Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament by Jonathan S. Greer

Author:Jonathan S. Greer
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Old Testament;Bible (Old Testament—History of contemporary events);Middle East—History—to 622;Middle East—Civilization—to 622;REL006630;REL006210;REL006160
ISBN: 9781493415540
Publisher: Baker Publishing Group
Published: 2018-10-19T00:00:00+00:00

Sample Texts

We now proceed to the consideration of several key texts in the Hebrew Bible that often have been the subject of comparative analysis to consider what methodology or approach proves defensible.

Genesis 1

The creation account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 has been mined often for its similarities to cosmologies of the ancient Near East (G. Hasel 1972; 1974). In Mesopotamian traditions Enuma Elish is the most commonly identified correlate, while others have promoted Egyptian connections (Hoffmeier 1983). Points of contact with Enuma Elish, however, are few and far between. Often suggested similarities include the syntax of the respective opening lines (but only when Gen. 1 is modified), the cognate relationship between tehom (“sea” in Gen. 1:2) and Tiamat (the antagonist representing the sea in Enuma Elish), and the relationship between the creative spirits, mummu in Enuma Elish and the spirit of God in Genesis 1:2. Numerous other lines of connection or contrast are drawn between Genesis and ancient Near Eastern traditions, including the avoidance of “sun” and “moon” in Genesis, the reference to the great sea creatures (Gen. 1:21), and the idea of the creation of humans followed by divine rest.

None of these purported connections are close enough to suggest borrowing, and in fact a number of them have been mitigated based on further analysis. The opening line of Genesis must be emended in order to have any correspondence with the opening line of Enuma Elish. The passing reference to tehom in Genesis neither adopts nor contests anything about Tiamat in Enuma Elish. Tiamat’s name is a variation of the normal Akkadian word for “sea” (tamtu), which finds its cognate in Hebrew tehom. Enuma Elish need not be brought into the picture. The role of mummu or even the identification of her as spirit is questionable. The reference to the sun and moon as “lights” rather than using the words “sun” and “moon” can hardly be considered polemical. Genesis does not make a case that they are not gods. In fact, though the names for the gods associated with the sun and moon in West Semitic are variations of the names of the sun and the moon themselves, sun and moon are not considered gods themselves but rather manifestations chosen by the gods. The Hebrew text uses “lights” because that is what they are. Any attempt at polemic would have to be more specific and more nuanced to have any effect.

In Genesis 1, then, we find the evidence supporting a case for borrowing to be nonexistent or contrived, the evidence for polemic to be overstated, and the evidence for serving as a counter-text as too sporadic and vague to build a case. If there are intertextual echoes of any specific ancient Near Eastern texts, they are so faint that only the most informed ancient reader would catch them. In contrast, the case for diffusion is fairly strong in that the ways of thinking about cosmology in Genesis 1 are deeply rooted in the ancient world rather than our own. Ordering by means

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.