Gen 1:1. Kermess

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Sat Sep 2 13:06:07 EDT 2000

At 11.58 02/09/00 -0400, Lee R. Martin wrote:
>Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>> I think you are taking things too far. Perhaps you would agree that John
>> 1:1 is modeled on Genesis 1:1 but they are not the same -- the say
>> different things --; am I being "creative" when I work on the idea that the
>> writer of GJohn1 had Gen1 in mind?
>Dear Ian,
>I have no idea why you are bringing in John's Gospel to our exchange. 

Dear Lee,

I was making a comparison: GJohn is derived from some form of Gen1, is it
not? It's not so similar, but the relationship should be clear.

Just as one can see a dependence of GJohn on Genesis, the relationship
between the Babylonian creation account -- and I don't say it is
specifically the one we have preserved -- and the Genesis creation account
are in some sort of analogous relationship. You seem to want the
relationship to be perfect before acknowledging it. Such a closeness is not
necessary, for there to have been a connection of dependence. When one
writes a text one uses the forms and images available in the cultural
context they were formed.

>I have not
>mentioned it nor have I given it any consideration in my thinking 
>about Gen. 1:1.  

No, I brought it in to the conversation to show that dependence doesn't
need to be so strict as you seemed to indicate you wanted it. Sorry, if I
have misunderstood (I do it often), but from what I got from your posts
youseemed to reject the relationship in some way.

>I have no theological attachment to creation 
>"ex nihilo" in Gen. 1, nor am I concerned
>to link it to John 1 when reading Genesis.




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list