CJD

As is so common 'round these parts, degenerative discourse captures the hearts of far too many posters, and bits of substance are too often left undone. What follows is from this thread, having yet received any critiques or comments due it. The folks I'm looking to respond here are the folks who assume, without proper justification, an antinomy between Gen. 1 and 2, thinking an appeal to the Documentary Hypothesis makes the case for them. Well, I think someone still came along after all the "documents" were compiled and made them into one fine piece of art (i.e., the Deuteronomist?).

—————————————
I do think that the first creation narrative serves distinctly as an institutionalisation of the Sabbath. I also think that the narrative (along with most others in the Tanak) assumes a two-register cosmology (i.e., upper and lower). Both of these were already mentioned by spin.

One thing I cannot allow, however, is spin's insistence on cleaving a "source text" from the actual completed or edited text of the Deuteronomist. Maybe I have misunderstood him/her, but if not, this is where his/her exegesis (of the relationship between) of the two accounts would fail miserably. In truth, our differences pertain to our committment to start either atomistically or holistically (myself being the latter).

At the outset, I must note that I do not defend the peculiarly modern conception of inerrancy. It is a strawman, and a most frustrating one at that, especially when the green skeptic thinks he/she has accomplished something substantively skeptical by knocking down "inerrancy." My only aim is to argue for how the text ought to be read. I do admit, as I have elsewhere (see my second post here), to an a priori admiration for the ancient writers and editors of the Tanak. I do not assume they were idiots, with no ability to weave complex narratives together. More often than not, certain glaring "contradictions," which make the final editors out to be practically illiterate, can be rectified by spin's own advice: "I suggest that you seek a good beginner's grammar of Hebrew to undersand the Hebrew verb system if you want to go past where you are now." Past, that is, the stage of a whelp with FRAPS.

What follows is just a suggestion of how to read Genesis 1 and 2 structurally.

Genesis 2:4a reads: "This is the account (or "generations" or "descendents") [Heb., toledot] of the heavens and the earth . . . ."

The first thing to point out is that the word toledot is signal marker for the beginning of each of the ten books of Genesis (alternatively, this may place too much emphasis on its minor characters. So, the structure of the whole book can be parsed in three: Primaeval History, 1–11; Patriarchal History, 12–36; the Joseph Story, 37ff.). The Hebrew word toledot comes from the root yld, which means "to bear children." Here the text is relating an account that pertains to what the cosmos has generated, not the generation of the cosmos.

From a literary perspective, the writer/editor takes this opportunity to weave in a dischronologized account to produce a rhetorical effect, namely, the creation of Woman. This might help us understand why the text stands in such a blatantly seeming contradiction. It is artristry, folks. Fully aware of itself. The alternative would have every scribe to have ever come in contact with this portion of the Tanak reduced to work of data entry (my apologies to the data "entreists" in our midst).

The flow is as follows: Man and animals created (2:7, 19); Animals parade in front of the vice-regent to get named (v. 19); No suitable helper is found among them (v. 20b); Deep sleep, Woman fashioned (vv. 21–22); Man wakes up and exclaims: "This one! This time! Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh . . . !" With poetry, Adam celebrates bond of shared flesh and bone and equality of Man and Woman. In naming her "Woman," he also names himself "Man" (incidentally, this point is often overlooked by certain women critics with an axe to grind). Interestingly, while the narrator named Adam by his relation to the ground (adam . . . adama), Adam is "recorded" naming himself in relation to his wife.

Now for just an example of the structure of this pericope. Just like Days 1 and 4 of the first creation narrative, so too does the second creation narrative use a certain literary device: Repetition. In Genesis 2:8b, man is put by God in the garden. In like manner, verse 15 has the LORD God taking the man and putting him in the garden. Are these two literal occurences? Can anyone explain why a gifted writer would leave it thus if it was to be read in a modern, linear, and Western fashion?

What is being done here has been called by some "Synopsis, Resumption/Expansion." In 2:8a, we see a brief synopsis of God's planting a garden in the east. In verses 9–14, we see an expansion on that garden, complete with descriptions of its river, precious metals, etc. In 2:8b, we see a brief synopsis of God's forming man. In verses 15–25, we see a significant expansion on the pinnacle of God's fashioning (i.e., the creation of Man and Woman).

Tell me, reader, would you rather kick against the goads here, or would you rather appreciate the artistry and literary genius of (at least one) of the Genesis narrator(s)?

Regards,

CJD

spin

As I'm sure you'll be aware, most things are overdetermined. The first creation is a total creation as well as the institutionalisation of the sabbath. It also displays a very different god from the one in the second creation account, for this god doesn't need to get his hands dirty. He just has to speak and the idea expressed becomes reality. This is a much more transcendental god than that of the second creation, who has to wait until there is moisture so as to begin his creation, then he physically makes man out of the moistened earth.

Upper being heaven and lower being the rest.

(As I'm not Doctor X, I will not accept such presuppositions as the Deuteronomist in the discussion. It is unfounded in reality and remains but a hypothesis which I happily label alphabet soup.)

I myself have to deal with the text from the smallest part out to the widest. You cannot understand a text without understanding its parts first, then how they fit together. And your desire is to sublimate that which doesn't fit your presuppositions in favour of your "holistic" approach.

Ought? On what grounds? Hopefully we'll see here.

You assume that they have to weave them together in some way. Why? Consider the story of Abraham, Sarah and the king of Egypt, along with the story of Abraham, Sarah and King Abimelech, along with the story of Isaac Rebekah and Abimelech. Here we have three different versions of the one story and our redactors haven't combined them. Why must they be idiots if they don;t weave things together? This is just a straw dog, ie you haven't said anything useful yet.

You certainly have an attitude problem. Stop projecting your modern ideas of what a redactor should do according to your ideals onto ancient redactors. You can't get into their minds on this issue.

I don't understand your content here.

If the only reason you hazard this hypothesis is to harmonise the two accounts, you create a circular argument.

And you are merely guessing to suit some a priori commitment.

The alternative I see is that you aren't judging your redactor fairly. You are projecting your ideas onto him, ideas which have nothing to do with him.

I can't as yet see anything wrong.

Day 1 and day 4 are related. There is no repetition. Obviously you haven't grasped the structure of the first creation. Go back and read it with this in mind: formless and empty are the two keys to how God creates: in the first three days he gives form and in the second three days he gives content for the structure of the first three days. Day 1 gives you light and dark separated; day 4, the sun, and the moon and stars and the sun inhabits the light and the moon and stars inhabit the dark. Now check out the rest and you'll understand.

I won't enter into your unfounded presuppositions.

The repetition helps you focus on events. God created man and placed him in the garden. Then he creates items for that garden. Then we get a repetition to get us back to man. (I'm sure an alphabet souper would argue that we have a text modification here.)

I'll wear that we have a resumption. (See my previous comment.) But to understand such a resumption, you have to compare how it is done and that is by repeating some of the exact words.

Synopsis? We have a statement in a narrative. Soon that narrative is interrupted at an opportune moment for the writer to give more details and then to resume we repeat some of the original words to tell the reader that we are back on track.

(In 2:8b we have a statement of God's placing of man in the garden. 2:7 is where God forms man.)

I have no doubt that the logic of the second creation account is aetiological. The account explains amongst other things about the relationship between man and woman, that woman is subservient to man, that because whe was created from him, each is not whole and only through marriage can they become whole.

Oh, I wish you'd stop waxing lyrical when you can't read what was originally written. You have only muddied your own waters by introducing the useless dilemma of either the writers were geniuses or idiots. I think they are somewhere between, and the culture over time is responsible for the complexities of the aetiological story of the second creation.

Nevertheless, you haven't entered into the basic previous discourse of "harmonising" the two creation accounts.


spin

Doctor X

Hee! Hee!

I was going to tease Spin on the other thread that his explanation of Genesis myths fits and supports the Documentary Hypothesis. Whether he wishes to call the authors "P" or "J" is his business, but it is now a convention that fits.

On the one hand he does not "like" the "alphabet soup" whilst on the other he argues for it. Rather ironic. I would agree that assuming various levels of the authors--"P1, P2" and "J1-J573" seems a bit contrived and, to my knowledge, most scholars do not adhere to that.

I am unaware of anyone arguing that the Redactor(s) was the Deuteronomistic Historian, incidentally.

--J.D.

rlogan

Well he certainly supports multiple authors.

I think the question is whether the format of J+E = JE and
D + JE + P = JEPD format is to the spin doctor's liking...

spin

I support both separate sources and continuous redaction.


spin

Jayhawker Soule

Well, you can certainly count me out.