The story of two Creation stories

by Doug Mason 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Doug Mason

  The first two chapters of Genesis provide two very different accounts of Creation.

  Firstly, they are contradictory. The sequence of Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a is plants, animals, then man and woman, whereas the sequence of Genesis 2:4b – 25 is man, plants, animals, then woman. S econdly, in the account at Genesis 1 the name of God is “Elohim” (35 times), whereas in the second account the word “God” never appears, but rather “Yahweh” is used (11 times).

  The Yahweh Creation story (Genesis 2) was written first, probably by a scribe (male or female) of the royal court of Judah. It was written before the destruction of Israel, likely following the start of the reign of Jehoram. Throughout the first four books of Scripture, when narrating, this writer only uses “Yahweh”, never “Elohim” (God).

  The Elohim Creation story (Genesis 1) was written after the destruction of Israel, likely by a priest during the time of King Hezekiah. This priest did not use “Yahweh” in his writings until that name is revealed to Moses at the burning bush. This priest was aware of the existing Yahweh Creation Story when he wrote his very different account.

  Each Story has its own, different objective. The structure of the Elohim account (Genesis 1) with its parallel days (1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6) culminates in the Sabbath. This is clearly the focus of the message taught by that priest. The structure of the Yahweh account (Genesis 2) shows that its focus is marriage. The stories were vehicles employed by each writer to influence behaviour in their own community.

  Some time following the end of the Babylonian Captivity, a priest, likely Ezra, combined these accounts. As he did this, he inserted a lot of his own material as well as incorporating Deuteronomy, which was probably the work of Jeremiah and/or his scribe Baruch.

  (Major reference: “Who Wrote the Bible?” by Richard Elliott Friedman. – I highly recommend it; it reads like a well-written detective story.)

  Doug
• 

  Blue Grass

  A lot of assumptions are made in your post. I always thought Chapter 2 of Genesis was to provide more detail of the creation, mainly because chapter 1 doesn't tell us how he created man.

  Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

  Genesis 2:4This is the account of the heavens and the earthwhen they were created.7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

  I always understood verse 4 of chapter 2 as speaking of same creation because of the phrase"when they were created". It seems to acknowledge the account from chapters 1 and is now going in to details of the creation that aren't in the first chapter.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Bluegrass,

  I do not have the space here to put the reasoning behind the positions I put; so I suggest that you come back to me after you have read the book I referred to. It is inexpensive and very easy to read.

  It has long been agreed that these two accounts of Creation are separate and independent. The Elohist story begins (NIV): "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and at Genesis 2:4a ends the story in similar fashion. The Yahwist story however begins the other way around at verse 4b: "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". The author of Genesis 1 was so determined not to copy the story that sat in front of him/her that the sequence has been reversed.

  I suggest that we should applaud the literary skill of Ezra when he combined these accounts in such a way that some think that chapter 2 is a comment on chapter 1. His great skill is further exemplified in the two Flood accounts that he weaved together to produce an apparently single record of the Flood.

  So I suggest that you put your assumptions aside, without concern at the potential outcome of your genuine investigation, and make your own study and come to your own genuinely held beliefs.

  Someone had to write these stories, but they were not there to record what happened or what was said. Also, remember how those people used history in a way so that it influenced their own community. They did not write objectively. Their records of history were theological documents.

  All the best for your study,

  Doug
• 

  Blue Grass

  So I suggest that you put your assumptions aside, without concern at the potential outcome of your genuine investigation, and make your own study and come to your own genuinely held beliefs.

  This topic isn't important enough for me to want to investigate. Assuming everything you say is true, I don't see any significance of it. Both creations say the same thing so I don't feel this is an important issue.
• 

  PrimateDave

  Who Wrote the Bible? is a fine book describing the DH for the lay person. While many (most?) Bibles do not show the separation between the first and second creation accounts, my JPS Tanakh does. It is important to realize that chapter and verse divisions were not known to the original writers.

  I would not credit the redactor (possibly Ezra) with any skillful talent at "combining" these two accounts, however. It seems that the current common perception that the second creation account elaborates on the first has as much to do with the wording that translators have chosen at the beginning of the second account as the simple fact that one account follows the other. Whatever the case may be, the average lay person simply ignores the obvious contradictions between the two accounts and assumes a single writer for them both.

  It goes beyond the creation account. There are two distinct flood stories in Genesis as well.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/175954/1/Noah-is-impossible
• 

  TD

  It's very interesting and eye opening to read the separated J and P accounts for the first time. It's easy to forget that we are not the audience the writer had in mind.,
• 

  Doug Mason

  bluegrass,

  While you might not be interested, for others I must apologise for an error in my reply to you.

  In my effort to keep my answer simple, I incorrectly identified Genesis 1 as from the Elohist (E) source, which of course it is not. The J (chapter 2) source was from a priest at Judah, with the contemporary E source was from the north, at Shiloh.

  The source of Genesis 1 from a later period, following the fall of the northern states of Israel, and is known as P

  Apologies.

  Doug
• 

  leavingwt

  Thank you, Doug.

  I have Friedman's book. I need to read it. It sounds fascinating.

  -LWT
• 

  Doug Mason

  PrimateDave,

  Yes, my copy of the NIV separates the two halves of Genesis 2:4, thus separating the end of the "first" story from the start of the "second" story.

  That book is most enlightening how it shows the two Flood stories, isn't it (pp. 54-59), again from both J and P.

  Doug
• 

  kurtbethel

  I have gotten great amusement when a JW told me Adam was the first man, and his fumbling around when I pointed out he was formed in chapter 2 by Yahweh, while men and women were created by the Elohim in chapter 1. I said that evidently Yahweh used the raw materials created in chapter one by the Elohim to form a man and plant a garden, apparently as a project he was doing. He kept insisting Adam was the first man. I pointed out that Adam could be considered the first man in the bloodline leading to Jesus, so he was partially correct and that I was sure the Watchtower would go back and read chapter 1 and get some new light about the situation any day now, then tell it to him so he could be up to speed.