CJD

Apikorus, I largely agree with you here. I just think the text, given its use as a narrative for the Israelites to embrace and use as a polemic against Baalism, has as its primary function theology, not a literal rendition of the creation of the cosmos. Sure, it serves a dual function, but this itself doesn't demand wooden literalism. Precisely because the text is enigmatic I do not think Futato over-extends his reach.

The reference to the fossil record, by the way, was from me and not intended to be superimposed upon the ancient writer. My point was just that the primary purpose of the text is not to relate a quasi-scientific account of creation; it is theological. I have yet to see anyone—especially from the likes of Whitefield, et al.—soundly undermine the notion that the creation narrative is arranged topically.

As an aside, the very reason I have abandoned reading this particular text in so literal a fashion is because of the conclusions proffered by folks like Whitefield. It seems to me that siding with their hermeneutical approach, only to deride their conclusions, is rather expedient of you (all).

I see your point here. But as I mentioned previously, the ed, when taken in its surrounding context, seems to fit better as a reference to rain.

Regards,

CJD

Amos

The introduction of Lord God as second cause is the rain. Heretofore only creation as first cause existed which must be conceived by the second cause and this is where vapor turns into rain out of which things are formed. I'll take this one step further and say that Gen.3 describes the third cause wherein co-creation leads to understanding along the path of scientific inquiry. ie. the second cause saw that the third cause would be good for gaining wisdom.

Apikorus

(hoo boy)

Amos

Sorry, carry on. I didn't read the thread and should have left it alone.

All we are doing here is give some structure to space which was a formless wasteland until rational thoughts became part of the action and this is where vapor (which is the word of God) found existence in the identity of the species. The mighty wind swept over the waters just means that our life-blood boils in our vains towards understanding for which the earth must first be seperated from to waters so it can become the target of our inquiry.

This is probably a poetic description of awakening or realization in the minds of all infants before the creation of the ego identity in the next chapter (our Adamic nature is created in Gen 3). Don't forget, Gen 2 needs to identify the identity that must be redeemed later in life and so the mist is a metaphor for the incarnate wisdom required to nourish us prior to and beyond our rational thoughts. We can also say that the vapor is emitted from the Tree of Life where wisdom is retained and if it is retained there it will also flow from there into the unstructured space of our [at one time] tabula rasa.

Apikorus

No, CJD, I think it quite wrongheaded to persist in this eid=rain identification. Gen 2:5 says there was no vegetation because God hadn't caused it to rain, nor was there a man to work the earth. Then in 2:6 comes the moisturizing eid up from the earth (not from the heavens), and in 2:7 we get man from dirt (adam from adamah, as spin points out). All this makes perfect sense in context. There's no rain in this story, and Futato's convoluted reasoning is completely unwarranted.

Futato's identification of "problems" in need of "solution" is, in the immortal words of the great Wolfgang Pauli, "not even wrong". Like many Christian apologists struggling with the Hebrew Bible, Futato confuses his feelings for actual thoughts. That this sort of b.s. can sometimes pass for scholarship in this field makes me want to bend my knees and thank the Lord that I am a physicist. Were I not also an atheist, I'd do just that.

Incidentally, there's not much theology in the J creation account. P yes, J no. J has some mythology and plenty of aetiology but it is P's account where God speaks the world into existence, creates day and night, sun and moon, man in his own image, pronounces his work good, and then rests. J mentions most of creation in passing in 2:4b. Note too the anthropomorphism in J's account: Yahweh walks in the garden. Of course, if you assume that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are part of a coherent unit by a single author, then one "theology" is presumed to apply throughout. But this is a bad assumption.

Amos

I always find that the letters "Dr." before a reference are like a "heads up" in the cattle business.

CJD

Apikorus, the extent of your sarcasm is not justified. The good Doctor Futato might be a bit eccentric, even emotional, but his work is not entirely ruled by it as you suggest. I literally do thank God for the man's work, despite my disagreeing with him on cerain points. Flippantly casting him aside is tantamount to stepping on the head of another to gain ascendency.

Neither you, spin, or Wolfang Pauli have disproved the proposed form of Genesis 2:5–7. Spin prefers to call v. 5 merely a "starting condition." That's fine with me; but it is quite clearly a negative starting condition. Actually using the words "Problems, Reasons, Solutions" is irrelevant. As you pointed out earlier, ein miqra yotsei miydei peshuto; and the form of Genesis 2:5–7 demands just this. If you don't think it does, then I suggest you and spin get together and figure out why (notice my previous post on this issue has been left alone).

Next, we get to the ed, which you both deem comes from out of the earth, thus not dew or rain, maybe some kind of mist? Funny, that. Every been in the middle of a rain cloud? Kind of misty, isn't it? This brings us to the Job pericope that Futato discusses in his article. Dahood's rendition that he adopts is almost case-closed. Who has offered a better alternative? If there is one, post it immediately please. Futato writes:
Thus Futato adopts Dahood's translation of Job 36:27: "When he draws up drops from the sea, they distill as rain (matar) from his rain cloud" (ed). Which, when coupled with the following verse in the NIV, makes the most complete sense:

Verse 27: "When he draws up drops from the sea,
they distill as rain from his rain cloud (Dahood).

Verse 28: "The clouds pour down their moisture
and abundant showers fall on mankind" (NIV).

Let us not forget that this is not innovative, for, as Futato points out, "the ancient Targums consistently render ed with Aramaic nn (“cloud”)!"

I think this is clear enough. But what seems to really set both of your teeth on edge is the preposition mn. The objection arises that Gen. 2:6 cannot be translated "A rain cloud came up from the earth," since rain clouds do not literally come up from the land (or the earth, erets).

For example, spin objected that On the hand, Psalm 135:7 states that
"He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth (erets);
he sends lightning with the rain
and brings out the wind from his storehouses."

Uncanny parallel to Genesis 2:5, no? Note that (as Futato points out) "makes rise" is the hiphil of lh, just as "came up" is the qal of lh in Gen. 2:6. Futato thus remarks Consider also Jeremiah 10:13 (cf. Jer. 51:16),
"When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar;
he makes clouds rise (hiphil of lh)
from the ends of the earth.

He sends lightning with the rain (matar)
and brings out the wind from his storehouses."


Futato goes onCertain things added for clarity's sake.

Note that this in is in contradistinction with spin's opinion that "Now this mist came out of the earth without God's intervention, i.e., it has nothing to do with God." Not surprisingly, little attention is given to the theology that the text purports: God is no mere parallel to Ba'al, he stands in direct opposition to that pretender, as the only one who causes rain (somebody mentioned the shema on another thread somewhere recently; the idea is the same: YHWH alone is God [not Ba'al, etc., etc.). What is more, the imperfect of lh in Gen. 2:6 can and should be taken as an inceptive: ". . . he began to make rain clouds arise . . . ." This would make perfect sense in its context: God had not yet sent rain (v. 5), and in v. 6 he sends it.

Futato goes on to deal with another objection, but you folks haven't raised it. It is a far less substantial objection anyway. Suffice to say that a "river" in Gen. 2:10 is said to water the garden—not rain. But this can be "explained as a means of connecting the source (“rain clouds;” v6) with the result (“river;” v10)." Etcetera. Read the article if you wish to know more.

Finally, I am not opposed to a documentary hypothesis. But I probably differ with many of you as to when the earliest compilations of such documents began to be edited and revised. I am of the opinion that J and P were known to the Israelites before their occupation of Canaan.Thus the main polemic of the text as a whole is that YHWH is not only Lord of all creation, he is the God of the Israelites, the sender of rain, the provider and protector of his people. One needn't presume (wrongly) single authroship. But single editorial-ship is evident throughout—first early on (in the case of the "exodus"), and finally in the hands of the Deuteronomist (exile and beyond).

Sorry so long, but the readership deserved something more than a mere sleight of hand,

CJD

Apikorus

This is bizarre. Obviously I am arguing for the peshat of Gen 2:6, which is why I cited the talmudic dictum from b. Yevamot in the first place. The peshat of 2:6 says that a moisturizing eid arose from the earth and watered the whole "face of the ground". That's the peshat, the whole peshat, and nothing but the peshat.

As the HB clearly acknowledges subterranean sources of water, it is hardly problematic that the eid, whatever it is, should arise min haaretz.

I think Futato's analysis of Job 36:27 leaves much to be desired. As I stated earlier, eid appears only in these two places in the entire HB, and both are somewhat enigmatic. I believe "mist" is a good guess, but I would not presume to insist on a definitive meaning. Moreover, even if its meaning in Job were unambiguous, it still would be risky to assign the same meaning in Genesis. It is of course tempting to do so, but the semantic range of eid can hardly be inferred from one or two occurrences. Futato is simply wanking here.

The passage from Psalm 135 is hardly compelling. Ps 135:7 has the mist/vapors (nasi'im) ascending "from the ends of the earth". Clearly the "ends of the earth" are a singular location, and unique phenomena may occur there. Gen 2:6 refers simply to ha'aretz. I also fail to see the parallel that you do. Ps 135:7 talks about lightning and wind as well, and focuses on divine phenomena originating in the "deep places" (t'homot in 135:6). The focus of Gen 2:6 is not the depths, but rather the familiar surface of the earth, where the eid provided essential moisture and the adam worked the fields.

Apikorus

One additional thought on eid that struck me as I was...um...sitting down. Note that eid = אד , adam = אדמ , adamah = אדמה , so perhaps J preferred the less common eid for orthographical reasons. The semantic range of eid, which we can never hope to recover, may have permitted this bit of artistry while not straying too far from his intended meaning. All this is quite plausible. Attempts to twist v'eid yaaleh min ha'aretz into "rain clouds arose from the ends of the earth" based on other biblical passages of dubious relevance are utterly misguided, in my opinion.

Incidentally, the reason why the author of Ps 135 referred to the "ends of the earth" is pretty obvious, if you've ever watched clouds drifting by. Where do they come from, those clouds? Well, if you're an ancient Israelite, you might think that there's some special place at the "ends of the earth" where they all bubble up out of the ground and waft toward you.

There's an interesting discussion of rain in b. Taanit 9b. You can read about it here. The gemara discusses a baraita where R' Eliezer declares, "the entire world drinks from the waters of the ocean." (Note that the biblical text refers to ha'aretz but the gemara speaks of meimei oqyainos.) The proof text for this is none other than Gen 2:6. Clearly Eliezer infers from the words min ha'aretz an earthly source of water. R' Yehoshua then says, "but the waters of the ocean are salty!" Eliezer has a ready response: "they become sweetened in the clouds." Yehoshua still disagrees with Eliezer: "the entire world drinks from the upper waters," i.e. from the heavenly storehouse of waters, and cites a proof text: Deut 11:11. He goes on to ask, "so how do I explain the verse v'eid yaaleh min ha'aretz? Good question, R' Yehoshua! What is his answer? "It teaches that the clouds build and ascend to the sky, and open their mouths like a waterskin, and receive rain water." So in order to harmonize Gen 2:6 and Deut 11:11, Yehoshua posits that the eid of Gen 2:6 is a moistureless cloud which rises from the earth and then is filled from the heavenly water tanks. The proof text adduced here is none other than Job 36:27, which Yehoshua apparently thinks is saying that rain is poured into the eid cloud. What happens next? "The clouds are perforated like a sieve, and they come and sprinkle water on the ground."

Of course even the baraitot are late compared with the biblical text, but they often agree with views implicit in the Targumim. At any rate, so much for your misty clouds. It is interesting that noone in the gemara took the position that the eid moisture came from subterranean sources. But equally noteworthy is the fact that there is no question as to the meaning of min ha'aretz.

spin

Starting condition, ie dry world, event happens, ie liquid from out of the earth (you know, underground water). In these conditions God makes adam from the dust of the ground (adamah). It is implicit that had there not been the moisture God would not have made adam. But don't complain that it doesn't suit your theology, please.

Out of the earth. And that kills the hypothesis of Futato.

It don't come from the horizon, do it? Ain't clouds. Ain't no rain. Just enough moisture to dampen the soil.

You don't want the soil too sloppy now do you?

This seems to be pretty absurd from someone who should know what the various world views are to be found in biblical literature. Would you please deal with the text and stop just citing tom, dick, and harry, who are not here to face analysis.

Don't play misty for me.

Actually not much sense.

v27 gives a process of the "construction" of rain:

a) Drops drawn from sea
b) Rain forms from the vapour (ie the drops drawn from the sea)

then v28 tells us

the skies ($XQYM) pour and drop (giving the idea of individual sprays or trickles of water) on man abundantly.

(The text strangely enough never actually mentions clouds at all, when I look at it. The word most frequently translated as "cloud" is `B, though $XQ is sometimes translated thus for reading ease.)

Citing Targums can at best show how much later translators understood the few uses of 'D.

Clear as mud.

That should tell you that Futato's attempts are misguided. Nothing more.

I wonder what adjective you would use if there were more than two words (`LH and 'RC) in common between the two texts.

He's right. What other verb would you expect a writer to use, if he wanted to say simply "come up"? If there were a better verb, I'd be happy to hear of it.

The word uniquely translated as "clouds" here is literally "princes" (N$Y'YM). Who knows what the writer was originally thinking with "princes being brought up from the ends of the earth"? Is it a metaphor?

You should realise that there aren't too many verbs in the Hebrew preserved in the HB. Few verbs get used a lot and Futato's leaning too heavily on `LH seems hopeful at best.

Neither the LXX nor Vulgate agree with the Dahood/Futato interpretation of Y`LH in Gen 2:5 and there is nothing in 2:5 to suggest one read the verb as they do, so it should not be read so.

Contradiction? What contradiction?

Please help me understand where Baal comes into the 2:5-7 story?

The first act specifically indicated in the text in this creation account is God making man. Note, not "he" but yhwh elohim. Each sentence starts its description of a creative act by naming yhwh elohim.

I've got it.

Why don't you read a standard scholarly commentary? I haven't got any to hand, but some heavyweights have already been suggested.


spin