Posts by Mebaqqer2

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings peacefulpete,

With respect to your assumption of the use of the Chaoskampf motif in Genesis 1, I cited Tsumura’s work in support of my stated position that “I do not take the Chaoskampf motif as self evidently working in the background in Genesis 1.” Given your evident disagreement, I asked if you could produce a contrary analysis to invalidate Tsumura’s findings or refer me to someone who does. Here now you present a 20 year old post by the venerable Leolaia. Beloved by all on this board who know her, only a fool would dare to offer a view contrary to her pronouncements and call forth the ire of other board members. Further, her long absence suggests that any issues taken with her position would go unanswered by her herself. So you put me in a bad situation through your own inability to address my counterpoints to your criticisms on your own. But I did say, “Call whoever you need to aid you.” So the fault is ultimately my own.

Whether it is the pronouncements of the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or the venerable Leolaia, the only thing that should matter is if a position advanced can be substantiated and successfully defended against rival positions. This is why I call for substantive criticism of my own work. You recommend Leolaia’s post as if I had not heard Leolaia’s views before. Yet as I stated previously, “I am familiar with this approach.” I did not need Leolaia’s post to know it because I have heard it from scholars who, like Leolaia, are influenced by the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, particularly Hermann Gunkel in relation to Genesis. And yes, there are indeed times when I myself find value in the findings which scholars present utilizing this approach. But the question here is whether Genesis 1 is one of those instances. So confining ourselves to Genesis 1, the subject of my thesis, let us take a look at one example of what Leolaia says,

The Priestly account of creation in Genesis 1 appears to be a demythologized version of the Tiamat legend. The Hebrew cognate of Tiamat is tehom "deep" which denotes the initial state before creation: "The earth was a formless void (thw-w-bhw), there was darkness over the deep (thwm), and the wind of God hovered over the water" (Genesis 1:2). We have no explicit notion of a personalized chaos monster but we have the primordial existence of "darkness" and the "deep", the same two traits of chaos in Greek myth and in the Enuma Elish.

She states that “Genesis 1 appears to be a demythologized version of the Tiamat legend.” What is the basis for this position? She states that “Tiamat” is the Hebrew cognate of “tehom.” Note that this is asserted, but is not demonstrated. So what does Gunkel, upon whom Leolaia ultimately depends for this assertion, state that would support this assertion?

The fact that the word ‫תהום‬ [tĕhôm] in the sing[ular] is never employed in the determined state, and thus is treated as a proper name, implies that Tehom was originally a mythological entity, that is, a goddess. The same is true of ‫תבל‬ [tebel], “arable land, earth.” The Babylonian Tiâmat = Hebr. ‫תהום‬ [tĕhôm] demonstrates the accuracy of this conclusion. Tiâmat is the primordial sea, represented as a goddess or feminine monster.
— Herman Gunkel, Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, Ga.: Mercer, 1997), 105.

Well that settles it then right? tĕhôm in Hebrew is the demythologized version of the goddess Tiamat and therefore in Genesis 1. Well no, because then Tsumura comes along with his originally 20 page analysis of the term tĕhôm and notes contra Gunkel and those who follow him,

The earlier scholars who followed Gunkel usually held that the author of Genesis had borrowed the Babylonian proper name Tiamat and demythologized it. However, if the Hebrew tĕhôm were an Akkadian loanword, there should be a closer phonetic similarity to tiʾāmat. The expected Hebrew form would be something like *tiʾāmat > tiʾṓmat > tiʾāmat. This could have been subsequently changed to *tĕʾomā(h), with a loss of the final /t/, but never to tĕhôm, with a loss of the entire feminine morpheme /-at/.
— David Toshio Tsumura, Creation and Destruction : A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 36–7.

And,

When one says that tĕhôm is etymologically related to Tiamat, no clear distinction is made between the fact that tĕhôm and Tiamat are cognate, sharing the common Semitic root *thm, and the popular supposition that tĕhôm is a loanword from the Akkadian divine name Tiamat, hence implying a mythological relationship. Because the latter is phonologically impossible, the idea that the Akkadian Tiamat was borrowed and subsequently demythologized is mistaken and should not be used as an argument in a lexicographical discussion of Hebrew tĕhôm. It should be pointed out that the Akkadian term tiʾāmtum > tâmtum normally means “sea” or “ocean” in an ordinary sense and is sometimes personified as a divine being in mythological contexts. Therefore, the fact that tĕhôm is etymologically related to Tiamat as a cognate should not be taken as evidence for the mythological dependence of the former on the latter.
— Tsumura, Creation, 38.

And,

[S]everal common nouns are used without the definite article in Gen 1… Thus, the lack of the definite article with tĕhôm is no proof of personification. Furthermore, tĕhôm without the article appears either as a part of an idiomatic expression or in the poetic texts, which often omit the article. The very existence of its plural form, tĕhômôt (or tĕhōmôt, tĕhômōt), and its articular usage in Isa 63:13 and Ps 106:9 suggest that the term is a common noun in Hebrew, just as in Ugaritic, Akkadian and Eblaite.
— Tsumura, Creation, 48–9.

So the term tĕhôm is better explained as a common noun meaning “ocean” contra the view of Gunkel and others who have seen a demythologized goddess in its use in Genesis 1. Knowing this, I thought it sufficient to cite from Tsumura’s conclusion,

There is no evidence that the term tĕhôm in Gen 1:2 is the depersonification of an original Canaanite deity, as Day assumes. The Hebrew term tĕhôm is simply a reflection of the common Semitic term *tihām- “ocean,” and there is no relation between the Genesis account and the so-called Chaoskampf mythology.
— Tsumura, Creation, 56–7.

So please understand that I am not dismissing reading Chaoskampf mythology in Genesis 1 because I haven’t heard of it, or I don’t get it, or I don’t like it. I dismiss it because the basis for it has been found wanting for some time. This is why it is enough for me to cite Tsumura, since his analysis is the next step in the discussion that needs to be countered if that analysis is wrong. So instead of me addressing Gunkel’s scholarship by way of Leolaia’s post, perhaps it would be better for you first to address Tsumura’s response to Gunkel and counter his analysis. Until then, Tsumura’s points which relate to my own thesis stand. As encouragement in your reading of Tsumura, here are some comments from reviews of Tsumura’s original work in relation to Genesis 1.

Tsumura opposes the view of Gunkel and others since his day that tĕhôm is borrowed from Tiamat. He is obviously correct. Both words derive from a Semitic root thm and thus they are cognates, but a direct connection between the two is disavowed… Thus, those scholars who see a Hebrew tĕhôm as a depersonification or a demythologization of a deity (Canaanite or Babylonian) are incorrect… No future commentator on Genesis 1–2 will be able to disregard this book.
— Gary A. Rendsburg, “Review of Tsumura, D. T. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110.1 (1991): 137–8.

Among [Tsumura’s] principal conclusions are that tōhû wābōhû does not refer to the primordial chaos, but to the earth as an empty place, unproductive and uninhabited; that tĕhôm is not the depersonification of an original divine name, but a common Semitic word for “ocean”, which in Gen. i 2 covered the whole earth (he argues forcefully against the view that sees here a reference to the Chaoskampf theme)… This is a clear, learned and sober monograph which frequently shows up deficiencies in previous comparative philological studies because of a failure fully to study the use of words first in the context of the various languages in which they occur. By concentrating on a thorough study of a limited range of issues, Tsumura has made a substantial contribution to the clarification of these difficult passages.
— H. G. M. Williamson, “Review of Tsumura, D. T. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation,” Vetus Testamentum 42.3 (1992): 422–3.

And you may finally note that I am not simply being some slavish follower of Tsumura, since the narrative structure that I advance with my thesis disagrees with his work which assumes the symmetrical arrangement that is commonly accepted. This is of course to be expected on his part given the lack of a clear exposition of the narrative structure until now. My thesis thus represents an advance on the discussion by clarifying this feature of the narrative. To conclude, although we may not be bound by dogma as you say, we are bound by intellectual honesty to read works as their authors intended them to be read. Such, I believe, is what I bring to the table through the recovery of the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greeting peacefulpete,

Apologies for the delay.

I can appreciate your reading of my work. You are coming from a different place and what I am putting forth is somewhat at variance with what you have already come to know. So let me see if I can bridge the divide.

You speak of “a demythologized version of the chaos motif in Genesis 1.” You say this motif is “pretty explicit and repeated throughout the Tanakh in back references to creation.” This is an understandable position. It is based on reading Genesis together with ancient near eastern creation accounts. It is a comparative religious reading of the text and is a common approach. You specifically note the Enuma Elish in your comments.

I am familiar with this approach. I am also familiar with the work of Tsumura whose scholarship serves as a balance to this approach. Tsumura writes,

There is a popular hypothesis that the Chaoskampf motif of Enuma elish, the battle between Tiamat and Marduk, is behind the biblical idea of creation, especially in the background of Gen 1:2, and hence it has been assumed that the basic pattern of the biblical creation motif is “order out of chaos,” as a result of the victory over the chaos waters, which symbolize the enemy of a creator god.
…
There are still questions about the meanings of key expressions in Gen 1:2 such as tōhû wābōhû and tĕhôm, as well as the nature of the earth-waters relationship. B. S. Childs, who like many other scholars accepts a mythological background for these expressions, explains Gen 1:2 as describing “the mystery of a primordial threat against creation, uncreated without form and void, which God strove to overcome.” He had expressed this view in more theological terms a quarter of century earlier: “the Old Testament writer struggles to contrast the creation, not with a background of empty neutrality, but with an active chaos standing in opposition to the will of God. . . . The chaos is a reality rejected by God.”
…
However, this view deserves scrutiny. Does Gen 1:2 describe a “watery chaos” that existed before creation? In other words, do the terms tōhû wābōhû and tĕhôm in v. 2 really signify a chaotic state of the earth in waters and hence “a primordial threat against creation”?
— David Toshio Tsumura, Creation and Destruction : A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 1–3.

Tsumura then undertakes a linguistic analysis of tōhû wābōhû and tĕhôm in Gen 1:2. After his analysis of the phrase tōhû wābōhû, Tsumura writes,

In light of the above, it would be very reasonable to understand the phrase tōhû wābōhû in Gen 1:2 as also describing a state of “desolation and emptiness,” though the context suggests that this was the initial state of the created earth rather than a state brought about as a result of God’s judgment on the earth or land (cf. Jer 4:23, Isa 34:11). In this regard, the earth that “was” (hāyĕtâ) tōhû wābōhû signifies the earth in a “bare” state, without vegetation and animals as well as without man. The author’s intention in describing the earth in its initial state as tōhû wābōhû was not to present the earth as “the terrible, eerie, deserted wilderness” but to introduce the earth as being “not yet” normal.
— Tsumura, Creation, 33.

After his analysis of the term tĕhôm, Tsumura writes,

There is no evidence that the term tĕhôm in Gen 1:2 is the depersonification of an original Canaanite deity, as Day assumes. The Hebrew term tĕhôm is simply a reflection of the common Semitic term *tihām- “ocean,” and there is no relation between the Genesis account and the so-called Chaoskampf mythology.
— Tsumura, Creation, 56–7.

So you may not know the work of Tsumura which serves as a balance to the position you take as axiomatic. If you do, then you no doubt have a contrary analysis to invalidate his findings or can refer me to someone who does. At the minimum, you can perhaps now understand why I do not take the Chaoskampf motif as self evidently working in the background in Genesis 1.

Moving on, you say, “The formless heaven and earth are not created they are assumed to exist primordially.” This statement is based on reading Gen 1:1 as a prepositional phrase. Holmstedt’s work shows this to be one of two possible options. So it is possible, but by no means the only opinion. My paper on bĕrēʾšît in Gen 1:1 specifically argues in support of the other option that this verse is an independent clause. You, like Holmstedt earlier, do not address the fact that both the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch understand the verse as an independent clause as does every ancient translation up to the 10th century. On the other hand, the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient translations all support my position. So my view is not only possible, but is the one better supported. Additionally, the narrative structure I propose, if true, makes reading v. 1 as an independent clause the only opinion. So I am sorry to say, you have not eliminated “the heavens and the earth” from the count.

Moving on, you question why the two types of vegetation are only counted twice for day 3 and once for day 6. Sorry, but you have fundamentally misunderstood what I have laid out. The twenty-two works are works of creation. Thus the mention of vegetation in the provision of food is not counted at all. So when you say, "these are not two creative acts," I can only agree with you. It is the textual unit delineated by “and Elohim said” on day three (Gen 1:11–12) which corresponds to the textual unit delineated by “and Elohim said” on day six (Gen 1:29–31). If you look carefully at the diagram and the outline, you will see that the provision of food is in fact not numbered. Now consider the symmetrical arrangement which presents vegetation (day 3) as correspondent to land animals and humans (day 6) alone. This, as I said previously, contradicts v. 30 which also includes flying creatures (day 5) in the provision of food. My proposal thus yields a more sensible arrangement.

Moving on, you say that there are actually three kinds of plants created on day three. Sorry, but your reading of the text is wrong on this. The truth is as Sarna writes in his commentary, “vegetation Hebrew deshe’ is the generic term, which is subdivided into plants and fruit trees.” Thus the creation of “vegetation” (dešeʾ) is effected through the creation of the two types of vegetation according to the text: “seed sowing herbage” (ʿēśeb mazrîaʿ zeraʿ) and “fruit producing arborage” (ʿēṣ ʿōśè-pĕrî). These are the two works created during the second half of day three.

You continue, “notice in the summary of vs30 all three divisions of plants are lumped as 'herbs'.” Citing Gen 1:29–30 from the JPS translation in Sarna’s commentary, here is what I notice:

29 God said, “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant (ʿēśeb) that is upon all the earth, and every tree (ʿēṣ) that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, [I give] all the green plants (yereq ʿēśeb) for food.” And it was so.

v. 29 states that the same two types of vegetation created in v. 12 are to be the food for mankind. This supports the view that two types of vegetation were created in vv. 11–2. As for the mention of yereq ʿēśeb in v. 30, there have long been problems in understanding the relationship of the two words here as Abraham Tal relates in his textual commentary for BHQ (I have transliterated where the text is in Hebrew):

yereq ʿēśeb The equal lexical value of the two nouns, yereq and ʿēśeb (according to the vocalization), motivated G to transpose them, attributing to the former the role of adjective. Although Hebrew nouns normally precede adjectives, this collocation was considered possible, in view of parallel phrases (constructs), such as yĕpē ʿênayim [Lit. “beautiful of eyes”], yĕpē tōʾar [Lit. “beautiful of form”]. This rather unusual expression provoked Qimhi to state: “the grass is edible only when it is green.” On v. 19 Ibn Ezra says, “the green grass is for animals.” Aquila translates as “vegetation of green grass.” Theodotion restores the order of M without changing G. To Symmachus the phrase is a genitive, as it is to the Targumim, which consider the word yereq to refer to vegetables, according to its meaning in, e.g., 1 Kgs 21:2.

Yet while there is some dispute as to the precise meaning of yereq ʿēśeb, there is nothing to indicate that the phrase intends to include every kind of vegetation in it as your comment asserts. The text appears to say rather what Ibn Ezra states in his comments on Gen 1:29, namely, that while the plants (ʿēśeb) were given to mankind as well as animals, the fruits of the trees (ʿēṣ) were reserved for mankind alone. Therefore I do not see the mention of plants (ʿēśeb) in v. 30 as an all inclusive term for all vegetation as you do. In fact, I see quite the opposite.

Moving on, you mention v. 26 as “contrasting humans from the other creatures” and state that an enumeration of “3 categories” invalidates the enumeration of the works of creation in my summary chart. In point of fact, v. 26 specifies the types of creatures over which mankind is to rule and lists, not “3 categories” as you maintain, but four: 1) fish 2) flying creatures 3) docile creatures and 4) scurrying creatures. And knowing that the context here is not about creating creatures, but the creatures over which mankind is destined to rule, you should understand why the author omits two types of creatures from the list of creatures, namely, 1) the great serpents and 2) the wild animals. The four types of creatures in v. 26 are creatures subservient to humans while the two that are omitted are not. You may compare this to Gen 9:2 where the fear of humans is brought up with a list of the exact same four subservient creatures as v. 26.

Moving on, you assert the existence of a “widely accepted chiastic structure” which I have several times now demonstrated has problems in its formulation and its bases which you have yet to address. You assert my approach is “unnecessary” even though I have shown problems with a symmetrical arrangement of the works and have drawn attention to the fact that scholars also recognize these problems which, again, you have yet to meaningfully countered. And you incredibly assert my approach is “foreign” while you make references to the Enuma Elish to understanding Genesis and outright dismiss what Jubilees, a work produced in the same cultural environment and in the same language as Genesis itself, might have to say. Truly astounding I must say.

Moving on, you say you “doubt the author of Gen 1 was consciously referencing the Tent or ark.” Well since you know something about critical scholarship, you probably know that the Hexameron is assigned to P (Priesterschrift, Priestly Source). Here is what one scholar says,

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.

So you are of course free to doubt that the Dwelling was in the mind of the author when the Hexaemeron was composed, but the connection agrees quite well with critical scholarship and is far from outlandish. So when ancient authors millennia ago actually within the religious tradition make the same connection, I think it might be good not to dismiss them too hastily. I remember how anthropologists and others scoffed at the stories that people on Easter Island told them about how the Moai walked to their locations and then learned much later that people had walked the Moai by swaying the slightly tilted figures from right to left with ropes. Often it just takes the removal of an unwarranted assumption to see a simple truth.

peacefulpete, I appreciate your efforts. It indicates to me that there are places I need to offer more explanation or explain differently. Thank you again for sharing your viewpoints. I hope you understand that there is no personal animosity in the defense of a thesis. Hopefully we are all after the truth of the matter and greater understanding.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

I actually addressed this point previously when I cited my main paper,

It must therefore be stressed that, however else the author of Jubilees may explicate [→ elaborate on] 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.

Jubilees enumeration, as I demonstrated from the example of the third day, represents the works of creation found in Genesis, not Jubilees. Jubilees doesn’t just give the number of works as twenty-two in a general way and leave it at that. It enumerates the works created on each day specifically. And the truth of this enumeration is demonstrated by the fact that I can easily present all twenty-two works in the text of Genesis for each day precisely in the outline and diagram of the narrative structure. It is this fact which must be explained if the enumeration is something that the author of Jubilees just made up to serve an agenda as you state. You have made no demonstration as to why Jubilees’ reckoning is artificial. How Jubilees utilizes Genesis’ twenty-two works for some other theological purpose is beside the point. From my perspective you, and earlier VanderKam, have the situation backward.

Perhaps I could explain things better by making a similar argument to the one you just advanced:

Sarna in his commentary on Genesis writes,

[The biblical Creation narrative’s] quintessential teaching is that the universe is wholly the purposeful product of divine intelligence, that is, of the one self—sufficient, self-existing God, who is a transcendent Being outside of nature and who is sovereign over space and time.
This credo finds reiterated expression in the narrative in a number of ways, the first of which is the literary framework. The opening and closing lines epitomize the central idea: “God created.” Then there is the literary structure, which presents the creative process with bilateral symmetry. The systematic progression from chaos to cosmos unfolds in an orderly and harmonious manner through a series of six successive and equal units of time. The series is divided into two parallel groups, each of which comprises four creative acts performed in three days. The third day in each group is distinguished by two productions. In each group the movement is from heaven to terrestrial water to dry land. Moreover, the arrangement is such that each creation in the first group furnishes the resource that is to be utilized by the corresponding creature in the second group.

My argument: “The above demonstrates that an agenda was at work in Sarna’s 8 creative act enumeration and bilateral symmetry. The 8 arranged this way is not self-evident but results from a necessity to prove the creative process was orderly and harmonious from chaos to cosmos.”

How convincing would you find such an argument? Hopefully you would reason, “Sarna is interpreting what he understands to be in the text. The implications are something else." And you would be right. What is required of me, since I disagree with Sarna’s reading of the text, is to offer a better explanation while showing problems with Sarna's symmetrical arrangement of the eight creative acts. And I submit that this is just what I have done with my proposal.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

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.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

peacefulpete,

“a hobby of dispassionate textual criticism” I like this phrase. How great it would be if it were not just a hobby, but a career. “dispassionate,” certainly, without a prior need for the text to say anything in particular, yet passionate about the fruits which one obtains after the fact. I think of it as textual excavation. Like the archaeologist who digs to uncover the earliest phase of some settlement, even while revealing the site’s later phases through the stratigraphy. The result is a diachronistic reading of the text within the flow of history with many whos and whys along the way. I personally find the work tedious, but the need to know drives me nonetheless. I think many here can appreciate the point—an over reliance on interpreters leaves one in a precarious position.

I often see people engrossed in deep discussion about things which are ultimately a waste of time; “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” type stuff. I myself have wasted much time in this manner. If through my own studies I can bring resolution to an issue so that others can stop wasting time and turn their investigative powers to things that actually matter, I will have made the world better for everyone.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings,

Well, I am still waiting for substantive comments on my proposal. None of the scholars I have reached out to have returned my messages. In the meantime I have added a paper to academia.edu. This one concerns the implications the narrative structure has to understanding Genesis 1:1–3. In the course of its discussion it engages with the analysis of Genesis 1:1–3 given by Robert Holmstedt of the University of Toronto most recently laid out in his 2022 paper entitled The Syntax of Genesis 1:1-3. Holmstedt's paper may be found here. My own paper shows how Holmstedt's analysis can be refined through an understanding of the narrative structure. As such, it shows concretely how understanding the narrative structure leads to an improved understanding of the text and thus why it is so important. The paper is entitled Understanding ‫בראשית‬ in Light of The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron and may be viewed here. As always, comments are welcome.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

aqwsed12345,

My proposal for the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron is done solely in the interest of recovering what the author intended. Therefore it is not concerned with how the Hexaemeron conforms to other sections of scripture or to religious/scientific views on the origins of the universe. I submit that one part of the problem in understanding the six day account of creation comes from interpreters bringing their own needs into the text. For example, today debate continues to rage on whether the days of creation are literal 24-days days or long periods of time. This comes from a desire of some to find concordance between the findings of science and the words of scripture. My proposal is not made with this question in mind. Just as some interpreters today seek to find harmony between science and scripture, interpreters 2,000 years ago sought to harmonize scripture with the cosmogony found in the Plato’s Timaeus which was the science of its day. My proposal is also not concerned with that long forgotten endeavor. My proposal simply concerns the narrative structure as a feature of the text. Yet it is true that this disinterested investigation reveals a narrative structure that has some implications for how the text is to be interpreted. Some of these I noted in an earlier post.

Your post detailing a Catholic position on Creation is interesting, but I’m afraid that I do not see how it engages with my proposal. Do you have particular points of criticism or praise to offer? I will gladly hear them if you have them.

Just to be clear, I cite Augustine because his observation is true and contributes to a correct understanding of the narrative structure. It is not true because it is Augustine who makes the observation. I cite Basil because the principle inherent in his statement is also true. Texts should be understood according to the words in which they were written. Thus my proposal is not based on the authority of patristic writers. 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.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings,

I have uploaded the video from my .onion site to the Internet Archive here. This video provides a more succinct visual presentation of the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron proposed in the paper The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron located on my .onion site, yet goes beyond the summary diagram of my proposal uploaded to academia.edu. Its viewing is recommended before reading the paper's more detailed discussion.

I am still eager to hear critiques of my proposal. I have yet to hear any feedback other that given by
Acluetofindtheuser above. Positive or negative, let me know what you think.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

I like how you divided the creation framework as if it is set up in a tabernacle arrangement with the most holy being meant to represent the entire cosmos itself.

It is my view that it is the author of Genesis 1 who arranges the narrative this way, i.e., a primordial united cosmos (day 1) and a habitable earth (days 2-6). All I have done is formally explicated the fact. A number of scholars have previously drawn a connection between creation and the tabernacle. Yet those studies are now found to have been imprecise and/or inaccurate in light of my findings. But the connection itself is grounded in ancient Jewish tradition. Thus Midrash Tadshe 2.1 explicitly states “The dwelling (tabernacle) was made to correspond to the creation of the world.” Josephus states “It happened that [the tripartite] arrangement of the Tent was also an imitation of the nature of the universe” (Judean Antiquities 3.122–23). Philo, referring to the temple, states, “The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe” (De specialibus legibus 1.66). Philo of course applies this to the dwelling as well as his work Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum shows. Yet when one considers the varied expositions of this connection found even in these earlier sources, it is clear that this tradition had already become obscured by the time of Josephus and Philo. This appears to be one reason why scholars have not previously been able to explicate the structure concretely in Genesis 1. My findings therefore represent the recovery of a lost exegetical tradition, “rekindled light” if you will, which explicates the six days of creation as the author intended.

I still need to look over your actual work when I get the chance. Thanks for sharing.

No, thank you for taking the time to review my work.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

So my account has been unflagged and academia.edu has sent me the following message:

We're sorry for the trouble! Unfortunately, we get a significant number of spammers who try to abuse Academia.edu to reach their victims, and our spam-fighting systems sometimes make mistakes.

Let's hope that the follow up messages that I sent to the scholars to explain the situation does not cause the system to automatically flag my account again without a proper manual review first.

At any rate, the summary diagram of my proposal may once again be viewed on academia.edu here . I am still awaiting substantive criticisms of this proposal. Feel free to give them if you have them.