From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 00:45:56 EST
George Murphy wrote:
>
> Peter Ruest wrote:
> ...
> > I agree that the intention of the author of (a) Gen.1:1-2:4 was
> > significantly different from that of the author of (b) 2:4-25. I think
> > it was the same author, but he was pursuing two different contexts and
> > aims. And this brings me to the criticism I want to make at this point.
> > It is widely assumed that (a) and (b) deal with the same topic, namely
> > creation. And this is the reason for much of the difficulty we have with
> > them. The context of (a) clearly is creation, with humans representing
> > but a part of the story (although an important one); it deals with the
> > whole earth (in part even the universe). But the context of (b) is Adam
> > and Eve in the garden of Eden and their personal relationship to Yahweh.
> > This is quite a different topic, and the assumption that they are
> > dealing with the same thing is not conclusive. The statement that they
> > give quite different pictures of creation is at least premature at this
> > point.
> ...
> Whether or not the 2 accounts are by different authors is not crucial - though
> the fact that the 1st seems to speak to a situation around the time of the exile argues
> against the traditional idea that Moses was its literal author.
I know that this is the source-critical speculation, but I consider it
to be wrong.
> Certainly the 2d account deals with the first humans in the garden of Eden - but
> it deals with their _creation_ (as well as that of the plants & animals) in the garden.
> The 2 accounts use different verbs to speak of this (the 2d does not use bara') but they
> are both talking about the coming into being of the 1st living things.
I explained in my post about "concordance" that I consider this
assumption of both talking about the same things to be in error.
> ...
> > Is it ignoring the text when in 7:2-3 it explicitely says 7 of the clean
> > animals, but 2 of the others? And in 8:20-22 we read of the sacrifices
> > Noah offered, apparently in accordance with the Lord's will. Would that
> > be reasonable if he had only 2 of each?
>
> My arguments (which in fact is quite standard) is not just that the 2 sets of
> verses I mentioned come from different sources, but that the whole story is
> composed of material which originated from 2 or more sources. The account of the
> sacrifices would belong to the material which speaks about the 7 clean & 2 unclean
> pairs. I am not dogmatically committed to the old documentary hypothesis but there's a
> fair amount of truth in it. The material in 7:2-3 & 8:20-22 is consistent with a
> priestly theology which emphasized, inter alia, sacrificial ritual & the clean-unclean
> distinction. (& it's also worth noting that the clean-unclean distinction is an
> anachronism in the flood story since that distinction isn't codified until much later.)
I know the claims of the documentary hypothesis - and consider them to
be in error. Its whole approach and its "results" are a mess. I don't
find any amount of truth in it. We can't expect to understand scripture
by first declaring it to be a product of merely human views, aims,
devices, errors and deceits, with no consideration of any possible
divine inspiration. The fact is that it changes, i.e. destroys, the
history of Israel, and with it any theology transmitted in, with and
through this history.
> > Do we then have to conclude that
> > the twos of 6:19-20 don't fit the whole story? I don't think so. 6:19-20
> > was given before the building of the ark, probably very much earlier
> > than 7:2-3 when it was time for Noah to enter the ark, so in 6:19-20, a
> > general command would do (particularly since in that context the purpose
> > of this action was given as keeping the species alive), but in 7:2-3,
> > the command had to be specified more precisely concerning the clean
> > animals needed for sacrifice (Noah may have wondered about that
> > himself). In what way would that be forcing the text to fit one's
> > preconceived ideas? (By the way, I am in the same case as Walter, never
> > having been to any Sunday school, and becoming a Christian at age 21).
> > The thought of 2 different sources of 2 different stories is, at this
> > point, at least premature.
>
> Of course I am not saying that the existence of different sources here has been
> proved with scholastic rigor, but it doesn't seem to me that you are giving it serious
> consideration. Instead you are immediately jumping to the task of "harmonizing" the
> material on an historical level.
After having read and heard a lot of and about YEC (young earth
creationism) theory, I am not going to give it any more serious
consideration. The same has happened with the documentary hypothesis. I
am not "immediately jumping" to a particular interpretive device, but I
start out with the conviction that the Bible as a whole is an entity of
divine revelation, in the manner I outlined in my other post. From such
a point of view, trying to understand each text on its own and in the
grand context of the entire biblical revelation is the most natural and
straightforward way to go.
> ...
> > This "common knowledge" is a consequence of the assumption that (a) and
> > (b) are both "creation stories" dealing with the same subject matter. A
> > corollary of this (erroneous) assumption is that 2:5-7 and 18-20 is
> > assumed to concern the whole earth. Again, this is not at all required,
> > as 8-17 very clearly deals with a restricted area in southern
> > Mesopotamia (cf. C.A. Hill, "The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape",
> > Persp.Sci.Christ.Faith 52/1 (2000), 31-46). A further consequence is the
> > assumption that we have in (b) a sequence of creation events, which
> > conflicts with the one of (a). At least at this point, this assumption
> > is premature.
>
> As I said above, there is no justification for saying that Gen.2:4b-25 isn't a
> creation story. Of course it's a very different _type_ of story from 1:1-2:4a but
> that's just my point.
As for Gen.1-2, there are in principle 3 ways of dealing with its
interpretation: (1) some kind of YEC, which has to ignore science, (2)
the documentary hypothesis, which ignores revelation, and (3) some type
of harmonizing scientific and biblical interpretation. You and I agree
on the futility of YEC. As I said repeatedly, the documentary hypothesis
and source critical method are completely implausible and inadequate for
dealing with the biblical text. But you never seem to have considered
the fact of this double failure, or the possibility that a concordance
alternative might be the viable middle way.
> ...
> > If (b) (or 2) doesn't deal with creation events at all - as would be
> > most naturally understood from the localization in southern Mesopotamia
> > -, there is no chronology of creation, either, and no contradiction to
> > (a) (or 1) has been shown. Furthermore, placing (b) in a local context
> > means that it could be a historically accurate account without being a
> > creation account. Attempts at avoiding contradictions between different
> > texts are certainly not worse, in principle, than attempts at finding
> > contradictions. Often, it will be a question of debate which approach is
> > a more "natural" reading of the text, and where the text is being
> > "forced".
>
> My point is completely misunderstood if seen simply as an attempt to "find
> contradiction". They are contradictions only if one insists on reading both accounts as
> historical narratives, & my point is to argue that they aren't. & I should not be see
> as saying that the 2 accounts are not in harmony, but they should be "harmonized" as
> theological rather than as historical accounts.
I am sorry, I seem not to have formulated carefully enough what I said.
I didn't think of _you_ trying to find contradictions, but of the
architects of the documentary hypothesis. My main point was to point to
the persisting differences of opinion about the interpretation of almost
any biblical text, particularly in the Old Testament - a situation in
glaring contrast to the majority of science. And my secondary point was
to show that an attempt at finding harmony is at least more plausible
than making myths out of both stories (as the documentary hypothesis
does).
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 00:44:01 EST