Parallel Structures in Creation Stories
John Hobbins at Ancient Hebrew Poetry points to parallel structure of Genesis 1 and Genesis 3. In both cases we have a temporal clause, a subordinate circumstantial clause, an action, and a resulting state. (See his post for more detail.) He then asks me the following question:
Hey, Kevin Wilson, online specialist in ‘P.’ What’s going on here? Is this evidence that the author of Gen 1:1-3 had Gen 2:4b-7 before him? Vice-versa? Or is it just a remarkable coincidence?
I would probably answer “none of the above.” If one is relying on the other, I would argue that J is relying on P, because I think P is earlier than J (see some of my arguments). But I don’t think we are forced to see such a relationship here. But I also don’t see the similarities as just coincidental.
It seems to me the structure can probably be explained simply as the way one starts a creation story (or perhaps any number of story types). You state the time when the story took place, the conditions that obtained at that time, and what the protagonist did. The origin of this structure in Genesis 1 and Genesis 3 is probably more form critical than source critical.
Now, I have absolutely no parallels to back this up from other biblical stories or comparative data from Mesopotamia or Egypt. Nor do I plan on hunting it down. This is nothing more than a hunch, but I doubt this structural parallelism is indicative of literary dependence.
On December 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I’d say that the priestly narrative material in the Torah is actually H not P.
That said, I also think that H is dependent on P, P knows about and was written concurrently to D and that JE is earlier than the lot of them.
Leaving the latter aside, what do you do if Gen 1 is H not P?
On December 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Enuma Elish begins in a similar way. “When on high . . .”
To my mind, the structural parallelism is detailed enough to suggest that one text plays off the other. The parallelism involves both macrostructural and macrosemantic elements. Formal conventions, I think, are not quite a sufficient explanation for the mirror effect.
I think that would be H - yes, I agree with Jim Getz - playing off pre-existent JE. P =instructions about ritual may be just as old and traditional as JE, though they didn’t enter the national literature until H redacted them.
On December 13th, 2007 at 1:53 am
[…] Getz and John Hobbins left comments on my prior post about parallel structures in creation stories. Both of them suggested that the priestly narrative materials in the Pentateuch are H, whereas I […]