Gen 1:1-2:4a (P)
Genesis 1:1-2:4a is assigned to P on the following grounds:
1. It uses P’s words, including,
a. תוֹלְדוֹת 2:4
b. לְאָכְלָה 1:29,
c. בְּתוֹךְ 1:6
d. sheretz 1:20 (twice) 1:21
e. Min (1:12 (twice) 1:21 (twice) 1:24 (twice) 1:25 (thrice))
f. P'ru Ur'vu (Gen 1:22 1:28 )
2. The use of P’s divine name (1:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc)
3. It uses P’s writing style including
a. A circular inclusio (1:27)
b. It repeats a given template, here the story of each day, over and over again with slight variations in each repetition to accommodate the relevant topic. This is distinctly P’s style
4. It contradicts J’s version of the creation in chapter 2. Specifically,
a. in our version, the order is plants, animals, man and women. In Gen 2, the order is man, plants, animals, women.
b. In our chapter, man is created with women together, in chapter two, it is separate.
5. If the same author wrote chapters 1 & 2, why would he repeat the story of creation twice?
7. Theologically, the God presented is an aloof God, one who is removed from the world. Hence, he does not actually do anything, but only speaks. The world responds to his command. In JE, God is more down to earth. Hence, in the J version of creation, we see God fashioning, creating, walking, & even making noise as he walks.
8. The idea that God created the world in 6 days is limited to P. But, this concept is not repeated often and in some instances, there’s a lot of editing needed to be done to take out references to the 6 days of creation from other sources, so it’s not clear that that point helps or hinders the DH.
posted by littlefoxlings at 5:12 PM
9 Comments:
Genesis 1 and 2 is probably the best known of the proofs of DH. I have my own answers to these questions. Specifically, for 4 and 5, I don't see this as a question as to the order at all but rather a matter of appropriate translation. Chapter 1 is the macro-account of creation, whereas chapter 2 is the micro-account of the creation of man, and specifically what is meant by the fact that mankind was created betzelem Elokim. (That is, freedom to choose to sin or not.) Thus, it is narrowing of focus to make another point. (Note also that repetition *can* exist within a single source. Thus, the story of Eliezer is all J, yet Eliezer repeats what we already heard from the narrator.)
Some of this order confusion is creation of the Gan as opposed to all plant-life, and a movement from plants being watered of themselves before the creation of man vs. being tended by man. (This contrast highlighted in the beginning of the story is often confused with separate creation of all plant-life here.) Macro-vs. micro also covers the issue of whether man was created together with woman or apart. I am not going to go into the specific translations of each verse here to show how this works out -- it is much better done in person, but it does actually work out. (Aside from all this is the strong possibility that ch. 2 is allegory, as I've presented on my blog, in which case order of creation need not be consistent even from the same author.)
Good work, in general. You might want to point out, together with the terminology, why specific things are associated with P - not just because it always is, but thematically. That is, the feeling that P is a priestly author, working with a structured view of the world, and thus is interested in chronology, agents, genealogy, division of plant and animal life, possibly with ritual aspects. Thus, we would expect P to use toldot, min, sheretz, and le-ochla.
11/28/2006 10:24 AM
oops.
"agents" should be "ages"
11/28/2006 10:26 AM
I follow your understanding of chapt 2, and see it as a plausible alternative, but I still think my understanding is simpler. Moreover, you have not explained 2:19, at all.
You analogy to Eliezer is unfair. The servant states explicitly that he is repeating the story. Here, there's no mention of a repetition.
As to the differences in style. I am less interested in your comments as a way of distinguishing between different authors’ style and worldview and more interested in them as a way to explain that the text has only one author. Before I elaborate, let me start with saying a little about the point of this blog. The way I see it, there are really only 3 possibilities about the DH:
1. There is no such thing as the "P style," or “D style” and the correlation of certain phenomenon is merely by chance
2. There is a "P style" or “D style” and it is because P is a different author
3. There is a "P style" but only because certain topics lend themselves to different styles but it is really one author speaking about different topics or in different circumstances.
As an orthodox Jew, I am principally interested in discovering if 2 is accurate or if 1 or 2 is accurate, as 2 has important repercussions for me. To me, possibility one is the easiest to evaluate, as it only requires a very rudimentary statistical analysis of chumash. My gut feeling is that possibility one is grossly inaccurate, but I have never actually performed this analysis and this conclusion is based on back of the envelope calculations. In any event, it is obvious that possibility one is wrong when comparing D to the other sources, but the question is open for P vs JE.
The purpose of this blog is two fold. Firstly, to catalog all instances of DH so as to be able to easily evaluate possibility one. Secondly, to consider possibilities 2 & 3 and see which is more plausible. My original intention was to first evaluate possibility one and then deal with possibilities 2 & 3, but since you are 33% of the people who have ever posted on this blog and you are brining up questions 2 & 3 already, I suppose I may begin to consider this question earlier than I had hoped.
In attempting to decide between possibilities 2 & 3, there are 2 questions that must be considered. Firstly, is it possible to explain the many differences between P & JE as a result of a few overarching differences or not? Second, if it is possible, is it plausible that these overarching differences are a result of topical or other differences, or can they really only be explained by multiple authorship. The possibilities you raise are good ones. I have my own thoughts, similar to yours, and I hope to include this aspect in future posts. My main concern is, are explanations of the connections between these various aspects accurate or are they apologetics. I am not sure myself, and a large part of why I started this blog is to try to answer that question. In other words, are min, sheretz, and le-ochla really associated with a structured view of the world, as you say, or are they not?
I’m not sure, but I hope to explore this more in future posts. Any insights are of course welcome.
11/28/2006 1:08 PM
interesting. I'm looking forward to it.
2:19 is a good point, though with two obvious outs, which may or may not be considered apologetics.
a) וַיִּצֶר means "gathered" rather than "created," so Hashem is gathering them from all over the earth (perhaps "min haAdama") and bringing them all before Adam to be named.
b) וַיִּצֶר is the pluperfect, as there is no difference between pluperfect and simple past -- so Hashem *had* created each of these animals and now is bringing them before Adam, the text feeling the need to mention their creation because they had not been mentioned yet in this account.
c) it actually is a DH distinction
d) perhaps this is a difference in perspective and theme, mentioned in another context by a midrash, of Adam created last of all creatures vs. all creatures and plant life being created for him. ("even the gnat was created before you" vs. "bishvili nivra haOlam," though the midrash seems to take as basis of both of them Genesis 1)
e) there is some resolution I haven't arrived at yet.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
12/03/2006 7:08 AM
I, I should have mentioned in this regard Bereishit 2:7, which has וַיִּיצֶר. This might regarded as a disproof or as a proof.
Note the extra root letter yud in וַיִּיצֶר, missing in 2:19. Though a midrash understands this וַיִּיצֶר in 2:7 as gathered...
Kol Tuv,
Josh
12/03/2006 7:21 AM
On the apologetics meter (from 0 to 10, 10 being the most apologetic, I'll rate your answers as follows)
a. 7
b. 5
c. 0
d. 7
e. 0
Some specific questions:
a. Can you give another example וַיִּצֶר where means gather? To me, on a p'shat level, 2:7 is clearly created.
b. I'm no grammarian, but my ear tells me that the pluperfect is a stretch here. I'm not sure why. Could it be the vuv hahipuch future tense makes that an awkward reading? Or, maybe it's just that the overwhelming majority of past tense verbs in chumash are not pluperfect.
d. A nice idea. Of the Rav Breuer school of answering DH. At some point, if I ever finish my current round through chumash, I'd like to do some posts on his approach. My biggest concern is, as you say, that it's apologetics.
12/03/2006 9:42 AM
I'll try to get back to you soon. right now, the computer is needed by others.
however, check out Exodus 1:20. the root parallel to the geminate צרר.
perhaps I'll comment later.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
12/03/2006 1:24 PM
True that וַיִּצֶר sounds like צרר and if וַיִּצֶר didn't make sense in this context, צרר would but be an appropriate translation, but since וַיִּצֶר itself makes sense, wouldn't that be more appropriate? Also to me צרר has more of a connotation of something that can be tied together, not animals, but I could be totally wrong. Moreover, the end of the verse implies creating, as you addressed in your original comment on the verse 19. Your explanation of min haadamah seems forced to me.
I don't follow you on Ex 1:20. I assume that relates to the pluperfect but I don't see why you need to read that as pluperfect.
12/03/2006 2:06 PM
nix what I said for now about צרר... I might say it again, but maybe not. It might be more of a hollow root to get this form. i meant Exodus 1:20 as an example of רבב as akin to צרר, not as some proof of pluperfect, but I need to reconsider this for a bit, when I have breathing time.
my favorite set of pesukim in this regard is וישק את הצאן followed by וישק לרחל, where two similar words in proximity deliberately mean separate things -- especially since רחל means sheep. I think I have some good examples of צרר if the argument can be made, but have to look it up (and yes, min haadama seems forced-we would expect something more like מעל פני האדמה.)
so for now, take back what I said, and perhaps I will have opportunity and breathing space to comment.
12/03/2006 3:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home