Post: Week 1

Merriman Forum - Week 1

Merriman Forum - Week 1

by Mary Merriman -
Number of replies: 7

Heibert presents two interpretations of the creation story found in Genesis 2:4b-3:24 (p.4). The first interpretation describes humanity as permanently corrupted thus being controlled by sin and mortal, subject to death. Contrasting the fallen nature of humanity, Heibert provides a second interpretation in which death is a normal part of a mortal experience and not punishment for a fallen state. Through his commentary, he attempts to build a picture of humanity as moral and wise rather than corrupted in a fallen state. 

Several types of literary structure are applied to this pericope.  First, Heibert describes Israel’s agrarian society for whom this passage would resonate. As the Yahwist is the writer, the narrator is communicating the ‘Lord God’ as approachable and described as ‘walking in the garden’ almost in human form. (The Documentary Hypothesis, Julia O’Brien). Two trees are placed in the garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These convey an understanding of God who is about living not dying and that knowledge of good and evil is one of the defining characteristics of being human, also known as having wisdom or agency (p. 10)    

While Heibert does describe the ways in which each story has found it’s place in history,    I’m not convinced by his argument. Paul’s teaching of the fallen state in need of a redeemer seems to have found traction but Heibert doesn’t go into sufficient study to know why this is.

 
In reply to Mary Merriman

Re: Merriman Forum - Week 1

by Michelle Price -

Mary, I appreciate your input. I thought Hiebert was big on using Documentary Hypothesis to see how both stories are written for the time and how science has evolved and reshaped the belief of what the creation stories actually say. He talked on page 6 how the Earth used to be the center of the universe and have since discovered otherwise. Hiebert seems to be trying to dig beyond surface level of what we read to get us thinking more fully about what is there. For example, the flood story on page 13. He seems to show the similarities between the voices, even though we see the differences and work hard to pick them apart. How scripture and science are head to head, yet should maybe collaborate. There is a lot to yet discover between science and biblical accounts. 

I too was slightly lost on the Paul traction, but I think it may have to deal with the confusion within the Old Testament that made Paul's "simpler" version to comprehend.

In reply to Michelle Price

Re: Merriman Forum - Week 1

by Mary Merriman -

I enjoyed Heiberts entire commentary on Genesis and especially the energy of Genesis 1 and the opportunity for further musing in Genesis 2 as a gift of God to humanity even though it was a violation of Gods command.  My confusion with the "fall" myth is that it found such traction in the Christian church despite being rejected by Judaism. 

In reply to Mary Merriman

Re: Merriman Forum - Week 1

by Julia O'Brien -

Mary, you've well identified that Hiebert is contrasting what "most modern readers" believe (pp. 9 and 10) with his own reading of the J story. While you've noted that Paul's reading of the creation account is more popular, I'd like to hear why you don't think Hiebert is right about the Genesis account when it is read on its own.

In your discussion of "literary structure," you describe the historical background of agrarian Israel and mention the Documentary Hypothesis. "Literary" usually refers to "world in the text" approaches, while the Documentary Hypothesis is a "world behind the text" approach.


In reply to Julia O'Brien

Re: Merriman Forum - Week 1

by Mary Merriman -

I would like to have seen more discussion about the popularity of the fallen theory of the garden of Eden given that he writes that Judaism has largely abandoned the myth of the fall yet Paul has championed this negative story of humanity as in a fallen state as they became aware of their sinfulness (nakedness) through eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Paul was Jewish.  Did he adopt this myth because it made sense to him as a fallen creature of God who murdered Christians?   Is Romans his revelation of a loving God being revealed out of the chaos of sin. 

This evening, I'm putting together a glossary of the many different types of analysis that we have studied.  I did use but didn't label the Documentary Hypothesis that helped to reveal the Lord God and the relationship of god to Adam and Eve. Using the documentary hypothesis communicates this personal God to the readers of Genesis. Finally, the selection of a myth of a garden would be an example of historical criticism as it 'assumes the writers were addressing the perceived needs and problems of their own time periods. As an agrarian community, Israel would have more readily grasped the meaning of the story. 

In reply to Mary Merriman

Re: Merriman Forum - Week 1

by Julia O'Brien -

Mary, I can offer more to read about this perspective if you are interested.

The claim isn't that Jews abandoned the story while Paul kept it.

The claim instead is that Jews don't read this story as a catastrophe that ruined humanity. Rather, it is the first of a series of human failings that is met by (temporary) divine punishment and continued divine blessing.

This is pretty universally recognized: Jews and Christians have the same account but they don't weave it into their larger stories in the same way.

Paul really wants to cast Jesus as the solution to a prior problem, and he makes Jesus the second Adam undoing the actions of the first.

One thing to remember that that there are many centuries of interpretation of Genesis between our text and Paul. In the latest periods, that includes encounters with Greek thought in which the body/flesh are suspect. The Adam/Eve narrative gets read in a Graeco-Roman context by lots of Jews in new ways. We can find some of this writing in the Pseudepigrapha.



In reply to Mary Merriman

Re: Merriman Forum - Week 1

by Calvin Collins -
Mary
I found it very interesting that we would be writing this right before lent begins and the day before Ash Wednesday where we realize our mortal existence. Would you imply that Heibert wants people to realize they are imperfect then continue in their life? The idea of each of us being fallen from Adam (the first sin as many know) appeals to a lot of conservative Evangelical circles. I appreciate your understanding and justification of why you don't believe that his argument is convincing enough.

Peace,
Calvin
In reply to Calvin Collins

Re: Merriman Forum - Week 1

by Mary Merriman -

Thanks Calvin. There are many falls to write about. But there are many ways to know God's grace through our experiences of agency that lead us both to achieve and fall.