Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

Rattigan350

The days are about Moses, not the creation. Those were the days that God gave visions to Moses on 6 of his days.
Mebaqqer2

Greetings PioneerSchmioneer,
Thank you for your kind wishes. If my thesis is true, and I do not see why it is not, I hope to see the narrative structure become a staple in discussions of the Hexaemeron going forward.
There are a couple of points of note I would like to make in regards to your statements. You wrote,
Jews did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind
As a matter of methodology, I do not assume that Genesis 1:1–2:3 was composed by a Jewish writer. Much of the reading of biblical history comes with an inherent Judahite bias, as if the people, history and religion of Judah are to be placed at the center and the touchstone of every discussion. Yet considering its embrace by the Samaritans, the remnants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh together with members of priestly families (Aaronites and Levites), I find the Torah to represent a broader Israelite collection of scriptural texts. Viewed from this perspective, it would be wrong to assume that all the biblical writers were necessarily Judahites. The collection, as originally promulgated, was to the house of Judah and to the house of Israel. Accordingly, I think it better to consider the contributing authors to also be representative of both communities.
Moving on from the question of the author’s ethnicity, I find that there is indeed evidence that the author sought to single out the six days for significance and therefore had the Hexaemeron in mind. To what evidence do I refer? As I note in my paper, though not connection with this point, the sixth day is specifically numbered in the text with a determined numeral, “the sixth day” (Gen 1:31), in contrast to the other days which are not determined, e.g., “a second day” (Gen 1:8). The sixth day is therefore specifically singled out for significance by the author. The same holds true with the seventh day which is also determined, “the seventh day” (Gen 2:2). But even more than this, the narrative structure with which my paper is concerned shows that the author certainly had the Hexaemeron in mind since the structure organizes the six days as a collective whole entirely separate from the seventh day. If the author's focus was on the seventh day, one would expect to see more of the author's time spent on that day or greater literary artistry used in its description. It to be more like Jubilees in which, as VanderKam explains, “The section on the Sabbath is longer than the one on the first six days” (See James C. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees 1–21, Vol. I, ed. Sidnie White Crawford (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2018), 193). These facts show that the author was indeed concerned with the Hexaemeron.
I would not say that the Hexaemeron “had nothing to do with explaining how the literal universe came into being.” Perhaps you are aware of the concept of imago mundi popularized by Eliade. Pals, while discussing Eliade, writes, “Eliade explains that the archaic village, temple, or even house must be an imago mundi, a mirror image of the entire world as it was first fashioned by divine action” (Daniel L. Pals, Eight Theories of Religion, 2d ed. (New York, N.Y.: Oxford, 2006), 202). This concept, which Eliade finds throughout traditional cultures generally, was assumed by Israelites as well as is evidenced by the explicit expressions of it by two ancient Judean writers whom I cite in my paper in connection with the Dwelling (Tabernacle). And the cosmology symbolized in the Dwelling, as my paper establishes, is described by the Hexaemeron. There is no justification to say that the author of the Hexaemeron was not really expressing his authentic cosmogonic views in what he wrote. What readers in the present day might think of the cosmology given is irrelevant. The only thing of importance is reading the text as the author intended wherever that may lead. There is no need to import Plato into the text as philosophically educated ancients did or modern cosmology as scientifically literate people do today. Again, Basil said it best, “let one comprehend as it has been written.”
These are the points most directly related to my paper in the views you expressed. I see your disagreement was neither intentional nor implied, but upon my reading these are the points which most stood out to me. I have thus taken it upon myself to explain how I see things in relation.
PioneerSchmioneer
I am on my way out for an extended vacation as we speak for the holiday.
No offense was intended.
I am a retired teacher of the Bible, though an exJW who left the religion a very long time ago and decided to become an educated teacher in linguistics, Catholic and Jewish liturgy, etymology and manuscript transmission. I was also a catechist for some years, though I worked mainly for Protestant churches and academies.
Right before I retired a few years ago, there was an update, at least in Judaism and Europe, on the document hypothesis, as to how the Bible was written. It was changed due to archeology and Jewish history. This is what I based my comments on.
While I have little time to go into detail since I have to leave in just a bit (perhaps you can do the research since that is what you apparently do if you are an academic and I am now retired), the theory works like so:
- The Jews did not descend from a person called "Abraham" but are likely the Cananites themselves.
- There were no 12 Tribes; this is folklore and mythology.
- Israel was a separate tribe from Judea that when it was conquered absorbed some of its remaining refugees and folklore.
- There was never a "Golden Age of Solomon."
- After the Exile, a small writing we call "Deuteronomy" was expanded into the Torah
- The writers were favoring the Judeans
- The Torah is actually composed of the books of Genesis through 2 Chronicles, created around the book of Deuteronomy by the "Judean" Redactor(s)
None of the material in these books is historical; it is political-religio-mythology designed to invent a new society after the return from Babylonian exile under the control of the Levitical priesthood
The Levites did not expect the world power of Greece to conquer the Persians. This altered their plans. When they attempted to change it by creating the Hasmonean dynasty, the effect backfired due to the fact that members of their own tribe, Levites, were anointed as king instead of members of the tribe of Judah. When they made a pact with the Herods who had secretly made a pact with Rome, they lost control and they inadvertently created the "Messianic doctrine" that would develop into Christianity and the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 136 A.D.
The "prologue" to the Torah (Genesis 1-2:3) is now attributed to what they call R of this Judean/Levitical authorship. It is based on the theology of a "punishing God" that was abandoned after 1) the Shoah and 2) with the introduction of such thinkers like Rabbi Modecai Kaplan who taught that God was not personal or a supernatural entity in the footsteps of Moses Maimonides and Benedict de Spinoza.
PioneerSchmioneer

I am in the middle of my travels and have a moment to add one more thought I could not before.
The entire Document Hypothesis as stated above, even in its newer form, has been largely abandoned in light of etymological studies in Israel and Europe.
The work of Konrad Schmid, a professor from the University of Zurich, is at the forefront which suggests that the stories of Abraham and Moses grew indepent of one another and merged when Israel was invaded and exiles came into Judah.
This view supports the same conclusions in the end that I wrote of, namely that the first chapter of Genesis is a cosmological religious lesson that works as a forword to the Torah, designed to teach Jews to observe the Sabbath in imitation of God.
Mebaqqer2

Greetings PioneerSchmioneer,
Thank you for your comments even though you were on your way out the door. I hope you have an enjoyable trip. My own particular interest is textual criticism. As you are no doubt aware, the characterization of textual variation in biblical texts as merely involved with scribal mistakes that can easily be corrected, such as found in presentations by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society on the reliability of the biblical text, is much too simple. Anyone who has spent time dwelling on textual variants knows that many variants evidence intentional change which in turn betray scribal motivations. Scribes did not copy the text mechanically like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society likes to claim based on the later work of the Masoretes. Scribes were interested co-authors. As such, the work of textual criticism blurs into literary criticism. The two can no longer be viewed separately. Your recommendation of Schmid, whose work is more at the end of literary criticism, is therefore appreciated. Given your reference to Schmid, let me give some citations which begin with him that hopefully clarify my thesis vis-à-vis critical scholarship for other readers of the board,
The most striking difference commonly assumed between the three different academic cultures with respect to pentateuchal research in North America, Europe, and Israel is Europe’s more critical stance toward the Documentary Hypothesis.
This may be true in very general terms. But it is doubtful whether it is correct to describe the difference as follows: European scholarship has completely abandonded [sic!] the Documentary Hypothesis, while American and Israeli scholars still adhere to it. Even more mistaken is the statement that Europeans do not recognize any source “documents” underlying the Pentateuch and that their approach is not “documentarian,” but “fragmentarian.”
…
The most obvious element in current European scholarship showing that European scholarship has not completely given up the documentarian approach is P. Of course, there were, after an initial proposal by Karl Heinrich Graf, especially in the 1920s and ’30s and again in the 1970s, some attempts within European and American scholarship to define P as a redactional layer rather than as a stand-alone document. However, in the current European discussion nearly everyone considers P a source document.
— Konrad Schmid, “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 17–8.
In the framework of the traditional Documentary Hypothesis, P was something like a proto-Pentateuch, beginning in Genesis 1 and ending in Deuteronomy 34. Today, there is a growing awareness 1) that P probably did not cover the full range of the Pentateuch …
— Konrad Schmid, “The Emergence and Disappearance of the Separation between the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History in Biblical Studies” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 23.
In the priestly conception of the world, the tabernacle is undoubtedly important. Indeed, in many recent reconstructions, the account of the tabernacle’s construction in Exod 25–31, 35–40* marks the conclusion and climax of the original priestly document, the Grundschrift. The priestly document opens with the creation of the world (Gen 1), and the creation finds its fulfilment in the making of the tabernacle.
— Nathan MacDonald, The Making of the Tabernacle and the Construction of Priestly Hegemony (New York, N.Y.: Oxford, 2023), 102.
Genesis 1 is commonly – and probably correctly – understood as a part of the so-called Priestly source or layer (P) in the Pentateuch, which appears to have survived the recent revolutions in biblical scholarship regarding the composition of the Pentateuch with some damage but still basically intact… Remarkably, the link between creation and Sabbath established in the present text of Gen 1:1–2:3 is never again taken up in the basic layer of P. On the contrary, in Exod 16 the Sabbath is introduced as something new, without any allusion to the creation of the world.
…
These observations suggest the hypothesis that the link between creation and Sabbath in Gen 2:2–3, Exod 20:11, and Exod 31:17b belongs to one or more late, in any case post-P, redactional layer(s) of the Pentateuch.
— Thomas Krüger, “Genesis 1:1–2:3 and the Development of the Pentateuch” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 130–1.
Now Krüger’s hypothesis that the link between creation and the Sabbath has been secondarily added to P by a redactor may in fact be wrong. I will leave it to others to argue about that. I know he is certainly wrong in at least one place in this same contribution:
[T]here are signs of an elaborate structuring on the level of the text as a whole. As for the six days of creation, there are parallels between the first three days and the following three days…
God’s works on the first and on the fourth day refer to light and time (day and night, months and years). On days two and three the basic dimensions of space – sky, dry land, and sea – are created, which are filled with living beings on the corresponding days five and six. Day three parallels day six in having two creative works of God instead of only one. At the and of day three the earth brings forth plants and trees bearing fruit, which are allocated to animals and humans as their food at the end of day six. The six days of creation are framed by an introduction in vv. 1–2, reporting the state of affairs at the beginning of (or before?) God’s creative work, and a kind of epilogue in 2:1–3, narrating how God was finished with his work on the seventh day and hallowed it, apparently as a model of the weekly Sabbath day.
— Krüger, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” 125–6.
Krüger, like every other scholar who assumes a symmetrical arrangement of eight works, is wrong. Simple as. This is what my paper demonstrates. Allow me now to close with some fine words from Cicero,
Quin etiam obest plerumque iis, qui discere volunt, auctoritas eorum, qui se docere profitentur; desinunt enim suum iudicium adhibere, id habent ratum, quod ab eo, quem probant, iudicatum vident.

In fact the authority of those who stand forward as teachers is generally an obstacle in the way of those who wish to learn, for the latter cease to apply their own judgment, and take for granted the conclusions which they find arrived at by the teacher whom they approve.
— Cicero, De natura deorum 1.10 (trans. Brooks)
PioneerSchmioneer

Krüger is correct. Don't you read Hebrew? One of my parents is Israeli and I was sent to Hebrew school. The text has a cadence to it that demonstrates this.
Where did you learn your Hebrew? Is it litugical? Sephardic? Do you also speak modern Israeli Hebrew as well?
Would you like to use one of the apps designed to interact with Sefaria so you can demonstrate to us all how you interpret from the Masoretic text?
Mebaqqer2

Greetings PioneerSchmioneer,
It is unclear to me what you mean by the statement “Krüger is correct.” Do you mean that Krüger is correct with his hypothesis that “the link between creation and Sabbath in Gen 2:2–3, Exod 20:11, and Exod 31:17b belongs to one or more late ... redactional layer(s) of the Pentateuch,” or my assertion that “Krüger, like every other scholar who assumes a symmetrical arrangement of eight works, is wrong”?
I have no argument to make on the first of these. As I said, I will leave it to others to argue about that. However, if, as Krüger says, the link between creation and Sabbath is a secondary addition to P made by a redactor, then it speaks against your stated position that “the first chapter of Genesis is a cosmological religious lesson that works as a forword to the Torah, designed to teach Jews to observe the Sabbath in imitation of God” because the Sabbath would not have been a feature of the Hexaemeron originally if Krüger is correct. Now Genesis 1 may have come to serve the purpose you state after the text had been redacted, but that would not actually reflect the original intent of the author of Genesis 1.
If, however, you are saying that Krüger is correct with respect to his utilization of a symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts, then I must respectfully disagree. Your position either means that you have not read my paper or you disagree with it. If the latter, I would certainly like to hear the reason why my thesis is in error. While the arguments for my position are stated in my paper, let me note some of the problems that accompany the symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts here using Krüger’s statements as an example.
God’s works on the first and on the fourth day refer to light and time (day and night, months and years).
Ok, but what are the first and fifth creative acts concretely? What kind of relationship does the author intend in the proposed parallel here? Light and time is vaguely stated, yes, but what is the exact nature of that relationship?
On days two and three the basic dimensions of space – sky, dry land, and sea – are created, which are filled with living beings on the corresponding days five and six.
Here I must similarly ask, what are the second and sixth creative acts concretely? What is the exact nature of their relationship in the proposed parallel here? What are the third/fourth and seventh/eighth creative acts concretely? What is the exact nature of their relationship in the proposed parallel here? He speaks of space and filling. Is one then to understand the relationship between the creative acts of days one and four above as one where light (day 1) is the "space" which luminaries (day 4) "fill"?
Also, see how Krüger combines days two-three and five-six together rather than discuss days two and five, three and six individually? This glosses over the fact that the seas are actually created on day three, not day two, while the inhabitants of the sea are created on day five, not on day six as an actual correspondence would necessitate. Interpreters try to get around this by saying that since the firmament is said to divide the waters on day two, the text’s mere mention of waters can justify the parallel to the creation of sea creatures on day five. One could just as easily pair day five with day one with such an argument. Thus the parallel only holds by ignoring what the text actually states and logic.
Day three parallels day six in having two creative works of God instead of only one.
Yet again, what are the third-fourth and fifth-sixth creative acts concretely? What is the exact nature of their relationship assumed in the proposed parallel here?
At the and [sic!] of day three the earth brings forth plants and trees bearing fruit, which are allocated to animals and humans as their food at the end of day six.
Note how Krüger speaks vaguely of “animals and humans” who are allocated vegetation for food “at the end of day six”? The statement is true enough, but the symmetrical arrangement actually assumes that the parallel is between vegetation (day 3) and land animals and humans (day 6). This is contrary to the text which specifically includes “the flying creatures of the heavens” (Gen 1:30) in the provision of food who were created on day five. So here too, the parallel imposed by a symmetrical arrangement must ignore what the text actually says and logic.
Finally, since we have been asking about the exact nature of the relationships in the proposed parallels all along, how do the all the answers from above relate to the series of days in the first and second triads? That is, what are the exact categories which the author uses in each of the triad divisions? Now I have read many presentations of the symmetrical arrangement with no two ever being quite the same. This is why I must constantly ask about what exactly are the eight creative works, how exactly their symmetrical arrangement evidences parallelism and the logical bases for the two categories of days. This is perhaps an indicator in itself that the symmetrical arrangement is on shaky ground. Westermann, like many others, recognizes the problem, but ultimately throws his hands up in defeat,
One of the first difficulties to which scholars drew attention in the course of the exegesis of Gen 1 was that the number of the works of creation did not agree with the number of days. Eight works are distributed over six days, with two on each of the third and sixth days. The many attempts to solve the problem are recorded in W.H. Schmidt’s survey, pp. 9–20. The general opinion today is that “the framework of the seven days belongs to a later stage in the history of the text.” ... A systematization of the succession of the works of creation is already there in the numbering of the days; and this is something completely different from the succession of the works of creation determined by the object actually created.
All attempts to bring the works of creation into a systematic order must be given up. There was never any intention of doing this... [T]he arrangement can be explained much better by the confluence of many strands of traditions and motifs from a variety of earlier creation stories. This too is the source of much of the unevenness in the narrative.
— Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1987), 88–9.
On the other hand, my thesis shows that Westermann's pessimism was premature by explicating the author’s use of a different narrative structure which is unencumbered by the problems that are evident in the symmetrical arrangements found in scholarship. Correspondences are more numerous, clear and concrete in the arrangement I propose. This arrangement also agrees with the most ancient interpreters of the text such as the author of Jubilees who were of course native speakers of Hebrew. If you are looking for still other examples of problems with the proposed parallels in the symmetrical arrangement of the days such as I noted above, I suggest Edward J. Young, “The Days of Genesis First Article,” Westminster Theological Journal 25.1 (1962): 26–31. I would very much like to hear how “cadence” can account for these glaring logical problems in the symmetrical arrangement as well as how scholars who recognize these problems like I do are in error. In the meantime, I will reaffirm my position: Krüger, like every other scholar who assumes a symmetrical arrangement of eight works, is wrong. Simple as.
Note: In my previous post I mixed up the source cited. The correct citation of Krüger's article is Thomas Krüger, “Genesis 1:1–2:3 and the Development of the Pentateuch” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 130–1.
PioneerSchmioneer

So in other words you don't even read Hebrew.
There are easier ways to say "no."
You have to be able to read Hebrew to be able to claim, as you do, that many of these views are incorrect.
No one will publish your work if you cannot read Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. You cannot expect to publish an academic paper and be taken serious at this point.
The Watchtower does a crime to many minds. It tells people they can do without a formal education if they want to be involved in academia. You cannot. That is the very substance of it.
When you are finished tossing red herrings and gaslighting and can speak directly to people instead of cutting and pasting from other people's works like a Watchtower magazine, when you can say "yes, I speak it," or admit "no, not yet," then you are worth speaking to.
Mebaqqer2

Greetings PioneerSchmioneer,
A couple of points to make. You write,
[The Watchtower] tells people they can do without a formal education if they want to be involved in academia. You cannot. That is the very substance of it.
I don’t believe I identified myself as a Jehovah’s Witness. In fact, I do believe that I made statements earlier that took issue with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in relation to their characterization of textual criticism and the reliability of the biblical text. Oh no! Hopefully the governing body doesn’t read those comments or I might get disfellowshipped!
Your comment is pretty elitist I must say. Perhaps you haven’t heard about people like Ernest Muro, a literal college drop out, who worked as a carpenter at Disney World, yet who identified Greek fragments of the book of 1 Enoch among the Dead Sea Scrolls before scholars did. Such people may not be visible to you from the height of the ivory tower you inhabit, but such people do exist.
It is ironic that you take issue with my citations. Someone before you in this thread stated that it appeared as if I do not cite sources to support my claims to which I responded that I do indeed cite sources and I am fully cognizant of the need to “bring receipts.” And this I have demonstrated here with our exchange as well. Yet you call these citations “red herrings” and “gaslighting.” Why would that be?
You asserted “the Jews did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind.” I responded to this claim, in my own words directly from the text, “the sixth day is specifically numbered in the text with a determined numeral, ‘the sixth day’ (Gen 1:31), in contrast to the other days which are not determined, e.g., ‘a second day’ (Gen 1:8). The sixth day is therefore specifically singled out for significance by the author. The same holds true with the seventh day which is also determined, ‘the seventh day’ (Gen 2:2).” Now you can read the Hebrew text right? Does the text say “the sixth day” as I stated or “a sixth day” which would indicate that the day had no particular significance to the author? I further supported the fact that the author had the Hexaemeron in mind when I wrote, “the narrative structure with which my paper is concerned shows that the author certainly had the Hexaemeron in mind since the structure organizes the six days as a collective whole entirely separate from the seventh day.” You have not answered either of these points and so your claim that the author “did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind” is not supported by evidence whereas my position is. I am indeed speaking directly. You just are not able to hear from so far a height.
Now if you want to talk about red herrings, your introduction of a full blown, all encompassing theory of pentateuchal composition into a discussion of my paper which peacefulpete explained to you narrowly involves a literary feature of the Hexaemeron certainly fits the bill. You did this to show everyone how knowledgeable you are, I get it. And yet your statements evidence deficiencies in your position.
You said, “The entire Document Hypothesis as stated above, even in its newer form, has been largely abandoned in light of etymological studies in Israel and Europe.” But then Konrad Schmid, the very authority you praise as “at the forefront” of scholarship, writes, “[I]t is doubtful whether it is correct to describe the difference as follows: European scholarship has completely abandonded [sic!] the Documentary Hypothesis, while American and Israeli scholars still adhere to it. Even more mistaken is the statement that Europeans do not recognize any source ‘documents’ underlying the Pentateuch and that their approach is not ‘documentarian,’ but ‘fragmentarian.’” So while Schmid may be at the forefront of scholarship, your position is not. This is not a red herring. It evidences a weakness in your stated position.
Now as it stands the composition of the Genesis 1 is ascribed to P. And what does the scholar whom you praise as “at the forefront” of scholarship say with regards to P? “[I]n the current European discussion nearly everyone considers P a source document” as I cited. Why would you call this a red herring? Not only is it relevant to the composition of the Hexaemeron, the focus of my paper, but it directly addresses your assertion that “The ‘prologue’ to the Torah (Genesis 1-2:3) is now attributed to what they call R of this Judean/Levitical authorship.” Again, this is not a red herring. It evidences a weakness in your stated position.
You said, “the first chapter of Genesis is a cosmological religious lesson that works as a forword to the Torah, designed to teach Jews to observe the Sabbath in imitation of God.” Yet Krüger maintains that “the link between creation and Sabbath in Gen 2:2–3, Exod 20:11, and Exod 31:17b belongs to one or more late … redactional layer(s) of the Pentateuch” which would indicate that the Hexaemeron was not originally written with the Sabbath in mind. Now it is still unclear if you meant to agree with him on this point or not given your vague statement “Krüger is correct.” But if Krüger is correct on this point, then it evidences a weakness in your stated position. It is certainly not a red herring.
You said, “Krüger is correct.” Assuming now that you are speaking about a symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts, I would like you to note how I went sentence by sentence through Krüger’s statement and related the questions and problems that arise directly in my own words while citing relevant information from Genesis. And then, demonstrating that I am not just some uninformed loon making up criticisms where none are to be found, I also cited scholars who make the same observations. This is not a red herring. It addresses a point you made.
So there are no red herrings and gaslighting going on with my responses. You said “cadance” shows “Krüger is correct.” And so I said, “I would very much like to hear how ‘cadence’ can account for these glaring logical problems in the symmetrical arrangement as well as how scholars who recognize these problems like I do are in error.” And you failed to substantiate your point here too.
So now it is apparent why you would want to mischaracterize my citations which address certain assertions you have made as “red herrings” and “gaslighting”; they show your views have some inaccuracies. Welcome to humanity.
Now as to the question of Hebrew, my paper shows that I possess the requisite knowledge of Hebrew to make my case. It would be rather foolish of me to actively elicit criticisms from people with the knowledge relevant to assess my work, including Hebrew, if my thesis was just full of hot air. My thesis is not proven through certification. John M. Allegro had academic credentials too, but his scholarship got him laughed out of the hallowed halls of academia. Ernest Muro had none, but he made a contribution to scholarship. The evidence supporting the position is what is important. Substantive criticism is what is required, implicit personal attacks on me are just smoke and mirrors. Your elitist questioning of my education, especially when you have evidently not read my paper, introduced irrelevant material into the discussion and not responded to evidence presented contrary to your position, is actually offensive. The only thing I need to prove is the thesis of my paper. Please focus on making substantive criticisms of it if you can. If you think that I am not “worth speaking to” from your position so high up in the clouds, then by all means get back to your vacation and enjoy yourself, ignore what I have to say and let me bother you no more.
PioneerSchmioneer

I possess the requisite knowledge of Hebrew to make my case...
Sounds like the same line of BS the JWs give us in "translating" their New World Translation.
We don't have to be scholars. Our work speaks for itself. We obviously have the ability to translate the Scriptures better than anyone else, otherwise how else could we have produced the most accurate translation there is?
Why come here to get our opinion if those of us who went to college (many of us have, you know), and some who lived in Israel, who taught religion and the Bible for a living are "in the clouds"? I merely asked if you would join me in some Hebrew discussion.
If you said you wrote songs in Spanish and I wanted to chat in Spanish with you and you called me an "elitist" for doing so when I questioned your ability because instead of doing so you pontificated on and on?
If you asked me a simple yes or no question and instead I told you the story of the making of The Wizard of Oz, you would think something was up, wouldn't you?
Somebody else explain it to this person. I am obviously considered vomit here.

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

Share this