Posts by Mebaqqer2

posted

71
Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)
by Mebaqqer2 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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,
I began this thread for two reasons—to present my findings and elicit “substantive criticism” Substantive criticism entails first reading what I have written then, finding a problem with the points made, presenting a more reasonable explanation of the facts. So far the only person who has approached this has been peacefulpete who attempted to otherwise explain Jubilees’ explication of twenty-two works with specific arguments regarding how to count the works of creation in the text. This necessitated a response from me and I find that my response squarely addressed the points he raised.
Unfortunately, you have gone in a different direction. You have not made “substantive criticisms” of my paper for the simple fact that you still have not cited any factual errors or flaws in my reasoning from what I have written. You said concerning my thesis, “My comments were not meant in anyway to be seen or read as saying I disagree,” and concerning the alternative thesis (symmetrical arrangement), “I neither disagree with nor endorse the view.” So you have presented yourself as a non-committal observer who is simply throwing out disinterested comments on the subject.
Yet your comments from the beginning have made implicit arguments. And so I have tried from the beginning to address your points. But the fact that you do not formally make arguments or explicitly cite sources in support of your pronouncements makes things unnecessarily difficult. And when you have given a name, Konrad Schmid, the scholar actually said the opposite of the position you had taken. And when this was demonstrated to you, you simply attempted to turn things around and characterized my citations as “red herrings” and “gaslighting.”
Your only explicit point is to question my level of Hebrew proficiency. But even here there is no “substantive criticism” of my position. Why? Because your questioning is not based on examples of factual errors related to Hebrew in my paper or even in my comments here. Your questioning came in relation to my statement that Krüger is wrong in his utilization of a symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts. You took an opposing position and claimed, “The text has a cadence to it that demonstrates this.” Please note that this claim effectively makes you an advocate for a symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts even through you say, “I neither disagree with nor endorse the view.”
Now if it is true that “cadence” in the text “demonstrates” an intentional symmetrical arrangement of eight creative works by the author, it would be important to the discussion of the narrative structure. And so I replied, “I would very much like to hear how ‘cadence’ can account for … glaring logical problems in the symmetrical arrangement as well as how scholars who recognize these problems like I do are in error.” Thus I am asking you to substantiate your point here. I, for my part, have already substantiated my own claim that the utilization of a symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts by scholars is wrong by the very paper I have written. Yet you failed to substantiate your own claim when asked. And I tried to bring this fact to your attention, but apparently to avail.
And thus you have continued on, unsubstantiated in your own claim, trying to shift the burden of proof back on to me to prove my understanding of Hebrew is such to sustain the claim I made. But again, this I have already done in my paper, a paper from which you still have yet to cite any example of a factual error related to Hebrew on my part, let alone anything fatal to the position I advance. Remember, the thread is about making “substantive criticisms” of the alternative narrative structure which I advance in my paper. It is therefore obvious that any criticism should start there since that is the whole point of the discussion. But you dismiss the idea as “BS” and say that my directing you to my paper is the same situation as what the translators of the New World Translation do. Let us once again take up your comparison with an example to show exactly how one should proceed in offering criticism.
Jer 29:10 in the original New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1958 edition) reads,
“For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon, I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good promise in bringing you back to this place.’
Jonsson argues that the translation of lĕbābel as “at Babylon” here is incorrect and should be translated as “for Babylon” (Carl Olof Jonsson, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th ed. (Atlanta, Ga.: Commentary Press, 2004), 211–5). Does Jonsson simply assert that the translators of the New World Translation, by translating as “at Babylon,” show they had no knowledge of Hebrew? No. He first cites other translations and relates that while some of these read like the New World Translation, most read as “for Babylon” and explains how this actually fits better with other statements in Jeremiah. And then, not relying on an argument from populism, he goes into the reason why the preposition lĕ is best translated as “for” here by noting the opinion of Hebrew scholars. His first sentence reads, “Modern Hebrew scholars generally agree that the local or spatial sense of le is highly improbable, if not impossible, at Jer. 29:10.” Does he just end there with a blanket appeal to anonymous authorities? No. He cites a number of scholars to establish the point. Do the scholars he cites simply appeal to their own educational qualifications as if that were sufficient to establish the argument? No. They each give the specific reasons for how they arrive at the position they do from a consideration of the larger context and ancient translations. The case that Jonsson brings against the translation “at Babylon” in Jer 29:10 is therefore not established by questioning the translator’s very ability to understand Hebrew or by popularity or by simple appeals to authorities, his case is established by providing a superior explanation of the facts.
Now since the translators of the New World Translation have stated, “the merit of the translation rest[s], not on names, but upon its faithful rendition of the Scriptures from their original language,” then arguments which demonstrate that the translation has not in fact been faithful to the original language in places need to be addressed by offering an even better explanation if the translation is to still be regarded. Yet in the present example the translators have not addressed the argument made by Jonsson at all and continued on with their translation as if Jonsson’s criticism simply did not exist. This can be seen in the most recent revision of their translation which still reads “at Babylon.” It is therefore not the failure to produce credentials for inspection when asked that makes the translators suspect. Translations may be legitimate or illegitimate regardless of the credentials of the translator. It is the fact that the translators, although expressing a claim of faithfulness to the original languages, fail to answer criticisms when examples of the translation’s unfaithfulness to the original languages are brought forward.
So if you wish to put me in the role of one of the translators of the New World Translation, then that places you in the role of Jonsson. So please, do as Jonsson does with respect to the New World Translation and actually read my paper, find examples that you think constitute factual errors related to Hebrew, collect your reasoned argument as to why you believe I am in error, then bring your argument forward. And as you do this, please, instead of vague statements about how “a cadence” to the text “demonstrates” an intentional symmetrical arrangement of eight creative works based on the work of “a scholar” who worked “some decades ago,” please give me specifics as I have done with you here by clearly citing your sources like Jonsson does. Then the ball will be back in my court. And I will have to answer your “substantive criticism.” And then we will see if I fail to give a reasonable response as the translators of the New World Translation do.
In closing, you may be correct that I should have ignored you a long time ago, but not because you are a nobody, but because you have no “substantive criticism” to make. I am the nobody. You literally have the entire world of scholarship with you. Hopefully you will justify the time it takes me to type out these long responses to you by following Jonsson’s course and providing me with something substantial. Refuted or not, I can only stand the winner through the gain in knowledge.
[T]he view is found in basically all mainstream Bibles because it became accepted a very long time ago based upon how the Hebrew narrative reads like both the symmetry of prayers found in the Siddur and the Hebrew psaltry.
— PioneerSchmioneer
Some decades ago a scholar recognized that the first chapter of Genesis read like [an example of Jewish poetry] and a light bulb went off and the entire process began with a thesis. The rest was history, and now it is inside all the Bibles.
— PioneerSchmioneer
Let us finally turn to the scientific and philosophical significance of Herder’s ‘hieroglyph’. When this theory first appears in the drafts of 1768 or 1769, its claims to validity are still modest. For example, the ‘hieroglyph’ still has nothing to do with nature and natural science; it purports to be no more than a structural feature of the creation story, a complex of symmetries and parallelisms in the Mosaic description of the seven days of creation which Herder describes as a ‘hieroglyph’. Its significance at this stage is purely formal and poetic.
— Hugh Barr Nisbet, “Herder’s The Oldest Document of the Human Race and his Philosophy of Religion and History,” in On the Literature and Thought of the German Classical Era: Collected Essays, ed. Hugh Barr Nisbet (Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2021), 155.
Two centuries ago Herder recognized the powerful symmetry between the two triads of days: Day 1 corresponds to Day 4, Day 2 to Day 5, Day 3 to Day 6. Corresponding to the light (1) are the luminaries (4); to the creation of the expanse of the sky and the separation of the waters (2) correspond the birds and the fish (5); and to the appearance of the dry land and of vegetation (3) correspond the land animals including mankind together with the gift of food (6). Medieval tradition had recognized the broad pattern, since it distinguished the work of separation (Days 1-3) from the work of adornment (Days 4-6).
— Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, trans. David G. Preston (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 51.
Can you see why there is a need to cite sources?
71
Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)
by Mebaqqer2 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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,
You write,
It is a symmetrical pattern that is hard to deny
Yeah I know, but I do. I have to because I have explicated an alternative narrative structure which proves to be superior to the symmetrical structure assumed by scholars. But even if I didn’t have a more viable alternative to the symmetrical structure, there would still be cause for worry since scholars themselves have noted problems with the proposed symmetrical structure for more than a hundred years as I have already noted. And others as well can see the problems with this structure. Here is a video of William Lane Craig arguing against “Framework Interpretation” (0:00–10:20) which likewise assumes the same symmetrical structure:
https://youtu.be/bzJ4TMrldsU
Please note when watching this video that much of what Craig argues is tangential to my paper. The problem is with the symmetrical structure as a feature of the text. How interpreters have utilized that structure is secondary. Yet Craig in the course of his critique of the “Framework Interpretation” takes on the symmetrical structure itself and therefore hits on some of the points I have already gone over here. When I first watched this video I laughed and thought, "Just a bit further, Mr. Craig," because he almost stumbles into the actual narrative structure I present in my paper in the course of his critique simply by reasoning what Genesis actually says vis-a-vis the symmetrical structure.
I remember the lesson I was taught when I was still a child, “Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean you have to.” I have good reason not to accept the validity of a symmetrical narrative structure and most of it is in my paper. It is precisely because the narrative structure I expound has not been discovered by previous interpreters that my finding represents an advance in understanding and is therefore significant. Let me cite the words of Herder who was the first to present his “Hieroglyph,” an early form of the symmetrical structure, which I cite at the beginning of my paper:
It is incomprehensible to me how all the eyes that have been over this piece in so many centuries and nations could have overlooked a plan for which one certainly needs nothing more than eyes, and which is so essential that it hold us fast without any physical or dogmatic tables to the very thing itself. I have not been able to discover whether anyone has developed it before me; but I would be surprised if anyone after could overlook or reject it.
— Johann Gottfried Herder, Fragmente zu einer „Archäologie des Morgenlandes“. 1769, in Sämtliche Werke, ed. Bernhard Suphan, vol. 6 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1883), 38.

If he felt justified to express this sentiment, how much more do you think I do whose discovery of the actual narrative structure displaces the very symmetrical arrangement he proposed?
71
Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)
by Mebaqqer2 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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

Individuals who create academic research papers submit them to academic journals who generally do not charge anything to publish them, just like any reputable publisher or magazine doesn't charge you to publish your manuscript. Of course, your work has to be very good, and you have to be at the top of your field. You also do not have to have any ties to a university to get published, of course. But your chances increase if you do. And there are many undergraduate publishing opportunities as well. It isn't easy to become published however. You have to be a great writer and your work has to be of the most excellent quality.
You forgot to mention all the games. https://youtu.be/ytax5-2cYSk
71
Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)
by Mebaqqer2 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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 Halcon,
You ask,
As a person who has faith in the scriptures, how should I approach this subject?
What I have written will not answer the question of whether the six days of creation are literal days or not. My paper is concerned with explicating how the six day account of creation known as the Hexaemeron is structured. The need to relate my findings comes from the fact that scholars regularly assume an alternative narrative structure which, although presented as evidencing “powerful symmetry” and “harmonious balance” to students, has in fact already been recognized by scholars themselves to have significant flaws for more than a hundred years. Yet because of entrenched assumptions on what the text necessarily means, scholars have preferred to retain the admittedly flawed narrative structure, ascribe the obvious incongruencies to a complex literary prehistory of mismashed creation stories and continue on as if everything were fine with the structure they have assumed. There is no questioning of the validity of the narrative structure itself.
And so my own approach begins with nothing more than the seemingly crazy idea that the author, whether inspired or not, intended to produce something that was intelligible to his readers. And so, the first thing I want to know is how the text’s earliest readers understood it. True, this does not necessarily mean that what these readers perceived is what the author intended, but it does provide one with a more emic understanding of the text from within the religious tradition. And then I ask, “Does the reader make a legitimate observation about what the author wrote (exegesis) or is the reader imposing their own ideas onto the text (eisegesis)?”
Now the first reader I have in mind is the Judean writer of the pseudepigraphal work known now as Jubilees. This writer gives the earliest exposition of the Hexaemeron and so you would think that scholars would be interested in what this reader has to say which might illuminate Genesis 1. But alas, they don’t. Why? Because their methodology has already led them to conclude what Genesis 1 must mean. They do not leave the question open as they approach Jubilees. And so when scholars do discuss what Jubilees says, they are forced to characterize its reading of Genesis 1 as eisegetical since it clashes with their preconceived views on what Genesis 1 means.
For example, Jubilees explicates the number of works of the Hexaemeron as twenty-two. Scholars on the other hand speak of “eight creative acts.” Scholars make their identification of these eight creative acts based on the eight times wayyōʾmer ʾĕlōhîm (“and Elohim said”) appears in the text along with a volitional verb, e.g., “Let there be X.” This identification is then ascribed with a certain significance which in turn leads scholars to disregard the number of twenty-two works as an invention of the author of Jubilees,
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.
— James C. VanderKam, “Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2,” Dead Sea Discoveries 1/3 (1994): 318.
Because the eight creative acts have already been assumed with a certain significance by VanderKam beforehand, it never occurs to him that the twenty-two works may in fact be a feature of the Hexameron which the author of Jubilees has simply found to be serviceable to the point he wishes to make. And indeed, the fact that the twenty-two works are readily identifiable in the text of Genesis 1 itself speaks against VanderKam’s characterization of the situation here. And VanderKam should have understood this given the fact that he himself elsewhere states, “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” (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), 39). So here is a clear example of how a scholar’s preconceptions stand in the way of considering a legitimate observation made by an ancient reader.
Now at this point you may be thinking, “Well you have made a case for at least considering Jubilees’ twenty-two works of creation, and that's all well and good, but then how is one to understand the eight creative acts identified by scholars based on, not a secondary source such as Jubilees as you have done, but on the phrase ‘and Elohim said’ along with a volitional verb in the very text of the Hexaemeron itself.” And here I would say, to quote myself from my paper,
After the six days, the next most important feature of the text which contributes to the structure is the formula wayyōʾmer ʾĕlōhîm “and Elohim said.” This formula occurs nine times in the text with at least one instance appearing in each day (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29). It is important to observe that this formula is not only used at the start of a day nor only in connection with a creative pronouncement. Thus, one finds the formula is used in the middle of day one to introduce a creative pronouncement after the initial creation of the heavens and the earth (v. 3). The formula is also found in the middle of the third and sixth days to introduce additional creative pronouncements in those days (vv. 11, 26). Finally, the formula is found in the middle of the sixth day to introduce a proclamation concerning a provision of food (v. 29). Therefore in four of its nine occurrences (44%) the phrase is not used by the author to initiate the start of a new day. If the phrase is not intended to initiate the start of a new day, what does the author intend by its use?
As is clear from the wayyiqṭōl verb form found in the formula, its use is first and foremost to be sought within the “backbone” of the narrative. Here it may be noted that the first occurrence of the formula in v. 3 also constitutes the author’s first use of a wayyiqṭōl verb in the narrative. This, when viewed in conjunction with its repeated use throughout the narrative, establishes the formula as in fact the main constituent of the narrative’s backbone. The first occurrence in v. 3 is preceded by a description of the earth as tōhû wābōhû “a barren waste” in v. 2 after its initial creation in v. 1. The formula’s use in v. 3 is therefore to be understood as a result clause which relates the response taken to address this situation. Yet this response does not simply end with the formula in v. 3, but extends through the narrative to the other occurrences of this formula, i.e., “So Elohim said” (v. 3) … “Then Elohim said” (v. 6), etc. In this way, the formula is used by the author to relate the individual steps taken to bring the earth into a habitable state. Therefore, after its initial occurrence in v. 3, the formula also serves as an indicator of subdivisions within the following days. While this use of the formula as a structuring device is apparently not recognized in either the Masoretic Text or in the Samaritan Pentateuch, two of the manuscripts from the Dead Sea evidence a recognition of this use through their own use of additional vacats.
— Mebaqqer, The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Academia.edu, 2024), 3–4.
So my approach is not to ignore the phrase. My approach is actually to consider all instances of the phrase’s use by the author to understand its significance. And the result of this more holistic analysis of the phrase’s use reveals that scholars are wrong to focus only on those instances where the phrase is followed by a volitional verb and exclude the phrase’s use in v. 29 from a consideration of the author’s intent when using the phrase. Therefore, the observation that there are eight instances of the phrase “and Elohim said” followed by a volitional verb in the text is not in error. The error comes from the incorrect significance which scholars ascribe to this fact.
The foregoing gives some indication of how I have approached the subject. And the results that I obtain leave me with a much clearer narrative structure that 1) does not suffer from the problems found in the narrative structure assumed in scholarship, 2) is concordant with what the author actually wrote, and 3) agrees with the expositions of the most ancient commentators on the text. I would direct you to my paper for a more thorough discussion of the argument for the position I advance and the approach taken to arrive there.
But before closing, I would like to contrast my view with how the narrative structure is discussed in one of the works recommended by PioneerSchmioneer: The New Oxford Annotated Bible (5th ed.). Let me begin with a citation of the relevant parts:
14–19: The correspondence between days one to three and days four to six (1 || 4, 2 || 5, 3 || 6) heightens the symmetry and order of God’s creation. Here, God’s creation of heavenly lights on the fourth day corresponds to creation of light, day, and night on the first.
20–23: The second day featured the dome separating upper and lower oceans; the corresponding fifth day features the creation of birds to fly across the dome and ocean creatures, including sea monsters (Ps 104.25–26). God’s blessing of the swarming creatures (1.22) anticipates a similar blessing that God will give humanity (1.28).
24–30: The third day described creation of land and plants in turn, the corresponding sixth day involves the creation of two types of plant-eating land-dwellers: animals and then humans.
The commentator maintains that there is “correspondence between days one to three and days four to six,” a correspondence which “heightens the symmetry and order of God’s creation.” The commentator then gives the following examples of this correspondence:
“creation of light, day, and night” (Day 1)
“creation of heavenly lights” (Day 4)
“the dome separating upper and lower oceans” (Day 2)
“creation of birds to fly across the dome and ocean creatures” (Day 5)
“creation of land and plants” (Day 3)
“creation of two types of plant-eating land-dwellers: animals and then humans” (Day 6)
These are the examples of correspondence which the commentator gives that are supposed to heighten “the symmetry and order of God’s creation.” But is that what these examples do? Are these correspondences actually found in the text?
The commentator speaks of “creation of light, day, and night” on day one. Yet “day” is not something created in addition to light, but, according v. 5, is what light is called. “light” and “day” are thus actually the same thing. The same verse also shows that darkness is called night. Why does the commentator not mention darkness along with night as he mentions light along with day? Who knows. What does this say about the items the commentator is putting forth for the proposed correspondence? But let’s ignore the previous points and just say “creation of light” and “creation of heavenly lights” are the correspondence. What is the nature of the correspondence? We are not told. It is just left for the reader to infer.
The commentator speaks of “the dome separating upper and lower oceans” on day two and “creation of birds to fly across the dome and ocean creatures” on day five. But the “lower ocean” is a phrase of the commentator. The text actually calls these “the waters that were under the dome” (v. 7) which are not gathered together and called “seas” until day three (v. 10). The commentator’s verbiage therefore artificially creates a correspondence here by obscuring this fact. Also, why should birds flying “across the dome” be viewed as more significant to the author for correspondence than “God set [the lights] in the dome of the sky” (v. 17)? This is why it is important to pin down the precise nature of the correspondences instead of leaving things vague for the reader to infer.
The commentator speaks of “creation of land and plants” on day three as corresponding with “creation of two types of plant-eating land-dwellers: animals and then humans” on day six. But the text states “to every bird of the air … I have given every green plant for food” (v. 30). Thus the text itself includes “birds” created on day five in the provision of food as well. This again shows a problem with the commentator’s correspondence. And again, even if we ignore this problem, what is the nature of the correspondence between the two days? Yet a third time we are not told. It is just left for the reader to infer.
Now I would ask you to compare what was just presented above to the outline and diagram of the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron which I have produced and I think you will find a quite stark contrast. So in your approach you are of course free to utilize the narrative structure assumed by scholars which in fact ignores the text and leaves it in disarray all while telling you how it heightens “the symmetry and order of God’s creation.” You will be in good company since it is assumed by everyone. But I for my part will continue to utilize the narrative structure which I have recovered to understand Genesis 1 since no refutation of it has been forthcoming, it evidences more concrete and clearer correspondences, it explains how ancient interpreters read the text as well and, perhaps most important, it does not leave me in a state of evident confusion such as this:
The improbability that a disposition of the cosmogony in eight works should have obtained currency in Hebrew circles without an attempt to bring it into some relation with a sacred number has been urged in favour of the originality of the present setting (Holzinger, 23 f.). That argument might be turned the other way for the very fact that the number 8 has been retained in spite of its apparent arbitrariness suggests that it had some traditional authority behind it. Other objections to the originality of the present scheme are: (a) the juxtaposition of two entirely dissimilar works under the third day (b) the separation of two closely related works on the second and third days; (c) the alternation of day and night introduced before the existence of the planets by which their sequence is regulated (thus far Di. 15), and (d) the unnatural order of the fourth and fifth works (plants before heavenly bodies). These objections are not all of equal weight and explanations more or less plausible have been given of all of them. But on the whole the evidence seems to warrant the conclusions that the series of works and the series of days are fundamentally incongruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the former during the Heb. development of the cosmogony, that this change is responsible for some of the irregularities of the disposition, and that it was introduced certainly not later than P, and in all probability long before his time.
— John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; New York, N.Y.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 10.
So I will leave it up to you to decide what you think is the best approach for you. Anyways, have a nice day.
71
Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)
by Mebaqqer2 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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,
Let us start with your comparison of me to the translators of the New World Translation. The translators of the New World Translation says their translation of the Bible speaks to their abilities to undertake that work. And, when specific challenges are raised to points of their translation by critical reviewers, they either entirely ignore the criticism, quietly revise their explanation to maintain the legitimacy of their translation or quietly revise the translation with no explanation given. Therefore, the problem with the translators of the New World Translation is not their position of anonymity, a position which other Bible translators have taken as the translators note, but their lack of engagement with the legitimate criticisms of their work separate from their position on anonymity.
My paper is written in English. Not Hebrew. Not Spanish. It makes references to the Hebrew text of the Bible at points where the need arises in relation to the argument made. These references to the Hebrew text of the Bible are either correct or incorrect. The statements made regarding the Hebrew text referenced are either correct or incorrect. Now you step forth and, rather than raise any specific challenge to a particular reference or statement that I have made in my paper which a legitimate criticism of my thesis would require, seek to summarily sweep it aside based on vague and unsubstantiated statements about “cadance” and a boast of your own abilities all while ignoring points made against your position.
I’ll ask you a third time. Does Gen 1:30 read “the sixth day” (yôm haš-šiššî) or “a sixth day” (yôm šiššî)? Pause. What can be inferred about about the sixth day given the author's use of “the sixth day” (yôm haš-šiššî) in Gen 1:30? Pause. How does the singular significance which the author attributes to the sixth day in contrast to the previous days support your assertion that “the Jews did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind”? Answer: It doesn’t. It does, however, support my position that the Hexaemeron constitutes a discrete textual block within Gen 1:1–2:3. I am not “pontificat[ing] on and on.” I am making legitimate points against your position while supporting my own. Indeed, this point is not even made in my paper but particularly responds to the unsubstantiated assertion you made cited above. My reference to the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 here is either correct or incorrect. My statements here regarding the Hebrew text referenced are either correct or incorrect. Please do not be like the translators of the New World Translation who do not engage with criticisms.
So even if you have time traveled from the Judean Second-Temple period after having personally talked with the writers and scribes who produced the biblical text and have a selfie with Ezra himself to prove it, it would still require you to address the specific points that I have made in my paper which relate to Hebrew to overturn those points made in relation to my thesis. Your dismissive innuendo of my abilities without reading the paper and your lack of substantiation of the points you have made thus far here do not constitute any sort of refutation of my thesis. If I am wrong, then you should be able to make the case why this is so without breaking a sweat given your awe inspiring knowledge. As it stands, I have backed up my statements here with you and everyone else. So again I implore you, instead of trying to impress me into silence with your boasts of knowledge and wowing the crowd, please, employ that knowledge to the task at hand and overturn the points of my thesis with a reasoned and substantiated argument.
You asked, “Why come here to get our opinion if those of us who went to college (many of us have, you know), and some who lived in Israel, who taught religion and the Bible for a living are ‘in the clouds’”? The problem is not with higher education. The problem is with your apparent belief, also shared by others in academia, but certainly not everyone, that your education somehow imbues your every pronouncement ex cathera status. It is this snobbishly dismissive, “holier than thou” attitude which places you “in the clouds,” not your education. I am here to tell you that your pronouncements are not ex cathera. I have demonstrated such already by citing the very scholar you recommended which highlighted inaccuracies in your stated position. I myself am a university graduate, but that in no way automatically validates or invalidates anything I have to say. Nobody should accept what I or anyone else has to say based on an awe of academic credentials. So I will say it again, the only thing that matters is the evidence you can present to support the claims you make just as is the case with me. Who you are is irrelevant to me. I harbor no animosity to you or anyone else. Who I am is also besides the point. I am either right or wrong. Read what I have written. Be persuaded or not. If not, present your own case to substantiate your position so that I might turn aside from my erroneous views and adopt your position as my own.
In closing, better than Spanish songs and The Wizard of Oz, consider the case of Carl Olof Jonsson’s work The Gentile Times Reconsidered since you ignored poor Ernest Muro’s identification of Greek fragments of the book of 1 Enoch among the Dead Sea Scrolls as a non-academic. If Rolf Furuli were to adopt your attitude in relation to this work, then everything Jonsson argues therein could be summarily dismissed by Furuli by the wave of a hand because he is formally more credentialed than Jonsson. Yet anyone who has read Jonsson’s work knows that his arguments effectively answer Furuli’s position even though Jonson did not have the formal education to discuss the topics he covered, building his knowledge along the way in the course of his research, while Furuli taught courses in “Akkadian, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, Phoenician, Syriac, and Ugaritic.” Thankfully, most people understand that it is the weight of the argument and the evidence brought to support a position that establishes the validity of that position. Jonsson’s work itself demonstrates his knowledge of the subjects with which he deals regardless of his formal level of education. And, when specific criticism arose, Jonsson straightforwardly addressed them and he revised his work several times accordingly. This is the correct procedure for academics and non-academics alike. I really can't understand why someone as so self professedly knowledgeable as you really needs this point hammered so hard.
71
Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)
by Mebaqqer2 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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,
A couple of points to make. You write,
[The Watchtower] tells people they can do without a formal education if they want to be involved in academia. You cannot. That is the very substance of it.
I don’t believe I identified myself as a Jehovah’s Witness. In fact, I do believe that I made statements earlier that took issue with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in relation to their characterization of textual criticism and the reliability of the biblical text. Oh no! Hopefully the governing body doesn’t read those comments or I might get disfellowshipped!
Your comment is pretty elitist I must say. Perhaps you haven’t heard about people like Ernest Muro, a literal college drop out, who worked as a carpenter at Disney World, yet who identified Greek fragments of the book of 1 Enoch among the Dead Sea Scrolls before scholars did. Such people may not be visible to you from the height of the ivory tower you inhabit, but such people do exist.
It is ironic that you take issue with my citations. Someone before you in this thread stated that it appeared as if I do not cite sources to support my claims to which I responded that I do indeed cite sources and I am fully cognizant of the need to “bring receipts.” And this I have demonstrated here with our exchange as well. Yet you call these citations “red herrings” and “gaslighting.” Why would that be?
You asserted “the Jews did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind.” I responded to this claim, in my own words directly from the text, “the sixth day is specifically numbered in the text with a determined numeral, ‘the sixth day’ (Gen 1:31), in contrast to the other days which are not determined, e.g., ‘a second day’ (Gen 1:8). The sixth day is therefore specifically singled out for significance by the author. The same holds true with the seventh day which is also determined, ‘the seventh day’ (Gen 2:2).” Now you can read the Hebrew text right? Does the text say “the sixth day” as I stated or “a sixth day” which would indicate that the day had no particular significance to the author? I further supported the fact that the author had the Hexaemeron in mind when I wrote, “the narrative structure with which my paper is concerned shows that the author certainly had the Hexaemeron in mind since the structure organizes the six days as a collective whole entirely separate from the seventh day.” You have not answered either of these points and so your claim that the author “did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind” is not supported by evidence whereas my position is. I am indeed speaking directly. You just are not able to hear from so far a height.
Now if you want to talk about red herrings, your introduction of a full blown, all encompassing theory of pentateuchal composition into a discussion of my paper which peacefulpete explained to you narrowly involves a literary feature of the Hexaemeron certainly fits the bill. You did this to show everyone how knowledgeable you are, I get it. And yet your statements evidence deficiencies in your position.
You said, “The entire Document Hypothesis as stated above, even in its newer form, has been largely abandoned in light of etymological studies in Israel and Europe.” But then Konrad Schmid, the very authority you praise as “at the forefront” of scholarship, writes, “[I]t is doubtful whether it is correct to describe the difference as follows: European scholarship has completely abandonded [sic!] the Documentary Hypothesis, while American and Israeli scholars still adhere to it. Even more mistaken is the statement that Europeans do not recognize any source ‘documents’ underlying the Pentateuch and that their approach is not ‘documentarian,’ but ‘fragmentarian.’” So while Schmid may be at the forefront of scholarship, your position is not. This is not a red herring. It evidences a weakness in your stated position.
Now as it stands the composition of the Genesis 1 is ascribed to P. And what does the scholar whom you praise as “at the forefront” of scholarship say with regards to P? “[I]n the current European discussion nearly everyone considers P a source document” as I cited. Why would you call this a red herring? Not only is it relevant to the composition of the Hexaemeron, the focus of my paper, but it directly addresses your assertion that “The ‘prologue’ to the Torah (Genesis 1-2:3) is now attributed to what they call R of this Judean/Levitical authorship.” Again, this is not a red herring. It evidences a weakness in your stated position.
You said, “the first chapter of Genesis is a cosmological religious lesson that works as a forword to the Torah, designed to teach Jews to observe the Sabbath in imitation of God.” Yet Krüger maintains that “the link between creation and Sabbath in Gen 2:2–3, Exod 20:11, and Exod 31:17b belongs to one or more late … redactional layer(s) of the Pentateuch” which would indicate that the Hexaemeron was not originally written with the Sabbath in mind. Now it is still unclear if you meant to agree with him on this point or not given your vague statement “Krüger is correct.” But if Krüger is correct on this point, then it evidences a weakness in your stated position. It is certainly not a red herring.
You said, “Krüger is correct.” Assuming now that you are speaking about a symmetrical arrangement of eight creative acts, I would like you to note how I went sentence by sentence through Krüger’s statement and related the questions and problems that arise directly in my own words while citing relevant information from Genesis. And then, demonstrating that I am not just some uninformed loon making up criticisms where none are to be found, I also cited scholars who make the same observations. This is not a red herring. It addresses a point you made.
So there are no red herrings and gaslighting going on with my responses. You said “cadance” shows “Krüger is correct.” And so I said, “I would very much like to hear how ‘cadence’ can account for these glaring logical problems in the symmetrical arrangement as well as how scholars who recognize these problems like I do are in error.” And you failed to substantiate your point here too.
So now it is apparent why you would want to mischaracterize my citations which address certain assertions you have made as “red herrings” and “gaslighting”; they show your views have some inaccuracies. Welcome to humanity.
Now as to the question of Hebrew, my paper shows that I possess the requisite knowledge of Hebrew to make my case. It would be rather foolish of me to actively elicit criticisms from people with the knowledge relevant to assess my work, including Hebrew, if my thesis was just full of hot air. My thesis is not proven through certification. John M. Allegro had academic credentials too, but his scholarship got him laughed out of the hallowed halls of academia. Ernest Muro had none, but he made a contribution to scholarship. The evidence supporting the position is what is important. Substantive criticism is what is required, implicit personal attacks on me are just smoke and mirrors. Your elitist questioning of my education, especially when you have evidently not read my paper, introduced irrelevant material into the discussion and not responded to evidence presented contrary to your position, is actually offensive. The only thing I need to prove is the thesis of my paper. Please focus on making substantive criticisms of it if you can. If you think that I am not “worth speaking to” from your position so high up in the clouds, then by all means get back to your vacation and enjoy yourself, ignore what I have to say and let me bother you no more.
71
Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)
by Mebaqqer2 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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
1. watchtower
2. bible
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
1. watchtower
2. bible
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
1. watchtower
2. bible
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.