Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by 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.
Last edited by rgprice on Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 2:13 pm 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?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by 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
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by 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.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:18 pm 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
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by 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
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:51 pm
rgprice wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:50 am 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
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by Russell Gmirkin »

rgprice wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:24 pm 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.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:00 am And as you no doubt know, as Darshan observes, the line of Cain ends with Lamech and his immediate progeny and in the midst of a series of inventors of all sorts of arts, crafts, ways of living, while Noah, also a son of another Lamech, fits remarkably well as the same type of inventor figure associated with the first Lamech -- the inventor of viticulture and wine.

Something odd in relation to an original story appears to have happened there, too.
By my heavily diachronic analysis (which though I developed it independently has turned out to be pretty similar to Kratz's version) it seems that there was originally a fairly simple narrative that led from Adam via a morally neutral Cain, to his arts and crafts descendants, to Lamech and thence to Noah... Noah the tiller of the earth and inventor of wine, not Noah of the Ark. This was before the Garden of Eden story was added, and in this version Adam was simply created to till the earth, along with Eve, and sent out to do just that. The first addition to this base story was the birth and killing of Abel & the slightly weird Ada and Zillah addition to the genealogy section - but Cain was still seen as the second ancestor of mankind.

Then the Garden of Eden story was added and the curse on the earth's productivity (Gen 3:17). Idan Dershowitz has a theory is that Noah "found favour with God" and so God lifted the curse that he had put on the ground (this was still before the flood story was added). However I think it's equally possible that the curse on the ground that God repented of was the one connected with Cain's killing of Abel (Gen 4:12), and that the Garden of Eden story was added subsequently. The difference isn't hugely significant.

At this same time (more or less) the Tower of Babel story (perhaps in an earlier form) was added. I have a pet theory. I wonder if Genesis 6:1-4* was not originally the start the Babel Story 11:1-9*. My reasons are primarily linguistic and narrative:
  • The expressions sons of God/the gods ((בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים) and daughters of man (בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם), that appear in Gen 6:2 & 6:4 are paralleled by the expression sons of man (בְּנֵי הָאָדָם) in Gen 11:5 - which is significant because the first of these only appears in one other place (Deut 32:8 - LXX & Sam but not MT) and the other two appear nowhere else in the Pentateuch
  • In Gen 6:4 The children of the union of sons of god and daughters of men are described as heroes and “men of renown” – literally “men of name” (אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם) - and in Gen 11:4 the builders of the city/tower say “let us make a name for ourselves” (וְנַעֲשֶׂה-לָּנוּ, שֵׁם). That seems to me to be a deliberate echo that links the two sections.
Well, assuming that this notion idea has any merit (and I'm not 100% sure if it does or not) this would have been another narrative telling of the end of the age of heroes and the dispersion of mankind, but quite independent of the flood narrative.

At any rate, I'm suggesting that it was only at this point that the Flood narrative was added - separating the introduction of the Babel story from it's conclusion, and making Gen 6:1-4 now appear to be a cause of the flood, when originally it had simply been part a neutral account of the end of the age of heroes/demi-gods and the coming of the normal way of the world, with different peoples - all of them apparently descended from different "sons of God" (which in turn may have a conceptual link to Deut 32:8 - giving a slightly different but related suggestion of the allocation of particular peoples to particular sons of God).

Anyhow, it was then felt that Good Noah couldn't be the descendant of Bad Cain, so Noah's line of ancestry (clearly a version of the earlier one) was attached to Seth, Good Abel's replacement, to sidestep the link to Bad Cain. (Note also how here, Seth's son was Enosh, which is another word for Man).

I see that Guy Darshan has written an essay about Papyrus Berlin 10560 which "reveals traces of a flood story known in the eastern Mediterranean in the first half of the first millennium BCE" according to which "the gods did not send the flood because of the evil ways of human beings, or because of the noise produced by overpopulating the land, but because the head of the pantheon was determined to put an end to sexual intercourse between gods and mortals and prevent the birth of any more demigods". That is clearly comparable with the Biblical flood story... as it stands now, I guess. But I've no idea of the provenance of that Papyrus or the precise details. As the essay itself is in Hebrew it would be a nightmare to try and translate it.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Was there a proto-Genesis-Creation writing?

Post by austendw »

rgprice wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:18 pm 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.
Although I agree that Deuteronomy 32 has a reference to sons of Elohim that is surely related to their presence in Genesis 6:1-4, the separate appearances don't actually tell the same story. In one, by my reconstruction of the earliest version, the sons of God/Gods/Elohim mate with the daughters of Man/Adam, becoming the fathers of heroic demi-gods and, as narrated in the Babel story (Gen 11:1-9), which I think is its original sequel, become the fathers of the nations of the world. In Deuteronomy 32 the sons of Elohim, are allocated to the nations (including Yahweh to Israel). Here the association of a particular son of god with a particular people is certainly similar, but expressed by rather different means. So I find the notion that they were written by the same person implausible.

(edited for style)
Post Reply