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

by Mebaqqer2 76 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mebaqqer2

  I agree. It "tends to be insulting" instead of educational.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  So the attempts to insult are admittedly intentional.
  

  Yet does one then avoid exposing the lack of ability, capacity, and credibility of the members of the Governing Body who call themselves Bible scholars and appoint themselves and others as members of the translating committee of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures?

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  And we saw how this is done in the case of Jonsson. How have you taken up the call to stand in the role of Jonsson? I submit that your responses have been more in line with being a Johnson than being a Jonsson.

  [I]f you think I am saying you MUST have some form of higher education, then you are wrong.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  But then we read,

  [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.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  So you may not be saying everyone needs to have a higher education, but you are saying that people must have a higher education before they can say anything of academic value. But the examples of Jonsson and Muro show that even non-specialists without higher education can make contributions to academic knowledge. So your position which ignores such people as irrelevant is certainly an elitist one. And you explicitly state such,

  What I am saying is a person shouldn't claim to be or act the part of a scholar or an academic without being on the same educational level of others in the same field. If they know Hebrew, Latin and Greek, for example, you should too.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  So I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the course you advise is to accept Furuli's position as correct because he is a credentialed academic with knowledge of "Akkadian, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, Phoenician, Syriac, and Ugaritic" and disregard Jonsson's because he is "acting the part of a scholar" and is not credentialed. But since I understand that valid arguments are valid arguments regardless of who makes them, I will continue to accept Jonsson's position since his is the one which best explains the evidence.
  

  It insults then when you point out their shortcomings, and doing so many not educate these people. They are so self-convinced that they don't need a former academic education, often demonizing scholars, so there is nothing you can do for these kind of people.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  But I already stated that I am a university graduate. My point is that it is irrelevant to reference academic credentials as if that establishes the case. The case is established based on the evidence brought in its support. And so I continually try to draw you back to the evidence in my paper and ask you to deal with that. And you just as continually avoid dealing with that evidence as if it were the plague. One can only suspect at this point that you actually have no valid criticism of my paper to offer that would prove fatal to my thesis and are just trolling. So what is insulting is not your questioning as such, but your questioning in the absence of examples from my paper which would sustain your assertions.

  I have also not “demonized” scholars. Scholars are cited all throughout my paper. Three pages of bibliography show the scholars consulted. What I have said is that in this case scholars regularly assume a certain narrative structure in Genesis 1 which evidences problems, problems which scholars themselves have admitted for more than a hundred years, while the one I present does not suffer from these problems and ultimately offers far greater explanatory power. Therefore their assumption of a symmetrical arrangement is wrong. And this would be the case whether I was the head of department for Jewish Studies at the Graduate Theological Union or a homeless unemployed baker who was only home-schooled to the equivalent of second grade using some kind soul’s phone to type out this post over the free WiFi from Starbucks. What is true is true no matter who is saying it. If it is not true, overturn the case made in the paper. For an exceptionally seniored academic such as yourself it should be no problem to refute the thesis I advance in my paper if it is indeed wrong.
  

  It's hypocritical to criticize JW leadership for being uneducated and frowning at higher education opportunities but applauding people who attempt to spread their personal ideas in a similar fashion without proper peer review process and procedures that critical methodology at the university level ensures.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  You mean people like Carl Olof Jonsson?

  The reason the book [Gentile Time Reconsidered] can be reviewed in [in the journal Archiv für Orientforschung] is that the Watch Tower Society heavily depends on a date from the Neo-Babylonian period in order to calculate its time table for the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies. Jonsson was thus able to refute the JWs’ teaching by showing that their chosen date (607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar!) is irreconcilable with NB chronology. The result for us [=academics] is that Jonsson produced, — in Chapters Three and Four, — the finest overview of NB chronology available, establishing the reign lengths and the exact years of sixth-century kings of Babylon on the basis of chronicles, prosopographical materials, Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions, synchronizations with the reigns of Egyptian pharaohs, synchronizations with some OT passages, and the absolute dates provided by ancient astronomical texts.

  …

  Although Jonsson is not a specialist, his use of the pertinent literature is nearly impeccable and he has consulted Assyriologists when addressing uncertain points. Especially gratifying for me is his showing once again that the many decades of painstaking work in Assyriology can yield results which are meaningful for the broader public.

  — W. Gallagher, review of Carl Olof Jonsson, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Archiv für Orientforschung 51 (2005/2006): 423.

  And I already told you,

  The problem is not with higher education. The problem is with your apparent belief, also shared by others in academia, but certainly not everyone, that your education somehow imbues your every pronouncement ex cathera status. It is this snobbishly dismissive, “holier than thou” attitude which places you “in the clouds,” not your education.

  — Mebaqqer

  So I will reiterate that the problem is not higher education. It is that you think higher education makes someone’s views unassailable to those who have not had a higher education. That is an inherently elitist position to take.
  

  You cannot criticize the Jehovah's Witnesses one way while embracing someone else else by different standards without a betrayal for what you stand for. You become a liar when you do that.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  Exactly. The translators of the New World Translation are criticized on the basis of inaccuracies found in the work they produced and for their failure to address these criticisms, not simply a failure to produce academic credentials when prompted, as the example from Jonsson makes clear. So by all means use the same standard to evaluate my paper as Jonsson does. You have yet to do so even after numerous appeals.

  I would rather insult every member of the Governing Body and idiot who acts like them, while proclaiming to people that education is freedom of mind and life.

  …

  I want you and everyone to be educated so everyone can be empowered to make up their own minds and live the fullest most independent lives possible.

  And I don't want you to accept my view. I want people to be educated so they can develop their own views and make their own dreams become reality.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  Yet whose argument assumes authority and consensus itself establishes a view as unquestionable while avoiding a consideration of the evidence itself? I have presented a paper and asked for “substantive criticism.” If I didn’t respect other people’s ability to think for themselves, I wouldn’t ask for their criticisms. It is your position which implicitly argues, “Others who know more have a different view. Therefore everybody should ignore this paper which says something contrary.” Isn’t it actually that position which makes you just like the governing body who tells Jehovah’s Witnesses to only use Watchtower publications in their studies since all the research has been done for them already by the governing body? Would you really ask people to replace the unquestionable authority of the governing body with an unquestionable authority of scholars? Again I cite the fine words of Cicero here,

  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)

  Mebaqqer2 just wants his view and paper to be accepted as true.

  — PioneerSchmioneer

  Let me correct that for you, “If the observation proves true, Mebaqqer hopes to see the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron explicated in his paper utilized in future discussions of the Genesis 1:1–2:3.” Yes. Of course. Obviously.
  

  And for those readers just joining the discussion, the present version of the paper in question may be viewed online here at Academia.edu, here on the Internet Archive or here on my private .onion page on the TOR network.
  

  Fin.
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  *Sigh*

  1. I have interacted with scholars and their students. This message board and others accuse JWs of being in a cult. But said to say that is often the mentality with the majority of qualified biblical schoolers. They are so set in place by the establishment that they find themselves unable to question themselves their research and the work of their colleagues. As such what often happens is the majority of their papers look the same with minor changes and 100 pre assumed assumptions built into their work.

  2. As for the NWT the 2013 version is crap. The 1984 version however from an academic standpoint is one of the best. Jason Beduhn has written extensively on this. Now fundamentalists might have issues but these are people who think that snakes talk.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  While the aim of your work is clearly not theological but structural, the Catholic tradition allows for a synthesis of theological insight with literary and exegetical precision, thus providing a comprehensive framework for evaluating your ideas. Your critique of symmetrical arrangements and the proposal for a more textually inherent narrative structure is insightful and commendable in its methodological rigor. The emphasis on understanding the text through its own internal markers, such as the "And Elohim said" formula and the division into twenty-two works, is consistent with the Catholic tradition's respect for the integrity of Scripture. This respect aligns with the Church's teaching that the sacred author intended to communicate profound truths, even while using the literary and cultural tools of his time.

  Your analysis of textual divisions and thematic patterns aligns with the idea that Genesis may reflect a visionary revelation given to Adam, Moses, or the sacred author. The structuring of days into thematic aliquots of preparation and population corresponds to a logical and revelatory sequence that is conducive to both theological reflection and narrative coherence. This vision theory, as espoused by Church Fathers like St. Augustine and later commentators, supports the notion that the six days may represent a divinely ordered framework of understanding rather than a purely historical chronology.

  However, your explicit dismissal of theological concerns such as the concordance between Genesis and other parts of Scripture may overlook the integral unity of biblical revelation. While your focus on narrative structure is valuable, a Catholic exegete would argue that the Hexaemeron cannot be fully understood in isolation from its theological context. The Church teaches that Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is unified and consistent in its purpose of revealing divine truths. By setting aside questions of how the Hexaemeron relates to other biblical passages, your approach risks fragmenting the unity of divine revelation.

  Moreover, the exclusion of theological implications, such as the relationship between the Hexaemeron and the Sabbath, is problematic from a Catholic standpoint. The Sabbath is not merely a thematic or structural conclusion to the Hexaemeron but a theological anchor, deeply intertwined with the liturgical and moral life of the faithful. This connection underscores the Hexaemeron's role in revealing not only the origins of creation but also the ultimate purpose of rest and worship in God.

  Your criticism of earlier attempts to harmonize the Hexaemeron with Platonic or scientific cosmologies is valid in highlighting the dangers of eisegesis—imposing external frameworks on the text. However, the Catholic tradition values the interplay of faith and reason. Theological interpretation is not a distortion but an endeavor to understand the text in light of both natural and supernatural knowledge. The Church does not demand a rigid concordism but encourages interpretations that respect the sacred text while engaging with scientific and philosophical insights.

  The division of the six days into thematic compartments and the emphasis on textual patterns offer valuable contributions to understanding the Hexaemeron. However, these insights should be integrated with the theological depth that Catholic tradition insists upon. The Catholic perspective would see your structural analysis as reinforcing, rather than diminishing, the theological richness of Genesis, affirming its role as a visionary depiction of divine action that communicates timeless truths about creation, order, and God's sovereignty.

  In conclusion, your work represents a significant step in literary and structural analysis of the Hexaemeron. Still, a Catholic response must emphasize the need to engage these insights within the broader theological and doctrinal context that sees Genesis not merely as a narrative but as divine revelation. The tardema-vision approach, with its synthesis of historical and theological elements, offers a framework where your structural insights can illuminate, rather than detract from, the spiritual and doctrinal depth of the text.
• 

  Rattigan350

  You all are wrong about this.

  There were no 6 or 8 days of creation.

  Moses was given visions of the creation process over 6 of his days. So those 6 days were 24 hours long but each day covered millions of years during those visions. God does not have mornings and evenings or days, but Moses did. It was all written from his perspective.
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  aqwsed12345,

  I am happy to see some engagement with the narrative structure that I have proposed for the Hexaemeron. Even now I continue to work on this, though I may appear to have gone silent. But I have other obligations that slow my progress. Work continues whenever I have time. There are some of refinements that I need to include which I have found, but still no fatal errors to the thesis.

  You note that what I have proposed can be viewed as contributing to, rather than detracting from, a Catholic viewpoint. If such is the case, then I am glad to hear that you have found it to be a contribution. While my proposal utilizes Augustine’s insight into the aliquot division of the six days, I take this only as a legitimate observation concerning the structure of the narrative in light of the sequence of the twenty-two works of creation. One could of course adopt even more of Augustine’s view, e.g. instantaneous creation, but one is not necessarily compelled to do so.

  My view is that the Hexaemeron (Gen 1:1–31) is a literary description of the cosmological symbolism integrated into the design of the dwelling place (tabernacle) and its furnishings with the discussion of the Sabbath (Gen 2:1–3) being thematically differentiated. Although the point is made in the paper I wrote, my most recent statement stands as follows:
  
  

  The Hexaemeron and the Seventh Day
  As indicated by the use of pǝtûḥôt in the Tiberian Masoretic Text and qiṣṣim in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the narrative of Gen 1:1–2:3 is comprised of seven main textual units described as days in the text. Among these seven days there is a distinct thematic difference between the first six (Gen 1:1–31) and the seventh (Gen 2:1–3). Whereas the first six days concern divine creative activities, the seventh day highlights the cessation from these activities as well as the sanctification of this day. The first six days are also delineated in the text by the distinctive closing refrain ויהי ערב ויהי בקר (wayǝhî-ʿereb wayǝhî-bōqer, “And there was evening and there was morning”), which precedes an enumeration of each day. Four of these days are enumerated with indeterminate ordinals, e.g., יום שני (yôm šēnî, “a second day”) (Gen 1:8). However, the first day is enumerated with a cardinal number, יום אחד (yôm ʾeḥād, “one day”) (Gen 1:5), while the sixth is enumerated with a determined ordinal, יום הששי (yôm haššiššî, “the sixth day”) (Gen 1:31). The use of a determined ordinal for the sixth day contrasts with the previous indeterminate days and suggests that this day has particular significance within the narrative. The same is true for יום השביעי (yôm haššǝbîʿî, “the seventh day”) which is also specified with a determined ordinal (Gen 2:2).[*note] The significance in the enumeration of these two days is best viewed in the light of the thematic difference noted above, with יום הששי (“the sixth day”) representing the culmination of the Hexaemeron (Gen 1:1–31), and יום השביעי (“the seventh day”) highlighting the exceptional character of this day (Gen 2:1–3).
  *note: “The exceptional definite article [in the phrase “the sixth day”] and with the seventh day points to the special character of these days within the scheme of Creation” (Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia, Pa.: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 14).

  So I do not deny the Sabbath day is important in the presently constituted narrative. However, there is a thematic difference between the seventh day and the previous six which is supported by clear textual markers. Thus I must stand by the differentiation. Given that the seventh day is uniquely a holy day within the week, this point should be uncontroversial. With that said, there are theories on the redactional history of the narrative which maintain that the inclusion of the Sabbath is a secondary addition. However, I am not prepared to discuss the validity or invalidity of these theories at this time since my own text critical and literary critical adjudications are still ongoing. I am therefore indifferent to these theories at this point. But whether there is validity in them or not, the Sabbath is clearly differentiated within the presently constituted narrative as one would expect given the sanctity of the day.

  You state, “your explicit dismissal of theological concerns such as the concordance between Genesis and other parts of Scripture may overlook the integral unity of biblical revelation.” I would suggest in response that an a priori acceptance of the integral unity of biblical works may overlook the distinctive views that their individual authors present. It is certainly natural, given a Catholic framework, to find congruence with all parts of Scripture, but I am not operating within that framework. I have my own views on the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Yet I understand that the writers of these ancient texts most likely did not share those views and would articulate them quite different even if they did. So I seek to understand their views on their own terms without a need for them to agree with me or anyone else, including other writers within a biblical corpus (“a” corpus since “canon” is determined by the religious authorities of a particular community). That being said, there are indeed times when intertextual allusions by other works enhance our understanding. I am just more cautious in what I would allow into my analyses.

  Mine is ultimately a historical-literary inquiry. But I think we can both agree that understanding the highly structured nature of the narrative increases our appreciation for the skill of the ancient writer, however inspired, who utilized even more levels of textual organization than have hitherto been recognized within scholarship. Thank you for the substantive feedback.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Mebaqqer2

  You argue that the Hexaemeron is primarily a literary construct designed to align with the cosmological symbolism of the Tabernacle and that theological concerns should not necessarily dictate its interpretation. However, from a Catholic standpoint, this approach is inadequate because it overlooks the primary function of the text as divine revelation. The structure of Genesis 1 does not exist in isolation but serves the fundamental purpose of revealing the divine act of creation. The inspired author was not merely recording an artistic arrangement but was transmitting the truth about the origins of the world in a form intelligible to the faithful. While structural analysis can certainly provide insight into the narrative’s organization, it cannot be used to redefine or limit its theological import.

  You claim that the Sabbath account in Genesis 2:1–3 is thematically distinct from the six days of creation, marking a textual break. However, Catholic theology does not see this distinction as evidence of separate literary or theological intentions. Instead, the culmination of the six-day creation week with the Sabbath underscores the divine order and purpose in creation. The fact that the Sabbath is set apart does not imply a different source or intention but rather confirms the intrinsic relationship between creation and divine worship. As St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church Fathers have explained, the rest of God on the seventh day is not merely a cessation of activity but a divine model for human participation in God's order. The Sabbath’s sanctification in the Decalogue further reinforces this. This directly contradicts the assertion that its presence is a later thematic addition. Moreover, Catholic tradition does not rely on later rabbinical interpretations (such as those found in the Masoretic text’s use of pǝtûḥôt or Samaritan qiṣṣim) to determine the structure of divine revelation. The unity of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is not merely a function of literary arrangement but a theological necessity.

  You suggest that my argument assumes an “a priori” integral unity of Scripture, potentially obscuring the distinct viewpoints of individual biblical authors. However, Catholic tradition does not approach Genesis as a mere collection of diverse authors with potentially conflicting views. Instead, Genesis, like all of Scripture, is inspired by the Holy Spirit and possesses a unified message that transcends human literary limitations. This is why the traditional view affirms both the literal-historical sense and the theological coherence of the text. St. Augustine, St. Basil, and St. Thomas Aquinas all acknowledged different layers of meaning in the text but never reduced Genesis to a purely literary construct. The unity of Scripture is not an imposed framework but a recognition of divine authorship. To suggest otherwise undermines the Catholic understanding of biblical inspiration. Additionally, while it is true that individual biblical authors had their own styles and immediate historical contexts, the Catholic perspective maintains that they were guided by divine inspiration, ensuring that their accounts were free from theological error and in harmony with the broader revelation.

  You hint at the possibility that the Sabbath passage may be a later redactional addition but withholds final judgment. However, this approach reflects the problematic assumptions of higher criticism, which have been consistently cautioned against in Catholic biblical interpretation. Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, 1893) and Pope Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943) affirmed that while textual and historical criticism have their place, they must never be used to undermine the divine authority and unity of Scripture. The suggestion that the Sabbath commandment may be a later addition fails to account for its integral role in biblical theology, as seen in Exodus 20:8–11, where the six-day creation week is explicitly tied to the institution of the Sabbath. If the Sabbath narrative were merely a later addition, then this connection would lose its authoritative weight. Additionally, your hesitancy to affirm or reject the validity of these redaction theories suggests an underlying methodological issue: an unwillingness to commit to the integrity of the text as received by the Church. Catholic doctrine, however, maintains that the Scriptures, as preserved by the Church, are divinely inspired in their entirety.

  The Catholic understanding of the Hexaemeron, which I have outlined in my original response, remains the most theologically coherent and exegetically sound interpretation. The vision theory (as espoused by St. Augustine and supported by St. Thomas Aquinas) is not merely an arbitrary construct but an attempt to reconcile the literal truth of Scripture with theological depth. The vision theory allows for:

  1. The integrity of divine revelation – preserving the biblical teaching that creation occurred by divine fiat.
  2. The recognition of different literary styles – acknowledging that Genesis 1 may represent a revelatory vision rather than a chronological diary.
  3. Compatibility with theological tradition – aligning with the teaching of the Church Fathers and the authoritative magisterial statements on creation.

  This approach avoids the pitfalls of both hyper-literalism (which reduces the Hexaemeron to a rigid scientific chronology) and higher criticism (which fragments the text into allegedly competing sources). The Catholic Church has never accepted the radical redaction theories that attempt to dissect Genesis into competing theological viewpoints.

  You highlight a fundamental methodological difference: whereas Catholic exegesis starts from the premise that Scripture is divinely inspired and unified, you the text as a purely human composition subject to independent historical reconstruction. This approach is incompatible with Catholic teaching, which holds that:

  • Scripture is inspired in its entirety (Vatican I, Dei Filius).
  • Mosaic authorship of Genesis cannot be denied without contradicting the consistent tradition of the Church (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
  • The unity of the biblical message is essential to understanding its meaning (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis).

  Thus, while your structural analysis may have academic value, it cannot be allowed to override the Church’s theological framework. Any interpretation that dismisses the unity of divine revelation must be rejected.
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  aqwsed12345,

  The Chinese say,

  差之毫厘﹐謬之千里

  A hairbreadth’s difference becomes an error of a thousand miles.

  Aquinas similarly wrote,

  parvus error in principio magnus est in fine

  A small error in the beginning becomes a great one in the end.

  For you, it is a mistake on my part to read the biblical text in the same manner as I would any other ancient religious text.

  For me, it is methodologically unwarranted to read the biblical text differently than any other ancient religious text without justification. The authority of religious institutions does not provide this justification.

  Now you can assert the necessity of reading the biblical text within the framework of Catholic teaching. The Jehovah’s Witnesses likewise assert the necessity of reading the biblical text within the framework of their teachings. But I do not operate within those frameworks as I have said. You of course are entirely free to do so.

  But as I see it, the books of the Hebrew Bible, although utilized by Catholics, are in point of fact not Catholic works. The first five books of the Hebrew Bible are not even Judahite works, but are more broadly Israelite works as is evident from their common acceptance by the surviving remnant of Ephraim and Manasseh, the Samaritans. The utilization of the Hebrew Bible by Catholics is due to the fact that Catholicism is a form of Christianity. Christianity in turn may be considered a Judahite religion. This is based not only from their acceptance of specifically Judahite works as scripture, but also from their sharing particularly Judahite beliefs such as the divine selection of David and Jerusalem’s sanctity.

  So I submit that reading the Hexaemeron through the lens of much later Catholic theology will never really uncover “the literal-historical sense” which you say the Catholic church also affirms. I maintain that this can only be achieved by reading these texts within the context of ancient Israelite religion. It is the ancient Israelite theology communicated by the text itself that takes precedence when working with ancient Israelite texts. My desire is therefore to elucidate the ancient writer’s intended meaning, text qua text.

  You state such an approach is “inadequate” within a Catholic framework. That may well be. But I must reiterate that I am not working with a Catholic text. I am working with an ancient Israelite text. The benchmark of adequacy here is the congruence of the exposition to the words and literary features of the text itself and its cogency within the framework of ancient Israelite religious tradition. So I am decidedly not giving a Catholic exposition. In fact, I believe I stated to you months ago that “Nowhere have I said that my proposal has been declared nihil obstat. I am not concerned with such declarations. I am only concerned with understanding the text as the author intended.” I am the same yesterday as I am today.

  You state, “You claim that the Sabbath account in Genesis 2:1–3 is thematically distinct from the six days of creation, marking a textual break.” I do not “claim” a thematic distinction between the Hexaemeron and the seventh day, I demonstrate it. First, by relating the differing themes between the two groups:

  Among these seven days there is a distinct thematic difference between the first six (Gen 1:1–31) and the seventh (Gen 2:1–3). Whereas the first six days concern divine creative activities, the seventh day highlights the cessation from these activities as well as the sanctification of this day.

  Second, by noting features of the text which the author employs to support this thematic distinction:

  The first six days are also delineated in the text by the distinctive closing refrain ויהי ערב ויהי בקר (wayǝhî-ʿereb wayǝhî-bōqer, “And there was evening and there was morning”), which precedes an enumeration of each day. Four of these days are enumerated with indeterminate ordinals, e.g., יום שני (yôm šēnî, “a second day”) (Gen 1:8). However, the first day is enumerated with a cardinal number, יום אחד (yôm ʾeḥād, “one day”) (Gen 1:5), while the sixth is enumerated with a determined ordinal, יום הששי (yôm haššiššî, “the sixth day”) (Gen 1:31). The use of a determined ordinal for the sixth day contrasts with the previous indeterminate days and suggests that this day has particular significance within the narrative. The same is true for יום השביעי (yôm haššǝbîʿî, “the seventh day”) which is also specified with a determined ordinal (Gen 2:2). The significance in the enumeration of these two days is best viewed in the light of the thematic difference noted above, with יום הששי (“the sixth day”) representing the culmination of the Hexaemeron (Gen 1:1–31), and יום השביעי (“the seventh day”) highlighting the exceptional character of this day (Gen 2:1–3).

  You have not addressed these points to invalidate this thematic substructuring within the narrative. As for the importance of the Sabbath, I addressed this when I said “I do not deny the Sabbath day is important in the presently constituted narrative.” Your elaborations on this from a Catholic perspective only serve to further highlight the importance of the seventh day from a Catholic perspective.

  You write, “The unity of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is not merely a function of literary arrangement but a theological necessity.” But the theology of the presently constituted narrative may not represent the theology of an earlier form of the text. I must as a matter of methodology allow for this possibility. What I can say, again, is that the Sabbath is important within the presently constituted narrative.

  You write, “You hint at the possibility that the Sabbath passage may be a later redactional addition but withholds final judgment.” Indeed, because, unlike some who collect their views from reading commentators, I work primarily from the text, considering it from the standpoint of lexicon, grammar and syntax, formulate a tentative view, and then check what others have said. I must necessarily remain fluid and keep options open while my research is ongoing.

  You write, “this approach reflects the problematic assumptions of higher criticism, which have been consistently cautioned against in Catholic biblical interpretation.” Be that as it may, the fact that biblical texts have undergone editorial revision is demonstrated from the Dead Sea Scrolls which evidence clear scribal interventions in the biblical text. Here I would recommend the work of one scholar who has worked directly with the Dead Sea Scrolls: Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Therefore it would be methodologically unsound for me to preclude the possibility of editorial revision in Genesis 1:1–2:3. I have, in fact, already highlighted one such instance in a paper that I have uploaded here. Now you will most likely deny the findings of that paper on theological grounds. But that is understandable since I do not share those theological presuppositions. My objective is to recover the earliest form of the text and explain the editorial process evidenced by the textual witnesses. A clear explication of the overall narrative structure is the necessary first step to this. And this overall narrative structure is present whether one believes every letter of the biblical text to be divinely inspired or not.
  

  You write, “The suggestion that the Sabbath commandment may be a later addition fails to account for its integral role in biblical theology, as seen in Exodus 20:8–11, where the six-day creation week is explicitly tied to the institution of the Sabbath. If the Sabbath narrative were merely a later addition, then this connection would lose its authoritative weight.” I must again reiterate that the position is not one that I have adopted due to my own ongoing research and so I cannot speak to its validity or invalidity. The earliest proponents of the view are Ziegler, Gabler and Ilgen. More recently Carr has also argued for the “hypothesis” (his word) (See David Carr, “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable Transmission-History: Signs of a Secondary Sabbath-Oriented Stratum in Genesis 1:1–2:3,” Vetus Testamentum 70 (2020): 17–41). Perhaps a reading of these scholars can explain their position and how Exo 20:8–11 fits within that position.

  You write, “your hesitancy to affirm or reject the validity of these redaction theories suggests an underlying methodological issue: an unwillingness to commit to the integrity of the text as received by the Church.” The issue is not on my part. Your characterization as “unwillingness” is fallacious. I affirm that editorial redaction has occurred within the biblical books based on the textual evidence. I simply remain non-committal to redaction theories which I myself have not fully examined. You speak of “the integrity of the text as received by the [Catholic] Church.” I note the qualification “as received by the Church” which, should I note not only the numerous textual variants evidenced in manuscripts and translations, but also large scale redactional changes, will be summarily dismissed with a “those are not texts ‘received by the Church,’” thereby providing a convenient escape to not consider the body of evidence. But I would very much like to inspect this text of which you speak, unchanged since antiquity just as holy men first set it down. Perhaps it is locked away somewhere in the Vatican archives. In the meantime, I must recognize what the totality of the textual evidence demonstrates to inform my views. And the evidence is clear that scribes were not always strict copyists, exactly reproducing the texts which they handled, but also took on the more active role of editor. And this makes sense within a certain framework which conceives of these writings as living texts, occasionally revised by those who viewed themselves as divinely authorized to make such changes.
  

  The remainder of your comment simply reaffirms your Catholic view which I do not share. Our methodologies naturally differ because our aims differ. I seek to hear the ancient writer on their own terms. You seek to place them within a harmonious chorus of church teaching. So let me once again thank you for your time.