My friend Pete Enns has a new book out, Genesis for Normal People (it definitely isn’t for Duane Smith) and in commenting on the book RJS observes (Jesus Creed blog):
Genesis is a defining story without which it is hard to make sense of the rest of the Old Testament.
Now, as far as I understand it RJS is a scientist of some kind and not a biblical scholar so I’ll cut her(?) some slack, yet, I think RJS represents a dominant assumption that Genesis is essential to the rest of the OT, a foundational book, the sine qua non without which the OT would be lost and rudderless. On one hand, Genesis is important if you build a metanarrative of Scripture or employ a so-called canonical reading of the Bible. And, New Testament authors occasionally quote or allude to certain passages within Genesis. Yet, if we are talking about making sense of a book in relation to the Old Testament then I think it is important to note how the biblical authors themselves viewed portions of Scripture before saying that it is hard to make sense of the rest of the Old Testament without X passage or book. For instance, with respect to Genesis how do we deal with the facts that:
- The seven days of creation are not referred to outside of Genesis 1 except for in one of the decalogues (Exod 20:8-9)1
- Adam shows up nowhere else outside of the first handful of chapters in Genesis apart from the genealogy in Chronicles 1.
- The Fall isn’t brought up again outside of Genesis until Paul.
- Noah is absent throughout the entire OT apart from the Genesis account and genealogy in 1 Chronicles 1
- The Tower of Babel is never alluded to or cited within the OT
Not every figure within Genesis is absent within subsequent OT literature though.
- Abraham has a decent showing in the OT and, in fact, this is where Stephen begins his history of Israel in Acts 7
- Jacob figures more prominently–a lot more prominently–than Abraham within the Old Testament outside of the Pentateuch
- Joseph appears about as many times outside of the Pentateuch as does Abraham
- Jon Levenson sees a connection, however slight, between Gen 1 and Ps 104 yet I wonder whether the similarities he outlines are best explained as stemming from an organic connection or a conversion of tropes; Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 53-65. [back]
As a musician, I learned that there is always a tendency to rehearse the beginning of a work more heavily than the development section, just because it comes first. I suspect this informs our reading of Genesis. The development of the Documentary Hypothesis strikes me as a case in point: It has always worked far better on Genesis than any of the other literature in the Torah. Sometimes I find myself wondering if the early lights in critical biblical scholarship simply rehearsed the beginning of the piece to death and then just assumed that was good enough to get them through the development section, like naive musicians often do. I wonder if the overly-inflated sense of Genesis’ importance is due to a similar phenomenon. (Not to under-rate Genesis, of course, but the literature in the rest of the Torah, never mind the rest of the Tanakh, is equally worthy of attention.)
Hi Angie,
I think you are also right about how critical methodologies have ben applied.
I think you are on to something. Maybe this is the Kaufman Effect in reverse. That is, instead of the first and last parts of a text that are the first to be lost, the first and last parts are the most intensely studied and focused upon.
Isn’t Genesis 1 alluded to quite often? For example, Solomon seems to be a type of Adam, especially in his knowledge of the birds, reptiles and fish (1 Kings 4:33). Jeremiah uses Genesis 1 language when he uses language of de-creation in 4:23 (i.e. formless and void).
Also, Genesis 1-3 seems vital when it comes to the literary development of the Bible. It develops the scene, characters, creates the plot tension, etc.
Lastly, the NT writers allude to the creation stories a fair amount as well. The Gospel of John is highly dependent upon it. John 1 is an obvious allusion, but the resurrection scene in John 20 plays off the creation motif. For example, it is the first day of the week, it is dark, they are in a garden, Jesus is mistaken as gardener…
I think Genesis 1-3 are way more influential at second glance than you might think. I am sure the rest of the chapters of primeval history are alluded to as well. We just have to look deeper then direct mentions.
Justin, thanks for your comments and I have a couple reflections. I think you are getting pretty midrashic in your attempts to connect Gen 1 with other passages–not that this is particularly bad as long you realize what you’re doing. I don’t think you connection of Solomon as a type of Adam fits–knowing about animals fits within the motif of Solomon being wise generally, why would this specifically connect him to Adam?
Also, creation through chaos was an element common to practically every ancient Near Eastern creation account so its mention in Jeremiah is not enough to lead someone to conclude that the author intended to make a connection with a specific text. There is a correspondence in vocabulary but this could be due to the fact that both authors referred to the same motif–creation out of chaos. Rather, for an allusion to stick and for the audience to signal to the audience that he or she consciously intends the link, the author needs to cite or allude to distinctive elements within a particular story. The distinctive thing about Gen 1 is the 7 day structure not creation through chaos.
Typological connections with the gardener are way overblown–see my post: http://awilum.com/?p=1044.
Lastly, if Gen 1-3 is so important to the development of the scene, characters, and plot tension then why do later biblical writers almost never interact with the scene, bring up the characters, or refer to the specific plot tension it creates?
Thank you for the response! I appreciate your insights but I want to give it a little more effort.
I will grant that the Solomonic reference has a fairly weak correspondence to Genesis 2. But the rest of the references stick a little more then you may give them credit for though. The Jeremiah 4:23 verbiage used is a direct parallel to Genesis 1.2. The combination of formless and void (tohu va vohu), are only used in these two passages. Granted it could be a coincidence, but I have a harder time believing that than there being a purposeful connection. Those two words alone could create a meaningful connection for the audience.
Also, I am not sure where you are coming from with the 7 day structure being the only distinctive thing about Genesis 1. It is definitely a distinctive element, but not the only distinctive element. What about the element of separation, like God dividing the light and the darkness? This distinction is very important if you consider how it is purposely brought up again in the parting of the sea narrative in Exodus. The pillar of fire gives light to the Israelites while casting darkness on the Egyptians. Again, another literary parallel tied back to Gen 1.
I think you too easily dismiss the John 20 parallel. Sure in the ANE the gardener is seen as one of insignificance, but that does not mean that John did not want to people to see a connection between Jesus and Adam in Genesis 2. Raymond Brown, one of the premiere Johannine scholars, notes connections such as Jesus breathing his Spirit upon the disciples to reconstituting a new humanity. There are just too many parallels in the Gospel of John and the Genesis 1-3 to dismiss it so easily. Perhaps John is being a little midrashic with his interpretation
Hi Justin, good thoughts and I’m glad you put more effort into it.
Regarding the Jer 4:23: yes, the words are the same and those two places are the only two times in the OT that they are used together so there may be something there. Any, you’re right that if the audience was familiar with Gen 1 then they would probably recall it from the use of those words.
The idea of creation through separation is very common in ancient creation motifs so that is not distinctive with Gen 1–that is why I see the 7 day structure which mimics the days of the week as something particular to Gen 1. Accordingly, how does the mere fact of light being produced by fire and a cloud at the day recall Gen 1? Same for the separation of the waters in the Exodus narrative–that point has more in common with Mesopotamian myths that cut the goddess Tiamat (god of the deep seas) in half and form the earth from her than it necessarily does from Gen 1. Now, I don’t think it is trying to recall these myths but nor am I convinced there is a connection with Gen 1.
There need to be more reasons than a similar idea to trigger an allusion. People can draw from the general cultural repertoire in forming accounts so what is to say that there is a specific link? Richard Hays has a list of things that lend support to allusions and citations and I discuss this in my article on allusions in Neo-Assyrian oracles also see Chris Hays’s article in which he adapts his father’s work for ANE stuff. I’ll probably do a post on this latter stuff soon.
Charles,
As always, thank you for sharing your thoughts. The anecdotal evidence I’ve gathered in my handful of years as a Christian confirms what you call the “dominant assumption” that Genesis is a foundational book. Furthermore, the first three chapters, especially, are given even more pub. Here are my thoughts as to why this is so.
Even the most liberal Bible scholars I’ve spoken to or read have admitted that Gen-2 Kings is one unbroken narrative; therefore, Genesis has this setting-the-stage function to it that gives it an elevated importance. Because the story establishes the origin of creation, the origin of man, the origin of evil, the origin of the nations, the origin and purpose of God’s covenant with Israel, and the origin of how the heck Israel got to Egypt, Genesis acts in a way that gives context or a backdrop for the rest of Scripture’s story.
As to why some of the characters aren’t mentioned within the rest of the OT (or at least not mentioned that often): It seems noteworthy that few characters within the OT are mentioned at all after their deaths. David seems to be the most common, and they are largely references to his throne or house. Moses is next, and from what I can tell a high percentage of these references are not to Moses as much as they are to the “law of Moses,” “book of Moses,” “commandment of Moses,” etc. (which would of course have included Genesis). Therefore, I’m just not sure that explicit references to previous characters establishes their overall importance. My guess is that it has more to do with the role they played in their time allotted within their part of the narrative, and in the case of the Genesis characters many of the them (particularly Adam and Abraham) had very significant roles because of the setting-the-stage effect they had for the rest of Scripture.
Thanks again for the provocation and the space to try and sort out some of my own thoughts.
Hi Charles, you have some good thoughts but let me push back a bit. It is true that from a canonical perspective Genesis sets the stage but if it were *vital* to set the stage and we couldn’t understand the OT without it then why do later writers operate as if these accounts didn’t exist? For another example, why do the prophet *never* go to rebellious Israel and Judah and say: “The reason why God is angry is because you have broken the 10 Commandments/Sinai regulations, etc?” They *never* do this. So, are the 10 commandments essential for understanding God’s expectations for his people? It doesn’t seem to function that way in the rhetoric of the biblical prophets.
To pick back with Genesis you say that people are often not referred to again in the Bible after they die. Well, what about Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and the many others that are and are referred to fairly often? Furthermore, you point out in the second to last sentence that Adam and Abraham are important to set the stage, now, this is critical and it is where I was going because it is a good test case for how citation and allusion work–why do later biblical authors specifically refer to Abraham, by name, but they *never* even allude to Adam much less use his name except for the genealogy in 1 Chron?
You say, “For another example, why do the prophet *never* go to rebellious Israel and Judah and say: “The reason why God is angry is because you have broken the 10 Commandments/Sinai regulations, etc?” They *never* do this.”
What about Jeremiah’s indictment in Jer. 17:19-23 regarding the Sabbath. Jeremiah even uses the specific language of “keep[ing] the Sabbath day holy” (17:22) used in Ex. 20:8? Jeremiah also refers to keeping the Sabbath day “as I commanded your fathers” (17:22) referring to their ancestors in the Exodus narrative I presume.
You say, “[W]hy do later biblical authors specifically refer to Abraham, by name, but they *never* even allude to Adam much less use his name except for the genealogy in 1 Chron?”
This one has my head going in several different directions, so I’ll spare us by trying to sort that out here. However, I wonder if you are pressing the need for subsequent and explicit references too much in the need to establish importance for specific characters. Would we do the same for any other literature or would we look at the role/part the individual played while he was on the stage? I’m convinced it’s both.
Hey Charles, I talk more about the Decalogue/Sinai stuff in my “Law” essay in the IVP Dictionary of OT Prophets coming out this summer but in a nutshell there are very occasional references to sabbath in the prophets but sabbath was actually a fairly common thing so are these references specifically drawing from the decalogues or, again, a trope or common understanding. What I did in the article is compare the very frequent and unmistakable reference to Exodus in the prophets and the complete lack or very obscure and oblique references to Siniatic law.
There are several ways in which we can discern what themes, people, passages, etc. are more prominent or important than others. For instance:
–we can look at the metanarrative and note important turning points or foundations
–we can look at the length of accounts to see the amount of space authors devoted to particular ideas or people, for example, the Joseph story is way longer than Gen 1-2; so is the Sinai narrative
–We can also look to later authors to see how they interacted with other portions. This is what I was trying to underscore in the post–that is, RJS stated that we can’t understand the OT without Gen but, from the rhetoric of the latter prophets, as well as much of the writings, we don’t see them recalling, alluding, or citing much or any of Gen 1-11 so how much impact does Gen 1-11 have on us as we read the prophets. On one hand, we might say that they implied it, but I don’t think this is necessary or really hold water (see the essay for more on this). Rather, they point to other things to make their critiques and messages. Yet, Genesis is important for a wholistic understanding of the Christian Scriptures but its influence may not be as prominent for certain biblical writers such as the prophets than many modern interpreters might assume.
Thank you for this, a very helpful exchange.
Charles,
What you cite of the surprising dearth of meantions of Genesis elsewhere in the biblical canon does indeed stand out. And I would agree with you that much of the emphasis centers on canonical issues and the interest in how a story begins.
While your questions is not “how important is Genesis?” (which, as you might expect, as chair of the SBL program unit on Genesis and author of a book on Genesis, I’d say very), part of the allure I think of the book is twofold. First, it has a number of touchpoints with a variety of hot-button issues: science and religion/creation, ethics, election, sin/the Fall, etc. Second, and relatedly, I think it is important because it is first, but not strictly for its place in the canonical story (as though that metanarrative itself is a monolithic entity!). It makes startling claims about the who and the how of God (for example, one who seems to reward deception and engages in wrestling with those in relationship with him).
Why is it not engaged with more deeply elsewhere? Must this mean Genesis was viewed as unimportant or less important? I don’t think so. Much of it, I think, stems from the dating of the Genesis text, which as you probably know, a wealth of scholars place quite late, possibly into the Persian period. Above, in one of the comments, you ask why “later” texts don’t pick up on Genesis themes. Could this be, perhaps, because texts that you call “later” are only “later” canonically and both spatially and narratively but not “later” in terms of achieving canonical status?
There is also the recent movement within scholarship–especially in European circles–to see Genesis and Exodus as two separate, competing myths of Israelite origins that are joined first at a late date, by P (on this, see Dozeman and Schmid, A Farewell to the Yahwist?).
As you note, the simple existence of Jacob, who becomes Israel, is at least one aspect of how significant the book is. Part of the difficulty too, as the comments have drawn out, lies in how does one adjudicate what is and is not an authentic echo or connection, and even when one has, how do we determine the direction of influence (one of my main critiques of Childs’ canonical method)? So, for example, the canonical portrait is that Jacob’s 12 sons are the eponymous ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel. But was the Jacob text the inspiration for that connection, or was the Jacob text a way of filling in the gap of from where these 12 tribes derive? Or did a P redactor make the connection for us?
All this to say, briefly, I do agree with your final point: this is all far more complex than what we typically think and appreciate.
Hi John, thanks for your thoughts and I’d expect you to stand up for your baby
I totally agree with you that there are historical and redactional issues that underly the lack of engagement with parts of Genesis but in a way this merely feeds into the first question of how important is Genesis for the OT? Well, significant parts of it weren’t that important for many of the prophets, for instance, because they did not carry around a Torah scroll in the form that we have received. I go into this in more detail in the “Law” essay in the DOTPr coming out this summer but what I tried to do in that essay is make theological sense of this with particular focus on how the prophets supported their sense of law, etc. To my knowledge this has not been done before (I extended some of Fretheim’s discussions relating to law in Genesis and how that relates to Sinai, etc.). Anyway, I’ll still maintain that it’s important to make a distinction between the importance of Genesis for “canonical criticism” and how biblical authors themselves approached this stuff. Because, if we make this distinction we might mitigate imposing our own assumptions and skewing the texts and giving more weight to some than they may deserve.
Actually, I like a lot of Enns’ work. I’m adopting (and adapting) one of his concepts in my paper on the snake in Genesis 3. I even referenced his The Evolution of Adam in my recent Pacific Coast regional SBL meeting presentation on the snake.
Oops. I guess I missed the point of you link. I also post this comment in the wrong place the first time! Still, I do like much that Enns has to say, I find him abnormal in many ways.
Garden of Eden is mentioned in Ezekiel 28 and elsewhere in that book as “garden of god.” Waters of Noah are mentioned in Isaiah 54:9. Beyond that (and in line with other comments) creation accounts and flood are referenced many, many times in Hebrew Bible, whether by verbal allusion or parallels. Two examples relating to the flood: use of the word “taivah” to describe ark of Moses and parallels to flood story in Jonah.
gginat (your name is a mouthful), I overlooked the Isa 54 reference to Noah so you are right to bring it up. As to Ezekiel 28 that is an interesting case because the description of Eden there is rather different than the Genesis version (i.e., fiery stones, etc.). Yet, your other comments concerning the flood and creation appearing in places does not mean that these occurrences are specifically citing the Genesis account–creation and flood stories were ubiquitous in the ANE. So, were they drawing from these general ideas or one specific story? To point their audience to one specific story they would need to allude or quote something that is specific to that story.
I’m not not sure what you are referring to with the “taivah” comment. If you mean “tevah” or “ark” then it is used with Noah and the word only appears in Gen 8-9 and Exod 2.
Evangelical theologians tend to do a lot of “theology on stilts”, trying to avoid getting down in the muck of Biblical higher criticism, the truth about the development of the Old Testament, and the divergent world views of its many authors.
As John Anderson above touches on, OT scholars have convincingly demonstrated, both from the Biblical texts themselves and from extra-biblical evidence, that the Genesis and Patriarch stories of the Bible are late additions to the Pentateuch, often differing with the Priestly source and providing aetiologies and expansions of older material found in Deuteronomy, the Former Prophets, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and First Isaiah. For most of the formative period of the Old Testament and early Israelite religious beliefs and practices, that stuff simply wasn’t important. Which amply explains why the authors of the (differing) creation and flood accounts in Genesis were content to adapt existing Mesopotamian stories that everyone already assumed were true, as well as material from the Psalms (particularly the 104th Psalm).
To create a new theological system based on literal readings of Creation and the Flood as depicted in Genesis is very much to misunderstand their place in the development of the Jewish religion and to throw out earlier points of view advocated by prophets like Hosea, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, who had no need for Adam or a literal seven-day creation.
I’d add that this article is slightly mistaken about Noah. Noah *is* mentioned by Ezekiel, but in a way that is somewhat incompatible with the Noah of the Genesis flood story. The textual evidence suggests that the Yahwist developed his story after Ezekiel wrote, and probably with knowledge of his writings, just as he fleshed out Eden as the place of humanity’s creation whereas, for Ezekiel, it had been the garden of the king of Tyre.
Thanks for the comments, Paul.
Pingback: When is an Allusion an Allusion?
Charles,
Just a reference in case you’d not encountered it before:
Sam Meier, “Job 1-2: A Reflection of Genesis 1-3,” V T39 (1989): 183-93
There. My two cents in.
You’re not helping, Carl.
I try.
Charles,
How serendipitous! My RBL review of Seth Postell’s Adam as Israel: Genesis 1–3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh has just been posted. Here’s the link if you, and others, would like to share it. I think he makes a number of interesting connections between Gen 1-3 and elsewhere in the canon, but as you will see, I’m not entirely convinced.
http://bookreviews.org/pdf/8169_8926.pdf
That is good timing. Thanks for the link, I look forward to reading the review.
Dear Charles,
Very good article. Now, some comments.
First, with regards to Adam, etc. The OT does not comment on his disobedience with the exception of of the phrase “he died,” found in Genesis 5.
Second, the best comment on Adam is found in Romans 5:12-20. I owe the above two facts above to Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Also I Corinthians 15 mentions Adam is no small matter. Thus, the effects of the Fall of Adam, that is SIN, is found throughout the Bible; otherwise, what would have been the purpose of the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ?
Third, Genesis begins with geneaologies and the Tanakh ends with geneaologies (Chronicles). It begins with Creation and ends with RE-Creation. It begins with life and ends with eternal life.
Fourth, the issue of days of Creation is correct in the they are referred to in Exodus 20 (as noted above in your article), but the issue of Creation is mentioned frequently in the OT especially in Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, etc.
Just, a few thoughts.
Why does God have to be redundant? The Bible has other things to teach without needing to go over ground already taught and exampled?
Pingback: Genesis Is Very Important | theologyarchaeology