Here’s a recent article by John Walton on this issue. it is more up-to-date than Hasel. You’ll notice that he cites Tsumura and others in objection to seeing tehom as the primeval opponent. Tsumura favors a Genesis polemic that more or less has Canaanite, not Mesopotamian, material in view (and its more of a rival cosmology / corrective than a polemic). I don’t think that the tehom view has been compelling undone by Tsumura, though I’m fine with a Canaanite backdrop instead of a Babylonian backdrop. Frankly, Genesis 1 really has more than one rival deity in its crosshairs than Marduk. Egyptian theology takes a few slaps in the face in Genesis 1 as well.
For those who have not read Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis 1, this article summarizes some of his more important ideas (and I still disagree with his take on bara’, though it isn’t essential to his idea in my view.
Can you tell us some more about your take on bara’ and why/how you disagree with Walton’s? His thinking dared me to put aside what I’d always heard and just study the word as it’s used in the Bible. I can’t find a clearly “material” (to use his term) use of the word. I assumed all the “heaven and earth” passages had material origins in view, until I asked myself to support that assumption. Now it seems to me that I can’t find that connotation of the word bara’ unless I import it into the text.
I just don’t think that it’s correct to exclude “create” from the meaning.
Great article has answered a lot of questions i had, so its pretty safe ground to say the earth was abiotic rather than chaotic in Gen 1, in the sense there is no personification or mythical allusions to a battle. The absence of the battle in Gen is therefore polemic.
was good he mentioned psalm 74, would really like some more explaining on it though, i’ll scour the tinternet see what i can find.
p.s
Have you written a response or put forth your own view on the “Bara” discussion ? if so can you link to it please.
Thanks in advance.
Mike, a couple of questions.
You’ve said that you don’t agree with Walton’s take on “bara”, how do you differ and why?
In what way does Walton’s and Hurtado’s views differ, or not, from “accommodation” theory?
Thanks, Jim W
I think it goes too far to say it doesn’t mean create. I think there are examples where it certainly does — and I also think that he doesn’t need to say this to defend his view.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, a prof of mine from this summer advocated the view of Gen 1 as a polemic against Egyptian mythology. I’m still waiting on some of the sources he cited, but his presentation was very compelling.
yes, that is in there. I will try to post some of this myself.
This might be my favorite article uploaded in a while…John Walton rocks.
come to ETS this fall and I’ll introduce you.
well…that was certainly very interesting and educational (at least to me)
Genesis “is thus an account of the functional origins…”
“In conclusion then, as an account of cosmogony through temple building, Genesis 1 resonates well with the ancient world but need not be provided with theomachy or a chaoskampf motif. As a functional account of origins, it does not offer a competing paradigm to information pertaining to material origins provided by modern science, though it does insist on God’s involvement in originshe is the one who made the cosmos functional and sustains its operations.”
OK, is this a test? Maybe I’m just stupid. After reading the material, the author recognized no conflict of Gods in Genesis. In summary… “Research suggests that the ancient world did not have a material ontology but a functional ontology”…”If Genesis 1 were an account of material origins, we would logically expect it to start when no material existed. Yet, in Genesis 1:2, the situation described is not absent of matter but absent of function”…”for the material cosmos could have been in existence for endless ages before this creation of functions”…”their understanding of function centered entirely on the role played in human existence: a utilitarian perspective that coincides more closely with what we sometimes call the anthropic principle”…”we can see that Genesis reports that on day 1 God created timethe primary function of our cosmos”…
I am OK with this, but seems to be the opposite of what you (MSH) believe. I wonder why you highlighted it? And is everyone on vacation for Labor Day. No one seems to be commenting on anything.
see MSH
Walton: “Yet, in Genesis 1:2, the situation described is not absent of matter but absent of function
MSH: I agree — and if one presumes pre-extant matter in Gen 1:1-2 before the first creative act (see my earlier posts) this says the same thing (not an absence of matter).
for the material cosmos could have been in existence for endless ages before this creation of functions
MSH: Ditto. Without an absolute beginning in Gen 1:1, this stands to reason.
their understanding of function centered entirely on the role played in human existence: a utilitarian perspective that coincides more closely with what we sometimes call the anthropic principle we can see that Genesis reports that on day 1 God created timethe primary function of our cosmos
MSH: Here he is linking “time” (I guess) to light. That would seem tenuous since the time-markers (sun, e.g.) only come later. HOWEVER, if he is thinking that the text shows time elapsing (which would be logical — and perhaps then we should not be thinking of science – linking time to time markers), then I could agree as well.
“Here he is linking time (I guess) to light. That would seem tenuous since the time-markers (sun, e.g.) only come later. HOWEVER, if he is thinking that the text shows time elapsing (which would be logical”….I agree with the time elapsing part…time markers (sun, moon) are irrelevent at that early point in creation. Like me drawing a sun dial on a cloudy day. I’ve delineated the time periods, but not set the hands of the clock (with the sun), although “time” has already started.