Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

[rgprice]

Yes, there is the end of Deut, that's true, but other than that I mean. As for the structure, maybe but still, it seems that the writer of Genesis 12-mid-Deut know nothing of the Gen 1-11 narrative. That the writers of Leviticus would never have had occasion to reflect back on the stories Gen 1-11 had they known them is not plausible.

[neilgodfrey]

Yes, there is the end of Deut, that's true, but other than that I mean. As for the structure, maybe but still, it seems that the writer of Genesis 12-mid-Deut no nothing of the Gen 1-11 narrative. That the writers of Leviticus would never have had occasion to reflect back on the stories Gen 1-11 had they known them is not plausible.

In Gmirkin's model as I understand it, it is quite possible that the Leviticus authors had not read any of Genesis at all. The writing tasks of each had quite different functions.

But even if they did know the general idea of what was to be found in Genesis 1-11, can it not be said that Gen 1-11 had little direct relevance to the rest of the story from Gen 12 to Deut? Or am I missing the point of your question?

Is not Gen 1-11 merely a prelude to the story of Israel's origins? 1-11 serves to fill in some outline of what preceded Israel. (There are foreshadowings in Gen 1-11 of core themes to follow in the story of Israel.) So if those chapters are not directly part of Israel's story at all, why might we expect them to be more fully integrated into what follows with later explicit references back to them?

I suppose what I am asking is, why would it be "implausible' that authors of Leviticus or any other part of the Pentateuch refer back to those chapters?

[neilgodfrey]

I think of Herodotus's Histories and his opening account of the background to the Persian War. Herodotus's main theme is the Greek war with Darius and Xerxes, but he begins with what we would categorize as mythical times or pre-history -- going back to the days of Europa and Paris and the Trojan War. There is no need to refer back to any of that (mythical -- though certainly 'historical' in Herodotus's presentation) prelude in his subsequent account.

[rgprice]

Consider just how influential Genesis 1-11 was and remains. I would argue that Genesis 1-11 is the star of the entire Pentateuch.

As you, and many others, say, Gen 1-11 sets the foundation for the whole rest of the Pentateuch.

Now, can it really be that at no point in Gen 12-Deut 30ish that there was ever any occasion to draw upon the examples of Adam, Eve, Cain, Able or Noah? Not a single lesson to be learned from them? Not a single reason to mention them even once?

That the writer(s) of Leviticus, when going on and on about the evil and uncleanliness of women, never once had reason to point back at Eve? That in the discussions of the law there was never an opportunity to reflect upon the example of Cain? When talking about covenants, there was not a single time when it would have been relevant to discuss God's covenant with Noah, the first covenant of the Bible?

These stories cannot possibly have been a part of Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew culture prior to the writing of Genesis 1-11 and no one that wrote Gen 12-Deut 30ish could have had any clue about the narrative. Whether we account for that with Gmirkin's model or simply by saying that Gen 1-11 is the most recent addition to the Pentateuch, it seems quite clear that these were not well known stories that were embedded in Hebrew culture at the time of their writing.

Surely someone, somewhere along the way, would have had reason to draw upon the lessons of Gen 1-11 had they known such stories. In fact, Gen 1-11 is barely mentioned in any of the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testament. Yet, at the same time, in writings that we know come from the 2nd century BCE on stories related to Gen 1-11 abound. And indeed the only ancient coin featuring a figure from the OT is a Hellenistic (or Roman) era coin featuring Noah. Clearly these stories had an impact and held people's interest, but the Pentateuch, other than the tail end of Deut, never mentions them.

Also, BTW, note that the only places in the Pentateuch that the phrase "sons of God" is used is Genesis 6 and Deuteronomy 32, which I consider a significant clue that the writer of Genesis 1-11 is the same person who wrote the ending of the Pentateuch as well.

[neilgodfrey]

Consider just how influential Genesis 1-11 was and remains. I would argue that Genesis 1-11 is the star of the entire Pentateuch.

As you, and many others, say, Gen 1-11 sets the foundation for the whole rest of the Pentateuch.

Now, can it really be that at no point in Gen 12-Deut 30ish that there was ever any occasion to draw upon the examples of Adam, Eve, Cain, Able or Noah? Not a single lesson to be learned from them? Not a single reason to mention them even once?

That the writer(s) of Leviticus, when going on and on about the evil and uncleanliness of women, never once had reason to point back at Eve? That in the discussions of the law there was never an opportunity to reflect upon the example of Cain? When talking about covenants, there was not a single time when it would have been relevant to discuss God's covenant with Noah, the first covenant of the Bible?

These stories cannot possibly have been a part of Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew culture prior to the writing of Genesis 1-11 and no one that wrote Gen 12-Deut 30ish could have had any clue about the narrative. Whether we account for that with Gmirkin's model or simply by saying that Gen 1-11 is the most recent addition to the Pentateuch, it seems quite clear that these were not well known stories that were embedded in Hebrew culture at the time of their writing.

Surely someone, somewhere along the way, would have had reason to draw upon the lessons of Gen 1-11 had they known such stories. In fact, Gen 1-11 is barely mentioned in any of the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testament. Yet, at the same time, in writings that we know come from the 2nd century BCE on stories related to Gen 1-11 abound. And indeed the only ancient coin featuring a figure from the OT is a Hellenistic (or Roman) era coin featuring Noah. Clearly these stories had an impact and held people's interest, but the Pentateuch, other than the tail end of Deut, never mentions them.

Also, BTW, note that the only places in the Pentateuch that the phrase "sons of God" is used is Genesis 6 and Deuteronomy 32, which I consider a significant clue that the writer of Genesis 1-11 is the same person who wrote the ending of the Pentateuch as well.

Are you saying that Gen 1-11 was written independently of the rest of the Pentateuch? Perhaps even after the rest of the Pentateuch?

(If so, I might have been confused by the title of the thread that I thought suggested that the story of Gen 1-11 preceded the Pentateuch.)

[rgprice]

Yes, I'm saying that Gen 1-11 was written last. But my question is whether or not what we get in Gen 1-11 is a shortened version of some longer story, because, as you note, several parts of the story seem like abridged summaries.

So if its the case that Gen 1-11 is a "newly invented narrative", that did not have deep roots in Hebrew culture and lore, then why do we get abridged narratives in Genesis 1-11? Was there a longer version of the story behind the scenes? Or was the writer just following a style that utilized abridged narratives? It seems that the readers of Gen 1-11, from the very outset, were somewhat confused by the story and many different interpretations of it were produced.

[Russell Gmirkin]

What's interesting, however, is the idea that:

The first readers or audiences were expected to know the details of what could be abridged so they could maintain their focus on the larger plot.

<snip>

As for "not a trace" --- we do have Deut 32:8-9 speaking of the various peoples of the world being divided up among the gods; we also have "giants" appearing after the pre-flood world in both the Pentateuch and later with David. Other parts of the Pentateuch and other biblical literature also arguably echo Hellenistic literature where there are no competing "Near Eastern" parallels. The very structure of the Pentateuch is itself argued by some to be based on Herodotus's Histories. Mount Sinai and covenant ceremony, the wilderness wandering with the ark of the covenant and various plagues, .... all of these are arguably adapted from Hellenistic literature.

Something that is relevant that I don't think has been raised is the tradition of the nephilim and other "giants" later in Genesis and in later books of the Hebrew Bible. Rabbinic traditions have giants surviving the flood, hanging onto the ark as I recall. In any event there seem to be a strong fairly widespread tradition of the nephilim that is different from their apparent extinction in Genesis 1-11. This suggests a larger plot (or at least pool of traditions) of which Genesis 1-11 only draws selective samples. The nephilim of Gen. 6:1-4 are largely modeled on Greek traditions, but also seem to echo or merge into older Canaanite [or Hebrew if you prefer] pre-biblical myths.

[Russell Gmirkin]

Yes, I'm saying that Gen 1-11 was written last. But my question is whether or not what we get in Gen 1-11 is a shortened version of some longer story, because, as you note, several parts of the story seem like abridged summaries.

So if its the case that Gen 1-11 is a "newly invented narrative", that did not have deep roots in Hebrew culture and lore, then why do we get abridged narratives in Genesis 1-11? Was there a longer version of the story behind the scenes? Or was the writer just following a style that utilized abridged narratives? It seems that the readers of Gen 1-11, from the very outset, were somewhat confused by the story and many different interpretations of it were produced.

I think there may be some unconscious assumption in the rubric "Hebrew culture and lore." There seems to be nothing Hebrew (and in particular Jewish) about Genesis 1-11. There is a pretty strong argument to be made for Babylonian influence, however. Specifically, pervasive Babylonian traditions and arguably Babylonian-Samaritan authorship at many points. This specific highly educated ethnic subgroup is worth considering. It is possible that they had their own specific traditions that were partially incorporated in the Pentateuch, and in a most pronounced way in Genesis 1-11, which is a very Babylonian (+ Greek) account of the pre-flood world. AND that elements of Babylonian traditions would have been suppressed by Jewish or ethnically Israelite, i.e. genuinely Hebrew co-authors of the Pentateuch.

I'm stating this as a possibility, but this is actually quite certain, and helps explain both some esoteric non-Hebrew traditions and censorship of same. I'm not saying that explains all the features of Genesis 1-11, but it seems to me to be a step in the right direction.

But one must also acknowledge that Babylonian influence extends beyond Genesis 1-11. The Babylonian origin of Abraham is hardly understandable other than a reflection of the community of Babylonian exiles who arrived in Samaria ca. 710 BCE (cf. 2 Kings 17, but see also Na'aman and Zadok on this).

Na'aman, Nadav and Ran Zadok, “Sargon II's Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716-708 B.C.),” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40 (1988), 36-46.