Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>]

I have to say that I completely fail to see how Genesis 2 can be called an 
account of
creation of the world. The account lacks any mention of astonomical bodies, 
speaks
only of beautiful trees producing edible substances (thereby lacking mention 
of the
vast majority of plant life), and completely fails to mention swarming 
things, creeping
things, sea things, etc. in the account, restricting itself to fowls, cattle, 
and beasts of
the field.

Mentioning of the rivers seems to locate the story in a specific geographical 
area, and
the type of trees and animals seem to indicate to me that the story is 
relating the
creation of the Garden of Eden. This supposition is STRONGLY reinforced by 
Gen 2:8.
The sequence of events, creation of man, creation of garden (which did not 
meet all
his needs), the creation of animals (which did not meet all his needs), and 
finally the
creation of woman (who met all his needs) seem to tell me that, from a 
literary stand
point, the theme of the account is the creation of woman, using the creation 
of the
garden as plot device.

This is opposed to the first chapter, which is the creation of man, using the 
creation
of the universe as a plot device. Or the 1st chapter can be what it most 
plainly seems
to be, the creation of the world, which mentions the creation of man as a plot
element, and the 2nd chapter is thematically the creation of man and woman, 
given
form through the creation of the garden.

Anyway, back to my opening sentence, I really fail to see that the 2nd 
chapter can be
considered an account of the creation of the world, and am wondering what 
makes
this illustious fraternity of PhD laden Hebrew scholars think that Gen 2 is 
an account
of the creation of the world that has any place being compared to Gen 1 at 
all? If my
presumptions are correct, the culprit is the religionsgeschichtliche 
worldview, which
causes scholars to believe that Gen 2 is a much older account of creation of 
the
world than Gen 1, as it cannot be as highly evolved, because it completely 
fails as an
account of the creation of the world. But isn't the fact that Gen 2 seems to 
be a
primitive failure of an account of the creation of the world also evidence 
that it is not
an account of the creation of the world?

My next question is, even if the accounts are two separate accounts pieced 
together
(as I believe), does that dictate that they both be considered contending and
contradictory accounts of the creation of the entire world?

Fundamentally speaking, I would like to know what causes modern scholarship to
reject the plainest and most logical conclusion that Genesis 2 is an account 
of the
creation of Eden taking place sometime during or after the events of the last 
parts of
chapter 1-2:4? Am I right about it being the suppositions about various 
stages of
evolution of early Canaanite religion? If so, from where does this view get 
its staying
power? It certainly has the strength to stifle any other analytical venues 
that modern
scholarship could produce, and has indeed become a sacrosant monolith among
scholars.

For me, the logical thematic development of Genesis 2 did not even become 
apparent
until I had discarded the notion that Gen 2 is a creation account. Only after 
doing this
was I able to see the account as an account of the creation of woman, and/or
mankind, and/or paradise was I able to view the story with any kind of 
respect, for
these tasks it accomplishes with beautiful organization. As an account of the 
world is
it indeed a primitive rambling of the creation of a few random subjects and 
oddly
described phenomenon. Apparently the primitives that wrote it lived in an 
area of only
beautiful and edible trees? With no fish or bugs? Nice place! Completely 
contradictory
to every creation account the world has ever known, however, which state that 
we
came from Chaos.

But I would really appreciate answers to some of these questions. Not one 
soul on
here responded to my post about the possibility of supposedly older OT books 
written
in Late Biblical Hebrew being late translations of older works. How this post 
is
received will combine with the absolute lack of response to my last one to 
form my
opinion of how modern scholarship deals with ideas that do not conform to 
established dogmas of biblical criticism.




Jonathan Bailey
MA Kandidat
Hochschule für Jüdische Studien
Heidelberg

---------- Original Message ----------

>With the above posts, and another by Peter Kirk, I realise my post gave the
impression
>that the beginning of Genesis was just a random compilation of various source
material.
>That's not the impression I was trying to give. Of course Gen 2 should come 
>after
Gen 1
>because of the thematic developments in each. What I originally intended to 
>highlight
was
>that Gen 1 and Gen 2 were different accounts of creation and probably 
>weren't even
>associated together originally. Rather, it was by the deliberate choice of a 
>scribe that
>Gen 1 and Gen 2 were brought together. So, it was only by a compiler's 
>design that
Gen 1
>preceded Gen 2, not because both chapters were written by the same original
author.

>Best regards,
>George Athas
> Dept of Semitic Studies,
> University of Sydney
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>Tel Dan Inscription Website
>http://members.xoom.com/gathas/teldan.htm
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>< gathas@ mail.usyd.edu.au >


>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.