The Typical Patriarch-King, or, The Single Story of Genesis

[consiglieri]

I think one of the key points in recognizing (or allowing the possibility) that the stories around the figures have been mythologized is that it allows much more leeway (and validity) in prophetic and apostolic interpretations (and or versions) of the stories - even when they contradict. Because if there is no single 'historic' version of some particular stories/events, then it is more than proper for the Prophet and those under his direction to meld, reinterpret, and change the myth for modern application, and to teach the pressing concerns of the day. The framework and general characters remain the same, but often the details and motivations and props change drastically! The ancient prophets certainly had no problem with doing this. Rabbis have been doing it in a very interesting manner for centuries. I think 2 Nephi 2 is a great example of Lehi bringing a fresh new interpretation to the Garden Narrative.

Hi, Nack!

I had wanted to reply earlier, but am pretty busy right now.

What you say is important. I believe some scholars have gone to a somewhat extreme viewpoint and suggested that all three of the patriarchs are actually just stories around one patriarch that have been retold and distributed around three people.

This would account for why they all tend to do the same things (with variations, of course).

I mentioned to class last Sunday that Isaac really doesn't do much of anything, and what he does is mirrored after what Abraham did before (what with the sister-fib to Abimilech and the well dispute with Abimelech and Phicol).

I think we severely limit the possibilities of these stories to teach and express if we insist on reading them as literal history; and you are right that we also alleviate the need to account for obvious inconsistencies amongst the different accounts.

Mormons have a ready-made explanation for the two Creation accounts, but after that it starts to get dicey.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

This would account for why they all tend to do the same things (with variations, of course).

I mentioned to class last Sunday that Isaac really doesn't do much of anything, and what he does is mirrored after what Abraham did before (what with the sister-fib to Abimilech and the well dispute with Abimelech and Phicol).

Like father, like son. Don't you think Isaac would have acted according to the example he got from his father when put in a similar situation?

As for well disputes, I would be highly surprised if they happened to only one of the patriarchs, as water is scarce in the region. Well disputes were a frequent source of friction among the Bedouin. Evaporation wasn't the only reason for the boulder covering the well in Gen 29:1.

Most of the similar situations in the Patriarchal epic are due to them leading an almost identical existence.

[David T]

I think we severely limit the possibilities of these stories to teach and express if we insist on reading them as literal history; and you are right that we also alleviate the need to account for obvious inconsistencies amongst the different accounts.

Mormons have a ready-made explanation for the two Creation accounts, but after that it starts to get dicey.

This is one of the reasons I think it's completely pointless to argue with non-LDS how our Fortunate Fall /Plan of Salvation version of the Fall Narrative is the real meaning of the events detailed in Genesis. There is no way, whatsoever, you can get that from Genesis as it stands.

In Genesis, the fall is a bad thing, perhaps typifying the fall of the monarchy, priesthood, loss of temple, etc. God isn't gently teaching Adam, he's mad! Adam isn't being blessed with adversity, he's being cursed! I feel the flexibility of 'scriptural history', and the specific ability to prophetically adapt and meld it according to the needs of the modern Saints is a key purpose of the JST. It does create a Modern Bible For Out Day - and I think this is a key reason why the Sunday School OT lessons are so JST-centric.

They're not attempting to teach us the original ancient Israelite context of the Old Testament stories, they're using the Modern Version of these stories to teach the present day principles.

A study of textual sources of the ancient biblical text shows that this was how many of the stories as we have them came into being - through layers of refinement, additions, and re-interpretation. In many cases, the redactors applied present day situations and dilemmas and retroactively inserted them in the life of an ancient Patriarch, or Prophet.

This is exactly what most of the post-exilic 'pseudepigrapha' are - For example, 1 Enoch is a polemic against the wicked and apostate priesthood of the second temple period onward, told from the perspective of the Patriarch Enoch ("The Initiate"), with the Watchers stepping in the role of the wicked fallen priests. It presents the problem of living in world ravaged by the wickedness of others, and where the true religion is not popular - and in fact, has been polluted because the scriptures have been altered. It presents a hope for future Judgement and Restoration. And when the text becomes accepted by the Community (ie, 'canonized'), it becomes the New Version of the story, and has a fresh relevance. for the post-exilic Israelite communities who felt the rest of the world was in Apostasy, and for later, the Christian Community (as exemplified by Jude and many of the Ante-Nicene Fathers), this was the Enoch story for their day.

Joseph Smith's prophetic Enoch writings present the problem and goal of establishing a Zion community against the aggression of a growing wicked world in the days before a catastrophic Judgment. I frankly don't care if Enoch historically ever did such a thing. Through a prophet, this has become the inspired Enoch story for Our Day.