This paper is done over the issues of having two creation stories.
Varying Accounts of Creation: Contradiction or Reinforcement?
When looking at the beginning of the Bible, a problem is immediately encountered in Genesis 1 and 2. There are two separate, seemingly contradicting accounts of creation. The immediate issues arise in a series of questions. Can both of these stories be factual? What does the writer intend his audience to learn from these stories? Does this support or hurt a view of a divine creation? With these issues in mind, this paper will consult a variety of writings on Genesis and creation with a goal of finding the purpose of this troubling section of the Hebrew Bible.
First, it is important to look at the differences in the two stories. It is believed that Genesis 1: 1–2: 4a falls into the Priestly writings, and Genesis 2: 4b-25 falls into the Yahwist category. The latter is a story, with characters, action and a plot, while the former resembles a hymn, or confession of faith. The first account is structured and detailed. It holds to a pattern, and is very methodical. The second account offers spontaneity and shows the Lord participating in an experimental process. In the first account God is the primary character. He is referred to as Elohim and in this account, we are drawn to “authority, command, power, rage for order, urge or life, and especially the effectiveness of God in what he does and says.” In the second account God is given the name Yahweh Elohim, and is portrayed as a listening God that is concerned with what is going on in his creation. These are the primary differences in style.
The other differences that need to be addressed are the order of events. While there are many details that differ, such as the first account beginning wet, while the second starts off dry, there is one major difference that must be noted. Humans are created in different ways and at different times in the two stories. In the first account, male and female are created together, and they are created last. In the second account, humans are created first. Male is formed from the dust of the Earth, and then female is built from the rib of man. Female is an improvisation in the story. She is created as God feels that man needs a companion.
With these seemingly glaring differences in sight, the first question can be approached. Can both of these stories be factual? On the surface it appears that at least one of these stories must be false. Karen Armstrong argues that, “both J and P were writing fiction.” Her point with this is that the Biblical authors are demonstrating a “basic religious principal,” showing the readers that they cannot fully grasp all of the divine truth. Another argument presumes that the first account is factual, and that the second is not attempting to retell an actual account, but rather it is focused with beginning a story. “The fact that there is no concern for elements vital to the creation, such as light, seas, heavens, moon, stars, and sea creatures, confirms that this text is not a second creation account parallel to Genesis 1.” With these two arguments in mind, it is clear that the modern dimension of today’s society stimulates this problem. Everything must be fit into categories, and needs to be defined as “truth.” As post-modern thinking emerges, these two creation accounts may be viewed as more factual than they are being given credit for today. The fiction lies in what today’s readers are attempting to gain from the stories. The fact lies in what is actually being communicated.
This brings up the next question. What does the author(s) intend for us to learn through these two stories? This question must be answered in layers. At the beginning of any book, there is much going on beyond the surface of what is being read. The author must introduce a setting, characters, and overall mindset that will go into the writing. With this in mind, the next section will look at what the author(s) is attempting to introduce.
Starting in verse 1:1, the author is making a distinction about God. This God is different from other gods. The author is affirming that God alone created the heavens and the earth. While this plays into all three facets of the introduction, the primary reason for this is setting. The author(s) is attempting to put this book into the reader’s very own world. The two creation accounts offer familiar, yet distinct accounts of creation to people of the time. “Many ancient peoples developed creation accounts. These were not meant to be bad substitutes for science; rather they were statements about the meaning of the cosmos and the status of things in it. Often, they justified some political or social order.” The author(s) is entering the world of the people. There is an affirmation here that the story includes these ancient peoples. This serves as an invitation to read and take part in the story.
This also introduces the first character in the Bible. God is presented to the people here as the one true creator. Humphreys would suggest that a primary concern of the two creation accounts is to define the character of God in more detail. He goes on to state that the first account shows the sovereign side of God. “The traits we assign him- power; command; authority; control, especially of words; a rage for order, structure, typologies, taxonomies, boundaries, limits; an urge for life and regeneration in creation; and above all effectiveness- cohere into a structure or paradigm at which we marvel.” In the first account, Humphreys would argue that God is being given characteristics, but does not become a character in the actual story until the second account. In this second account, God becomes a “struggling parent.” In this account, God is portrayed as a relational God, one that interacts with his creation. This God is concerned with what his creation is going through, and is attempting to nuance and detail the world to fit his most precious creation, human beings. Through the two accounts, readers get a transcendent God in the former and an immanent God in the latter. The first account shows God strategically following a plan, while he structures his creation. The second God is artistic in his work. He crafts the world as he interacts with it. Most importantly, insight is given into the character of this God that will be a primary character throughout the remainder of the Bible.
While the setting was described in order to invite the ancient people into the story, the mindset that is introduced demands a change in the way they view the world. One key theme that is introduced in the beginning of Genesis is monotheism. “The first chapters of Genesis are, we think, ‘missionary’ work. They set up an argument against Chanaanite idolatry, the cult of false gods…” While these accounts appear similar to the stories of the people, the glaring difference is that this account provides that there is only one true creator. This mindset becomes a theme throughout Genesis and the entire Bible. This creates a conflict that people will continually struggle with throughout this story.
Through this introduction, the author(s) has given his audience a setting, insight into a primary character, and a mindset that will be used throughout the work. While the question was raised earlier about the factuality of these two stories, in light of this introduction, Boadts assumption that the two accounts are complementary appears correct. These accounts belong together, and both give us insight into God and the Word. A journey is initiated here that will lead readers through the rest of a wonderful history of God’s creation.
As these questions have been analyzed, some of the answers lead into the final question to be posed. Do the two creation accounts really lead to a view of divine creation? Both of the stories lead us to an understanding of God. That is certain. Can a scientific world discredit God as the creator of all because of two separate accounts of one event? The problem here lies with our insistence to choose a side.
“The average person, not being trained in either science or theology, is called upon to choose between two alleged sources of truth, divine revelation and scientific inquiry. Science seems to be telling him there is no god, while theology asks him to believe in a god who chose to create a universe full of nonsensical contradictions and endless deceptions. It is more than ironic that modern persons in this informed and sophisticated age are unable to reconcile the intellectual and spiritual facts of their existence to produce the happiness to which they are entitled.”
Thus, the argument becomes clear, that there must be a middle ground. Creation does not need to be an either/or situation, it must be a both/and. With this in mind, the problem can now be addressed in a manner that recognizes and embraces the tensions between science and divine creation. It is important to remember the implications from the rest of the paper when dealing with science. It is naïve to view every word in the two creation stories as literal. They must be approached delicately with reason.
With science and divine creation in mind, four views are formed in Across the Spectrum. These four views are: The Young Earth View; The Day-Age View; The Restoration View; and The Literary Framework View. Each of these views offer a perspective on when creation happened, and how long it actually took. The tension between science and divine creation will be outlined through these views in this section.
The Young Earth View seemingly contradicts science. Scientific views state that the earth is several billions of years old. This view argues that the word “day” in Genesis refers to a literal 24-hour day. With this in mind, creation would have happened no more than ten thousand years ago. The problem with this line of thinking is that it takes a confrontational stance. It attempts to discredit science, and ultimately continues a fight that shouldn’t be happening. This view would argue that the dating techniques of science are inaccurate.
The Day-Age View on the other hand, argues that the word “day” in Genesis actually means “age,” and that the earth could be as old as science claims. Each of these “days” in this view are understood as an indefinite period of time. This view offers a balance between science and religion, but still affirms divine creation. It does not support an evolution process. With this view, there is a level of open-mindedness, without compromising too much.
The Restoration View may be the most circumstantial. It presumes that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In that time, “original creation became corrupted through demonic forces and was judged.” Then God restored creation, and that is the account that is given in the subsequent creation stories. While this view attempts to discredit the debate between Day-Age theorists and those that affirm the Young Earth View, it does not offer much credibility. It focuses on the words tohu and bohu, or “formless” and “void.” It makes the argument that these two words generally refer to something which was corrupted or judged. Thus, God judged his initial creation, and was forced to recreate. I feel that this view lacks strong reasoning. As the story is told, creation becomes corrupted again, raising the question of why God wouldn’t start over again.
The final view is The Literary Framework View. This view asserts that all the other views are doing unnecessary work. Whether that is trying to force science to agree with a literal translation, or apologetically fitting Genesis into modern science. It also asserts that The Restoration View simply wants to “have their cake and eat it too.” The argument for this view has been supported in this paper up to this point. Genesis 1 and 2 do not attempt to give an exact description of creation. This view states that, “Genesis 1 is thematically and logically organized and expresses how the Creator solves the problems he needs to solve in order to bring creation out of chaos.” This view does not attempt to force one thing upon another. It simply allows things to coexist. It does not affirm any kind of scientific creation, but it doesn’t argue against them either. In a confrontational society, this offers discussion as opposed to argument.
In conclusion, the troubles with this scripture are more perceived than realized. It is human nature to constantly seek answers to tough questions. In regards to religion, God is constantly being defined and placed into categories that appease people. For many people, religion becomes something that needs to be factual in our minds. The problem with this is addressed as one of the central themes throughout the Bible. Faith is required. In this story at the beginning of the Bible, not only is God’s character revealed, but human nature is also illuminated. Just after creation, humans are portrayed as too curious for their own good. Adam and Eve get themselves into trouble by needing to go after things that God has told them to stay away from. Too much knowledge can be harmful. With this in mind, these creation accounts should serve as a beautiful picture of God’s love. They affirm that he is the one and only creator, and that he wants to spend eternity with us. They should serve as a call for us to worship our God with everything we have, if for no other reason, because he is the one that is responsible for our being here. We should take these stories as an example that it might not be important for us to realize the exact way in which we got here. Lastly, we should read these stories in a light that inform our reading of the entire Bible. We must look for God’s message in his Word. We must not project our own agendas on the scripture that we have. We must let it be what it is, the story of our God, and how he has interacted with his creation.
Terence E. Fretheim, Creation, Fall, and Flood: Studies in Genesis 1-11. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1969. 45
Christian E. Hauer, and William A. Young, An Introduction to the Bible: A Journey into Three Worlds. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. 61
W. Lee Humphreys, The Character of God in the Book of Genesis: A Narrative Appraisal. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2001. 23
Karen Armstrong, In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996. 21
John E. Hartley, New International Biblical Commentary: Genesis. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2000. 58
John H. Sailhamer, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1990. 20
W. Lee Humphreys, Joseph and his Family: A Literary study. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina, 1988. 97-98
William Lee Stokes, The Genesis Answer: A Scientist’s Testament for Divine Creation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy: Prentice-Hall, 1984. xvii
Extensive paper. You seem to avoid the issue of the authorship of Genesis; is this intentional?
Secondly, you seem to fall upon the ‘Literary Framework’ view, where Genesis is neither science or literal creation story. At what point does Genesis, then, become totally irrelevant? It’s clearly not science, and the Hebrew is written in a poetic format ( I translated this section of Genesis last semester), so it’s not a literal creation story. What relevance does this book of Scripture have on the origins of existence? You may say that it is relevant because it is Scripture, but you, like the rest of the literary community, do not even know who wrote Genesis.
Good paper on the subject though, very extensive coverage of the topic, certainly.
<blockquote) Genesis is neither science or literal creation story. At what point does Genesis, then, become totally irrelevant?
It seems like you are saying that relevance derives from the status of being either science of literal creation story; in the absence of these traits, relevance proportionately declines.
I may have misunderstood you, or you may be using the question to flush the author out of the moot sterility by which academia sometimes attempts to hide from the very issue it claims to confront (lest it be itself confronted). If so, my response is badly placed.
The answer is of course in your initial question, and final criticism in that the literary community is oblique at best, or ignorantly agnostic as to the authorship of the creation accounts in Genesis. If the ultimate authorship is “Adam the twelfth,” or Moses, or a group of scribes during the captivity, then the importance of the story as anything more than a mildly entertaining window into an ancient culture is pretty much gone. A relevant parallel may be “Le Morte d’ Arthur”.
If we refuse that, then we are seemingly launched into the world of auricular transcription, that God dictated to an earthly scribe, which seems even to me, a bit bizarre.
I would suggest that the relevance of the Genesis creation stories comes neither from scientific accuracy, nor historical literalness (if those are not the same things) nor from poetic excellence or even the identity of the authors, as festinating as all of those ideas are. If instead we posit God as collector and editor of ancient tales, causing some to be remembered, some to be transformed through retellings, some to be mixed together until they carried the truth He intends for us to understand, the problem of relevance disappears. Complex truth can sometimes be best understood through story, but it may take more than one story (even when the stories seem to be in opposition!) to get the full idea.
I know there has been great damage done to fruitful inquiry by applying to every question, “thus saeth the Lord!” And yet, if we force a reading of the Bible into a mold that declares an active presence of God, then we are trying to understand something while declaring he central point of limits. It is like trying to understand the Bill of Rights while declaring the concept of individual liberty of limit. Or trying to understand algebra without any hint of the concept of “equal”
I know nothing of the spiritual or religious biases of either of you two gentlemen, my own are easily discoverable as I suspect yours are; but I do believe you open up the issue of how we are to understand Holy Scripture, and what do we even mean by that title, in an important way.
-Blssings!
R. Eric Sawyer
(Sorry for the offending HTML!)
I did not mention authorship, partially because of the fact that it is unknown, but also because it was not the ultimate focus of the paper.
Since this part of Genesis falls into the Pre-History category, it simply does not have a scientific and archaeological backing. I believe that looking at the text, it is naive to say that things simply happened as it says. However, religion is something that requires a certain amount of faith. If we could prove God, would we continue to dig for answers, and seek to learn more about him?
I agree also with Eric in the idea that it was the collecting of these stories that sets them apart.
thanks for the comments guys.
Since I didn’t actually read this paper yet, just the comments…..Insert encouragement and fluffery I here ________, then read my following “helpful” suggestions.
1) Read More link – learn it, like it, use it.
2) Blogroll is out of date (T’s blog is wrong…and where mine???)
3) Saying the authorship is “unknown” is only true if you subscribe to a particular viewpoint as 100% correct (i.e. – that Moses didn’t write it, JEDP theory stuff that Baylor likes). Personally, I think its not easy to make either case in light of the Mark 12:26…yet the literary stuff not jiving and JEDP also making sense, perhaps a better statement is one of these two:
“I did not mention authorship, partially because there are differing views on authorship.” or “I did not mention authorship because I don’t really care, it doesn’t change anything for me, and frankly my dear, I don’t give a…”
Personally I subscribe to the second statement.
3) Read More Link – did I mention that? I mean DANG it took me a long time to find the evangelism paper T told me to read!!