Study On Biblical Creation Accounts

[justified]

Can the differing creation accounts in the OT be reconciled? (2900 words)



To “reconcile” the First Testament’s creation myths[1] would ordinarily suggest the task of finding an equation in them, much like balancing a checkbook or other accounting work. But this level of consistency was probably not intended by the authors of the works examined in this paper, since almost without exception they wrote poetically. Often enough this poetry consisted of a rhetorical fervor which was impressive but lacked the modern scientific precision implied by the term “reconciliation.” Moreover, ancient Hebrew writing is not in any sense known for its ability to form propositions in the forms of western logic.[2] Therefore, “reconciling” Hebrew myths should be done on their own terms and as much as possible within that Ancient Near Eastern milieu whence they came.[3] An extended survey of the some of the verbal and thematic similarities followed by a brief discussion of the differences is about all that can be expected if it is at all possible to stay true to the texts.

Most cosmogonical[4] texts are accompanied, if not framed, by cosmological contexts. Although less in ancient times than today, cosmogonies served to explain how the cosmos came to be.[5] The evidence produced hereafter is meant to suggest that since there was apparently a universal cosmological view among the varied Hebrew writers, this should be counted as evidence towards a rather similar cosmogonical view. This cosmological view is a three-level earth: and indeed, that is all that was considered. There does not seem to have been any concept of anything beyond the dual-heavens (which included all astronomical and meteorological phenomena) above, or the great deep below the earth. This was the extent of the Hebrew’s universe.

The earth is said to be “founded” (יסד) and it has foundations (usually מוסדי). Yahweh is always the protagonist. For example it is said תבל ומלאה אתה יסדתם (“the world and its fullness – you have founded them” Ps. 89.12 [11])[6] where previously (v. 8 [9]) the receiver of the praise is יהוהאלהי (“LORD God”). Similar terminology is found elsewhere: אף-ידי יסדה ארץ (“yea, my hand has established the earth” Is. 48:13); יהוה בחכמה יסד-ארץ (“the LORD established the earth by wisdom” Prov. 3:19a). That the earth is supported by pillars seems clear as well from Job 9:6 which reads המרגיזארץ ממקומה ועמודיה יתפלצון, “that which shakes[7] the earth from its place and the pillars tremble.” The term עמוד, “pillar,” also occurs in reference to God stabilizing the earth’s pillars (Ps. 75:4b). The language of human building is very similar throughout to describe the world which God created.

The Heavens as well are said to be set upon pillars, עמודי שמים ירופפו (“the pillars of the heavens quake” Job 26:11a), or, similarly God is המקרה במים עליותיו (“the one who lays beams of his chambers in the waters” Ps. 104:3a). Though it may also be said that God builds his מעלותו בשמים(“stairways in the heavens”)[8] and he founds (יסד) it in on the earth in Amos 9:6a. The reason for this apparent discrepancy is probably the Heliomorphic pattern for God in Psalm 104.[9] What is envisioned for the Hebrew writer is the sun over the waters of the Mediterranean.[10] Overall though, what is gained from these passages is that the heavens are “built” or “founded” in some way, and that they rest upon something else: either the sea or the earth.

The third and lowest tier in the three-level κοσμοςis the abyss or the chaotic waters under the earth. This is a difficult concept to work out from the texts, and definitely the least uniformly-attested. Nevertheless, it is possibly to note some recurring themes which can explain each others particulars. In at least one text the dead are said to be מתחת מים (“beneath the waters” Job 26:5). Usually the deep is another word for the sea (cf. Jonah 2), but even there it may be argued that one is dealing with a poetical description of death. There is some kind of literary relationship between Jonah 2 and Psalm 18[11] which is a description of death: אפפוניחבלי-מות (“the cords of death entangle me” Ps. 18:5 [4]) whereas in Jonah it is the waters which אפף(“entangle, compass”) and there is no mention of שאל(Sheol) as in the Psalm (v.6 [5]). Nevertheless, the Jonah passage is clearly intended as an idiomatic description of death: the infinitive-construct phrase, בהתעטף עלי נפשי “in the fainting away of my life” (Jonah 2:8 [7]). Yet one more passage which shows this theme is Psalm 88, where the man who is like dead is laid בבור תחתיות במחשכים במצלות (“in the lowest, darkest, deepest pit”[12] v.7 [6]; cf. also the next verse which mentions waves). So there is some kind of relationship between the place of the dead, שאל, and the sea in the concept of the Hebrew. But in truth this is not a very dominant theme. Usually the netherworld is thought of as under the earth, such as in Numbers 16:32 where it is said that the earth תפתח את-פיה.

More commonly is the sea considered a picture of chaos. Daniel 7 is an interesting pericope to say the least, and it begins with an explicit picture of chaos: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea” (Daniel 7:2-3 NIV).[13] As the four beasts are interpreted by the mediator as four earthly kings, probably what is intended is a picture of the original chaos. This is especially tempting since it is written that the רוח שמים(“wind of the heavens”) were present – perhaps an equivalent to the רוח אלהים(“wind of God”) of Genesis 1:2. This section of Daniel is the passage which guides the coming of the first beast in the New Testament’s Apocalypse: Και εσταθη επι την αμμον της θαλασσης. Και ειδον εκ της θαλασσης θηριον αναβαινον (“And [the dragon] stood upon the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast rise up out of the sea…” Rev. 12:18-13:1).

[1] This word as I use is it here is interchangeable with “account” or “story” – it is meant in the technical way of a symbolical story used to explain a different truth. It is a not a word meant to make judgments on historicity.


[2] So much so that it can make up a significant thesis of a book. See “block logic” in Marvin R. Wilson’s Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).


[3] Cf. Robert A Oden, Jr. “Cosmogony, Cosmology” in ABD I:1162-71 (London: Doubleday, 1992), p.1163: “There is perhaps just sufficient uniformity to allow for the construction of a general worldview.”


[4] Or is it cosmogonic? Neither exists according to MS Word, but the both appear in the dictionary.


[5] Cosmogonies also served historical aetiological purposes. For example, the differing Egyptian creation accounts (Memphite, Heliopolitan, Theban, etc.) place the primordial “mound” of creation at their own respective cult centres. Most of these are found in ANET.


[6] I will use the MT versification with the English in brackets unless otherwise noted. Also, translations are my own unless noted differently – so don’t blame the NIV.


[7] Apparently this is a hiphil participle of רגז.


[8] Kethuvim; cf. BDB 752:A. Evidently, NIV amends toעליתו (“heavenly places?” see BDB 751:A); cf. NIV footnotes.


[9] There is in this psalm a marked influence from the Egyptian cult of Aten, the sun-disc and light. Although Akhenaten, the cult’s principal advocate, only reigned for seventeen years in the New Kingdom of Egypt, the cult was pushed into Canaan. The writers in the Amarna letters are well-versed in the correct terminology for Pharaoh, and there is some evidence of significant Aten-cult establishments at Byblos.


[10] Compare other mentions of light and darkness at the horizon as a significant cosmological point: Job 26:10; Prov. 8:27, etc.


[11] Also cf. Psalm 116.


[12] Here I am reading the plural nouns a bit creatively as superlative adjectives. It can be done.


[13] Susan Niditch. Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation (Chico: Scholar’s Press, 1985), p.74. The terminology here is “great sea” rather than “the deep,” but the same concept is actually meant as will be abundantly clear by the end of this essay.
[/b]

 

[justified]

The deep is also something which needs to be ordered or divided, which is accomplished by God’s knowledge (Proverbs 3:20).[1] Job 7:12 may be cited in this regard, or the extended treatment in Proverbs 8:22-36[2] or Psalm 33:7. That the sea needed this ordering is evidence of the (at least early) view that it was chaotic and perhaps even antagonistic towards the created order.

One more feature of the depths may be noted, namely, that they do in some cases appear to be under the earth. In most cases so far it has been obvious that what is meant as the sea, whether as epitomes of chaos or as a metaphor for the place of the dead. However, what ties them together is the possibility that there is a subterranean sea upon which the earth’s pillars set. Clues to this idea come from diverse places, not the least being the Decalogue. The phrase במים מתחת לארץ (“in the waters under the earth” Ex. 20:4c=Dt. 5.8) in the prohibition of idolatry obviously refers to the waters which are visible, but the explicit mention of ארץ (“earth, ground”) suggests a wider view than simply the oceans and rivers. In the Genesis flood story the waters are said to break forth from the עינת תהום (“springs of the deep” Gen. 7:11; 8:2). In some cases, such as Proverbs 8:28, the phrase refers to the sea, but it seems clear that some kind of subterranean phenomenon was at some point in view, especially considering Genesis 2:6.

Corresponding to the waters below the earth are those which are in the heavens. Right from the start is Genesis 1:7 which paraphrased readsויעש אלהים את-הרקיע ויבגלבין המים אשר מעל (“Now God made the firmament and he divided between the waters which were above…”) These heavenly waters are noted in other passages in a similar way. Psalm 148:4b והמים אשרמעל השמים(“the waters which were above the heavens”) being the closest, but לקול תתי תמון מים בשמים is not terribly different either (“When he utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens” [ESV] Jer. 10:13a=51:16). Job 26:8a is much more idiomatic, but nevertheless indicates the same idea with “He wraps up the waters in his clouds” (NIV).

From these notes it would seem that cosmology is to a great extent the same throughout the Old Testament. There is conceived by the ancient Hebrews a three-level universe with waters in the heavens and below the earth; the former were probably the storehouses for rain (e.g. see Gen. 7:11’s use of “floodgates” [NIV]) while the waters below was a chaos-sea-sheol mixed metaphor. Although it may be suggested that these elements of the deep are not to be combined and mixed as intimated here, it is actually the opposite that is found in the texts such as Psalm 88.

After cosmology, the first most important and unifying factor in cosmogonical texts which needs to be explored is the theme of mastery over the sea. As has been probably made clear by the passages above, the sea is one of the most prominent metaphors throughout the First Testament. It was also common in the ancient mythologies of the rest of the Near East, and these mythologies will be explored as they parallel the unified concepts of the Biblical text.[3]

There are three main words which explicitly represent the sea in the biblical text. These are תהום “the deep,” ים “sea, Yam” and מים “waters.” But it is quite clear from the biblical text that there are other ways to represent the sea, mainly, in a kind of theo- and zoo-morphism. For example, the sea is able to speak in Job 28:14 (ויםאמר…תהום אמר “and yam said…the deep said”) and its waves are proud (גאון גלי&#1501 in 38:11, while it needs to be guarded in 7:12. This last passage is actually quite significant, because its interrogative text, הים-אני אם-תנין “am I yam, or the monster?” equates the sea with one of those beasts which is properly described as a chaos monster.[4] And the chaos monster is a direct personification of those forces of nature which are opposed to the orderly and secure of life humans.

In Egypt, a land the mythology of which was ancient and complicated and which is still not understood that well, it is clear that chaos played an important role. The term mAat was the word for order, in some ways similar to שלם. Order was what happened when the first god made himself out of Nwn, the primordial waters. Afterwards, it was the role of the king to impose order on the land by defeating the usual enemies (Asiatics, Libyans, Nubians) and building the cult-centres and other ritualized responsibilities. A daily picture of this is provided in the sun’s cycle. Every day after the going down of the sun, it is attacked by the dragon Apophis which dwelled in the nether-regions, the dark sea, beyond the horizon. And everyday, it is said, the dragon is defeated by Seth, a wolf-god of battle and war.[5] Thus, the rising of the sun was a restoration of order over the chaotic attack of evil upon the sun-god. In the same manner, even the death of king was a victory of chaos which held until the new king ascended the throne which was marked by a ritual coinciding with the rising of the sun – an obviously symbolic act of order over chaos since the king was associated with RA, the sun-god.[6]

In the East, as well, the worry was chaos. And while in Egypt the Nile’s rise and inundation of the land was slow and life-giving, the ferocity of the Tigris in the wet season could not set a starker and more destructive contrast. Thus early-on the waters became the personification of chaos and the gods intimately connected with nature’s harsh treatment of the people. The monster, the Apophis in Mesopotamia, was Tiamat, a multi-headed goddess monster who ends up waging war on the gods of heaven with an entourage of monsters which she created.[7] In the end, the day is saved by Marduk who slays Tiamat,[8] making one half into the seas and the other into the heavens, and using her blood to make mankind.[9] Thus, just as with Egypt’s Nwn, the initial building-blocks for the earth primordial water, personified in the chaos-monster of Tiamat.


[1] This concept of ordering, which will be returned to below, should be recognized as a theme in most of these passages – so much so that there’s even a German word dedicated to its mythical representation: chaoskampf. For the term see for example Dennis J. McCarthy “‘Creation’ Motifs in Ancient Hebrew Poetry” in Creation in the Old Testament ed. Bernard W. Anderson (London: SPCK, 1984) pp.74-75.


[2] “[I, wisdom, was there] when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so that the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth” (vv.28-29).


[3] Cf. Oden “Cosmogony,” p.1165: “The texts’ very brevity bears witness to the familiarity with the cosmic battle pattern that the author of each could assume on behalf of his listeners.” According to Gordon Wenham Genesis 1-15 WBC (Waco: Word Book Publishers, 1987), p. xlvii, these pages are a “commentary” on ideas current to the author.


[4] It is true that the AV translated תנין as a “whale” here and elsewhere, and that there is a נהל תנינים in the Levant (“crocodile river”), and that it is probably never a proper name, but that does not preclude its obviously zoomorphic quality here. That what is meant in this passage is more than simply a typical reptile is implicit in its identification with sea, and as shall become clear, its identification with a host of other images of the chaos monster.


[5] See for example the story of The Contendings of Horus and Seth, a semi-historical myth of accession after the death of the king. It may be found conveniently in Miriam Lichtheim’s Ancient Egyptian Literature or in ANET, pp.14-17. Another version of the Apophis myth is found in ANET, pp.6-7.


[6] See Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948), pp. 148,150.


[7] ANET, pp.61-72. See Tablet I:1206f.


[8] ANET, pp.61-72. See Tablet IV:80-130.


[9] ANET, pp.61-72. See Tablet IV:135ff.

 

[justified]

This sea monster who appears in Egyptian, and both Eastern and Western Semitic mythology,[1] appears in several different ways in the Biblical text:[2]רהב, לויתן, תנין, [3]נחש (Rahab, Leviathan, monster, snake, respectively; the last two are not proper names), and in the LXX and New Testament δραγων.[4] What is also fascinating is that nearly every mention of these monsters includes some picture of Yahweh dominating over the sea.[5] At times it is simply the LORD’s power over the monster itself as a personification of the sea: “Am I the ים, or the תנין, that you put me under guard?” (Job 7:12 NIV). In other circumstances the monster and the sea are juxtaposed, both being dominated by God (Ps. 89:10,11 [9,10]:

אתה מושל בגאות הים בשוא כליו​

אתה תשבחם אתה דכאת כחלל רהב[6]



Or again in Psalm 74:13,14:

אתה פוררת בעזך ים שברת ראשי תנינים על-המים​

אתה רצצת ראשי לויתן תתננו מאכל לעם לציים[7]



Likewise God churns the sea and in the same line “cut Rahab to pieces” (Job 26:12 NIV) and in Isaiah 51:9-10 Yahweh is called upon as the one who dried up the sea and the deep, and who cut Rahab to pieces (NIV). The violent destruction of the sea monster by the deity appears to be a theme. That these allusions are so similar to other ancient myths about the defeat of chaos is strongly suggestive that in the Biblical text a remnant of that way of speaking about creation and ordering is present.[8] Moreover, the mere presence of these sea-dominance texts within creation hymns should be evidence enough.

It is clear then that for most of the creation allusions in the Old Testament, the themes of the ordering of chaos and of a singular cosmology reveal a singular concept of creation throughout the Bible. However, four extensive and important texts have not yet been dealt with: Genesis 1-2:4a; 2:4b-25; Psalm 8; Ezekiel 28:11-19. The latter text may be dispensed with immediately. Although it is intriguing, and is by some considered a creation text,[9] the passage seems obtuse and the designation of the being, described as a כרוב (“cherub”), suggest something other than the creation of man.

Genesis 1-2:4a is rather similar to the fragments and allusions found throughout the rest of the Old Testament. There is an original chaos which is described asתהו ובהו (1:2) and a dividing of the waters (1:6; cf. Proverbs 3:20, &c.) and of course the waters above and below: the three-level κοσμος. The establishment of the sun and moon as markers for day and night and seasons is found elsewhere as well (Gen. 1:14-18; cf. Psalm 74:16,17; 104:19,20). Finally, in terms of the creation of man, the dominion he has over the rest of creation is expressed in Psalm 8 (esp. vv.6-8).[10]

On the other hand, Genesis 2:4bff is different. This section presupposes an established earth, and the focus is the creation of man and the institutions which are basic to his existence: marriage, work, etc. The text as it stands is contradictory to the first chapter in significant details, such as the fact that there were as yet no plants (2:5) and the way in which the animals were created (2:19). In terms of the creation of man, it does resemble certain allusions throughout the First Testament, such as “work of your hands” (Job 10:3 NIV) or the idea of being molded clay from God’s hands (10:9; 33:6; cf. Isaiah 29:16; 45:9; 64:8).

A note on theology may be in order here. These creation hymns do not always bring up their subject, whether it be the mastery of the sea and chaos or other allusions, for the same reason. Probably, there are a couple of themes which suggest a typical Hebrew form. Psalm 74, for example, has the repeated אתה (“you”), emphatically at the head of each line. It is here serving to “remind” Yahweh – an attempt to evoke action on his part – that the nations have mocked him by suggesting other gods did these things (v.18). Superiority over gods is also the point of Jeremiah 10:11-13, and again an attempt to arouse Yahweh is found in Isaiah 51:9. But although this is common, at times the mastery-texts are found in passages simply praising God for being God, as in Job 26:5-14. Gerhard Von Rad made the case early on in the 20th century that in the Yahwistic faith creation was “invariably related, and indeed subordinated, to sotierological considerations.”[11] Westermann wrote in response that rather it was a kind of buffet for the heilgeshichte (“holy history”) a way of portraying God’s interventions in both primeval and current periods.[12] Actually, both are true, and the breaking in of Yahweh into history is His principle means of performing redemption. It is not, however, “invariably subordinated” as Von Rad put it – examples exist which were just mentioned, where the point is dominance over foreign gods.

It appears then that there are two main traditions about creation rather than one, though it must be admitted that editorial work in Genesis blurred these distinctions. If it is true that Genesis 1:1-2:4a is “Priestly” and late, then it must have been an outgrowth of that more or less unified tradition which presents itself in the fragments and allusions throughout scripture which were discussed above. The unified cosmology tradition, the basis of most cosmogonies, and the unified tradition of the championing of Yahweh over chaos, represents a basic unity in the way the κοσμος was perceived to have come about – even despite the different reasons for the use of these allusions in their particular contexts. The secondary tradition evidenced from the “Yahwistic” Genesis 2:4b-3 pericope is significantly different and at this juncture little can be said to reconcile it with the rest of the Biblical text.



Other Sources:

Habel, Norman C. “He Who Stretches Out the Heavens” in CBQ 34:417-30 (1972).

Miller, Patrick D, Jr. Genesis 1-11: Studies in Structure and Theme JSOTSS 8 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978).

Schirmann, Jefim. “The Battle Between Behemoth and Leviathan According to an Ancient Hebrew Piyyut” in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities IV(13):327-69 (1970).

Stadelmann, Luis I. J. The Hebrew Conception of the World Analecta Biblica 39 (Rome: Pontifical Bible Institute Press, 1970).

Tobin, Thomas H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation CBQ Monograph Series 14 (Washington, CBA, 1983)


[1] The West-Semitic texts are much more difficult to get a handle on and because of time I was unable to provide the examples I wished. In lieu of this, see Wenham Genesis, pp. xxxvii-xliii; 9-10; etc.


[2] Douglas A. Knight “Cosmogony and Order in the Hebrew Tradition” in Cosmogony and Ethical Order (London: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 142: the main difference happens to be that in the biblical text “YHWH’s sovereignty and freedom prevail without contest.”


[3] This paper will not spend any time with נחש, but one may read from Job 26:12 and Amos 3:4 the general idea.


[4] Due basically to space, both בחש and δραγων will not be treated in this paper. On the former, one may read from Job 26:12 and Amos 3:4 the general idea. The latter is the translation of the Hebrew at various points in the LXX, and in the NT appears to be the chaos dragon Apocalypse in chapter 12, especially where the monster spews water from its mouth and the earth swallows it – echoing several ancient myths. See David Aune Revelation 3 vols (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1998), pp.664-676.


[5] ברא “to create” may have originally mean “divide” or “separate.” See Claus Westermann Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary tr. J.J. Scullien (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), pp.34-35.


[6] “You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies” (NIV)


[7] “It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert” (NIV).


[8] It may also be noted that in Job 9:13, the phrase עזרי רהב (NIV: “cohorts of Rahab”) strongly resembles in concept the Tiamat monster and her beast-army of the Babylonian myth. See nn. 19-21 above.


[9] E.g. Knight “Cosmogony and Order,” p.135.


[10] Unfortunately this is the only other significant passage I am aware of which concerns the creation of man.


[11] “The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrine of Creation” in Creation in the Old Testament, op. cit., p.62. He also writes that creation was never introduced “for its own sake” (p.56).


[12] Genesis, p.33.

 

[Sabra]

Well, it seems like you know your stuff. I was a little blown away at times.

My take on the subject along with a link for support:

I personally don't believe that they are different accounts of creation. Genesis 1 just goes through chronologically what was made on each of the days without going into too much detail. Genesis 2 talks about how God created mankind and sets up for the fall of mankind in Genesis 3.

According to the TNIV (Genesis 2:18-20):

"The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals."

We'll stop there. Notice the word "had" - well you should, because I have underlined, intalicised and bolded it to get your attention. This is a very important word that hardly any other translations include, but it is a reliable and accurate translation for the TNIV and NIV to include it.

The following is from the article Genesis Contradictions? [just type the name of the article into Google and click it] by Dr Don Batten of Answers in Genesis from 1996:

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation [the NIV] does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.


There, problem solved. Dr Batten then continues on the issue in the rest of the article. I guess it's "score another for the NIV translators." And there are those who criticise it's accuracy while at the same time upholding the KJV, lol.

 

[dcyates]

That's a lot of info you've dispensed here. My congratulations go out to you in that, usually any post that runs for more than a few paragraphs my inherent laziness compels me to ignore. Yet you kept this relatively lengthy treatise interesting. Kudos.

My own take on the Bible's creation account is in most respects very similar, except, while not ignoring the Babylonian tale of Tiamat and Marduk, I look more closely at the parallels found between Egypt's creation stories and that of the Bible.
Many of the creation stories of ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythology consist of a creating deity (or deities) battling against a god (but more usually a goddess) of chaos, which usually takes the form of a body of water. As you've noted, in biblical studies this has come to be referred to as the chaoskampf motif, and is one which we also find in Scripture. It's alluded to in Genesis 1.1-2, where we are informed that, "At the beginning," when God was creating the cosmos, "the earth was tohu va-vohu," or "wild and waste" (a rendering with which I use alliteration in an attempt to reflect the intent of the linguistic sound of the phrase; vohu being a nonce term deliberately coined to rhyme with tohu, kind of like "topsy-turvy" or "higgledy-piggledy," but not nearly as frivolous), but "formless and empty" probably communicates a more accurate English rendition. The term "formless" is meant to communicate the lack of order, or chaos. (Incidentally, the term "empty" is intended to indicate the lack of life, that there existed no living things.) This compound phrase appears again in Jeremiah's prophetic vision of the return of the primal chaos (Jer 4.23-27; note also the reference to there being "no light," or darkness), thus leaving little doubt that the phrase designates the initial chaotic state of the earth.

The chaoskampf motif is then further developed as we are told that there was also a "darkness over the deep." Darkness throughout the Bible is often a symbol of evil, misfortune, death, and oblivion. Here it seems not to be simply an absence of light but a distinct entity (cf. Isaiah 45.7). As well, tehom, "the deep" is the cosmic abbyssal water that enveloped the earth. It is instructive that tehom is treated as a Hebrew proper name. Although not feminine in grammatical form, it is often employed with a feminine verb or adjective, and is at times personified. For example, in Genesis 49.25 and Deuteronomy 33.13 it "couches below," and in Habakkuk 3.10 "Loud roars the deep" in panic at the wrathful approach of God. Lastly, tehom appears in Isaiah 51.9-10 in a mythic context. All this suggests that tehom may once have been the name of a mythical being much like the Mesopotamian 'Tiamat', the female dragonesque personification of the primordial salt-water ocean, representing the agressive forces of primitive chaos that contended against Marduk, the god of creativity. (Although it should be noted that here in Genesis, tehom is thoroughly demythologized and likely deliberately so, for the creation account of Genesis is not really meant to supply us with a historical--much less scientific--account of what happened, but rather to combat the prevalent pagan beliefs of the time.) Additionally, we are told that "the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." The Hebrew word for 'spirit', ruach, also means 'wind' or 'breath', which is of tremendous significance as we move through the Bible.

Some may see the connection between the Mesopotamian creation myth and that of Genesis as tenuous at best. But allow us to turn to and examine the creation myths of that other empire, within which Israel spent four centuries in exile, that of Egypt.

It will be noticed that in Isaiah 51.9-10 the watery chaos-monster God battles and defeats is referred to as Rahab and that there are distinct allusions to the exodus from Egypt, as well. In other texts such as Isaiah 30.7 (something I just noticed and will have to explore further is the phrase here translated "vain and empty" [NASB; "worthless and empty," NRSV] which is interesting in that tohu va-vohu could also be rendered this way), along with Psalm 89.9-10 and Job 26.12-13, we again find references to God's mastery over the waters in connection with his defeat of Egypt (Egypt being, in some regard, synonymous with 'Rahab').

Unlike the Mesopotamians who believed in numerous creator gods, the Egyptians held only one deity responsible for the universe, which is referred to as "heaven and earth." The act of creation, on the stela of Ptah and Sekhmet, is accomplished via lordly speech where Ptah's tongue commands what his mind thinks--"One says in his mind (heart) 'Behold, may they come into being'"--with no mention of any preexistent material being used (cf. Ps. 33.6). Ptah not only creates everything, but he also constitutes the primeval waters that begat the lesser god Atum. This idea of creation by decree is also found in a Coffin text, where life is created "according to the word of Nun in Nu..." and Atum creates animal life through his command. One notes that Genesis 1 is thoroughly permeated with the idea of YHWH speaking creation into being.

Creation emerges from the deep, the darkness, the formlessness and emptiness, and the wind. The Coffin texts mention the Hermopolitan Ogdoad (also known as the Octead) who are eight primordial beings--four cosmic forces and their consorts with the four males being toads and the four females being snakes--who inhabited the primeval slime from which the rest of creation proceeds. Nun is the formless deep, Keku is darkness, Amun is breath (wind), and Hehu is some kind of illimitable chaos. These arise from Ptah, and out of them emerges the sun. Interestingly, the biblical record begins with God and then speaks of a formlessness and emptiness, a deep, a darkness, and a hovering wind.

In terms of the order of creation, the god Re first creates light out of darkness, and only after this the sun-god. This resembles Gen 1 where God creates light prior to his creation of the sun. Separation is also a key element with Ptah separating earth and sky, and Atum separating Geb (earth-god) from Nut (sky-goddess). In the Hermopolitan story the primordial hills--later symbolized by the pyramids--become the firmament which divides the upper from the lower waters. Given that the biblical idea of the "firmament" has connotations of beaten metal, it is noteworthy that another Egyptian tradition describes the resurrected king as taking possession of the sky and then splitting or separating its metal.

In the Hymn to Khnum, we are told that the god "made plants in the field, he dotted shores with flowers; he made fruit trees bear fruit," and this apparently precedes the creation of human beings. A similar sequence is found in the Great Hymn to Amon, who puts the stars in his path, and creates fish to live in the rivers and birds to live in the sky, while Atum forms the Nile and calls it "the lord of fish and rich in birds." One notes here the similar sequence of Genesis 1, beginning with the sun, moon, stars, and then birds and fish, with the latter together in the one set and even in the same order (Gen 1.20-21). The fashioning of the animals and humanity is also linked in the Egyptian accounts, as it is on day six in Genesis 1.24-26.

In sharp distinction to the Babylonian traditions, the Egyptians grant a special role to humans. According to the Great Hymn to Atum, the god 'created mankind and distinguished their nature and made their life." We also find the making of man from clay with either Knum being seen as a potter molding humanity on his wheel (Great Hymn to Khnum) or Ptah moulding humanity with his hands. In the Instruction of Amenemope, "Man is clay and straw, and God is his potter" and in a few texts there is even the idea that humanity is made in the image of god, as per the Instruction of King Merikare: "They are his (Re's) own images proceeding from his flesh." The Egyptian word used here (snnw) is often written with a determinative in the shape of a statue. This is similar to Genesis 1's notion of humanity being made from the dust of the earth in God's image (tselem), a word which initially meant a piece of clay cut for a sculpture. As well, in the same Egyptian account, we find, "and he (Re) made the air to give life to their (men's) nostrils," and so the impartation of life occurs through the breath of the creator-deity. The reason for the creation of humanity is unclear, but it appears possible that it was to carry out the creator-god's purposes, in contradistinction to the Babylonian account where mankind is created only to act as slaves to do the work the lesser gods grew tired of doing themselves. Compare this with the biblical account where humanity is to act as God's vice-regents superintending his creation.

The idea of the deity as craftsman is implied by the use of the words that describe the metal worker who hammers and casts, or the master potter who moulds, which would fit with the concept of a hammered firmament and with humans being fashioned from the earth.

Finally, only in Genesis do we find a concern with the duration of creation and an attendant literary framework wherein time is broken into a series of consecutive days. However, when we turn to certain Sumerian aetiological tales, we find a tale where there is mention of a seven-day program to build Baal's palace-temple (cf. seven years for Solomon's temple, 1 Kgs 6.37-38; but more on this below).

Thus, in each of the related biblical texts cited above we not only find God battling a watery chaos-monster, but this is mentioned while at the same time recalling Israel's exodus experience as well. Why? Because Israel had witnessed YHWH uncreate Egypt, effectively reducing the greatest, most orderly empire up to that time to a state of utter chaos via the ten plagues, and thus effectively overturning the rule of Pharoah, who was supposed to be the son of Amon-Re. And then at the Reed Sea (Exod 14.19-31) they had witnessed YHWH cause light to shine in the darkness and a divine wind to drive back the deep of the Yam-Suph (a sea that the Egyptians also regarded as the being at the end of the world and the abode of Apophis the chaos-serpent), so that the waters are separated so as to reveal dry land.

Not only so, but Pharoah's crown carried a Urea, an enraged female cobra, which functioned both as a symbol and the actual repository of Egypt's power. Pharoah's 'father', the sun-god Re, after traveling through the heavens, would descend into the watery underworld of the dead, the sea of reeds. Escorted by two-breathing cobras he would do battle with Apophis the choas-serpent and emerge victorious each morning to bring life to Egypt. Like father like son, Pharoah was to bring order and justice to Egypt by restraining the chaos of lawlessness. One can then understand why Pharoah, as Amon-Re's son, though he too could send his armies into the watery deep of the Yam Suph and emerge victorious. But as with Moses' first sign--the transformation of his judicial staff and symbol of his authority into a serpent that swallows those of Pharoah's magicians--so too with the last, when Pharoah's Urea-led armies are engulfed by the unrestrained sea, and that at YHWH's command.

My overall point is that I think it is primarily to Egyptian--and only to a lesser extent, Babylonian--creation myths, along with themes surrounding the Exodus, that we need to look to in order to derive most accurately a proper understanding of the overarching purpose of the Bible's creation account, namely to forcefully communicate that it was Israel's God, YHWH, and not Ptah, Atum, or any other of Egypt's failed deities, who was alone responsible for the good and perfect order of creation.

 

[FreezBee]

Impressive work, you've all done

Well, I can't compete, but I have a minor note. The way I read Genesis 1 there is no actual chaoskampf, in that there is no opposition to God (Elohim). The tohu-wa-bohu is a state of chaos, not chaos monsters. We're dealing with a sovereign god here!

As for differences between the two versions, I suppose it's a matter of taste. Because the creation story in Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:3 does not contain details, it's difficult to compare them.

Since they are both present, I suppose we're meant to read them together.

Notice that after each creative act, we're informed that God saw that what he had done was good.

In Genesis 1:26-27 God creates as the pinnacle of his creative work humans in his own image, his own likeness.

After that we're informed that

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

So, God is pleased with what he's done and can go an take a well-deserved rest. But as we know, in the meantime all hell breakes loose. Well, a bit exaggerated, but something like that.

Notice in

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Here, being created in the image of God, the woman, Eve, sees that the fruit is good, so what can be wrong with it?

I may be completely off track, but I think we should notice the way the perspective is moved from God to the humans.

As for the snake, I'm not sure yet how to interprete it.

Ok, just my 0.02$


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[justified]

dycates,

Overall very well-formed opinions. It's very comforting to know that others out there are willing to do the work necessary. I picked one thing out as needing comment:

Unlike the Mesopotamians who believed in numerous creator gods, the Egyptians held only one deity responsible for the universe, which is referred to as "heaven and earth." The act of creation, on the stela of Ptah and Sekhmet, is accomplished via lordly speech where Ptah's tongue commands what his mind thinks--"One says in his mind (heart) 'Behold, may they come into being'"--with no mention of any preexistent material being used (cf. Ps. 33.6). Ptah not only creates everything, but he also constitutes the primeval waters that begat the lesser god Atum. This idea of creation by decree is also found in a Coffin text, where life is created "according to the word of Nun in Nu..." and Atum creates animal life through his command. One notes that Genesis 1 is thoroughly permeated with the idea of YHWH speaking creation into being.

You are citing here the "Memphite Theology" -- a theology which is hardly normative in Egypt. In fact, it was the exception, not only in the New Kingdom but in all of Egyptian history. It's true it has significant conceptual parallels with Jewish theology, but these are superficial. The Egyptians held many, many different deities as creator: Ra, the king at times, Atum (especially), Amun, and a host of lesser-deities.

Also, I don't think Genesis one is creatio ex nihilo, as I noted in my paper. In fact, that idea doesn't exist until quite late. Text says specifically that God "made" things.

We're dealing with a sovereign god here!

Quite true. The priestly account has absolutely no resistance offered. It is undoubtedly derived from the same traditions (the thesis of my paper) but it is most definitely changed significantly.

A note on tehom (Heb. תה&#1501: I personally don't think there is a linguistic connecting with Tiamat. It can be argued, but there's no positive evidence for it save the similar consonants.

As for the snake, I'm not sure yet how to interprete it.

It's completely alright. No one does. Where did the devil come from? is a perennial question in biblical studies.

 

[dcyates]

Impressive work, you've all done

Well, I can't compete, but I have a minor note. The way I read Genesis 1 there is no actual chaoskampf, in that there is no opposition to God (Elohim). The tohu-wa-bohu is a state of chaos, not chaos monsters. We're dealing with a sovereign god here!

Thank you for taking the time to read it. And you're quite correct, I think the biblical author here deliberately eschewed any explicit reference to combat with some chaos-monster, which is why I stated it was only alluded to (but you're right, this should have been explicated more clearly). Nevertheless, I think it virtually inarguable that it is indeed alluded to; to the Hebrew mind, large bodies of water always symbolized chaos. Which is likely one of the chief reasons why the ancient Hebrews never became a sea-faring people, despite spending a good portion of their history as a coastal nation.

As for differences between the two versions, I suppose it's a matter of taste. Because the creation story in Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:3 does not contain details, it's difficult to compare them.
Since they are both present, I suppose we're meant to read them together.

If I may, my own theory is that, if these were originally two separate and distinct 'creation' narratives, they were brought together as we have them in Scripture, not so much to harmonize with one another as much as to 'fit' within the larger story. As you're probably already aware, ancient peoples structured their stories quite differently than we're used to. We generally formulate our stories so as to have an introduction, followed by the main body of the tale, which usually consists of a series of events that build toward a climax, after which there is the conclusion, or the dénoument. But the ancients would often build their stories consisting of series of events that lead toward the climax, after which it then retraces its way back toward the beginning/end. For instance, here we have:

a God's creation of the world and humans (1.1-2.3)
...b Adam and Eve, the first couple; their sin and God’s pronouncement of judgment regarding the length of their lives (2.4-3.24)
......c birth of Adam’s first sons; Cain’s murder of Abel (4.1-16)
.........d CENTRE: Cain’s sinful descendants (4.17-24)
......c’ birth of Adam’s son Seth (replacing murdered Abel; 4.25), and geneaology from Adam to Noah (5.1-32)
...b’ marriage of sons of God and “daughters of men”; God’s pronouncement of judgment regarding the length of their lives (6.1-4)
a’ God’s decision to destroy the world and humans (6.5-8)

Ok, just my 0.02$

cheers

- FreezBee

As for the rest of your response, a hearty amen from me.

 

[dcyates]

dycates,
Overall very well-formed opinions. It's very comforting to know that others out there are willing to do the work necessary. I picked one thing out as needing comment:

Unlike the Mesopotamians who believed in numerous creator gods, the Egyptians held only one deity responsible for the universe, which is referred to as "heaven and earth." The act of creation, on the stela of Ptah and Sekhmet, is accomplished via lordly speech where Ptah's tongue commands what his mind thinks--"One says in his mind (heart) 'Behold, may they come into being'"--with no mention of any preexistent material being used (cf. Ps. 33.6). Ptah not only creates everything, but he also constitutes the primeval waters that begat the lesser god Atum. This idea of creation by decree is also found in a Coffin text, where life is created "according to the word of Nun in Nu..." and Atum creates animal life through his command. One notes that Genesis 1 is thoroughly permeated with the idea of YHWH speaking creation into being.

You are citing here the "Memphite Theology" -- a theology which is hardly normative in Egypt. In fact, it was the exception, not only in the New Kingdom but in all of Egyptian history. It's true it has significant conceptual parallels with Jewish theology, but these are superficial. The Egyptians held many, many different deities as creator: Ra, the king at times, Atum (especially), Amun, and a host of lesser-deities.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not drawing any hard-and-fast conclusions here. I'm nowhere near that stage yet. Right now I'm simply arraying as much of the evidence before me as I can (with only some of it being presented in my initial post above), a la Bernard Lonergan, without pre-judging any of it. I'm aware that the Memphite texts (Old Kingdom, c. 2500-2000 BC) acted primarily as a polemic against Atum theology.

Also, I don't think Genesis one is creatio ex nihilo, as I noted in my paper. In fact, that idea doesn't exist until quite late. Text says specifically that God "made" things.

Right, I also don't believe that creatio ex nihilo can be legitimately derived from Genesis 1. I tried to at least hint toward this with my translation of be-re'**** as "At the beginning..." when God created the cosmos, "the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep," and thus indicating that there seemed to be a pre-existent watery chaos.

A note on tehom (Heb. תה&#1501: I personally don't think there is a linguistic connecting with Tiamat. It can be argued, but there's no positive evidence for it save the similar consonants.

Again, I didn't say that tehom was to be specifically equated with Tiamat. Only that:

It is instructive that tehom is treated as a Hebrew proper name. Although not feminine in grammatical form, it is often employed with a feminine verb or adjective, and is at times personified. For example, in Genesis 49.25 and Deuteronomy 33.13 it "couches below," and in Habakkuk 3.10 "Loud roars the deep" in panic at the wrathful approach of God. Lastly, tehom appears in Isaiah 51.9-10 in a mythic context. All this suggests that tehom may once have been the name of a mythical being much like the Mesopotamian 'Tiamat', the female dragonesque personification of the primordial salt-water ocean, representing the agressive forces of primitive chaos that contended against Marduk, the god of creativity.

 

[dcyates]

Right, I also don't believe that creatio ex nihilo can be legitimately derived from Genesis 1. I tried to at least hint toward this with my translation of be-re'**** as "At the beginning..."

Ha, ha! Hilarious! There appears to be some sort of 'filter' on this site which evidently thought I was using offensive language above.

 

[FreezBee]

It's completely alright. No one does. Where did the devil come from? is a perennial question in biblical studies.

Yes, and it probably will remain that for as long as there are biblical studies

the ancients would often build their stories consisting of series of events that lead toward the climax, after which it then retraces its way back toward the beginning/end. For instance, here we have:

a God's creation of the world and humans (1.1-2.3)
...b Adam and Eve, the first couple; their sin and God’s pronouncement of judgment regarding the length of their lives (2.4-3.24)
......c birth of Adam’s first sons; Cain’s murder of Abel (4.1-16)
.........d CENTRE: Cain’s sinful descendants (4.17-24)
......c’ birth of Adam’s son Seth (replacing murdered Abel; 4.25), and geneaology from Adam to Noah (5.1-32)
...b’ marriage of sons of God and “daughters of men”; God’s pronouncement of judgment regarding the length of their lives (6.1-4)
a’ God’s decision to destroy the world and humans (6.5-8)

Yes. that's what's called a chiasm? And you may be right in your interpretation.

So we go from God's creation to God's almost destruction, at least of life. and increasing sin is, what brings about God's desire to destroy.

As for Cain and his sinful descendants, it's worth noting that they are under God's protection anyway.

Also after the flood God makes the rainbow as a sign that he'll never do anything such again.

The original sin was initiated by God planting that Tree of Knowledge and forbidding Adam and Eve to eat from it.

Cain's murder of Abel was initiated by God preferring Abel's offering to Cain's.

So, what I'm looking for, is: what is the actual moral lessons to be learned?


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[FreezBee]

Expanding a bit on the chiasm theme, the Bible begins with a creation, so it should end with a destruction, followed by a new creation. Revelation serves that purpose, but may not originally be written to serve that purpose.

If we limit ourselves to the Torah, Deuteronomy end with blessings and curses as usual for a vassalage contract.

Looking at the creation story until after the fall as a preamble to the Torah would give the following interpretation. The snake says that Adam and Eve would become wise as God, they would come to know both good (blessings) and evil (curses), when they ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

So the cursed state after the fall is the current state.

The destruction is simply the return to a chaotic state. I believe to remember that Jeremiah uses the phrase tohu-wa-bohu in his description of how things were.

It's less important here, whether Judah was completely destroyed by the Babylonians and all Judeans taken into captivity.

The Torah, or some similar law text, is frequently discussed in the OT. Ezekiel mentions that the laws were impossible to keep, and Jeremiah mentions that the laws were written with a lying pen.

The person in the Torah most associated with snakes is Moses, so is he the snake in the creation story?


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[justified]

The person in the Torah most associated with snakes is Moses, so is he the snake in the creation story?

yer a funny man.

 

[dcyates]

Expanding a bit on the chiasm theme, the Bible begins with a creation, so it should end with a destruction, followed by a new creation. Revelation serves that purpose, but may not originally be written to serve that purpose.

If we limit ourselves to the Torah, Deuteronomy end with blessings and curses as usual for a vassalage contract.

- FreezBee

Something that I thought was rather neat was when I checked to see if the entire Pentateuch was composed so as to fit within a chiastic structure. Try as I might, I just couldn't make it work. Then, by pure happenstance, I came across Abraham's father, Terah, and his brother, Nahor, being mentioned by Joshua as he rehearsed the history of Israel up to that point in Joshua 24. I looked into this a bit further and soon discovered this is the only other time in the entire Bible that these two people are mentioned besides Genesis 11. So, using as my outermost frames the primeval history explicated in Genesis 1-11, where the various nations receive their alloted territory (gebul) "according to their families" (lemishpechotam) and we're inroduced to Israel's Mesopotamian ancestors (namely Terah, Nahor, and Abraham), and Joshua 13-24, where Israel's various tribes receive their alloted territory (gebul) "according to their families" (lemishpechotam) and we're re-introduced to Israel's Mesopotamian ancestors (namely Terah, Nahor, and Abraham), and then working my way inward from there, I found it is only when I included the book of Joshua that I could legitimately make it all fit into a chiastic structure. It was only as I did so that I realized this only made sense. If we left the story at the end of Deuteronomy, after all, one of the primary objectives of the entire narrative of the Pentateuch would remain dangling; the fulfillment of God's promise to give his chosen people a homeland. At the end of Deuteronomy, Israel is left just outside the border of the Promised Land. Given that the story from Genesis 12 onward was leading up to Israel's conquest of Canaan, how could we end it there? It is only with the book of Joshua that we finally see these promises being fulfilled.

Neat, eh?

 

[justified]

don't get the idea that it was composed that way originally or anything. I mean, there are a dozen or more people responsible for the majority of the writing in those books, and who knows how many editors.

 

[dcyates]

don't get the idea that it was composed that way originally or anything. I mean, there are a dozen or more people responsible for the majority of the writing in those books, and who knows how many editors.

I don't have a problem with the concept of there being multiple sources (although I see no evidence of there being "a dozen or more"), or even several 'editors'who may have tweaked the stories here and there somewhere down the line (anything's possible, after all), but the very fact that the narrative is so perfectly structured in this way is sure evidence (or at least as 'sure' as we can be concerning such things) that there was a single editor--or school, such as the Deuteronomic author or school--who put it all together in the end. It wasn't just a jumble of writings from various and diverse authors that were thrown together haphazardly. That's simply not the way they told their stories. The ancient Egyptian story of Ishtar's descent into Hades is also (famously) structured chiastically, and I haven't heard of anybody calling into question the integrity of its provenance. Indeed, why would they?

In my considered opinion, the whole JEPD Documentary Hypothesis did far more to draw us away from a proper, accurate, and profitable study of the biblical text than it did to help, and is ultimately of very limited--even meagre--value.

 

[justified]

The ancient Egyptian story of Ishtar's descent into Hades is also (famously) structured chiastically, and I haven't heard of anybody calling into question the integrity of its provenance. Indeed, why would they?

In my considered opinion, the whole JEPD Documentary Hypothesis did far more to draw us away from a proper, accurate, and profitable study of the biblical text than it did to help, and is ultimately of very limited--even meagre--value.

Well, of course JEDP isn't actually believed by anyone any longer. Logical positivism has kind of disappeared, and with it those naive beliefs which were fostered by the Wellhausen school. I don't believe there was a final editor who insured that there was a chiastic structure to the Pentateuch because -- frankly -- I don't think it is a chiasmus. But that's just an opinion.

However, those of us who do this kind of source criticism are not attempting to reduce the authority of the text nor to distract people -- are trying to use a technique which allows one to investigate possible original points in the text (and also to see the implications for the study of Israel and the ancient near east). It's a scholarly pursuit, not necessarily a devotional one.

 

[FreezBee]

Something that I thought was rather neat was when I checked to see if the entire Pentateuch was composed so as to fit within a chiastic structure. Try as I might, I just couldn't make it work. Then, by pure happenstance, I came across Abraham's father, Terah, and his brother, Nahor, being mentioned by Joshua as he rehearsed the history of Israel up to that point in Joshua 24. I looked into this a bit further and soon discovered this is the only other time in the entire Bible that these two people are mentioned besides Genesis 11. So, using as my outermost frames the primeval history explicated in Genesis 1-11, where the various nations receive their alloted territory (gebul) "according to their families" (lemishpechotam) and we're inroduced to Israel's Mesopotamian ancestors (namely Terah, Nahor, and Abraham), and Joshua 13-24, where Israel's various tribes receive their alloted territory (gebul) "according to their families" (lemishpechotam) and we're re-introduced to Israel's Mesopotamian ancestors (namely Terah, Nahor, and Abraham), and then working my way inward from there, I found it is only when I included the book of Joshua that I could legitimately make it all fit into a chiastic structure. It was only as I did so that I realized this only made sense. If we left the story at the end of Deuteronomy, after all, one of the primary objectives of the entire narrative of the Pentateuch would remain dangling; the fulfillment of God's promise to give his chosen people a homeland. At the end of Deuteronomy, Israel is left just outside the border of the Promised Land. Given that the story from Genesis 12 onward was leading up to Israel's conquest of Canaan, how could we end it there? It is only with the book of Joshua that we finally see these promises being fulfilled.

Neat, eh?

Yes, very neat acctually

One thing that has puzzled me in this connection is the start of the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land. The crossing of the Jordan is of course parallel to the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, but it's not that. One of the first things Josjua do is to send scouts into Jericho. These scouts are helped by the harlot Rahab. In return the scouts make a covenant with her that she and her family will be spared during the destruction of the city. According to Mosaic Law the Isaelites were forbidden to make any covenants with the Cana'anites. So one transgression here! Further we're told that Rahab lives among the Israelites even to this day. According to Mosaic Law the Israelites were not allowed to let a harlot live among them. So another transgression there!

Adam and Eve were sent out of the Garden of Eden because of their transgression of God's commandment, and just about the first thing the Israelites do, when they enter the Promised Land (somewhat similar to the Garden of Eden) is to commit transgression! As readers we then should know, what'll follow. It's like a continued saga, where we're given hints as to the next episod, imho

yer a funny man.

Yes, I can't quite figure him out - and don't forget God tried to kill him! (cf. Exodus 4:24).


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[justified]

It all makes more sense when you see that there were different traditions.

 

[dcyates]

[/color][/b]

Well, of course JEDP isn't actually believed by anyone any longer. Logical positivism has kind of disappeared, and with it those naive beliefs which were fostered by the Wellhausen school. I don't believe there was a final editor who insured that there was a chiastic structure to the Pentateuch because -- frankly -- I don't think it is a chiasmus. But that's just an opinion.

However, those of us who do this kind of source criticism are not attempting to reduce the authority of the text nor to distract people -- are trying to use a technique which allows one to investigate possible original points in the text (and also to see the implications for the study of Israel and the ancient near east). It's a scholarly pursuit, not necessarily a devotional one.

I wouldn't say nobody believes in the Documentary Hypothesis any longer. For instance, Bruce Waltke (an old prof of mine, I'm proud to say), in his truly excellent commentary on Genesis (w. Cathi J. Fredricks, 2001), offers a reasoned variation on JEPD, which amounts to simply allowing that there were multiple sources: "Literary source critics now tend to expand the content of J at the expense of E and to merge them together; in any case, there is still a consensus that J was an originally independent and continuous document. Such scholars tend to think, in contrast to the form critics, that the Tetrateuch (Genesis-Numbers) escaped any systematic editing by the Deuteronomist, who clearly edited Deuteronomy through Kings in the Hebrew canon. (Frank Moore) Cross and others deny P ever existed as an independent narrative document" (p. 26). Although he does admit that there no real consensus on these matters.
As far as your contention that the Pentateuch does not form a chiasm, I agree. As I said, I couldn't make it work. It was only when I included Joshua that I discovered it was composed as a chiasm. Perhaps if I 'flesh' it out more, you will see what I mean.

Chiastic Structure of the Hexateuch (Genesis-Joshua)​

a primeval history: the nations receive their allotted territories (Gen. 1-11)
....-nations’ territory (gĕbûl) according to their families (lĕmišpĕhōtām)
....-introduction of Israel’s ancestors in Mesopotamia: Terah, Nahor, Abraham
...b Abraham (Gen. 12.1-21.7)
.......-Yahweh’s promise to give (nātan) Canaan to Abraham’s descendants
.......-Abraham builds altar in Shechem; lives in area between Bethel and Ai; Hebron
.......-military victory over kings from north; sudden attack on ally (Lot); pursuit as far as Dan
......c Isaac and the death of Israel’s founding father, Abraham (Gen. 21.8-28.4)
.............-themes: death (Sarah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac [near death on Moriah]), blessings (Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Esau)
..........d Jacob: a story illustrating the evils of social and family discord (Gen. 28.5-37.1)
..................-story of social and family strife, murder, lying, theft, abuse of aliens, etc.
..................-plight of unloved wife, hired man; younger and older siblings; birthright
.............e Joseph: a story of how God rewards faithful obedience (Gen. 37.2-50.26)
......................-themes: faithfulness rewarded, disobedience punished
................f exodus from Egypt (Exod. 1.1-13.16)
.........................-Yahweh saves Israel in foreign land
.........................-host king fears Israel is too numerous; calls magicians to oppose; fails
...................g failure and divine grace in the wilderness (Exod. 13.17-19.2)
..............................-nation in migration
..............................-arrival at Sinai
..............................-date mentioned: third new moon
..............................-meeting Jethro
..............................-complaining (lûn); provision of water from rock; manna; quail
......................CENTRE: treaty at Sinai (Exod. 19.3-Num. 10.10)
...................g' failure and divine grace in the wilderness (Num. 10.11-21.20)
..............................-nation in migration
..............................-departure from Sinai
..............................-date mentioned: second year, second month, twentieth day
..............................-meeting Jethro
..............................-complaining (lûn); provision of water from rock; manna; quail
................f' victory in Moab (Num. 21.21-Deut. 3.29)
.........................-Yahweh saves Israel in foreign land
.........................-host king fears Israel is too numerous; calls magician to oppose; fails
.............e' call to obedience; based on lessons from history (Deut. 4-11)
......................-history teaches that faithfulness is rewarded, disobedience punished
..........d' laws for stability and justice in society and families (Deut. 12-26)
..................-laws to counter social and family strife, murder, lying, theft, abuse of aliens, etc.
..................-laws for unloved wife, hired man; younger and older siblings; birthright
......c' Moses’ final words and death of Israel’s other founding father, Moses (Deut. 27-34)
.............-themes: death and life (in following the covenant), blessings
...b' conquest of Canaan (Josh. 1-12)
.........-promise to Abraham is fulfilled: Yahweh gives (nātan) Canaan to Abraham’s seed
.........-Shechem altar; battle in area between Bethel and Ai; Hebron conquered
.........-military victory over kings from north; sudden attack on ally (Gibeon); pursuit into area of Dan
a' allotment of land of Canaan to Israel (Josh. 13-24)
....-Israel’s tribal territories (gĕbûl) according to their families (lĕmišpĕhōtām)
....-topic: Israel’s ancestors in Mesopotamia: Terah, Nahor, Abraham (24.1-33)

Speaking only for myself, of course, the more I perform a scholarly study of the biblical text, the more devotional it becomes.