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 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 commentMay 10th 2010
Nathan,
On the superficial level: Some places, the “traditional formula” works and some places it doesn’t. Wiseman’s formula works everywhere. I like formulas that work everywhere. Formulas that work half the time or less, don’t work and are likely false.
Blessings.
Reply to this commentMay 11th 2010
This colophonic discussion is careening wildly off topic. Could you clarify what is at stake in the discussion? Do we really need the colophon argument to establish the fact that we have two very different voices and perspectives in Genesis 1 and 2?
Reply to this commentMay 11th 2010
Matt,
It is a sufficient, but not necessary condition.
Blessings.
Reply to this commentMay 11th 2010
Dr. Enns,
Reply to this commentI know there are probably as many genre designations for Gen 1 as there are scholars, but I’ve always just considered both of them “epic” literature in the style of Ee, Atrahasis, or GE. In other words, it’s like historical fiction or symbolic portrayals of reality in mythic terms. I think you’re right to note that “poetry” is too loose of a designation, but “epic” tends to be very poetic and yet holds a narrative at the same time. What do you think of that designation?
May 12th 2010
Some thoughts in no particular order:
What about liturgical poetry—seeing as most align Gen 1 with the P(riestly) material? It has a high degree of repetition, thematic emphasis on order and procedures, poetic elements, and hey—cosmic temple imagery to boot.
Another part of Enns’ entry was on the relationship between genre and history—namely, you can’t deduce the historical value or specificity of a text from its genre. Along these lines, I was also thinking that (1) we cannot deduce the truth value of a text based on its historicity. In other words, a rigorously accurate historical text might actually distort the true state of affairs in the world. (2) Nor can we reduce “historicity” to modern scientific standards.
On another note … In light of this site’s interest in science and the bible, I think it would be interesting (and maybe already done) to recast modern scientific accountings of human origins as myths, and interrogate them vis-à-vis Gen 1-2. In other words, let’s do to modern myths what Gen 1-2 did with Atrahasis and Gilgamesh. The point is neither to disprove science or to show that there is some teeny-tiny gap in the text where we can insert modern science.
Reply to this comment