Israel’s Two Creation Stories (Part 3)

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

In my (admittedly limited) interaction with the text of the Pentateuch (hexateuch, whetever), I have found YHWH to refer to God’s relational name (covenant name, whatever), and elohim to refer to God’s positional name (God as God apart from relationship). I think the convergence of these names in Genesis is huge. I think the literary purpose is to imply that God was God both in his position and in his relationship to mankind. After the fall, mankind sort of fals into two different categories, those who relate to God as elohim, and those that relate to him as YHWH. But, I could be totally wrong here.

Can’t wait for part 4.