From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat Nov 08 2003 - 07:15:10 EST
Peter Ruest wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote (answering Walter Hicks comments):
> > ...
> > I want to be careful with statements about the author's intentions because I
> > can't get inside their heads. All we have access to is what they wrote - & begging
> > your pardon, _that_ is what's important because that's what constitutes scripture.
>
> I heartily agree with this! But I would like to comment critically about
> some of your (George's) points which follow.
>
> What
> > we can say with some certainty is that the intention of the author(s) of 1:1-2:4a was
> > considerably significantly different from that of the author(s) of 2:4b-25 because they
> > give quite different pictures of creation.
>
> I agree that the intention of the author of (a) Gen.1:1-2:4 was
> significantly different from that of the author of (b) 2:4-25. I think
> it was the same author, but he was pursuing two different contexts and
> aims. And this brings me to the criticism I want to make at this point.
> It is widely assumed that (a) and (b) deal with the same topic, namely
> creation. And this is the reason for much of the difficulty we have with
> them. The context of (a) clearly is creation, with humans representing
> but a part of the story (although an important one); it deals with the
> whole earth (in part even the universe). But the context of (b) is Adam
> and Eve in the garden of Eden and their personal relationship to Yahweh.
> This is quite a different topic, and the assumption that they are
> dealing with the same thing is not conclusive. The statement that they
> give quite different pictures of creation is at least premature at this
> point.
1st, please excuse my overuse of adjectives ("considerably significantly
different") due to poor proofreading!
Whether or not the 2 accounts are by different authors is not crucial - though
the fact that the 1st seems to speak to a situation around the time of the exile argues
against the traditional idea that Moses was its literal author.
Certainly the 2d account deals with the first humans in the garden of Eden - but
it deals with their _creation_ (as well as that of the plants & animals) in the garden.
The 2 accounts use different verbs to speak of this (the 2d does not use bara') but they
are both talking about the coming into being of the 1st living things.
............................
> > But take another example. In the flood story of course all the animals come on
> > board 2 by 2. We all know that, whether we learned it in Sunday School or not, & many
> > casual readers of the Bible read through the story & just think that's the way it was -
> > it's right there in 6:19-20. But if you read it carefully you notice in 7:2-3 you see a
> > rather different provision. It just ain't the same. & if you are at all careful the
> > thought will occur to you, "Maybe there are 2 different sources, or 2 different stories,
> > here." At least you'll consider the possibility.
> > OTOH, those who immediately leap to "harmonizing" (basically, the first
> > statement just didn't mention 5 of the pairs of clean animals) are no longer being just
> > "casual". They are now ignoring what the text really says and forcing it to fit their
> > preconceived idea that the flood story is a unified historical narrative.
>
> Is it ignoring the text when in 7:2-3 it explicitely says 7 of the clean
> animals, but 2 of the others? And in 8:20-22 we read of the sacrifices
> Noah offered, apparently in accordance with the Lord's will. Would that
> be reasonable if he had only 2 of each?
My arguments (which in fact is quite standard) is not just that the 2 sets of
verses I mentioned come from different sources, but that the whole story is
composed of material which originated from 2 or more sources. The account of the
sacrifices would belong to the material which speaks about the 7 clean & 2 unclean
pairs. I am not dogmatically committed to the old documentary hypothesis but there's a
fair amount of truth in it. The material in 7:2-3 & 8:20-22 is consistent with a
priestly theology which emphasized, inter alia, sacrificial ritual & the clean-unclean
distinction. (& it's also worth noting that the clean-unclean distinction is an
anachronism in the flood story since that distinction isn't codified until much later.)
> Do we then have to conclude that
> the twos of 6:19-20 don't fit the whole story? I don't think so. 6:19-20
> was given before the building of the ark, probably very much earlier
> than 7:2-3 when it was time for Noah to enter the ark, so in 6:19-20, a
> general command would do (particularly since in that context the purpose
> of this action was given as keeping the species alive), but in 7:2-3,
> the command had to be specified more precisely concerning the clean
> animals needed for sacrifice (Noah may have wondered about that
> himself). In what way would that be forcing the text to fit one's
> preconceived ideas? (By the way, I am in the same case as Walter, never
> having been to any Sunday school, and becoming a Christian at age 21).
> The thought of 2 different sources of 2 different stories is, at this
> point, at least premature.
Of course I am not saying that the existence of different sources here has been
proved with scholastic rigor, but it doesn't seem to me that you are giving it serious
consideration. Instead you are immediately jumping to the task of "harmonizing" the
material on an historical level.
....................................
> > ...
> > As I pointed out in an exchange with Allen a few weeks ago (& is in fact pretty
> > common knowledge), the chronology of Genesis 2 differs from that of Genesis 1.
>
> This "common knowledge" is a consequence of the assumption that (a) and
> (b) are both "creation stories" dealing with the same subject matter. A
> corollary of this (erroneous) assumption is that 2:5-7 and 18-20 is
> assumed to concern the whole earth. Again, this is not at all required,
> as 8-17 very clearly deals with a restricted area in southern
> Mesopotamia (cf. C.A. Hill, "The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape",
> Persp.Sci.Christ.Faith 52/1 (2000), 31-46). A further consequence is the
> assumption that we have in (b) a sequence of creation events, which
> conflicts with the one of (a). At least at this point, this assumption
> is premature.
As I said above, there is no justification for saying that Gen.2:4b-25 isn't a
creation story. Of course it's a very different _type_ of story from 1:1-2:4a but
that's just my point.
> > There are other differences (the designations for God, the nature of God's activity, the
> > picture of the world, e.g.) but let's stick with the chronology of the creation of
> > living things. In 1 it's land plants - sea creatures & birds - land animals - humans
> > (male & female). In 2 it's male human - land plants - land animals - female human.
> > They can't both be historically accurate accounts. That being the case, one ought to be
> > careful about assuming that either one is.
>
> If (b) (or 2) doesn't deal with creation events at all - as would be
> most naturally understood from the localization in southern Mesopotamia
> -, there is no chronology of creation, either, and no contradiction to
> (a) (or 1) has been shown. Furthermore, placing (b) in a local context
> means that it could be a historically accurate account without being a
> creation account. Attempts at avoiding contradictions between different
> texts are certainly not worse, in principle, than attempts at finding
> contradictions. Often, it will be a question of debate which approach is
> a more "natural" reading of the text, and where the text is being
> "forced".
My point is completely misunderstood if seen simply as an attempt to "find
contradiction". They are contradictions only if one insists on reading both accounts as
historical narratives, & my point is to argue that they aren't. & I should not be see
as saying that the 2 accounts are not in harmony, but they should be "harmonized" as
theological rather than as historical accounts.
.............................................
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 08 2003 - 07:19:28 EST