David T. Tsumura<\/b><\/p>\n
Much has been written about the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and creation and flood stories from ancient Mesopotamia. In this series of articles David Tsumura presents an up-to-date overview of this subject. \u2014 Ed<\/i>.<\/p>\n
David T. Tsumura is Professor of Old Testament at Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo. He is author of The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation<\/i> (1989), as well as numerous articles on the Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages.<\/p>\n
Creation<\/b><\/p>\n
Creation has been one of the most interesting and intriguing subjects in the Old Testament. In modern Biblical scholarship a number of new interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis have been suggested, especially in the areas of comparative study and literary analysis.<\/p>\n
Genesis 1\u20132<\/b><\/p>\n
Double Creation Stories?<\/i> A theory has long been advocated that the early chapters of Genesis contain a \u201cdoublet\u201d of creation stories and that these stories, characterized by the distinctive divine names, Elohim<\/i> and YHWH<\/i>, are of different origins with two independent, and even opposing, cosmologies. According to this traditional critical theory, the former is the priestly account (P source) of creation from the postexilic period, while the latter is an earlier Yahwistic account (J source). Hence, it is usually assumed that there exist some discrepancies or contradictions between the two accounts.1 <\/p>\n
Recently, however, it has been emphasized by scholars like Alter that whatever their origins may be,<\/p>\n
the two accounts are complementary rather than overlapping, each giving a different kind of information about how the world came into being.<\/p>\n
According to him, \u201cthe two different creation stories,\u201d i.e., the P and J stories, constitute a \u201ccomposite narrative\u201d that encompasses \u201cdivergent perspectives\u201d by placing in sequence \u201ctwo ostensibly contradictory accounts of the same event,\u201d such as two stories of the creation of woman.2 <\/p>\n
When one takes a closer look at <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:1 (Winter 1996) p. 11<\/p>\n
both stories, it is evident that they are not two \u201cparallel\u201d versions of the same or similar \u201ccreation\u201d stories, since the theme and purpose of the two are certainly different. Castellino distinguishes Genesis 1, \u201cun vrai recit de creation\u201d (\u201ca true creation account\u201d), from Genesis 2, which is in a strict sense not a creation story but \u201cun texte dʾorganisation\u201d (\u201can organizational text\u201d) and serves as an \u201cintroduction\u201d to Genesis 3 (Castellino 1957). A story without any reference to the sun, the moon and the stars, or the sea is certainly not a true cosmological myth. Genesis 2 and following, therefore, should not be treated as the same literary genre as Genesis 1, which locates the creation of humankind at the grand climax of the creation of the cosmos,3 while the former is concerned with the immediate situation of mankind on the earth.<\/p>\n
However, as I recently demonstrated, both chapters do reflect essentially the same cosmology. In Genesis 1:2, the initial situation of the \u201cworld\u201d is described positively in terms of the still unproductive and uninhabited (tōh\u00fb wābōh\u00fb)4 \u201cearth\u201d totally covered by \u201cocean-water,\u201d while in 2:5\u20136 the initial state of the \u201cearth\u201d is described negatively in terms of the not-yet-productive \u201cearth\u201d in more concrete expressions, \u201cno vegetation\u201d and \u201cno man.\u201d And the underground-water was flooding out to inundate the whole area of the \u201cland,\u201d but not the entire earth as in Genesis 1:2.5 Thus, Genesis 1 describes an earlier stage in the one creation process in which the waters cover the earth, Genesis 2a a later stage (in 1:9\u201310) in which the waters have separated and the dry land has appeared.<\/p>\n
The Double Creation of Mankind?<\/i> The Genesis account as it stands mentions the creation of mankind twice, in 1:27 and 2:7. Kikawada hence suggests that there are two creations of mankind in Genesis, comparing Genesis 1\u20132 with the myth of Enki and Ninmah and the \u201cAtra-H\u00e3as\u00fes Epic\u201d (I 1\u2013351) (Kikawada 1983; Kikawada and Quinn 1985:39ff). According to him, Genesis 1 refers to \u201cthe first creation of mankind,\u201d while Genesis 2 refers to \u201cthe second creation of mankind,\u201d namely the creation of the specific persons Adam and Eve, and these two Biblical creation accounts are parallel to each other.<\/p>\n
It should be noted, however, that in Genesis those \u201cdouble creation stories\u201d deal with the same topic, the origin of humankind (ʾādām), and do not necessarily refer<\/i> to \u201ctwo\u201d separate creative actions regarding human creation. The debate is whether the reason for this twofold description is (1) that there were actually two independent creation stories of the same event or (2) that there were actually two separate creation acts or (3) that a technique of narrative discourse was used that recounts one and the same event from two different viewpoints. To this third possibility I now turn.<\/p>\n
Discourse Grammar.6 <\/i>It has been noted by scholars such as U. Casssuto (1961: 89\u201392; also Kitchen 1966: 116\u201317) that Genesis 1 gives a general description of mankind in the frame-work of the entire creation of the world and Genesis 2 gives a detailed description of humankind and their immediate context on the earth.7 From a discourse grammatical point of view, this relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 may be explained as a <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:1 (Winter 1996) p. 12<\/p>\n
generic-specific relationship (Long-acre 1983:119, 122) and the two constitute a \u201chyponymous\u201d8 parallelism, so to speak.<\/p>\n
This feature might also be explained as a phenomenon of what Grimes calls a \u201cscope change\u201d in narrative discourse, which is a phenomenon of \u201czooming in from an overall perspective to a closeup, with a corresponding shift in reference\u201d (1975: 46\u201347). This is the way I have described the nature of the relationship between the two \u201ccreation\u201d stories of Genesis elsewhere (1985); they have different scopes or viewpoints by which the author or narrator describes one and the same creation of mankind, first with relation to the cosmos, and then with a narrower focus on the manʾs relationship with the woman, the animals, and the environment in the second story. Therefore, the flow of discourse runs from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 and following, not vice versa, as assumed by the traditional source critics.<\/p>\n
As for 2:4, whose two halves constitute a chiastic parallelism, Wenham takes this verse as serving \u201cboth as a title to 2:5\u20134:26 and as a link with the introduction 1:1\u20132:3.\u201d9 In another context I have suggested that it serves as a link between the two stories and that this linkage is a kind of transitional technique that according to Parunak points to a surface pattern of repetition or similarity that joins successive textual units together (Tsumura 1985: 48; Purunak 1983). Genesis 1\u20132 could thus be explained as Parunakʾs A\/aB pattern; in 2:4a (a) the narrator repeats the keywords of Genesis 1:1\u20132:3 (A) and initiates a new section of story, 2:4b\u20134:26 (B).<\/p>\n
Genesis 1<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 1 and \u201cEnuma Elish.\u201d<\/i> Ever since H. Gunkelʾs famous book Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit<\/i> (1895), scholars have taken it for granted that the Hebrew tĕh\u00f4m in Genesis 1:2 has its mythological background in the ancient Babylonian goddess Tiamat of the \u201ccreation\u201d myth \u201cEnuma elish,\u201d in which the storm-god Marduk fights with and wins over the sea dragon Tiamat, establishing the cosmos.10 I have thoroughly reexamined the problem from a linguistic point of view, and it is now clear that it is phonologically impossible to conclude that tĕh\u00f4m ʾoceanʾ was borrowed from Tiamat<\/i>. The Hebrew tĕh\u00f4m ʾoceanʾ together with the Ugaritic thm<\/i>, the Akkadian tiāmtu, the Arabic tihāmat, and the Eblaite ti-ʾa\u00c0-ma-tum \/ tihām(a)tum \/ is simply a reflection of a common Semitic term *tihām- (1989: 45\u201352).<\/p>\n
While the Hebrew and Akkadian terms refer to the \u201cprimeval\u201d water, as Lambert notes, \u201cthe watery beginning of Genesis in itself is no evidence of Mesopotamian influence\u201d (1965: 293). He also notes that while the horizontal division of the cosmic water in Genesis 1:6\u20138 has its parallel description in Ee IV 135-V 62, \u201cthe case for a battle as a prelude to Godʾs dividing of the cosmic waters is unproven.\u201d In other words, \u201cneither on the Hebrew side nor on the Mesopotamian is there any clear proof that a battle is necessarily tied to the dividing of the waters.\u201d So, Genesis 1 and \u201cEnuma elish,\u201d which was composed primarily to exalt Marduk in the pantheon of Babylon,11 have no direct relation to each other. Not only is the creation by divine fiat in Genesis unique in the ancient Near <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:1 (Winter 1996) p. 13<\/p>\n
East, the creation of light as the first creating act appears only in Genesis (Lambert 1980: 71; 1965). Thus the creation in the Genesis story is quite different from the idea of \u201corder out of chaos,\u201d though the latter is also often called \u201ccreation\u201d (McCarthy 1967).<\/p>\n
It is not correct to say that \u201cEnuma elish\u201d was adopted and adapted by the Israelites to produce the Genesis stories. As Lambert holds, there is \u201cno evidence of Hebrew borrowing from Babylon\u201d (1965: 296). Sj\u00f6berg accepts Lambertʾs opinion that \u201cthere was hardly any influence from that Babylonian text on the Old Testament creation accounts\u201d (1984: 217). Hasel thinks rather that the creation account of Genesis 1 functions as an antimythological polemic in some cases (e.g., with the \u201csun,\u201d the \u201cmoon,\u201d and tnnm<\/i> (ʾsea monstersʾ?), etc. (1974). One thing is clear with regard to the religious nature of the creation story of Genesis: in Genesis 1 and 2 no female deity exists or is involved in producing the cosmos and humanity. This is unique among ancient creation stories that treat of deities having personality.<\/p>\n
Canaanite Background to Genesis 1?<\/i> According to Jacobsen,<\/p>\n
the story of the battle between the god of thunderstorms and the sea originated on the coast of the Mediterranean and wandered eastward from there to Babylon (1968: 107).<\/p>\n
Along the same line, Sj\u00f6berg as an Assyriologist warns Old Testament scholars that<\/p>\n
it is no longer scientifically sound to assume that all ideas originated in Mesopotamia and moved westward (1984: 218).<\/p>\n
Recently Day asserted that Genesis 1:2 was a demythologization of an original Chaoskampf<\/i> (ʾchaos-battleʾ) myth from ancient Canaan (1985: 53). However, the conflict of the storm-god Baal with the sea-deity Yam in the Ugaritic myth has nothing to do with a creation of cosmos like that of Marduk with Tiamat in \u201cEnuma elish.\u201d Kapelrud notes that<\/p>\n
with the existing texts and the material present so far we may conclude that they have no creation narrative\u201d (1980: 9).<\/p>\n
Also de Moor recently demonstrated that Baal in Ugaritic literature is never treated as a creator-god (1980). I have noted elsewhere that if the Genesis account were the demythologization of a Canaanite dragon myth, we would expect the term yam<\/i> ʾsea,ʾ which is the counterpart of the Ugaritic sea-god Yam, in the initial portion of the account. However, the term yam<\/i> does not appear in Genesis 1 until v. 10. It is difficult to assume that an earlier Canaanite dragon myth existed in the background of Genesis 1:2.12 <\/p>\n
Chaos in Genesis 1:2?<\/i> (a) tōh\u00fb̂ wābōh\u00fb. The expression tōh\u00fb̂ wābōh\u00fb, which is traditionally translated in English as \u201cwithout form and void\u201d (RSV) or the like, is often taken as signifying the primeval \u201cchaos,\u201d in direct opposition to \u201ccreation.\u201d I have demonstrated, however, that the phrase tōh\u00fb̂ wābōh\u00fb has nothing to do with primeval chaos; it simply means ʾemptinessʾ and refers to the earth in a \u201cbare\u201d state, without vegetation and animals as well as without humans. This \u201cunproductive and empty, uninhabited\u201d earth becomes productive with vegetation and inhabited by animals <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:1 (Winter 1996) p. 14<\/p>\n
and humankind by Godʾs fiats (Tsumura 1989: 41\u201343).<\/p>\n
I have also pointed out that in Genesis 1:2 hāʾāreṣ and tĕh\u00f4m are a \u201chyponymous\u201d word pair and hence the ʾoceanʾ (teh\u00f4m<\/i>) is a part of the ʾearthʾ (haʾārēṣ), since the term haʾārēṣ, which constitutes an antonymous word pair with has̆s̆āmayim ʾthe heavensʾ in Genesis 1:1, must refer to everything under the heaven.13 However, vv. 6ff. suggest that the water of tĕh\u00f4m in Genesis 1:2 covered all the ʾearthʾ (Tsumura 1989: 78\u201379). This water-covered earth is described in this passage by a pair of expressions, tōh\u00fb wābōh\u00fb \/ \/ ḥōs̆ek, not yet normal, that is to say, not yet productive or inhabited and without light. But it was not chaotic. It should be noted that even in \u201cEnuma elish\u201d the initial mingling of Apsu and Tiamat (Ee I 5) was orderly, not chaotic (Tsumura 1989: 60 n. 70).<\/p>\n
(b) r\u00fbaḥ ʾĕlōh\u00eem Albright, who rejected the \u201cworld egg theory\u201d (Gunkel) and the view that \u201cthe r\u00fbaḥ corresponds to the winds which Marduk sends against Ti\u00e2mat,\u201d suggested as the most probable view that<\/p>\n
r\u00fbaḥ̣ ʾĕlōh\u00eem means ʾspirit of God,ʾ but is substituted for an original r\u00fbaḥ, ʾwind,ʾ in order to bring the personality of God into the cosmogony from the beginning.<\/p>\n
Albright, however, thinks that \u201cthe r\u00fbaḥ ʾĕlōh\u00eem was evidently still thought of as exercising a ʾsexualʾ influence upon the teh\u00f4m.\u201d The verb rāḥap (ʾhoveredʾ), according to him, suggests that \u201cthe r\u00fbaḥ ʾĕlōh\u00eem was conceived of originally in the form of a bird\u201d (Albright 1924: 368 and n. 10).<\/p>\n
Recently, DeRoche suggested that just as the r\u00fbaḥ ʾwindʾ in Genesis 8:1 and Exodus 14:21 \u201cleads to the division within the bodies of water, and consequently, the appearance of dry land,\u201d so \u201cthe r\u00fbaḥ ʾĕlōh\u00eem ʾwind or spirit of Godʾ of Genesis 1:2c must also be a reference to the creative activity of the deity\u201d (1988:314\u201315). However, he holds, r\u00fbaḥ ʾĕlōh\u00eem is not \u201ca wind sent by God,\u201d that is to say, a creature, but \u201ca hypostasis for ʾelōh\u00eem.\u201d He does not think that it is \u201cpart of the description of chaos.\u201d According to him, \u201cIt expresses Elohimʾs control over the cosmos and his ability to impose his will upon it. As part of v 2 it is part of the description of the way things were before Elohim executes any specific act of creation\u201d (1988: 318).<\/p>\n
To be continued.<\/p>\n
(Reprinted by permission from I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood<\/i>, ed. R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura, Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994, pp. 27\u201334.)<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:1 (Winter 1996) p. 15<\/p>\n
References<\/b><\/p>\n
Albright, W.F.<\/p>\n
1924 Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology. Journal of Biblical Literature<\/i> 43.<\/p>\n
Alter, R.<\/p>\n
1981 The Art of Biblical Narrative<\/i>. New York: Basic Books.<\/p>\n
Andersen, E.I.<\/p>\n
1987 On Reading Genesis 1\u20133. Pp. 137\u201350 in Backgrounds for the Bible<\/i>, ed. M.P. OʾConnor and D.N. Freedman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Bodine, W.R.<\/p>\n
1987 Linguistics and Philology in the Study of Ancient Near Eastern Languages. Pp. 39\u201354 in \u201cWorking with No Data\u201d. Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin,<\/i> ed. D.M. Golomb. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Cassuto, U.<\/p>\n
1961 A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: From Adam to Noah<\/i>(trans. Israel Abrahams). Jerusalem: Magnes.<\/p>\n
Castellino, G.<\/p>\n
1957 Les origines de la civilisation selon les textes bibliques et les textes cuniform\u00e9s. Pp. 116\u201337 in Volume du Congrs Strasbourg<\/i> 1956 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 4). Leiden: Brill.<\/p>\n
Dalley, S.<\/p>\n
1991 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others<\/i>. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n
Day, J.<\/p>\n
1985 God<\/i>ʾ<\/i>s Conflict With the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament<\/i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n
de Moor, J.C.<\/p>\n
1980 El, the Creator. Pp. 171\u201387 in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon,<\/i> ed. G. Rendsburg et al. New York: KTAV.<\/p>\n
DeRoche, M.<\/p>\n
1988 The<\/i> r\u00fbaḥ ʾĕlōh\u00eem in Gen 1:2c: Creation or Chaos?\u201d In Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Cragie<\/i> (Journal for <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:1 (Winter 1996) p. 16<\/p>\n
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 67), ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.<\/p>\n
Grimes, J.<\/p>\n
1975 The Thread of Discourse<\/i>. The Hague: Mouton.<\/p>\n
Hasel, G.F.<\/p>\n
1974 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology. Evangelical Quarterly<\/i> 46: 81\u2013102.<\/p>\n
Heidel, A.<\/p>\n
1963 The Babylonian Genesis<\/i> (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n
Hess, R.S.<\/p>\n
1990 Genesis 1\u20132 in Its Literary Context. Tyndale Bulletin<\/i> 41: 143\u201353.<\/p>\n
Jackobson, T.<\/p>\n
1968 The Battle Between Marduk and Tiamat. Journal of the American Oriental Society<\/i> 88.<\/p>\n
Kapelrud, A.S.<\/p>\n
1980 Creation in the Ras Shamra Texts. Studia Theologica<\/i> 34.<\/p>\n
Kikawada, I.M.<\/p>\n
1983 The Double Creation of Mankind in Enki and Ninmah, Atrahasis I 1\u2013351, and Genesis 1\u20132. Iraq<\/i> 45: 43\u201345.<\/p>\n
Kikawada, I. M. and Quinn, A.<\/p>\n
1985 Before Abraham Was<\/i>: The Unity of Genesis 1\u201311<\/i>. Nashville: Abingdon.<\/p>\n
Kitchen, K.A.<\/p>\n
1966 Ancient Orient and Old Testament<\/i>. Chicago: InterVarsity Press.<\/p>\n
Lambert, W.G.<\/p>\n
1965 A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis. Journal of Theological Studies<\/i> 16: 287\u2013300.<\/p>\n
1980 Babylonien und Israel. Theologische Realenzyklop\u00e4die<\/i> 5: 71\u201372.<\/p>\n
Longacre, R.E.<\/p>\n
1983 The Grammar of Discourse<\/i>. New York: Plenum.<\/p>\n
1989 Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence, a Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39\u201348<\/i>. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
McCarthy, D.J.<\/p>\n
1967 Creation Motifs in Ancient Hebrew Poetry. Catholic Biblical Ouarterly<\/i> 29: 393\u2013406.<\/p>\n
Otzen, B.<\/p>\n
1980 The Use of Myth in Genesis. In Myths in the Old Testament<\/i>, ed. B. Otzen, H. Gottlieb and K. Jeppesen. London: SCM.<\/p>\n
Parunak, H. van D.<\/p>\n
1983 Transitional Techniques in the Bible. Journal of Biblical Literature<\/i> 102: 525\u201348.<\/p>\n
Sj\u00f6berg, A.W.<\/p>\n
1984 Eve and the Chameleon. In The Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W Ahlstr\u00f6m<\/i>. Sheffield: JSOT Press.<\/p>\n
Speiser, E.A.<\/p>\n
1969 The Creation Epic. Pp. 60\u201372 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament<\/i>, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n
Tsumura, D.T.<\/p>\n
1984a The Problem of Childlessness in the Royal Epic of Ugarit: An Analysis of Krt [KTU 1.14:1]: 1-25. In Monarchies and Socio-Religious Traditions in the Ancient Near East<\/i>, ed. T. Mikasa. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.<\/p>\n
1984b Ugarific Studies (3): On the Prologue of Keret Epic. Studies in Language and Literature<\/i> 9 (in Japanese).<\/p>\n
1985 Evangelical Biblical Interpretation: Towards the Establishment of Its Methodology. Evangelical Theology<\/i> 17: 47\u201350 (in Japanese, with an English summary, pp. 169\u201371).<\/p>\n
1988 A ʾHyponymousʾ Word Pair, ʾrṣ and ttm(t)<\/i>, in Hebrew and Ugaritic. Biblica<\/i> 69.<\/p>\n
1989 The Earth and Waters in Genesis 1 and 2:A Linguistic Investigation<\/i> (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 83). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.<\/p>\n
von Rad, G.<\/p>\n
1961 Genesis<\/i>. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.<\/p>\n
Wenham, G.J.<\/p>\n
1987 Genesis<\/i> 1\u201315<\/i>. Waco: Word.<\/p>\n
1988 Genesis: An Authorship Study and Current Pentateuchal Criticism. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament<\/i> 42: 3\u201318.<\/p>\n
Whybray, R.N.<\/p>\n
1987 The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study<\/i> (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 53). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
David T. Tsumura Much has been written about the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and creation and flood stories from ancient Mesopotamia. In this series of articles David Tsumura presents an up-to-date overview of this subject. \u2014 Ed. David T. Tsumura is Professor of Old Testament at Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo. He is … Continue reading “GENESIS
\nAND ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STORIES OF CREATION AND FLOOD: AN INTRODUCTION
\nPART I”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15203\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}