Pinning down the historical context of biblical texts: Genesis 1

Daniel McClellan has joined the conversation around the creation accounts of Genesis. His chief conclusion:

Chris [Brady: go here] is accurate in stating, “God is simply there, his existence is assumed and essential.” I think [Gen 1] was written in a time when Israel was well beyond needing or wanting a theogony or introduction to deity. The primary purpose of the text vis-à-vis the nature of deity is the presentation of a transcendent God of order whose productions are essentially good. This may or may not have served to ameliorate the despair of Israelites wondering where their God had gone, but it was most likely designed to fortify related perspectives being actively promoted by the priests and prophets. If we interpret Gen 1 as also promoting humanity’s stewardship over the earth and responsibilities toward maintaining order, it may be linked to Deuteronomistic reforms aimed at criticism of those nations which ruled in conflict with what Israel interpreted as righteous dominion. God is good and his creations are good, and so those whom he has entrusted with stewardship over the earth must be good.

I concur with Dan that Gen 1 presents a transcendent God. The presented God is sole creator of a good, ordered world. Said God is not fickle or capricious, but a God who blesses that which he makes. If I catch his drift, Dan is also right to see the presentation against the background of, and in antithesis to, “Assyro-Babylonian” conceptions. The gods of Enuma Elish and Atrahasis transcend human beings but not each other. On the contrary, they are at odds with each other. They all have foibles and/or limitations: they do not transcend them either. In Gen 1, relative to all that, God is a "hyper"-transcendent, "hyper"-benevolent being whose fellow supernal beings are very much in the background.

What I struggle with – and here Chris seems to be in agreement – is the confidence with which Dan pins down the historical contexts of, and power struggles behind, Gen 1:1-2:3 on the one hand, and the account that begins with 2:4[b] on the other.

In the first place, to read the texts in terms of power struggles and historical watersheds in the life of “Israel” is reductive.

Strange as it may sound to some post-moderns, it is probable that the prima facie subject matter of Gen 1-3 mattered to its authors and readership. Cosmology, theology, anthropology, ecology, not to mention the history of decline from a putative alpha-point (Gen 3) are, from an existential point of view, central rather than marginal topoi of human life. They do not need to be understood as “covers” for something else (even though they often or even always are, that, too). In today’s mediatic universe, the topoi are covered by a variety of genres: fantasy (think Lord of the Rings) and science fiction (think Stranger in a Strange Land or The Matrix) come to mind immediately. It’s possible to read that literature, too, in terms of power struggles and contemporary historical events. But I think we can all agree what a limiting reader-response that would be, against the grain, furthermore, of authorial intent.

In the second place, Gershon Galil and Bernard Levinson, at ISBL-Rome, added more bricks to a hypothesis that must now be reckoned with: the thesis - the following is my wording and interpretation - that from the late 8^th century bce on, the theological and political culture of Judah was in transformation based on a dialectical, antagonistic relationship with the same of its Assyrian and then Babylonian overlords. If anything, the Assyrian period appears to have been the more formative one, the impact of which continued to work itself out in the period of Babylonian domination.

If on no other grounds but intellectual laziness, I’m inclined as the next person to think of the P narrative as a 6^th century product of the Babylonian exile. I am open to other hypotheses, though I think any attempt to date it to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah or later is misguided. In any case, I doubt that whoever wrote Gen 1:1-2:4a and added the toledot formula throughout to a base of tradition such that the Genesis narrative is in the form we are familiar with, thought of Gen 2:4b and following as anything but treasure to be preserved with care.

To speak in abstract terms (always a dangerous enterprise), I am convinced that the ancients, generally speaking, were “both/and” thinkers with respect to tradition. But it is also true that the “either/or” thinking we associate with a rational approach to life has its roots in the Bible, too: with Deuteronomy and the reforms of Josiah. “Either/or” thinking is violent and revolutionary if applied, but if you believe that there are either/or’s in life – I certainly do – that’s all the more reason to get one’s either/or’s right. 

Comments

[Daniel O. McClellan]

I appreciate the response, John. My statements were indeed on the reductive side, but I was trying to be brief about one aspect of the literary character of the chapters that I thought might bear Chris' question. The backdrop is, of course, far more complicated and multifarious than that.

I hope to begin a series of posts investigating with a bit more detail the nooks and crannies of what I was jabbering about. I'm interested in the ISBL paper you referenced, though. It has always been my thinking that much more revolution took place in early Israelite thinking in the one or two centuries prior to the exile than after. Like you, I suppose, I would have to say I end up floating closer to the mainstream dating simply out of convenience, but it seems to me the prophets and priests of the eighth to seventh centuries are responsible for more in the way of theological innovation than those of exiled Israel.

Thanks again for your contribution!

[JohnFH]

Hi Dan,

It's a great topic, isn't it?

I'll see what I can do in terms of getting you more information on the state of the question I referenced via a mention of Galil and Levinson.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Hey, thanks John. It is a great topic, even if it is one with which I'm not fully acquainted. I look forward to hearing more from both you and Chris.

[paul kozar]

"Cosmology, theology, anthropology, ecology..."

Let me add one more from communication scholar Kenneth Burke "Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and religious cosmogonies are designed, in the last analysis, as exceptionally thoroughgoing modes of persuasion."

[JohnFH]

That's a great quote, Paul. Thanks for that.