6 May 2008
ET Gods in the Garden of Eden?
Posted by MSH under: Ancient Astronauts .
I thought I’d share a recent email I received from someone with a question about a new book that claims that one version (source) of the book of Genesis teaches readers that humankind was created by a group of gods:
>>
Hello Michael,
I was talking with Kevin Smith (via email) a few weeks ago, about his interpretation of creation according to the book of Genesis.
As you may know, Kevin is the author of the book ‘Gods in the Garden’ which puts forward the idea that there were essentially two creation origins of “man”…. one by the Lord God, and another (previous) by the “gods” (elohim).
I don’t claim to be a Hebrew scholar, but having read much of your material, I respect your work in this area. Therefore I was curious if you had read Kevin Smith’s book, and could give me your impression of his work?
>>
Kevin Smith is an internet radio talk show host. His show, The Kevin Smith Show, focuses on paranormal topics. His website notes that “He is a former International Police commander, a native of Texas, and graduate of Dallas Baptist College.”
I have been interviewed by Kevin (a couple years ago as I recall) and found him more well read than most talk show hosts I’ve interacted with. I could tell he had a nose for information (former cop) and a ready mind. He was pretty well acquainted (for someone who had no knowledge of the biblical languages) with critical approaches to the Bible. He was also very engaging. All that said, his idea here doesn’t have a prayer. His lack of knowledge with respect to biblical languages is his undoing. Here’s my response:
** [Dear X] I haven’t read Kevin’s book, but it’s easy to see what he’s doing. Since the late 19th century it has been fashionable in critical biblical scholarship to see the Pentateuch as a patchwork quilt of sources (not written by Moses). The sources are called: J, E, D, and P. J and E are so named because (so the theory goes) one source uses Jehovah (Yahweh; the LORD) as the name for God and the E source uses Elohim. Kevin is taking this common source-critical idea and using it to argue as you describe.
** Other than the problems with the traditional (since the late 1800s!) view of source criticism for the Pentateuch, Kevin has one fundamental, “my view is D.O.A.” problem. Even if the source divisions are correct, the “E” source (that uses elohim for the name of God) NEVER has elohim as the subject of a plural verb (EVER) when describing creation (of anything). If you have read my discussion of Zecharia Sitchin’s nonsense you know that elohim, though “shaped” as a plural noun, gets grammatically paired with a SINGULAR verb form nearly 1500 times in the OT. That is because “elohim” became a proper name for the singular God of Israel - and Hebrew grammatical agreement reflects that. Therefore, when elohim creates in the E source, it is a SINGLE elohim, not plural. Kevin’s idea is doomed by the text. Don’t waste any time considering it.
Let’s hope Kevin sticks to things he knows in the future. He’s good at what he does, but this is nonsense.
12 Comments so far...
davidkn Says:
7 May 2008 at 4:25 am.
Actually Gen 1:26 uses plural and the exegesis based on pluralis maiestatis is improbable. The term adonai zevaot could also be an indication of a council of gods. Perhaps these are what is left of the Canaanite oral traditions.
MSH Says:
7 May 2008 at 7:05 pm.
Gen 1:26 doesn’t “use” the plural in the way Kevin wants. It is a plural cohortative form (the plural of exhortation). It is akin to me (and I’m one person, last time I checked) saying “let’s go for pizza!” ONE speaker addresses a group - and so ONE God is addressing a group in Genesis (the divine council, in my view). The plural cohortative is actually preceded by a singular verb form, which is the predicate of elohim, thereby notifying us (grammatically) that a singular entity is doing the speaking of “let us do XYZ.” This is contrary to what Kevin Smith is arguing - elohim is NOT the subject of a plural verb in Genesis 1:26. A SINGULAR elohim “says” (3ms verb) “let’s create humankind.” The plurality comes with the group being addressed, not the singular God who makes the announcement. This is not dependent on Canaanite, either (you don’t need it; there’s plenty of plurality / divine council activity in the Hebrew Bible without appeal to Canaanite material. I’m trying to think of a Canaanite tradition of humankind, but I’m drawing a blank right now - do you know of one? I know there’s nothing in Ugaritic of the length and specificity as Gen 1 (usually the parallels are drawn from elsewhere, outside Canaanite material). YHWH-Tsebaot does refer to YHWH status as lord over an assembly of divine beings. You are also correct that the plural of majesty is improbable - that presumed syntactic function has to do with nouns, not verbal forms like this cohortative.
MSH Says:
7 May 2008 at 7:07 pm.
One more note to davidkn - thanks for bringing up the divine council! It was an important element of my dissertation, and my scholarly focus since then (and for the foreseeable future). Great stuff.
davidkn Says:
8 May 2008 at 12:30 am.
I might agree that cohortative is the correct way of understanding the verse, still morphologically what is the difference? Because the cohortative of lamed-heh almost always ends in the vowel “e” instead of “a”, the distinction between a “normal” (indicative?) plural form and the cohortative is purely subjective. You and I may deem it more probable but can we categorically say that it’s cohortative and not indicative as in Ex 19:8 for example?
Should we not take into account the evidence in Kuntillat ajrud (forgive the transliteration it is a site in Sinai) reading “leadonai teiman uleasherato” suggesting that ancient Israelite religion was based on two deities one feminine and the other masculine? With the evolution of the cult the two may have ceased to be represented separately and a plural form took the place of their separate names. In these matters everything is speculative of course…
I hope you are going to post something on the divine council soon….
davidkn Says:
8 May 2008 at 1:01 am.
I just noticed you have another blog on the divine council….
MSH Says:
8 May 2008 at 3:27 pm.
the other is just a site (www.thedivinecouncil.com), not a blog.
“We will make” (indicative) doesn’t justify Smith’s notion for the simple fact that when the creating takes place, the verb is singular. Since it is singular, the context is set up more readily for a cohortative.
Regarding ’shrth at Kuntillet Ajrud (and Khirbet el-Qom), the reading itself proves nothing (it’s still hotly debated among scholars). My view is that of Rick Hess: the word should be translated “Asheratah” not “Asherah” but it is still a reference to the goddess Asherah. So what does this prove? Only that there was some sort of offshoot Yahwistic religion who held Yahweh had a consort. This isn’t the Yahwism of the Bible, where the Hebrew doesn’t even have a word for goddess! (Elohim in masculine plural construct is used for “goddess of …” phrases). The Bible tells us explicitly that Yahweh was worshipped in incorrect (pagan) ways - read the material on Jereboam - it couldn’t be clearer. So … this is no surprise, and has nothing to do with Genesis 1:26. There are no theogonic texts in the Hebrew Bible (where everything is created via a god and goddess’ cohabitation). This absence reflects orthodox Yahwism, and proves as well that the Ajrud belief was off-center and aberrant (compared to the Bible).
Shiloh Says:
17 June 2008 at 1:24 am.
Did a little reading - why can’t it be a jussive? Hah sounds like I know what I am talking about. But it referenced Gen. 1:3 “let there be light” and said that it is used for 2nd and 3rd person, unlike the cohortative which is limited to the 1st person.
MSH Says:
17 June 2008 at 9:42 pm.
Shiloh: Why can’t what be a jussive? (I don’t want to have to look for what you’re referring to).
Shiloh Says:
18 June 2008 at 9:07 am.
The plural “cohortative” in Gen 1:26 - In response to an earlier post by davidkn who was wondering why it was not an indicative.
MSH Says:
18 June 2008 at 2:49 pm.
Shiloh: Since the verbs behind the creative act that follow are singular, the cohortative fits the context (ONE being making an announcement to a group). That would also fit the wider biblical context of Genesis 2 (notice ONE God creates humankind there, and there is no ambiguity), and other places in the OT where the singular God is said to have created humankind (again, the verbs are always singular, and Gen 1:26 is the only passage that has any sort of “group feel” to it - it’s absent in the others (cf. Gen 5:1; 6:7; Mal. 2:10; Deut 32:6). It’s also in concert with the Akkadian parallels that Sitchin and others like to say have a group of gods creating. In reality, in the Mesopotamian creation accounts, the Anunnaki don’t actually create humankind - they watch as the creation takes place.
Shiloh Says:
20 June 2008 at 2:27 am.
Re: Gen 1:26 - How closely related our the phrases in Gen. 11:3-4 “…let us make bricks…”; …”let us bulid…”; …”let us make a name..”; and of course in 11:7 God says “Let us go down…” to the one in Gen 1:26? Let us guess — cohortative.
Re: Annunaki I wonder if they shouted for joy:)
Side note - I was reading a book on the Trinity and the author was arguing that Gen. 1:26 supports the Trinity. One of his arguments was the denial of “angels” anywhere in the verses and the “fact” that angels were not created in the image of God an so man can’t have two images. I know! he has no concept of DC (one image shared). But what I found surprising is that in two of his “let us” references (Gen.3:22; and Is. 6:1-8) the other was Gen.11:1-7; there were Cherubim and Saraphim. Nice contexual proof/support.
Sorry for going on but I am a Info-Squirrel. Love to stuff my face with information.
MSH Says:
20 June 2008 at 10:59 pm.
SHiloh: In Gen 11:3-4 we have a cohortative (a cohortative is just a volitional mood), but the context isn’t one speaking to a group - it is many speaking among themselves. How do we know? The verb is PLURAL (”and THEY said” - the verb form is third masculine plural - as opposed to SINGULAR in Gen 1:26 - and God said - the form of “said is third masculine singular). Same for “let us build” - it is preceded by “Then THEY said.”
In gen 11:7 the cohortative (”let us go down”) is the same context as Gen 1:26 - a singular entity speaking to a group. How do we know? Two ways: (1) In the preceding verse, 11:6, we read “Yahweh said” - the verb is singular, third masc. singular - and Yahweh is ONE being (there’s nothing about y-h-w-h that smacks of plurality). (2) In 11:8, the verse immediately following, we have “and Yahweh dispersed…” - again, Yahweh is one entity and the verb form is third masculine singular.
I really don’t know what else the writer could have done to make it any clearer (in terms of Hebrew grammar and syntax).
Regarding the Anunnaki note - are you alluding to Job 38?
Where in Gen 1:26 is there a denial of angels (this is nothing but an argument from silence - there is no denial in the text).
I don’t think his support is good at all. There is no “let us” in Gen 3:22, so that is no parallel to Gen 1:26. There is “one of us” in Gen 3:22 - a preposition + suffix. Same with Isaiah 6 - there is no cohortative, only preposition + suffix (”for us”). Both passages are quite in concert with the divine council view; you don’t need a Trinity for that language (and the real problem with affirming a Trinity here is that you’d get into serious doctrinal trouble in other passages - like Psalm 82 - where plurality language occurs).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
