Two Different Creation Stories

[jfer45]

I have heard from numerous scholars that the book of Genisis contains not one, but two creation stories. The first one, from Genesis 1.1-2.3 contains the priestly story which most scholars believe was written in the 500s BC. The other story is the Yahwist creation story and it was written in 900s BC. The Yahwist story is a large narative of Isreal's origin.

The first story describes the creation of the heavens and earth and everything else in a six day span. The second story gives another account of creation, in a slightly different order and also talks about the creation of Adham, Hebrew for humankind.

What is your take on the creation stories found in the book of Genisis?

 

[Pats]

Hi welcome to CF

I have read about this as well. It does seem that there are two different accounts there, I'm not sure when they were written. I just know at some point they were merged together into one scroll.

 

[ChetSinger]

That's a common thought among the more liberal and/or skeptical sources. For a defense of the traditional view, I suggest reading http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html.

 

[RealityCheck]

That's a common thought among the more liberal and/or skeptical sources. For a defense of the traditional view, I suggest reading http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html.

It's not just a liberal or skeptical view. It is the view shared by most historians, Biblical archaeologists, theologians.

 

[PaladinValer]

Liberals and skeptics?

A great deal of conservatives and most moderates agree with this notion.

 

[gluadys]

It's not just a liberal or skeptical view. It is the view shared by most historians, Biblical archaeologists, theologians.

Right!

When the Turks took over Greece and much of south-east Europe, many Greek scholars fled to western Europe, bringing with them Greek manuscripts which had been lost in the west for over 1,000 years.

Not just Christian works, but works by Aristotle, Plato and many other ancient classics of philosophy.

In the centuries that followed, western scholars tried to establish which of several varying texts was closest to the original of e.g. Plato. They were also interested in putting various texts in correct chronological order. And in determining which works attributed to an author was really by that author and which were actually by someone else.

It was inevitable that the techniques developed to ascertain correct text, authorship and time of publication of extra-biblical texts were eventually applied to the bible.

That is how we came to understand that many biblical books are really composite works brought together by later editors. Isaiah, for example, is the work of three prophets, not just one.

The two creation stories are just the tip of the iceberg in Genesis. There are actually two distinct flood stories too.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jp-flood.html

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't that jumping from textual criticism to higher criticism which has only been around since the 19th century?

 

[gluadys]

Isn't that jumping from textual criticism to higher criticism which has only been around since the 19th century?

"Higher criticism" is a 19th century term for several critical methods such as form criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism, etc. Together with textual criticism the various sub-disciplines are usually called the historico-critical method.

I don't think there is any more "jumping" involved than there is in going from micro-evolution to macro-evolution.

Some of the methods were developed earlier, but only began to be applied to the bible in the 19th century. And some methods were developed more recently, often as new technology or new archeological discoveries made them possible.

 

[Assyrian]

Textual criticism is probably closer to cladistics, you work out the relationships between variant manuscripts and build a family tree, very macro evolution.

The other forms of criticism seem more like abiogenesis, trying to work out how the text was written in the first place, but without any copies of earlier versions, it seem highly speculative. They can produce plausible models of how it could have been put together, but without any 'fossil' evidence to support their conjecture.

 

[gluadys]

Textual criticism is probably closer to cladistics, you work out the relationships between variant manuscripts and build a family tree, very macro evolution.

The other forms of criticism seem more like abiogenesis, trying to work out how the text was written in the first place, but without any copies of earlier versions, it seem highly speculative. They can produce plausible models of how it could have been put together, but without any 'fossil' evidence to support their conjecture.

To some extent the "fossils" are in the text itself. And there is also the examination of extra-biblical texts and inscriptions. There is probably more science involved than most people outside of the field are aware of. For example, it is possible now to tell whether or not two similar texts were written by the same or different authors by analysing the pattern of small connecting words such as "and", "but", "if", etc. People tend to use such words unconciously and personal use patterns can be almost as distinctive as fingerprints or DNA.

As in any academic discipline one has to provide convincing reasons to support one's hypothesis. So some models are much more plausible than others.

 

[shernren]

I don't see why I should feel threatened if it turned out that two people wrote the creation story, not one. After all, we have four Gospels and nobody ever complains about that ...

 

[RealityCheck]

I don't see why I should feel threatened if it turned out that two people wrote the creation story, not one. After all, we have four Gospels and nobody ever complains about that ...

And if it weren't for some very strong advocates at the Council of Nicaea, we'd only have three, and no John. Back in those days, John was strongly seen as a Gnostic gospel, and close to heresy.

 

[jereth]

That's a common thought among the more liberal and/or skeptical sources. For a defense of the traditional view, I suggest reading http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html.

The only people who argue passionately for unity of Genesis 1-3 are YECists. That suggests an ulterior motive.

 

[jfer45]

And if it weren't for some very strong advocates at the Council of Nicaea, we'd only have three, and no John. Back in those days, John was strongly seen as a Gnostic gospel, and close to heresy.

I would like to read up on this. Do you know of any good books on this topic?

 

[Assyrian]

To some extent the "fossils" are in the text itself. And there is also the examination of extra-biblical texts and inscriptions. There is probably more science involved than most people outside of the field are aware of. For example, it is possible now to tell whether or not two similar texts were written by the same or different authors by analysing the pattern of small connecting words such as "and", "but", "if", etc. People tend to use such words unconciously and personal use patterns can be almost as distinctive as fingerprints or DNA.

As in any academic discipline one has to provide convincing reasons to support one's hypothesis. So some models are much more plausible than others.

The problem is, people switch can change style depending on who they are talking to, a solicitor will speak very differently in court than talking in the pub to his friends, writing love poetry to his fiance will be completely different again. The names we use for God will depend on context too, from Abba, Father in intimate prayer, to Lord God Almighty praying for the nations.

These differences are internal and can have various explanations, it is the explanation of these differences that needs external confirmation, some fossilised remains of the proposed earlier forms. Have critics ever predicted an earlier source of a text that has since been discovered?

I think Genesis does tell us that it is compiled from earlier books. That doesn't mean 'the book of the generations of Adam' was actually written by Adam and carried in the Ark as YECs claim, but it is direct evidence from the Genesis itself saying it was compiled from earlier accounts.

 

[jfer45]

The problem is, people switch can change style depending on who they are talking to, a solicitor will speak very differently in court than talking in the pub to his friends, writing love poetry to his fiance will be completely different again. The names we use for God will depend on context too, from Abba, Father in intimate prayer, to Lord God Almighty praying for the nations.

These differences are internal and can have various explanations, it is the explanation of these differences that needs external confirmation, some fossilised remains of the proposed earlier forms. Have critics ever predicted an earlier source of a text that has since been discovered?

I think Genesis does tell us that it is compiled from earlier books. That doesn't mean 'the book of the generations of Adam' was actually written by Adam and carried in the Ark as YECs claim, but it is direct evidence from the Genesis itself saying it was compiled from earlier accounts.

I am new to these forums and new to the acronyms used. YECs refers to Youth Earth Creationists I am assuming. Do they actually believe there was an actual global flood, and an actual guy named Noah put all the animals of the earth in a boat? And you say YECs believe that Genisis was written by Adam. How is this possible? If he is the first person, did he just magically create the Greek language or whatever language the book of Genisis was originally written in?

 

[gluadys]

I am new to these forums and new to the acronyms used. YECs refers to Youth Earth Creationists I am assuming. Do they actually believe there was an actual global flood, and an actual guy named Noah put all the animals of the earth in a boat? And you say YECs believe that Genisis was written by Adam. How is this possible? If he is the first person, did he just magically create the Greek language or whatever language the book of Genisis was originally written in?

Hebrew. Genesis was originally written in Hebrew. And yes, YECs do believe there was an actual global flood, and actual Noah, an actual ark filled with animals. Not all would agree that Adam wrote anything. Genesis is usually attributed to Moses.

 

[gluadys]

The problem is, people switch can change style depending on who they are talking to, a solicitor will speak very differently in court than talking in the pub to his friends, writing love poetry to his fiance will be completely different again. The names we use for God will depend on context too, from Abba, Father in intimate prayer, to Lord God Almighty praying for the nations.

Superficially, yes. But they don't change the deep structure of how they speak and write. One can tell Shakespeare from Bacon whether they are writing letters, plays or sonnets. (And don't forget that at one time it was proposed that Shakespeare was a pseudonym of Bacon's.) Also, that in a play the writer must develop different styles for the different characters. Yet one playwright's basic way of writing will identify him/her from another.

With the bible we have also the differences in the language itself as it changed over time, both in vocabulary and in pronunciation to the extent it is reflected in writing.

Have critics ever predicted an earlier source of a text that has since been discovered?

Not that I know of. The finds that have occurred (Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi texts) were not predicted. And a predicted source like Q has not been found.

I think Genesis does tell us that it is compiled from earlier books. That doesn't mean 'the book of the generations of Adam' was actually written by Adam and carried in the Ark as YECs claim, but it is direct evidence from the Genesis itself saying it was compiled from earlier accounts.
[/SIZE]

True. History does not need to be written at the time it is occurring. In fact, until the invention of journalism it was usually not. Moderns seldom appreciate the depth of oral history which was the mainstay of pre-literate cultures.

However, not all biblical composite works announce themselves as such e.g Isaiah.

 

[jfer45]

Does anyone have anything else to say about this subject?

I'm also looking for good reading material on this.

 

[RealityCheck]

Does anyone have anything else to say about this subject?

I'm also looking for good reading material on this.

Actually, the first place to start is the Bible. I personally recommend the new Oxford English Bible. It ought to come with the Apocrypha added as a separate section. It is filled with annotations, such as where certain stories came from, what certain phrases really mean, where a name comes from, and cross-references thoroughly.