Feigning Belief In Genesis 1 Due To Ignorance About What The Text Actually Says

[srd44]

I haven't posted here in quite some time, but I'd like to take the opportunity to . . . well publicize my recent book, Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs, and to make a plea why I feel it's necessary for secularists, atheists, and de-converts to take an active part in combating what I'm calling biblical illiteracy. 

 

As many of you are well aware, most Christians who claim they believe in the Bible don't actually know anything about this corpus of ancient literature, who wrote its numerous texts, to whom, why, etc. As I have written elsewhere (the Bible VS its texts), this is mostly because the beliefs, assumptions, and even homogeneous message supplied---indeed created by---this collection of ancient texts title, "the Holy Bible" often trump the once individual and often competing beliefs, messages, ideologies, etc. of these texts various authors. My recent book takes aim at a small population: Creationists and Fundamentalists. It textually demonstrates that regardless of the scientific problems, Creationism fails on biblical grounds---no Creationist actually believes in the culturally-shaped narrative of Genesis 1.

 

Here is the synopsis on the book's back cover.

 

Modern readers often assume that Genesis 1 depicts the creation of the earth and sky as we know it. Yet in an appeal for textual honesty, Steven DiMattei shows that such beliefs are more representative of modern views about this ancient text than the actual claims and beliefs of its author. Through a culturally-contextualized and objective reading of the texts of Genesis 1 and 2, this study not only introduces readers to the textual data that convincingly demonstrate that Genesis’ two creation accounts were penned by different authors who held contradictory views and beliefs about the origin of the world and of man and woman, but also establishes on textual grounds that what the author of Genesis 1 portrayed God creating was the world as its author and culture perceived and experienced it—not the objective world, but a subjective world, subject to the culturally-conditioned views and beliefs of its author. In the end, this book illustrates that the Bible’s ancient texts do in fact represent the beliefs and worldviews of ancient peoples and cultures—not those of God, not those of later readers, and especially not those of modern day Creationists.
 

“DiMattei’s book is a refreshing call both for biblical literacy and for intellectual honesty in dealing with the Bible.”
—John J. Collins, Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Yale Divinity School

“In an important contribution to the discussion between mainstream biblical studies and creation ‘science,’ DiMattei does a wonderful job of explicating the first two chapters of Genesis. He shows convincingly that although creationists claim to read this story literally, they are not reading it carefully at all.”
—Marc Brettler, Bernice & Morton Lerner Professor of Judaic Studies, Duke University

“Steven DiMattei presents an important challenge to creationists by showing that they fundamentally misunderstand the very chapter of Genesis on which much of their anti-scientific views are based. Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate is an accessible and useful book for those who seek to understand why creationism is flawed on biblical grounds.”
—Hector Avalos, Professor of Religious Studies, Iowa State University
 

I'd be more than happy to respond to questions, concerns, critiques, etc.

[Shinzon]

Sorry but its like debating the merits of different scifi shows. Its either historically true or false or where truth cant be established with high certainity its reasonable or unreasonable.

[disillusioned]

The very fact that it is possible to interpret the Bible in different ways is very problematic for Christianity. You are left with imperfect humans claiming to know the will of an allegedly perfect God. That doesn't sound suspicious at all.

[midniterider]

I hope your book about Genesis makes lots of money. Peace.

[mwc]

     Just the cover?  No preview?  Not even an index or anything?

 

     Even though the saying would have us believe otherwise it's actually kind of hard to judge a book from its cover.

 

          mwc

[Blood]

Is it possible for one author to write two different creation accounts in the same book?

[srd44]

     Just the cover?  No preview?  Not even an index or anything?

 

     Even though the saying would have us believe otherwise it's actually kind of hard to judge a book from its cover.

 

          mwc

 

Here https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creationism-Debate-Honest-Beliefs/dp/1498231322/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1460735429&sr=1-2

[mwc]

 

     Just the cover?  No preview?  Not even an index or anything?

 

     Even though the saying would have us believe otherwise it's actually kind of hard to judge a book from its cover.

 

          mwc

 

Here https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creationism-Debate-Honest-Beliefs/dp/1498231322/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1460735429&sr=1-2

 

     I went there before I posted and it didn't work.  It is now (could have been something on my side).  I'll poke around.  Thanks.

 

          mwc

[srd44]

Is it possible for one author to write two different creation accounts in the same book?

 

Yes, but in the case of Genesis 1 and 2-3 there is so much linguistic and stylistic differences---and even geographical worldviews---that the textual evidence screams two different authors, one extremely educated and well-written, the other presented more as a secular story from a scribe/storyteller of the old days who was mainly interested in etiological tales and play on words.

 

Since it was one of my goals in this project to attempt to list an exhaustive list of differences in these two creation accounts---textual, thematic, and theological---I was actually surprised that there was so much data. The research on the Hebrew text itself merely solidified the conclusion (based on these textual, linguistic, thematic differences) that we had two once independent authors here. The data of which I speak is really too overwhelming to list here. I'll simply refer you to the first 65 pages of the book (chapter 1) or my attempt to summarize some of this data in this blog post (see the end of it). http://contradictionsinthebible.com/biblical-texts-versus-bible-genesis-1-2/ 

[Blood]

In sum, the Hebrew of Genesis 2:4b and in fact the Hebrew of all of the second creation account evidences a more poetic style and tone, and has a more storyteller feeling to it. By contrast, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1–2:3 evidences the hand of an educated pedantic scribe. It is no surprise to learn then that the first creation account was written by a sixth-century elite priestly guild; while the second creation account was written by a secular scribe, a storyteller from the days of old. These different social groups are reflected in the style and tone of the Hebrew itself (Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate, 48-50).

 

 

 

What's the evidence for this? Specifically, the 6th century as being the exact time that Genesis 1:1-2:3 was written? Or that a "secular" scribe wrote 2:4-9?

[srd44]

 

In sum, the Hebrew of Genesis 2:4b and in fact the Hebrew of all of the second creation account evidences a more poetic style and tone, and has a more storyteller feeling to it. By contrast, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1–2:3 evidences the hand of an educated pedantic scribe. It is no surprise to learn then that the first creation account was written by a sixth-century elite priestly guild; while the second creation account was written by a secular scribe, a storyteller from the days of old. These different social groups are reflected in the style and tone of the Hebrew itself (Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate, 48-50).

 

 

 

What's the evidence for this? Specifically, the 6th century as being the exact time that Genesis 1:1-2:3 was written? Or that a "secular" scribe wrote 2:4-9?

 

 

Good questions. Here I am bringing in the assessment of these texts per source-critical studies that go back a few centuries now. The evidence that such a claim rests on is that according to source-critical work on what has been labeled as the Priestly source, Genesis 1 shares numerous lexical, vocabulary, thematic and theological (even ideological) parallels with the author of Leviticus. In chapter 2 of my book I summarize these parallels as they pertain to Genesis 1 and the larger corpus of this Priestly tradition. But in essence I'm really building upon the work of previous scholars here. David Carr's book, Reading the Fractures of Genesis is a great read. But he textually puts forth for the reader the textual and thematic parallels between Genesis 1 and the Priestly source, as does Mark Smith's The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Pertaining to this P document being a 6th century composition...well that is the current lline of thinking here and most of the support for this date is based on the Hebrew of this writer being relatively late and this writer's theological outlook particularly in relation to the Aaronid-led sacrificial cult is similar to other exilic/post-exilic texts: Ezekiel, Chronicles. Granted there are a hand full of scholars still arguing for an earlier pre-exilic date for this corpus of literature, but the later exilic or post-exilic dates seem to have better corroborating evidence. Again, this specific evidence isn't necessarily in my book. I'm rather building upon this earlier scholarship.

 

Carr, and others, also textually demonstrate how this later Priestly scribe rewrote his creation narrative not only under the influence of Babylonian creation traditions (which I also address), thus also supporting a date of composition during the Babylonian exile, but that he intentionally meant to "rewrite" or even replace the older creation account of Genesis 2-3. I also attempt to show, on textual grounds, how the Priestly creation account in many ways disagreed with the earlier account: his portrait of Israel's god as highly anthropomorphic, his "man" as being "molded" (yatsar) from the earth and in short no different than the animals which Yahweh also "molds" from the earth, and woman's subordination to man in this account. I also speak about how it was common practice in the ancient world for scribes to rewrite traditions that they inherited, and in general there is more research now being done on this.

 

This earlier tradition is often labeled as part of the Yahiwst source, or scholars uncomfortable with a J source merely speak of it as an earlier non-P tradition. That it displays what I have labeled a "secular" bent is supported by this scribes interest in storytelling. Where the P creation account displays extremely erudite language and repeated phrases, and interest in the cult (discussed in the book), and is organized by spatial and temporal patterns, the J creation account is organized through etiologies and word puns, such as 'adam being molded from the 'adamah. The Hebrew also evidences a more poetic or archaic, and rough, style. I use the term secular to oppose this author with the Priestly writer who obviously has a sacred worldview (discussed in chapter 2 of the book). We of the modern era often look at the literature of the Bible as all sacred---due to later tradition. But most of its texts were written by what might better be labeled as secular scribes, scribes hired and working for various kings, traditions from the storytellers of old, etc. The priests that wrote Leviticus and Genesis 1 (and large parts of Numbers too) I classify as sacred, and primarily because of their worldview: certain spaces, time (the Sabbath and Yahweh's festive dates (Gen 1:14), certain human actions and behaviors, and certain objects, etc. were all labeled as sacred. In fact, I am very much fascinated by this writer's and his priestly guild's worldview. Our use of the word sacred in today's society is diluted and practically meaningless in comparison to this author's use of the world and his worldview.