Duane Garrett's Rethinking Genesis

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I recently discovered this book and it looks promising---anybody read it or have opinions, endorsements, criticism, etc? Particularly GP and Jaltus?

[BrianB]

Hi Pereynol,

I recently recommended this book in the thread about my paper, so I definitely think it's worth a read. I thought Garrett's handling of the structure/sources of Genesis based on the 'toledoth' formulas was great. Also very fascinating was his plausible employment of form criticism (using real ANE forms as background) to show that many of the stories followed what he called 'ancestor epics' if I remember correctly.

As far as refutation of the documentary hypothesis, I remember reading this shortly after Archer's Introduction to the Old Testament Survey and liking Archer's better. Maybe just because I read it first. This part of the book was still very good.

Obviously, I don't agree with his 'days of revelation' approach to Genesis 1 (or something very similar), and there were some tedious points as he interacted densly with other scholars about certain points (being vague here...been a while since I read it), but overall well worth a careful read. I'd be interested if anyone is aware of critiques of his book.

Hmm, maybe we could do a book discussion on it if there's interest.

Regards,
Brian

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Thanks for your input, Brian. Have a good Thanksgiving!

[Socrates]

The "Days of Revelation" approach is just another in the long line of compromises of the plain teaching of the Hebrew text with uniformitarian "science". See also Days of Revelation or Creation? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/188.asp)

[Blake Reas]

11-26-2003 @ 04:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317253#post317253)
pereynol:

I recently discovered this book and it looks promising---anybody read it or have opinions, endorsements, criticism, etc? Particularly GP and Jaltus?

Pere,

I just finished reading it for my class on Genesis. Garrett follows the critique of R.N. Whybray and Rentdorff among others in their critique of the documentary hypothesis. Garrett essentially sees Genesis as a whole as an ancestor epic following a set structure. He starts out with the Toledoth Material and shows that it was a seperate source of its own probably passed down among the tribes. Garrett I think makes the convincing case of Genesis being constructed after the ANE ancestor epic

Prologue Primeval History 1:11-26
Transition Genealogy 11:27-32
Threat The Abraham Cycle 12:1-25:11
Transition Geneaology 25:12-18
Threat The Jacob cycle 25:19-35:22b
Transition Geneaology 35:22c-36:40
Threat The Joseph Cycle 37:1-46:7
Resolution Settlement in Egypt 46:28-50:26

This argues for the essential unity of the book. Even better if you get the chance to pick up Bruce Waltke's book on Genesis he demonstrates that all of Genesis is structured in a Chiasm made up of smaller chiasms! This was the work of a great literary artist not a clan of different people with scissors and paste! What is even more interesting about garrett's thesis is that it confirms one of Walter Brueggemann's theories about the creation theology of Genesis 1-11. Brueggemann notes the fact that God's promises are alway under a threat and this happens 4 times in Genesis 1-11. Garrett posits that there was 4 sources for Genesis 1-11. I will have to check my sources again to see if the passages are the same, but I find this rather interesting. Garrett gives a great discussion of the parallels between ANE literature and Genesis which many scholars do not do. He uses the theory that the negotiation of Sarah's tomb is not about Sarah's death but about Abraham having an anchor in the land of canaan for the future of Israel! this makes perfect theological sense and teh only people that would miss it are people who are so worried about hypothetical documents JEDP that they forget the true meaning of the text!

My favorite chapter was his discussion of the Israelite preisthood and the various problems surrounding it. He makes the case that the reason there is so much confusion concerning the history of the priesthood is because the word has different meanings in the Old Testament. He also posits a theory that the LEvites were in existence before the revealation at sinai and that they were keepers of the early Israelite traditions. This is a must have for anyone interested in teh Pentateuch. I rank it up their with the Pentateuch as Narrative, From Paradise to PRomised Land, and Waltke's commentary on Genesis as my favorites.
Garrett develops another nice theme regards to the egyptian setting of Genesis or the sitz em lebin. By noting the prevailing theme of "alienation" that runs throughout the book but this alienation is not with out the eschatological hope that God will redeem his people in the future. This is the eschatological outlook that Sailhamer makes in his book. In summary this is a great book you should enjoy it.

BLR

[Blake Reas]

12-01-2003 @ 04:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321485#post321485)
Socrates:

The "Days of Revelation" approach is just another in the long line of compromises of the plain teaching of the Hebrew text with uniformitarian "science". See also Days of Revelation or Creation? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/188.asp)


Socrates,
The merits of all books cannot be weighed upon the author's stand on Genesis 1.
Give the guy a break he has just trashed a theory that I would argue is more damaging to the church than the theory of evolution.
Actually the argument for Genesis 1 is a little different he basis it upon textual grounds and literary evidence. Do you not find it interesting that the only other place where you see the heptadic structure is in Revelation a book that is a revelation from God? I think he makes a great case that Genesis 1 was a direct revelation from God! At least you should note this.
Before you start tooting your heresy horn I just want you to remember that I am not well studied on the age of the earth etc. So I lean Young Earth on theological grounds.

In Christ,
BLR

[Blake Reas]

11-26-2003 @ 06:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317395#post317395)
BrianB:

Hi Pereynol,

I recently recommended this book in the thread about my paper, so I definitely think it's worth a read. I thought Garrett's handling of the structure/sources of Genesis based on the 'toledoth' formulas was great. Also very fascinating was his plausible employment of form criticism (using real ANE forms as background) to show that many of the stories followed what he called 'ancestor epics' if I remember correctly.

As far as refutation of the documentary hypothesis, I remember reading this shortly after Archer's Introduction to the Old Testament Survey and liking Archer's better. Maybe just because I read it first. This part of the book was still very good.

Obviously, I don't agree with his 'days of revelation' approach to Genesis 1 (or something very similar), and there were some tedious points as he interacted densly with other scholars about certain points (being vague here...been a while since I read it), but overall well worth a careful read. I'd be interested if anyone is aware of critiques of his book.

Hmm, maybe we could do a book discussion on it if there's interest.

Regards,
Brian

I checked the Southern Seminary Library for critiques of this book and only found two! This is significant since Southern has the 5th biggest theological library in the world!

Blake

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328671#post328671)
Blake Reas:

Socrates,
The merits of all books cannot be weighed upon the author's stand on Genesis 1.

It's a good start. Similarly there are a few key passages to check to see if a new Bible translation has a liberal bias, e.g. Isaiah 7:14.


Give the guy a break he has just trashed a theory that I would argue is more damaging to the church than the theory of evolution.

There is no such theory, unless you mean geological uniformitarianism which underpinned biological evolution. So what did you mean?


Actually the argument for Genesis 1 is a little different he basis it upon textual grounds and literary evidence. Do you not find it interesting that the only other place where you see the heptadic structure is in Revelation a book that is a revelation from God?

Let's just suppose, for the sake of the argument, that God really had created in 6 days, in the order of Genesis, and rested on the seventh, to give a pattern for the Sabbath. How else would God have communicated this apart from the account in Genesis 1?


I think he makes a great case that Genesis 1 was a direct revelation from God! At least you should note this.

I would much rather read God's revelation according to the grammar of the text.


Before you start tooting your heresy horn I just want you to remember that I am not well studied on the age of the earth etc. So I lean Young Earth on theological grounds.

:cheers:

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 08:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328678#post328678)
Socrates:



[quote]It's a good start. Similarly there are a few key passages to check to see if a new Bible translation has a liberal bias, e.g. Isaiah 7:14.

Soc, I agree but I many times get better(sadly) theological exposition from a liberal


There is no such theory, unless you mean geological uniformitarianism which underpinned biological evolution. So what did you mean?

This is were you and I are going to disagree :)! From my perspective the documentary Hypothesis gave me more fits about my faith than anything else. ACtually it was Historical Critical Methodology itself(which I am comfortable with now if used properly).




Let's just suppose, for the sake of the argument, that God really had created in 6 days, in the order of Genesis, and rested on the seventh, to give a pattern for the Sabbath. How else would God have communicated this apart from the account in Genesis 1?

See I think this interpretation is problematic. Did God "really" "rest" on the sabbath? We are obviously speaking metaphorically about this! An omnipotent being needs no rest as if he were tired. I would argue that is exactly the point of Genesis 1 in regards to his rest. It does not reflect what God actually does but it spurs us on to obey! It is just like the If... then.. statements in the rest of scripture.


I would much rather read God's revelation according to the grammar of the text.

Surely you do not spurn biblical intertexuality and literary forms study of the scriptures? These things inhance our study of God's word! We are reading the bible, just with a lot more care when we do it in a grammatico historical way!
In Christ
BLR



:cheers:

[Socrates]

Today @ 06:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328681#post328681)
Blake Reas:

Soc, I agree but I many times get better(sadly) theological exposition from a liberal

That's true (sadly). E.g. liberals like James Barr have no problem agreeing that the Church Fathers and Reformers were right to believe that Genesis 1 taught creation in six normal-length days. Most conservatives these days are so intimidated by uniformitarianism and evolutionism (like Meredith Kline) that they won't accept the plain meaning. Liberals don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture so have no incentive to bring it into line with modern "science"


This is were you and I are going to disagree :)! From my perspective the documentary Hypothesis gave me more fits about my faith than anything else. ACtually it was Historical Critical Methodology itself(which I am comfortable with now if used properly).

I agree that the Documentary Hypothesis is insidious and rotten to the core. However, the Wellhausen crap was just evolution applied to the Bible.


See I think this interpretation is problematic. Did God "really" "rest" on the sabbath?

He really ceased which is what shabat means!


Surely you do not spurn biblical intertexuality and literary forms study of the scriptures?

Nope. That is part of the grammatical historical approach. And that's why any interpretation that has never been seen in Church history is likely to be wrong.

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 09:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328692#post328692)
Socrates:



That's true (sadly). E.g. liberals like James Barr have no problem agreeing that the Church Fathers and Reformers were right to believe that Genesis 1 taught creation in six normal-length days. Most conservatives these days are so intimidated by uniformitarianism and evolutionism (like Meredith Kline) that they won't accept the plain meaning. Liberals don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture so have no incentive to bring it into line with modern "science"

:grin:



I agree that the Documentary Hypothesis is insidious and rotten to the core. However, the Wellhausen crap was just evolution applied to the Bible.

Actually skepticism over the unity of the pentateuch goes all the way back to Benedict Spinoza. That is a while before Darwin.




He really ceased which is what shabat means!

So YHWH was tired? Do you think this speaks univocally of YHWH or analogically? Or that it means he just stopped creating but did not tired?If you say univocally we have problems.




Nope. That is part of the grammatical historical approach. And that's why any interpretation that has never been seen in Church history is likely to be wrong.
Thanks for your answers Soc!
:grin:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Blake,
Thanks for your helpful remarks; I'm trying to finish up my semester and so have been a little too busy to give the book the full attention it deserves. I am really interested in what Garrett has to say about chiastic structures, particularly.

Right now, unfortunately, I've also got the "flu," so that doesn't make for a very fun time. I'm supposed to have a meeting/dinner tonight---am bringing fried chicken (which I cannot eat).... Whenever I get sick, I seem to have trouble concentrating---sort of bad in when you're supposed to be lucid. :jade:

[A Beautiful Truth]

12-07-2003 @ 05:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=329445#post329445)
Blake Reas:




So YHWH was tired? Do you think this speaks univocally of YHWH or analogically? Or that it means he just stopped creating but did not tired?If you say univocally we have problems.

I always took it to mean that God ceased specifically from his work of creation. If it does not mean that, from what other kind of work was He resting?

If it is His work of creation, then His Sabbath rest continues today even though He still works in our lives. His "rest" will be over when He creates a new Heaven and earth.

Again, I always took it to mean His work of creation.

~Charleen

[BrianB]

12-06-2003 @ 08:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328674#post328674)
Blake Reas:

I checked the Southern Seminary Library for critiques of this book and only found two! This is significant since Southern has the 5th biggest theological library in the world!

Blake

Hey Blake,

Could you post some more details on these?
Thanks,

Brian

[Blake Reas]

12-13-2003 @ 01:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=336101#post336101)
A Beautiful Truth:



I always took it to mean that God ceased specifically from his work of creation. If it does not mean that, from what other kind of work was He resting?

If it is His work of creation, then His Sabbath rest continues today even though He still works in our lives. His "rest" will be over when He creates a new Heaven and earth.

Again, I always took it to mean His work of creation.

~Charleen

That is true, God did not need to create but what I was reacting against was what sounded like God literally sat back and got tired. God just stopped creating! I guess I may have misread Soc since I am usually debating Open Theism :rofl:

Blake Reas
:rofl:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 04:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=338291#post338291)
Blake Reas:



That is true, God did not need to create but what I was reacting against was what sounded like God literally sat back and got tired. God just stopped creating! I guess I may have misread Soc since I am usually debating Open Theism :rofl:

Blake Reas
:rofl:

I do not actually know if you misread Soc or not. I have never quite understood in what kind of rest one who believes in the 24 hour day proponents believe.

The scriptures indicate that God's rest continues. If so, then the seventh day continues even today.

~Charleen

[Jason Clark]

Sorry Charleen, you were correct to say that God ceased from creating, but to say that His Sabbath continues is not quite correct.

If I desist from working on a Sunday, then take a holiday on Monday, Tuesday, etc. My rest has continued, but that does not mean the day has continued.

God's ceasing from working (in creative terms) has continued to the present day, but it is not the same day as when He ceased from working.

Although then we have to deal with the timelessness of God... :huh:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 09:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=347299#post347299)
Jason Clark:

Sorry Charleen, you were correct to say that God ceased from creating, but to say that His Sabbath continues is not quite correct.

If I desist from working on a Sunday, then take a holiday on Monday, Tuesday, etc. My rest has continued, but that does not mean the day has continued.

God's ceasing from working (in creative terms) has continued to the present day, but it is not the same day as when He ceased from working.

Although then we have to deal with the timelessness of God... :huh:


I will tell you why I thought His rest continues:

"For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, 'As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest,' although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, 'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works'; and again in this passage, 'They shall not enter My rest.'...There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God..." Hebrews 4:3-5,9

The seventh day is the Sabbath and it is the Sabbath rest that is spoken of in these passages, therefore, the Sabbath day does continue, no?

~Charleen

[Socrates]

12-19-2003 @ 07:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=347299#post347299)
Jason Clark:

Sorry Charleen, you were correct to say that God ceased from creating, but to say that His Sabbath continues is not quite correct.

If I desist from working on a Sunday, then take a holiday on Monday, Tuesday, etc. My rest has continued, but that does not mean the day has continued.

God's ceasing from working (in creative terms) has continued to the present day, but it is not the same day as when He ceased from working.

Although then we have to deal with the timelessness of God... :huh:

Of course Jason, and it's bizarre that Hugh Ross and his devoted disciple cling to such a crassly weak argument to bolster their long-age compromise. From AiG's refutation of Ross's book The Genesis Question (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp):

Ross claims on p. 64:


‘Each of the six creation days closes with the refrain: “There was evening, and there was morning,” then the day’s number. The statement suggests that each day had a start time … and an end time. However, the refrain is not attached to the seventh day. Its closure is missing.

… its absence from the account of the seventh day can be taken as a meaningful hint: the day has not ended.’

From this, Ross has concluded that the other creation days could be long ages. However, the systematic theologian, Dr Douglas Kelly, responded to the same argument from Ross1 in his book Creation and Change (right) as follows:


‘To say the least, this places a great deal of theological weight on a very narrow and thin exegetical bridge! Is it not more concordant with the patent sense of the context of Genesis 2 (and Exodus 20) to infer that because the Sabbath differed in quality (though not — from anything we can learn out of the text itself — in quantity), a slightly different concluding formula was appended to indicate a qualitative difference (six days involved work; one day involved rest)? The formula employed to show the termination of that first sabbath : “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made” (Genesis 2:2) seems just as definite as that of “and the evening and the morning were the first day”.’

Ross also argues that Hebrews 4:1–11 teaches ‘that the seventh creation day began after the creation of Adam and Eve, continues through the present, and extends into the future.’ However, again Ross repeats an argument rebutted by Van Bebber and Taylor.16 Hebrews never says that the seventh day of creation is continuing to the present; it merely says that God’s rest is continuing. If someone says on Monday that he rested on Saturday and is still resting, it in no way implies that Saturday lasted until Monday. Kulikovsky carefully analyses the grammar of Hebrews 4 and concludes:


‘The “rest” of Hebrews 4 clearly refers to the Kingdom of God … Nowhere in the text is it equated with the seventh day of creation, nor is there any grammatical or contextual data suggesting any such equation.’

[A Beautiful Truth]

I will restate my point because I did not see an answer to it in Soc's response:

The seventh day is the Sabbath and it is the Sabbath rest that is spoken of in these passages [in Hebrews 4]. The Sabbath rest is reserved for the seventh day, therefore, the Sabbath day does continue as God's Sabbath rest continues.

Soc's quote did not address God's Sabbath rest which continues to this day.

Am I wrong to think that God's Sabbath rest is on the Sabbath day?


~Charleen

[mgarrett]

Hi! I came upon this forum randomly. I find it kind of funny to read all of your comments on Rethinking Genesis. Duane Garrett is my dad. Hope y'all like the book! :teeth: