From: PASAlist@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 15:15:04 EST
Peter wrote,
<<Even if their writing system may have been "primitive" (which I still
doubt), their language certainly was not primitive a mere 5000 or 5600
years ago. And most certainly, Adam's language was not "primitive"! Nor
were his capacities for planning transmission of revelations received
from God, no matter how he did that. What "society's financial,
religious and political leaders" did at that time may not be the key to
what a man of God did. It may even be that Adam belonged to the line of
the 10 pre-flood Sumerian "kings" found on a clay tablet. It seems that
our disagreement focuses on the historicity of Adam as a person. I think
this has theological implications, as well.>.
The accounting records that were written in Archaic Sumerian were the work of
the financial, religious and political powers that existed. The point is that
since writing narratives such as exist later would have been a means of
increasing their power, and since historically the powers that be virtually
always aim at increasing or at least solidifying their power, they would have
written narratives if the writing system had allowed for it. The historicity
of Adam has nothing to do with it.
<< Well, if Adam talked Sumerian, which would be the most natural inference
from what we know today, you may be right about the wordplays - unless
God, intending these wordplays in advance, gave Adam a name, and led him
and Eve to choose names in accordance with the properties of a later
Semitic language. Of course, this is speculation, but not more so than
the usual mythology hypothesis (in this context, I am still studying
Alexander RofÈ's book you recommended - more about this later). >>
God intending word plays in advance seems to me to be ad hoc and even more
speculative than the speculation that Adam received Gen 1 by revelation
(which I find improbable because Gen 1 is related to Enuma elish which cannot
be dated before 1800 BC, and if the Babylonian creation account came second,
how is it that the Babylonians of all people were the only ones who followed
the divine revelation about the dividing of the primeval waters and the
sequence of the days?) As to Rofe, I do not deny that he speculates; and I do
not agree with everything he says. I recommended the book because it presents
in a fairly concise way the data for a critical view of the Pentateuch.
To my "But, Gen 1-5 could come from oral tradition. In fact, all of the
toledoth sections could come from oral tradition." you said,
<<This is a non-sequitur. My concession to the late-writing postulate
implied a modification regarding the second colophon only. But your
argument implies a dismissal of all the evidence for the toledoth
structure of Genesis.>>
In the scenario you painted, Adam is no longer the author, owner or
commissioner of the section bearing his name. The section with his name is an
oral tradition passed to Lamech (who kept it in his head for hundreds of
years before writing it down), and you said the 2nd colophon could mean,
"information obtained from Adam." But, if the clause "These are the
generations of ..." does not necessarily refer to the author, owner or
commissioner of the tablet, then the "information obtained from whoever" in
the rest of the toledoth could also be oral traditions written down long
after the person named.
Further, the toledoth clause does not have to mean "obtained from Adam." The
clause could just as well mean "information concerning Adam" or, as Hamilton
translates, "the story or history of Adam." So, all of the toledoth content
could have been separate oral stories which were written down long afterward.
<<If, for the sake of argument, you postulate tablets written at the time
of Abraham or Jacob: what do you make of the colophon names (and the few
dating indications cited by Wiseman)? You again have to ignore them as
traditional colophons, destroying the obvious Genesis structure.>>
As I said above, the names relate to the content of the section. Also, there
is no reason outside of just liking the colophon theory to identify them as
traditional cuneiform colophons. Hamilton explicitly disputes the idea that
they are colophons at the end of a section as is the case with the cuneiform
colophons. He, like most OT scholars, understands them to be introductions to
the sections, so not colophons as the theory defines them. Yet, they are the
first thing he mentions when he discusses the structure of Genesis. So, one
does not have to interpret the toledoth as traditional cuneiform colophons in
order to maintain the obvious Genesis structure.
<>
Since most OT scholars understand the biblical toledoth to be introductions
not conclusions, one cannot say that the theory is "in agreement with the
most natural understanding of Scripture." Gen 2:4 may be an exception placed
after the content of Gen 1 for polemical purposes (to completely obviate any
possible suggestion of a generation of the gods), but since it does not name
someone as author, owner or commissioner of the supposed tablet, it is an
exception to the traditional colophon theory as well. And, if the biblical
colophons are introductions, then the textual and archaeological evidence,
which is about conclusions, is irrelevant. This leaves the theory resting on
nothing more than a probable misinterpretation of the toledoth clauses in
Genesis. That is not better than the theory of Wellhausen.
As for Jim, I don't see where Pentateuchal theories influenced him. Further,
would you prefer that he had remained in creation science? I don't think so.
You presumably would have preferred that he remained in day-age concordism;
but, day-age concordism is no different in principle from creation science:
Creation science ignores the great majority of scientists in order to
maintain a private interpretation of the scientific data, and concordism
ignores the great majority of OT scholars in order to maintain a private
interpretation of the biblical data. In my opinion they are both unbiblical
illusions, and I am glad he gave them up. His outgrowing of two illusions
suggests that he can outgrow "agnosticism" as well. Though I am not a
five-point Calvinist, I think it is biblical to believe that if his faith was
really of God and he continues to seek the truth, he will outgrow
"agnosticism."
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 11:00:16 EST