Some questions to Genesis
scholars in contemporary Discussion
Those who are familiar with
my axioms and stand on biblical issues will appreciate my questions. Those who
are not, will be surprised. Let it be.
1.
Daniel
Flemming wrote on History in Genesis. History? Wellhausen’s History or biblical
History? He wrote it in 2003 for the Westminster Theological Journal 65. 2.
Drew
Longacre wrote on “Charting the Textual Waters: Textual Issues in the
Chronology of the Genesis Flood Narrative (with Appendix: A Critical Edition of
the Hebrew Text of the Genesis Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:5-9:17). Longacre got
it upside down. It is not a Critical Edition on the Hebrew Text of Genesis but
the Analytical Edition of the Hebrew Text of Genesis and the Critical Edition
of the Versions of Genesis. https://www.academia.edu/10335518/Charting_the_Textual_Waters_Textual_Issues_in_the_Chronology_of_the_Genesis_Flood_Narrative_with_Appendix_A_Critical_Edition_of_the_Hebrew_Text_of_the_Genesis_Flood_Narrative_Genesis_6_5_9_17_ 3.
Ron
Hendel wrote on “The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical
Edition. It is a wrong header. The Text of the consonantal Hebrew of Genesis is
the Standard and the Text measure for all the Versions. Thus, the Critical
Edition can only be in the Version not in the Hebrew Text. The Hebrew Text is
only Analytical. 4.
Ron
Hendel also wrote on the Historical Context of Genesis but again the question
is whether it is the Context suggested by Wellhausen, the Atheist Islamist who
superimposed Homer Greek Redaction Criticism over the book of Genesis. That
will make the real history very late, 10th century BC or 8th
century BC or 6th century BC or even others who put it in the time
of the Maccabeans. 5.
Alice
Mandell wrote on Genesis and Its Ancient Literary Analogues. Analogues? As long
as she is not warming up Herman Gunkel’s Babylonian parallelomania to us. Enuma
Elish is the source for Genesis! Enuma Elish was composed at Niniveh Library in
the days of Ahsurbanipal in 650 BC. Moses wrote Genesis in 1460 BC if one
remains truthful to the consonantal text of the Hebrew Form as startingpoint.
Hello. 6.
Eahr
Joan wrote on “1200-500, Biblical Narratives of Genesis and the Hebrew Bible”.
Who told her to start the Bible in 1200 BC? Some confused ones who takes the
Septuagint byzantine text (400 AD) as the source for the history of the
narratives of Genesis. Cart before the horse case. The biblical Chronology of
Genesis in the consonantal text of the Hebrew force us to move 1654 years before
2692 BC (Flood Year) for the days of Adam and Eve. 4346 BC. But deniers of that
text and substituting the Versions in the place of the Hebrew, ends in 1200 BC.
7.
Jean
Louis Ska wrote in 2012 on “The Study of the Book of Genesis: The Beginning of
Critical Reading”, in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and
Interpretation (eds. C. A. Evans – J.N. Lohr – D. L. Petersen) in VTS 152,
Leiden Brill, pages 3-26. Critical Reading? Critical of what and who? Analytical
would have been a better option. Critical is only the Versions and their
variants. Analytical is the Consonantal text of the Hebrew. 8.
Juan
Carlos Jimenez Romero wrote on “Statistical Analysis of Genesis Sources”.
Sources? I know of three sources that served Moses the author as help in
composing selectively from these sources: Book of Adam Genesis 5:1; Book of
Noah (Genesis 6:1) and Book of Abraham. If it is the Versional Variants that
were statistically counted, then on is not dealing with the Hebrew text but
with the Variants in the Translations of it. It is not important for the
narrative itself but for the textual history and narratives of the translators
in later periods and their contextual burdens. The word sources does not appear
anywhere in Genesis. 9.
Andrew
E. Steinmann did a comparison of the consonantal Hebrew text, the Samaritan
Pentateuch and Septuagint in parts of Genesis. My question to him is, which
text did he regard as the Word of God or original. It is very important. Eclecticism
is normless. That is a problem for evaluation and decision. It ends in
nihilism. It puts the norm in the brain of the one who reads. From Revelation
the Word of God ends in the Brain of a Human who pick and choose his own “word
of God”. 10. William Austin wrote on Hebrew Chronology
from Noah and Moses. Nice topic. I hope he looked carefully at my Devotional
Short Notes on Genesis online. It will solve many problems. If he does not end
in 2692 BC utilizing only the consonantal text of the Hebrew, then he needs to
go back to the drawing board. He has homework to do. My hint is that Galatians
3:17-19 is the key needed to unlock the real time of Joseph [seed], not
Abraham. This is where scholars are
making mistakes and ended up with a Hammurabi time Abraham! 11. David Toshio Tsumura wrote in 1994 on the “Genesis
and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction.”
Ancient Near Eastern Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11.
Eisenbrauns pp. 27-57. My question to Tsumura is very clear. Comparing what
with what? Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epos was composed in the Library of
Niniveh during the times of Ashurbanipal 650 BC. Moses wrote Genesis according
to the text of the consonantal Hebrew in 1460 BC in the desert of Midiam. Is
Tsumura guilty of Gunkel’s Bible-Babel paralellomania? Of Ugarit
paralellomania? Of Egyptomania? 12. A very good friend of us is Bernard White.
He wrote on “Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11: a Closer look at the
Chronogenealogies”. Sometimes people find discrepancies or gaps they cannot
answer. There are some rules we need to lay out when dealing with these two
chapters: 1. The Versions will not solve the issue. Why? They are not the Word
of God. Only the consonantal text of the Hebrew is the original form and Word
of God. Anything else are derivatives or approximations. 2. A father can be a
grandfather. 3. Sometimes elements are left out as we have also in the SKL the Sumerian King List. 4. There is a possibility
that Genesis 5 is from the Book of Adam and Genesis 11 is from the Book of
Noah. Thus two different scribe composed it originally. 13. Joel D. Ruark wrote about “A Methodological
Study of Genesis 1-11”. My question to him is whether he is influenced with the
myth allocations of Rudolph Bultmann. And Karl Barth. He was against myth
allocations of the Word of God but ironically he fell victim of calling Genesis
3 a myth and Satan as non-existent. It is better to work with the consonantal
text of the Hebrew as the original Revelation of God as true history in all it
says unless it tells you it is just an allegory or parable. We cannot allocate
things to the level of metaphoric. Or Figurative. We cannot make symbolical
what is described as actual. Chronology. How did he suggest should we deal with
that? Approximations? Real? 14. Dennis Linscomb ran into Babelmania and
made it parallelomania and walked to the Bible and superimposed it as
inspiration on the biblical writers. “The Ancient Near Eastern Context of the
Genesis Creation and Flood Stories and Its Impact on Biblical Inspiration”.