Israel’s Two Creation Stories (Part 3)

Thank you Pete for this compelling presentation and analysis of the creation stories that God has gifted to us. Although I have seen these things in a muddled sort of way, I have never had a pastor or teachers present this information so clearly. I look forward to your follow up posts.

This does challenge my current paradigm of the genesis of Genesis All I want is to know is the truth. If that means my understanding of the origins of the scriptures needs to change so be it.

Do we have any idea who the “editors” are? As far as I understand Hebrew tradition suggests that Moses wrote these two accounts. Is that correct? Are Christian and Jewish scholars in agreement on the origins of Genesis?

It does not seem like scholars have adequately treated the use of the name “Yahweh Elohim” in Gen 2 and 3. They too often equate it identically with just “Yahweh.” But within the Pentateuch, the name “Yahweh Elohim” is used 20 times in Gen 2 & 3, and only 1 other time in the Pentateuch (Ex 9:30). Considering its concentration within these two chapters within the Pentateuch, it seems like it deserves a closer study of the two names together rather than just a focus on the use of the one name “Yahweh” alone. This is especially true since the name “Yahweh” does not appear alone in these two chapters, though “Elohim” does.

Concerning the names of God it appears that the use of Elohim and Yahweh is intended to portray a distinct inference in the narrative. Let me quote Cassuto and Waltke on this subject.  Where this becomes important is to notice that the story of Cain and Abel is a completely Covenant story reflecting only the usage of Lord (YHWH). This implies it is only an Israel lineage sidebar otherwise we would see the usage of Elohim to denote the Universal application of God.

Here is how the Jewish commentator Umberto Cassuto described the two in his booklet “The Documentary Hypothesis”.  Cassuto uses the descriptor Tetragrammaton and YHWH for what we commonly translate as Yahweh or Jehovah.

Begin Quote from page 37-38.

In other words, we must clarify, to the best of our ability, why just in certain sections or verses the Torah narratives have the Tetragrammaton and in others ‘Elohim. Is it possible to formulate rules with regard to the use of the names in proximity to each other? I believe that we are able to answer this question affirmatively.  On the basis of what we have stated so far, we may assume that in each case the Torah chose one of the two names according to the context and intention, precisely as follows:

IT SELECTED THE NAME YHWH WHEN THE TEXT REFLECTS THE ISRAELITE CONCEPTION OF GOD, which is embodied in the portrayal of YHWH and finds expression in the attributes traditionally ascribed to Him by Israel, particularly in His ethical character; IT PREFERRED THE NAME ELOHIM WHEN THE PASSAGE IMPLIES THE ABSTRACT IDEA OF THE DEITY PREVALENT IN THE INTERNATIONAL CIRCLES OF “WISE MEN”—God conceived as the Creator of the physical universe, as the Ruler of nature, as the Source of life. …

The name YHWH occurs when the context depicts the divine attributes in relatively lucid and, as it were, palpable terms, a clear picture being conveyed; Elohim, when the portrayal is more general, superficial and hazy, leaving an impression of obscurity. …

The Tetragrammaton appears when the reference is to the God of Israel relative to His people or to their ancestors; Elohim, when He is spoken of in relation to one who is not a member of the Chosen People.
YHWH is mentioned when the theme concerns Israel ’s tradition; and Elohim, when the subject matter appertains to the universal tradition.

End quote.

Bruce Waltke in his “Genesis” commentary sums up the same perspective.

Begin quote from page 25.

“… Yahweh is used when God’s covenantal relationship with Israel is in view, but Elohim is used with reference to his universality over all the nations. Rendsburg notes that the use of Elohim from Gen. 17:3-22:24, in contrast to its absence in 11:27-16:16, occurs appropriately in connection with the name change from Abram {“Exalted Father”} to Abraham {“Father of a Multitude of Nations”}.

End Quote.

Waltke really sums up well the distinction one should use when noticing the use of Elohim or Yahweh. Here again I want to emphasize the authors theological intent when using these two Godly names.

There is a purpose in their means of usage by the author of Genesis.

Pete,

Please indulge me as I challenge your postulation that Gen 1:27 is about creating humans in general. I realize it is the standard table ware out there but there is evidence IMO to counter that proposition. First I don’t believe the referring to “adam” as all mankind holds up in first or second Temple concepts. To begin with an investigation into “adam” as it is used in the OT infers only those in Covenant namely Israel’s lineage.

The supposition that 1:27 had fully occurred prior to Gen 2:7 is also dependant upon understanding the concept and premise of what Gen 1 is all about. If Gen 1 is about creating the H & E dealing with Israel’s existence and is a literary framework or introductory prologue then it becomes questionable to put ones eggs in a pre Israel history story. If the story is a functional Temple Creation per Walton’s then it should be viewed as Jewish in intent principally and should have messianic overtones.

I think the better view is that Gen 1 is a prophetic prologue overview of Israel in the barest of imagery. Gen 2:4b then begins the detailed story of Israel’s history. Gen 1 is a picture of the whole Temple complex while Gen 2 moves into the inner courts of the Temple.

Dr. Enns,

A few questions:

What do you think about the new theory that H is responsible for the redaction Genesis? Is it possible that he is the author of it as well? The holiness code does not have YHWH Elohim, but it does have YHWH Eloheyka, YHWH Elohayw, etc. I’ve also been perplexed for some time as to why P is designated to texts that have Elohim when P in Leviticus almost always uses YHWH (which I think connects to Wenham’s garden sanctuary theory you mentioned above). Perhaps H, being a group within P, may have written the text?

Also, what do you think about the idea that the two trajectories of transcendence and imminence are meant to convey chaos and creation from the divine perspective and the human perspective throughout the entire book?

Finally, do you think that your view is reliant upon Gen 1 and 2 being distinct accounts, or can it survive if they were to be seen as the same account? In other words, must they be seen as two events or can they be seen as the same one, speaking of the same people?

Bryan,

I will let Dr. Enns address the rest of your questions, but allow me to address your question about the use of YHWH in P in Leviticus.  All the sources knew the name YHWH, but according to two sources, E and P, this name was not revealed until Moses (Exod 3 for E, Exod 6:3 for P).  Thus, both E and P avoid YHWH in Genesis for the simple reason that their narratives make the claim that YHWH was not known by that name in the patriarchal period.  In other words, the avoidance of the name is a matter of narratival consistency for these two sources.  Once the name is revealed in E and P, either Elohim or YHWH is fair game for the authors of those sources.  Thus, the use of YHWH in Leviticus by P is unremarkable and does not necessarily imply the hand of H.

The distinction between sources based on name thus only works for Genesis.

Daniel,

Doesn’t the complexity and integration of the Genesis account preclude depending too much on the Documentary Hypothesis theory of redaction? I have no problem with redactors from the first Temple era sifting through historical pieces to garner their story but from what I’m reading this approach is falling out of favor as more analysis is performed. One of the main issues I have with it is it tends to sterilize the stories presented in a manner that discounts the intended theological flow of the Genesis narrative.

Nathan,

Thanks for your response. That does provide a coherent reasoning, and I have heard that often before. It does seem to beg the question, however, since P or E, etc. are supposed every time Elohim is used. I would wonder why some of the texts that are said to be P due to other elements that characterize P use YHWH, but most scholars will then just say that there is a combining of the two sources by the redactor. My comment toward H was based upon the combination in the HC of YHWH and Elohim in some form. This same combination mainly exists in Gen 2-3, with some similarity between the same phrase with personal pronouns existing primarily within the HC in Leviticus. I think that is an important element that I don’t hear discussed very often. This is coupled with the ethical issues with which the HS is concerned in Lev 18 and its similarity to those concerns the author/R has throughout the book of Genesis.

Cont.

If we have the same type of language used for God, the same issues dispersed throughout the story, and a lack of those things in other sources, then I think there is some validity to pursuing the question as to whether H is heavily involved in redaction or even the author of the book as a whole. I believe a few scholars have begun to take this approach, but obviously if there is a single author of the text, this does not mean that earlier sources used are automatically excluded. Authors use previous material and quotes for their compositions all of the time. I was just curious if Dr. Enns was familiar with this and had pursued the question at all. Thanks again for your response.

Another question along these lines is why the two distinctions in DN exist in Job? It seems clear there that it is a matter of transcendent, or the divine view of things, versus imminent, or the human view of things, even though scholars label this as evidence of different sources as well. Of course, one could use the same reasoning, since Job is supposedly in the time of the patriarchs before Moses, but I would challenge that idea to either go beyond that concept to understand why R allows it to stand in the narrative as it does.

Hi Bryan,

Good points.  Though it is a respectable position, I personally don’t think H is the redactor of the Pentateuch, but I don’t want to hijack this thread with a discussion of that.  One point I would like to emphasize, however, is that new documentarians like Joel Baden emphasize narrative continuity and mutually exclusive historical claims as primary indicators of source division, not divine names.  J, E, D, and P all knew and used both Elohim and YHWH, but E and P both made the historical claim that YHWH wasn’t known until Moses, and so characters in their stories should theoretically not know this name prior to its revelation.  J’s preference for YHWH doesn’t mean that Elohim is off limits for that source.  Distinctions between divine names are not nearly as important for source divisions to some of the newer practitioners of source criticism as they used to be.  For what its worth.

By the way, I would highly recommend Joel Baden’s recently published dissertation on J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch.

I have to say that I treat with very serious skepticism any analysis that relies a lot on any theory of redaction. Although no one would question whether there was redaction, we simply don’t have any evidence upon which to conclude that a text was redacted by W for purpose X on behalf of or in furtherance of the aims/perspective of community Y at around the time Z. Why? Because we have no evidence for W, X, Y or Z apart from the various theories, which literally invent the evidence to suit. They are castles built on clouds. It’s alarming to me that such theories as the documentary hypothesis and Q (with its ever-expanding number of layers) are still seriously considered these days. Much better to simply take the text as presented to us and to ask about its possible range of meanings given what we DO know about the history. Here we could learn well from N. T. Wright, whose analysis of the NT (and the OT) doesn’t depend on any particular theory of redaction.

Thank you for the insights, Nathan. I’ll pick that up.

BTW, I: would say that Gen 1 is priestly. I would just also say that Genesis 2 is priestly in the sense that it seems to be some school within priestly thought, like H, concerned with sanctuary, cult image, and priestly service. In other words, I don’t think Gen 1 is priestly and Gen 2 is a result of a common or non-priestly group, but that both are perhaps from the same group, author, or two schools within the priestly community. I would make that assessment ignoring the DN’s and looking to the argument made.

Although I am aware of the documentary hypothesis of composition—vaguely. I associate it with liberalism, a low view of Scripture, that Scripture is an unreliable guide to understanding God.

One question to those of you who have studied and more or less accept this line of reasoning is :
How does this affect you personal walk with God , your understanding of who He is, and how he communicates to us? Is it at all edifying?

Also instead of focusing on the minutia of alternative scenarios, what is the big picture that you all agree on, if anything? Is it what Pete presented in his original post?

I am not sure why, but I find most of the posts here rather disturbing, as though reading Scripture is an intellectual exercise of oneupmanship. What difference does it make in our understanding of the theological issues involved, if one of you is more correct than another?

Hi HornSpiel,

Thank you for your questions. I can’t speak for everyone, but for me, these questions are important because they inform our interpretation, and therefore, our theology. Whether Genesis 1 and 2 are two depictions of the same event or two depictions of separate events, or whether they communicate different things has some connection to whether they have different pre-textual histories, although it is not necessary to connect them in this way. Historically, the sources have explained perhaps seeming inconsistencies or different views within a text; but the final form of the text, I think for most of us, is what really matters in the end. I think our discussion centered on how the text’s authorship or sources may inform our understanding of the final form of the text.

In this way, many of us have a high view of Scripture. I personally believe in its inspiration and inerrancy (although not of the fundamentalist variety, but of the historic orthodox variety). So I in no way have a low view of Scripture simply because I believe that God directs its construction in every phase in order to produce its teaching for the Church.

In this way, it is edifying to know that God had such concern and patience in bringing the Scripture to fruition. It even has implications for His presence in the textual variants we now possess, and perhaps, even the translations we carry. It communicates His sovereignty and His care. So I don’t think you should find it disturbing for us to discuss these issues. If one approaches it from a position of faith, then these conversations support rather than attack the theology of the text.

It also took me some time to understand that these things are not just issues for “liberals.” I think this is because we’ve been trapped in a polemic for the past century, and confusion has resulted in placing certain questions on the liberal side and certain questions on the conservative side.

Thanks again for your honest concerns.

Thank you Hodge for your thoughtful response. I am glad to know that studies of this kind can enhance ones faith. I certainly would not want to ignore the human element God used to bring His Word to us. I do trust that that will affect my faith and theology in positive ways.

Regards