Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: Genesis 1 as Myth

Thread: Kerygmania: Genesis 1 as Myth Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000978

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Close to being an expiring equine, but worth a try here.

In an article entitled "Rethinking the Genesis Message" , one Howard Bass of Alaska talks about a new (to him, and to me) way of looking at the Seven Days:

quote:
Genesis 1 is the Israelite response to chaos and endless war.

In the Genesis 1 myth, the Israelite God confronts a world that is without form and is engulfed in darkness. In modern language, the earth was chaotic beyond useful function. So God sets out to do something about chaos and the useless nature of the world. Simply by speaking, the Israelite God made light, vegetation, animal life and finally human life. God’s world was to be a place of plenty and robust life. As God completed his actions, he paused periodically and said that what he was doing was good.

Remember that he is addressing an American, and Baptist at that, audience, hence the comment:

quote:
This alternative reading of Genesis 1 and understanding Genesis 1 as myth were for me a marvelous discovery. I could let science do its work, while I was given a new vision of what my life as a religious person was to be about. Jesus and Paul affirmed the message that evil/chaos is never to be fought but overcome with the doing of good.

James McGrath, in "Exploring Our Matrix"

adds this comment, a bit more aggressively:

quote:
I will simply add that the opponents of science and promoters of pseudoscience are at war with order and allies of chaos, and so take upon themselves precisely the opposite role to God in the Genesis 1 myth. If someone has ears to hear, let them hear.

Is this actually a new idea? Is it worth pursuing as an interpretation?

[ 19. November 2013, 02:26: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

This is pretty much how I see it. I don't know how your average Baptist or non-denon would take it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Makes sense to me.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Methinks that I interpret this thread as a Kerygmaniacal thread. Hold your bibles, folks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Glad I held my Bible tightly. I almost lost the Apocrypha.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I understand that normally in Jewish texts, the waters of the sea symbolize chaos. Their appearance in verse 2 strenghtens the case that this story is about order vs chaos.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Or maybe a pregnancy/hatching image? The beginning of the beginning has the Holy Spirit brooding over the face of the waters.

And chaos trending towards order? As in chaos theory. Rather than unmanageable chaos.

[ 30. May 2013, 06:49: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

ISTM that interpretations along these lines have been common currency for a long time.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I'm rather more worried that there are people who still think Genesis 1 isn't a myth. And Genesis 2-3. And Genesis 4-11. And most of the rest of Genesis, large chunks of the rest of the Pentateuch, and pretty much everything else up to somewhere between King David and the Exile.

And quite a lot after that, too.

Or perhaps some people are still under the misapprehension that "myth" means "something that isn't true"?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Genesis one is a myth than borrows from and then disputes a Babylonian myth which was performed over a 7 day creation festival.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus
I'm rather more worried that there are people who still think Genesis 1 isn't a myth. And Genesis 2-3. And Genesis 4-11. And most of the rest of Genesis, large chunks of the rest of the Pentateuch, and pretty much everything else up to somewhere between King David and the Exile.

And quite a lot after that, too.

Or perhaps some people are still under the misapprehension that "myth" means "something that isn't true"?

Well, therefore it's reassuring to know that the alternative (unobservable and unprovable) speculation is also a myth. After all... it could be true, ergo a myth (according to your definition)!

So thanks for that.

By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9. Or is it a case of "I am the way, the truth* and the life"....

* subject to correction and clarification by a bunch of self-styled exegetes 2000 years in the future, who think they know more about reality than God does, thanks to a method of investigating nature that only deals with what is directly observable (and therefore is wholly inadequate as a means of reconstructing the distant past) ?!

[ 30. May 2013, 15:55: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

I have problems taking Gen 1 literally . I think it works as metaphor better. [Votive]

Posted by horsethorn (# 17695) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I have problems taking Gen 1 literally . I think it works as metaphor better.

Yes, I think the clue is in the way that it doesn't match with observable reality... [Biased]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I suppose that all the stories about prodigals, sowers, shepherds, women searching for coins, travellers on the way to Jericho, stewards, unjust judges etc. were based on absolute truth? Surely someone using story so effectively could also use a story about creation without underwriting its accuracy.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9.

I've heard that said before, as well as the reference to in the days of Noah. Accompanied with the phrase "if it was good enough for Jesus..."

It seems like a big stretch to me to say that Jesus referring to something means that the story it came from is "actually objectively true" (in a historical sense). I can talk about King Arthur and Robin Hood, and make moral extractions from them, without it following that I think that the stories about them are historically accurate. And I don't see those stories as Scripture in any way. So Jesus taking moral lessons from stories in Scripture seems totally reasonable.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
subject to correction and clarification by a bunch of self-styled exegetes 2000 years in the future,

Seeing certain biblical passages as mythological allegory isn't a modern phenomena. Here's Origen on the Genesis Creation passage:

quote:
"What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? And who could be found so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted trees in a paradise eastward in Eden.. And... when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the evening ... I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history..."

Augustine too saw symbolism (especially in the 'days'), though he veered towards a more literal interpretation. He was very aware that any interpretation must be held loosely:

quote:
It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9.

Yes, this is a problem for the 'Genesis creation story is myth' idea. But it's a problem we have to try and resolve, IMO, else we're siding with those who ordered Galileo 400 years ago to stop teaching that the Earth orbits the Sun.

As for how we might resolve the problem of Jesus apparently taking the 7-day creation story literally, well he was limited in the Incarnation, wasn't he? Jesus as a baby presumably couldn't talk or feed himself; he was limited in the ways that all human babies are. Likewise, I don't think it's heretical to suggest that Jesus' knowledge when he was an adult was also limited, and that he saw some things in a similar was as his contemporaries did. (EDIT - Which would have included taking 7-day creation literally, as 1st century Jews had little reason not to.)

[ 31. May 2013, 23:04: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9.

That would be one reasonable conclusion, but it seems to me that a narrower conclusion from that particular passage would be that Jesus seemed to think it was authoritative, not that he necessarily thought it was objectively true.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I think it's liturgy.

I also think that when something in the Bible is symbolic or metaphorical - I hate 'myth' because it's a misunderstood word - it is pointing us to something greater, more substantial, not less.

I think that Genesis 1 is 'true fact' in the same way that is it 'true fact' that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. No one in the world is going to disagree with me if I said it even if many will say 'yes, but...'

The truth that is observed and observable and therefore incontrovertible is that there is a sun, there is a horizon and that the sun 'rises, travels and sets.

I think of Genesis 1 like that. It's true as far as what it observes but there is a HUGE 'But'.

And, to be honest, I don't Moses was interested or bothered about the 'but'.

The liturgy of Genesis 1 says "God did it. - whatever you see, it's all came by design. Ta da!"

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I also think that when something in the Bible is symbolic or metaphorical ... it is pointing us to something greater, more substantial, not less.

This is a point I frequently try to make. The early part of Genesis is not a text book of geology, biology, or any other kind of earth science. It is cosmogony.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think it's liturgy.

Indeed - that is why it has the refrain 'evening - morning - xth day'

A liturgical hymn that progresses over 7 days.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The idea of it being Liturgy is an interesting idea. I also think that - in common with many other cultures and religions - the creation myths are made easier to pass down as oral tradition if there is rhythm and repetition to them.

There are many creation myths from different cultures and religions - the idea of telling a story about how the world began is obviously a common human trait and doesn't seem to present a problem to most of them. I'm not sure why it has come to be taken so literally by certain groups in the west. Rudyard Kipling's efforts don't seem to cause so much distress!

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9. Or is it a case of "I am the way, the truth* and the life"....

* subject to correction and clarification by a bunch of self-styled exegetes 2000 years in the future, who think they know more about reality than God does, thanks to a method of investigating nature that only deals with what is directly observable (and therefore is wholly inadequate as a means of reconstructing the distant past) ?!

If God really did become incarnate as a human being then not knowing stuff is, really, part of the human condition. It's quite possible that Jesus thought that the story of Noah was a historical story. It's entirely possible that it wasn't. So what? I thought the precondition for the atonement was that Jesus was sinless, not that he was omniscient.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Genesis one is a myth than borrows from and then disputes a Babylonian myth which was performed over a 7 day creation festival.

Well it plausibly might be, but as we have no evidence for that outside the text, and as the text has no actual direct referfence to it, it remains speculation.

[ 08. June 2013, 11:47: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Outsdide evidence is the Babylonian and other near Eastern festivals for the new year which have seven-day-hymns/poems

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Outlined here especially p. 56 about activities of 6 days and significance of the 7th sources in n22, p. 60 n21, p. 61 Gen 1 constructed in for of a temple dedication

quote:
We would conclude then that Genesis 1 is composed along the lines of a temple dedication ceremony in which over a seven-day period, the functions of the cosmic temple are initiated and the functionaries installed.

Also in these papers.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Outlined here especially p. 56 about activities of 6 days and significance of the 7th sources in n22, p. 60 n21, p. 61 Gen 1 constructed in for of a temple dedication

That's a very interesting article but it doesn;t actually contain or refer to any contemporary evidence of supposed non-Hebrew temple dedication festivals underlying the Genesis story.

Page 56 (nd note 22) talks about Charles Darwin and ontology, not Babylonian temples. The stuff on and around page 60 is a very good account of, and references to papers on, later Jewish (and Christian) temple theology.

But your claim was that we somehow know that Genesis is based on previously existing 6-day or 7-day cycles of festivals, from outside Israel. That's not what the paper is about. Its worth reading.

quote:

Also in these papers.

A link to a google book search which has found a description of later festivals, desctribed in the Bible, in which the structure of Creation is mirroed in the Temple and its ceremonies. Wonderful stuff, truly magnificent and inspiring. Its all through the Bible, especially in Ezekiel and Revelation, and lies at the base of a lot of later Jewish and Christian liturgy. But its all after Genesis and assumes or comments on the creation story in Genesis.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A link to a google book search which has found a description of later festivals, desctribed in the Bible, in which the structure of Creation is mirroed in the Temple and its ceremonies. Wonderful stuff, truly magnificent and inspiring. Its all through the Bible, especially in Ezekiel and Revelation, and lies at the base of a lot of later Jewish and Christian liturgy. But its all after Genesis and assumes or comments on the creation story in Genesis.

Jon Levenson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil is an interesting source on this question, both the specific question of extra-Biblical sources for creation festivals and the broader question of the relationship between the Genesis 1 account and ancient Near Eastern mythology.

quote:
Levenson, p. 68 (see link):
In one case especially, the case of the Babylonian akitu festival, scholars have long been encouraged to believe they have found an extrabiblical antecedent to creation over a period of several days.

I don't know if this is the sort of thing you're looking for, Ken, but digging around in that chapter of Levenson's book could be rewarding.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But its all after Genesis and assumes or comments on the creation story in Genesis.

We looked at some of these texts with 7 day festivals when i did A level but I don't think my notes are around 43 years on!

When you say 'after Genesis', when do you think it was written.

i reckon it to be one of the latest sections, written during and in response to the exile.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think it's liturgy.
Indeed - that is why it has the refrain 'evening - morning - xth day'

A liturgical hymn that progresses over 7 days.

Indeed, and everything seems to be Good once God has spoken it into being. Except, of course for that vault/firmament-sky/heaven arrangement on the second day. The Pantocrator didn't seem entirely satisfied with that.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

It is almost certainly 'liturgy' inasmuch as it was almost certainly written to be read aloud during public worship. To that extent, of course, most of scripture is liturgy. Whether it was originally a hymn is, of course, more problematic.

If it derives from a preceding oral tradition then the repetition may be to aid recollection, a bit like the way that repetition is used in the Illiad.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

While Luther believed in the literal seven day creation, he did point out that there was an eighth day--and many days thereafter.

Creation never stops.

This is were some of the literalists have problems, they want to insist it all happened in seven days. The Bible, though, only says God rested on the seventh day.

Every day is a new creation. Even though we want to explain everything through science, we need to remind ourselves of the miracle of what we have before us.

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is pretty much how I see it. I don't know how your average Baptist or non-denon would take it.

The AVERAGE Baptist is a creationist? I am so glad I left.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

Baptist evolutionist here.

For the record, Baptists are no different than the members of any other Christian denomination. (Disappointed that my denomination pops up as a snarl word whenever people want to announce their own intelligence based on their adherence to one side of a philosophical debate...)

It's a bit of a misnomer to say that "the average Baptist is a creationist" (if by creationist you mean a deliberate activist for creationist science and opponent of mainstream scientific consensus). The vast majority of Baptist churches just don't talk about Genesis 1-11 in any detail (apart from affirming its general historicity and moving on). There's always the 20% on the right that is vocally creationist on principle and the 10% on the left that is vocally evolutionist, but the muddle in the middle just assume that the pastor has everything figured out on their behalf and roll their eyes at the "extremists" who see the need to waste energy arguing...

In my experience, the average Baptist treats "belief in God", "belief in Jesus", and "belief in Adam and Eve" as legs of the same stool. As such, the question of belief in A&E is assumed to be the same kind of belief as an unseen God, and disbelief in A&E is tantamount to disbelief in what God is able to do (like raise Jesus from the dead).

Now, I think it is clear that the original writers of Gen 1 (early Persian period - 500-450BC) believed they were writing a symbolic text that was grounded more with Judah's experience in restoration from exile than the actual events of creation.

However, I think evolutionists have a responsibility to acknowledge that once the genealogy was added to the text (450-400BC), virtually all Jewish (and Christian) generations since then for 2000+ years (including the NT period) interpreted Genesis historically (i.e. what is meant by "literally"), so creationist belief isn't anything "new" or out of the ordinary.

(I would note my biggest problem as an evolutionist Christian: without belief in "special creation", resurrection hope itself comes into question. For the early church, resurrection hope was nothing more than the hope that God would recreate man from dust of the ground, as he had "already done" with Adam. But for an evolutionist, belief in the general resurrection of believers requires belief that God will do something that He has never actually done before, which is a different animal and should give us pause...)

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

The Baptist church where I was Baptised, also told us to believe and worship, God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and we felt all of them as we were baptised, from down to up as we came up from the water.

We, of course were tole always to believe what we experience in the Bible, including Genesis about the original two who behaved wrong for God.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
The Baptist church where I was Baptised, also told us to believe and worship, God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and we felt all of them as we were baptised, from down to up as we came up from the water.

We, of course were told always to believe what we experience in the Bible, including Genesis about the original two who behaved wrong for God.

I get annoyed if I spell a word a bit wrong... so I've fixed it.

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

Which creation story do those who take it as literal truth believe in? The one in Gen 1 v2-2v4a, or the one in Gen 2 4b- 25?

They each give a completely different order of creation, the first showing the earth in a watery state at the start of creation, the second shows the earth as a waterless waste, and so on. I could give you a verse by verse comparison, but leave you to check it out yourself..

Each presupposes that the planet is already in existance.

I was taught this at a Church of England High School when I was about 11, and at the Baptist Church I attended as a child.

I have studied RS at O and A level GCE, have a degree in R.S, a Diploma in Christian Religion and am a Licenced Lay Reader. I have never at any stage been asked to accept the Creation Mythos as factual.

[ 11. July 2013, 21:28: Message edited by: The Weeder ]

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

BWSmith, you are the first vocally evolutionist Baptist I've ever encountered. Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough here in Brisbane but it really exhausts me when the invited speaker brings up how important it is to bring creationism into schools and the whole congregation seems delighted to hear it.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
Which creation story do those who take it as literal truth believe in? The one in Gen 1 v2-2v4a, or the one in Gen 2 4b- 25?

Context is everything. The answer (of course) is that they believe in "the one and only creation story", because the Priestly editors harmonized the two separate creation stories into one (back in 450-400BC).

Once they were harmonized, then the Yahwist creation events were subordinated to "Creation proper" in Gen 1, ceased to count as "creation" and simply became local miracles (either on day 6 or after the creation week).

But I agree with you - once you separate the Yahwist story from the Priestly story, it's clear that when God plants the garden and creates the animals, it's intended that this occurs in a cosmic desert, and is the first time these have existed.

However, when people ask creationists "which creation they believe", they shouldn't expect that question to make any sense. It's like asking "which story of the birth of the USA do you believe, the one about the Pilgrims in the Plymouth colonies where God gives safe passage and prosperity to create a Christian nation, or the one about the Declaration in 1776 where they create their own secular nation for themselves"?

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
BWSmith, you are the first vocally evolutionist Baptist I've ever encountered. Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough here in Brisbane but it really exhausts me when the invited speaker brings up how important it is to bring creationism into schools and the whole congregation seems delighted to hear it.

First, technically there is no "Baptist church" in the sense of a Catholic or Anglican authoritative salvation communion, only "Baptists" where each individual has soul liberty, is his own priest, and is therefore technically "his own denomination". (Kind of the way that each citizen is technically "his own king" in a democracy...)

Second, such theological power and responsibility is unfortunately too much for most people to handle, so they are more than happy to delegate the thinking to their pastors and congregate among like-minded believers, (creating what appears to be traditional top-down controlled communions). In such an environment, it only takes exposure to one far-out congregation for an outside observer to conclude horrible things about "what The Baptist Church teaches".

Within that context, I would suspect that the majority of the people you have observed are neither biological scientists nor OT textual scholars. The creation/evolution debate is being presented to them as a political crisis (not a scientific or theological consensus) in terms similar to the "prayer in schools" debate. The "oppressive Dawkinesque atheist menace" is trying to force our children to implicitly disbelieve in the Creator God, just as he successfully forced people to stop praying in public schools.

I suspect there is no mention of how Theistic Evolution is standard fare in the Catholic and Anglican churches (unless they get off on a tangent on how sinful those churches are...) Ditto for the Documentary Hypothesis or any discussion on where the Creation account(s) came from or what they mean.

This is not to say that these Baptists are all "closet evolutionists" who need to be awakened, just that they have chosen to allow the dialogue to be reduced to "us vs. them politics" and their apparent "delight" at being on the side of God in the charge against atheism should not be interpreted as a conscious rejection of science.

Hope that helps.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Within that context, I would suspect that the majority of the people you have observed are neither biological scientists nor OT textual scholars. The creation/evolution debate is being presented to them as a political crisis (not a scientific or theological consensus) in terms similar to the "prayer in schools" debate. The "oppressive Dawkinesque atheist menace" is trying to force our children to implicitly disbelieve in the Creator God, just as he successfully forced people to stop praying in public schools.

Well put, BWSmith. I've had at least two people (one IRL, one online) express doubts that I'm actually saved / a Christian when they've discovered that I accept evolution as broadly accurate. The IRL guy also blames the 'oppressive Dawkinesque atheist menace' for the departure from the church of many teenagers from.

Ironically, I suspect it's the exact opposite approach - the teaching of creationism as the only right view for Christians - that is contributing to many teenagers becoming switched off from Christ and the church! As they go through school, they discover that the rest of the world has no problem at all with evolution, so they reject the faith as anti-scientific; sadly unaware that there's another way... [Frown]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
... because the Priestly editors harmonized the two separate creation stories into one (back in 450-400BC).

Well, possibly. But again we don't know that, its not in the text, its not even an interpretation or exegesis of the text, its just one of a huge range of broadly similar accounts of how the text might have come into being, and without any external evidence we can never decide which if any is nearest the truth.

OK, I think its pretty clear that the Torah we have was constructed from different documents or possibly oral sources. And its good fun, and very interesting, to try to imagine what those sources might have been and who might have written them But its simply impossible to be sure, or even reasonably sure, by the details of which was which or who was who. Fair enough to say "there are a number of sources and it looks to me as if these passages might be mainly influenced by the same one" But to claim any certainly is impossible. The idea that we can prove that there were exactly four (or three, or seven, or whatever) main sources; or thet we can precisely attribute passages or verses or even fractions of a verse to one source or another, is unsupportable.

And as for claiming to know who the people who wrote the various sources were, and who the people who edited them into what we have now were, or even what their motives were - that's as much an excercise in constructing myths from the text as any stringy old young-earth creationism. Nasty ritualist priests vs. hairy radical prophets is a great story to reinforce or reproduce the culture of 19th-century liberal German Protestants rebelling against what they see as the dead tradition of the clerical establishment (or those horrid nasty Catholics over there). And it might even be true for all we know. But we can't really know how likely it is to be true from our limited evidence.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
BWSmith, you are the first vocally evolutionist Baptist I've ever encountered.

'Nother one here, though I know there are some fairly hard line YECcies in my congregation. Baptists are a pretty mixed bunch.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
its just one of a huge range of broadly similar accounts of how the text might have come into being, and without any external evidence we can never decide which if any is nearest the truth.

Technically, it is conceivable that a Documentary Hypothesis could be "proved" through a remarkable chain of Dead-Sea-Scrollish archaeological events (with infinitesimally minute probability of happening).

Suppose the hypothesis instructed archaeologists to dig in specific geographies, and we managed to unearth one library with several scrolls of Yahwist-only Torahs in Egypt, another library of Priestly-only Torah scrolls in Mesopotamia, and a third library of first-edition spliced Torah scrolls in Palestine dating to the time of Ezra, all with scribal notes saying who the writer was and what moves they had to make to merge the two.

Further, these libraries would have to be written in a readable script, and have survived the ravages of time, the looting of Bedouins and antiquities dealers, and the threat of destruction from Islamic jihadists (as well as threats by the dictators ruling the countries) to make it into the hands of scholars.

Once published, there's the usual cycle of media sensationalism, followed by claims of forgery and controversy over control of the documents and proper translation. (Given that the above sequence of events will never occur, then yes, any Documentary Hypothesis is less provable than the Higgs boson.)

However, I do think that the language of the DH is still useful as a way of referring to potentially conflicting texts (like Gen 1 vs Gen 2-3) and suggesting historical contexts (return from exile) where the "contradiction" makes sense (as long as we don't push the theory as if it's historical fact)...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Most Baptists I've come across in the UK aren't YECCies, although some are, even in churches where the majority aren't.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Hostly reminder

This board is for discussion of the Bible, not denominational doctrines.

Moo, Kerygmania host

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

BWS: yes, exactly, what you said.

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
First, technically there is no "Baptist church" in the sense of a Catholic or Anglican authoritative salvation communion, only "Baptists" where each individual has soul liberty, is his own priest, and is therefore technically "his own denomination". (Kind of the way that each citizen is technically "his own king" in a democracy...)

Thanks for this. I agree with you. I apologize for making a stab at any denominations.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
First, technically there is no "Baptist church" in the sense of a Catholic or Anglican authoritative salvation communion, only "Baptists" where each individual has soul liberty, is his own priest, and is therefore technically "his own denomination". (Kind of the way that each citizen is technically "his own king" in a democracy...)
Thanks for this. I agree with you. I apologize for making a stab at any denominations.

Host hat on

Highfive, here I posted as a host reminding people that Keryg is for Bible discussion. Your post had nothing to do with the Bible.

Host hat off

Moo, Kerygmania Host

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Going back to the Biblical account in Genesis 1 it's how different this account is to those of the other religions. No silly monsters devouring the sun or anything like that. It's poetic but so matter of fact and straight-forward.
God said something and there was x, y and z.

I think I would want to question the idea that, despite what I said about it being liturgy, this creation account was written 400BC. If it was, where is the older creation tradition that must have been around before 400BC? Did the Israelites/Hebrews not have one and it was up to the priests after the time of the Babylonian exile to invent one?

If oral tradition was the norm for preserving religious faith, why is there no record of an ancient Hebrew creation story? Unless, of course, Genesis 1 is the ancient oral tradition that was not in fact invented at the time of the exile.

To my mind the fact that the creation account is so simple, so unadorned and has no 'fantastic' features, suggests a believability in much the same way as the resurrection accounts do - no supernatural ingredients in the style of the great stories of the time. Just straight forward language (give or take a shining robe or two).

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Mudfrog: see Genesis 2 vv 4ff for an earlier creation account

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Mudfrog: see Genesis 2 vv 4ff for an earlier creation account

Seriously? Earlier? Are you sure?

I am no fan of the JEDP stuff but even I know that Gensis 2 is Yahwist (6th–5th centuries BC) whereas Genesis 1 is Elohist (9th century BC)

That's where I become sceptical of the idea that the creation story was made up by post-exhiolic priests and must have come from older sources.

My own personal view is that Moses did in fact compile the Torah from sources older than himself, adding to them, of course his own experiences and contemporary events.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Gen 2 has a more primitive, anthropomorhic view of God so it's earlier.

Gen 1 has a more exalted view of God and rivals the higher culture the Israelites were encountering in the Babylonian exile when it was written.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Gen 1 is not E. It's considered to be P. The documentary hypothesis is a bit more nuanced than "this name for God = this source." That's part of it, but not the whole thing. It's how and when the names are used. [gross generalisation] P uses "Elohim" in the primaeval period (Gen 1-11) and "El-Shaddai" thereafter.[/gross generalisation]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Gen 2 has a more primitive, anthropomorhic view of God so it's earlier.

Gen 1 has a more exalted view of God and rivals the higher culture the Israelites were encountering in the Babylonian exile when it was written.

I don't see how that follows. The yahwist tradition speaks of Yahweh as the LORD who is known (by name and character) as opposed to the God who is hidden and high up. I accept that there is an anthropomorphism (walking in the garden) but don't see the evidence for that being an earlier stage in revelation. I see that as being a later development.

The unknown God becomes the known LORD.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I don't think it quite worked that way Muddy. The Israelites start with their local tribal God, El, who's envisioned anthropomorphically, so can walk in the garden, wander off for the day, come back, have to search for Adam (what happened to omniscience?) and ask him what happened.

Gradually the idea develops that El is a bit more than a local God, he is YHWH; he IS. Later still comes the idea that he's the only God, not just the only one worth bothering with. This is the God of Gen. 1

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm not sure there's any evidence either way. Whether we decide that the 'anthropomorphic' God who walks in the Garden is a reflection of primitive religion later replaced by a less personal description of God, or the other way round, is speculation based on precious little (if any) evidence. Which, in turn, will influence whether you consider the Gen 1 account as more, or less, primative than the Gen 2 account.

The two accounts do seem to reflect different understandings of the nature of God. But, if either of them is an earlier understanding of God, or whether both were aspects of views of God that were contemporary, I can't see anyone being able to say.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think it quite worked that way Muddy. The Israelites start with their local tribal God, El, who's envisioned anthropomorphically, so can walk in the garden, wander off for the day, come back, have to search for Adam (what happened to omniscience?) and ask him what happened.

Gradually the idea develops that El is a bit more than a local God, he is YHWH; he IS. Later still comes the idea that he's the only God, not just the only one worth bothering with. This is the God of Gen. 1

As Alan says, this is speculation. Its fashionable to read a development of theology over time into the differing personifications of God presented, but IMO that isn't the way Jewish writing works. Jewish writing and thought is all about saying the same thing in two or more different ways for greater emphasis and depth.

We see such couplet poetry throughout the Bible, and I think we see the same thing thematically here. One represntation of God is then added to with another that is slightly different. Neither are the whole story, yet both serve to elaborate on the other to give a fuller picture.

It's similar to Jesus' parables about the Kingdom of Heaven. He says The Kingdom of Heaven is like... then gives a story. He says it again and gives a different story with a different emphasis. The Kingdom of Heaven can be described in many different ways, just as God can be described in differnet ways. He is like both a gardener walking among His Creation and enjoying it, and a supernatural force hovering over the waters of chaos speaking the world into being. At the same time. And He is like lots of other things as well.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It's also the wrong way round - it was YHWH who walked in the Garden, not Elohim.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's also the wrong way round - it was YHWH who walked in the Garden, not Elohim.

Good point. Nevetheless, I do find it interesting that the invisible God who no-one has ever seen is, erm, seen on a number of occasions.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's also the wrong way round - it was YHWH who walked in the Garden, not Elohim.
Good point. Nevetheless, I do find it interesting that the invisible God who no-one has ever seen is, erm, seen on a number of occasions.

Oh it is interesting - YHWH Elohim walking in the garden, the 3 angels who visited Abraham and the one who was left behind was called YHWH. The angel with the face of ELOHIM wrestled by Jacob, the 'fourth man' in the fiery furnace - these are physical manifestations of God, the pre-incarnate Lord. In case anyone thinks this is Christian theology reading back into the Old Testament, think of the Lord high and lifted up in Isaiah 6, seen by Isaiah, and referred to in John as the glory of Jesus seen by him. (John 12 v 41)

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
Which creation story do those who take it as literal truth believe in? The one in Gen 1 v2-2v4a, or the one in Gen 2 4b- 25?

Not being a Bible literalist I personally prefer the first , more spiritual non-sexist, creation account .
Having read the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas I tend to get on best with regarding the Creation story as the primordial condition towards which Jesus alights us.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Or maybe a pregnancy/hatching image? The beginning of the beginning has the Holy Spirit brooding over the face of the waters.

And chaos trending towards order? As in chaos theory. Rather than unmanageable chaos.

Coming late to this thread, but this gets closer, it seems to me, to the biblical understanding of the state of things just before God spoke creatively.

The problem with the English word 'chaos' is that conjures up images of uncontrolled energy, lashing about with no apparent order, destructive in its impact. The biblical writers, however, viewed the state as being much closer to what we think of as complete entropy - a dark and still wilderness. It was to this lifeless entity that God spoke and brought energy.

To imagine a state of destructive and uncontrolled energy rather implies that there was life apart from God and to which God had to battle - if even by word - to bring under control. The Jewish writers, on the other hand, argued against this chaotic myth with its dualistic tendencies in favour of the idea that God was over everything and that life in all its forms originates in God alone.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:

To imagine a state of destructive and uncontrolled energy rather implies that there was life apart from God and to which God had to battle - if even by word - to bring under control.

Yes, though there are echos of this in some of the Psalms with their references to the Leviathan.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

There certainly are quite a few references to aspects of creation that imply the dangerous, the chaotic (in the generally understood meaning of that term), the out of control. The Psalms are useful mining fields for material along these lines, though some of it might be references to a state that could exist if God were to withdraw his control – whether that refers back to the state before God began to create, I'm not sure. Examples include:-

quote:
Ps. 46:1-3 (2-4)
God is our strength and source of refuge;
our helper in times of trouble, is he.
That's why we don't shake when the earth shakes,
and the mountains tumble into the depths of the sea;
when its waves crash and foam,
and the mountains shake before the surging sea.

Ps. 74:13-17
You [God]destroyed the sea by your strength;
you shattered the heads of the sea monster in the water.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
you fed him to the people who live along the coast.
You broke open the spring and the stream;
you dried up perpetually flowing rivers.
You established the cycle of day and night;
you put the moon and sun in place.
You set up all the boundaries of the earth;
you created the cycle of summer and winter.

Ps. 89:9-12 (10-13)
You [God] rule over the proud sea.
When its waves surge, you calm them.
You crushed Rahab [the Proud One?] and killed it;
with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.
The heavens belong to you, as does the earth.
You made the world and all it contains.

Ps. 104:5-9
He [God] established the earth on its foundations;
it will never be upended.
The watery deep covered it like a garment;
the waters reached above the mountains.
Your shout made the waters retreat;
at the sound of your thunderous voice they hurried off—
as the mountains rose up,
and the valleys went down—
to the place you appointed for them.
You set up a boundary for them that they could not cross,
so that they would not cover the earth again.

And from elsewhere in the OT:

quote:
Job 38:4-11
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you possess understanding!
Who set its measurements—if you know—or who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its bases set, or who laid its cornerstone—
when the morning stars sang in chorus,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea with doors when it burst forth, coming out of the womb,
when I made the storm clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band,
when I prescribed its limits, and set in place its bolts and doors,
when I said, ‘To here you may come and no farther, here your proud waves will be confined’?

So plenty of good stuff to suggest that when God walked into creation mode he found a nasty tempest that needed sorting out.
What intrigued me, though, was that interesting phrase in Gen. 1:2 that described the state of the earth: it was tohu wabohu (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ), translated variously in the English versions as “without form and void,” “formless and empty,” “formless and void,” “empty and had no form,” “without shape and empty,” “a formless void,” and so on.

The first of these terms – tohu – occurs the more frequently through the OT and pretty consistently denotes an empty, desolate state, something that is devoid of content, baseless. It is a place of lifelessness. It is used, for example, to describe wastelands and deserts. The second term – bohu – occurs only three times in the OT and in each it accompanies tohu. Everything about this phrase gasps “complete entropy!” It is very difficult to associate it in Gen. 1 with the sort of chaos that we read about in the type of texts set out above.

So what is going on here?

One option is that there are two incompatible versions of beginnings that have been brought together in the biblical collection and they cannot be reconciled. I'll leave that for a rainy day; I think it is weak on the role of redaction, but would take some time to explain.

The best alternative (canonical) option I can come up with is that when Gen. 1 describes the spirit / wind of God over the waters, the verb there should be taken with less focus on the sense of gently hovering, and more on the extraordinary power of the beat of an eagle's wings. The spirit was bringing energy to the desolation – life to the lifeless – and this whipped up the waters in the sense we read about in the Psalms and elsewhere. In a sense, then, God brought chaos into being first; stuff needed the energy to get going and God then ordered it into place.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

What I'd draw out of those Psalms passages is the focus on water. There are definite common themes with the Genesis 1 creation (and the P Flood uncreation) story.

And it's interesting how בֹּהוּ only occurs three times. One of the two others — the one in Jeremiah 4 — is fairly clearly riffing off the Genesis 1 account; the other, Isaiah 34.11 is very very curious indeed. The birds in it remind me of Psalm 102, but it seems there's more to it than that.

Host note: Here is the text of Isaiah 34:11.

[ 20. August 2013, 21:14: Message edited by: Moo ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0