CJD

Good points, the both of you. I am not married to Futato's view, and so this discussion has helped me "pontificate" further as to the meaning and theology of early Genesis.

At least give me the benefit of the doubt, after having sat under crusty old Hebraists, to have come across a "standard scholarly commentary" or two. When I disagree, I try to do it as cognitively as possible (given biblical literature is not my forte).

CJD

CJD

Greetings.

Spin, just a few comments:

Your proposed logic of the text is indeed plausible, but I must ask, do you think it stands in contradiction to the idea that v. 5 introduces two negative conditions (and the reasons behind them), thus setting the reader up for two positive resolutions? Furthermore, the close connection between "man" and the "ground" is grossly obvious, and serves little more than to present a bit of anthropology: man was formed from the earth to live on the earth, eventually returning to the earth.

As for the structure of each sentence starting its description of a creative act by naming yhwh elohim, why can't the text read "For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth . . . so he began to make . . . ." While you don't need the reminder, spin, some readers may in order to see my point: verse and chapter delineations were not a part of the original text.

I was simply referring to your comment that God had nothing to do with the mist that came up out of the earth. If ya aleh in Genesis 2:6 (used in the context of matar and erets) is seen as a hiphil with God as the subject, then God quite clearly had something to do with the watering of the ground.

Finally, The notion that this text serves as a polemic against Baalism comes as a result of viewing the text in its social context. If this creation account was compiled for the Israelites as early as the supposed Exodus, then it would serve as a warning to the people to not adopt the Baalism in the land they were about to enter. As arguably the most powerful god (because of his connection to fertility), this storm god would have posited the biggest threat to the religion of the Israelites. As you well know, life in the Palestinian Levant was sustained by rainfall. While dew was a major player there, the agricultural cycle was inextricably tied to the rainy season.

Let's assume this text was not known to the Israelites until the kingdom years. No matter. Consider the stories about Elijah, especially the one where he challenges the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. What is the test? Who can bring rain? According to the text, it decisively God, not Baal. Look at Psalm 29. Everytime you read the word "Lord" insert "Baal." This is nothing more than a classic Ugaritic text. Maybe even the psalmist purposefully took over a popular Canaanite song?

All this to say that Baalism was a major institution during this time. If, for the Syro-Palestinian rain = life, then I do not think it is a stretch to see the creation accounts as providing an antidote to Baalism: "Listen, people, YHWH is Lord of the rain and the grain." This compilation of stories must also be connected to rest of the compilation. Genesis serves as the history of the people of Israel: The God of Israel is the God of the Patriarchs; The God of the Patriarchs is the Creator God. Thus, YHWH, the covenant Lord of Israel, has been Lord of rain and grain (and hence, life) since the very beginning. Quite obviously, then, the main theological theme of Genesis 1–2 is "The LORD, he is God; the LORD, he is God."(1 Kgs 18:39).

Regards,

CJD

spin

I think the audience would know what the current situation was. And I think it important not to treat the literature so much as a treatise, but as a reflection of cultural thought, meant to communicate with people.

Why choose the word adam and not ish or enosh? Yes, the text was doing a number of things, including giving an understanding of the way things were supplying a "why".

In verse 5 yhwh elohim was part of a subordinate clause (marked by KY). Verse 6 is not a subordinate clause.

I'm sorry, I don't see how any of this has any bearing to our reading of the text. There are no indications of Ba`al, no rhetorical devices to make one think of him.

There is quite an amount of Ugaritic literature which is paralleled in Hebrew writing, suggesting a common background of cultural ideas.

(Ba`al means "lord". He is almost certainly Hadad by name.)

I have no doubt about this.

No. Ba`al and yhwh shared much. Ba`al was a rain god, he was the "cloud-rider" underlying Dan 7:13ff. I don't think you've made a case for injecting Ba`al into the story. As I've pointed out, there's nothing from the text to suggest it and that is our starting point, the text.

The theological aims of the two creation accounts are very different and I don't think what was written in Kings can be shown to have much to do with the texts we are considering.

The tone of your conclusion seems to be that of witnessing. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but witnessing has nothing to do with understanding.


spin

CJD

Don't take this the wrong way; I am grinning and my tone is light: What the hell do you think the text purports to do?! The answer, in case you missed it with your rather atomistic approach to things, is witness. Witness to what is exactly what we are debating.


This is precisely what I have presupposed in my exegesis. Hence the polemic against Baalism. I should be the last person to be accused of treating an ancient Semitic text as a systematic treatise in the modern sense.

The very fact that both creation accounts depict God performing deeds that were reserved for the Canaanite "pantheon" is as valid a starting point as any. In literary criticism, "new criticism" was the phrase given to those who assumed that the reader has as his or her "starting point" the text—without giving any consideration to the peripheral religio-socio-grammatical contexts surrounding the text. It is not so new anymore, nor is it looked upon so favorably. Divorcing the text from its surrounding context will more likely lead the reader to superimpose his or her biases upon the text.

Case in point: who here thinks they can better understand this ancient text without having at least a minimal knowledge of the topography of the Palestinian Levant?

And your point is?

Except for the fact that the texts in question were revised and edited as late as the events described in the books of Kings. Tell me how a text that is compiled, edited and revised by scribes in the Kingdom period would not reflect ideas of the very period in which they are compiled, edited and revised.

Regards,

CJD

spin

As your conclusion had little concrete to do with the discussion, I can see no reason for it, other than a long list of witness points in the guise of a description of Genesis (-- my description would be somewhat different). I'm sorry if I read you wrongly.


Assumed polemic against baalism.

Don't apply your preconceived formats to the text. A text doesn't need to fit your constraints. You must read what it says first, then attempt to place it in a context.

As nearly all theologies deal with creation, I can't see that what you suggest is as valid a starting point as any. Before you start making comparisons you need to show that there is some reason to do so.

I'm wholeheartedly in favour of reading texts in their context. Our task in understanding a text involves recreating as much as we can of the writer's ethos: what he knew from either what he read or what was culturally passed on to him, who his audience was, where it was written, why it was written, what his socio-economico-cultural conditions were, etc. But this must be done working from facts.

Ba`al is naturally important in the whole region. Jews adhered to his worship. In later Judaism, the name was deemed so odious that it was excised from the onomasticon, as in the case of Ishbaal and Meribaal. (We only know of them because Chronicles preserve their baal names.)

We see Ba`al standing clearly behind the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13. Someone as late as the writer of Daniel (ca 165 BCE) can use the story of the victory of Ba`al over Yamm, shows how long the baal traditions were preserved within Judea. (We usually have an erroneous idea of when polytheism died out in Judea.)

One has to know the range of traditions available to the writer of an ancient text to be able to appreciate him. But one also has to show that the traditions bear import on what is being studied. You haven't attempted to do so here.

You assume the following: "Genesis serves as the history of the people of Israel". Understanding the accretion of the book of Genesis should correct over-generalizations. The two creation accounts were written at different times for different purposes.

I don't believe much of what you write above to contain facts. Wasn't Kings as we have it compiled in the Hasmonean kingdom? Were any biblical texts written before the exile period?


spin

CJD

Are you dodging? I am not speaking of "nearly all theologies"; I am speaking of the very theology that posed the biggest threat to the covenantal cohesion of the Israelite community—that of Baalism.

Um, the text comes to us via Torah, part and parcel of the TNK. What do you think Genesis serves as? I understand the accretions, and that is exactly why I understand the two creation accounts, while being written at different times for different purposes, were nevertheless edited and revised and compiled for a unified purpose. The late additions (e.g. 14:14 and the mention of "Dan"; 36:31 and the reference to the kings of Israel; quite possibly, the second account of Esau's line 36:98–29; and maybe the introduction to the interlude about Judah [chp. 38] into the Joseph Story) show the hands of scribes working during the united monarchy.

I think quite simply that "Moses" (I use the quotes for the reader's benefit) was the primary author of the so-called J and that he used fragments of diverse material, which have traditionally been denominated as P, to skillfully construct a unified piece. Maybe even the J author interpolated the alleged D material (e.g., Gen. 26:5) into his finished composition? From there, any number of scribes attended to it, as the 'historical' books as a whole (including Genesis) were living texts in their hands, who kept the text current for the people. At any rate, it's only educated guessing at best, and carries little weight for the wary.

As for that bit about Chronicles, it is unlikely the books were revised all that much after 390 BC. Why? The geneology of 1 Chr. 3:17–24 only extends to about two generations after Zerubbabel. But consider three more reasons that it might have been started earlier:

1. The book consistently presents the temple and its personnel in close partnership with the royal line of David. During the days of Zerubbabel the expectations of a Davidic and priestly partnership were high (see, for example, Zech. 3:1–4:14; Hag. 1:14–2:9, 20–23). After this generation, there was little expectation (so the evidence shows) of an imminent rise of the Davidic line to the throne of Jerusalem.

2. The Chronicler gave much attention to the details of priestly and Levitical duties. Consider this in conjunction with Zerubbabel and his priestly partner Joshua who were (attempting) establishing the new temple order (Zech. 3:1–4:14).

3. Solomon's downfall due to intermarriage is strikingly omitted, while Nehemiah rages about it (e.g., Neh. 13:26). What this suggests is that the Chronicler may have started chronicling before intermarriage had become a major problem in the post-exilic community.

While a specific date cannot be attached, the proposed date above does fit well with the emphases of the book.

Suggesting a much later date doesn't fit as well, IMO. In general terms, the whole purpose of the book is to direct the restoration of the Kingdom during the early post-exilic period. Those who returned had great expectations. The prophets predicted that the return would be a time of grand blessing (e.g., Amos 9:11–15; Joel 3:18:–21; Ezek. 34:26). But the restoration had not brought such things. Instead, those who returned endured deflated hope, economic hardship, foreign opposition, and domestic conflicts. Thus, the Chronicler wrote them to offer guidance to this struggling community. It was meant to be a practical book offering practical proscriptions for attaining a greater realization of the blessings of the promised Kingdom in their time.

Not sure this use of "the accuser" is much different than the ones in Job 1:6–2:10 and Zech. 3:1. Could you explain why?

Regards,

CJD

Celsus

The offshoot on Kings which is entirely my fault is now here.

Joel