) In traditional Jewish Kabbalah (the esoteric or mysterious side of Rabbinic interpretation of the Word) – similar to what Christians would call “spiritual understanding” there is a belief that behind each of the letters of the Jewish alphabet, lies the creative imagination and life giving power of Elohim…Jewish Kabbalists believe that the whole universe is maintained and kept stable by every word which God has spoken and every word also implies, every letter…”

1. 49 “Kabbalists further believe…”

p.50 “Furthermore Kabbalists believe that each letter has meaning and power and is used creatively by God in a way which is only understandable to us when we consider the combination of the elements in a chemical formula…”

“…this is not a thesis to prove or disprove Kabbalistic belief, it is an attempt to expose you to the way in which these writers of the scriptures thought…” I could go on but I think I’ve made my point.

It is my opinion that with regard to my references to Kabbalah, you failed to read what I was saying nor grasp the spirit in which it was written.

Let’s address “One more thing” your criticism of my comments on Genesis 2:7.

Gen 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (KJV)

Here again is the preface to this section:

“Before we continue, here is another little snippet I got from a friend and mentor, [Name]. Although there is no way to prove that this hypothesis is true, the following discussion makes for a very interesting assumption and goes a long way to connect the dots between science and the creation story.”

By the way, the spurious references “almost too ridiculous to reiterate” with regards to male and female, you will find in the pages of Bereishis already quoted.

Let’s move on to your next comment:

“Is God five foot nine or six foot three? Is He Jewish or maybe Mesopotamian? And both sexes? That must be a real problem for an exact duplicate?” Really Skip, this simplistic criticism is beneath you. You know, if you have read my book, that this is not what I believe and that I have expressed in my writing a far more comprehensive understanding of Who God is (p.186-194; p.342 and others). In fact, if you had read p.61 – 64 (barring the printer’s error) you would know that I do not hold to that simplistic understanding of creation. Not only do I base my writing on age old Jewish interpretation (See Bereishis references) but I deal with both the words, “image” and “likeness” from the standpoint and understanding presented to us in Brown, Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. Enough said along these lines.

You have your field of expertise and study, which I recognize and appreciate and are quite obviously opposed to my approach and to my line of thinking, however, simply to write off my writing as “voodoo science” and “doctrinal and ecclesiastical stupidities” is to discredit, not only my opinion but the sources from which my opinions were formed.

Let me conclude by saying this: It is not without understanding and appreciation of the importance of the origins of the Hebrew text and of its roots that I say what I say and have written what I have written. I love the language and am enthralled by the depth of meaning it reveals as we dig down to it roots and origins and I love to read and study the work of scholars who have the knowledge and ability to do this. I do also believe, however, that by giving the word a “more human” dimension, by expressing this Word in a way to which they can more easily relate, by providing tangible “tit-bits” of information and by relating it to the teachings of Rabbis over the ages, I will be able to draw people in to a more personal experience with this Word and into a more personal relationship with – יהוה אלהינו – Yehovah Eloheynu.

Stewart Diesel-Reynolds

Author: Created in His Image – Kept by Covenant.

Skip Moen’s comment:  Thank you, Stewart, for taking up the challenge to respond.  While I agree with most of your assessment of the writing of the Tanakh, I find your claim that we must understand the text from within the writings of certain rabbinic traditions less than compelling.  I am not suggesting that these writings (as you cite some of them) are not interesting and perhaps give us a clue as to the thinking of the authors who wrote them, but that it a far cry from considering them authoritative in any sense of the word.  And since they did not appear in the theological history for at least a millennium after the text, I am not sure we can conclude that they represent anything but opinion.

Of course, all of this would have been much clearer (at least to me) if you had merely said at the beginning of your book, “Listen.  I am not trying to tell you what the text means.  I am only going to show you how some rabbis who came much later thought about the text.”  Then we have no disagreement since the book becomes nothing more than a look at rabbinic opinion, and not even all rabbinic opinion.  Then I would have commented not that your work was mistaken and illogical but that the rabbis that you cite were mistaken and illogical.