Greetings peacefulpete,
Let me thank you for taking the time to read and engage with what I have written. Involved as I am in the development of this proposal, it is perhaps not always evident to me how its finding would be perceived from a more distant perspective. This is the main reason I have sought substantive responses to my work. So first let me thank you for relating your views. Apologies in the delay.
It is not clear to me whether you have read the main paper which I only have available on my personal .onion site or just the paper on bĕrēʾšît (Gen 1:1–3) available also on academia.edu (although I don’t envision substantial change to it, the main paper is still in a certain state of flux in small details and therefore only available on my personal site). You have seen the video which is sufficient for the basics of the argument. If you have read the main paper, then some of what is to follow will sound repetitive. Apologies in advance if this is the case.
As I see it, understanding Gen 1:1–2:3 begins with the narrative structure which I find to be inherent to the account. Obvious to all interpreters is the overt structure of seven days. However, among these seven days the first six are clearly distinguished from the seventh by the author. How so? The six days differ from the seventh in terms of subject matter—the six days are days of creation while the seventh day is a day of cessation from creative activity. This distinction of the six days from the seventh is reinforced by the author’s use of repetitive phrases. Most notable here is the closing refrain for each of the six days, “And there was evening, and there was morning, day X.” It is this six day group, the Hexaemeron, with which the research in my paper is principally concerned.
From here we may begin to look closer at the Hexaemeron. The next important repetitive phrase used by the author is “and Elohim said.” Interpreters for millennia have noted the use of this phrase in conjunction with a volitional verb to find eight creative fiats in the text. This in itself is not a wrong observation, but later interpreters, apparently around the time of Thomas Aquinas, began to formally arrange these eight creative fiats into two triads of days of four seemingly correspondent works, a symmetrical arrangement involving the categories distinction (distinctionis) and adornment (ornatus). Later in the 18th century Johann Gottfried Herder proposed a similar arrangement, apparently in ignorance of the earlier tradition, which he called the “Hieroglyph.” Since then this general arrangement has been advanced by still others and, in the seeming absence of any alternative, has become accepted in scholarship.
Yet as one carefully considers such symmetrical arrangements, noticeable problems begin to appear. Notice how I said arrangements, plural, because, if you read ten different presentations of these symmetrical arrangements you will see that 1. exactly what the eight creative fiats are differs from interpreter to interpreter and 2. exactly what the logical categories are for group inclusion differ from interpreter to interpreter. There is therefore a certain nebulousness inherent to the arrangement. Furthermore, one can usually find either poor correspondence between the two proposed groups or an inaccurate/partial summary of the creative fiat which does not completely accord with the text. In my main paper I note two such examples: “it seems odd that the ‘Seas’ (;ימים Gen 1:10) should be assigned to the second day when the text clearly states that they come into being on the third day after the waters below the heavens collect (Gen 1:9–10). It is also strange to see vegetation associated with only the land creatures and mankind when the text also includes flying creatures in the provision of food (Gen 1:30).” These points strongly suggest that a symmetrical arrangement is not really a naturally derived feature of the text, but is one that is being superimposed onto it. And a number of scholars have taken note of such problems as I cite in my main paper. It is in this light that Westermann’s statement is made. His solution is to throw up his hands and claim the author never really intended the account to be consistent. All these problems are simply due to a conflation of still earlier creation accounts. Therefore scholars are wasting their time trying to find a more consistent arrangement. Your statement about “overly ridged expectations” I see to work to a similar effect. It simply excuses away the fundamental problems with a symmetrical arrangement of the eight creative fiats. Apologies, but that is how it appears.
Now within this tradition of arranging eight creative fiats, there is a still earlier one, evidently originating with Augustine, which takes eight creative fiats as arranged according to the aliquots of the perfect number six—one, two and three. This arrangement proves to be the superior one even within the tradition of arranging eight creative fiats. For example, in Augustine’s arrangement the heavenly bodies (day 4) naturally correspond with the firmament (day 2), the water creatures (day 5) naturally correspond with the sea (day 3), the land creatures (day 6) naturally correspond to the earth and its vegetation (day 3) while the light (day 1) is a work unto itself. Augustine’s aliquot arrangement therefore contains natural and unforced correspondences unlike those seen in symmetrical arrangements. The only real potential problem here, besides the downplaying of vegetation to the scheme, comes from understanding “flying creatures” as a kind of water creature, but, as I note in my paper, this is explicable due to an ancient aqueous conception of the air based on air humidity. This point I support with statements by Philo as well as Augustine. The other problem involving vegetation is resolved with a proper understanding of the actual works as you can see in my diagram. Thus even if one assumes the narrative is centrally structured around eight creative fiats, Augustine’s earlier arrangement is a better choice since the correspondences are more sensible. Can you explain why a symmetrical arrangement is inherently superior to an aliquot arrangement? Can you explain why Genesis 1 necessitates such an arrangement?
With the aliquot arrangement in hand one is already in a better position to do a more natural reading of the text, but there is more. It was already noted that identification of the eight creative fiats is related to the author’s use of the phrase “and Elohim said.” What is glossed over by scholars is the fact that this phrase is also used in relation to the provision of food (Gen 1:29–31). The author’s use of the phrase therefore, to quote myself, “is not connected with creative pronouncements per se as is normally assumed, but with divine pronouncements related to making the earth into a habitable place.” It is in this role that the author uses the phrase to subdivide the days into smaller units outside of day one. Although this is not recognized in the spacing of the Masoretic Text, it is recognized in two of the Dead Sea scroll fragments, 4QGen(g) and 4QGen(d), which include additional spacing based on this phrase to indicate breaks at the end of Gen 1:10 and Gen 1:25 before new subdivisions which are introduced by the phrase. Thus this understanding of the phrase is more inclusive of the author’s actual usage which the fragments also show was understood anciently. The phrase is thus certainly important to the progression of the narrative, but its role is more to organize the narrative. The phrase in fact serves as the narrative backbone. This organizational role calls into question the view that the eight creative fiats are themselves the object principally organized. Can you account for the use of the phrase outside of the eight creative acts?
Now as I note in my main paper, while interpreters have long focused on the phrase “and Elohim said” followed by a volitional verb, i.e., the eight creative fiats, another procedure would be to focus on the executions of those commands, that is, on the actual works themselves. I note in my main paper that this is in fact the procedure followed by Jubilees. Now as it stands, I simply cannot agree with your characterization of Jubilees. Allow me to quote myself from the main paper to clarify why with additional comments:
Dated to the second century BCE, Jubilees may be described essentially as an interpretive rewrite of Genesis 1–Exodus 24. With respect to its role as a rewritten biblical text, VanderKam observes that “The relation of Jubilees to Genesis–Exodus is not as a replacement but as a guide, as a means of helping the reader derive the correct message from the biblical material and ensuring that the wrong conclusions were not drawn from it.” This of course means that Jubilees is intended to be read in conjunction with the biblical text.
Note what is said here. Your characterization of the author of Jubilees “freely reinterpreting the stories” and “creat[ing] a fresh harmonization of the stories” runs counter to its author’s intention to serve as a guide to the biblical text. The author of Jubilees actually intends to convey the meaning biblical text as he found it in his text. Yet a failure to appreciate this point can be forgiven since even VanderKam fails to appreciate it in his own comments as will be noted shortly. I continue,
The section of Jubilees which corresponds to Gen 1:1–2:3 is found in 2:1–33. In this section daily tallies of the kinds of work created on each of the six days are given and a complete total of twenty-two works is twice noted. Understanding Jubilees’ role as an aid to understanding the biblical text, it is clear that these daily tallies are intended to explicate the works of creation as found in the text of Genesis 1.
Note how my characterization of the author and the relevance to the text follows from what VanderKam had stated. Jubilees intends to make clear what he perceives is in the text of Genesis 1 with his tallies. I continue,
The fact that Jubilees’ daily tallies are intended to explicate the works of creation as found in Genesis 1 is most obvious in the case of the third day where Gen 1:9–13 speaks of the creation of 1) earth, 2) seas, 3) seed sowing herbage and 4) fruit producing arborage, while Jub. 2:5–7, enumerating this number of works correctly, introduces still other bodies of water and types of vegetation into its own narrative. A failure to appreciate this fact naturally leads VanderKam to state “It is not entirely clear what the four works are.” It must therefore be stressed that, however else the author of Jubilees may explicate [-> embellish] them in his own composition, these twenty-two works are exegetically derived from the text of Genesis itself and are thus not an eisegetical creation of the author. One must therefore disagree with VanderKam’s assessment that “The writer of Jubilees has reworked Genesis’ eight acts of creation into 22 because this harmonizes with his larger purpose of stressing the sabbath and its significance in God’s universe and plan.” Such a characterization does not comport with the clear exegetical derivation of these twenty-two works nor the author’s intent that Jubilees serve as a guide to understanding the text of Genesis–Exodus. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the writer of Jubilees found the twenty-two works of the Hexaemeron serviceable to his larger purpose.
Note how VanderKam runs into trouble understanding the meaning of Jubilees 2:5–7 precisely because he ignores what he himself observed concerning the author’s motives. He does this because he already assumes that a symmetrical arrangement of eight creative fiats is found in Genesis 1 which requires him to explain Jubilees’ twenty-two works otherwise. Yet this example shows quite clearly why the tallies need to be read in the context of Genesis 1 rather than in the context of Jubilees 2. So by my approach I literally explain what the preeminent interpreter of Jubilees VanderKam does not simply by applying his own reasoning more reasonably. So I am not “integrating ancient reinterpretations.” I am taking note of a long forgotten exposition of the biblical text from an ancient interpreter which is valid. I do not adopt Jubilees’ view that the Garden of Eden was created on the third day because such finds no warrant in the text of Genesis 1. However, the twenty-two works enumerated by Jubilees clearly do. Can you demonstrate why Jubilees’ enumeration is in error from the text?
And so Jubilee’s enumeration of twenty-two works is found to highlight an existent feature of the text as the diagram and the outline I placed on academia.edu demonstrates in which each of these works on each of the days shown in the context of Genesis 1. If Jubilees were simply “freely reinterpreting the stories” and “creat[ing] a fresh harmonization of the stories” as you maintain, this strict agreement could not be found so naturally. To be frank, it would be more like the symmetrical arrangements of eight creative fiats. So I must disagree with your assessment that Jubilees "shows no special insight into what the original author intended." Again, apologies for the disagreement.
But to hammer home the point, these twenty-two works also perfectly align to both the aliquot arrangement of the days that Augustine, ignorant of these twenty-two works, observed as well as well as the paragraph subdivisions of each day indicated by the phrase “and Elohim said” as can also be seen in my summary diagram. The correspondences that obtain from these twenty-two works in this aliquot arrangement are even more definitive than what Augustine himself presented and more striking than symmetrical arrangements. There is no need to use imprecise descriptions of creative acts or ignore important information from the text to achieve correspondences as symmetrical arrangements do. The words of Genesis 1 themselves are sufficient.
I would like to go on, but I have to take a break from this for now. Please allow this to suffice for the moment.
