Posts by PioneerSchmioneer

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

While I am not necessarily saying I endorse or disagree with this, Mebaqquer2 actually is describing what is found in practically all mainstream Bibles, namely what scholars call "The Six-Day Structure."

It is a motif or a design that one can compare to the setting up of a stage and is describes not only in The New Oxford Bible, but actually outside of study Bibles, such as in the very footnotes of the NABRE translation in chapter 1 of Genesis. It is also in the SBL Study Bible and its previous version, The Harper Collins Study Bible and just about any Bible you can find that has footnotes.

It is a symmetrical pattern that is hard to deny that goes like this wherein God sets up a series of "stages" for "players" when creating the "universe" as the Jews understood it:

The "stages" are:

DAY 1: Light and Darkness

DAY 2: Water

DAY 3: Land and Vegetation

Onto the "stages" God introduced the following "players" that are:

LIGHT & DARKNESS: sun and moon (day 4)

WATER: Fish & Birds that Fly over the waters under the sky (day 5)

LAND & VEGETATION: Animals & Human Beings

That is all that the scholars and academics have noted.

The Sabbath is set aside as it is based on already existing liturgy which was indepent from the Torah and inspired it (and vice versa). Chapter 2:1-4 is actually a prayer in the Jewish Siddur known as the Kiddush said on Friday evening after sundown when the cup of wine is blessed. The idea is that there is no stage because there is no "work" to be done at this point, only joy in welcoming the Sabbath. God performs mitzvot (good works) on each day and in each stage of the 6 days, but none of the 7th. Jewish liturgy and tradition as well as Scripture characterizes God as following his own laws, obediently observing the Sabbath, even though God is not under the Mosaic Law. It's an anthropomorphic illustration, applying human characteristics to God that do not actually exist in this case to make the argument that Jews are obliged to observe a weekly Sabbath rest.

After this follows what is generally believed to be an older creation mythology, Gan Eden, with a different cosmological makeup, and where obligation to the Torah seemed to be shifted to the humans instead of God. Instead of the Kiddush, a prayer, this mythology ends with God pronouncing curses that announce death. The motif seems to be The Temple and the Promised Land and its loss as Adam and Eve are forced to live "east of Eden" (aka, Babylon) where a "cherub" with a "sword" guards any chance of re-entry (cherubim marked the gates to Babylon and armed guards stood beside them). This myth foreshadows the ending of the Torah where Moses is left east of the Promised Land and dies without any chance of entry due to his sin.

So in the context, they see a significant pattern in the writing that differs greatly from the Gan Eden myth which is more of a narrative. Some have suggested that Genesis 1-2:4 is a mnemonic, an actual law to remember to observe the Sabbath, ending in the Kiddush.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

Great choice, Halcon. My preferred of them all as well.

One more, along the same lines (and very surprising since it comes from Conservative Judaism) is Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary. Containing the same English text as The Jewish Study Bible (NJPS) as well as the Masoretic Text on the side, it has an extensive commentary as well as an introductory and appendix apparatus that pulls no punches when it comes to telling you in detail what is fact and what is clearly fiction (and where it came from) as you read through the pages of the Five Books of Moses.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

If you already "thoroughly believe that God created the universe and planet Earth," there may be little to look for in the thesis of an academic that might be of help or interest.

The reason is that very little of it is of practical use. Academic papers might contain loads of theory that eventually get rejected or worse, disproved by those in the field an academic is submitting their work to be examined by in the first place.

This is all part of the methodological process known as critical scholarship. As an academic you might have views that you believe are correct, but you have to present those views and have them affirmed via testing by disinterested parties in your same field. If your views stand, then you have a working theory. It is the same in any field, like in biological science. You have to be made of tough stuff. Otherwise you won't make it in this profession.

Views that do get accepted are reduced to practical, working models and speech and can be found in mainstream publications, such as study Bibles, for example the SBL Study Bible or The Jewish Study Bible, or even in the literal footnotes of a working translation like the official Catholic NABRE, which is heavy with critical analysis (maybe a little too heavy for some readers).

So if you are looking for something that can aid in your faith journey, you will want to start with something already published for the mainstream public. This means it has already been accepted by the field of scholars and academics in theology and religion and has been put into practical terminology that is useful.

As for what makes a scholar and/or academic, and what is the difference? A Wikipedia entry defines it as follows:

A scholar is a person who is a researcher or has expertise in an academic discipline. A scholar can also be an academic, who works as a professor, teacher, or researcher at a university. An academic usually holds an advanced degree or a terminal degree, such as a master's degree or a doctorate (PhD).

This is why people tend not to trust, for example, the so-called "New World Translation Commitee" who introduced their version of the Bible to the world since it was not made up of Biblical scholars. None of them were academics either because they did not work nor support working as instructors (or even getting an education at) a university.

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.

In the end, if it is your faith journey you are looking to aid from a critical standpoint? Perhaps try The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible with Apocrypha (NRSV) 5th Edition. It is middle of the road, gives you an idea what critical thinkers say on the text, but at the same time stays balanced enough to support a person's faith in Scripture without being blind to where it came from and without giving up one's rational thinking. The NRSV is also a great standard Bible text. It's the translation they give you in colleges when you take any class that uses Scripture.*

___

*--It's just been updated as the NRSVue, a slight revision to make it more readable, but Oxford has yet to update it's Study version. The SBL Study Bible is an option you can try that has the new NRSVue text, but it is very heavy in critical anaylsis, meaning it is not for someone who wants to walk away with a "firm faith" that God created the universe. It is for someone who understands that the Scriptures are a product of their time, place, and culture, and that this does not always create a smooth picture that some in the religious community sometimes hope to create.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

I possess the requisite knowledge of Hebrew to make my case...

Sounds like the same line of BS the JWs give us in "translating" their New World Translation.

We don't have to be scholars. Our work speaks for itself. We obviously have the ability to translate the Scriptures better than anyone else, otherwise how else could we have produced the most accurate translation there is?

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"? I merely asked if you would join me in some Hebrew discussion.

If you said you wrote songs in Spanish and I wanted to chat in Spanish with you and you called me an "elitist" for doing so when I questioned your ability because instead of doing so you pontificated on and on?

If you asked me a simple yes or no question and instead I told you the story of the making of The Wizard of Oz, you would think something was up, wouldn't you?

Somebody else explain it to this person. I am obviously considered vomit here.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

So in other words you don't even read Hebrew.

There are easier ways to say "no."

You have to be able to read Hebrew to be able to claim, as you do, that many of these views are incorrect.

No one will publish your work if you cannot read Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. You cannot expect to publish an academic paper and be taken serious at this point.

The Watchtower does a crime to many minds. It 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.

When you are finished tossing red herrings and gaslighting and can speak directly to people instead of cutting and pasting from other people's works like a Watchtower magazine, when you can say "yes, I speak it," or admit "no, not yet," then you are worth speaking to.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

Krüger is correct. Don't you read Hebrew? One of my parents is Israeli and I was sent to Hebrew school. The text has a cadence to it that demonstrates this.

Where did you learn your Hebrew? Is it litugical? Sephardic? Do you also speak modern Israeli Hebrew as well?

Would you like to use one of the apps designed to interact with Sefaria so you can demonstrate to us all how you interpret from the Masoretic text?

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

I am in the middle of my travels and have a moment to add one more thought I could not before.

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.

The work of Konrad Schmid, a professor from the University of Zurich, is at the forefront which suggests that the stories of Abraham and Moses grew indepent of one another and merged when Israel was invaded and exiles came into Judah.

This view supports the same conclusions in the end that I wrote of, namely 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.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

I am on my way out for an extended vacation as we speak for the holiday.

No offense was intended.

I am a retired teacher of the Bible, though an exJW who left the religion a very long time ago and decided to become an educated teacher in linguistics, Catholic and Jewish liturgy, etymology and manuscript transmission. I was also a catechist for some years, though I worked mainly for Protestant churches and academies.

Right before I retired a few years ago, there was an update, at least in Judaism and Europe, on the document hypothesis, as to how the Bible was written. It was changed due to archeology and Jewish history. This is what I based my comments on.

While I have little time to go into detail since I have to leave in just a bit (perhaps you can do the research since that is what you apparently do if you are an academic and I am now retired), the theory works like so:

The Jews did not descend from a person called "Abraham" but are likely the Cananites themselves.
There were no 12 Tribes; this is folklore and mythology.
Israel was a separate tribe from Judea that when it was conquered absorbed some of its remaining refugees and folklore.
There was never a "Golden Age of Solomon."
After the Exile, a small writing we call "Deuteronomy" was expanded into the Torah
The writers were favoring the Judeans
The Torah is actually composed of the books of Genesis through 2 Chronicles, created around the book of Deuteronomy by the "Judean" Redactor(s)

None of the material in these books is historical; it is political-religio-mythology designed to invent a new society after the return from Babylonian exile under the control of the Levitical priesthood

The Levites did not expect the world power of Greece to conquer the Persians. This altered their plans. When they attempted to change it by creating the Hasmonean dynasty, the effect backfired due to the fact that members of their own tribe, Levites, were anointed as king instead of members of the tribe of Judah. When they made a pact with the Herods who had secretly made a pact with Rome, they lost control and they inadvertently created the "Messianic doctrine" that would develop into Christianity and the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 136 A.D.

The "prologue" to the Torah (Genesis 1-2:3) is now attributed to what they call R of this Judean/Levitical authorship. It is based on the theology of a "punishing God" that was abandoned after 1) the Shoah and 2) with the introduction of such thinkers like Rabbi Modecai Kaplan who taught that God was not personal or a supernatural entity in the footsteps of Moses Maimonides and Benedict de Spinoza.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

My comments were not meant in anyway to be seen or read as saying I disagree with the work of Mebaqqer2 (which by the way is totally different from what I wrote about).

Mebaqqer2 does indeed do well with the subject at hand which, though not directly from, did grow from schools of thought from what these Jewish writers were at first composing, which was religious law. Even some Jews dabbled with the idea that perhaps there was more to this cosmology and for a time some of these agreed with Christians prior to the Enlightenment with those who were involved in Hexaemeron theology. It did not last long, and no one does this in Judaism today, but it did happen. It is a very interesting subject.

Anyway, to all who celebrate, best wishes for Easter.

71

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

by Mebaqqer2 in

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

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

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

PioneerSchmioneer

I hope you find whatever success you are looking for with regards to your paper.

It might be of interest to know that the Jews did not compose the 7-day Creation Week with the Hexaemron in mind (which is generally a Christian/Western invention from the faith of my forefathers, the Roman Catholics).

The first chapter of Genesis was the last portion of the Torah to be written, as it was the Introduction or Foreword to the work after the redaction and editing of the Torah was completed after the Exile. It is a mythological cosmology that introduces God in anthropomorphic form performing mitzvot in his creation of the "heavens and the earth," limiting his activity to 6 days and then resting on the Sabbath as if God is under obligation to observe the Torah itself.

The idea is that God is but another character like any other in this story and follows his yetzer ha-tov, his inner impulse to do what is "good," accomplishing good works on each day of the week, filling his days doing what is "very good" (Genesis 1:31), but stopping to do what the Mosaic Law commands, and resting from his works on the 7th day.--Genesis 2:1-3.

In this preface, God creates the first Jews--not the first human beings in general (Adam and Eve are the ancestors of Abraham and Sarah, and they are merely placed into this narrative like God is)--and they are said to be made "in the image of God." (Ge 1:26-27) Being that this is the Mosaic Law, the Torah, and not a history book, this is giving legal instruction to the Jewish people only, telling the Jews that they are meant to copy God, in whose "image" they were meant to follow: God does good works every day, six days a week, and then rests on the Sabbath, so Jews are supposed to do the same, working for 6 days but resting on the Sabbath.

A theology had been built to attempt to make sense of why the Jews ended up in exile. While the Jews have since abandoned it today, at the time it fueled the creation of the written Torah itself, namely the belief that God had punished the Jews for failure to obey the Mosaic Law in the first place, especially in keeping the Sabbath.--2 Chronicles 36:21.

Believing that strict worship of God via adherence to the Torah would prevent another national disaster should the Jews ever get to return to their homeland, this mythological cosmology was placed as the introduction to the Torah, teaching the Jews that it was part of their created nature, their yetzer ha-tov to obey the Torah, perform mitzvot daily, filling every day of the week by doing what was "very good" like God, and on the 7th day, resting on the Sabbath. The idea is that this was literally "built into the cosmological makeup" and could be seen with the passing of the heavenly bodies that kept note of the passing days until the Sabbath arrived.

It had nothing to do with explaining how the literal universe came into being or even explaining the origin of life for the Gentiles, which the original writers could have cared less about. In fact, the following narrative, the Garden of Eden expulsion, is actually about losing the first Temple/Promised Land due to breaking the Law and being sent "east of Eden" (Babylon) upon the development of Adam and Eve's yetzer ha-ra, inclination to defy the Torah.

Only later would Jewish commentators expand via allegory these characterizations as illustrative to humanity in relation to God, but never wholy applicable. Only the third creation myth, the Noachin Flood, involves Gentiles on a universal scale, with the Noahide Laws being added afterwards. But again, it is not to be considered as historical either.