An interesting take on the two creation accounts.

[theIdi0t]

I ran across this the other day while I was reading about the Genesis creation account on wikipedia. I thought it was an interesting take on the two creation accounts, so I figure I'd share.

The dual perspective theory

Biblical scholar Pamela Tamarkin Reis (2001) proposes that Genesis 1 and 2 can be seen as either one story from two perspectives or two separate stories. Both are appropriate. She draws the parallel with the ancient story-telling technique of telling the same sequence of events through the eyes of several different people. This method is best known from its use by Kurosawa in the movie Rashomon. One can make sense of that movie either as four different stories or as four people having four different realistic narratives of the same story.

Ms. Reis analyzes Genesis 1 as God's narrative and Genesis 2 as man's narrative. In Genesis 1, the style of narration is very orderly and logical, proceeding from basics like heaven and earth, through plants and animals to man and woman. And everything is "good" or "very good." Ms. Reis suggests that the story-teller has a bit of whimsy in noting how perfect everything is from God's view.

In contrast, in Genesis 2, man tells the story from his own self-centered perspective. Man is created first, and there are a few flaws. For example, Man is alone, without a woman (in contrast to Genesis 1, where the two were created simultaneously). Where Genesis 1 repeats the phrase "heaven and earth" several times, Genesis 2 uses "earth and heaven." Moreover, Genesis 2 contains a notice that "there was no one to till the ground." The implication that the ground must be tilled contrasts with the completeness implied in Genesis 1.

Even the words used in Genesis 1 suggest serenity, the godly plane of existence. For example, in Genesis 1, the word for God is Elohim, the generic and distant God, while God's name in Genesis 2 is the personal and sacred YHWH Elohim, the Lord of Gods. Even the verb of making is different in the two narratives; in the first narrative the verb is the Hebrew "arb" which means "create from nothing," something that only God can do. In contrast, the verb in the second narrative means "make;" God "made earth and heaven." Furthermore, Man and Woman are both formed from pre-existing matter, in contrast to their creation ex nihilo in the first chapter. This brings God's act within the range of human experience. There are also details about where to find gold and lapis lazuli--but only in the second narrative.

Ms. Reis argues that Genesis 1 and 2 make sense either way, just as for Kurosawa's Rashomon. They make sense as two different stories. Or they make sense as two narratives of the same story from different personal perspectives: that of God and that of man.

 

[laptoppop]

What is more important is that the first account refers to the entire earth, while the second one refers to the land -- what we would call the farm. In other words, cultivated plants and domestic animals. No reason to go into elaborate theories when the grammar is clear.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, besides all that other stuff you mentioned, theIdi0t -- the different language, the contradictory timelines, the poetic cadence -- the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 focus at different scales is actually evidence for their continuity.

 

[theIdi0t]

Yes, besides all that other stuff you mentioned, theIdi0t -- the different language, the contradictory timelines, the poetic cadence -- the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 focus at different scales is actually evidence for their continuity.

I guess Pop missed the comparison of the two accounts with the film Rashomon, where four witnesses of a rape and murder give widely differing accounts of what happened. "Each story is mutually contradictory, leaving the viewer unable to determine the truth of the events." But each story is conveying something about the witness. Genesis shows two different stories about God, one that is distant, and one that is more personal, from two different viewers.

 

[laptoppop]

Two different perspectives, certainly. Two different focuses, absolutely. Two different viewers -- inferred and incorrect.

 

[Assyrian]

What is more important is that the first account refers to the entire earth, while the second one refers to the land -- what we would call the farm. In other words, cultivated plants and domestic animals. No reason to go into elaborate theories when the grammar is clear.

No, one of the things the two account have in common is the word for domesticated animals, behema.

 

[theIdi0t]

Two different perspectives, certainly. Two different focuses, absolutely. Two different viewers -- inferred and incorrect.

Well, to say man was created last, and then go on to say in the next chapter that he was created first seems like two different views to me.

 

[Nachtjager]

I think this whole matter is easily and fundamentally settled by the documentary hypothesis. Like it or not, it works. The two accounts are completely different because they were written by two different scribes, one an Aaronid priest in Israel and the other likely a priest in Judah. Same thing, two markedly different views. The bottom line, God created this place, but who knows exactly how He did it, how long it took, or who got the story right. And in the end, will the mechanics of creation really matter?

Take care and God bless!

 

[gluadys]

I think this whole matter is easily and fundamentally settled by the documentary hypothesis. Like it or not, it works. The two accounts are completely different because they were written by two different scribes, one an Aaronid priest in Israel and the other likely a priest in Judah. Same thing, two markedly different views. The bottom line, God created this place, but who knows exactly how He did it, how long it took, or who got the story right. And in the end, will the mechanics of creation really matter?

Take care and God bless!

Have you read Richard Elliott Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible? on the documentary thesis? I also have his Bible with Sources Revealed which puts the various sources in different colours and fonts so you can easily see which text came from which tradition.

 

[français]

I am appalled to see Christians come on here supporting the documentary hypothesis. What a shame!

Genesis 1 & 2 are about different places, which is why they are different.


Ok, now about Documentary Hypothesis.. Let me say a few things..

1. Linguistic studies have been done on Genesis. The conclusion: The writing style is consistent throughout the entire Book, hence, it was written by one hand, and only one.

2. You MUST take into consideration what the documentary hypothesis claims.. It claims that someone wrote something in 1500 BC, and then someone else wrote something in like 1200 BC, and then in 8/900 BC, and then in 400 BC.

Um, now apply common sense here.. You read a book in english from 1500.. Is it the same style as a book today? NO! You would have ye, thou, art, and other words that we do not use today. I mean come on now.. Read a Psalm in KJV, and compare it to NIV. They are different.

Common sense tells us that if this hypothesis were true, there would be such dramatic differences in the language. People might object, saying "But it is hebrew, not english!"And I say, "Well, go learn Hebrew. Read the Torah and then read Malachi. they are both in Hebrew, but totally different styles. Malachi was written later, and it has a more modern writing style(although pretty classical for our days.) The Torah on the other hand is extremely classical, and totally different then Malachi in writing style.

Also, there was recently a fragment of Deuteronomy found that dates wayyy back. (I will look for the info if you guys want.) This alone crushed the documentary hypothesis since it is older then when the "d" writer supposedly came about.

I am shocked, and literally hurt, to hear Christians believe in such a hypothesis. It saddens me.

 

[artybloke]

Two different viewers -- inferred and incorrect.

Nice to see you still clinging desperately to the lies of the lying liars who call themselves creationists.

 

[artybloke]

Common sense tells us that if this hypothesis were true, there would be such dramatic differences in the language.

And lo and behold, they exist. And your dates are wide of the mark, by the way: none of it was written before 1000BC, and it was probably after 800BC.

Also, there was recently a fragment of Deuteronomy found that dates wayyy back.

Source?

But of course, there are actually five writers - JEPD and the redactor (editor) who put the whole thing together.

It saddens me to see Christians still clinging to the lies of creationists.

 

[gluadys]

1. Linguistic studies have been done on Genesis. The conclusion: The writing style is consistent throughout the entire Book, hence, it was written by one hand, and only one.

That conclusion is controversial. Many studies disagree with it. Have you ever personally looked at the evidence in favour of the Documentary Thesis?

2. You MUST take into consideration what the documentary hypothesis claims.. It claims that someone wrote something in 1500 BC, and then someone else wrote something in like 1200 BC, and then in 8/900 BC, and then in 400 BC.

No, as artybloke says, the DT does not propose that any part of the Torah was written before 1000 BC and probably not before 800 BC.

Two sections were definitely written before 722 BC as they are strongly connected culturally to the two divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The rest was probably written after the Assyrian conquest of Israel.

Um, now apply common sense here.. You read a book in english from 1500.. Is it the same style as a book today? NO! You would have ye, thou, art, and other words that we do not use today. I mean come on now.. Read a Psalm in KJV, and compare it to NIV. They are different.

Actually, this is one of the arguments in favour of the Documentary Thesis, but you have to remember that different languages change at different rates. Hebrew did not change with the same rapidity as English so there is less difference between the older and newer sections of the Torah than there is between Shakespearian and modern English.

In fact, the rate of change in English slowed down considerably from Restoration times on and a better comparison would be the English of John Milton (as in Paradise Lost) with the English of today. Milton's writing is stylistically different from today's writing, but not so different in vocabulary as Shakespeare's and is still readily accessible to a modern reader without copious notes to "translate" it into modern terms.

Also, there was recently a fragment of Deuteronomy found that dates wayyy back. (I will look for the info if you guys want.)

Yes, please do. This is the only thing you have mentioned that would really count as a serious blow to at least one part of the Documentary Thesis. I don't think it would count against Deuteronomy being written by a separate author, but it would seriously affect the dating.

I am shocked, and literally hurt, to hear Christians believe in such a hypothesis. It saddens me.

Well, no one can argue with feelings. I find the Documentary Thesis interesting, helpful and fairly well-supported by the evidence. I feel I have a better understanding of the scriptures when I read them with an understanding of where and when and by whom they were likely written.

Furthermore, the majority of biblical scholars support the theory, and it is taught in all the major theological schools world-wide, so I trust that the argument has lot of merit.

I have seen a few articles opposed to it, but nothing that meets a scholarly standard and nothing that handles all the issues as well as the Documentary Thesis. If you know of anything that does, I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[crawfish]

Yes, please do. This is the only thing you have mentioned that would really count as a serious blow to at least one part of the Documentary Thesis. I don't think it would count against Deuteronomy being written by a separate author, but it would seriously affect the dating.

Considering that Deuteronomy was the one book of the five considered to be written by solely by one author, I don't see how the date truly challenges the hypothesis.

 

[français]

Hello gluadys! Might I ask.. How do you interpret the Torah then? Like since you believe in the DH, do you think the Prophets wrote it, or do you think it is totally uninspired, or? I am confused as to how a Christian would believe in the DH.

As for me doing research on it.. Yes, I have. I have done tons. I have contacted Rabbi's, Priests, you name it!! It really shook my faith for a while.

One thing I have learned, is the amazing accuracies of Egyptian Archeology mentioned in Torah. Clearly, someone from Egypt would have to have written it! Ever heard of cyrus gordon? He was a huge Biblical Scholar, knew all kinds of languages, knew about archeology, etc. He abandoned the DH, after doing archaeological and linguistical studies! I have been reading a lot of his work lately. One thing he notes, is that the Torah is consistent in the way many verbs, nouns, and others are used. I think that if someone were to do a linguistic of my writing, they would see many commas and such. They would see a lot of repetitiveness, and a lot of "I's" and "and's" in my writing. You see, usually every author has their own little style's like that. And Gordon noticed that this style was consistent throughout the Torah. Well, getting back on topic lol.. So Cyrus noted that the Torah's writing was in Hebrew, but seemed to have a lot of Egyptian influence in it. (Sort of like how you will see many French words being said in Louisiana, or spanish in Texas.) He noted that the person had to have been a Hebrew speaker from Egypt.

A lot of people argue about the constant repetitiveness of the Torah. Another archaeological find is that repetitiveness was EXTREMELY common in ancient writings. I suppose that was the style back then!

“The critics, when they judge the internal phenomena (of the Bible) project into it their customs as modern western readers, and neglect all that we know today of the writing customs used in Biblical times. The taste for repetition, the structure of a global statement - repeated with development, the replacement of a word by its synonyms, especially the change of a divine name in a text (i.e. the names of Osiris on the stele of Ikhernofret), are well attested characteristics of ancient Middle Eastern texts...The Biblical text, as it is, agrees with the literary canons of its time.”
~ [Revelation des Origines - Le Debut de la Genese Henri Blocher]

Now, about that Deuteronomy manuscript!

The silver scrolls found by Gabriel Barkay, which feature the priestly benediction from Numbers, and a verse from Deuteronomy, is from the 7th century, prior to the Bavel exile. This is a particularly damaging find to all the documentary hypothesis fanatics.



So, there you go!

Now if you were to accept that perhaps the dates should just be pushed back a little earlier for the DH, then you also must accept that the writer of D is not the one of 1 & 2 Kings. The reason is because 1 & 2 Kings prove that they are from a certain date by events they talk about. Hence, you would have to have even more authors. And if there can be more authors for that, then there can certainly be for others. Or, perhaps it is simple.. Perhaps Moses wrote the Torah, Joshua wrote Joshua, Ezra wrote Ezra, etc!

 

[français]

Some thing else I found interesting


Genesis: Only One Author, Study Says

TEL AVIV, Israel (UPI) - A five-year long computer study of the Bible strongly indicates that one author - and not three as widely held in modern criticism - wrote the book of Genesis. "The probability of Genesis having been written by one author is enormously high - 82 percent statistically," a member of the research team said in an article published in Wednesday's Jerusalem Post.

Professor Yehuda Radday, a Bible scholar from the Technion, a Haifa university, said more than 20,000 words of Genesis were fed into a computer which conducted a painstaking analysis of its linguistic makeup.

Bible critics widely hold that Genesis had three authors - the Jawhist or "J" author, the Elohist or "E" author and a priestly writer, dubbed "P". "We found the J and E narrative to be linguistically indistinguishable," Radday told a news conference today. But the P sections differ widely from them. "This is only to be expected, since dramatic tales and legal documents must necessarily display different 'behavior,'" he said. "If you compared love letters and a telephone directory written by the same person, linguistic analysis would point to different authors."

The team combined statistical and linguistic methods with computer science and Bible scholarship to reach their conclusions. They used 54 analysis criteria, including word length, the use of the definite article and the conjunction "and," richness of vocabulary and transition frequencies between word categories. "These criteria are a reliable gauge of authorship because these traits are beyond an author's conscious control and furthermore are countable," Radday said.

A mathematics expert on the team ran a computer check against classical German works by Goethe, Herder, and Kant and found that the statistical probability of their being the sole authors of their own work were on 22 percent, 71 percent and 9 percent respectively. That reinforced their conclusion that the "82 percent identity between the J and E definitions of Genesis make their unity very highly probable," Radday said. Radday would not comment on whether Genesis was written by Moses, or on their apparent conclusion that God speaks the language of humans, beyond saying, "As quoted in Genesis, divine speech and human speech are indistinguishable," according to the findings.

 

[gluadys]

Hello gluadys! Might I ask.. How do you interpret the Torah then? Like since you believe in the DH, do you think the Prophets wrote it, or do you think it is totally uninspired, or? I am confused as to how a Christian would believe in the DH.

Oh, I certainly believe the Torah is inspired. I don't think the details of how or by whom it was composed and assembled take away from inspiration one iota. If it was not Moses who wrote it, then the author who did write it was inspired. And the editors as well.

As for me doing research on it.. Yes, I have. I have done tons. I have contacted Rabbi's, Priests, you name it!! It really shook my faith for a while.

One thing I have learned, is the amazing accuracies of Egyptian Archeology mentioned in Torah. Clearly, someone from Egypt would have to have written it! Ever heard of cyrus gordon? He was a huge Biblical Scholar, knew all kinds of languages, knew about archeology, etc. He abandoned the DH, after doing archaeological and linguistical studies! I have been reading a lot of his work lately. One thing he notes, is that the Torah is consistent in the way many verbs, nouns, and others are used. I think that if someone were to do a linguistic of my writing, they would see many commas and such. They would see a lot of repetitiveness, and a lot of "I's" and "and's" in my writing. You see, usually every author has their own little style's like that. And Gordon noticed that this style was consistent throughout the Torah. Well, getting back on topic lol.. So Cyrus noted that the Torah's writing was in Hebrew, but seemed to have a lot of Egyptian influence in it. (Sort of like how you will see many French words being said in Louisiana, or spanish in Texas.) He noted that the person had to have been a Hebrew speaker from Egypt.

I'll check him out. Though what is mentioned so far doesn't touch on the same principal points cited in support for the DH and would not be evidence against it. Egypt exercised a major influence on Judah and Israel for all their history, not just the time the Hebrews actually spent in Egypt.

A lot of people argue about the constant repetitiveness of the Torah. Another archaeological find is that repetitiveness was EXTREMELY common in ancient writings. I suppose that was the style back then!

“The critics, when they judge the internal phenomena (of the Bible) project into it their customs as modern western readers, and neglect all that we know today of the writing customs used in Biblical times. The taste for repetition, the structure of a global statement - repeated with development, the replacement of a word by its synonyms, especially the change of a divine name in a text (i.e. the names of Osiris on the stele of Ikhernofret), are well attested characteristics of ancient Middle Eastern texts...The Biblical text, as it is, agrees with the literary canons of its time.”
~ [Revelation des Origines - Le Debut de la Genese Henri Blocher]

Again, this doesn't quite get at the DH point about literary couplets. There is more to it than simple repetitiveness--which I agree was characteristic of ancient writings. Ever read Sumerian literature? Anyway the couplets are not simple repetition. They are more like the stories in the gospels that are told by more than one evangelist. Independent retellings of the same event by different people, each with their own particular take on things.

Now, about that Deuteronomy manuscript!

The silver scrolls found by Gabriel Barkay, which feature the priestly benediction from Numbers, and a verse from Deuteronomy, is from the 7th century, prior to the Bavel exile. This is a particularly damaging find to all the documentary hypothesis fanatics.

Not particularly damaging. The consensus is that Deuteronomy (most of it anyway) does date from prior to the Babylonian exile, and the 7th century is not that far out of line. I'll have to check the date of Josiah. The only DH author usually assigned to exilic or post-exilic times is P and Richard Friedman, who is the best known current promoter of the DH makes a case for placing P prior to the exile too.

Now if you were to accept that perhaps the dates should just be pushed back a little earlier for the DH, then you also must accept that the writer of D is not the one of 1 & 2 Kings. The reason is because 1 & 2 Kings prove that they are from a certain date by events they talk about. Hence, you would have to have even more authors. And if there can be more authors for that, then there can certainly be for others.

Although the DH suggest four "authors" (J, E, P, and D) it has often been suggested that these are schools or traditions, not individuals, so more authors would not be a problem. Although, I think the trend is back toward seeing each as a particular individual. That is certainly Friedman's viewpoint.

However, even if there is one principal individual author, there could still be some other hands. After all, if one accepts Mosaic authorship of the Torah, one still generally accepts that someone else (maybe Joshua) wrote the account of Moses' death and burial.

Here is a neat summary of the basics I found. I was actually looking for another site I used to have bookmarked but lost when I upgraded to a new computer. It was more on the ancient oral and written sources the JEPD authors might have used. I hope I find it again.

http://www.bibledudes.com/biblical-studies/source.php

Certainly, the DH includes at least two principal editors as well as the four main authors, and it doesn't preclude incorporating material from other sources either. For example, P may have written most of Leviticus, but still incorporated the Holiness Code from earlier sources.

Or, perhaps it is simple.. Perhaps Moses wrote the Torah, Joshua wrote Joshua, Ezra wrote Ezra, etc!

Or maybe that is too simplistic. I find I get a lot out of looking at texts in light of their probable historic origin. When I consider that the book of Ruth was probably written in the days of Nehemiah as a protest to Nehemiah's separatist policies (which included putting away foreign wives), it adds a significant dimension to the story and a richness to Biblical history.

 

[gluadys]

Some thing else I found interesting


Genesis: Only One Author, Study Says

Yes, interesting. I wonder if we can find a reaction to this from Friedman or another supporter of the DH.

It is a development that is worth keeping one's eye on.

btw do you have a link to that article? I don't see a date on it or a source.

 

[gluadys]

http://www.nyu.edu/nyutoday/archives/14/10/gordon.nyu
Is this the Cyrus Gordon you mentioned?

I found several pages on his work and a book called The Bible and the Ancient Near East, but most dealt with his thesis of Semitic-Greek relationships--not mention of his views on the authorship of Genesis.

I see he also supported the thesis that Hebrew monotheism was sparked by Pharoah Akhenaton. That would tie in with his focus on an Egyptian-speaking author of Genesis.

I also found that the computer work on Genesis was done in 1981 and a book on it published in 1985.

Gordon's work is even earlier.

So neither seems to have had much impact on the DH, though I haven't found any specific responses to their work either.

Another interesting tidbit is that Rabbi Yehuda Radday did an earlier computer study on Isaiah in 1970 that confirmed the multiple authorship of Isaiah.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904297,00.html

 

[français]

Hey, thanks for the reply!

http://www.nyu.edu/nyutoday/archives/14/10/gordon.nyu
Is this the Cyrus Gordon you mentioned?

Yes, I believe so.

I found several pages on his work and a book called The Bible and the Ancient Near East, but most dealt with his thesis of Semitic-Greek relationships--not mention of his views on the authorship of Genesis.

Yeah, I believe he wrote many small little articles though, s opposed to books. I will look to see if I can find the document where he refutes the DH.

I see he also supported the thesis that Hebrew monotheism was sparked by Pharoah Akhenaton. That would tie in with his focus on an Egyptian-speaking author of Genesis.

Yes.. That Egyptian speaking author by the name of Moshe Rebbenui lol

I also found that the computer work on Genesis was done in 1981 and a book on it published in 1985.

Yes. It did happen a while back, but I think that it was very good and intensive. I was astonished to see how much work they put into these tests.

Gordon's work is even earlier.

He abandoned the DH in the 90's though, I believe. He died very recently (although at an old age.)

So neither seems to have had much impact on the DH, though I haven't found any specific responses to their work either.

Well, I think Gordon was not too influential because he is just one of dozens of scholars who do these things.

As for Rabbi Yehuda.. I think we must take into consideration that he is in Israel. While that does not seem to always make a huge difference, look at the number of people in Israel who support the DH.. Very few people. It is a strongly condemned belief, that Rabbi's and Priests in Israel speak out against all the time.

And, I think the Rabbi's work was very influential in Israel. It just did not make such a huge influence here, although I am unsure why. Also, I do not think his book has been translated into english.

However, just by reading the articles, I can tell that the tests he did on Genesis seemed to be very intensive, and I trust his conclusion

Another interesting tidbit is that Rabbi Yehuda Radday did an earlier computer study on Isaiah in 1970 that confirmed the multiple authorship of Isaiah.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904297,00.html

Thanks for showing that!

I have no problem with Isaiah being from more then one person. I just could never accept the Torah as being from more then one author. Seeing that Isaiah is more of a historical book and all, I am not bothered.