Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lee R. Martin" <lmartin AT vol.com>]

Dear Friends,
I haven't read this thread intently, and I am not sure who wrote the
statements below. Nevertheless, allow me to comment briefly on a few items.

> <<the
>>Babylonian/Sumerian accounts speak of many gods who are just as degraded
as
>>mankind. >>
>
>Is a polytheistic world view inherently inferior to one that is
>monotheistic which incorporates other divine beings?  What about the use of
>the plural, "Let us create..."

The "degraded" state of the gods is not inferred from the polytheism, but
from the actions of those gods.  They fight, lie, kill, steal, etc.  Tiamat
is killed, her blood is drained, and her body is split in half to form the
heavens and earth.  Those actions certainly fit my definition of "degraded."

>
><<I would like to point out that the first Genesis creation account is the
>work of a number of generations of development.
> It is not of the
>"unchanging" tradition that comes from the centuries of text maintenance as
>found in Mesopotamia. It has been worked and rework numerous times and the
>end result is a highly wrought beautiful piece of poetry -- and I'm
speaking
>specifically of Gen 1:1 - 2:4a.>>

"Generations of development" and "worked and rework (sic)" are
assumptions, not facts.  There is no extant text of Hebrew creation
tradition that predates Genesis.  Several possibilities exist.  1-The text
may have developed over centuries.  2-Oral tradition may have developed over
centuries.  Or, 3- the writer/editor of Genesis may have written an original
account based on common ANE traditions.  Who knows?  Why should we take a
position on something so tenuous?

Also, the Mesopotamian text is not necessarily "unchanging."  According to
ANE scholars, the EE was rewritten/reworked as a propaganda device to exalt
Marduk, who was the main god of the new regime in Babylonia.

> <<The second creation account (immediately
>following) is a much less profound affair which shows different theological
>and sociological interests. God is a former of the world here whereas in
the
>first account he is a creator.>>

The second account is no less profound, and the second account says nothing
about God being a "former of the world."  But yes, the second account shows
a different theological interest, as it should since it is a new narrative
in the book of Genesis.  Gen 2:4 begins a major division in the book.

>The second account is clearly prior to
>the first, being less theologically laden, having a much simpler view of
God
>physically involved in the creation of the world and not the universal
>creator of the first account.

Why are you comparing Gen 1 to Gen 2.  The literary structure and progress
in Genesis shows clearly that the two narratives are not intended to be
parallel.  The second account does not show God as the "universal creator"
because that fact was already stated in ch. 1.  Ch. 2 does not address the
creation of heaven and earth, it addresses the "progeny of heaven and
earth."
Please note that I am not disagreeing with your basic statement that Gen. 2
is prior to Gen. 1 in its origin.  I really do not care which came first.
Neither do I care whether Gen. 1 borrowed from EE or EE borrowed from some
Hebrew tradition.  All writers borrow from tradition.

Lee R. Martin