Israel’s Two Creation Stories (Part 2)
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.
Last week I discussed how Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation stories—they are not meant to be harmonized or read sequentially. I gave three reasons why this is the case: the number of days differ (six as opposed to one), they begin differently (watery chaos as opposed to arid land), and they have an entirely different sequence of events. Here are two more reasons.
Different Literary Styles
Genesis 1 and 2 are not written in the same literary style.
Some label Genesis 1 as “poetry” and Genesis 2 as “narrative.” These labels are fine as a starting point of discussion, although most scholars feel that they need to be fine-tuned a bit, especially with regard to Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 is certainly more like poetry than Genesis 2. For example, the rhythmic repetition found in this passage is more poetic-like: God sees, speaks, declares as good, and blesses the day. The same holds for the parallel structure of the six days: the cosmos is “formless and void” in 1:2, and so days 1-3 yield the form and days 4-6 fill it, with day 1 corresponding to day 4, 2 to 5,and 3 to 6. Genesis 1 emphasizes patterns rather than plot.
In contrast, most readers understand Genesis 2 as a different kind of text. It begins to tell a story that will later include dialogue, conflict, and a plot. In fact, it reads more like the narratives that will occupy the rest of Genesis.
Still, the “poetry or narrative” distinction is not an absolute. First, the Hebrew Bible exhibits not just two literary styles, but a spectrum of styles. Some texts are more clearly one or the other, but many others blur generic distinctions (a “rhetorical no-man’s land” as James Kugel puts it in his classic book The Idea of Biblical Poetry)
Second, Genesis 1 doesn’t have some of the properties of poetry that we know from elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., terseness and parallel line structure). Even though the styles of Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly and significantly different, it is best not to be too stuck on labels.
More importantly, insisting on rigid labels can lead to problems. For example, some think that since Genesis 1 is poetry, it can be relieved of the burden of historicity—while Genesis 2, because it is narrative, is intended as a literal description of historical events.
Whatever one might think about the historical foundation of either creation story, the literary style has absolutely nothing to do with it.
A narrative style does not imply greater historical value. Even in the Bible a narrative can be non-historical. For example, Job 1-2 is the narrative introduction to the poetic book of Job, but few scholars conclude that it provides a historical description of a heavenly court scene. Outside of the Bible, the history of humanity is filled with narratives that tell fictional stories, not history.
Likewise, if we accept that Genesis 1 is poetry, that alone does not mean that it is less historical. Historical events are routinely recounted through poetry. Here one need only think of various so-called “historical psalms” that recount Israel’s historical memory (e.g., Psalms 105 and 106) or the Song at the Sea in Exodus 15 that recounts the Red Sea incident.
Sometimes the styles of Genesis 1 and 2 are mislabeled rigidly as “poetry” vs. “narrative.” Other times wrong implications are drawn from the differences in style, such as one is more historical than the other. Still, Genesis 1 and 2 are widely recognized as clearly being different types of literature. This, along with other factors, supports the view that they are two distinct stories.
Different Views of God
A more important difference between the two creation stories is how God is presented.
In Genesis 1, God is transcendent: he is hovering over the waters; he is above it all, declaring things to be so. He is sovereign over creation, like a high king giving orders. He creates, but from a distance.
In Genesis 2 we get a different picture. God is not aloof or distant. He is an active character in the unfolding drama. He is more “down to earth,” almost human-like. He participates in the affairs of man.
As above, how God is presented does not in and of itself allow us to draw a thick line between Genesis 1 and 2. God is spoken of in human terms (anthropomorphism) in both stories. In fact, it is impossible to talk about God apart from describing him in human language (which includes referring to him as “him” as I have been doing here).
But most scholars see a definite difference in degree between the two stories about how God is presented. This is clearer if we read Genesis 2 with what follows. There we see a God who has conversations with Adam, Eve, and a serpent; who takes a stroll in the Garden; who interrogates Adam and Eve to gain information about what happened; who reacts to what the first humans have done by punishing them.
These are some of the issues we will be getting to in the coming weeks. Laying out the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 is the first step these larger—and more interesting—questions.
Enns' series continues here.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
May 4th 2010
Another excellent post, Dr. Enns. Just as it takes 2 eyes to give us depth perception, these 2 different creation accounts in Genesis give us a more complete picture of what God is trying to teach us.
Reply to this commentMay 4th 2010
Peter says, “But most scholars see a definite difference in degree between the two stories about how God is presented.”
Maybe…but for every scholar that one can list supporting this idea, one can find a scholar opposed to this idea (and throughout history, more for the literal reading). Calvin and Luther both disagreed with Peter on this topic.
Douglas Kelley, professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC summarizes verse one of Genesis 1 very nicely, “the interpretative point at issue, the three-fold condition of the primeval world of “without form and void”, “darkness on the deep”, and “the Spirit of God moving” occurred only AFTER the absolute creation (bara in Hebrew) of all things from nothing.”
One only need look at the NT for guidance on any sort of “gap” in between a verse or chapter of Genesis. You would think that it is unlikely that Scripture would pass over such a great catastrophe in silence when it mentions in this context, less important matters. On contrary, the OT and NT make heavy reference to the significance of the Noah flood in destroying the earth, without ANY mention of this pre-supposed pre-Adamic catastrophe.
Reply to this commentMay 4th 2010
OK so here’s an idea. There are many who hold to the position that Noah’s flood was local. Why can’t the Gen 2 creation account be local as well? In other words, Gen 1:1-Gen 2:4 is a literary, poetic polemic against other pagan ME creation accounts, Whereas beginning with Gen 2:5, we have an account of God actually making a garden and putting Adam and Eve in it. God then did in fact CREATE the present world order, in the sense that he intervened in hominoid development and made a spiritual being, and placed him in a garden.
Reply to this commentMay 5th 2010
David T.
I don’ quit get what you mean by the second account being “local.” Are you saying it is an account of God taking an existing male hominid and making him a spiritual human being, maybe by giving him a God awareness and a conscious? Is it local in that it happened to one guy in one locale then “men” spread from there?
What do you mean by “the present world order.” As apposed to what?
Reply to this commentMay 5th 2010
Why do you feel it is so important to continue to treat the first few chapters of Genesis as if they were written by God? Who is the man that told you to do that?!?!?!
Reply to this commentIt seems the usefulness of Genesis in helping to understand the reality of creation is about zero, yet you seem to think there is some value in taking great pains to re-interpret Genesis whenever necessary to match the science. Luckily, you are probably about done with the need to metaphor-ize verses, and you can cling to the un-falsifiable bits that remain as if it is the Word of God..
May 5th 2010
HornSpiel,
You get exactly what I am trying to say. By “present world order,” I refer to that which has been brought on by the introduction of the spiritualized human (Adam), his dominion over the earth, and subsequent fall.
Reply to this commentMay 5th 2010
David T,
John Lightfoot suggested a local creation back in 1644, when he dated creation to 3929 BC. (His friend Usher was likely a day-ager. Their students started modern geology to try to determine whether Lightfoot or Usher were correct.)
More recently John Sailhamer has taken up the local creation view in Genesis Unbound.
It doesn’t work any better than universal physical creation. That’s why I abandoned it.
Ultimately, outside of Genesis 1-2, “heavens and earth” refers to people, specifically God’s people. Even John Walton of The Lost World of Genesis One admits this.
Why not use the time tested standard, Scripture interprets Scripture, and apply the God’s people definition to H&E in Genesis 1-2? It works. Suddenly cosmology and evolution are irrelevant to Scripture. Anthropology takes over.
And given the context of the flood, this view actually matches the local flood view better. You might not have noticed, but the flood account is part of the genealogy from Adam to Noah. It is part of the account of Seth’s line, not Cain’s. It is God’s people, H&E, that were destroyed by the flood. The local context is a family context, not a physical land context, which we tend to think of.
Reply to this commentMay 6th 2010
Pete,
Are we likely dealing with different authors as between chapter 1 and chapter 2? If so, which is older? If one was to draw comparisons between the Genesis creation accounts and ANE mythologies from other cultures, can the 2 different chapters be compared to 2 different ANE mythological traditions (like, chapter 1 echoes Egyptian cosmology; chapter 2 echoes Mesopotamian - that sort of thing)?
Thanks.
Reply to this commentMay 6th 2010
Chris, remember that Pete said he would be out of pocket for a week or so, so don’t expect a quick answer from him.
Anybody else want to weigh in?
Reply to this commentMay 6th 2010
Thanks for watching my back, Karl
Chris, one of the things I want post on is how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are written during different time periods and reflect different ANE cosmogonies. i think I will get there in another week or two.
Reply to this commentMay 6th 2010
Chris,
Ancient Sumerian and Akkadian documents end with a colophon of the form,
Written by, author, date.
In Akkadian, “written by” is “TOLEDAH.”
The dates are often useless, like “on the day the event happened.”
Genesis 1-37:2 has this form. Genesis 1:1-2:4 was written by “heavens and earth” on the day “heavens and earth was created.” Genesis 2:5-5:1 was written by Adam, when God “created” Adam and made him in the likeness of God. And so on.
I highly recommend Wiseman’s Ancient records and the structure of Genesis on this subject. http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-records-structure-Genesis-literary/dp/0840775024/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273161527&sr=8-1
Blessings.
Reply to this commentMay 6th 2010
I wondered if I was jumping the gun. I shall wait patiently.
Reply to this commentThanks for the recommendation, Jeffrey.
May 7th 2010
Jeffery Vaughn,
Toledot in Hebrew has nothing to do with colophons or writing something down. Its etymology from the root yld is clear, and the lexica have good articles on this. Your suggestion that it means “written by” in Hebrew is not convincing at all.
Also, can you give more information on the Akkadian word you’re citing? First of all, I wasn’t aware Akkadian had an o-vowel. Where can I find an entry for this word in the CAD?
Reply to this commentMay 7th 2010
Nathan,
I don’t know anything about Akkadian or Hebrew except what I read in various sources. It is not my suggestion. It is Wiseman’s.
Wiseman claimed the Hebrew word came from the Akkadian. Are you disputing that? Do you have a reference that claims Akkadian did not use “TLDT” or the equivalent in their colophons, that the colophons do not exist, or that the colophons do not have the structure Wiseman claims?
I’ve looked at over 100 ancient Sumerian and Akkadian tablets. The colophon was always there. I can’t read it, but I’ve never heard anyone dispute Wiseman’s claim as to what they say.
Wiseman was reading Akkadian in the 1920’s and 1930’s before the scholars figured out the vowels. It was not unreasonable, at that time, to supply Hebrew vowels to Akkadian words from which the Hebrew was derived.
Wiseman is widely quoted. That should mean widely respected. I suggest you read him.
Or google
wiseman “tablet theory”
and read about him. I suggest reading the TrueOrigin or CreationWiki article first. They are longer and more useful. The Wikipedia article is more accurate but to short to be of value.
Reply to this commentMay 7th 2010
Jeffrey L Vaughn:
Yes, I am disagreeing that the Hebrew word came from Akkadian. The historical form is *tawlidat/tawlidt. The realization in Hebrew and Akkadian of this word is completely different: toledah in Hebrew, talittu in Akkadian (I have not indicated vowel length, but that should not prevent anyone from looking these up in the standard lexica). In other words, the vowel pattern of the Hebrew word completely precludes an Akkadian derivation, but is rather a native Hebrew word. The Akkadian cognate talittu, by the way, means “offspring, descendants,” often used in relation to animals. The semantic relationship to Hebrew toledah is as obvious as the impossibility of the derivation of the Hebrew from the Akkadian.
....
Reply to this commentMay 7th 2010
(cont.)
The question isn’t whether Wiseman is well respected; I have no idea whether he is or not, though his absence from the shelves of the univ of chicago oriental institute research archives may indicate that he is not. The question is whether his philology is credible. I have already shown that the derivation of the Hebrew toledot from an Akkadian word is impossible, but I would still like to check the TLDT word that you are referring to. If you cannot tell me where I would find it in the Akkadian dictionaries, perhaps you could tell me a specific akkadian text and line number where I could look it up myself.
Reply to this commentMay 8th 2010
Pete,
Wouldn’t a canonical reading deny your claims that the two stories are not to be read sequentially? I mean, even if they are two different stories (which I believe they are), the fact that they are arranged sequentially demands that we read them that way, does it not? The same can be said of a narratival or literary reading of Genesis. By dichotomizing them are you not performing the same type of critical surgery typical of last generation’s OT scholarship? I think it’s cool to see the differences and such, and I don’t think they’re meant to be “literal history,” but reading it literarily demands that we ask different questions, right?
Reply to this commentMay 9th 2010
Luke said: “Wouldn’t a canonical reading deny your claims that the two stories are not to be read sequentially? I mean, even if they are two different stories (which I believe they are), the fact that they are arranged sequentially demands that we read them that way, does it not? “
What kind of sequence do you mean? The sequence of the individual stories or the sequence of Genesis 1 followed by Genesis 2?
Reply to this commentMay 10th 2010
Nathan,
Copied from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colophon_(publishing)
Examples of colophons in ancient literature may be found in the compilation Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.[2] Colophons are also found in the Pentateuch, where an understanding of this ancient literary convention illuminates passages that are otherwise unclear or incoherent. Examples are Numbers 3:1, where a later (and incorrect) chapter division makes this verse a heading for the following chapter instead of interpreting it properly as a colophon or summary for the preceding two chapters, and Genesis 37:2a, a colophon that concludes the histories (toledoth) of Jacob.
2. # ^ James B. Pritchard, ed., (3rd. ed.; Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969) pp. 101, 305, 331, 338, 340, and 341.
The U of Chicago card catalog says that 5 copies are currently on the shelf.
I haven’t seen this book, so I have no idea whether it will confirm or falsify the details of Wiseman’s hypothesis. But Google shows numerous links which attach the two names.
Blessings.
Reply to this commentMay 10th 2010
Jeffrey Vaughn,
That book is a collection of English translations of ANE texts. I looked up the edition of the text on pg 338 of ANET in Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, which contains versions of the text in question. I checked all the colophons and none had a word with the consonants TDLT. It would be very time consuming to track down every colophon in the texts you cited, but this first check was not promising for the theory you are presenting.
Leaving aside the (unproven and in my opinion dubious) connection between Hebrew toledot and some Akkadian word, as yet unidentified, that appears in Akkadian colophons, it is far from clear that toledot (=generations) is a colophon in the Pentateuch. Why, for example, do you think Num 3:1 closes what precedes it rather than introduces what follows it? It seems like a good introduction to chs. 3ff. since they deal explicitly with Aaron’s descendents (toledot) and their role in the priestly service.
Reply to this comment