Blue Cord

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.

I have been working on an idea for a computer program that I wanted to run by my readers.

One of the major types of Bible study that is done in congregations is the “what does this mean to you” Bible study.  This is where people get together, read the passage, and then discuss what they understand  it to mean.  Asking what a passage means for today is an important step in Bible study, but it should be the last step, not the first (and certainly not the only).  A basic understanding of the historical setting and literary aspects of the text should inform the question of what we do with the text in a modern setting.

Many people who lead Bible studies in parishes are not Bible scholars, nor can we expect them to be.  They can do a lot of work in preparing for the sessions, but then their problem is getting the information across to the other members.  Ideally, all of the participants should have read the background material before coming to the class, and sometimes this happens.  But that involves each member buying the books and taking the time to read them.

What I am considering is a computer program that would help people with the preparation for the class.  The program would be based on individual books of the Bible.  I am probably going to do Genesis first, so I will describe the project in relationship to that book.

I imagine a ten week study of the book.  Each week brings a new lesson.  The lesson will include a video presentation that will take about 30 minutes.  The presentation will be a video version of a PowerPoint presentation with voice over.   This will be followed by a section that proposes discussion questions for the class members to prepare in advance (15-30 minutes).  They will be able to enter their answers and thoughts into the program and print them out to take to class.  This will also save their answers in case they want to refer back to them later.  The program will also include a section of resources such as maps, timelines, short Bible dictionary, study methods, etc.

Lessons would be broken down by passages.  The first lesson would concentrate on an introduction to Genesis.  The next week could cover Genesis 1, with Genesis 2-3 following.  Week four would cover the Flood, and so on.

After the preparation, the class members come to class and engage in the standard “what does this mean to you” discussion.  But they will be doing so with an informed understanding of the text.  This should make the class meetings more focused and productive.

The program I am envisioning would be sold under a license that would allow the church to make copies of the CD to pass out to each of the participants in the class.  This would make it cheaper than a book, since each member of the class would not need to buy a copy of the book.  The program could remain on the class members computers so they could refer back to it long after the class was done.  The program could also be used for individual study, if someone was not part of a group.

Does this sound like the sort of thing that people would use in their congregations?  I hope to get an early version written and use it in a few congregations around here, but I would appreciate any ideas that other people have.  I would especially like to hear from those who are not biblical scholars but participate in Bible study in your congregation.  Would this type of program appeal to you?  What features would you like to see in such a program?  Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

In the Book of Common Prayer, Eucharistic Prayer C contains a point in the eucharist where the priest addresses God as “Lord God of our Fathers: God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”¹Â  In order to be inclusive, many priests — including my wife — will add the line, “Lord God of our Mothers: God of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachael, and Leah.”

While I am all in favor of this, we are leaving out some people.  Obviously, we cannot name everyone.  Some have argued for Hagar, but Ishmael is not heir to the promise in the same way that Isaac is (Hagar gets a different promise).  We could include Keturah, Abraham’s second wife by whom he had six children, but none of those sons are included in the promise either.  But there are people who are parallel to Sarah, Rebecca, Rachael, and Leah who I feel should be included.

Sarah, of course, is the mother of Isaac, a son in the line of the promise.  Rebecca bears Jacob, the next son of the promise.  Rachael and Leah, of course, bear Jacob’s children who become the twelve tribes.

But it should be noted that Rachael and Leah only bore eight of the tribes.  The other four were carried by Bilhah and Zilpah, the maids of Rachael and Leah (Genesis 30).  While these two women had no say in the matter, they did become the ancestresses of one-third of the tribes of Israel.

Shouldn’t we include them in the list of the women whom God used to bring forth the promise?  Doesn’t their marginal status make an even bigger case for us remembering their contribution?

I have to admit that while I like the theology of this idea, I also get a chuckle out of the thought of having a priest mention these two women in the liturgy and hearing most of the congregation go, “Huh?”

1. Book of Common Prayer, 372. [back]

Some of my (former) students might want to check out Tyler William’s post reviewing commentaries on Genesis.  He also provides a list of additional commentaries that he does not review, in case the books he recommends do not meet your needs.

For additional commentaries, be sure to check out his more extensive list of OT commentaries.

The final paper in A Farewell to the Yahwist? is David Carr’s “What is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases.” Carr is the author of Reading the Fractures of Genesis, so he is very much a part of the current debate concerning source criticism in the Pentateuch.¹

Carr begins by summarizing the similarities and differences between the papers in this volume. Since I have done the same here, I will skip over this part. He then moves to the model of development employed by Schmid and Gertz, which he compares with his own.

Schmid and Gertz see the process as follows:

1. Separate traditions
2. P’s combination of the traditions
3. Post-P additions

Carr prefers the following model:

1. Separate non-P compositions
2. A document that combined non-P sections with limited cross reference
3. P’s coordination and expansion of this material.

My own model agrees more with that of Carr, although I would see the process slightly differently:

1. A complete P narrative
2. Separate non-P compositions
3. A document that combined non-P sections with limited cross reference
4. A later redactor / author in the holiness tradition who combines the independent P and non-P compositions as well as adding his own material

One of the methodological problems Carr has with Schmid and Gertz is that they take P as the standard against which to measure the non-P material. But, he says, P seems to have been much more concerned with establishing connections between the different traditions, so there is little reason to fault the non-P material for not living up to the standard set by P. He also point out the fact that Schmid and Gertz assume that we have all of P and all of non-P, even though it is likely that a redactor would have left out some parts of each. Just because we do not have a certain element in our current text in both P or non-P does not mean that P or non-P did not originally have that element. We cannot assume either way.

Carr goes through the text of Genesis 50 and Exodus 1, examining texts that could potentially be pre-P connections between the Jacob story and the exodus traditions. In each of the examples, he finds Schmid’s reasons for assigning a particular connection to a post-P redactor to be unconvincing. Although he admits that the pre-P connections are not numerous, they are there. It is only when one assumes that the connection is not made in pre-P that one automatically assigns passages with connections to a post-P stratum.

Finally, Carr points out that he and others have been called “proponents of the Yahwist thesis.” This, he says, is somewhat misleading, because none of the theories about J / non-P that he and others have put forward would be recognizable as the Yahwist of Wellhausen or von Rad. Even among those who accept the existence of a non-P document, almost no one would hold to a 10th century Yahwist. Most would now date him to very late in the preexilic period or sometime in the exile, with some even proposing a postexilic date. Except for the material in question, this Yahwist has little in common with the traditional view of the Yahwist.

1. As an aside, I wanted to mention that I ran into Carr at the SBL book exhibit this year. I introduced myself and told him how much I had enjoyed Reading the Fractures of Genesis. It is always nice to be able to put a face with a name. [back]