Atticus_Finch

Last night I was reading Bruce Waltke's commentary on Genesis. He offered a different approach to harmonizing the apparent conflict between the order of creation between the creation account of Genesis 1 and that of Genesis 2. As I understand it, the conflict is that Chap. 1 states the the vegetation was created on day 3 and then in chapter 2 it states,

It is suggested that this language means that in the second account man was created before the vegetation and therefore conflicts with the account in Chapter 1 where he was created on day 6.

In very brief summary, I understood Waltke to argue that the reference to "no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field" referred to cultivated vegetation rather than all vegetation. This seems to be consistent with the fact that in chapter 2 the reference to the specific vegetation, plants and herbs, are both qualified by "of the field" which is not the case in the chapter 1 account. This seems to be further consistent with the use of the terms in chapter 3:17-19 where Adam is told that he will eat the plants "of the field."

Although I have read a lot of apolgetics on this issue, this was a new argument to me. I am curious as to what the skeptical, OT Hebrew experts here at the Infidels think about this argument.

I await your replies.

Regards,

Finch

DrJim

Sounds rather ad hoc to me. 3 issues come to mind quickly, 2 of which I think are quite significant.

It seems odd in 2:5 that the 'cultivated' plants should not be created yet for want of water, but the non-cultivated plants could exist.

Does he argue that 'of the field' necessarily means cultivated fields? Unless he can constrain that word to always meaning cultivated land, I think his argument is pretty weak.

A more minor point: What does he do with Gen 2:9 "And from the ground every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food"?

Jim

Atticus_Finch

Thanks for your response.

The chapter 2 account does not say that the plants existed without water, it says they they got water from means other than rain. Therefore, it is not inconsistent in that manner.

If you look closely the Gen. 2:9 reference is to the planting of the garden and not the rest of the world. Therefore, I don't think that is a problem.

Regards,

Finch

spin

There is nothing specific in the word for "field" $dh which suggests that it is cultivated, though it is used that way. The same is true about both "plant" (which could be any bush) and "herb" (which could easily be grass). And if we were to make something out of the "of the field" epithet, what does one do with 2:19, "every animal of the field and every bird of the air", then v20, "then man gave names to all cattle (usually indicating livestock) and to the birds of the air and to every animal of the field"? Need I comment?


spin

spin

There is a generic misunderstanding of the text here. There was nothing growing out of the ground, nor anyone to till the ground, as god had not provided water, ie rain. This is the starting condition "in the day that the lord god made the earth and the heavens" -- there was nothing before this as the text clearly states --, so to facilitate the growth of things a mist came out of the ground. (We are clearly not in the Mesopotamian context of the first, dangerous water creation.) This mist was the trigger for this creation. Man was formed and the rest followed.

That's how the text reads. It is only when one tries to shoehorn this account into a sense that included the first creation account does one start performing contortions to fit the two accounts together. Let's forget about the fact that this was the day when the earth and the heavens were created -- that only confuses the issue of making the two fit together. Waltke is doing eisegesis.


spin

CJD

Chap. 2 does indeed start with a problem (no wild vegetation b/c no rain; no cultivated vegetation b/c no cultivator), both of which are answered. "Shrub" does have connotations of wild vegetation (cf Gen 21:14–15; Job 30:3–4,7), just as "plants" do often refer to cultivated vegetation (cf Exod 9:22, 31–32). The two-fold solution to the two-fold is therefore set up.

There is one problem, however. If 'ed means "mist" then the gist of the passage is as follows: "The vegetation was growing b/c there was no rain, despite the fact the ground was sopping wet from either a stream or a mist."

I've always deemed chap. 2 a mere resumption/expansion on chap. 1. There is no need to shoehorn the two accounts together. Waltke, a Hebraist of the highest caliber, is not straining too hard.

CJD

spin

This doesn't follow from the text. v5 is the condition of the world when v6 happens, ie there was no plant or grass when the mist arose -- this was before they had begun to grow --, permitting the first act of creation: yhwh elohim formed man ()dm) from the dust of the ground ()dmh). This is not a second creating of man. This is the one creation in the second account, given importance for this passage by the play on man/ground in Hebrew. You won't like this because it requires accepting a heterogeneous text -- which the ancient Jews didn't mind --, not one text which merely resumes from what came previously.

You have no grounds to do so.

With a text which reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created," we have a clear statement of what is to follow -- despite a religious motivation to detach it and and link it with what came before, despite the fact that no other toledoth in Genesis works that way --, and the conditions for what follows, "in the day that the lord god made the earth and the heavens", is that there was no plant of the field nor herb of the field. The first thing that happens in this day is the manifestation of the mist.

You have no grounds to assume a continuation. There are so many things that don't allow you. Beside the obvious textual indications outlined in my previous paragraph, we have a change of name for god, we have a change in conditions from a wet world to a dry one, we have a less sophisticated theology and a more simplistic world view.

The tired old refusal to read the text as it is written by attempting one fudge after another is only to be expected by a religionist who has a fixed view of a text which is certainly one that cannot be understood by predispositions which want it to conform to a priori needs of coherence.

Then why do it?

Being a "Hebraist of the highest caliber" doesn't necessarily qualify him to be a scholarly commentator.


spin

CJD

Er, I meant to write "The vegetation was NOT growing b/c there was no rain, despite the fact the ground was sopping wet from either a stream or a mist." Now that constitutes a problem. In most translations, the "mist" seems to be occurring at the same as the earth lacked vegetation.

Oops. I agree with what you wrote after this. I don't think chap. 2 is a simple "continuation"; I do think, however, it could be an expansion. I further don't mind it being a heterogeneous text, since I don't deem the point of either to be cosmological in intent (i.e., intent on discussing the nature of the cosmos). Sure, they discuss the creator god creating, but more in contradistinction to any other creation myths that were then floating around (I guess).

I have grounds to assume expansion, because we have pretty good evidence the text had a few good editors down the road. Editors, mind you, not concerned with relieving apparent contradictions, but editors with at least a smidgen of concern with presenting theological fluidity in their writings.

If 'ed truly means "mist," then we have a problem. Why would the implied author let that stand?

I'm not so sure this is the weighty point it's supposed to be. If this body of writing was in the hands of the Israelites, and was kept current for the nation as their history unfurled, why didn't they just insert "YHWH" in Gen. 1:1? There's more to it than just: "Because the other portions of the text were just rammed together."

Not necessarily, no. But having sat under him, I can tell you he doesn't lack the skills. Besides, his Genesis commentary is a step above a lay person's guide. Try his Proverbs commentaries on for size.

CJD

spin

This doesn't seem to be what the text is saying.

"All the plants of the field before they were in the earth, and all the grass of the field before it grew, for god had not cause rain on the earth and (there was) no man to till the ground,"

This is the state at this creation, ie there were no plants or grass or people...

"And there was rising a mist which caused all the face of the ground to be watered."

This was the necessary condition, the change which happened: the mist came up and continued to come until all the ground was moistened. This is when the lord god made man from the dust of the ground.

Different authorship, ie different source, was sufficient. Why for example include the different stories of the patriarch and his wife being passed off as sister in foreign land? Why thread together two accounts of the flood?

On necessary commentary writing skills...
The position he has taken over this issue is not credible to me.


spin

CJD

Forgive the choppiness of the following translation:

"And every shrub the field, being prior he was on the Earth, and every herb the field before he had sprouted, since not he had made rain, YHWH Elohim, upon the Earth and man being not to serve the ground.

"But mist he went up from the Earth and he watered all ones being surface the ground."

I know it's small, but should it be "but mist" or "and mist"? Why do most translations go with the former (choosing nonsense over sense)?

I don't think chap. 2 being an expansion on chap. 1 is a stretch, and that for a very simple reason: the geography of the text. We often miss the geographical reading of the text. And the theme of the text is clearly vegetation and humanity — a theme, I might add, inextricably tied to the previous account. Heterogeneous, maybe. But in its final form, inextricably tied to the former via theme (Day 3b — Day 6b = Vegetation — Humanity).

A few more things about the names of God and doublets:

1. The variations in divine names are meaningful; the variation has intent. YHWH is used when god's covenant love or relationship with Israel is in view (see Gen. 11:27–16:16). Elohim is used when god is being spoken of as the god over all nations — the universal god (see Gen. 17:3–22:24).

It is of course plausible that the different names, while no less meaningful, were already a part of the source material.

2. The "sister-wife" stories and other doublets, to my mind, can no more be designated disparate renditions of a single historical event than they can be deemed repetitions and parallels in a unified narrative to emphasize something (i.e., strategy over strata; see R. Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative, 47–62). Source criticism is notoriously tendentious, and may well tell us more about the critic than the text.


Best,

CJD