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 PioneerSchmioneer,

It is unclear to me what you mean by the statement “Krüger is correct.” Do you mean that Krüger is correct with his hypothesis that “the link between creation and Sabbath in Gen 2:2–3, Exod 20:11, and Exod 31:17b belongs to one or more late ... redactional layer(s) of the Pentateuch,” or my assertion that “Krüger, like every other scholar who assumes a symmetrical arrangement of eight works, is wrong”?

I have no argument to make on the first of these. As I said, I will leave it to others to argue about that. However, if, as Krüger says, the link between creation and Sabbath is a secondary addition to P made by a redactor, then it speaks against your stated position that “the first chapter of Genesis is a cosmological religious lesson that works as a forword to the Torah, designed to teach Jews to observe the Sabbath in imitation of God” because the Sabbath would not have been a feature of the Hexaemeron originally if Krüger is correct. Now Genesis 1 may have come to serve the purpose you state after the text had been redacted, but that would not actually reflect the original intent of the author of Genesis 1.

If, however, you are saying that Krüger is correct with respect to his utilization of a symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts, then I must respectfully disagree. Your position either means that you have not read my paper or you disagree with it. If the latter, I would certainly like to hear the reason why my thesis is in error. While the arguments for my position are stated in my paper, let me note some of the problems that accompany the symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts here using Krüger’s statements as an example.

God’s works on the first and on the fourth day refer to light and time (day and night, months and years).

Ok, but what are the first and fifth creative acts concretely? What kind of relationship does the author intend in the proposed parallel here? Light and time is vaguely stated, yes, but what is the exact nature of that relationship?

On days two and three the basic dimensions of space – sky, dry land, and sea – are created, which are filled with living beings on the corresponding days five and six.

Here I must similarly ask, what are the second and sixth creative acts concretely? What is the exact nature of their relationship in the proposed parallel here? What are the third/fourth and seventh/eighth creative acts concretely? What is the exact nature of their relationship in the proposed parallel here? He speaks of space and filling. Is one then to understand the relationship between the creative acts of days one and four above as one where light (day 1) is the "space" which luminaries (day 4) "fill"?

Also, see how Krüger combines days two-three and five-six together rather than discuss days two and five, three and six individually? This glosses over the fact that the seas are actually created on day three, not day two, while the inhabitants of the sea are created on day five, not on day six as an actual correspondence would necessitate. Interpreters try to get around this by saying that since the firmament is said to divide the waters on day two, the text’s mere mention of waters can justify the parallel to the creation of sea creatures on day five. One could just as easily pair day five with day one with such an argument. Thus the parallel only holds by ignoring what the text actually states and logic.

Day three parallels day six in having two creative works of God instead of only one.

Yet again, what are the third-fourth and fifth-sixth creative acts concretely? What is the exact nature of their relationship assumed in the proposed parallel here?

At the and [sic!] of day three the earth brings forth plants and trees bearing fruit, which are allocated to animals and humans as their food at the end of day six.

Note how Krüger speaks vaguely of “animals and humans” who are allocated vegetation for food “at the end of day six”? The statement is true enough, but the symmetrical arrangement actually assumes that the parallel is between vegetation (day 3) and land animals and humans (day 6). This is contrary to the text which specifically includes “the flying creatures of the heavens” (Gen 1:30) in the provision of food who were created on day five. So here too, the parallel imposed by a symmetrical arrangement must ignore what the text actually says and logic.

Finally, since we have been asking about the exact nature of the relationships in the proposed parallels all along, how do the all the answers from above relate to the series of days in the first and second triads? That is, what are the exact categories which the author uses in each of the triad divisions? Now I have read many presentations of the symmetrical arrangement with no two ever being quite the same. This is why I must constantly ask about what exactly are the eight creative works, how exactly their symmetrical arrangement evidences parallelism and the logical bases for the two categories of days. This is perhaps an indicator in itself that the symmetrical arrangement is on shaky ground. Westermann, like many others, recognizes the problem, but ultimately throws his hands up in defeat,

One of the first difficulties to which scholars drew attention in the course of the exegesis of Gen 1 was that the number of the works of creation did not agree with the number of days. Eight works are distributed over six days, with two on each of the third and sixth days. The many attempts to solve the problem are recorded in W.H. Schmidt’s survey, pp. 9–20. The general opinion today is that “the framework of the seven days belongs to a later stage in the history of the text.” ... A systematization of the succession of the works of creation is already there in the numbering of the days; and this is something completely different from the succession of the works of creation determined by the object actually created.
All attempts to bring the works of creation into a systematic order must be given up. There was never any intention of doing this... [T]he arrangement can be explained much better by the confluence of many strands of traditions and motifs from a variety of earlier creation stories. This too is the source of much of the unevenness in the narrative.
— Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1987), 88–9.

On the other hand, my thesis shows that Westermann's pessimism was premature by explicating the author’s use of a different narrative structure which is unencumbered by the problems that are evident in the symmetrical arrangements found in scholarship. Correspondences are more numerous, clear and concrete in the arrangement I propose. This arrangement also agrees with the most ancient interpreters of the text such as the author of Jubilees who were of course native speakers of Hebrew. If you are looking for still other examples of problems with the proposed parallels in the symmetrical arrangement of the days such as I noted above, I suggest Edward J. Young, “The Days of Genesis First Article,” Westminster Theological Journal 25.1 (1962): 26–31. I would very much like to hear how “cadence” can account for these glaring logical problems in the symmetrical arrangement as well as how scholars who recognize these problems like I do are in error. In the meantime, I will reaffirm my position: Krüger, like every other scholar who assumes a symmetrical arrangement of eight works, is wrong. Simple as.

Note: In my previous post I mixed up the source cited. The correct citation of Krüger's article is Thomas Krüger, “Genesis 1:1–2:3 and the Development of the Pentateuch” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 130–1.

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 PioneerSchmioneer,

Thank you for your comments even though you were on your way out the door. I hope you have an enjoyable trip. My own particular interest is textual criticism. As you are no doubt aware, the characterization of textual variation in biblical texts as merely involved with scribal mistakes that can easily be corrected, such as found in presentations by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society on the reliability of the biblical text, is much too simple. Anyone who has spent time dwelling on textual variants knows that many variants evidence intentional change which in turn betray scribal motivations. Scribes did not copy the text mechanically like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society likes to claim based on the later work of the Masoretes. Scribes were interested co-authors. As such, the work of textual criticism blurs into literary criticism. The two can no longer be viewed separately. Your recommendation of Schmid, whose work is more at the end of literary criticism, is therefore appreciated. Given your reference to Schmid, let me give some citations which begin with him that hopefully clarify my thesis vis-à-vis critical scholarship for other readers of the board,

The most striking difference commonly assumed between the three different academic cultures with respect to pentateuchal research in North America, Europe, and Israel is Europe’s more critical stance toward the Documentary Hypothesis.
This may be true in very general terms. But it is doubtful whether it is correct to describe the difference as follows: European scholarship has completely abandonded [sic!] the Documentary Hypothesis, while American and Israeli scholars still adhere to it. Even more mistaken is the statement that Europeans do not recognize any source “documents” underlying the Pentateuch and that their approach is not “documentarian,” but “fragmentarian.”
…
The most obvious element in current European scholarship showing that European scholarship has not completely given up the documentarian approach is P. Of course, there were, after an initial proposal by Karl Heinrich Graf, especially in the 1920s and ’30s and again in the 1970s, some attempts within European and American scholarship to define P as a redactional layer rather than as a stand-alone document. However, in the current European discussion nearly everyone considers P a source document.
— Konrad Schmid, “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 17–8.

In the framework of the traditional Documentary Hypothesis, P was something like a proto-Pentateuch, beginning in Genesis 1 and ending in Deuteronomy 34. Today, there is a growing awareness 1) that P probably did not cover the full range of the Pentateuch …
— Konrad Schmid, “The Emergence and Disappearance of the Separation between the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History in Biblical Studies” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 23.

In the priestly conception of the world, the tabernacle is undoubtedly important. Indeed, in many recent reconstructions, the account of the tabernacle’s construction in Exod 25–31, 35–40* marks the conclusion and climax of the original priestly document, the Grundschrift. The priestly document opens with the creation of the world (Gen 1), and the creation finds its fulfilment in the making of the tabernacle.
— Nathan MacDonald, The Making of the Tabernacle and the Construction of Priestly Hegemony (New York, N.Y.: Oxford, 2023), 102.

Genesis 1 is commonly – and probably correctly – understood as a part of the so-called Priestly source or layer (P) in the Pentateuch, which appears to have survived the recent revolutions in biblical scholarship regarding the composition of the Pentateuch with some damage but still basically intact… Remarkably, the link between creation and Sabbath established in the present text of Gen 1:1–2:3 is never again taken up in the basic layer of P. On the contrary, in Exod 16 the Sabbath is introduced as something new, without any allusion to the creation of the world.
…
These observations suggest the hypothesis that the link between creation and Sabbath in Gen 2:2–3, Exod 20:11, and Exod 31:17b belongs to one or more late, in any case post-P, redactional layer(s) of the Pentateuch.
— Thomas Krüger, “Genesis 1:1–2:3 and the Development of the Pentateuch” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 130–1.

Now Krüger’s hypothesis that the link between creation and the Sabbath has been secondarily added to P by a redactor may in fact be wrong. I will leave it to others to argue about that. I know he is certainly wrong in at least one place in this same contribution:

[T]here are signs of an elaborate structuring on the level of the text as a whole. As for the six days of creation, there are parallels between the first three days and the following three days…
God’s works on the first and on the fourth day refer to light and time (day and night, months and years). On days two and three the basic dimensions of space – sky, dry land, and sea – are created, which are filled with living beings on the corresponding days five and six. Day three parallels day six in having two creative works of God instead of only one. At the and of day three the earth brings forth plants and trees bearing fruit, which are allocated to animals and humans as their food at the end of day six. The six days of creation are framed by an introduction in vv. 1–2, reporting the state of affairs at the beginning of (or before?) God’s creative work, and a kind of epilogue in 2:1–3, narrating how God was finished with his work on the seventh day and hallowed it, apparently as a model of the weekly Sabbath day.
— Krüger, “Genesis 1:1–2:3,” 125–6.

Krüger, like every other scholar who assumes a symmetrical arrangement of eight works, is wrong. Simple as. This is what my paper demonstrates. Allow me now to close with some fine words from Cicero,

Quin etiam obest plerumque iis, qui discere volunt, auctoritas eorum, qui se docere profitentur; desinunt enim suum iudicium adhibere, id habent ratum, quod ab eo, quem probant, iudicatum vident.

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

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 PioneerSchmioneer,

Thank you for your kind wishes. If my thesis is true, and I do not see why it is not, I hope to see the narrative structure become a staple in discussions of the Hexaemeron going forward.

There are a couple of points of note I would like to make in regards to your statements. You wrote,

Jews did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind

As a matter of methodology, I do not assume that Genesis 1:1–2:3 was composed by a Jewish writer. Much of the reading of biblical history comes with an inherent Judahite bias, as if the people, history and religion of Judah are to be placed at the center and the touchstone of every discussion. Yet considering its embrace by the Samaritans, the remnants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh together with members of priestly families (Aaronites and Levites), I find the Torah to represent a broader Israelite collection of scriptural texts. Viewed from this perspective, it would be wrong to assume that all the biblical writers were necessarily Judahites. The collection, as originally promulgated, was to the house of Judah and to the house of Israel. Accordingly, I think it better to consider the contributing authors to also be representative of both communities.

Moving on from the question of the author’s ethnicity, I find that there is indeed evidence that the author sought to single out the six days for significance and therefore had the Hexaemeron in mind. To what evidence do I refer? As I note in my paper, though not connection with this point, the sixth day is specifically numbered in the text with a determined numeral, “the sixth day” (Gen 1:31), in contrast to the other days which are not determined, e.g., “a second day” (Gen 1:8). The sixth day is therefore specifically singled out for significance by the author. The same holds true with the seventh day which is also determined, “the seventh day” (Gen 2:2). But even more than this, the narrative structure with which my paper is concerned shows that the author certainly had the Hexaemeron in mind since the structure organizes the six days as a collective whole entirely separate from the seventh day. If the author's focus was on the seventh day, one would expect to see more of the author's time spent on that day or greater literary artistry used in its description. It to be more like Jubilees in which, as VanderKam explains, “The section on the Sabbath is longer than the one on the first six days” (See James C. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees 1–21, Vol. I, ed. Sidnie White Crawford (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2018), 193). These facts show that the author was indeed concerned with the Hexaemeron.

I would not say that the Hexaemeron “had nothing to do with explaining how the literal universe came into being.” Perhaps you are aware of the concept of imago mundi popularized by Eliade. Pals, while discussing Eliade, writes, “Eliade explains that the archaic village, temple, or even house must be an imago mundi, a mirror image of the entire world as it was first fashioned by divine action” (Daniel L. Pals, Eight Theories of Religion, 2d ed. (New York, N.Y.: Oxford, 2006), 202). This concept, which Eliade finds throughout traditional cultures generally, was assumed by Israelites as well as is evidenced by the explicit expressions of it by two ancient Judean writers whom I cite in my paper in connection with the Dwelling (Tabernacle). And the cosmology symbolized in the Dwelling, as my paper establishes, is described by the Hexaemeron. There is no justification to say that the author of the Hexaemeron was not really expressing his authentic cosmogonic views in what he wrote. What readers in the present day might think of the cosmology given is irrelevant. The only thing of importance is reading the text as the author intended wherever that may lead. There is no need to import Plato into the text as philosophically educated ancients did or modern cosmology as scientifically literate people do today. Again, Basil said it best, “let one comprehend as it has been written.”

These are the points most directly related to my paper in the views you expressed. I see your disagreement was neither intentional nor implied, but upon my reading these are the points which most stood out to me. I have thus taken it upon myself to explain how I see things in relation.

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 everyone,

Given the problems expressed by others concerning Academia.edu as well as an apparent reluctance/inability to visit my .onion site, I have uploaded the most recent version of my papers to the Internet Archive here. The main paper is entitled The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron and an example of why the narrative structure is significant to interpretation can be found in the paper Understanding ‫בראשית‬ in Light of The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron. I will be adding still other examples in the future as time permits. But first I would still like to hear evaluations of the main paper. The video In Hexaemeron: The Narrative Structure of Genesis 1:1–31 I posted to Academia.edu earlier gives a more succinct visual presentation of the main points of the main paper. The document An Outline and Diagram of the Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron contains exactly what the title states. I await your substantive feedback to my original thesis.

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 Anony Mous,

You said, "Best to publish it as a PDF on a public site." Everything that I have placed on Academia.edu here as well as the present draft of the main paper is available on this .onion site. This site is accessible to anyone who has the TOR browser. I mentioned this page previously which explains how to access .onion sites for those who may not know. Brave users may also access .onion sites (the link to the YouTube video I placed here put a player in the middle of this post and was therefore deleted, apologies). A TOR site is not only more secure for everyone, but easier to deploy than a clear net site. Additionally, as mentioned in a previous post, I have also uploaded a video on the Internet Archive which gives a more succinct visual presentation of the main points made in the paper. That video may be viewed here. This should be viewable to anyone with a modern browser such as users of Chrome, Firefox or Safari for whom privacy is not particularly a concern.

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

SocArXiV does indeed seem to be a solid suggestion, but, alas, I fear utilizing that site asks too much of me. I know that when the right eyes get on my findings, there will be a recognition of its contribution to a clearer understanding of the narrative structure of Genesis 1. I do of course desire substantive criticism from informed persons to refine the presentation of the thesis, but I care about privacy as I said. This is not because I worry that a refutation of my thesis will ruin my academic career or because of any wrong doing on my part. As I explain in the privacy policy of my own site,

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states,
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) likewise states,
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The Right to Privacy is therefore a recognized human right under international law
…
The UDHR and ICCPR refer to “arbitrary” and “unlawful” interference and attacks on privacy. Here I find a connection with the legal right to a presumption of innocence.
Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states,
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) likewise states,
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Here one may make an a fortiori argument: If individuals charged with a criminal offense have the legal right to be presumed innocent, how much more so do individuals who have not been charged with any criminal offense! Unfortunately, some state actors have failed to recognize these fundamental human rights and acted in a manner that infringes on them by assuming the guilt of entire populations and engaging in mass surveillance. Naturally, these infringements on human rights must be resisted.
The infringements on the right to privacy are not only done by state actors. According to Wikipedia, “Private sector actors can also threaten the right to privacy – particularly technology companies, such as Amazon, Apple, Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo that use and collect personal data.” Not only do such companies often infringe on the right to privacy in their collection and utilization of personal data, disclosures have shown that a number of these companies have been commercial partners acting in concert with state actors to engage in mass surveillance. Thus the infringements on human rights by private sector actors must also be resisted.
There are no doubt some who feel that the concern expressed here is extreme for someone who has nothing to hide. Yet Edward Snowden explained it well when he said, “Saying you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” The rights to privacy and to free speech are assumed in international law. They do not come into force only when there is a need for secrecy or for controversial statements. The preservation of these rights through resistance to their infringement is therefore necessary whether or not one personally finds the need to appeal to them. Besides, in recent years we have seen how statements made 10, 20 or even 30 years ago which were uncontroversial at the time have been utilized to assassinate the character of individuals in the present day. Thus an acceptable statement made today could very well be deemed an unacceptable one tomorrow.

Way more than you cared to read, I know. Yet it is from this position that I must decline to use services that expect personal information from me as is the obvious norm in academia. I do not even enjoy clicking pictures of bicycles and traffic signals for reCAPTCHA here knowing that it trains AI models for street cameras and self driving vehicles just like it did years back when it was used to train OCR software. Yeah I know, the last sentence sounds bonkers. I get it. Be that as it may, I know that I have something original and significant to contribute to the discussion of Genesis 1. But my personal stance on privacy prevents me from using the usual avenues. Originality of thought comes at a cost. It is not easy being Howard Hughes, smoldering at the state of the world. Let me end here with a quote to hopefully make me appear saner by the contrast,

Four billion worldwide population—all living—have a Computer God Containment Policy Brain Bank Brain, a real brain, in the Brain Bank Cities on the far side of the moon we never see. Primarily based on your lifelong Frankenstein Radio Controls, especially your Eyesight tv sight-and-sound recorded by your brain, your moon-brain of the Computer God activates your Frankenstein threshold Brainwash Radio—lifelong inculcating conformist propaganda.
— Francis E. Dec

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 Anony Mous,

At least for me, academia.edu has always allowed the viewing of papers which people put up on the site without signing in, but has admittedly made downloads available only to people who have an account. There are ways to download documents from academia.edu without an account if you know where to look.

Given your name and the concerns you have expressed, you appear to be one the few people left in this world who actually values privacy and does not care to trade your personal information away to become a corporate commodity. Sharing this value on the one hand, yet having something important to relate nonetheless, I have posted some support documents for my work on academia.edu. I have also posted a video on the internet archive (YouTube would have required Gmail and I don't think I will be doing that). I have, however, made all of these available on my private .onion site together with a draft of the main paper. All things are in a certain state of flux, as I said earlier, as I tinker with the wording and, based on the reaction of readers such as peacefulpete, add material to better explain the points and address legitimate criticisms raised. Yet the main thesis, and therefore the core of the paper, is sound as far as I can see. The congruence of the five features which comprise the narrative structure is incontrovertible. But then, perhaps I am simply a crackpot loon who needs perspective. Here is where the call for substantive criticism comes in.

So understanding the value of privacy, perhaps you may understand why I do not formally go straight to a journal. ArXiV appears to be geared toward the hard sciences with no mention of religious studies or the humanities and OSF is apparently unusable to me (I am not able to load anything but the navigation bar).

As for references, I most certainly agree, as should be obvious from my posts here. The bibliography for my main paper stands right now at three pages with 67 sources. The supporting paper I have posted to academia.edu has 29 footnotes with 19 sources (omitting my main paper) in the bibliography. Even the video I posted has a short bibliography with the two translations I utilized and the references are given to every source I cite throughout the video. Even the the names of the readers of the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch as well as the music used in the video are referenced. And citations of ancient sources in all of these also include the original languages! So yes, I am fully cognizant of the need to "bring receipts."

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 Rattigan350,

In my response to aqwsed12345 I specifically wrote, “today debate continues to rage on whether the days of creation are literal 24-days days or long periods of time… My proposal is not made with this question in mind.” In the same response I also wrote that my proposal “simply concerns the narrative structure as a feature of the text.” There are days in the text. These days are arranged within the text. This is what my thesis concerns.

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.