Read Genesis 1-3 to See Where the J, E and P Stories Overlap
Humanity not pronounced good: A re-reading of Genesis 1:26-31 in dialogue with Genesis 2-3
Hulisani Ramantswana
Unisa
Correspondence
Abstruse
The cosmos of humanity on day six of creation is the climax of creation (Gen 1:26-30); notwithstanding, there is an anomaly at this climactic moment of creation, which interpreters tend to overlook: humanity is not singled out as "good. " The anomaly is accentuated by the fact that the final evaluative formula, "and God saw everything that he fabricated, and behold, information technology was very good" (Gen ane:31), which is by and large regarded equally encompassing cosmos activities from the kickoff 24-hour interval to the sixth twenty-four hours. This necessitates the question: why is humanity not singled out as "skilful," as with about of the cosmos activities? This article suggests that the reply to this question rests in the dialogic relationship betwixt the 2 cosmos narratives, Gen one:ane-two:4a and Gen ii:4b-iii:24. The second creation narrative, Gen 2:4b-3:24, is for the most office a resumption of twenty-four hour period six of creation. Contrary to the commonly held view that Gen 3 describes events subsequent to the creation procedure, or that it is thematically and materially different, this essay suggests that Gen 3 be viewed as thematically and materially related to Gen i:26-31, and thereby provides a key every bit to why humanity is not singled out equally "good."
A INTRODUCTION
The creation of humanity on day half-dozen of cosmos, every bit is oftentimes noted, is the climax of creation (Gen one:26-30). i All the same, there is an odd anomaly at this climactic moment of creation, which interpreters tend to overlook: humanity is not singled out as "skillful." The bibelot is accentuated by the fact that the final evaluative formula, "and God saw everything that he made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen one:31), is by and large regarded as encompassing all cosmos activities from the starting time twenty-four hours to the 6th day. This necessitates the question: why is humanity not singled out every bit "good" as with most of the creation activities? This essay suggests that the answer to this question rests in the dialogic relationship betwixt the two creation narratives, Gen one:1-2:4a and Gen 2:4b-iii:24. This is specially so if Gen 3 is viewed every bit role of the cosmos process, thereby taking Gen 2:4b-3:24 in toto as a cosmos narrative, and not just Gen 2:4b-25.
In reading the ii creation narratives, I adopt a dialogic approach in which Gen one-3 is viewed as a polyphonic text. In Bakhtinian terms, a polyphonic text is characterised by dialogism, that is, the intertextual dimension of the text in which "all discourse is in dialogue with prior soapbox, likewise as with discourse notwithstanding to come, whose reaction information technology foresees and anticipates." 2 A polyphonic text, every bit Newsom notes, is "an intentional artistic presentation of the dialogic nature of an idea." 3 The author of a polyphonic text is viewed every bit a artistic designer of his/her artistic piece of work, which is "dialogic through and through." four In this approach it is not necessary to make a heuristic assumption of a plurality of sources, as in the historical critical approach; rather, Gen 1-three will be treated every bit a as work by a artistic author who artistically designed his work. Thus, this study is concerned with the text in its final form. The two creation narratives are viewed as standing in a dialogic relationship in which they mutually enrich each other and there is a widening of meaning. This implies that the beginning creation narrative is dialogically expanded past the second creation narrative and vice versa, and thus each of these two cosmos narratives, Gen 1:one-two:4a and Gen 2:4b-three:24, is a perspective on the other.
B AN ANOMALY ON THE SIXTH 24-hour interval OF Creation
The bibelot in Gen 1:i-2:4a is peradventure not easily noticeable, considering the history of estimation of this text, which tends to view the terminal climactic evaluation as implying that creation as it came from the hands of God was "perfect," implying that it was sinless or without distortions or imperfections. Narratively the text seems to pose no problems, every bit the evaluative formula appears in almost all the creation days, with the exception of 24-hour interval ii, and thereby accentuates the positivity of the narrative. The about notable anomaly is the absence of the evaluation formula with regard to the creation of the sky (firmament) bike on the second twenty-four hours of creation. However, a similar anomaly is found on the 6th 24-hour interval of creation, in the creation of humanity cycle.
In the Masoretic Text (MT) in that location are seven evaluative formulas in total; notwithstanding, in the Septuagint (LXX) we have eight evaluative formulas in total, as there is an evaluative formula on the cosmos of sky cycle (second twenty-four hours) in the LXX where there is none in the MT. The Lxx supplies the evaluative formula for mechanical uniformity, unless the Seventy were following a variant text. 5 Surprising, still, is that the LXX translators do not harmonise the bibelot on the sixth day of cosmos, which the translator(southward) possibly did non take annotation of or intentionally did not harmonise.
The anomaly in the sixth day is not easily noticeable. The sixth mean solar day of creation appears to exist consequent with the third mean solar day of creation equally they both have a double evaluative formula:
Genesis one:9-xiii
God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into one place, and permit the dry ground appear".... And information technology was so .... And God saw that it was practiced.
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and copse on the state that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so... And God saw that it was proficient. And in that location was evening, and at that place was morning, the tertiary day.
Genesis 1:24-31
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds" ... And it was then ... And God saw that information technology was good.
And so God said, "Let u.s. make homo in our image, in our likeness, and let them dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the footing" .... God blessed them and said to them ... Then God said ... And information technology was so. God saw all that he had made, and information technology was very skilful. And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
In both days in that location are two creation cycles and two evaluative formulas; however, the two are not entirely consistent in their structures. In the creation of dry land and sea cycle (vv. 9-10) and the creation of vegetation cycle (vv. eleven-12) of the third day, and the creation of state creatures bicycle (vv. 24-25), the 
I am convinced that if the author wanted to unmarried out humanity as "expert" or "very proficient" every bit a climax, he/she would have followed either of the following options:
Option 1: Following the creation of light cycle structure in Gen 1:iii-v, the cosmos of humanity bike construction would be rendered as follows; besides notation in particular the position and wording of the evaluation formula:
In this structure, just equally the light is singled out as proficient in the cosmos of light bicycle, humanity would exist singled out as proficient.
Option ii: Post-obit the common structure of divine announcement, 
This positioning of the 
This is the structuring employed in the Lxx with regard to the creation of heaven bicycle of the second day to establish uniformity with other creation cycles. Run across below the unlike structures of the MT and Lxx:
Selection three: Following the structure of the creation of bounding main and flight creatures cycle (vv. 20-23), which has the approval attribute, the structure of the creation of humanity bike would be as follows:
The positioning of the evaluation formula prior to the blessing would take established congruence between the creation of body of water and flying creatures cycle and the human creation bike.
If any of the options above was followed in the human cosmos cycle, it would be logical to conclude that humanity is singled out equally "expert," but none of the options in a higher place is followed. The last evaluative formula in Gen 1:31 does not single out humanity as good, as well taking into consideration the following:
First, in the human being cosmos cycle, the food provision aspect is not solely focused on humanity; it likewise includes land creatures. The food provision attribute is marked off by the use of the first person singular, "I have given" 
Secondly, in the human creation cycle, the 
For the author of Gen 1, the cosmos of humankind should be viewed as included in the terminal evaluative formula. This implies that humankind is good just in and so far as humankind is part of the overall "very practiced" creation. The question, however, remains: Why is humanity non singled out as proficient?
C WHY IS HUMANITY NOT SINGLED OUT Equally Good?
The anomaly with regard to the creation of humanity does not have to exist viewed every bit an accidental omission, but may rather be seen equally an intentional silence or gap in the text. This gap in the text, to utilize Sternberg's words, "becomes proportionate to the havoc it plays with (or the other manner circular, the contribution its filling would make to) the intelligibility of the plot." vii In dialogic terms, the gap in the text is role of the author's intention to make his/her work rich in potentials. 8 The absence of the evaluation formula serves equally an intentional literary technique by the author to create openness in the text. In then doing, the author generates suspense and anticipation in the story. 9
The absence of the evaluative formula in the human creation cycle (Gen 1:26-xxx) functions as an initiating means in apprehension of a response that has the potential of enriching the initial outcome in unexpected ways. The first creation narrative, inasmuch as information technology is a cocky-contained narrative, is too an open text in that information technology forms part of a larger narrative. The Gen ane:ane-2:4a cosmos narrative does not independently tap into the suspense information technology generates; rather, it anticipates another voice, which comes in the form of some other creation narrative, Gen 2:4b-3:24. Dissimilar in the historical disquisitional view in which the 2 creation narratives are attributed to dissimilar sources, with Gen 1:i-2:4a attributed to the Priestly (P) author and Gen 2:4b-3:24 to the Yahwist (J) or the non-Priestly (non-P) author, the second creation narrative is in the proposed view not from a different source. Considering the book Genesis in its final form, both cosmos narratives are here viewed as plumbing fixtures within the premises of the author of Genesis, who set up the two narratives in a dialogic relationship in which they mutually enrich each other.
In the traditional reading of Gen 1-3, Gen 1:ane-2:4a'southward creation narrative is a story of an originally "very good" cosmos equally it came from the hands of God prior to the distortions of Gen 3. In this reading, Gen 1:1-2:4a corresponds with Gen 2:4a-25. 10 Gen 2:25 in this reading is regarded as the "climax of creation" with humanity in a land of harmony and innocence. 11 The dogmatic reading of the biblical storyline as creation-fall-redemption-consummation puts the fall as an event that is subsequent to God's "very adept" creation. This story line, every bit Spykman argues, methodologically implies "adopting a canonical social club of Scripture, commencement with the Genesis narrative, which itself begins with cosmos." 12
In the classical historical disquisitional approach, equally already noted, the 2 cosmos narratives do not fit within the bounds of a single author. In this view, Gen one:ane-two:4a (P) is usually regarded every bit younger than Gen 2:4b-3:24 (J or non-P). In the current state of affairs, it is either the P cosmos narrative that was written as a response to the non-P creation narrative, xiii or conversely the non-P creation narrative that was written as a response to the P creation narrative. fourteen Gen 2:4b-three:24, on the other paw, have been viewed since the fourth dimension of Karl Budde as a combination of ii independent traditions, the cosmos tradition and the paradise tradition. 15 In this reading of Gen two:4b-3:24, the creation tradition is considered to be contained within Gen ii:4b-25, whereas the paradise tradition is generally regarded to exist extending from Gen ii to Gen 3. 16
According to von Rad, Gen ii:24 forms a conclusion of a "formerly contained and compact cluster of material" and Gen iii "begins something new, not only thematically, simply also materially." 17 For Westermann, Gen 2:4b-24, with the exception of vv. ix-17, "is a self-independent narrative with a narrative construction that corresponds to the course of the upshot." 18 For Westermann, the story of the creation of humanity found in Gen ii was fused with the story of alienation from God which is establish in Gen 3, to grade "the primeval narrative of crime and penalisation." nineteen Carr regards the man's celebration of the woman in Gen 2:23 to exist corresponding with the final divine pronouncement that all was very expert in Gen 1:31. 20 For Carr, Gen iii is a redactional extension of the early creation narrative in Gen 2. 21 Thus, from a historical critical perspective, the creation tradition in the J or non-P creation account is generally considered to be corresponding to Gen ane:ane-ii:4a equally a story of an originally "very good" creation.
The problem with both the traditional reading and the historical critical readings is that both fail to recognise Gen two:4b-iii:24 in toto every bit a creation narrative. The separation of Gen 2:4b-three:24 into the creation account in Gen 2:4b-25 and the fall account in Gen 3:i-24 misses the anticipatory character of the first creation narrative. The havoc that is wreaked by the absence of the evaluation formula with regard to the cosmos of humankind finds its solution when the two narratives are read equally continuing in a dialogic human relationship in which they mutually enrich each other. Gen two:4b-three:24 as a whole, as will be evidenced beneath, should be viewed every bit a creation story and not simply Gen two:4b-25. The second creation narrative, Gen ii:4b-3:24, is for the most office a resumption of the sixth day of creation. As Carr likewise notes, considering the terminal form of the text, "the creation and punishment story in Gen 2:4b-3:24 serves well every bit an elaboration and specification of Gen 1:1-2:3." 22 Still, in contrast to Carr, Gen 2:4b-iii:24 is not a story of "cosmos and penalization" every bit two separate events. Gen 3 forms role of the creation process and is therefore also a resumption of the sixth day of cosmos, especially picking up on the lack of the pronouncement of humanity every bit "adept."
i Congruence Between Genesis 1:24-31 and Genesis 2:seven-3:24
In that location are many linguistic, literary, structural, and thematic correspondences between the first creation narrative, Gen ane:i-ii:4a, and the second cosmos narrative, Gen ii:4b-3:24, and I practice not try hither to give an exhaustive overview of these, but will but draw attending to some of the links between the sixth day of creation, Gen 1:24-31, and the second creation narrative, particularly focusing on Gen ii:7-iii:24. 23 Ouro in his study on "Linguistic and Thematic Parallels Betwixt Genesis ane and three" points to a number of antithetical parallelisms and synonymous parallelisms betwixt the two chapters, on the basis of which he suggests the linguistic and literary dependence of Gen 3 on Gen one. 24 Involvement here is non to determine the direction of dependence between the kickoff creation narrative and the second creation narrative; rather, the focus hither is on how the two narratives mutually enrich each other, considering their linguistic, literary, structural, and thematic correspondences.
The structure of Gen 2:seven-3:24 basically follows the same structure we detect in Gen i:24-thirty, despite the variations. Come across the suggested construction below:
The following observations may exist made regarding the structure of Gen ane:24-30 and Gen 2:vii-xxx:
Get-go, the 2d cosmos narrative elaborates on the animal creation and human being creation, which in the first creation narrative are creation activities of the same twenty-four hours. The cosmos of state animals precedes the creation of humanity 
Others, nevertheless, propose that the employ of wayyîtser in Gen 2:19a is all-time viewed is an instance of temporal recapitulation. 25 In this view, the wayyîtser in Gen 2:19a is to be translated as a pluperfect, "had formed," pointing to an event prior to the immediate narrative sequence. 26 In line with this view, the NIV renders Gen 2:nineteen as follows: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the basis all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to come across what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living fauna, that was its proper name." 27 In this reading, the creation of animals is regarded as preceding the creation of the homo existence; information technology is, still, the bringing and the naming of the animals which are subsequent to the creation of the man. The unsuccessful attempt to observe a "helper" for the human from the animate being kingdom is coupled with the bringing and the naming of the animals. According to McCabe, "the temporal recapitulation in verse 19 transcends the immediate pericope of 2:4-25 and looks back to the previous pericope in 1:1-2:3." 28 I observe it unnecessary to try to harmonise Gen 2:19 with the sequential presentation in Gen 1:24-30, because this text betrays a strict sequential reading in vv. 29-30. The land animal cycle and the man cycle, every bit both narratives suggest, overlap with each other. In the second cosmos narrative, the country animal wheel functions equally a bridge between the cosmos of the homo 
Secondly, the cosmos of humanity 
Thirdly, the Gen 1:28 twofold cosmos mandate or blessing-the multiplication of humanity and humanity'southward lordship over creation-is resumed in Gen 3 in the wake of humanity's transgression. The attribute of human procreation is taken upwardly in Gen 3 on two levels. First, within the judgment scene in vv. fourteen-19, where God'south words to the adult female in five. 16 are an indication of human fertility-the adult female "shall bear children." Verse sixteen also functions every bit aetiology to explain the painful feel which women go through in childbearing. Accordingly, in the multiplication of pain will be the multiplication of human-ity. 29 Secondly, the man makes a positive affirmation regarding human procreation in the naming of his married woman, Eve, "because she was the mother of all living" (Gen three:twenty). 30 The aetiological note in Gen 2:24, as Bauks notes, anticipated the procreation mandate in Gen iii:16 and xx on the ground of the parent-child motif. 31 The adult female is the homo's "helper" 
As Fretheim notes, the function of humanity in Gen 1:26-28 is essentially the aforementioned as that stated in Gen 2:v. 33 The attribute of humanity subduing the earth in Gen 1:28 parallels the human mandate in Gen two:15 and even more and then in Gen 3:23. The initial mandate "to work and intendance" for the Garden of Eden in Gen 2:15 is superseded in Gen three:23, as human being beings are expelled from the garden and new guards are set to guard the style to the tree of life (v. 23-24). In then doing, the creation mandate to 
Fourthly, Gen 1:29-30 deals with the food provision for human being beings and animals, a discipline that is dealt with in Gen ii-three with special reference to humanity. In Gen i:29, homo beings are provided with two kinds of vegetation for food-
Fifthly, in both creation narratives the aspect of human likeness to God is part of the homo creation process. In Gen 1:26-27, the human likeness to God is presented every bit a divine initiative, "let united states of america create man in our image, in our likeness." In the second creation narrative the human likeness to God is a discipline affair in Gen 3, which is anticipated in Gen 2:16-17 with the pedagogy regarding what the human being being may and may not eat. It is God who sets the phase for the further creation process, although He is not the executioner; it is not uncommon in biblical literature for God to take credit for acts that he did not execute in person. 36
The human likeness to God in Gen 1:26-27 is portrayed as a superlative-downwardly process. In the second creation narrative, God's admission of man likeness to the divine, as in Gen 1:26, is stated in the kickoff person plural, exhibiting clear correspondence between these texts. From the bottom up, humanity's likeness to God is function of the creation process. In the second creation narrative, the human likeness to God is presented as a human initiative through humanity's transgression. Withal, the privilege of being like God comes with the loss of other privileges-the privilege of eating from the tree of life and the privilege of remaining in the garden. Humanity'southward likeness to God becomes a privilege that humanity has to enjoy outside the garden as a tiller of the footing (Gen 3:22-23).
The problem of being "similar God" also has a positive side to it. In the first creation narrative, humanity as a divine image is in no way enclosed; rather, it is ready on world with the mandate to fill the earth, and not in some out of reach location-the Garden of Eden, as Stordalen describes information technology, a "globe apart." 37 In the end, both creation narratives locate the image of God nowhere else other than on "the ground" 
The parallels between Gen one:24-30 and Gen 2:4b-three:24, particularly Gen 3, are non antithetical parallels which point to the great deterioration of cosmos; rather, the 2nd creation narrative sharpens or intensifies the first cosmos narrative. The 2d cosmos narrative drives the point abode equally to why humanity is not pronounced good.
Thus, post-obit the narrative flow of the second cosmos narrative, the creation process comes to an terminate with humanity having transgressed the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of proficient and bad, given in Gen 2:17. The prohibition quickly led to the actual eating-a violation of the prohibition. 38 The violation of the prohibition resulted in the reuniting of humanity with the basis from which information technology was taken and for which information technology was created-the ground outside the Garden of Eden. The credible negativity in the second creation narrative in as much as it may be understood every bit counteracting the positiv-ity of the commencement cosmos narrative is better viewed every bit tapping into gap in the first creation narrative-the absence of an evaluation formula to single out humanity every bit "skillful."
D Decision
For the writer of Gen 1-3, the "very adept" creation is 1 in which deterioration took identify. The correspondences between Gen one:24-31 and Gen 2:4b-iii:24 are indicative of the reiterating nature of the 2nd cosmos narrative equally a whole, particularly focused on the sixth day of creation. What in the beginning creation narrative is stated in just a few sentences is in the second creation narrative an elaborate story with many twists and turns. These correspondences besides illustrate that Gen 2:4b-3:24, as a whole, accept to exist viewed as a creation narrative. The creation process in Gen two:4b-3:24 finds its logical determination in Gen iii:24, as also evidenced by the basic plot of Gen 2:4b-3:24, to which I shall turn attending in a publication to follow on this one.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. Problems of Dostoevsky'due south Poetics. Edited and Translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. [ Links ]
Barr, James. "Human and Nature: The Ecological Controversy and the Old Testament." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 55 (1972-73): ix-32. [ Links ]
Bauks, Michael. "Text- and Reception-Historical Reflections on Transmissional and Hermeneutical Techniques in Genesis 2-3." Pages 139-68 in The Pentateuch. Edited past Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. [ Links ]
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992. [ Links ]
Blum, Erhard. "Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur theologischen Anthropologie der Paradieserzählung." Pages 9-22 in Göttes Nähe im Alten Testament. Edited by Gonke Eberhardt and Khathrin Liess. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 202. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004. [ Links ]
Boomershine, Thomas Eastward. "The Structure of Narrative Rhetoric in Genesis ii-iii." Semeia 18 (1980): 113-29. [ Links ]
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Printing, 1982. [ Links ]
Budde, Karl. Die biblische Urgeschichte: Gen. 1-12:5: Anhang: Die älteste Gestalt der biblischen Urgeschichte, versuchsweise wiederhergestellt, hebräischer text und uebersetzung. Giessen: Ricker'sch, 1883. [ Links ]
Carr, David Thousand. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. [ Links ]
______. "Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of Eden Story." Journal of Biblical Literature 112/4 (1993): 577-95. [ Links ]
Cassuto, Umberto. From Adam to Noah. Volume 1 of A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961. [ Links ]
Collins, C. John. Genesis ane-4: Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2006. [ Links ]
______. "The Wayyiqtol as 'Pluperfect': When and Why." Tyndale Bulletin 46/1 (1995): 117-40. [ Links ]
Melt, Johann. "The Translator of the Greek Genesis." Pages 169-82 in La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea: Five. Congreso de la IOSCS. Textos y Estudios: Cardenal Cisneros 34. Madrid, 1984. [ Links ]
Culley, Robert C. "Action Sequence in Genesis 2-iii." Semeia 18 (1980): 25-34. [ Links ]
Fretheim, Terence E. God and the World in the One-time Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. [ Links ]
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997. [ Links ]
Hamilton, Victor P. Genesis: Chapters ane-17. New International Commentary of the Quondam Testament. Thou Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. [ Links ]
Hart, Ian. "Genesis one:ane-two:three as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis." Tyndale Bulletin 46/two (1995): 315-36. [ Links ]
Hauser, Alan J. "Genesis two-iii: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation." Pages 20-36 in Fine art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Edited by David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn and Alan J. Hauser. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 19. Sheffield: JSOT Printing, 1982. [ Links ]
Humbert, Paul. Études sur le récit du pardis et de la chute dans la Genèse. Memoires de l'Université de Neuchâtel 14. Neuchâtel: Secretariat de l'Univesité, 1940. [ Links ]
______. "Mythe de création et mythe paradisiaque danas le 2nd chapitre de la Gènese." Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses xvi (1936): 445-61. [ Links ]
Jobling, David. "Myth and Its Limits in Genesis 2:4b-three:24." Pages 17-forty in Structural Studies in the Hebrew Bible. Volume two of The Sense of Biblical Narrative Two. Edited by David Jobling. Journal for the Report of Old Testament Supplement Series 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. [ Links ]
______. "The Myth Semantics of Genesis ii:4b-three:24." Semeia xviii (1980): 41-59. [ Links ]
______. "A Structural Assay of Genesis two:4b-3:24." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1 (1978): 61-69. [ Links ]
Keel, Othmar and Silvia Schroer. Schöpfung: Biblische Theologien im Kontext altorientalischer Religiosität. Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, 2002. [ Links ]
Levin, Christoph. "Tatberich und Wortbericht in dier priesterschriftlichen Schöpfungserzählung." Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 91 (1994): 115-33. [ Links ]
Matthews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. Volume 1A. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996. [ Links ]
McCabe, Robert V. "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Cosmos Week." Pages 211-49 in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Say-so and the Age of the World. Edited past Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury. Dark-green Forest: Masters Books, 2008. [ Links ]
McKenzie, John L. "The Literary Characteristic of Genesis 2-3." Theological Studies xv/4 (1954): 541-72. [ Links ]
Miscall, Peter D. "Jacques Derrida in the Garden of Eden." Union Seminary Quarterly Review 44 (1990): one-ix. [ Links ]
Morson, Gary Saul and Caryl Emerson. Mikhail Bakhtin: Cosmos of Prosaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990. [ Links ]
Mowinckel, Sigmund. Erwägungen zur Pentateuch Quellenfrage. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964. [ Links ]
Naidoff, Bruce D. "A Human being to Piece of work the Soil: A New Interpretation of Genesis 2-3." Journal for the Written report of the Onetime Testament v (1978): 2-14 [ Links ]
Newsom, Carol A. "Bakhtin, the Bible, and Dialogic Truth." Journal of Religion 76 (1996): 290-306. [ Links ]
Otto, Eckart. "Dice Paradieserzählung Genesis 2-3: Eine nachpriesterschrifliche Lehrerzahlung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext." Pages 167-92 in Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit... ": Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit: Diethelm Michel Zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Anja A. Diesel, Reinhard Grand. Lehmann, Eckart Otto and Andreas Wagner. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 241. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1996. [ Links ]
Ouro, Robert. "The Garden of Eden Business relationship: The Chiastic Structure of Genesis 2-iii." Andrews Academy Seminary Studies 4/2 (2002): 219-43. [ Links ]
______. "Linguistic and Thematic Parallels Between Genesis ane and 3." Journal of the Adventist Theological Guild 13/1 (2002):44-54. [ Links ]
Patte, Daniel and Judson Parker. "A Structural Exegesis of Genesis 2 and three." Semeia 18 (1980): 55-75. [ Links ]
Pipa, Joseph A., Jr. "From Anarchy to Cosmos: A Critique of the Non-Literal Interpretations of Genesis 1:1-2:3." Pages 153-98 in Did God Create in 6 Days? Edited by Joseph Pipa Jr. and David Hall. Taylors: Southern Presbyterian Printing, 1999. [ Links ]
Rösel, Martin. Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 223. Berlin: Due west. De Gruyter, 1993. [ Links ]
Santmire, H. Paul. "The Genesis Creation Narratives Revisited: Themes for a Global Age." Interpretation 45 (1991): 366-79. [ Links ]
Sarna, Nahum. Genesis. The Jewish Publication Gild Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. [ Links ]
Spykman, Gordon J. Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. [ Links ]
Steck, Odil Hannes. Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien literakritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1,i-4a. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 115. Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, 1975. [ Links ]
Stefanovic, Zdravko. "The Swell Reversal: Thematic Links Between Genesis two and 3." Andrews Academy Seminary Studies 32/1-2 (1994): 45-56. [ Links ]
Sternberg, Meir. Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. [ Links ]
Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. [ Links ]
______. "Human, Soil, Garden: Basic Plot in Genesis 2-iii Reconsidered." Journal for the Written report of the Old Testament 53 (1992): iii-26. [ Links ]
Todorov, Tzevan. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogic Principle. Translated by Wlad Godzich. Theory and History of Literature 13. Minneapolis: Academy of Minnesota Press, 1984. Tsumura, David. Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Attestation. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. [ Links ]
Turner, Laurence A. Announcements of Plot in Genesis. Journal for the Study of the One-time Testament Supplement Series 96. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. [ Links ]
Van Wolde, Ellen. Words Get World: Semantic Studies of Genesis ane-xi. Leiden: Brill, 1994. [ Links ]
Vervenne, Marc. "Genesis one,i-ii,iv: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch." Pages 34-79 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 155. Leuven: Leuven Academy Press, 2001. [ Links ]
Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1972. [ Links ]
Walsh, Jerome T. "Genesis 2:4b-iii:24: A Synchronic Arroyo." Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1972): 113-29. [ Links ]
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-xv. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1987. [ Links ]
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-xi. Translated by John J. Scullion. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. [ Links ]
Wevers, John W. "An Apologia for LXX Studies." Bulletin of the International Arrangement of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18 (1985): 16-38. [ Links ]
Zenger, Erich. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriflichen Urgeschichte. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 112. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. [ Links ]
Dr. Hulisani Ramantswana
University of South Africa
Department of Biblical and Aboriginal Studies
P O Box 392, UNISA, 0003
E-mail: ramanh@unisa.ac.za
i Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis i-xi:26 (vol. 1A; NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 160; David Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 34; Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 31; Nahum Sarna, Genesis (JPSTC; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Lodge, 1989), 11.
two Run across Tzevan Todorov, Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogic Principle (trans. Wlad Godzich; THL 13; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), x.
3 Ballad A. Newsom, "Bakhtin, the Bible, and Dialogic Truth," JR 76 (1996): 297.
four Mikhail 1000. Bakhtin, Bug of Dostoevsky'due south Poetics (ed. and trans. by Carly Ermerson; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), twoscore. For Bakhtin some of the biblical books, especially the volume of Job, are amidst the predecessors of Dostoevsky's polyphonic work. Bakhtin writes, "The influence on Dostoevsky of Job's dialogue and several evangelical dialogues is indisputable, while Ideal dialogues simply lay outside the sphere of his interest. In its structure Job'southward dialogue is internally endless, for the opposition of the soul to God-whether the opposition be hostile or humble-is conceived in it as something irrevocable and eternal" (Bakhtin, Problems, 280).
5 According to Melt, "the harmonization of discrepancies and the explanation of cryptic passages formed an integral function of the arroyo of the translator of Genesis." Run across Johann Cook, "The Translator of the Greek Genesis," in La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea: V. Congreso de la IOSCS (TECC 34; Madrid, 1984), 169-82, esp. 182. For a similar conclusion, see John W. Wevers, "An Apologia for Lxx Studies," BIOSCS 18 (1985): 37; Martin Rösel, Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW 223; Berlin, 1993), 248-50.
6 The ױטיכן formula, according to Steck, is used to express "Festellung folgerichtiger Entsprechung" ("the assertion of a consistent equivalent"), meaning that this formula functions as link betwixt the divine guild and the report of fulfilment. See Odil Hannes Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien literakritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1,1-4a [FRLANT 115; Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, 1975), 36. See too Erich Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriflichen Urgeschichte (SBS 112; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983), 52-53; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ane-fifteen (WBC; Waco: Discussion Books Publisher, 1987), 7-8; Christoph Levin, "Tatbericht und Wortbericht in dier priesterschriftlichen Schöpfungserzählung," ZTK 91 (1994), 115-33; Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer, Schöpfung: Biblische Theologien im Kontext altorientalischer Religiosität (Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, 2002), 176.
7 Meir Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 247.
8 Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson, Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of Prosaics (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 286.
nine Sternberg defines "suspense" as a "temporal displacement by fashion of foreshadowing." See Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 259.
10 Encounter H. Paul Santmire, "The Genesis Creation Narratives Revisited: Themes for a Global Age," Int 45 (1991): 366-79.
11 Zdravko Stefanovic, "The Slap-up Reversal: Thematic Links Between Genesis 2 and iii," AUSS 32/1-2 (1994): 56; Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis: Chapters i-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 181.
12 Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (One thousand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 144.
13 Paul Humbert, Études sur le récit du pardis et de la chute dans la Genèse (MUNeu 14; Neuchâtel: Secretariat de l'Univesité, 1940), 198-203; Sigmund Mowinckel, Erwägungen zur Pentateuch Quellenfrage (Olso: Universitaetsforlaget, 1964), 27-28; Marc Vervenne, "Genesis 1,1-2,four: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch," in Studies in the Volume of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (BETL 155; ed. André Wénin; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 34-79.
14 Eckart Otto, "Dice Paradieserzählung Genesis 2-3: Eine nachpriesterschrifliche Lehrerzahlung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext," in Jedes Ding chapeau seine Zeit...": Studein zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit: Diethelm Michel Zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Anja A. Diesel et al.; BZAW 241; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1996), 167-92; Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 54-67.
15 For Karl Budde Gen 2:4b-3:24 contains a number of doublets: creation in absolute dryness in 2:five as compared with the rivers in two:10-xiv, the presence of two copse-the tree of life, and the tree of cognition of skillful and bad [2:9; 2:xvi; 3:iii; 3:24], the placing of humanity in the garden twice [2:viii, and 2:15], the double expulsion from paradise [3:23-24], within this narrative which led him to conclude that in that location are two accounts in this text: a creation account and a paradise account. Come across Karl Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Gen. 1-12:5: Anhang: Die alteste Gestalt der biblischen Urgeschichte, versuchsweise wiederhergestellt, hebraischer text und uebersetzung (Giessen: Ricker'sche, 1883). Humbert, although rejecting the idea of there being ii sources behind Gen 2-3, viewed this text equally a combination of 2 independent themes. Run into Paul Humbert, "Mythe de création et mythe paradisiaque dans le 2nd chapitre de la Gènese," RHPR sixteen (1936): 445-461.
sixteen Gunkel writes, "The two bodies of material originally had zip to practise with each other as a prelude or continuation. The two accounts were joined with each other because they both deal with the primeval period. A thorough division of sources and establishment is no longer possible, although a general separation of the bodies of material is. The paradise account surely included vv. 9, xv-17, 25; the creation account ... vv seven, 18-24." See Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (trans. Mark E. Biddle; MLBS; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Printing, 1997), 27.
17 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1972), 85.
18 Claus Westermann, Genesis i-xi (trans. John J. Scullion; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Printing, 1994), 191.
19 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 193. For Westermann, the genius of J lies in his "technique and intention" in combining the two narratives together. For J the creation account now serves as an exposition of the paradise account and in so doing J "presents the primeval event of crime and penalisation equally i which involved humankind in customs" (Westerman, Genesis, 194). In its final form, Gen 2:4b-3:24, for Westermann is not 2 narratives adjacent, but the two are "woven together by anchoring the get-go of ... Gen three in the beginning of the course of events in ... Gen 2; and this giving ascension to a new unified narrative" (Westermann, Genesis, 194).
20 David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 63.
21 It should be noted that for Carr Gen 3 never existed independently; rather, it was written as an extension of the cosmos narrative in Gen 2. See David 1000. Carr, "Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of Eden Story," JBL 112/four (1993): 577-95.
22 Carr, Reading the Fractures, 63, 68.
23 Many today regard Gen 2:4b-3:24 as a unified story structurally and thematically, see John L. McKenzie, "The Literary Characteristic of Genesis 2-iii," TS 15/4 (1954): 541-72; Jerome T. Walsh, "Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A Synchronic Arroyo," JBL 96 (1972): 113-29; Bruce D. Naidoff, "A Human being to Work the Soil: A New Interpretation of Genesis 2-3," JSOT 5 (1978): 2-14; Terje Stordalen, "Man, Soil, Garden: Bones Plot in Genesis 2-3 Reconsidered," JSOT 53 (1992): 3-26; Thomas E. Boomershine, "The Structure of Narrative Rhetoric in Genesis ii-three," Semeia 18 (1980): 113-29; Robert C. Culley, "Action Sequence in Genesis two-3," Semeia 18 (1980): 25-34; Alan J. Hauser, "Genesis 2-3: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation," in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature (ed. David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn and Alan J. Hauser; JSOTSup nineteen; Sheffield: JSOT Printing, 1982), 20-36; David Jobling, "Myth and Its Limits in Genesis ii:4b-iii:24," in Structural Studies in the Hebrew Bible (vol. 2 of The Sense of Biblical Narrative; ed. David Jobling; JSOTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 17-40; David Jobling, "A Structural Assay of Genesis 2:4b-3:24," SBLSP ane (1978): 61-69; David Jobling, "The Myth Semantics of Genesis 2:4b-3:24," Semeia 18 (1980): 41-59; Roberto Ouro, "The Garden of Eden Account: The Chiastic Structure of Genesis ii-three," AUSS 4/2 (2002): 219-43.
24 Robert Ouro, "Linguistic and Thematic Parallels Between Genesis 1 and iii," JATS 13/i (2002): 44-54.
25 Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., "From Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Non-Literal Interpretations of Genesis 1: i-two:3," in Did God Create in six Days? (ed. Joseph Pipa Jr. and David Hall; Taylors: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999), 153-98; C. John Collins, "The Wayyiqtol as 'Pluperfect': When and Why," TynBul 46.1 (1995): 11740; C. John Collins, Genesis one-iv: Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006), 19-20; Robert V. McCabe, "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Week," in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Historic period of the World (ed. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury; Light-green Forest: Masters Books, 2008), 233-40.
26 Pipa, "Chaos to Cosmos," 156.
27 Emphasis added.
28 McCabe, "Critique of the Framework," 238. Cassuto and Hamilton regard the animals created in Gen two:19 as a creation of a special group of animals that were created in order to be presented to the human being. Run into Umberto Cassuto, From Adam to Noah (vol. 1 of A Commentary on the Volume of Genesis; Jerusalem: Magnes Printing, 1961), 129; Hamilton, Chapters 1-17, 176.
29 Ouro notes that in Gen 1:18 and Gen 3:xvi in that location is a synonymous parallelism. He states, "in Genesis ane, God blesses the couple and tells them by means of three Qal imperatives, 'be fruitful; multiply, fill up the world.' Therefore, they have children in abundance. Still, in Genesis three, He tells the woman He 'volition greatly multiply' not only her conception but her sorrow, and He reiterates it when He tells here 'in pain you shall bring forth children.'" See Ouro, "Linguistic and Thematic," JATS 13/1 (2002): fifty-51.
30 See Erhard Blum, "Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur theologischen Anthropologie der Paradieserzählung," in Göttes Nahe im Alten Testament (ed. Gonke Eberhardt and Khathrin Liess; SBS 202; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004), 24.
31 Michael Bauks, "Text- and Reception-Historical Reflections on Transmissional and Hermeneutical Techniques in Genesis 2-three," in The Pentateuch (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 139-168, 145.
32 Ellen van Wolde, Words Become World: Semantic Studies of Genesis one-eleven (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 28.
33 Terence E. Fretheim, God and the Globe in the Former Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 53.
34 Laurence A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (JSOTSup 96; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Printing, 1990), 35.
35 Turner, Announcements of Plot, 36. As Hart besides argues, ככשײ ('subdue,' v. 28) likewise emphasises that in that location is a job to exist washed; it is only used of the earth itself, not the animals, and must hateful 'to piece of work' or 'to cultivate'. Cultivation is 'subduing' because it is making the soil produce what you demand it to produce, rather than simply taking what happens to abound in that location." See Ian Hart, "Genesis i:1-2:3 as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis," TynBul 46/2 (1995): 323. See as well Daniel Patte and Judson Parker, "A Structural Exegesis of Genesis two and 3," Semeia 18 (1980): 55-75; James Barr, "Human being and Nature: The Ecological Controversy and the Old Testament," BJRL 55 (1972-73): 9-32.
36 The volume of Chore offers the all-time example of this. In the prologue of Chore, God not only allows the satan to execute his devious plan against Chore, merely he also takes credit for it (Job two:3).
37 Regarding the Garden of Eden Stordalen states, "On the ane manus, we are caused to metaphrase the Eden Garden as a cosmic 'earth apart,' whose events are not believable in the ordinary realm. On the other mitt, precisely its 'otherness' accounts for its symbolical relation to the everyday world." Encounter Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis two-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (CBET 25; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 301. See besides Westermann, Genesis i-11, 215-16.
38 Peter D. Miscall, "Jacques Derrida in the Garden of Eden," USQR 44 (1990): 5-vi.
Source: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1010-99192013000200013
0 Response to "Read Genesis 1-3 to See Where the J, E and P Stories Overlap"
Post a Comment