A SANCTUARY IN TIME: EXPLORING GENESIS 1’s MEMORY OF CREATION by KYLE R.L. PARSONS A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Master of Arts in Biblical Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard .......................................................................................... Dr. Craig C. Broyles, Ph.D.; Thesis Supervisor .......................................................................................... Dr. Dirk L. Büchner, D.Litt.; Second Reader TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY April 2016 © Kyle R.L. Parsons !ii ABSTRACT Since the days of Wellhausen, pentateuchal scholarship has essentially agreed that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are from two distinct sources. Furthermore, they agree that Gen 1 was added in front of Gen 2 at a relatively late period during the pentateuch’s compositional history. Moving beyond these agreements, this thesis asks why Gen 1, and its cultural memory of creation, was added in front of Gen 2? In other words, what motivated a later group to come along and add Gen 1? To address this question, this thesis approaches Gen 1 methodologically as a cultural memory. A cultural memory is an authoritative representation of the past that is formed by the needs, concerns, and hopes of a particular group and also formative in constructing that group’s collective identity. But as a memory, it is interpreted as much as it is recalled through the context of the present. That is, the present circumstances, hopes, concerns, needs of the group shape and colour the way the past is remembered and therefore, the way the past is described. As such, this thesis argues that Gen 1 was intentionally added in order to primarily elevate the Sabbath to a position and status equal to the Temple/Tabernacle. In mnemonic terms, then, Gen 1 is a countermemory that resulted in a shift away from sacred space toward sacred time. A mnemonic shift from the sanctuary in Jerusalem to a sanctuary in time. With this countermemory and its resulting mnemonic shift from space (i.e. Temple) to time (i.e. Sabbath), exilic Israelites were provided with a much needed legitimization for Sabbath practice in a foreign land without their temple. The Holiness Group (H), not the Priestly Group (P), was much more motivated to shift the focus from sacred space to sacred time; and therefore, are the likeliest group to have added Gen 1 to the beginning of the Pentateuch. !iii CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii CONTENTS iii ABBREVIATIONS viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi INTRODUCTION 1 QUESTIONS 1 OUTLINE 3 CHAPTER 1: APPROACHING GENESIS 1 AS A CULTURAL MEMORY 6 1.1. INTRODUCTION 6 1.1.1. Outline 7 1.1.2. Benefits of Approaching Genesis 1 as a Cultural Memory 7 1.2. MEMORY IS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON 8 1.3. MEMORY IS ACCESSED THROUGH SOCIAL FRAMEWORKS 9 1.3.1. Spatial Frameworks 10 1.3.2. Temporal Frameworks 11 1.3.3. The Textualization of Memory as an Act of Preservation 12 1.3.4. Losing a Framework 14 1.4. COUNTERMEMORIES 14 1.4.1. Cultural Memory is Powerful at Forming Collective Identity 14 1.4.2. Cultural Memory is Reconstructed 16 1.4.3. Countermemory: A Definition 18 1.5. MYTH, MYTHMAKING AND MEMORY 19 1.5.1. Myth: A Definition 19 1.5.2. Myth and History 21 1.5.3. Mythmaking 23 1.5.4. Myth and Memory 25 1.6. CONCLUSION 26 CHAPTER 2: GENESIS 1 IS FOCUSED ON TIME: A CLOSE READING OF GENESIS 1’S STRUCTURE 29 2.1. INTRODUCTION 29 2.2. PROPOSED STRUCTURES FOR GENESIS 1 30 2.3. ASSUMPTIONS FROM PROPOSED STRUCTURES 31 Refers to Two Distinct Primordial Conditions 31 בהו and תהו .2.3.1 is the Only Primordial Condition in Need of Remedy 33 בהו and תהו .2.3.3 2.3.4. Seventh Day is Unconnected to the Previous Six Days 34 2.4. GENESIS 1’S FOCUS ON TIME 36 2.4.1. Day One 36 !iv 2.4.2. Day Four 38 2.4.3. Day Seven 40 2.5. A PROPOSED STRUCTURE THAT IS FOCUSED ON TIME 42 2.5.1. Building on Peter Weimar’s Time-Focused Structure 43 2.5.2. Conclusion and this Thesis’ View of Genesis 1’s Structure 45 CHAPTER 3: GENESIS 1 WAS ADDED AS A COUNTERMEMORY TO GENESIS 2: A COMPARATIVE READING WITH GENESIS 2 47 3.1. INTRODUCTION 47 3.1.1. Creation Myths as Grande Memories 48 3.1.2. Plan of the Chapter 49 3.2. GENESIS 1 WAS ADDED 50 3.2.1. The Different Names of the Deity 50 3.2.2. The Editorial Hinge in 2:4a 53 3.2.2.1. Temporal Clauses 54 3.2.2.2. Ancient Translations of 2:4 54 3.2.2.3. The Tôlēdôt Heading 57 3.3. WHY RETAIN GENESIS 2? 59 3.3.1. The Creation of Humanity 62 3.3.2. The Purpose of Humanity 66 3.3.3. The Identity of Humanity 67 3.4. GENESIS 1 AS A COUNTERMEMORY TO GENESIS 2 70 3.4.1. The Opening in 1:1 71 3.4.1.1. Beginning in the Beginning 72 3.4.1.2. The Inversion of Heaven and Earth 73 3.4.1.3. Created not merely Made 74 3.4.2. Aetiological Concerns 75 3.4.2.1. The Sabbath 76 3.4.2.2. The Calendar 77 3.4.2.3. Animal Taxonomy 79 3.5. CONCLUSION 80 CHAPTER 4: GENESIS 1 COMMUNICATES A SHIFT FROM SACRED SPACE TO SACRED TIME: A COMPARATIVE READING WITH OTHER CREATION MYTHS 82 4.1. INTRODUCTION 82 4.1.1. Countermemories Imitate What Came Before 83 4.1.2. Countermemories are Understated and Subtle 84 4.2. COMPARISON WITH ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CREATION MYTHS 87 4.2.1. Biblical Creation Myths 87 4.2.1.1. Psalm 74:12–17 88 4.2.1.2. Psalm 104:5–9 90 4.2.1.3. Psalm 89 93 !v 4.2.1.4. Other Biblical Creation Memories 94 4.2.2. Non-Biblical Creation Myths 95 4.2.2.1. Overview of Enuma Elish 95 4.2.2.2. Similarities and Differences Concerning the Mechanics of Creation 97 4.2.2.3. Similarities and Differences Concerning the Earth’s Primordial 99 Conditions 4.2.3. The Mainstream Memory of Creation and Genesis 1 102 4.2.4. Conclusion 104 4.3. TEMPLE AND CREATION 105 4.3.1. Temple Myths 105 4.3.2. Temples and Creation 109 4.4. GENESIS 1 AND ENUMA ELISH 113 4.4.1. Enuma Elish was Accessible to the Audience of Genesis 1 113 4.4.2. Connections Between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish in the Sequence of Events 115 4.4.3. Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish Conclude Differently 117 4.4.4. Addressing Walton’s Argument that Genesis 1 is a Temple Building Myth 119 4.4.4.1. Walton’s Argument for Divine Rest from Enemies 120 4.4.4.2. Response to Walton’s Argument 121 4.4.4.3. Problems with Walton’s Evidence: Psalm 132 and Exodus 20:11 124 4.4.4.4. Conclusion on Walton’s Argument 126 4.5. THE SABBATH WAS PRESENTED AS A TEMPLE IN TIME 127 4.5.1. Using the Genre of Creation 128 4.5.2. Echoing Solomon’s Temple and Moses’ Tabernacle 129 ss 131 קדשׁ The use of 4.5.3 4.6. CONCLUSION 133 CHAPTER 5: WHO ADDED GENESIS 1? THE NARRATIVE EVIDENCE FOR H AUTHORSHIP 135 5.1. INTRODUCTION 135 5.1.1. The Distinction between P and H 136 5.1.2. Strata within H 137 5.1.3. H’s relationship to P and D 138 5.1.4. Is H the Pentateuchal Redactor? 141 5.1.4.1. Stackert’s View that H is not the Pentateuchal Redactor 141 5.1.4.2. Arguments for H being the Pentateuchal Redactor 142 5.1.5. Stackert’s Strategy to Leave History in the Past 144 5.1.6. Summary of The Source Critical Situation 146 5.1.7. Additional thought: H and Ezekiel 146 5.2. NARRATOLOGICAL REASONS FOR ASCRIBING GENESIS 1 TO P 148 5.2.1. P’s Narrative Character Compared to J 149 5.2.2. H’s Narrative Relationship with P 149 !vi 5.2.3. A Closer Look at P’s Narrative Characteristics 150 5.2.3.1. P’s Focus on Lawgiving only at Sinai 151 5.2.3.1.1. H’s Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Gen 6–9) 154 5.2.3.1.2. Conclusion on Baden’s View of Sinaitic Exclusivity 157 5.2.3.2. P’s Focus on Lawgiving only to the Israelites 158 5.2.3.2.1. Non-P Uses Parenesis 159 5.2.3.2.2. H Also Uses Parenesis 159 5.2.3.2.3. Aetiologies with P and H 160 5.2.3.2.4. Baden’s Argument that Gen 2:1–3 is not an Aetiology 161 5.2.4. The Beginning of the Priestly Narrative in Genesis 5:1–3 163 5.3. CLOSE PARALLELS BETWEEN GEN 2:1–3 AND P’S TABERNACLE 165 5.3.1. The Differences Between Genesis 1 and Exodus 39–40 167 5.3.2. Additional Thoughts on P’s Focus on Sacred Space 168 5.4. CONCLUSION 168 CHAPTER 6: WHO ADDED GENESIS 1? THE LEXICAL AND THEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR H AUTHORSHIP 171 6.1. INTRODUCTION 171 6.1.1. Genesis 1 is Priestly 172 6.1.2. The Distinction between P and H 173 6.2.