INTRODUCTION

What struck me in writing a small paper on the tabernacle that Moses was instructed to build was the way that these instructions resembled the creation stories of Genesis. It did not seem to me to be a general relation, but included a very detailed parallel of structuring and theme. This relationship also did not seem to limit itself to the Priestly creation story, but was represented in the Yahwist creation story as well.

In the early promotion of the �Documentary Hypothesis,� one obstacle that its supporters faced was from people who believed that Moses wrote the entire Torah. Attitudes supporting Mosaic authorship embraced a sense of textual unity that stood in conflict with the idea of contradictory passages existing within a multitude of authors. Mosaic authorship of the entire first five books of the Bible rested primarily in tradition and has little Biblical backing. While the Bible does refer to something which Moses wrote, the essence of Mosaic authorship is that it promotes a sense of unity within the Biblical texts which is sometimes missing in the later theories.

A Christian in the midst of attack and persuasion from other bodies, will quickly encounter the claim that the Bible could not be divinely ordained when it contains so many unfulfilled prophesies and �contradictions.� This argument can be heard from various groups and is especially strong with adherents to the Koran. Despite how this might effect a Christian�s own more meaningful and significant understandings, for the sake of the other body the removal of this obstacle could serve effective. Evangelical defense should not be at its root an attempt to defend innerancy in this manner and I am sure that there are other approaches. However, all contradictions that I have encountered have appeared to me to hold solid responses. At times I question the assumption that there are no true contradictions and fear the label of being a fundamentalist. However, each time it is challenged I end up developing a deeper belief that there are not any �contradictions� and I recognize a very strong distinction between myself and fundamentalism.

Bernard F. Batto states �Recent studies have emphasized that the Pentateuch exhibits a greater thematic and literary coherence than previously allowed. This is evident from the presence of such literary conventions and schisms, parallel episodes aligned in matching sequence, repetition of themes, linkage of the units together through catchwords And a host of others besides, which cut across the boundaries of the individual sources as set forth by the Documentary Hypothesis. � My paper attempts to explore the unity and fruitility or fertility of society and of the Biblical text by focusing on the tower of Babel, the deluge, and the tabernacle�s relation to creation.

I am somewhat skeptical of the Documentary Hypothesis in totality. However, it is new to me and I will keep to it for this paper. I will use R.E. Friedman�s book �Why Wrote the Bible� as a reference for the specific text divisions. I will investigate the idea that while the Yahwist may have responded to and shared terminology with other ancient societies that he did not build his notions of fruitility, unity, and creation upon their understanding. I will also explore the possibility that the tabernacle whose instructions God gave Moses on the mountain of Sinai formed a solid base of experience or reflection off of which the Biblical authors matched their creation stories. This base, in effect, would maintain a certain mosaic unity or form of authorship, relate divine inspiration, as well as form an expression and insight on societal unity and fruitility.

Fertility (Creation in light of Augustine, Niebuhr, and combat myth)

�In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters� (Gen. 1:1). From creation amongst the waters in the opening sentence of the Bible, to the survival of Noah in an ark, through Moses parting of the Red Sea (Ex 19), and to Jesus calming the storm (Luke 8) waters are used to symbolize chaos, disaster fear, and despair or rather death or nonexistence. It is the lack of something that leaves but nothing if not for the opening of the sky brought by the grace of God. And God said, �`Let there be light,� and there was light� (Gen. 1:3).

�The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed� (Gen. 2:7). It is noteworthy that Eden was a place implied to exist before a garden was planted in it. Eden itself seems to denote a bright spiritual place or existence. The word Eden means, �pleasure. � The earthly garden of physical substance did not make Eden. It was placed or grew in, through or from it. >br>

Eden is mentioned in other Old Testament books as �a place of extreme fertility� (Isaiah 51:21, Ezekiel 28:13). �And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads� (Gen. 2:10). Man�s life emerged not only physically from the dust, but later from the �breath of God�(Gen. 2:7). Augustine states that �the soul is that which God by his breathing, or better yet by his inspiration communicated meaning to the body of man. � Beneath the trees of the land and body man existed in a pure light void of the waters of chaos to cloud his vision.

The image of an opened flower appears to represent this unrestrained, fully blossomed life. The community was free from barriers or petals of flesh or self, or dependencies to separate it from the light or spirit of God. There was no need to circumcise, for there was no flesh restricting the communion.

According to Augustine �all good is from God. � It was not within man�s power, nor choice to be within the state of goodness, but it �lie dependent on God�s work of lighting his mind with knowledge and warming his will in love to bring forth the good work. � At this time man rested in this spirit in an innocence of dependence and life. The spiritual dimension of man did not exist in the flesh at this time, but rather the flesh existed in it. The vision was pure and clear as he glided smoothly across the waters. What kept man as a member of the community of Eden was not his physical location, but his spiritual condition or location. It existed in faith, trust, and a root confidence in its source, God�s spirit. As the soul was dependent on the source, so the body was dependent on the soul and it was all rooted in the light through confidence and trust in God. Augustine stated, �Will is therefore an intermediate good when it cleaves to the unchangeable good. �

But there was a little hole out of Eden through which man could exit. God had told Adam not to �eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you do you will surely die� (Gen. 2:17). God was not present when Adam ate. Man moved out of faith and God�s presence to have knowledge apart from it. He moved from faith in God to faith in himself. And so the petals of the self closed around the flower as man separated himself from the source of his life. Man was banished from Eden to the earth �to work the ground� (Gen. 3:23) which had been cursed for him (Gen. 3:17). Eve was given her name because she would become the mother of the living (Gen. 3:20). The tree of life was guarded by cherubim�s (Gen. 3:24).

H.R. Niebuhr had discussed how man enters the world �with a sense of promise � and how each person experiences a fall. He refers to this general experience as �the promises of God. � He claims that each of us personally falls in coming to distrust God�s promises. �This distrust of God is a response to the companion�s deception or disloyalty and the self�s disloyalty in the breaking of its own promise. � Niebuhr calls this �the great disillusionment, (the realization) that things are not as they seem. � �Thus there is a shamefulness hidden within our families, friends, and within ourselves. � Niebuhr claims that this wave of disloyalty and deception in the world clouds our vision of God.

There was something Niebuhr was missing, however. One of the consequences of the fall is that Eve would have increased pains in childbirth (Gen. 3:16). It is also after the fall that she is given her name Eve, which means mother of the living. In the Genesis account, when Adam was born he didn�t start with a mother. In birth after the fall, a child begins dependent on its mother. Its dependence on its mother is not rest in the transcendent good and relationship with God. It is a faith centered in humanity. The child begins disillusioned in this initial realm of existence.

An individual fall would imply that man is born in a sunny sky only to later to encounter the storm cloud of disloyalty and deception in the world. Yet Adam had already eaten the fruit and fallen through the small hole out of Eden to the ground and the child begins dependent on the mother. As small as it might be, the child�s trust in the general God is broken with the snip of the umbilical chord at the very moment of emergence into our world. It is the first drop of water in the perception of a possible flood.

A person who lacks faith or security in the absolute or common faith that life is worth living, attempts to secure himself through other centers of value. Niebuhr continues, �this distrust takes the forms of hostility toward, fear of, or avoidance of the ultimate reality (God)�.We never merely believe that life is worth living, but always think of it as made worth living by something on which we rely. And this being, whatever it be, is properly termed our god. � Moving in the sea (Yam), man sought to secure himself in things which hide his vision of the chaos and of the storm. In this realm of sight, man moved from sea god to sea god in a continuous quest to avoid getting wet.

Augustine had stated that �a nature is a nature because it is something made by God, but a nature falls away from that which is because the nature was made out of nothing. � Augustine does say man never falls so far as to become nothing. Niebuhr agrees, �There is in the background of existence, whether as a memory of childhood, or as a platonic recollection of something heard in another existence, or as the echo of an inner voice, the sense of something glorious, splendid, clean, and joyous for which this being and all being is intended. � There is still a bud beneath the petals, a lamb within the cage.

PART I Babel

Batto states of the Yahwist creation account: �the assumption that humankind was originally created to relieve the deity of the burden of cultivating his own plantation or �garden� is left intact. � My purpose is to show that the Yahwist writer did not build his notions of fertility, unity, or the origins of human existence upon Sumerian or Babylonian notions of human origins or their conceptions of human existence. It was not a base from which he was developing, but rather the Yahwist was writing or responding from a different base understanding and strongly opposing this Sumerian perception. The Yahwist does not present the same creation image of fertility as that of Sumerian mythology. His basis for securing a fruitile community did not stem from men providing food for the gods.

I BIBLICAL CITIES AND BABEL

In 1658 Bishop James Ushur published his work �Annals of the world.� By the King James Bible he stated that the world was created 4004 years ago. This timeline traces back the genealogies of people and references in the Bible to arrive at this date. While there is little need to hold this date as the origins of the world or of the prototype of what was to become man, it is an important reference point. It resembles a time history defines as the birth or origin of civilization.

One important aspect of growing civilization is the building of cities. The first biblical descriptions of man building a city come in four important places all attribute to the Yahwist writer. Able, whose name means breath or vapor, is the keeper of sheep (Gen. 4). The first Biblical city builder which the Yahwist displays is Cain.

Unlike his brother Able, Cain is closely related to the ground (Genesis 4:2, 4:3). He worked the soil. After killing his brother (�breath�), Cain is cursed with infertility and restlessness (Genesis 4:12). Leaving the presence of God, Cain sets outs east and � was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch� (Gen. 4:17). The next cities mentioned involve Nimrod. �The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar� (Genesis 10:10).

Brief History

History states that the growth of civilization began in the same fertile Mesopotamian plain. With the development of irrigation the mountain dwelling people could move to the river plains where there was a constant source of water. Here, they could grow regular crops. These developments provided a sense of stability to former wondering nomads.

Eventually, these riverside settlements grew in size from villages to small towns and a culture started to develop which has become known as the Ubaid culture. Among their developments, the Ubaidians developed the first divisions of labor, mud brick villages, and first religious shrines around 5000 BC. An advantage that these towns had was that they no longer required every person to be dedicated to gathering food.

While history speaks little of the Ubaidians, around 3500 BC the Sumerians settled on the banks of the Euphrates. Their first settlement was at Eridu where they built upon a small Ubadian shrine. This first settlement and shrine stand as a marker. The city of Eridu was shortly followed by Ur, Lagash, Nippur and Kish. �Collectively, these cities make up the Uruk culture, named after the principal city, Uruk, which is the Biblical Erech.�

The Uruk period, said to exist between 3500-3100 BC, was marked by a rapid growth in urbanization. While many cities grew quite large, this growth can be exemplified through the city of Uruk, which is thought to have held a population of around 45,000. Irrigation improvements as well as a supply of raw materials for craftsmen provided an impetus for the growth of city-states. Along with these irrigation improvements, the people were drawn to the city by the great temples there. �

Despite the development of irrigation, their source of fertility was not limitless. �These Sumerians were constantly at war with one another and other peoples, for water was a scarce and valuable resource. � The result over time of these wars was the growth of larger city-states. The more powerful swallowed up the smaller city-states.

The Early Dynastic period (2900-2350 B.C ) continued with Sumerian conflicts and struggles for power and security within themselves. Etana who "stabilized all the lands," secured the First Dynasty of Kish. In approximately 2600 BC Gilgamesh took over this thrown and became involved in a struggle with Mesannepadda, the founder of the Dynasty of Ur. Gilgamesh lost the struggle for power. However, the power of the Ur dynasty was not able to keep out the water seeping through the cracks. Strife continued in continued attempts to obtain security in human power.

The instability of the Sumerian Dynasty soon lost control to a new group of immigrants. In 2340BC Sargon lead a military victory, conquered Sumer and built the Akkadian Empire. Surprisingly, the Akkadians absorbed Sumerian culture and abandoned their own. They continued building and expanding upon the prior developing culture. They also provided a step for later expansion and empires. They centered themselves in Akkad which would later become Babylon.

Throughout his reign Sargon unity between the centers of his kingdom. However, the Akkadian Empire fell shortly after his death due to a series of internal divisions and outside invasions. Around 2112 the third Sumerian dynasty of Ur was established. This dynasty continued to experience internal power-struggles and external invasions. Around 2000BC the Sumerian Empire disappeared forever as the invading Amorites came to power. City-states were then molded into the developing Babylonian Empire.

III ZIGGURATS "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar.

Along with the depiction of citiy building, the Yahwist writer depicts the building of the tower of Babel in Shinar. The word �Babel� means confusion. Cherubims had guarded the Garden of Eden, the place of fertility, in the east (Gen. 3:24). In the Biblical account of Babel, the Yahwist presents the builders of the tower moving eastward to settle (or from the east). Graphically the bible would depict them as moving away from the entrance to Eden. Rather than a creation expanding outward from within the deeper dimensions of God�s spirit, these settlers were seeking to build a tower to the heavens or from the outside inward to the divine realm. Rather than man placed in Eden and remaining through faith, they sought to build an Eden through human efforts. Their theology sought to develop unity through humanity and build a tower to the heavens. The tower of Babel emerged within these efforts to secure fertility. It is obvious that the Yahwist writer was representing something which he felt to be prideful, confused, and ultimately unsuccessful.

The historical reality of such a tower in this area is not difficult to recognize. �The tower in Genesis 11:1-9 refers to a ziggurat. � Ziggurats were stepped pyramidal shaped towers that were a dominant element of many ancient Babylonian cities. Excavations have unearthed Ziggurats at the ancient cities as Eridu, Ur, Uruk, Nippur, Sipar, Aquar Quf, Kish, Babylon, and Larso.

These ziggurats were not an immediate development. They were a part of a building process. Falling in line with the depiction of Babel, � the J author distinctly describes the materials used in building the ziggurat. The building of the temple was made possible by the invention of brick. � Brick had been made in the earlier Ubaid periods. Tar or bitumen was an earlier development as well. It was used as mortar in the building of Ziggurats.

The actual development of the Ziggurat form was a building process as well. �The earliest Mesopotamian shrines were built flush with the ground. � Ziggurats often began with these small Ubaidian shrines. As with one building upon a confused premise or base, the developing Ziggurats had a core of mud bricks within which earlier buildings were often encompassed. �The sacredness of the shrine structure lead to new temples being built on platforms, within which earlier versions were entombed. �

From the earliest days of ziggurat development, men attempted to elevate the shrine above the rest of the city. The shrine at the top was reached by a means of three perpendicular staircases which converged at a central point. These temples reached to the heavens, and represented a way by which humanity sought to reach and �be close to the deity. � The people found security in the Ziggurat, as it �stood as a symbol for the city�s power. This was a security and power stemming from within the humanity which built it. The exterior enclosure was generally of backed brick, giving a very solid and compact appearance.

Famous Ziggurats symbolize the course of history and societal development. The earliest ziggurat formations stem from the wake of Sumerian settlement in Mesopotamia. At their first city of Eridu the earliest ziggurat or ziggurat prototype is thought to have began construction at approximately 3500 BCE. The Biblical depiction of the tower of Babel is often thought to have been based on Entemenanki, a Ziggurat in Babylon or Akkad.

While raised temple platforms of various degrees are often referred to as Ziggurats, �true Ziggurats are not clearly attested until the Third Dynasty of Ur. � This would be a period beginning around 2125 when the Sumerian city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia rose up in revolt, and the Akkadian Empire fell before a renewal of Sumerian city-states. Assyrian Ziggurats seem to have evolved further beyond these developments.

Ziggurats were not merely entities within themselves, but stood as a symbol of something greater of which they encompassed. The development of cities aligned with the construction of ziggurats. There was no separation of church and state in these days and the ziggurats were a symbol which encompassed the entirety of society �So we find that the development of ziggurats and the urbanization process go hand in hand. The ziggurat was the architectural focus of the temple complex, which in turn functioned as the central organ in the economic, political, and cultural spheres of early communities in Mesopotamia. " These human based efforts to secure enduring fruitility converged in the focal point of the ziggurats.

MYTH

One growing and developing element contained within a brick of the ziggurats was myth. Much of Sumerian mythology aligned with societal developments. Myth was one more attempt to secure themselves and in it were contained other societal developments. Yet, what the Sumerians and later Babylonians often felt was the origins of creation and the quest for fruitility, the Yahwist sections referred to as the cumulation of negative human effort in Genesis 11. In Sumerian and Babylonian mythology, creation aligned with the formation of ziggurats. Their wisdom paradigm stemmed from the beginning of the tower of Babel�s evolution. The development of their mythology was contained within the growth of the ziggurats.

Eridu is often the suggested site of the "Garden of Eden. It is here at Eridu where the Sumerian Adapa, thought to be a prototype of Adam, resided. Yet paralleling this story to the Yahwist creation story poses a grave danger. Eridu seems best fit as the Yahwist�s �garden of Babel.�

Eridu was the cult center cult center of Ea the god of wisdom . Ea conversed with the Sumerian Adam (Adapa), who �was a faithful priest and servant of Ea, who ran Ea�s house (sanctuary). � Eridu was also the site of the first Ziggurat. From this Sumerian base an evolving mythology and wisdom grew within a developing ziggurat. This displays how Sumerian wisdom�s sanctuary was seen by the Yahwist as a base leading to confusion.

The developments of wisdom in the evolving mythological argument were bricks added to the tower of Babel. It was from within this confusion that Mesopotamian society was structured. Wisdom retained its base Adapa�s home in Eridu. �Adapa, identified as a �son of Ea, was the most celebrated of the Apkallu. � The Apkullu were semi-divine sages, who �administered the patterns (usuratu) of heaven and earth � The word "patterns" is generally meant to express �the sum total of arts and sciences and the institutions by which civilized people live. �

AKKADIANS

Sumerian mythology date the �flood �prior to Early Dynastic period. However, in relying on the historical Biblical record, the floodwaters broke loose in 2348BC. This was at the very end of the First Sumerian Dynasty of Ur and the Early Dynastic Period. It was 8 years prior to the Akkadian Empire. Thus, from the Yahwist mindframe, it can be seen that the flood involves a relationship to the fall of the first Sumerian Dynasty. The dynasty was not solid or secure enough to keep the destructive chaos out.

When the Akkadians came to power, they did not abandon the prior Sumerian mythology. Grasping to maintain security, they continued developing within the ziggurat which the Sumerians had begun. The Akkadians responded differently to the flood than did the Yahwist�s narrative. As the Yahwist discussed how God would bring no later flood (Gen. 8:22), the Akkadians sought to secure and graft their mythological paradigm back into the evolution of the wisdom and theology stemming from Eridu.

The Apkullu were responsible for transmitting knowledge from before the flood to the generations following it . Gilgamesh is seen as a character very similar to Adapa and Gilgamesh was transposed by the Akkadians into a story that related to the flood. It is said that the Gilgamesh prologue was added �to elevate Gilgamesh to the ranks of the antediluvian sages from whom all current human knowledge and human institutions were said to come. � This same section also links Gilgamesh to the building of a ziggurat in Uruk. �Yea look upon its inner wall which none can equal. �

BABYLONIANS

The Babylonian myths built upon Sumerian mythology as well. They continued with the Sumerian argument. In �Creation of the world by Marduk,� dated to the 6th century BC , creation also begins with the Eridu Ziggurat. "All lands were sea, the spring which is in the sea was a water pipe, then Eridu was made, Eglasia was built. �

In Atrahasis, often called �the Babylonian story of the flood. � the lesser gods (the Igli) began with the responsibility of providing food and provisions for all of the gods. They then revolted against the tyranny of the higher gods (the Anunnaki). In response Eniki (Ea), the patron god of Eridu, fashioned a kind of primitive humankind (lullu). �The idea was that the henceforth humans would bear the burden of provisioning the gods so that the later might rest. � The �cries� of humankind kept Enlil, the king of the gods, from sleep. Thus he and the other gods sent plague, drought, famine, and eventually a flood to destroy humankind. Ea, however, gave wisdom to Atrahasis who was able to avoid destruction . This in effect gave power to the existing political patterns.

The same argument continues in the Babylonian myth Enuma Elish as well. In a political effort to promote Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, the author relates back to the older Ea (Eniki) of Sumer. In this story, Ea defeats ti'amat and builds his own palace over Apsu�s body. Thus Eridu origins remained intact. However, in a second cycle of combat, Anu and Ea prove inadequate and there is a necessity for a new god. Marduk accomplishes the task and defeats ti�amat.

Marduk then begins a creation process which includes humans �to do the work of the gods so that the latter might have leisure or rest as befitting gods. � The other gods in gratitude build Marduk a palace in Babylon. The name of this temple is Eglasia. The word Eglasia, means �House (temple palace) that raises its head (into the heavens). � This is the ziggurat begun by the Akkadians in Akkad and thought to be the inspiration for the Yahwist�s Babel account.

FERTILITY

The agricultural history of the Mesopotamian region would bring a basis for understanding societal harmony and stability. Agriculture and societal harmony would likely be reflected in a creation mythology which stressed fertility and underground streams. The story of Ennuma Elish would be natural means to speak of a creation in which man was created to do the work of the gods so that divinity could rest. As the society developed, the crops could be managed by fewer people, allowing others to devote themselves to disciplines such as building, mathematics and religion. This experience was transmitted into their theology or mythology.

OPPRESSION

In efforts for stability, the Suzerains developed a monarchical hierarchy. �The Sumerians seemed to have at first justified the monarch's authority based on some sort of divine selection, but later began to assert that the monarch himself was divine and worthy of worship. � It would be highly likely that attitudes existed such that the persons at the bottom of the hierarchy were seen created to cultivate the land with the purpose of securing rest for those over glorified noblemen at the top. Projecting this concept in to their theology or mythology, the social structure would be given a greater authenticity and power. The problem is that this seems to create an oppressive and inflexible caste system. Those at the top of the hierarchy would in effect be saying it was the divinely appointed purpose for those at the bottom to serve them.

Another dimension adds to the argument that this mythological paradigm was building an oppressive system. Within a system resting on human power and ambition, the developing Ziggurat included a legal code of strict retribution. �Scholars agree that the Code of Hammurabi, written by a Babylonian monarch, reproduces Sumerian law fairly exactly. � This legal code was one of �exact revenge, which we call lex talionis. �

In our world, in can be seen that a system of pure retribution seldomly recognizes the injustices and struggles of people in disadvantaged positions. It also seems to hold a drop of division. In Atrahasis, the meaning of the word din or cries is unknown. I would imagine that in many cases that these are the cries of the oppressed existing within a twisted perception of the flood which threatened the lower classes to maintain allegiance to the oppressive and inflexible societal structures. In attempts to �stay together,� �reach for the stars,� and create a �power� great enough to resist any threat, they grasped their societal dependencies, linked it through the Apkulu to Eridu and continued to build upon Babel. Their perception of the flood or disaster sought to threaten the oppressed rather than relieve them. This can be seen in the later Babylonian law codes where. �the punishments became dramatically more draconian: the death penalty was applied to many more crimes, including �bad behavior in a bar. ��

DIVISION

The Mesopotamians were struggling for a unified security and tightened their hands� grip. Their efforts closely related to the Yahwist depiction of the building of early cities and of the tower of Babel. With divided allegiances, the city-states were frequently at war with one another. They were restless like the Yahwist story said Cain would be. The tower was growing as �the more powerful swallowed up the smaller city-states. � In efforts for stability and thus fruitility, the Sumerians soon developed a monarchy. The Yahwist refers to this effort in the building of Babel saying, �otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.� (Genesis 11. The Yahwist�s reference, �and let us make a name for ourselves� (Genesis 11) can be seen in efforts to glorify kings into gods.

In the Sea, the groups of ancient Sumer sought their sea gods. Niebuhr states, �One tragedy of this religious life is that these other centers of values, divide us both within ourselves and with others. � Struggling in the sea to maintain security and trying to keep themselves from becoming wet, the polytheistic cultures continued to experience division both internally and externally. The ground was not fruitful as the first Sumerian Dynasty fell. Niebuhr mentions how �none of these values can save us from ultimate meaningless existence. � Moving from sea god to sea god they were eventually opened to the void. The flood was upon them as they caught a glimpse of the rain.

Confusion

In a section of the Biblical flood story attributed to the priestly writer, God states, �neither will I again smite anymore every thing living, as I have done� (Gen. 8:22). The fall did not mean the end. Closely after a time when the Bible states God promised never again to destroy the earth by a flood, the Akkadians speaking a new language moved into the land and the building of Ziggurats continued. They attempted to secure themselves through their development of myth. The sought to patch the confusion. The division continued. They were not unified.

In Genesis 11, God comes down to confuse the language of the people building the tower of Babel. The historical parallel that the Akkadians introduced the new Semitic language family is hard to overlook. This language family includes Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, and Babylonian. The Akkadians acted quite literally to confuse the language. However, this more essentially stands to represent a continued human division. The Sumerian epic entitled "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" states:

Once upon a time there was no snake, there was no scorpion, There was no hyena, there was no lion, There was no wild dog, no wolf, There was no fear, no terror, Man had no rival. In those days, the lands of Subur (and) Hamazi, Harmony-tongued Sumer, the great land of the decrees of princeship, Uri, the land having all that is appropriate, The land Martu, resting in security, The whole universe, the people in unison To Enlil in one tongue [spoke]. ... (Then) Enki, the lord of abundance (whose) commands are trustworthy, The lord of wisdom, who understands the land, The leader of the gods, Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu Changed the speech in their mouths, [brought] contention into it, Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one .

Noah

The Yahwist promotes a different image of fertility and growth than what the Babylonians display. After the flood it is written, �And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first [month], the first [day] of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry� (Gen. 8:13). A peculiarity of this verse is that while it is attributed to the Yahwist writer, it holds a language which is attributed frequently to the Priestly writer.

The word covering in Genesis 8:13 is translated from the word mikceh . It is used only once in the Yahwist writing, yet is repeated fifteen times in the Priestly writer�s discussion of the ark and tabernacle. The word is used in no other sections.. If there truly are the authors that the Documentary Hypothesis asserts it would appear to me that the priestly writer was drawing or growing in the meaning of this terminology through the expansion in the tabernacle. This word seems to promote a unity or connection between the Yahwist and Priestly passages.

In the priestly writing, this terminology represents the outer two layers of the covering used in the tent of the tabernacle. These are layers of ram�s skin dyed red covered by a layer of badger skin. These two layers can be seen to represent a layer of flesh and blood that encompasses a spiritual dimension. Inside the Holiest of Hollies one would be on a different side of the Mikceh than the rest of the world. Here, one would be in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant.

Noah too was on a different side of the covering then the rest of the word. This place exists through faith in God�s providential presence and spirit. The priestly additions of the tabernacle can help to see this place as somewhere beneath the flesh and blood. In the Yahwist sections alone, the concept can still be seen. Noah was definitely seen in a different realm than the rest of the world.

In Genesis 8:13, Noah�s position stands in contrast to the ground which in the previous story was to be infertile for Cain. Noah stands in contrast to Cain and the beginning of city building in the previous story. Noah is also presented in contrast to the tower of Babel which is the following story. The Yahwist certainly does not say Noah was searching out the wisdom of Ea nor does he continue in the Sumerian argument. Noah seems to stand in contrast to their understanding of human existence and attempts at securing a fruitful stability.

It may be pointed out that the story of Noah resembles that of Gilgamesh. A literal flood is to be taken on faith, and a literal sight of the transcendent seems sometimes belittled to an artistic expression. Yet, despite how one chooses to interpret it, both were responding to real events. There was a struggle for political control amidst a transfer of power. There was a growing division. There were plagues and flood(s). Yet in this experience, what the two authors saw was different. While the story of Gilgamesh told of the destruction of both the good and evil, the story of Noah saves the one only righteous man. While the later Akkadian and Babylonian authors returned to build upon previous thoughts in building later ziggurats, God tells Noah he will allow it and never again destroy the earth (Gen. 8:21).

The Yahwist writer presents an awareness of a different source for fertility and stability beneath the covering of the ark and a different means by which to achieve it. This is not something, which humanity builds up to or is created to provide, but something that stems from within Eden where a garden was planted. God promised Noah that the earth would never again be destroyed by a flood. Yet it is from within this that when Moses reaches the sea, he parts it and walks through. Hidden, the Israelites could not see behind the cloud. Yet as they followed the waters were held back and did not consume them. The Egyptians attempted to follow, but with their eyes not fixed upon the cloud all that they saw were the waves or perhaps the man in front of them who they grasped to stay afloat. It is from within the depths of this place behind the covering that a tent is drawn and a tabernacle given.

III TABERNACLE

Unlike the Mesopotamian Ziggurats standing as a symbol of the city�s pride and security, the tabernacle was a humble structure. An Egyptian moving westward into the Israelite camp would have �seen a sprawling camp of over two million people. � Here, they would have seen the tabernacle. It may have appeared similar to one of the �parallel institutions founded in the Semitic world from ancient Phoenicia. � However, it was not elevated. Coming west from Egypt one would see the very natural or earthly covering or mickeh. The top covering would blend in well with the desert sand of the ground. Yet neither the entrance nor the interior could be viewed in a travel eastward from Egypt. Beneath the humble covering would be the source of creation. Expanding outward to the curtains surrounding the courtyard, one would catch glimpse of a white cloth, the first visible contrast to the desert colors and a faint glimpse of transcendence.

The means by which the tabernacle was constructed differed significantly from the ziggurats of the Sumerians and Babylonians. It was not a shrine which the Israelites elevated in their struggle to maintains security and get closer to their gods, but a creation which stemmed from within the creators presence. The building of it was not demanded of the people so that the gods could attain rest. Its development drew upon free will offerings (Ex. 25:2). It was not a human based tower, but a divinely drawn tent.

Tents: �Ohel and unity through Mishkan

A tent is typically thought of as a person�s place of dwelling. �It was primarily used as living quarters. � The Hebrew word for tent is �ohel or Etb haohel. Tents are mobile and relate better to the nomadic existence prior to Sumerian settlement than they do to the developing ziggurats. As they travel major characters in the Yahwist sections of Genesis pitch tents. Abraham leaves his birth land in the Sumerian city of Ur and as he followed his calling, pitched a tent (�ohel) east of Bethel. �There he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord� (Gen. 12:8). After God appeared to Isaac and blessed him with increased descendants, Isaac �pitched his tent (�ohel), and there his servants dug a well� (Gen. 26:25).

The sections of Exodus attributed to the priestly writer picture the Israelites traveling the wilderness in tents (Ex 16:16). Moses, it appears, had a special tent as well. In the Elloist section (Exodus 33:7) he called it �the tent (�ohel) of meeting.� A pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance to this tent while the lord spoke with Moses. Within Moses�s experience on Mount Sinai, the Priestly writer testifies that God gave Moses instructions for constructing His Sanctuary. The word �ohel is again used in describing this sanctuary. However, we are introduced to a new word which is used for the first time in the Torah. This word is mishkan or eth hammishcan and is often translated tabernacle.

The sanctuary formed a second enclosure around the innermost dimension of the Hollies of Hollies where the Ark of the Covenant was housed. Four layers of skin sheets covered the boards and sanctuary of the tabernacle (mishkan). Extending outward these sheets included a cherubim embroidered layer, a goats hair layer, a ram�s skin dyed red layer, and a badger skin layer.

�The Biblical narrative uses the term mishkan both for the second enclosure and for the entire Tabernacle. � The cherubim embroidered sheets unite with the boards to form what is presented as this second enclosure. The tabernacle or Mishkan represents a spiritual solidity, stability, and unity that is manifested within the wholeness and unity of the physical structure it forms. It is representative of the inner unseen solidity of the boards and spiritual emanation outward through the Cherubim embroidered layer of skin. This displays the spiritual unity which encompasses the entire structure

The second enclosure is constructed by �arranging wooden frames (qerasim) as a rectangular box and then spreading the curtains over them. � The inner spiritual dimension of the mishkan be seen through the golden overlay of the boards and the Cherubim layers of cloth (Ex 26:1). The stability of the mishkan can be seen with its common connection with the �the boards of� or �for� it (26:15,17, 18, 20, 22, 23; 35:23; 36:20, 22, 25-28). The word mishkan as a symbol for the unified whole can be seen through the discussion of the completion of the mishkan with its various parts or elements (26:6,35; 27:19; 35:11,15, 18, 36:13; 38:20,21; 39:33).

The �ohel forms a tent over the tabernacle (mishkan) (26:7, 36:14) to cover it (26:13). �The mishkan is covered by a third enclosure called the �tent (�ohel). It is made of less-valuable fabric, goat wool, and it is not dyed or embroidered. � �Ohel had priory been used to describe the tents of Noah, Abraham, and the children of Israel in the wilderness. As the Israelites are drawn to unity, so are their tents drawn into the tabernacle. It seems a similar notion to say Abraham and Isaac were drawn into it as well.

The Mishkan represents unity. It is listed as being of or for the tent of the congregation (39:40, 40:2, 6). Tatches of brass are put through loops to couple the �ohel together that it be �one. (26:11, 36:18).� Many preachers would say that this embodiment is representative of the spiritual man. Yet in the instructions for the tabernacle, �ohel is not a word used for individual tents. It continuously exists along side the word congregation. Thus, it is called the Tent of the Congregation (27:21-33:7, 35:21, 38:8-39-32, 39:40-40:12, 40:22-40:35).

�The �ohel is covered by two or more enclosures: the covering of ram leather dyed red and a covering of tehasim skins. � These outer two layers of coverings are referred to as mikceh . This is the term that is used only one time in the Yahwist writings to discuss the covering which Noah removed from the ark in Genesis 8:13. This too is absorbed into the unity and spirit of the Mishkan.

TEXTUAL UNITY

The Documentary Hypothesis holds in one of its assumptions that there are Biblical contradictions. One of these concerns the tabernacle (see �Torah� Anchor Bible Dictionary p. 611) The problem exists as follows: After Moses is given instructions for the tabernacle, he descends from the mountain to experience the Israelites worshipping the golden calf (Ex 32). Shortly after this, it is stated, �now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside of the camp some distance away, calling it the �tent of meeting� (Ex 33:7). This occurs before the Israelites began building the tabernacle that God instructs Moses to build on the Mountain. The anchor Bible dictionary thus replies �in an apparent contradiction or confusion of sequence, it is reported that the tabernacle is moved outside the camp in the wake of the golden calf episode (Ex. 33:7-8) but this relocation comes before the report of the Tabernacle actually being built. �

A common answer to this apparent contradiction is that the instructions for the Tabernacle belong to the priestly writer, while the golden calf episode belongs to the Elloist writer. In reality, however, there is no contradiction. The tent of Moses in Exodus 33:7 is only the �ohel. The word mishkan is not used here. �Ohel does not represent the tabernacle�s entirety nor is it specific to any one physical object. During the golden calf episode in the Elloist section, the Israelites had not held the unity nor faith needed in efforts to bring about the tabernacle (mishkan).

The tabernacle�s architectural structure is never physically stabilized or unified as �ohel. This term mishkan stands to represent of a communal unity and the structural stability of the tabernacle. It represents a certain communion between man and God or unity brought through God�s calling or absorption of the numerous tents (�ohel) and Israelites metaphorically and literally into the tabernacle. Scholars (as exemplified by Friedman), recognize the distinction between the word �ohel and mishkan in the description of the tabernacle. It is thus difficult to fathom how they reason that a contradiction exists.

It is the mishkan, who�s pattern God showed Moses on the mountain (25:9, 26:30). It displays a plan and tells a story. It is this which Moses authors. Moses�s tent is absorbed into the tabernacle in a similar fashion to the tabernacle later moving into the temple.

Narrative history

�I do set my bow in the cloud (Gen. 7:13)� states God in what is attributed to the Priestly hand. As the Israelites continued on their journey they were lead by a cloud upon the Mishkan. The family of priests, the Levites would take down and set up the tabernacle as the stopped to camp on their journey.

The story is continued in the hand of the Deuteronomist and is said to have been written in approximately 622BC . Under the leadership of Moses�s successor Joshua, the Israelites eventually reached Shiloh. The word Shiloh means tranquil or peaceful and remained the Israelites religious center for the following 300 years (approximately 1400-1100). At Shiloh the Israelites set up the tent (�ohel) of meeting (Josh 18:1) and were assigned their various land allotments. Nothing is said here, however, about the Levites setting up the mishkan.

. In the events that unfold, a dispute erupts when the western tribes discover the eastern tribes had established an altar at a place other than Shiloh. Shiloh is recognized as the only suitable place for sacrifice The western tribes believed this because of the tabernacle�s (mishkan) presence here (Josh 22:19, 29). However, the narrator offers little support for the accuracy of their conviction. It is possible that the mishkan is not mentioned as being constructed in the opening of 18:1 as a reflection upon the lack of unity, or growing unfaithfulness of the various tribes at this moment. It is possible that the mishkan�s was absent in relation to developing lack of communion. Never the less, the particular dispute is settled as the eastern tribes apologize for an apparent misunderstanding.

While the Shiloh settlement began as a fairly faithful community, in events that occur in the following years they seem to demonstrate an arrogance or disloyalty. In a battle, the ark was taken by the Philistines. It is recovered 7 months later and placed in house of Abinadab at Gibeah. Later the book of Jeremiah describes the destruction of Shiloh.

The psalmist describes how God forsook the tabernacle (mishkan) of Shiloh, the land given to the tribe of Ephram and discusses how God then chose a leader from Judah (78:60). The psalmist is writing from a later date reflecting back on events transpiring between the arrival at Shiloh and the life of David. He is also lamenting upon the later Israelite defeat by the Philistines. The word �of� could easily be translated �at.� It is difficult to know if the tabernacle ever truly was constructed at Shiloh or if the narrator wished to present a picture of an overly complacent community that was escalating from the original moments of settlement.

�Following the destruction of Shiloh, the fate of the Tabernacle is party unclear. � Despite what course the Tabernacle took from the days of the Israelite wondering, the Chronicles report expresses that the tabernacle which Moses had constructed (1Ch 21:29) came to be located in the highplace of Gibeon (1 CH 21:29). King David eventually brings the ark to Jerusalem where he builds a new tent (�ohel) for it (1Chr 16:1 = 2 Sam 6:17). However, he still sends the high priest (Zadok) and his retinue to Gibeon to perform the nation's sacrifices at the tabernacle (1chron 16:39-40).

In 2nd Chronicles 1:3-6 the Ark is in David�s tent in Jerusalem, but the people go to sacrifice at the Tabernacle in Gibeon. However, when Solomon dedicates the first temple, he brings both the ark and the tent of meeting into it. The tabernacle (mishkan) is said to have existed in the temple (2Chron29:5-7). It is said to have been destroyed when the tabernacle was burned down (Psalm 74:7) by the Babylonians in 587BC.

EXISTANCE

The �P narrative spends a disprorportionaly large amount of space on the tabernacle. � It would be expected that his creation account would have similarities to the tabernacle. However, it has been commonly thought that the tabernacle structure did not historically exist at all or at least in the form that the priestly writer presented it. It has been thought that the priestly writer invented it or that the priestly writer greatly embellished upon a much simpler structure. If the priestly writer invented the tabernacle, it would not form as much of a basis or experience as a reflection or expression. However, if it was a real and solid structure, it would say much on the inspiration of the priestly author and the source or referent in which he matched or aligned biblical text.

It is not until fairly recently that scholars have considered the tabernacle to have truly existed. The prior belief that the tabernacle was fiction related to attempts to decipher the historic dating of the priestly writer. After scholars had accepted the four authors of the documentary hypothesis, two important scholars entered the scene.

Wilhelm Vatke and Karl Heinrich Graf are often esteemed as markers in the evolution of the Documentary Hypothesis. In his book, �Who Wrote the Bible,� R. E. Friedman presents them as markers at the beginnings of scholarly investigation into who the documentary authors were, when they wrote, and why they wrote. Graf believed that the priestly writer wrote during the second temple period. Friedman discusses how Graft�s dating of the priestly writer rested on his premise that the prophets did not quote P. Under influence of his professor he became convinced that the law and priestly writings were after the prophets. He concluded that P, the legal and ritual system, and the centrality of the priests and the Temple life were developments at the end of the biblical period.

Within this belief, Graf came across a difficulty. The post-exilic priests, during the second temple period were in charge at a time of centralization of the religion around the temple. The priestly writer, however, never mentioned the temple in his writing. To answer this problem, Graft argued that the temple was mentioned, but the priestly writer disguised it as the tabernacle. Graft claimed that the priestly writer invented it in order to link the priestly laws to the hand of Moses. The invention of the tabernacle would legitimize the laws through a claim to antiquity.

Graft added to this argument by saying that the dimensions of the tabernacle were 1:2 of the temple. Thus, the tabernacle was a miniature representation of the second temple. This supported his belief that the tabernacle was an invention to enforce the centrality of the second temple. Wellhausen, one of the most dominant names in the history of current scholarship, accepted and then expanded on the thesis of Graf.

Friedman argues against the Graft-Weellhausen belief. He displays how the prophets do quote P concentrating on Jeremiah and Ezekiel. He also demonstrates how the Hebrew of P parallels that of before the exile. Further more, Friedman states that �the priestly source emphasizes the ark, the tablets, the cherubs, and the Urim and Tummim in connection with the Tabernacle; and none of these things were in the second temple. � Friedman argues that if the priestly writer invented the tabernacle as a link and symbol of the temple, that he would not be emphasizing those elements of the tabernacle which the temple did not have.

Friedman found another dilema with Graft�s argument. The tabernacle was not simply a miniature of the temple. Only the length, and width of the temple to tabernacle ratio is 2:1. The height ratio is 3:1. The larger problem with Grafts argument is that that the temple dimensions listed were not even for the second temple. The only dimensions listed were those for the first temple. �The dimensions of the second temple are not given anywhere in the bible. �

Friedman added to this discovery. Not only are the dimensions for the second temple missing, but the accepted dimensions for the tabernacle were only one way of looking at it. The exodus account lists the length of the individual boards but not how they are arranged. Friedman argues that an architecturally stable arrangement of the boards would include overlapping them. This would change the dimensions of the tabernacle. This new arrangement would better match the dimensions of the fabric used to cover the boards. Further importance of this discovery is that this way of viewing the tabernacle�s dimensions would make the tabernacle fit the measurements for the space under the wings of the cherubs inside the Holy of Hollies in the FIRST Temple.

Friedman concludes, �The majority of scholarly opinion has held since the later part of the 19th century that P was composed in the exilic or postexilic period, but several discoveries in recent scholarship call for the preexilic providence. � Friedman places the priestly writer following the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. but prior to the fall of the kingdoms of Judah 587 B.C.. The strongest argument seems to be that the tabernacle was not an invention during the second temple period. The pre-exilic existence of the priestly writer puts him in a time in which he could have had experience with the actual tabernacle.

CROSS AND HARAN

Prior to the publication of R.E. Friedman, �Cross (1961) and Haran (1965) sought to identify the referent of the priestly description of the tabernacle. � Haran has argued that it is the Tabernacle of Shioh, which the priestly writers believed to have been carried there from Sinai. Cross has argued that it was the tent that David erected.

Cross�s argument, that the priestly writer was referring to the tent that David erected, would not align with the Biblical descriptions of the tabernacle. The Chronicles report had displayed the tabernacle (mishcan) existing in Gibeon while David constructed a new tent (�ohel) for the ark in Jerusalem. The priestly description of the tabernacle in exodus, of course, refers to the entirety of the mishcan which is not what David constructed.

The Chronicle does not depict the tent of David as being the tabernacle of Moses. The Chronicles is considered a late source. However, it has been discovered through the work of Halpern that �the references to the tabernacle in the books of Chronicles were not the Chronicler�s insertions, but rather were part of the Chroniclers pre-exilic source. � This weakens the argument that the Priestly writer was reflecting on David�s tent when writing about the tabernacle of Exodus. It strenghtens the argment that the tent which the Priestly writer discussed in Exodus was the tabernacle known to be present in Gibeon.

Haran�s argument retains the post-exilic authorship of the priestly text. He felt that �the priestly tabernacle is merely a utopian reflection of Jerusalem�s first temple. � He feels that �there is no hint in P of the tabernacle being moved from Shiloh � but that �they were certainly confident that the temple erected at Sinai & brought to Shiloh was of the most extravagent grandeur. � In short, Haran felt that the priestly description of the tabernacle was a reverent elaboration of priestly imagination. He felt that the historical tent was a much simpler structure than the priestly account testifies. Haran states �anyone who believes that the semi-nomatic tribes were capable of erecting such a magnificent edifice in their midst violates the laws of historical reality and it is up to him to substantiate his argument. �

Haran�s argument still leaves the question of why the priestly writer would not mention the temple during the second temple period. Also, while Haran�s argument does not turn the tabernacle into an invention to represent the temple, he still leaves it as a reverent elaboration of the actual structure. The opposing argument is that �there is no need or justification forgoing into these details of fabrics, rings, rods, poles and embroidery, and sliver basis in a work of pure fiction; and indeed there is no comparably detailed description of anything in the priestly work. � Furthermore, Halpern�s presentation of a pre-exilic source for Chronicles weakens the argument that the tabernacle was merely a reflection back on the tabernacle which stopped at Shiloh. It strengthens the notion the tabernacle actually came to find residence in Gibeon and then the first temple.

The rest of Haran�s argument has no backing. I see know reason why the Israelites would have been incapable of constructing the tabernacle in the wilderness and carrying it as they traveled. A very large group of Israelis had just plundered Egypt and �fabrics and beams were loaded onto covered wagons puled by oxen (Ex.7:7-8). It may be considered that the tabernacle was too heavy for the Israelites to carry. The weight was originally thought to be based on boards with a thickness of one cubit. This would make a heavy structure. However, it is �a groundless assumption with the lack of any evidence in the text to support it. � Many scholars contend that evidence is supplied in the text that the boards were formed like trellis and in a manner different than otherwise supposed. This would provide a much lighter structure that would be much easier to transport through the wilderness.

It appears that the tabernacle is gaining acceptance in the scholarly world as a real structure that found its way into the first temple of Solomon. There appears to be a place in the first temple who�s dimensions for the tabernacle to be moved into. To the inexperienced, it still appears that the methods of critical scholarship or perhaps my own methods of looking at it are questionable. Something seems to parallel removing the skins of the tabernacle in order to get at what is inside. However, what Friedman had done here is important. He has realized that there is room in the outer temple for the tabernacle, an element closer to the inner dimension, to enter and align. The tabernacle was moved into the first temple. �Evidence has been collected since the 1940�s that the tabernacle was historical. � In the words of R.E. Friedman, �it is real. �

Yahwist

The idea that the Yahwist writer wrote off of a base experience of inspiration through the Ark and tabernacle is something which to many would seem unlikely. To many, the Yahwist writer wrote before the Priestly writer�s presentation of the tabernacle. When presented with a �real� tabernacle, it is much more likely that the Yahwist developed his writings through it. In this argument, the tabernacle would be something which would be present to form some sort of reference, base, or inspiration for the Yahwist�s writings.

Scholars consider the Yahwist writer to have existed in Judah sometime prior to the fall of Israel in 722 BC . This is generally agreed upon but there are scholarly differences as to how far before 722. Some scholars date the Yahwist durring the reign of David. Durring this time, the tabernacle existed in Gibean while the ark existed in Jerusalem. If this were the case it would seem that the Yahwist writings would have had more experience and influence from the ark, but yet still retain some influence from the tabernacle. Scholars following the lead of Gerhard Von Rad, place the Yahwist within the court of Solomon . If this were the case, the Yahwist would have had better familiarity with the tabernacle, which housed the ark. R.E. Friedman argues that due to the author's emphasis on the importance of the ark and the command against molten gods that he had written after the division of the kingdom.

If Freidman�s analysis is correct and the Yahwist writer existed during the divided kingdom, the Yahwist writer would also have the tabernacle and the ark in his proximity. However, this would be a period in which the mishkan would not be present for at least its metaphorical meaning of unity. Instead of a fruitful unity, this period would appear to more closely parallel an emphasis on a fall and perhaps hope for redemption.

The difficulty with the notion that the Yahwist�s creation account was inspired and found reference in the tabernacle is that he does not mention the tabernacle in his writing. My speculation on this is that despite the actual date of the Yahwist, that the lack of the tabernacle in his writings resembles his creation emphasis on the fall. The Yahwist does, however, explicitly mention the core of the tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant. Perhaps, in reflection on the tabernacle, and promotion of the Ark, the Yahwist was crying in an inspired vision for future unity and fertility.

The opening of God�s instructions for the ark of the tabernacle states, "Have them make a chest of acacia wood--two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high� (Ex. 25:10). The notion of a chest of wood parallels the barren ground of the earth or pre-garden desert. The opening of the Yahwist creation account parallels this in saying �When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens Genesis states�and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground� (Genesis 2:5-6).

Fruitility or God�s creative activity is then expressed through the gold overlay of the ark. �Metpaphorically gold is spiritual wealth. � Exodus reads, �overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it� (Ex. 25:11).� The Yahwist again relates, �streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground�(Gen 2:6).�

The image of God�s creative spirit continues in the next verse of the priestly description, �cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other� (Exodus25:12). The gold spiritual wealth of the rings relates to the rivers in Genesis. �Metaphorically, rivers or streams of flowing (living) water symbolize salvation of the Spirit of God. � The Yahwist continues this thought stating �a river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters� (Gen. 2:10). It is interesting that the first of the rivers mentioned, the Pishon has a position that is physically hard to decipher. It is also this river that winds �where there is gold. The gold of that land is good� (Gen. 2:11-12) The gold of this river along with the three others seems to added dimension to its connection with the four rings of the ark.

Next, Exodus symbolizes man and his place in creation through the wood poles. It states, �then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it� (Exodus 25:13-14). As the poles are placed in the rings they are covered by the golden salvation spirit. The Yahwist story follows this chronology, �the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it� (Gen. 2:15). The story continues as exodus states, �the poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed.� (Gen. 2:15). The Yahwist parallels this saying �but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" (Gen 2:17).

In my minds eye the Yahwist�s creation continues to parallel the description of the tabernacle as they both continue in unity. It also relates a creation in which fruitility and unity are found through faith in spirit. While the Yahwist may have been responding to the mythology of Sumer, he wasn�t building off of their base. Perhaps instead an argument exists that he wrote creation off of the Tabernacle.

CONCLUSION LACKS --NEEDS EDITING

END

he built it off of the tabernacle. While I don�t want to sound overbearing in an ameature�s first investigation into �critical scholarship,� it seems possible that �critical scholarship� allows the possibility for a for a �real� tabernacle, a form of Mosaic authorship, and a means by which God breathed his inspiration. The tabernacle structure is often said to be a symobol that was foreshadowing Christ. Perhaps one�s faith in the tabernacle�s story in some way, form, or shape is a view of a similar sort. I sense a strong parallel between the Yahwist creation account and the instructions for the tabernacle from Ark to the courtyard curtain. Yet I�ll just leave a glimpse of this parallel as seen in the instructions for the Ark. Perhaps as I skrap together an end for what had been a beginning, this can serve as the Yahwists inspired cry for fertility and unity. (in what relation where the prophets? (MR T) on faith. However, perhaps this is one of those things mesoteric Within this image of feritiliy, Genesis continues, � theLORD God formed the man [7] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.(x-28)� I�ll leave the tabernacle for the imagination. Could it be that Moses wrote it? I am finished! AND INCLUDE SOURCES