![[레벨:20]](http://www.egw.org/zboard/modules/point/icons/default/20.gif "포인트:37663point (45%), 레벨:20/30"){kind=icon}
kootvanwykGenesis 1 theories by Hugo Radau 1902 and van wyk notes
Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)
Visiting Professor
Sangju Campus
Conjoint Lecturer of
29 August 2011
The early Assyriologist Hugo Radau was born in 1873 and he came from
It is relevant to consider what Radau said since someone in 2010 thought it well to republish this book of Radau (Hugo Radau, The Creation-Story of Genesis 1 Sumerian Theogony and Cosmogony in Analecta Gorgiana 174 [Gorgias Press, 2010]).
In their eagerness to sell this publication, the book announcement mentioned that Radau made "full use of Sumerian materials available in his day". As we will demonstrate below, Radau actually ignored the very texts he was using to enhance his view.
Before we go into the detail of his ideas and concepts regarding Genesis 1, we will list our findings.
1. Hugo Radau came to the biblical text and Genesis 1 with a baggage full of Sumerian and Assyriological knowledge of gods and monsters fighting each other and legends and myths of their dealings.
2. Radau read the Genesis 1 report but brought his scissors with him and a wastebasket. He was skeptical of Genesis 1 more than the Gilgamesh Epic [650 BCE] or the texts of Gudea [2124 BCE].
3. For Radau the cuneiform sources weighed more heavy than the Hebrew text.
4. Radau then used analogia entis, his own experience and judgment with the senses and modern reason, to read Genesis 1 and find inconsistencies.
5. He reminded himself that the work of the historical critics are valuable and that source criticism and Gattung or form criticism of Gunkel is a valuable tool to understand that the P source wrote Genesis 1 late in the Babylonian period in 586-539 BCE.
6. He began to see inconsistencies in the P source:
a. How come light was created with day and night on the first day but the sun and moon was only created on the fourth day?
b. He misunderstood the Hebrew word in Genesis 2:1 that God completed His work on the Seventh-day and interpreted it as meaning that God did not finish on the sixth day all His work but had to work on the Seventh-day completing the undone work. This part of Radau's logic is extremely problamatic for him as a professional to make such claims. See our http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE dealing with the question whether God worked on Sabbath or not. As a Semitic scholar, one would not expect Radau to make such linguistic undisciplined remarks.
c. Radau thought the seven day creation was artificial and a superimposition by the P source onto the material in order to justify Sabbath and sacrifices connected with it.
d. The first statement of Genesis 1:1 he found out of place since in his thinking tehom was the co-existing eternal waters that was with Elohim.
e. He wrote Tehom in a capital letter since he feels it was personified as the Hebrew phonics for the Babylonian Tiamat.
f. Radau now started to link gods from the epic of the Enuma Elish from Niniveh archive 650 BCE, to this account by Moses in 1460 BCE to say that the late composer of the P source in Babylonian times knew these tablets of Babylonian epics, took them, revised them, superimposed his day frame and Sabbath rationalization, and then presented it in Hebrew as the Genesis 1 Creation account. For Radau it is an Babylonian amalgamated account fabricated by Hebrew superimposition of the week concepts.
g. To strenghten his own ideas, Radau went into a discussion of why light was said by the Hebrew exiled P in
The position of Radau is by now very clear for scholars of Creationism and other related academics. Hugo Radau supports evolutionism (Radau 1902: 4). He calls Tehom "the chaotic mass coeternal with the Creator out of which everything was created, made, developed, evolutionized".
The following translation is given of Genesis 1:1-2 by Radau, which is really a paraphrase of his:
"In the beginning of Elohim's creating heaven and earth (i.e. the cosmos) - the chaotic mass existed, namely, as a tohu vabohu, and darkness was upon Tehom and the spirit of Elohim [was hoovering = in Hebrew] upon the waters - then Elohim said".
The summary statement of Genesis 1:1 that in the beginning of the heaven [connected to the earth not God's abode] and the earth, it was God who created them, Radau brushed aside as out of place.
Radau suggested that Marduk and Tiamat fought and the body of Tiamat was then divided in Babylonian creation. Because Elohim is Marduk and Tehom [deep choatic ocean] is Tiamat, a war is between Elohim (God) and Tehom or Leviathan, seamonster, Rahab or the serpent in biblical literature. The equation by itself is not out of place for the war between Elohim and Leviathan, Rahab or the serpent. What is out of place is the war with Tehom. There is no evidence in the Bible of that.
A funny aspect is where Radau is claiming that Tiamat is co-eternal with Marduk therefore Tehom is co-eternal with Elohim and thus Tehom is Leviathan, Rahab and serpent all of which is co-eternal with Elohim. But, then Radau ran into Psalm 104 which says that Yahweh also formed the Leviathan. Knowing nothing of the Rebellion in Heaven history of Lucifer becoming Satan, Radau find a conflict with his own concept here of co-eternity of Leviathan with Elohim. So what did he do? He suggested that the writer of Psalm 104 wrote after the Babylonian P in Genesis 1 and that he missed some detail of the co-eternity of Leviathan with Elohim and thus described with an error here (Radau 1902: 5 footnote 2).
The lesson that we learn from the methodology of Radau thus far, is that if your theories getting you entangled with the biblical text and you have to polarize, prioritize one text above the other and even dismiss some of them, it is more likely that the original epistemology of the investigator is not straight enough.
We suggest there should be a harmony. Radau may suggest that it is not necessary. Then it means that his ontology is such that it does not matter how you live, and subsequently not how you think and thus the methodology can be sloppy and the endresult against the Word of God.
We may highlight a number of points about Hugo Radau. He submitted his book on Genesis 1 to the fantasies of the Bible author, Paul Carus. In his preface Radau thanked Carus for his insights (Radau 1902: vi). Carus had it as his life goal to break any religiosity that one can find in the scriptures. All are myths and built around myths, legends, stories and fantasies, was his motto. The audience Radau is then appealing to, is strong contenders for the historical criticism thinkers. Let us look at some ideas of Radau in the book:
a. Genesis 1 contains the Yahweh-Tehom myth which has Yahweh fighting with the dragon called either Rahab, Leviathan or serpent.
b. Radau compares the Babylonian myths and Genesis 1 and concluded:
i) In bab there was nothing before and in gen there was nothing before.
ii) In bab there was a co-eternal ocean and Radau changed the text by starting his creation report in Genesis 1:2 claiming it was a co-eternal ocean called Tehom. The reality is that Genesis 1:1 says God created the heaven and the earth which by implication means on the earth was, after the creation then subsequently an ocean called tehom, as in Genesis 1:2.
iii) The bab ocean was Tiamat the monster and in gen it is for Radau Tehom or Leviathan, or Rahab or serpent. Radau achieve this by personifying tehom, a concept that has no biblical support. Radau said that it is just tehom and not hatehom and thus it is a personal name. It is an outside eisegesis by Radau, in fact a Babylomania, to be exact.
iv. The bab Tiamat is a dragon or serpent, one with several heads and the gen tehom is according to Radau now a dragon or serpent, one with several heads as one finds in Revelation 12 and 13.
v. The bab myth had helpers and the gen myth also had helpers since Genesis 1:26 reads "Let us make man . ." vi. The bab Marduk fights Tiamat and the gen Yahweh, according to Radau, fights the leviathan or serpent.
vii. The bab Marduk kills Tiamat with the sword and in Radau's view the gen Yahweh kills the Leviathan, Rahab, serpent with the sword. This is not correct since Sookyoung Kim's dissertation of the Warrior Messiah (2008) indicates that Yahweh does not fight with military gear but by the same power He creates, with His words.
viii. The bab helpers of Tiamat is treated kindly by Marduk and according to Radau the gen helpers of Rahab is treated kindly by Yahweh. Probably Radau means that Adam and Eve is now helpers of the serpent and are treated kindly by Elohim or God.
ix. The bab Marduk divides the monster into upper and lower waters and in Radau's thinking the gen Yahweh divides the tehom, the primeval ocean into parts and firmament between them.
x. In the bab account the dragon is closely connected to the creation account and in the gen account the fight with the Leviathan is closely connected with the creation account, according to Radau.
This, Radau said, is the scholars summary of the situation in 1902 (Radau 1902: 2-3).
Radau felt that with his theory of the monster fight and Elohim, and their co-eternal existence, which is highlighted in his translation or paraphrase above:
"With this translation, of course, falls also the theory of a creation ex nihilo" (Radau 1902: 4).
He claimed that the priestly school P wrote Genesis 1 because they are using the form Elohim for the divine and there is a structure superimposed. "According to this skeleton the creation of the world is described as having taken place within a space of seven days. This system of seven days is not original, it is not found in the Babylonian account. It was inserted by P" (Radau 1902: 3). See the articles at VAN WYK NOTE by this writer at http://www.egw.org where the number seven features prominent in the Gilgamesh epic, even seven days, and also in the time of Gudea in his literature in 2124 BCE, texts that were consulted, read, cited by Radau in this very book, but nothing mentioned about it. All the activities of Gudea in 2124 BCE took place in within seven days in his temples. The number seven was overlooked by Radau, as perceptive he might have been as an Assyriologist. In fact, he mentioned the seven sons of Bau and discussed them (Radau 1902: 23), but failed to see the other occurrences of seven in Gudea: seven days, seven twin-sisters, seven heroes, seven-headed battle weapon, seven musicians, seven (heavenly) zones, seven blessings. Other examples where Radau is citing Gudea inscriptions are Radau 1902: 20 footnotes 8, 11, 13, 17. If a set of activities for Gudea has to take place in the temple only within seven days, what about the next seven days and the next after that? We have no evidence but we raise the possibility here of a week cycle here, even only for religion.
"This follows from the fact that on the third and sixth day two tasks were done, and that on the seventh-day, which was intended to be a day of rest, Elohim had to finish the work of the sixth day - and he finished it, he had to work on it, it was not at an end, not yet done on the sixth day!" (Radau 1902: 4). This is an embarrassing observation for a scholar of his format. If he lacks that clarity on this part of his book one wonders how much of his personal grinding of Hommel's ideas (another contemporary Assyriologist) in the book was "sober" enough?
"Indeed, a creation out of nothing is not implied in the first chapter of Genesis. Not a single word indicates such a theory - not even the word bara - for we have instead of bara in verses 25, 26, the verb asah. It was the chaotic mass coeternal with the Creator out of which everything was created, made, developed, evolutionized" (Radau 1902: 4). Radau is a theistic evolutionist.
Radau listed the differences between bab and gen. He calls the differences "marked and strange" (Radau 1902: 5).
The bab Marduk was born from Tiamat but in gen Tehom and Yahweh was coeternal in his view (this is not correct).
The first act of creation in bab is division but in gen the first act of creation [for Radau starting at verse 2 rather than 1 as Seventh-day Adventists] was creating light.
Radau did not accept the week in the original Genesis report of Moses in 1460 BCE and claimed:
"The writer of Gen. 1. however, in order to fabricate his nights and days . . .In doing this, he manufactured the first three days . . ." (Radau 1902:6).
For Radau the bab Apsu is the "Spirit of God" who is over the waters (Radau 1902: 8).
Look at Radau's fabrication theory of Genesis 1:
"But we have seen above that the god Marduk was called Elohim and made coeternal with Tehom, and that simply his attribute was retained by the writer of Gen. i. in order to help him to fabricating his days" (Radau 1902: 9).
Here are the conclusions of Radau on this topic:
"If he [Babylonian Hebrew priestly writer P between 586-539 BCE] did not succeed in presenting to us the original pure Sumerian Theogony and Cosmogony, this was due to the fact that he criticised with a purpose - criticised the Babylonian Semitic account to adopt it to his own theory of the Creation in seven days in order to establish for his Sabbath - and thus for all his laws and ordinances connected with the Sabbath - the greatest possible age" (Radau 1902: 70). So what is Radau's feeling about this writer P?
"But let us be thankful to this first of all higher critics: he has made it possible for us to follow up his account and trace it to its original source" (Radau 1902: 70), a source that Radau thinks is the cuneiform texts as standard to reality.
For proper perspective of Radau and his Babel-Bibel Schule approach, one must read Gerhard Hasel's article and also S. J. du Toit's book Old Testament en Ou Ooste (Potchefstroom: Pro Rege-Pers Beperk, 1971), 74-94 dealing with the same strata. The articles by Seventh-day Adventist Creationists, theologians and Old Testament scholars are also a contribution to a proper perspective.
There is no correspondence linguistically between tiamat and tehom. Not on a phonological level or otherwise. There is no connection between tmt and thm. If you want to make the Hebrew thmt, on what basis and where? That is not possible, as both Hasel and Du Toit also argued.
Sources:
1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/21223726/Sumerian-Theogony-and-Cosmogony
2. koot van wyk, "The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight between Bel and the Dragon as told by Assyrian Tablets from Niniveh (1921) by E. A. Wallis Budge reworked by van wyk notes" (unpublished 14 May 2010).
3. koot van wyk, "Number Seven in the days of Gudea, Abraham, Isamael and Isaac" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 503.
4. koot van wyk, "Understanding the human element in the origin of Biblical Books" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 490.
5. koot van wyk, "Principles of Hermeneutics - A Diagram" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 488.
6. koot van wyk, "Canon of the Word of God and its determination" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 450.
7. koot van wyk, "Rationalism and Higher Criticism in Classical Greek Historiography" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 416.
8. koot van wyk, "The Rebellion in Heaven Motif: Historical Survey" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 390.
9. koot van wyk, "Serious Student's Guide to Genesis 1" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 293.
10. koot van wyk, "Creation reports in the Ancient Near East (1) http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 289.
11. koot van wyk, "Creation reports in the Ancient Near East (2) http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 290.
12. koot van wyk, "Enoch or the Gilgamesh tadition development?" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 240.
13. koot van wyk, "Literary Criticism of Van Wyk: Methodological Considerations" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 207.
14. koot van wyk, "Bible Basics for very Beginners: Understanding the book of Genesis Textbook and Workbook" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 205.
15. koot van wyk, "Influences on the thoughts of Martin Heidegger" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 169.
16. koot van wyk, "Influences on Bultmann's Mind" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 167.
17. koot van wyk, "Rudolph Bultmann and William Dilthey: Interaction Notes by Van Wyk" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 163.
18. koot van wyk, "Gilgamesh Epic Table XI lines 127-166:
19. koot van wyk, "Neo-Babylonian Literature: Creation and Rebellion Motifs in the Legend of the Worm" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 82.
20. koot van wyk, "Bill Cork on Misunderstanding Genesis (Book in 2006)" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 60.
21. koot van wyk, "Young earth: Dating systems under scrutiny by Creationists" http://www.egw.org at VAN WYK NOTE no. 2.
![[레벨:11]](http://www.egw.org/zboard/modules/point/icons/default/11.gif "포인트:11592point (33%), 레벨:11/30"){kind=icon}
김숙영![[레벨:30]](http://www.egw.org/zboard/modules/point/icons/default/30.gif "포인트:81446point, 레벨:30/30"){kind=icon}
Mission
