Posts by Mebaqqer2

posted

76
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

aqwsed12345,
The Chinese say,
差之毫厘﹐謬之千里
A hairbreadth’s difference becomes an error of a thousand miles.
Aquinas similarly wrote,
parvus error in principio magnus est in fine
A small error in the beginning becomes a great one in the end.
For you, it is a mistake on my part to read the biblical text in the same manner as I would any other ancient religious text.
For me, it is methodologically unwarranted to read the biblical text differently than any other ancient religious text without justification. The authority of religious institutions does not provide this justification.
Now you can assert the necessity of reading the biblical text within the framework of Catholic teaching. The Jehovah’s Witnesses likewise assert the necessity of reading the biblical text within the framework of their teachings. But I do not operate within those frameworks as I have said. You of course are entirely free to do so.
But as I see it, the books of the Hebrew Bible, although utilized by Catholics, are in point of fact not Catholic works. The first five books of the Hebrew Bible are not even Judahite works, but are more broadly Israelite works as is evident from their common acceptance by the surviving remnant of Ephraim and Manasseh, the Samaritans. The utilization of the Hebrew Bible by Catholics is due to the fact that Catholicism is a form of Christianity. Christianity in turn may be considered a Judahite religion. This is based not only from their acceptance of specifically Judahite works as scripture, but also from their sharing particularly Judahite beliefs such as the divine selection of David and Jerusalem’s sanctity.
So I submit that reading the Hexaemeron through the lens of much later Catholic theology will never really uncover “the literal-historical sense” which you say the Catholic church also affirms. I maintain that this can only be achieved by reading these texts within the context of ancient Israelite religion. It is the ancient Israelite theology communicated by the text itself that takes precedence when working with ancient Israelite texts. My desire is therefore to elucidate the ancient writer’s intended meaning, text qua text.
You state such an approach is “inadequate” within a Catholic framework. That may well be. But I must reiterate that I am not working with a Catholic text. I am working with an ancient Israelite text. The benchmark of adequacy here is the congruence of the exposition to the words and literary features of the text itself and its cogency within the framework of ancient Israelite religious tradition. So I am decidedly not giving a Catholic exposition. In fact, I believe I stated to you months ago that “Nowhere have I said that my proposal has been declared nihil obstat. I am not concerned with such declarations. I am only concerned with understanding the text as the author intended.” I am the same yesterday as I am today.
You state, “You claim that the Sabbath account in Genesis 2:1–3 is thematically distinct from the six days of creation, marking a textual break.” I do not “claim” a thematic distinction between the Hexaemeron and the seventh day, I demonstrate it. First, by relating the differing themes between the two groups:
Among these seven days there is a distinct thematic difference between the first six (Gen 1:1–31) and the seventh (Gen 2:1–3). Whereas the first six days concern divine creative activities, the seventh day highlights the cessation from these activities as well as the sanctification of this day.
Second, by noting features of the text which the author employs to support this thematic distinction:
The first six days are also delineated in the text by the distinctive closing refrain ויהי ערב ויהי בקר (wayǝhî-ʿereb wayǝhî-bōqer, “And there was evening and there was morning”), which precedes an enumeration of each day. Four of these days are enumerated with indeterminate ordinals, e.g., יום שני (yôm šēnî, “a second day”) (Gen 1:8). However, the first day is enumerated with a cardinal number, יום אחד (yôm ʾeḥād, “one day”) (Gen 1:5), while the sixth is enumerated with a determined ordinal, יום הששי (yôm haššiššî, “the sixth day”) (Gen 1:31). The use of a determined ordinal for the sixth day contrasts with the previous indeterminate days and suggests that this day has particular significance within the narrative. The same is true for יום השביעי (yôm haššǝbîʿî, “the seventh day”) which is also specified with a determined ordinal (Gen 2:2). The significance in the enumeration of these two days is best viewed in the light of the thematic difference noted above, with יום הששי (“the sixth day”) representing the culmination of the Hexaemeron (Gen 1:1–31), and יום השביעי (“the seventh day”) highlighting the exceptional character of this day (Gen 2:1–3).
You have not addressed these points to invalidate this thematic substructuring within the narrative. As for the importance of the Sabbath, I addressed this when I said “I do not deny the Sabbath day is important in the presently constituted narrative.” Your elaborations on this from a Catholic perspective only serve to further highlight the importance of the seventh day from a Catholic perspective.
You write, “The unity of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is not merely a function of literary arrangement but a theological necessity.” But the theology of the presently constituted narrative may not represent the theology of an earlier form of the text. I must as a matter of methodology allow for this possibility. What I can say, again, is that the Sabbath is important within the presently constituted narrative.
You write, “You hint at the possibility that the Sabbath passage may be a later redactional addition but withholds final judgment.” Indeed, because, unlike some who collect their views from reading commentators, I work primarily from the text, considering it from the standpoint of lexicon, grammar and syntax, formulate a tentative view, and then check what others have said. I must necessarily remain fluid and keep options open while my research is ongoing.
You write, “this approach reflects the problematic assumptions of higher criticism, which have been consistently cautioned against in Catholic biblical interpretation.” Be that as it may, the fact that biblical texts have undergone editorial revision is demonstrated from the Dead Sea Scrolls which evidence clear scribal interventions in the biblical text. Here I would recommend the work of one scholar who has worked directly with the Dead Sea Scrolls: Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Therefore it would be methodologically unsound for me to preclude the possibility of editorial revision in Genesis 1:1–2:3. I have, in fact, already highlighted one such instance in a paper that I have uploaded here. Now you will most likely deny the findings of that paper on theological grounds. But that is understandable since I do not share those theological presuppositions. My objective is to recover the earliest form of the text and explain the editorial process evidenced by the textual witnesses. A clear explication of the overall narrative structure is the necessary first step to this. And this overall narrative structure is present whether one believes every letter of the biblical text to be divinely inspired or not.
You write, “The suggestion that the Sabbath commandment may be a later addition fails to account for its integral role in biblical theology, as seen in Exodus 20:8–11, where the six-day creation week is explicitly tied to the institution of the Sabbath. If the Sabbath narrative were merely a later addition, then this connection would lose its authoritative weight.” I must again reiterate that the position is not one that I have adopted due to my own ongoing research and so I cannot speak to its validity or invalidity. The earliest proponents of the view are Ziegler, Gabler and Ilgen. More recently Carr has also argued for the “hypothesis” (his word) (See David Carr, “Standing at the Edge of Reconstructable Transmission-History: Signs of a Secondary Sabbath-Oriented Stratum in Genesis 1:1–2:3,” Vetus Testamentum 70 (2020): 17–41). Perhaps a reading of these scholars can explain their position and how Exo 20:8–11 fits within that position.
You write, “your hesitancy to affirm or reject the validity of these redaction theories suggests an underlying methodological issue: an unwillingness to commit to the integrity of the text as received by the Church.” The issue is not on my part. Your characterization as “unwillingness” is fallacious. I affirm that editorial redaction has occurred within the biblical books based on the textual evidence. I simply remain non-committal to redaction theories which I myself have not fully examined. You speak of “the integrity of the text as received by the [Catholic] Church.” I note the qualification “as received by the Church” which, should I note not only the numerous textual variants evidenced in manuscripts and translations, but also large scale redactional changes, will be summarily dismissed with a “those are not texts ‘received by the Church,’” thereby providing a convenient escape to not consider the body of evidence. But I would very much like to inspect this text of which you speak, unchanged since antiquity just as holy men first set it down. Perhaps it is locked away somewhere in the Vatican archives. In the meantime, I must recognize what the totality of the textual evidence demonstrates to inform my views. And the evidence is clear that scribes were not always strict copyists, exactly reproducing the texts which they handled, but also took on the more active role of editor. And this makes sense within a certain framework which conceives of these writings as living texts, occasionally revised by those who viewed themselves as divinely authorized to make such changes.
The remainder of your comment simply reaffirms your Catholic view which I do not share. Our methodologies naturally differ because our aims differ. I seek to hear the ancient writer on their own terms. You seek to place them within a harmonious chorus of church teaching. So let me once again thank you for your time.
76
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

aqwsed12345,
I am happy to see some engagement with the narrative structure that I have proposed for the Hexaemeron. Even now I continue to work on this, though I may appear to have gone silent. But I have other obligations that slow my progress. Work continues whenever I have time. There are some of refinements that I need to include which I have found, but still no fatal errors to the thesis.
You note that what I have proposed can be viewed as contributing to, rather than detracting from, a Catholic viewpoint. If such is the case, then I am glad to hear that you have found it to be a contribution. While my proposal utilizes Augustine’s insight into the aliquot division of the six days, I take this only as a legitimate observation concerning the structure of the narrative in light of the sequence of the twenty-two works of creation. One could of course adopt even more of Augustine’s view, e.g. instantaneous creation, but one is not necessarily compelled to do so.
My view is that the Hexaemeron (Gen 1:1–31) is a literary description of the cosmological symbolism integrated into the design of the dwelling place (tabernacle) and its furnishings with the discussion of the Sabbath (Gen 2:1–3) being thematically differentiated. Although the point is made in the paper I wrote, my most recent statement stands as follows:

The Hexaemeron and the Seventh Day
As indicated by the use of pǝtûḥôt in the Tiberian Masoretic Text and qiṣṣim in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the narrative of Gen 1:1–2:3 is comprised of seven main textual units described as days in the text. Among these seven days there is a distinct thematic difference between the first six (Gen 1:1–31) and the seventh (Gen 2:1–3). Whereas the first six days concern divine creative activities, the seventh day highlights the cessation from these activities as well as the sanctification of this day. The first six days are also delineated in the text by the distinctive closing refrain ויהי ערב ויהי בקר (wayǝhî-ʿereb wayǝhî-bōqer, “And there was evening and there was morning”), which precedes an enumeration of each day. Four of these days are enumerated with indeterminate ordinals, e.g., יום שני (yôm šēnî, “a second day”) (Gen 1:8). However, the first day is enumerated with a cardinal number, יום אחד (yôm ʾeḥād, “one day”) (Gen 1:5), while the sixth is enumerated with a determined ordinal, יום הששי (yôm haššiššî, “the sixth day”) (Gen 1:31). The use of a determined ordinal for the sixth day contrasts with the previous indeterminate days and suggests that this day has particular significance within the narrative. The same is true for יום השביעי (yôm haššǝbîʿî, “the seventh day”) which is also specified with a determined ordinal (Gen 2:2).[*note] The significance in the enumeration of these two days is best viewed in the light of the thematic difference noted above, with יום הששי (“the sixth day”) representing the culmination of the Hexaemeron (Gen 1:1–31), and יום השביעי (“the seventh day”) highlighting the exceptional character of this day (Gen 2:1–3).
*note: “The exceptional definite article [in the phrase “the sixth day”] and with the seventh day points to the special character of these days within the scheme of Creation” (Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia, Pa.: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 14).
So I do not deny the Sabbath day is important in the presently constituted narrative. However, there is a thematic difference between the seventh day and the previous six which is supported by clear textual markers. Thus I must stand by the differentiation. Given that the seventh day is uniquely a holy day within the week, this point should be uncontroversial. With that said, there are theories on the redactional history of the narrative which maintain that the inclusion of the Sabbath is a secondary addition. However, I am not prepared to discuss the validity or invalidity of these theories at this time since my own text critical and literary critical adjudications are still ongoing. I am therefore indifferent to these theories at this point. But whether there is validity in them or not, the Sabbath is clearly differentiated within the presently constituted narrative as one would expect given the sanctity of the day.
You state, “your explicit dismissal of theological concerns such as the concordance between Genesis and other parts of Scripture may overlook the integral unity of biblical revelation.” I would suggest in response that an a priori acceptance of the integral unity of biblical works may overlook the distinctive views that their individual authors present. It is certainly natural, given a Catholic framework, to find congruence with all parts of Scripture, but I am not operating within that framework. I have my own views on the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Yet I understand that the writers of these ancient texts most likely did not share those views and would articulate them quite different even if they did. So I seek to understand their views on their own terms without a need for them to agree with me or anyone else, including other writers within a biblical corpus (“a” corpus since “canon” is determined by the religious authorities of a particular community). That being said, there are indeed times when intertextual allusions by other works enhance our understanding. I am just more cautious in what I would allow into my analyses.
Mine is ultimately a historical-literary inquiry. But I think we can both agree that understanding the highly structured nature of the narrative increases our appreciation for the skill of the ancient writer, however inspired, who utilized even more levels of textual organization than have hitherto been recognized within scholarship. Thank you for the substantive feedback.
19
Bible study
by GregT in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i used to attend the meetings and was baptized about 30 years ago but i haven't gone to the meetings or associated with any one i new from the congregation for around 15 - 20 years.

i want to get back to studying but i am not ready to go to any meetings.

other than the watchtower and awake what book is used these days for people just starting to study with jehovah's witnesses?.
Mebaqqer2

Phizzy wrote,
If your motive is [to understand biblical texts as the authors intended], then best Study alone, and use Correct Eisegesis and Hermeneutics. Do NOT read the Texts with a 21st Century "Eye", do not approach them with any beliefs you already have, but with a mind that can accept the Truth about what was really being said. You will need to consult Books etc. by Scholars expert in the Field, but filter what you read, some Scholars are believers, which colours their conclusions somewhat, a consensus opinion from the latest Scholarship is fairly reliable.
I would agree with much of this, but would say that the conclusions of others should always be checked whether believing or unbelieving, consensus or not. Even in a field of weeds one may find vegetables, and weeds sprout even in the best kept gardens.
But I have another point to add. In a previous post I wrote,
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 [are] 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.
— Mebaqqer
This was rebuffed by someone who maintains that the most recent scholarship shows that “The Torah is actually composed of the books of Genesis through 2 Chronicles, created around the book of Deuteronomy by the "Judean" Redactor(s).”
Yet my position is supported by scholars such as Hensel who writes,
Noting the variety of postexilic Yahwisms and the beginning realizations of the importance and significance of the Samaritans during the time of much of the formation period of the Hebrew Bible literatures, these observations lead to the corollary that the late texts of the Hebrew Bible reflect different groups. This observation cannot be stressed enough, as recent research – where it perceives the diversity within postexilic Yahwism – mainly focuses on the historical, cultural, religious-historical, and political aspects of the process of the formation of Judaism. In fact, little attention has been given to the role of these other non-Judean groups during the scribal processes of the Hebrew Bible. Exceptions are the works of Heckl (2018) and Hensel (2018), which systematically identified the question of when and how Samarians contributed to the literary history as a major task for future research. There are also good grounds for concluding that Judeans as well as Samarians participated in the formation of the Pentateuch – at least in the time of its supposed finalization, in the late Persian period – thereby creating what is currently termed a “Common Pentateuch” or “Common Torah.” This would reflect the interest of both groups.
—Benedikt Hensel, “Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: State of the Field, Desiderata, and Research Perspectives in a Necessary Debate on the Formative Period of Judaism(s),” in Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions, eds. Benedikt Hensel, Dany Nocquet and Bartosz Adamczewski (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 21–2 (Bold text added).
So to what Phizzy said, I would add that one should not assume a Judahite bias when reading the biblical text. That is, one should not assume that a biblical writer, at least within the first five books, necessarily assumed the centrality of Judah, Jerusalem, the Davidic monarchy, etc. in what they wrote unless it is clearly stated in the text. This also includes not assuming that the Judahite recension of the biblical text, the Masoretic Text, is always the one that faithfully preserves what the biblical writers originally wrote. This is why textual criticism is so important. Before one can expound a text, one must establish the text to be expounded. One could say more, but this should suffice for now.
76
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

I agree. It "tends to be insulting" instead of educational.
— PioneerSchmioneer
So the attempts to insult are admittedly intentional.
Yet does one then avoid exposing the lack of ability, capacity, and credibility of the members of the Governing Body who call themselves Bible scholars and appoint themselves and others as members of the translating committee of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures?
— PioneerSchmioneer
And we saw how this is done in the case of Jonsson. How have you taken up the call to stand in the role of Jonsson? I submit that your responses have been more in line with being a Johnson than being a Jonsson.
[I]f you think I am saying you MUST have some form of higher education, then you are wrong.
— PioneerSchmioneer
But then we read,
[The Watchtower] tells people they can do without a formal education if they want to be involved in academia. You cannot. That is the very substance of it.
— PioneerSchmioneer
So you may not be saying everyone needs to have a higher education, but you are saying that people must have a higher education before they can say anything of academic value. But the examples of Jonsson and Muro show that even non-specialists without higher education can make contributions to academic knowledge. So your position which ignores such people as irrelevant is certainly an elitist one. And you explicitly state such,
What I am saying is a person shouldn't claim to be or act the part of a scholar or an academic without being on the same educational level of others in the same field. If they know Hebrew, Latin and Greek, for example, you should too.
— PioneerSchmioneer
So I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the course you advise is to accept Furuli's position as correct because he is a credentialed academic with knowledge of "Akkadian, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, Phoenician, Syriac, and Ugaritic" and disregard Jonsson's because he is "acting the part of a scholar" and is not credentialed. But since I understand that valid arguments are valid arguments regardless of who makes them, I will continue to accept Jonsson's position since his is the one which best explains the evidence.
It insults then when you point out their shortcomings, and doing so many not educate these people. They are so self-convinced that they don't need a former academic education, often demonizing scholars, so there is nothing you can do for these kind of people.
— PioneerSchmioneer
But I already stated that I am a university graduate. My point is that it is irrelevant to reference academic credentials as if that establishes the case. The case is established based on the evidence brought in its support. And so I continually try to draw you back to the evidence in my paper and ask you to deal with that. And you just as continually avoid dealing with that evidence as if it were the plague. One can only suspect at this point that you actually have no valid criticism of my paper to offer that would prove fatal to my thesis and are just trolling. So what is insulting is not your questioning as such, but your questioning in the absence of examples from my paper which would sustain your assertions.
I have also not “demonized” scholars. Scholars are cited all throughout my paper. Three pages of bibliography show the scholars consulted. What I have said is that in this case scholars regularly assume a certain narrative structure in Genesis 1 which evidences problems, problems which scholars themselves have admitted for more than a hundred years, while the one I present does not suffer from these problems and ultimately offers far greater explanatory power. Therefore their assumption of a symmetrical arrangement is wrong. And this would be the case whether I was the head of department for Jewish Studies at the Graduate Theological Union or a homeless unemployed baker who was only home-schooled to the equivalent of second grade using some kind soul’s phone to type out this post over the free WiFi from Starbucks. What is true is true no matter who is saying it. If it is not true, overturn the case made in the paper. For an exceptionally seniored academic such as yourself it should be no problem to refute the thesis I advance in my paper if it is indeed wrong.
It's hypocritical to criticize JW leadership for being uneducated and frowning at higher education opportunities but applauding people who attempt to spread their personal ideas in a similar fashion without proper peer review process and procedures that critical methodology at the university level ensures.
— PioneerSchmioneer
You mean people like Carl Olof Jonsson?
The reason the book [Gentile Time Reconsidered] can be reviewed in [in the journal Archiv für Orientforschung] is that the Watch Tower Society heavily depends on a date from the Neo-Babylonian period in order to calculate its time table for the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies. Jonsson was thus able to refute the JWs’ teaching by showing that their chosen date (607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar!) is irreconcilable with NB chronology. The result for us [=academics] is that Jonsson produced, — in Chapters Three and Four, — the finest overview of NB chronology available, establishing the reign lengths and the exact years of sixth-century kings of Babylon on the basis of chronicles, prosopographical materials, Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions, synchronizations with the reigns of Egyptian pharaohs, synchronizations with some OT passages, and the absolute dates provided by ancient astronomical texts.
…
Although Jonsson is not a specialist, his use of the pertinent literature is nearly impeccable and he has consulted Assyriologists when addressing uncertain points. Especially gratifying for me is his showing once again that the many decades of painstaking work in Assyriology can yield results which are meaningful for the broader public.
— W. Gallagher, review of Carl Olof Jonsson, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Archiv für Orientforschung 51 (2005/2006): 423.
And I already told you,
The problem is not with higher education. The problem is with your apparent belief, also shared by others in academia, but certainly not everyone, that your education somehow imbues your every pronouncement ex cathera status. It is this snobbishly dismissive, “holier than thou” attitude which places you “in the clouds,” not your education.
— Mebaqqer
So I will reiterate that the problem is not higher education. It is that you think higher education makes someone’s views unassailable to those who have not had a higher education. That is an inherently elitist position to take.
You cannot criticize the Jehovah's Witnesses one way while embracing someone else else by different standards without a betrayal for what you stand for. You become a liar when you do that.
— PioneerSchmioneer
Exactly. The translators of the New World Translation are criticized on the basis of inaccuracies found in the work they produced and for their failure to address these criticisms, not simply a failure to produce academic credentials when prompted, as the example from Jonsson makes clear. So by all means use the same standard to evaluate my paper as Jonsson does. You have yet to do so even after numerous appeals.
I would rather insult every member of the Governing Body and idiot who acts like them, while proclaiming to people that education is freedom of mind and life.
…
I want you and everyone to be educated so everyone can be empowered to make up their own minds and live the fullest most independent lives possible.
And I don't want you to accept my view. I want people to be educated so they can develop their own views and make their own dreams become reality.
— PioneerSchmioneer
Yet whose argument assumes authority and consensus itself establishes a view as unquestionable while avoiding a consideration of the evidence itself? I have presented a paper and asked for “substantive criticism.” If I didn’t respect other people’s ability to think for themselves, I wouldn’t ask for their criticisms. It is your position which implicitly argues, “Others who know more have a different view. Therefore everybody should ignore this paper which says something contrary.” Isn’t it actually that position which makes you just like the governing body who tells Jehovah’s Witnesses to only use Watchtower publications in their studies since all the research has been done for them already by the governing body? Would you really ask people to replace the unquestionable authority of the governing body with an unquestionable authority of scholars? Again I cite the fine words of Cicero here,
Quin etiam obest plerumque iis, qui discere volunt, auctoritas eorum, qui se docere profitentur; desinunt enim suum iudicium adhibere, id habent ratum, quod ab eo, quem probant, iudicatum vident.
In fact the authority of those who stand forward as teachers is generally an obstacle in the way of those who wish to learn, for the latter cease to apply their own judgment, and take for granted the conclusions which they find arrived at by the teacher whom they approve.
— Cicero, De natura deorum 1.10 (trans. Brooks)
Mebaqqer2 just wants his view and paper to be accepted as true.
— PioneerSchmioneer
Let me correct that for you, “If the observation proves true, Mebaqqer hopes to see the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron explicated in his paper utilized in future discussions of the Genesis 1:1–2:3.” Yes. Of course. Obviously.
And for those readers just joining the discussion, the present version of the paper in question may be viewed online here at Academia.edu, here on the Internet Archive or here on my private .onion page on the TOR network.
Fin.
76
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

HowTheBibleWasCreated
Greetings again,
After my post I came across this item relevant to your recommendation:
Russell E. Gmirkin. Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts. Routledge. 2022.
According to the description, this work "argues that the creation of the world in Genesis 1 and the story of the first humans in Genesis 2-3 both draw directly on Plato’s famous account of the origins of the universe, mortal life and evil containing equal parts science, theology and myth." If Gmirkin's position proves true, then the Timaeus would have greater relevance to my studies than previously noted. I will put Gmirkin's work on my schedule of things to do.
76
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

PioneerSchmioneer
Greetings,
This is just some site where people debate the views of JW theology.
Bible Research & Study Articles
Critical analysis of the WatchTower Bible & Tract Society publications and the bible
↑
You are here.
I left them out on purpose.
A 4D chess move from the master.
You are not proving anything with me.
But am trying to prove anything to you?
[I]t's a D- at best. I'm sorry.
Oh great! I passed!
But I hope you will learn to get that under control and not let anyone pull your strings in the future.
If I have Pinocchio’s strings, surely you have his nose.
We teachers do that to our students and irritate you on purpose.
Honey … sweetie … sweetie
So elitists do eat cheeseburgers! But then, who can blame them when they are so delicious?
I predict another reply (though I won't be around to read it).
You got me, but the replies were never for you.
vienne,
Greetings,
My main interest is textual criticism. There are of course the textual variants found in the three main witnesses to Genesis 1, the Masoretic Text (M), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and the Septuagint (G), which must be adjudicated to establish the text before the final interpretation of the text, not merely a tentative working one, can begin. Apart from these explicit variants there is the work of scholars who seek to get behind the available sources and work out even earlier stages of the tradition. In Genesis 1 such scholars have found that the text is a conflation of two traditions, one in which God creates through speech and one in which God creates through activity. Part of what leads scholars to this conclusion are incongruities in what they have already assumed beforehand is the literary structure in the present form of Genesis 1, i.e., the symmetrical literary structure of eight creative acts. This theory of two creations in Genesis 1 is then used in statements on the development on the religious tradition. My position is that these incongruities are not to be attributed to a conflation of two different creation accounts, but that the incongruities appear because the assumed symmetrical structure is not actually a feature of the text.
The narrative structure I find, not having first assumed its form as everyone else does, mainly develops from three observations made by the earliest interpreters of the text. These observations come together organically and yield a narrative structure for the present account that has none of the incongruities that are found in the symmetrical arrangement assumed by scholars. This narrative structure leads to a number of implications for understanding the text. One of them is that part of the case for positing two originally different creation accounts behind Genesis 1 vanishes. Of course other parts of that case also need to be addressed if the view is ultimately to be overturned. But my paper is simply concerned with showing the existence of the narrative structure as a feature of the text.
There are a number of implications that the narrative structure I present has for understand Genesis 1 which I have yet to put to page. But I thought it best to hear criticisms of my core thesis first lest I find myself writing in vain on the implications of an ultimately invalid view. As it stands, there may be some who are able to bring nit-pick arguments about poor style in presentation or perhaps even some inaccuracy that is not fatal to the thesis, but I do not see how my position is controvertible as things stand. Parsimony and explanatory power being indicative of a superior view, I would only benefit from a demonstration of a view with these traits greater than my own and so I seek it if it is to be found. So I am not actually trying to prove to others, I am awaiting their proving to me. There is a slight difference.
Perhaps your time would be better spent examining the uses of this narrative within Hebrew society as shown by parallels found within scripture and by examining contrasts with neighboring religious.
The narrative structure I find was found specifically as a result of inquiring into how Genesis 1 was read by its earliest interpreters. There is indeed something to be said about an intertextual reading of the text as your recommend. But there is also some caution that I find here. When you speak of “parallels,” I would limit this to clear intertextual allusions rather than statements relatable simply because of subject matter. An example would be Psalm 8 which may indeed tell us something about the significance of mankind’s creation intended by the author of Genesis 1. I also would not merely limit myself to “scripture.” In the example just noted, a Samaritan reading Genesis 1 would disregard Psalm 8 as immaterial to their reading because Psalm 8 is not “scripture” to them. Similarly, most Samaritans, Jews and Christians would disregard Jubilees 2 as important in their reading of Genesis 1 because it is not “scripture” to them although it is to Beta Israel and Ethiopian Christians. So I judiciously look for legitimate expositions anywhere, not only in “scripture.”
I also think there is validity in comparisons and contracts with neighboring religious traditions. But here too I proceed with caution. The connection between Isaiah 27:1 and KTU 1.5:I:1–3, established by several strong verbal parallels shared between them in addition to subject matter, gives an example of how neighboring religious traditions can illuminate the biblical text. So I am not adverse to this. I just question the proposed connections others have made in Genesis 1.
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Greetings,
That is a great suggestion for those concerned with how philosophically educated interpreters understood the text of Genesis 1 through the lens of the Timaeus such as Philo of Alexandria or Gnostics. That was in fact one of the assignments I had to do in school. Runia has given a very detailed analysis of the Timaeus and Philo’s exegesis of Genesis 1 which I have utilized in my own reading Philo. But this is only in service to my main interest which is textual criticism and the interpretation intended by the author. As I already wrote above, “My proposal is not made with [the question of how long the days of Genesis 1 are] in mind. Just as some interpreters today seek to find harmony between science and scripture, interpreters 2,000 years ago sought to harmonize scripture with the cosmogony found in the Plato’s Timaeus which was the science of its day. My proposal is also not concerned with that long forgotten endeavor.”
---
There is something to find in Genesis 1; something intentionally long forgotten. My work continues to make it exoteric.
76
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?
76
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?
76
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
76
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.