Walt asked what evidence would support the idea that the author of Genesis did not think that he was writing a historical account. In a way, he also anticipated my reply by contrasting
Gen. 1 and 2. The contrasts include not only the change in sequence but also the apparent 7 day creation of 1:1 through 2:3 and the apparent 1 day creation of 2:4 and creation of man and woman on day 6 versus the interval of naming everything between creating Adam and creating Eve. I think the differences would have been obvious to the original readers and hearers of Genesis 1-2, suggesting non-chronological intent.
Information on rabbinic interpretations would be useful in this regard, as would knowledge of the origins of apocryphal writings that seem to take a chronological interpretation. In addition to ones already mentioned on the list, II Esdras seems to take creation as one calendar week. I do not know if this passage is thought to originate among Hebrew or Aramaic speakers, however. Also, Luther's approach to II Esdras shows that people had problems with the book before scientific issues arose. He threw it in the Elbe.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
46860 Hilton Dr #1113
Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 20:35:36 EST