If you have the Jerusalem Bible (with footnotes) it does an excellent job of structuring the two accounts in Genesis.
The story of two Creation stories
by Doug Mason 12 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Perry
Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:
There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).
This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]
-
PrimateDave
I guess the NIV and JB are more up to date translations than the NWT. ;)
The NWT just runs one account straight into the next without so much as a period. In the NWT Gen. 2:4 is a one sentence paragraph with a comma in the middle, whereas the JPS Tanakh not only breaks Gen. 2:4 into two sentences, but it also separates them with more than just a paragraph break.
Furthermore, it doesn't surprise me that apologists always have an explanation that supports their traditional interpretation. However, I personally find the explanation of the DH by Friedman much more plausible. YMMV.