Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CJD · 11-24-2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Hawkingfan wrote:
And it's really odd that 2:5 says, "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground..." Then if this is the same account as chapter 1, how in the heck did the vegetation grow in 1:11 without rain and man?

Dr. Futato writes in this article (note: click on "articles" then proceed to the first article in the list):

Quote:

Why does Gen. 2:5 bother to tell us that certain kinds of vegetation were absent �for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth?� This question has intrigued and perplexed me for some time. Is the absence of rain mere geographical decoration or quasi-irrelevant data that sets the stage for the really important material that follows? Or is this information that is foundational to the narrative and its theology? The answer to this question has played a major role in my interpretation of Gen. 1:1-2:25.

The more interesting question (it seems to me) is why. Why arrange the material in this manner?

Dr. Futato concludes thusly:

Quote:

. . . The logic, structure, and semantics of Gen. 2:5-7 [lead me] to draw out several integrated conclusions: 1) It rained at the time of creation according to Gen. 2:5-7. So we should discard the idea that the Bible teaches that it did not rain until the flood of Noah�s day. 2) The structure of Gen. 2:5-7 provides the key to understanding the structure of the whole of Gen. 2:4-25, which turns out to be topical not chronological. 3) The structure and topical arrangement of Gen. 2:4-25 in turn supports the argument that the arrangement of Gen. 1:1-2:3 is also topical not chronological. 4) These structural considerations lead to new insights into the polemical theology of Genesis 1-2. Genesis 1-2, serves among other purposes, as a polemic against Canaanite Baalism. In sum, Gen. 2:4-25 and Gen. 1:1-2:3 are topical accounts that polemicize against Baalism, because it had rained.

Emphasis mine.

He goes on to counter an argument before it begins:

Quote:

Some might object that there is a methodological problem from the beginning: letting a latter text (Gen. 2:5-7) control the interpretation of an earlier text (Gen. 1:1-2:3). 1) I could have written this paper in the exact opposite order, examining the structure of Gen. 1:1-2:3, drawing out the implications for the parallel structure in Gen. 2:4-25, and then using this material to answer the question regarding "no rain" in Gen. 2:5. My starting with Gen. 2:5-7 reflects the point at which I entered the interpretive process some time ago. 2) Since the Tanak stood as a fairly completed unit of compiled writings some time during the Second Temple era, attention should at least be given to the notion that it can interpret itself. We often know more about the beginning of a story once we have gotten to the end. An excellent example of this is found in Numbers 19, which describes the water of purification ritual. Verses 1-6 describe the burning of the heifer; vv. 7-10 describe the removal of the ashes to a purified place outside the camp; vv. 11-13 describe the use of the waters of purification for those who have come in contact with a dead body. At this point the reader is bewildered as to the relationship between the ashes and the water, since the text makes no connection between the two. In vv. 14-19 it becomes clear, however, that in the ritual some of the ashes are put in a jar to which water is added, then this water is sprinkled on the unclean people and/or objects to bring about the ritual cleansing. It is only in the light of the latter material (vv. 14-19) that the earlier material (vv. 11-13) is comprehensible. The question is not, "Ought one to begin in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?" The question is, "What is the interpretation that does most justice to both texts?"

This approach, I would argue, is appropriate is most cases because I am convinced of the great talent of the scribes that put this thing together. They did, as Celsus wrote somewhere else, actually read the texts they compiled and edited. As master craftsmen, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Their production is both brilliantly interweaved and coherent.

Regards,

CJD

P.S. spin wrote: ". . . unless you'd like to propose that we have to understand a word only in the context of its author's usage without attempting to find out just what the word means from a wide range of usage?"

Spin, didn't you chide me for this in my discussion of bara in that other thread?

spin · 11-24-2003, 11:28 AM

So, then, ah, where's the rain in Gen 2?

spin

spin · 11-24-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
spin wrote: ". . . unless you'd like to propose that we have to understand a word only in the context of its author's usage without attempting to find out just what the word means from a wide range of usage?"

Spin, didn't you chide me for this in my discussion of bara in that other thread?

Yes, you didn't consider the usage of the term in Ezekiel for example.

What I read was a standard religionist apology for the divine use of BR'.

spin

CJD · 11-24-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

So, then, ah, where's the rain in Gen 2?

If time does not allow you to read the article, I will answer this. But the article will make case better than I will.

Quote:

Yes, you didn't consider the usage of the term in Ezekiel for example.

What I read was a standard religionist apology for the divine use of BR'.

First, it was 1 usage versus like 5. Second, "standard religionist apology" for what? What religious apology was I giving? That Gen. 1:1 speaks not of the process of creation but of the completed act? "Religious apology"? Why, because I am self-avowed Christian? Can I not engage in an honest discussion of literary criticism?

CJD

Apikorus · 11-24-2003, 11:44 AM

The good Dr. Futato is not reading Genesis 2 very carefully. Gen 2:6 says that a mist arose from the earth. Not rain, as spin points out. Rain comes from the heavens, as in Gen 7:11 (vaarubot hashamayim niftachu). The case for rain in Gen 2 must be quite convoluted, if not abjectly laughable.

CJD · 11-24-2003, 11:47 AM

What it is, actually, is a rain cloud coming "up" from the horizon. If you read the article, at least his argument will be known to you. I didn't think it was very funny.

Good to see your ID again, Apikorus (OT discussion are often lonely around here).

CJD

spin · 11-24-2003, 12:00 PM

I'll wait for your indications of rain.

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
First, it was 1 usage versus like 5.

Our desire should be to understand the term, not do statistics.

Quote:

Second, "standard religionist apology" for what? What religious apology was I giving?

Religionist, ie one given by a religionist.

A standard religionist apology is one that has been given by religionsists, not just one dealing with a specific argument context.

Quote:

That Gen. 1:1 speaks not of the process of creation but of the completed act?

I didn't originally speak of a process, but of the moment of an inception.

Quote:

"Religious apology"? Why, because I am self-avowed Christian?

No, because it is one that religionists give (hence "standard").

Quote:

Can I not engage in an honest discussion of literary criticism?

CJD

The use of "honest" is a little strange here. I have no idea about your honesty. People can be honest and unthinkingly give other people's opinions.

But if you like, I'll withdraw the "standard religionist apology" as a discussion of the idea here won't help the thread.

It's the rain that is more interesting. I need the specific indications.

spin

spin · 11-24-2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
What it is, actually, is a rain cloud coming "up" from the horizon. If you read the article, at least his argument will be known to you. I didn't think it was very funny.

2:6 doesn't say that. There is no rain, no cloud, no horizon.

The text specifically talks of something coming from (out of) the earth, MN H-'RC, and that something is usually translated as "mist/vapour" (this word, 'D, is etymologically linked to 'WD, "firebrand", hence the connection with "vapour" -- wet & hot!?). For the only other use of the word you have to look at the Hebrew of Job 36:27 which talks of distilling "rain from his vapour ('D)" -- Futato is confused about this verse.

The Hebrew word for "cloud" is quite common throughout the Hebrew bible.

Now this mist came out of the earth without God's intervention, ie it has nothing to do with God -- you'll see that from the text. It was merely the pre-requisite for the creation. As we know from 2:5 God causes rain. He was originally a storm god as his parallel Ba'al was.

So, the rain, where is it?

We need to deal with the text, not opinions about it.

spin

Apikorus · 11-24-2003, 12:32 PM

Futato's (really Dahood's) reading of Job 36:27 leaves much to be desired. He wants ed to mean "rain cloud" at the end of 36:27, yet shachaq (cloud) appears at the beginning of 36:28. It seems far more likely to me that ed should mean "collection of droplets" or "mist." So Job 36:27-28 is saying this (my translation):

Quote:

He (God) holds back the drops of water; they pour down from the mist, which rain clouds release to drip on man abundantly.

There are only two occurrences of ed in the Hebrew Bible. I think "mist" fits both cases much better than "rain cloud".

Edited to add: spin and I cross-posted on the identification ed = "mist" or "vapor" and it seems we have similar opinions on its use in both Genesis and Job.

spin · 11-24-2003, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus
Futato's (really Dahood's) reading of Job 36:27 leaves much to be desired. He wants ed to mean "rain cloud" at the end of 36:27, yet shachaq (cloud) appears at the beginning of 36:28. It seems far more likely to me that ed should mean "collection of droplets" or "mist." So Job 36:27-28 is saying this (my translation):

"He (God) holds back the drops of water; they pour down from the mist, which rain clouds release to drip on man abundantly."

There are only two occurrences of ed in the Hebrew Bible. I think "mist" fits both cases much better than "rain cloud".

I wouldn't be happy with "pour down" as a suitable translation of ZQQ. Do you know something here that I don't?

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-24-2003, 11:28 AM	#2
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	So, then, ah, where's the rain in Gen 2? spin

11-24-2003, 11:44 AM	#5
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	The good Dr. Futato is not reading Genesis 2 very carefully. Gen 2:6 says that a mist arose from the earth. Not rain, as spin points out. Rain comes from the heavens, as in Gen 7:11 (vaarubot hashamayim* niftachu*). The case for rain in Gen 2 must be quite convoluted, if not abjectly laughable.

11-24-2003, 11:47 AM	#6
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	What it is, actually, is a rain cloud coming "up" from the horizon. If you read the article, at least his argument will be known to you. I didn't think it was very funny. Good to see your ID again, Apikorus (OT discussion are often lonely around here). CJD

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.