by Steve Risner
Last week was part 5 of a series we've been doing on the literary style of Genesis and how it was intended to be taken. You can read the other parts at these links: here, here, here, and here. We began to talk about the idea that Genesis might be a polemic work against neighboring pagan religious peoples. We introduced the idea last week and touched on some of the major issues with this approach which I'll outline quickly here:
1) If the creation account is a polemic (a work against neighboring beliefs), it would only satisfactorily render neighboring religious myths false if it were true and not just a rival myth.
2) The Jews who were captive in Egypt for 400 years would likely have little to no knowledge of other people groups' religious beliefs except for the Egyptians.
3) If the work is a polemic work against neighboring pagan societies, this in no way impacts the historicity of the narrative.
One of the claims made by people who support the idea that Genesis (specifically the creation account) is poetry and, therefore, nothing more than allegory or myth like a polemic against other religious ideas, is the use of parallelism. This is defined as the use of successive verbal constructions in poetry or prose which correspond in grammatical structure, sound, meter, meaning, etc. Notice it is not restricted to poetry. An example would be Psalm 19:1: “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.” The days of creation are said to be 2 unique triads that use parallelism that represent something theological/spiritual rather than something physical or temporal. If we look at the days of creation, they say, you can see days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6 describe the same “stuff.”
Let's see what a person who accepts this idea as the truth says. She posted this on the Worldview Warriors Facebook page (under The Genesis Myth: Part 3):
“When we notice this and think of the Hebrew tendency to create parallel structures, we might begin to wonder if the author doesn’t intend days 3 and 6 to be related to each other in some way. If we follow up on this line of thought then we will look at days 1-2 as possibly related to days 4-5.”
As with the entire idea of Genesis being poetry, does it impact the historicity of the narrative if this grouping is actually legitimate? The answer is obviously (I hope to everyone), “no.” This doesn't impact the factual nature at all if (a big if) the text actually is grouped this way. It would simply indicate that God Almighty chose to create in an orderly fashion. He may have done this because He is a God of order and not chaos, or He may have chosen to do this to teach us something. Was it a response to Ancient Near Eastern people groups and their false religions? This is highly unlikely since He created all that there is long before these people groups existed. And since this writing, that of Genesis, has traditionally been predominately recognized by scholars for a very long time to be written by Moses about 1400 years before Christ walked the earth, most of these people groups would have been unknown especially to any real depths by the Hebrews. They had just spent 400 years in Egypt predominately as slaves.
Let's look at the alleged pairings to see if they, in fact, fit nicely together as these people suggest. You may be surprised. According to Tim Chaffey (Th.M., M.Div.) and Dr. Bob McCabe (Th.D., Th.M., professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary):
The Two Triads of “Days” argument is a premise that all Framework advocates agree with. Framework supporters claim that the two triads of “days” is a topical parallelism where the topics of days 1–3 are parallel with those of days 4–6. About the parallel nature of days 1 & 4, Mark Futato states, “Days 1 and 4 are two different perspectives on the same creative work.” Returning to the overall topical arrangement the entire creation account, Kline writes, “The successive members of the first triad of days [days 1–3] correspond to the successive days of the second [days 4–6].” In other words, days 1 and 4 are simply two different ways of stating the same event, as are days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6.
They go on to say:
At first glance, it may seem as if these writers are on to something. However, a closer look reveals some problems with this argument. First, this supposed semi-poetic construction is inconsistent with the fact that Genesis 1 is a historical narrative. Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd has clearly shown that Genesis 1 is written as historical narrative rather than poetry. Hebrew poetry commonly utilizes a high percentage of imperfect and perfect verbs. By contrast, Hebrew narrative is marked by a high frequency of waw-consecutive preterite verbs that indicate a sequence of events in past tense material. Comparing Judges 4 and 5 shows a good example of these differences. In Judges 4, the account of Deborah and Barak defeating the forces of Sisera is explained in historical narrative. The following chapter is a poetical song describing the same event. The difference in language is readily apparent even in English translations. The same is true with the historical narrative of Genesis 1 and poetic descriptions of creation activities such as those found in Psalm 104. After studying and cataloging 522 texts, Boyd concluded that Genesis 1 can be classified as narrative with a probability of virtually one.
In other words, the text is conclusively a narrative, containing little if any similarities with Hebrew poetic writings. I have asked those who accept this passage as poetry to show me other Hebrew poetry like it. I've not seen anything yet. Yet, we will still hear how this text (just Genesis 1 or perhaps the first few chapters; I'm not sure where the break is since there is no known change in writing) is the “basic example” of Hebrew poetry. This cannot be further from the truth. Also, the alleged similarities between the days seems, on the surface, to be in great harmony, but at a closer look we find they are not very similar at all.
More directly to the “triad of days” and their similarities, that idea is simply inconsistent with the text of Genesis 1:1-2:3. Water was not created on the second day. It was created on day 1 (according to Genesis 1:2). This happened BEFORE light was even created on the same day. So maybe we're seeing that days 1 and 5 are more similar than 2 and 5? Further, the sun, moon and stars created on day 4 were put in the heavens which were created on the second day. So, then, perhaps days 1 and 5 are parallels and days 2 and 4 are parallels, but this topples the idea of the nice and neat pairings of the polemic idea (really the Framework Hypothesis). There are other details that just don't jive with the nicely packaged paired days we often hear about concerning this new idea. The order of events here is critical for this idea if we're to believe they were theological ONLY and had nothing to do with reality or time-and-space. If we rearrange the order, the entire series of events becomes absurd.
Not to beat it to death, but another summary by Dr. Wayne Grudem summarizes:
“First, the proposed correspondence between the days of creation is not nearly as exact as its advocates have supposed. The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as ‘lights in the firmament of the heavens’ are placed not in any space created on Day 1 but in the ‘firmament’… that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this ‘firmament’ is not mentioned at all on Day 1 but five times on day 2 and three times on Day 4... Day 4 also has correspondences with Day 1, but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days, then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1.
Moreover, the parallel between Days 2 and 5 is not exact, because in some ways the preparation of a space for the fish and birds of Day 5 does not come in Day 2 but in Day 3. It is not until Day 3 that God gathers the waters together and calls them ‘seas,’ and on Day 5 the fish are commanded to ‘fill the waters in the seas.’ Again in verses 26 and 28 the fish are called ‘fish of the sea,’ giving repeated emphasis to the fact that the sphere the fish inhabit was specifically formed on Day 3. Thus, the fish formed on Day 5 seem to belong much more to the place prepared for them on Day 3 than to the widely dispersed waters below the firmament on Day 2. Establishing a parallel between Day 2 and Day 5 faces further difficulties in that nothing is created on Day 5 to inhabit the ‘waters above the firmament,’ and the flying things created on this day not only fly in the sky created on Day 2, but also live and multiply on the ‘earth’ or ‘dry land’ created on Day 3. (Note God’s command on Day 5: ‘Let birds multiply on the earth.’)
Finally, the parallel between Days 3 and 6 is not precise, for nothing is created on Day 6 to fill the seas that were gathered together on Day 3. With all of these points of imprecise correspondence and overlapping between places and things created to fill them, the supposed literary ‘framework,’ while having an initial appearance of neatness, turns out to be less and less convincing upon closer reading of the text.”
This should put the entire idea to rest, really, but I know those who hold to such strange, new ideas (this was first introduced by Arie Noordtzij in 1924) are so dug in they will not be moved by any evidence to the contrary. It appears to me that they need to hold onto their claim of “science” telling us things it can't possibly tell us (like the age of the earth or the universe or origin of life) but want desperately to hold onto their faith in Christ as their Savior. They (like many unbelievers as well) have turned a great deal of “science” into a religious belief and care little for the facts of the matter.
We will continue to show the absurdity of the polemic idea and also that of the poetic idea in future writings. I hope you'll stick with us. Thank you for your interest.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
6 comments:
My comment part 1 of 2
QUOTE
The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as ‘lights in the firmament of the heavens’ are placed not in any space created on Day 1 but in the ‘firmament’… that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this ‘firmament’ is not mentioned at all on Day 1 but five times on day 2 and three times on Day 4... Day 4 also has correspondences with Day 1, but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days, then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1.
END QUOTE
So the term 'in' the 'expanse (raqia) of the sky (ha-shamayim)' regarding the luminaries is referring mainly or strictly to a blandly 'cosmic' location of 'in' (i.e. 'the hat is “in” the hat box'; 'the dishes are “in” the cupboard')? According to this thinking, it does not matter, for a proper interpretation of this, that the luminaries are meant be viewable from the Earth, that is, phenomenologically and life-centrically.
But, it is universally normal to use the term 'in the sky' regarding the luminaries in this phenomenological way. Indeed, no one today assumes any cosmological error on the part of someone who observationally says, 'I see the Sun and birds in the sky.' In fact, this person may well mean to imply all of the ways in which this 'in' and 'sky' are correctly used for both 'Sun' and 'birds'. In other words, this can well be an economical way of referring to all these ways. A similar thing commonly occurs when we say, 'look at the Sunrise'.
Therefore, it is eminently reasonable to assume that the phrase 'in the raqia ha-shamayim' in regard to the luminaries in Genesis 1:14-18 means to make a more explicitly distinctive reference such as 'in the atmosphere-outer space'. Thus, the 'in' serves the same double duty as does the 'in' for a modern person's statement that 'The Sun is in the sky, phenomenologically, and in outer space three-dimensionally.' The same word 'in' is used both ways. So it would be no error to say, 'the Sun is in the special, atmospheric sky and in the general sky that would here imply outer space.' This just an explicit duality of meaning to that of the implicit one of a normal meaning for 'the Sun and birds are in the sky.'
Some YECs believe that the term 'ha-shamayim' (vs. 1, 9, etc.) in Genesis 1 is just a way of saying 'shamayim' (v. 8 only). So they claim that the phrase 'in the raqia ha-shamayim' regarding the luminaries is just an equation reminding the reader or hearer that 'God called the raqia “shamayim”' (v. 8).
But, in the account, it is self-evident that the 'ha-' prefix used for 'ha-erets' is not referring to the same exact thing as it refers to by 'erets' without the prefix. In fact, in Genesis 1 and 2 combined, there are at least five distinct words each of which strictly refers to a distinct thing regarding the general idea of 'that which is underfoot'. There is one term for 'dust' or particles ('apar', Gen 2:7); another term is for such things as land regions and land-versus seas ('erets'); another term is for dirt as a kind or range of thing ('adama' and 'ha-adama'); there is another term specifically for 'dry ground' as opposed to submerged by water ('yabbashah'); and there is term specifically for 'the entire Earth', as in planet Earth ('ha-erets').
My comment part 2 of 2
The account makes little sense in all these terms if we ignore them all and reduce them to one undifferentiated word, such as 'earth', and let the context alone help us determine which exact thing is meant in each instance. So it makes even less sense to 'conceptually' so reduce them, since the account uses all of them.
Are they all just different words for the same exact thing? If that is so, then the account is therein engaging in a nearly-useless kind of variety---as if the account would be boring without it. But, if that is the case, then the account is too much like a simplistic Fairy Tale, only one that uses a nearly useless variety of words for the same exact thing. But it self-evidently does not so use this variety of terms for things 'underfoot'. This is self evident to anyone who bothers to read the Hebrew text with its self-evidently different things in mind.
Also, Genesis 2:4a uses only 'ha-shamayim' and 'ha-erets, while 2:4b uses only 'shamayim' and 'erets'. It would be useless if this were a parallelism of near or exact equivalence, and not a parallelism of relationality between distinct things. Parallels of relationality between distinct things are such as 'man and husband'; 'husband and wife'; 'planet and land masses'; 'general sky and special, atmospheric sky'.
Indeed, Genesis 1 is overall about the planet and the cosmos, and Genesis 2 about only the land mass on which humans abide. So the idea of parallelism of relationality between distinct things makes the far better sense of Genesis 2:4 than does parallelism of near or exact equivalence. In other words, this verse thereby best affirms, and distinguishes between, Genesis 1 and 2. In fact, in this way, the reader or hearer is given to expect that Genesis 2 is about only that---and is not, as many skeptics claim, an unexpectedly alternate and contrary account of how God created everything.
So it would be odd, to say the least, if the referent in Genesis 1 for 'ha-shamayim' and 'shamayim' were exactly the same. It especially would be odd if it were either the physical spatial dimension or a merely generalistic 'sky'; or, depending purely on 'context', if it were the luminary realm as distinct from that where the weather happens, or vice versa. This is because of something that Faulkner reasons on the account: God, on the one hand,
(A) would not have burdened the ancient Hebrews with a concept to which they supposedly cannot have related, the geometrically cosmic thinness of Earth's breathable air,
and, on the other hand,
(B) did exactly that for some entirely non-intuitive and esoteric physical cosmological object (an effective shell of water surrounding the total body of stars and galaxies).
This is a most stark double standard. It also does so by invoking the lesser value (mere physical constituency) at the expense of the greater value (Divine Design, even of that same constituency). One could be forgiven for thinking that Faulkner would be happy if Genesis 1 were entirely about 'cosmic physics', that is, so that the Bible contained no account of the creation of the Earth's ecology.
Faulkner, D. (2016). Thoughts on the rāqîa‘ and a Possible Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background. Answers Research Journal 9 (2016):57-65.
Thank you, Daniel, for your very detailed comments. I appreciate your take and the Hebrew insights you've brought to it.
So what is your take away from this? What's the bottom line you're getting at?
Thanks!
Reply Part 1 of 2
Hi Steve! What I am getting at is that, for any historical and true narrative, form follows function. This is the especially for such narratives that also are the metaphysical ideal on their topic.
But, what sort of such a narrative constitutes that ideal? If we are convinced that Genesis 1 is a case of such an ideal, then we must try to see just how to interpret it so that is it nothing short of all these values.
In regard to this, there are various adverse ways to approach the account. The most popular way among us Calendar Day creationists is a hermeneutic that says, 'since God can x, therefore God may very well have done x'. This hermeneutic cannot achieve all of the above values. In fact, it is fairly guaranteed to work contrary to those values. This does not means it precludes or obliterates those values. But it does mean that such a hermeneutic falls short of the ideal.
For, God is not some uptight, all-powerful, 'perfectly foreknowing' Creator version of a Complete Blank Slate Mind. Such a mind, despite its being the 'perfectly foreknowing' Creator, has no inherent sense of values save the one: being uptight regarding those who shall reject belief that Itself exists and is the Creator and rule-maker.
Such a 'Platonic' conception about the Creator fits well for describing any version of God save the God of the Bible. It therefore fits well BOTH the view that Genesis 1 is mere polemic poetry and the above hermeneutic that says, 'since God can x, therefore God may very well have done x'.
So, for a historical, true, and metaphysically ideal narrative of origins, form follows function. By definition, it cannot include any element of a Blank Slate 'Platonic' conception as to the Creator. This means that, for a Fallen human being, the proper way to interpret it must be one that comes from seeking to know just what is the ideal, the central, values, not what is merely 'logically possible given God's power and sovereignty.
God's sovereignty is in no way contrary to the purity of His goodness. But most Calendar Day creationists, in thinking that the 'Platonic' hermeneutic is equivalent to godly submission to Genesis 1, seem personally satisfied with rendering God as an uptight Chef who, in order to rebuke His critics, poisons the very food He serves to everyone.
It is in rejection of such 'food' that arises the bias according to which Genesis 1 'must be polemic poetry instead of historical narrative.' And there is plenty of evidence that, for the ignorant, seem validly used to confirm this bias.
But, of course, this bias is based on an intuition that true history must be void of deep patterns. But is not the cosmos itself full of deep patterns? Form follows function.
Reply Part 2 of 2
As for the deep detail for why Genesis 1 is not polemic poetry, we can consider:
(1) the nature of the historical relation between self-evident truth and error,
(2) the history of Ancient Near Eastern information technology,
(3) the fact that the book of Genesis is a Mosiac paper copy-collection of the some, if not all, of the original records of and by the Patriarchs,
(4) a particular subset of universal facts of natural language.
Imagine any universally self-evident truth. Now imagine a departure from that truth that borrows from the formal representation of that truth. Such borrowing shall have some formal likeness to that truth.
It often is for evil motives that this kind of borrowing is committed. For instance, it may be committed so as to better ensure that the gullible who are already familiar with the form of that truth will accept the departure in place of the truth. Such is a favorite way of anyone who tends toward being an ungodly tyrant over a large number of people.
But the main point here is that wickedly motivated errors begin as a departure from an originally known truth.
So, right away, Genesis 1 can reasonably be supposed not to be, nor involve, polemic contrivance. This is because of the self-evident fact that, if (if) Genesis 1 is in any way the truth of physical cosmic origins, then (then) it could possess the most profound possible polemic utility. By analogy, the truth that 2+2=4 is a truth from which such errors as financial fraud are a contingent departure. And it already is clear that ANE pagan creation myths are, or involve, erroneous and wicked nonsense.
Also, according to Mosaic literary positioning in the book (scroll) of Genesis, the text we call Genesis 1-2 was part of a set of Patriarchal records that predated Moses, the same for the rest of the book of Genesis. Moses simply wrote it all down in a single scroll.
The reason Moses would have done this seems naturally to have been because, prior to the rise of Egypt as an empire of an arid-but-watered land, paper technology had not been the informational technology of choice.
There had been certain advantages to prior information technologies, such as clay tablets. This was due to the extreme precipitation conditions following the Flood of Noah. For similar reasons, clay tablets likely were used prior to the Flood due to lush conditions of the pre-Flood globe.
It was only once the climate of the post-Flood Middle East became arid did paper technology arise as the information technology of general choice. This is because paper information technology is far more information-dense per physical mass. This naturally encouraged both wider dissemination of information and a greater amount of writing.
The most marked drawback of paper info tech in the ANE was that copies had to be done by hand. For, mass-production printing technology for large amounts of information had not yet been invented.
The clay tablet technology, by contrast, had very obvious and easy mechanical copying ability. Specifically, a fired tablet could obviously be used to impress a reverse-convex copy in soft clay, and that reverse copy, once fired, used to quickly press as many concave copies as required or desired.
Thank you, again, Daniel. I appreciate your time and your knowledge on this. I apologize for the long delay in response.
It appears you hold to the toledoth theory on the writing/editing of Genesis. I tend to agree with this but would be fine if it were found out to be incorrect.
Post a Comment