Chapter Four - 1-17 - Cain and Abel

Once again the passage is linked with what has gone before, this time through:

• 'Verbal echoes' of know, till, drive out & ground
  
• Similar narrative sequence: brief description of an offence; pointed questions from God; curses which focus on the ground, God's given items to the offenders; banishment of the transgressors to east of Eden.

All of which tells us that the story of Cain and Abel is heavily linked with the story of Adam and Eve

Turner refers repeatedly to the commission of 1:28 and its modification by the curses of 3:14-19, they provide a conext, or shadow in which to see the rest of this story and the rest of the book of Genesis and we see the man and woman and their offspring carrying out the commission.

He also claims it is ironic that:

• the man 'knows' the woman after having 'known' good and evil
  
• they procreate new life after having been barred from the tree of life
  

This a story about brothers, the word is repeated so much it is overused unless the intention is to emphasise this point

The difference between the two brothers in terms of their offering to God is emphasised through Chiasm

This is the first instance of the recurring motif (throughout Genesis) of the preferement of the younger over the older (could this be a compensation or consolation provided by a society - through its folklore - to counter the greater economic status of the eldest son - if it is there are no equivalent displays of anxiety or consciense expressed through Genesis (or the Hebrew Bible) about the lack of status accorded to daughters, whether oldest or not.)

Is Eve's cry in 4.1 sinful? Turner suggests that it should be translated 'I have created a man as well as the Lord' instead of the NRSV/NIV translation 'with the help of the Lord', or 'By the Lord's help I have acquired a son' (Good News); 'I have gotten a man with Yahweh's help' (WEB); 'I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah' (ASV); 'I have gotten a man from the Lord' (KJV)

Assonance is used to relate the name Cain (קַיִן) to acquired/produced/created (קָנִיתִי)

Abel (הֶבֶל) means breath/shadow, the fact that the name is given by the narrator not Eve is 'an ominous foreshadowing of his role in the story'

Cain's offering is rejected because of it has no 'firstlings' which corresponds to the recurring prhase 'first fruits' (Turner suggests Exodus 23:19; 34;26; Lev.2:14 - this is a case where a Christian reader is bound to include 1Corinthians 15:20; Romans 11:16; 16:5; James 1:18)

According to Turner the fact that Cain is unable to master the sin that rules over him calls into question whether the man will be able to rule over the woman.

The fact that sin has a desire for Cain suggests that it is a personified power, an external force like the serpent but also parasitic

The fact that we are given no motive for Cain's murder of Abel is an example of a device used elsewhere in Hebrew literature (no examples given) whereby witheld information grabs and sustains the reader's interest (isn't it strongly implied that the motive is jealousy and bitterness at God's favour towards Abel?)

The Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac; Masoretic Text does not have "Let's go out to the field" in 4: 8

Turner is struck by the lack of conscience or remorse displayed by Cain, along with arrogance and defiance. Even when he pleads with God it is because of his punishment not his crime. His use of the previous motifs 'knowing' and 'guarding/keeping' in the phrase 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?' emphasises his callousness.

Turner considers that he fears being killed by Adam or Eve since there is no one else yet extant to exact revenge on him, but this seems odd in the context of him being 'a wanderer on the earth', a phrase which seems to suggest he will come into contact with people (perhaps not chosen people?) out in the land beyond Eden. (Also revenge is not mentioned as a reason forr someone to kill him, simply being a stranger 'away from home' is perhaps reason enough )Just as chronology is previously sacrificed for structural symmetry so it may be unnecessary or undesirable to keep within the strict chronological logic which would say that at that time these are the only other people alive. Does this verse betray two incompatible ideas operating in the same narrative - that the garden of Eden is the beginning of all humanity/that it is only the beginning of some people (e.g. the israelite/jews/semites depending on how narrowly you interpret this.)

The previous curse was focused on the ground, now it switches from the ground to the offender: The man was told 'Cursed is the ground because of you' whereas Cain is told 'Cursed are you from the ground'

"The mark (of Cain) announces his guilt and his safety (Brueggemann 1982: 160) in much the same way that Yahweh's gift of clothes to the human couple are reminders of their offence yet also of Yahweh's grace."

The land of Nod (נוֹד)is a verbal echo of Nad (וָנָד) which means 'wanderer'

"Yet his situation could be worse. Despite his banishment, Cain is a man who stands simultaneously under the condemnation and protection of God" Compare with Esau and Jacob (27:41-28:9)

Chapter Three - The Fall

The story of creation is about time and holy time, the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall is about space and holy space.
There are a similarities between details of this narrative and aspects of temples/sanctuaries as follows:

• Association with river imagery (e.g. Water flowing from the Temple Ezekiel 47:1) and entered from the east - I find this questionable, the text says that the garden is located in the East and previously (chapter 2) Turner has said that the garden is exited Eastward by the rivers Tigris and Euphrates.
• The man's vocation to till is the same word used elsewhere (Num.3: 7-8; 8:26; 18:5-6) to describe priestly duties.
• The garden is protected by cherubim (which guard the Ark of the Covenant in Exodus 25:18-22; the tabernacle 26: 1; and Solomon's Temple 1 Kings 6:23-29)

This section uses paronomosia - a rhetorical device exploiting confusion/similarity between words - to link this chapter with the previous chapter: There is pointed similarity between the Hebrew word for the 'naked' state of the humans (described in 2:25), (rummim from arom) and the statement in 3:1 that the serpent was 'crafty' (arum). The latter word is ambiguous as it can mean prudent/clever (e.g. proverbs 14:8, 15, 18) but it can also mean 'crafty'.

• By the end of the chapter the serpent has gone from being 'arum' (crafty) to 'arur' (cursed)

To 'know good and evil' may be 'an idiomatic way of saying you will experience everything' in the same way that 'the heavens and the earth' includes everything inbetween, and Adam's 'knowing' of Eve cannot be purely intellectual since she becomes pregnant!

• It is ironic that produce of a tree is both an agent of their shame at being naked and is then used in an attempt to cover it up.
• It is also ironic that an animal is instrumental in their awareness of their nakedness which is from then on covered by animal skins.
• Turner treats the serpent as emblematic of all animals, claiming that the outcome of the narrative is that man's dominion over animals is intensified to emnity.

In the recriminations between Adam and Eve the 'one flesh' disintegrates.

The serpent remains enigmatic in that: we do not know where he derives his knowledge or what his motivation is.

The serpent is shown to be a seducer more than a liar, since he is economical with the truth in what he says to the woman.

Both the man and the woman are cursed in terms of their origins - the man will contend with the ground to survive and will then return to it as dust, the woman will be ruled by her husband and her desire for him will cause her to carry out the commision to multiply in great pain.

The curses also relate closely to the threefold commission of 1:28, the man will struggle to subdue the earth and the woman will give birth in pain.

This episode can also be seen in terms of a challenge to and a failure of the 3rd aspect of their commision (to have dominion over all living creatures) since the serpent is one of these creatures and by persuading the man to eat the fruit the woman fails 'lamentably' as man's helper in this regard.

Despite all this the man names the woman 'Eve' meaning the mother of all that lived. This is, according to Taylor indicative of the optimism of the man, to me this seems to be just another case of the backward looking nature of some story telling.

Chapter Two: 2:4b-25-25 - Another Account of the Creation

• The chiasm between 2:4a and 2:4b (heavens/earth/created//made/earth/heavens - ABCCBA) binds the two narrative accounts of creation and suggests they should be read together.
• The concern with time in chapter one does not entail a deep concern with chronology in chapter two.
• The discrepancy between the chronology of the two accounts testifies that there is a deeper concern in the text than surface events (later described as structural symmetry coupled with chronological disarray, or palistrophic balance contrasted with chronological disarray).
• The different terms used for God (narrator -Yahweh Elohim; Woman and Serpent - Elohim; Man - doesn't speak the name of God despite having named all the animals) are contrasted with the consistent use of Elohim in chapter 1. Whereas the historical critical method would see this negatively as lack of integrity in the narrative and evidence of disparate sources Turner sees this positively as a 'reminder to us to distinguish between the perspectives of narrator, characters and reader in this and any other plotted narrative.'
• Another contrast with chapter one is the amount of 'loose ends' in chapter two which are 'unpredictable' and 'intrigue the reader'. Some of these, such as the trees will have greater significance in subsequent chapters.
• The rivers in/from the garden mirror the creation of the seas but this account is concerned only with earth whereas chapter one is concerned with the heavens and the earth. They may be divided into known and unknown (Pishon and Gihon unkown - although Gihon is presumably named after a spring of the same name in the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem (referred to in Chron.32:30)) whereas the Tigris and the Euphrates are known.
• These known rivers introduce movements eastward, 'generally associated with exile' in a way that is 'ominous' for someone 'familiar with Israel's history of exile in Mesopotamia.'
• 'The source of the rivers of exile is in Man's home itself'
• The 'ominous note' sounded by the rivers of exile is underlined (a terrible mixed metaphor) by the introduction of the tree of death.
• God's evaluation throughout chapter one (that it was good) is contrasted with the incompleteness of man, on his own and needing a helper.
• Turner rejects the notion that the animals were created as part of an experiment to see if they could help man since this is inconsistent with the threefold commision to multiply, subdue the earth, and exercise dominion over the animals.
• Instead, according to Turner, the creation of animals impresses upon man the need for woman, even with the animals he is 'impotent' to fulfil his commision. 'Retarding' her introduction 'from the man's perspective underlines how crucial she is...Hence the cry of released frustration on meeting her: 'This at last...".
• Vocations are linked to origins (man - till the ground; woman - help the man)
• Man's naming of woman illustrates his authority (he has named the animals and it echoes God's naming of the elements in Chapter One).
• 'In procreation they will replicate their own creation, becoming once again 'one flesh'''.
• Turner says that their intimacy (which is implied in the image of 'one flesh') 'is heightened by their mutual nakedness which lacks all embarrassment'.

Chapter Two - 2:1-4a - Creation - Day Seven

• The statement that God finished creation on the seventh day is not a mistake (as has been suggested by others), it shows that creation is not just of the physical universe but includes a 'different order of work'.
• This day is shown to be unique by: the repeated formula ((announcement, imperative, report, evaluation, temporal framework) is absent; the day itself is blessed (not the creatures).
• The reucurring theme of separation reaches its apex - rest is not an anti-climax, 'in comparison to the chaos that preceded the creative activity rest is an appropriate, climactic and paradoxically counterbalancing conclusion'.
• Usually 'generation' statements introduce blocks of narrative but 2:4a should be seen as the conclusion of this block, not the introduction to the next bit since it makes a poor link with the rest of chapter 2 but echoes 1:1. "In the beginning God cretaed the heavens and the earth/These were the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created"

Chapter One - Creation - Days 1-6

The creation of the heavens and the earth take place in such a way as to emphasise the following.

• A move from chaos to order (seen in the organising and separation of elements on each day but also in two triads of action, the second of which allows the created elements to particpate in the creative activity.)
• A greater concern with time than with matter or space (Each day consists of the following elements: announcement, imperative, report, evaluation & temporal framework; the first step away from chaos is the creation of light and with it the separation of night and day and the beginning of time.)
• The ease with which God creates (imperative monologue and lack of dialogue)
• That without needing to God wishes to work through intermediaries (why are the luminaries needed on day 4?)
• The special status of humans is emphasised by the 'switch to the plural' in 'let us make...'
• The blessings and commands to humans suggest an analogy between human and divine activity (subdue the earth) and separation from other animals, whereas 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' is common to humans and other animals.
• God's commands to non-animal creation gets an instant response, but the bessings to animals and humans anticipate an ongoing activity
  
  
  

Introduction

Laurance A. Turner uses the metaphor of a cake to describe (in his favour) the relationship between historical/critical and literary readings of Genesis. According to this the historical, critical method is like extracting the contents and recipe from a cake whereas the literary method attempts to sample, appreciate and understand the finished product.

He doesn't mention the way in which the two methods can underpin or undermine different theological positions. The historical critical method involves the dismantling of the text and this may easily come to support the dismantling of faith which has arisen from the reader. Equally the literary approach assumes a certain wholeness and genius behind the text and it is easy to see how this can be more comforting to a faithful reader; it can also provide a way of reading in which different theological understandings can unite since it deals with wholeness but leaves aside the question of the origin of this wholeness (whether this is wisdom, genius or literally inspiration).

While all literary forms and techniques are included in this approach his primary focus is on plot, on action, on what happens in Genesis and the way in which this is set out and revealed.

In this commentary reference, comparison and contrast is more likely to be with other words, verses or narratives from within the Bible (inter-textual) and especially within the book of Genesis (intra-textual). It is worth noting that where the intertextual reference is from the New Testament we are in a situation of committment to the essential contintuity between the covenants (at least as perceived by the authors of the New Testament). Christians are also likely to see this text (as all old testament texts) as having a centre that Jews, Muslims and secular scholars do not recognise.

Turner characterizes his reading as that of the 'first-time reader' but is at pains to point out that this does not mean he has only read the book once! Rather this is because of the value he places on plot, and the artful suspense and tension involved in the telling of story. While it is clearly profitable to consider the effect of not knowing what is going to happen next is there not also useful to imagine at least some of the narrative as a repeated telling, perhaps in the context of a celebration or other ritual. This too has its own stylistic elements which may explain the composition techniques of some scripture.

And while it is perhaps necessary to characterise the reader before making sense of the reading, is it not limiting and a bit confusing to characterise the reader in such a weak and limited way? (Simply as one familiar with other Biblical texts but reading/hearing this one for the first time.) Surely the familiarity with other biblical texts necessary for intertextuality to be an effective tool (for author and reader alike) makes it likely that the same reader would in fact know the outcome of the narrative s/he is experiencing.

As well as narrative he considers characterization to be important, noting the great difference in the depth of different charcters, some of whom are flat narraitve agents where as others are ambiguous and complex.

As well as plot, character and intertextuality he also analyses the use of wordplay (in Hebrew) as a technique to suggest comparison and contrast, irony, confirmation and ambiguity.

He also identifies multivalence - occasions when the text 'alerts the reader to the possiblity of more than one interpretation of a passage. Of course modern theologians and readers are increasingly keen to see different levels of interpretation or point of view in scripture, the point of this line of analysis is exposing techniques which suggest that this is something intended by the author(s) of the text, as something implied in the text not simply imposed by the reader.

Other literary techniques present throughtout, according to Turner, are ambiguity, irony and repetition (of words, concepts, motifs or actions)

Summary of literary elements/techniques Turner observes in Genesis:

• Plot
• Character
• Intertexuality (Intratextuality)
• Multivalence
• Wordplay
• Ambiguity
• Irony
• Repetition

In terms of plot he divdes the narrative into primaeval and ancestral history (which begins with the call of Abraham). Ancestral history is further divided into the stories of Abraham, Jacob and Jacob's family.

There are narratives within narratives throughout ('plotted movements which span not just individual stories but whole blocks') but they are all united in their movement from exposition to complication to resolution.

He also highlights a progression of complexity in character and plot that develops throughout the book.

The introduction closes with a justification of his approach and a rallying call:

'Too often in the past Genesis has been treated as an amalgam of disparate
sources ccobbled together by dull redactors. Thankfully, that assessment is
being increasingly callanged in contemporary scholarship. Viewed as a whole, and
allowed to display its integrity as a cohesive composition, the book emerges as
a coherent and well constructed literary work that rewards repeated
investigation.'

While he formally accepts the usefulness of historical critical method he, rightly, points out the perils of it being the dominant mode of biblical study. Clearly it is sensible to make use of both methods in the same way that a prime minister makes use of various sources of advice, and in the same way these sources may not be naturally complimentary. He makes it clear that he is writing from a time and place where literary approaches, at least within academia, are still struggling for parity with historical, critical methods and this informs his concentration on the one approach - our own situation is less concerned with this battle and so allows us the freedom to mix the two approaches, though not without concern that one approach may yet control and seek to exclude the other.