>DT: >Can we use these data to assist understanding of the
>fragmentary archaeological record?
>SJ: "All this assumes that Genesis 4:21 is teaching that Jubal
>was the maker of the "first musical instruments". It doesn't say
>that. It only says that "he was the father of all who play the
>harp (Heb. kinnowr from an unused root mean to twang) and flute
>(Heb. 'uwgab breathing; a reed-instrument of music)." It may
>only mean that Jubal's clan specialised in playing these
>*particular* musical instruments. It doesn't say that Jubal
>*invented* "the first musical instruments" and in fact there are
>no teachings or even conclusions drawn from this ancient
>historical note."
DT>I think I am looking at Genesis 4 in a rather broader way :-)
>The descendants of Cain were a very capable group. They
>developed all sorts of skills - no cultural backwater. The
>skills of which we read should remind us that the "children of
>God" should not be surprised when people who have turned their
>backs on God excel. The reason is that even those who bear "the
>mark of Cain" can build cities, and do other exploits: they still
>carry God's image. Their creativity is a hallmark of being made
>in God's image.
Agreed. This is no doubt the theological intent of the writer. But
my point was that any relationship between "first musical
instruments", eg. a paleolithic pipe, etc., and Genesis 4:21 is
tenuous.
DT>So, on these grounds, I would say the passage is doing more than
>just telling us that there was a clan, descended from Cain, who
>specialised in playing musical instruments. If we limit the
>Scripture to a statement of fact like this, it becomes rather
>"flat".
See above. There is no doubt much *theological* meaning, but probably
limited *anthropological* meaning, in Genesis 4:21.
>SJ: "From a two-"Adam" model perspective, I would have no problem
>with the development of musical instruments in the genus Homo
>(ie. Genesis 1 "man") which were then taken over and perfected
>by the descendants of Genesis 2 "Adam" (just like other arts and
>technology)."
DT>The impression this makes on me, Steve, is that the two-"Adam"
>model is getting rather contrived. What do we know about the
>"culture" of Genesis 1 "man"? In what sense was Genesis 1 "man"
>imaging God, and how did it differ from the way Genesis 2 "man"
>images God? Anticipating your answer, does not this erode the
>value of making any distinction?
David, I have answered all this before both to you and to others. I
should not have have to re-state it from scratch every time I mention
it! :-) Briefly, I have previously explained that Genesis 1 "Adham"
= "man" (Heb.) refers to a *category*, whereas Genesis 2 "Adham" =
"Adam" (Heb.) refers to an *individual*. Both are on separate
tablets. This was set out in Pearce (1969):
"The first two toledoths embodied in Genesis used to be taken as two
separate stories of creation, the second starting in Genesis 2:4.
Now that one can be regarded as a sequel to the other, many of our
difficulties concerning the Biblical origin of man can be solved.
This would mean that in Genesis 1, Old Stone Age man is described,
the Hebrew collective noun "adam" meaning mankind as a whole; but in
Gen. 2:4, the second toledoth commences. This second toledoth makes
the characteristic brief Summary of the preceding toledoth, and then
speaks mainly about Eden. Here the noun becomes "The Adam" or "the
Man", with the article referring to an individual, and then becomes a
proper name ' Adam' . This man named Adam is the individual from whom
our Lord's descent is eventually traced. These themes will be
developed in the succeeding pages. We shall use the name Adam to
refer to this individual, a New Stone Age farmer of about 10,000 to
12,000 years ago. Although the Hebrew word adam is used collectively
in the first chapter of Genesis, we will call him Old Stone Age Man,
to avoid confusion, and the proper name, "Adam", will be reserved for
the Adam of Eden. " (Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?", Paternoster:
Exeter, 1969, p21).
Note that I do not necessarily accept everything that Pearce wrote,
and probably these days, nearly 30 years later, neither does he.
The two-"Adam" model (2AM) would see the "man" in Genesis 1 as
representing the *category* man (all other items in Genesis 1 are
categories). In scientific terms, this would probably be the genus
homo. IOW Genesis 1 "man" scientifically is homo erectus leading up
to homo sapiens. Genesis 2 Adam picks up where Genesis 1 leaves off
and describes an *individual* who came from the endpoint of this
Genesis 1 man homo sapiens stock.
The 2AM (as originally fits all the facts both Biblically and
scientifically, and therefore I find it compelling. Bill Hamilton
for one thinks it sounds reasonable. I don't think of it in a
crassly simplistic or "concordistic" way, any more than I think of
Genesis 1 in a crassly simplistic or "concordistic" way. I see the
Biblical and scientific models as *pictures* of real, underlying
historical reality, therefore both must eventually harmonise.
This can be rejected out of hand as "contrived" but this is a
superficial criticism. *All* attempts to relate Genesis 1-2 with
modern science have elements of contrivance because of the inherent
dificulties in relating the different pictures of reality that both
paint. Many theologians just give up on the difficulties and assume
that Adam and Eve are non-historical. But Jesus believed in the
essential historicity of Adam and Eve (Mt 19:4-6), and this cannot be
easily set aside by those who believe that Jesus was God and could
not err.
Those who reject the two-"Adam" should come up with a model which
relates the following:
1. scientific evidence that there is a succession of human-like
beings of ascending intelligence and spirituality going back millions
of years.
2. Biblical evidence that there was an Adam and Eve, the ancestors of
all modern mankind, who lived in the ANE no more that 50,000 years
ago.
It will be found that their models will have at least as many
problems as the two-"Adam" model. While I do not claim that the
2AM is the absolute stone end of the matter, I regard it as the best
high-level harmony of the Biblical and scientific pictures that I
have yet seen. If someone can offer a better one, I will accept it.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***