@DickHarfield My issue with Kass is his conclusion that each account must be read independent of one another. This is nonsense. If a person reads 2 books on the same subject, the second one will be read with the first in mind. The same is true for authors. What the second one writes must be compared to the first to see how it was influenced. This is the point with the example of "borrowed" ideas where scholars point to non Biblical sources as the origination of Biblical records.
@DickHarfield IOW if it is acceptable to examine Genesis 1 and compare it to other ancient writings, then it must also be acceptable to examine Genesis 1 in light of Genesis 2, if in fact there are 2 different accounts which were written at different times. Therefore, the requirement Kass imposes, that the two must be read independent of one another is specious (at best).
@RevelationLad It is both reasonable and fair for you to hold different views to those held by Kass and, I might add, by the great majority of biblical scholars (I cited Collins, The Bible After Babel in this forum, in support of that contention).
Holding different opinions is what makes the world go around and can even lead to new discoveries.
As to what Kass says: He does not say that we should not compare account 1 with account 2 for the purpose of source criticism - in fact he does just this at some length. What he does say is "we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first, and vice versa." In other words, we must not alter, in our minds, one account because of what another says.
So, if I read two accounts of World War II, I may compare them and try to understand differences or contradictions, but I won't alter the sense of one account so as to avoid differences or contradictions.
In the example of 2 books on WWII, if it is possible that one was influenced by the other, I may try to understand that influence (which of course is unlikely to result in contradictions) but even if I conclude cross-fertilisation, I will still read the texts as written.
In the Genesis creation accounts, you probably know that chapter 1 is considered much later than chapter 2, so any influence will be from ch 2 to ch 1, not the other way around. On the other hand, most theological reasoning assumes an influence from ch 1 to ch 2.
The ch 1 account is seen as bearing a strong resemblance to the Babylonian creation story,
@DickHarfield I am pretty sure that if you chose to study Genesis 1 looking for allusions or direct literary or event connections with 2 in mind, you would find several. IOW just as others study the Genesis 1 looking for elements of the Babylonian creation myth, study Gen 1 with for the express purpose of find common points. If they are there (and they are) then one must conclude the second author chose to incorporate those aspects. For example, the use of Adam not man.
@RevelationLad I haven't seen your change, but look forward to doing so. My position is: i) there is no reason for you to agree with Kass; ii) there is nothing wrong with saying they were created on the same day.
My own view is that the stories are so independent of each other that iot does not make sense to talk in terms of days when reading 2nd account. But you do not hve to agree with me. :)
@DickHarfield Actually there is reason. If the critical scholars are going to give instruction, then it makes sense to apply it to see where you end up. Also, since Gen 2 has time included, it make sense to understand what that author is conveying
@RevelationLad I don't quite understand "the critical scholars are going to give instruction". Scholars do not give instructions; they interpret the Bible to the best of their ability, and sometimes disagree with each other, until perhaps they eventually reach agreement. But at all times, others are free to disagree.
Good point! But Kass must be read in terms of how he wants us to understand his reasoning. People who rely on traditional theology would disagree with that 'instruction' and I am sure Kass would respect that.
Thanks. Then I would say he is completely wrong in his approach/conclusion. Once you establish there are two you do determine which was first and then you scrupulously examine the second (later) to determine to what extent it was influenced by the first (earlier).
Agree. It may also make it clearer to point out that I did not quote Kass in full. From memory, he preceded that comment by a note that this is conditional on recognising the independence of the two accounts. To the extent you do not believe they are independent, you would not follow his advice.
It is now some years since I read his book in full, but I think he assumes P (ch1) was aware of J's account. Of course, it is also possible that P wrote his account 'off-line' and it was the Redactor who chose to put them together. We just don't know these things.
Exactly. But we do know what is found in each account. If we do exactly the opposite of Kass (and others) suggest, that is scrupously examine both for evidence of what the other knew, we can draw some conclsuions abut what they knew about the other.
Going off at a tangent. Have you ever wondered why the 'Chronicler' decided to write the Book(s) of Chronicles, given that it is largely a rewrite of the Deuteronomic History. One way of thinking is that the DH was intended to be 'archived' and replaced by the revised history. The same plan could have been intended for (parts of) Genesis?
@RevelationLad If we are both talking about ch 1 and ch 2 as tw separate accounts, we are really very much in agreement, apart from perhaps a minr disagreement about P's knowedge and understanding of ch 2. Fair comment?
If I were to study the issue of Chronicles I would start from the point that the Chronicler was inspired to write. I would start by focusing on the pattern of repetition and the impact of restating the same facts with a different emphasis.
Not sure if Gen 1 and 2 fits the same mold. In my mind Gen 1 and 2 are progressive each adding to the other, with one or the other having a dominant role in different areas.
I am saying they both fill gaps in the other. Example, water, 2 has mist and rivers - 1 has water and seas. Together you get the complete picture. Each makes sense on its own; yet each is obviously incomplete. Which raises a question: why would the later account not include anything about rivers?
It has been explained that P's account is appropriate for a maritime environment with great rivers, as Babylon is. J's account is appropriate for an arid, inland area such as Judah, where J lived and wrote, centuries before P.
J lived long before P and uses an earlier form of Hebrew, as well as always calling God by the divine name YHWH, whereas P uses Elohim as the name for God in his account
Ok - but 1 describes more water than 2. Does that line up with the assumptions? Also why no seas in 2 if describing a maritime environment? And regardless of where the accounts were written, the person would be aware of rivers. So how likely is it that an author would present a story of creation and "leave out" facts commonly known to all people? I'm sure there are theories, but the most obvious explanation is they ommission was purposeful (by both authors).
@Susan You've got me there. As you know, I am not conversant with Hebrew, so my comment is second hand. I'm sure we both agree that J uses YHWH and that P uses Elohim, which can not be explained in the context of collaboration.
@RevelationLad Both names are early. In fact some scholars (Mark Smith comes to mind) say that Elohim was earlier than YHWH. the E Source began by using Elohim, but changes to YHWH. P tends towards El Shaddai, but although late, also uses YHWH and Elohim.
@DickHarfield Do you know who said it, or what they referenced? My impression is that diachronic analysis of Biblical Hebrew beyond the basic distinction between BH and L(ate)BH is slippery. And beyond me. But Genesis is a pretty consistent language as far as I'm concerned, though I'd buy that 1 is "elevated" in some way compared to 2:4ff. (And re. J/P -- I'm not really comfortable with source critical analysis of the Pentateuch at all, so I'm not going to be much help in this conversation.)
@Susan I could try looking it up, but that will take me some time, even if I can find it. I know you are working towards a good understanding of the nuances of Hebrew, so if I can find a reference that helps, I will. Bearing in mind my own lack of knowledge.
OK - don't forget there is an historical reality taking place. Picture yourself in the Garden as Adam, do you know God or YHVH? The events of days 1 to 5/6 will always be "later" relative to the actual events from man's perspective. I believe there are 2 significant questions from Gen 2, why no darkness? Why present an account which appears to describe everything that takes place on a single day?
The author of Genesis 2 is purpose to omit "facts" which are common knowledge to all people.
@RevelationLad I know J starts by talking of the day God created the earth and the heaven (2:4), but 2:8ff does not have to be read as on the same day. However, as I said much earlier, it is good that you disagree. There is no reason for us to agree on everything, and agreement is not a precondition for harmony.
@Susan I will try. If unsuccessful, I'll keep my eyes open for a hint that could lead to the answer :)
@RevelationLad Please remember that my answer says "We are not told how much later the creation of Eve was." I did not rule out 'same day', simply pointing out that, on the basis of independence, we do not know.
@RevelationLad They may well share a common source (or perhaps not), but that is not what the question asks. I answered based on the text in front of me.
OK - the question is was "Eve" an afterthought? According to modern scholars "yes." So if Genesis 2 places everything on the same day, is it right to conclude she was an afterthought? (Especially when that contradicts every the Bible says abut God?) Also, the neame given in Genesis 2 is Woman. Genesis 3 is Eve.
Also if using independence we do know - Genesis 2 places everything on one day.
Yes: 'In Genesis 2:18, was Eve made during or after the 7 days?' Using the logic of Kass, the question should be on what day was the woman made relative to the man? Can't use Eve (Genesis 3) Can't use 7 days (Genesis 1). So before answering (from the point of modern scholars), the question needs to be cleaned up
There is no logical reason not to use ch 3, as this was written by J - howver ch 3 does not help, because Eve already exists.
Scholars can't clear up what they don't know. Any question can be answered in one of 3 ways: through faith; by speculation or by careful study of the text alone. Or of course by an unsatifactory mix of the three.
My answer is that we do not know the time between Adam's creation and Eve's creation, because the text does not tell us.
Adam gave her the name Eve after they ate. When he first saw her he called her woman. The underlying issue is the passage of time. We may not know when (what day) things happened but we do know what sequence each account records.
Also, I would submit, that a rigid application of the Kass metric, requires taking what each writes at face value. So when they say this is what happened "on the day" that is what happened on the day. Obviously that does not sound correct, but only because we know what Genesis 1 says.
@Susan :-o I was putting my hand up, waving (= o/ ) for the "hair" option. ... OK, on reflection, a bit obscure. That's how they take attendance in IRC team meetings in some *buntu sessions. Apparently. I have it on good authority.
@PaulVargas @Susan Ha! People disappearing... First Paul, now Susan. Before you know it, it will be like TeX.SE where those "generated gravatars" predominate. =/
@Joshua @Davïd Ah, the Grammarphobia blog (this seems like something that should one-box in the Library, eh?) says:
> The word “err,” meaning to be in error or make a mistake, has two acceptable pronunciations in American English. It can rhyme with either “her” or “hair.” If you’re British, however, you don’t have a choice....the one that rhymes with “her.”
@Davïd but we didn't really think you were British anyway. :-P
I get the sense that within the Americans there's a group on the East Coast that tends to be attracted to pronunciations from the other side of the Atlantic (the subset we're capable of imitating), from whom I heard the "her" option (which I initially presumed was just wrong).
@DickHarfield Interesting, thanks! I may never make it to the part where he says that, but the methodology stuff is interesting in its own right.
In Galatians 5:20, among the deeds of the flesh, Paul lists "pharmakeia," which, as i understand, is commonly translated as sorcery or witchcraft, referring to the use or administering of drugs or poisons or spells or connection to spirits, sometimes in connection with idolatry, that may possibly...