Re: Genesis interpretation (was: A man of mud ...)

From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 20:39:21 EST

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Genesis interpretation (was: A man of mud ...)"

    On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, George Murphy wrote:

    > Peter Ruest wrote:
    > >
    > > 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.
    >
    > 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.
    >

    It appears to me that the main focus of the Genesis segment from 2:4 to
    4:26 is the story of Adam and Eve before and after the Fall and that the
    references to origins are confined to those entities that are part of the
    main story. The land and rivers are assumed to be there already. There is
    no allusion to the sea or to marine creatures. In fact there is no mention
    of the formation of even some creatures that do have a part in the
    account, i.e. the livestock of 2:20. All that is said of the origin
    of the snake in 3:1 is that God had made him (if the relative clause
    refers to him and not just the beasts of the field). The author obviously
    sees no need to tell us where the rest of creation came from.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 20:39:58 EST