The Second Creation Story and “Atrahasis”

Dr. Enns, another nice article! Thank you so much. I have a quick question.

“The second creation story in Genesis is actually Israel’s older creation story, written perhaps sometime during the early period of the monarchy and fully engaged with common Mesopotamian traditions. The first creation story in Genesis was written second, after the return from Exile (539 B.C.), and was influenced by Israel’s long experience in Babylon captivity.”

Does the chronological information here reflect documentary hypothesis? Is there any firm and reliable idea about formation of the Pentateuch as a whole? What do you think about van Seter’s idea?

Dan, good questions. The brief analysis I offered in the post does not commit itself to “the DH” in any strict classical sense, but it does assume the broad consensus that the Pentateuch is the product of a developmental process that did not come to an end until after the exile, and that Genesis 1 in particular reflects that setting. As I said, that is a consensus position and I am more than open to seeing people disagree (although hopefully with reason, not as a reflex.) As for van Seters, simply put, I agree with the general critique of his work that it accords too much influence to the Hellenistic period.

Nice post Pete.

Your posts on this topic call to mind for me Kenneth Bailey. Bailey is an NT Theologian who spent forty years living and studying in the Middle East. A central focus of his work is understanding the cultural context and literary forms of Jesus day. One of Bailey’s central points is the Middle Eastern use of story in communicating theological truth. Great teachers drew on stock stories of the culture and then refashioned them to communicate the truth they were teaching. It was precisely because people already knew the stock stories that the new story could offer such powerful insight. People could recognize the old stories in the new but it was the disjuncture and innovation that was so instructive. (I should emphasize that that the innovations need not be polemic in nature but could be.)

(Continued)

(Continuation)

A favorite Bailey book is his “Jesus and the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story.” He compares the story of Jacob and Esau with the story of the prodigal son and his brother. He finds about fifty points where the stories match or approximate each other, or offer dramatic contrast. He also examines the shepherd metaphor in the OT and then shows how Jesus draws on these stock stories to reveal truths about himself and God.

What you are describing here seems to be very consistent with the cultural patterns Bailey describes in his work.

Awesome stuff, Pete! I have been struggling with deciding on the two-stories view, but this has helped me come to that conclusion. I really enjoyed the part where you talk about how the two stories were developed at two different times. That just makes sense. Keep up the great work!

Michael #14996:  Thank you for your response.  I agree with you wholeheartedly, and as a pastor I try to communicate this hermeneutical principle in my preaching and teaching.

Dr. Enns, what do you think of the suggestion that Genesis 1-11 is dealing directly with Atra-hasis, as other scholars have suggested at points? What I’m asking though is whether you think it probable that the entire primeval history is written as a polemic toward it? Kikawada argued that the two-story pattern may be a general ancient Near Eastern blueprint for telling the story of creation, but the only evidence for this is found in Enki and Ninmah and Atra-hasis, the former being the precursor to the story adopted in Atra-hasis, which would indicate that the shared pattern is between these two narratives, not ANE cosmogonies in general. Also the text of Genesis is concerned with advocating procreation where the text of Atra-hasis is concerned with limiting and even stopping it to some degree. Of course, older and newer sources and traditions can be used to form the final narrative, but it would then function more as a unified literary work, as most would admit today, than a patchwork as the previous generation of scholars saw it.

I’m going to recommend a book for those who want a deep study into Gen 2-3 which probably should be must reading for those of us who discuss these issues. The Book is an expensive book found on Amazon titled “Echoes of Eden” by T. Stordalen. However you can check out significant parts of it at Google books and I would recommend reading the first chapter page 21-29 to get a feel of it as it especially relates to Pete’s post here.

My take away from the book is that the Garden story taken from the ANE is extremely important and yet the Jews apply it in a manner that is unique to their theology. We find that symbols metaphors and analogies are important tools to the Jewish story telling. This author explores these issues in literary depth comparing the Garden symbolism and its usage throughout the OT.

It’s a difficult and extensive book but one that may help some put the ANE comparisons into a better perspective. My perspective is that the ANE background is important but not nearly as much as what the Jews decide to do with it.

http://www.amazon.com/Echoes-Eden-Symbolism-Literature-Contributions/dp/9042908548

No doubt you realize your comments are challenging for run-of-the-mill evangelicals,  and even for progressive TE supporters like myself. My working hypothesis has been that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but that it was certainly revised and edited down through the years.

What is the evidence, if any,  that the original source of the Pentateuch dates back to the Exodus period? The implications of the modern scholarship you present seem to relegate the patriarchs, Moses, and possibly the Exodus to legendary status, on a par with Genesis 1-11.

This makes me feel like my faith is not based on a solid rock but on lies preached from the pulpit. Can you offer any counsel to hopelessly naive, unschooled Christians like me reading this kind of thing fro the first time?

HornSpiel

I hear you. You are addressing a very big topic that can’t be answered very quickly, and to try to do so may make things more difficult rather than less. But let me offer three things. First, it may be time for you to begin exploring this issue for yourself by doing some reading on your own from non-hositle perspectives (not every biblical scholars is out trying to ruin peoples’ faith). Second, your pastors have not been “lying” to you but doing the best they can with what they know. Third, no one’s faith is based on their understanding of how the Bible works. It is based on God’s work of love and grace in us through the work of the Spirit. Who knows. It may be that very Spirit at work in you at this very moment prompting you to trust him more than knowing when the Pentateuch was written.

To the best of my knowledge, NT references concerning Moses are typically associated with the Law/Customs. I know of no biblical references that say that he wrote the Pentateuch. When the scriptures say ‘book of Moses’, isn’t it really saying ‘book about Moses’?
There seems to be some modern evangelical concept that God dictated/revealed the history of Genesis to Moses while he was on the mountaintop….at least that is the concept that was allowed to develop in my earlier thinking.
When Hilkiah found the ‘Book of the Law’ and gave it to king Josiah (via Shaphan), there was no mention of a Genesis/Exodus history/chronology…which leads me to believe that it was not currently included/written in it’s present form.
This does not imply that any future writing/inclusion of the Genesis/Exodus account would be lacking in divine inspiration.
Peace

Hornspiel,
  Uncertainty in spiritual matters can drive you crazy, especially when aspects of the faith in which you were nurtured are challenged. I know, because I went through a process of reading and exploring, as Pete suggests, that made things more complex before they got simple again. I even ended up in seminary to try to get a more comprehensive understanding of theology. Getting bits and pieces of the story of God’s interaction with the world can leave you confused - which is why so many theologians try to write a “systematic theology” where they try to fit all the pieces together.
From my own experience,  I can assure you that seeking for the truth in these matters will not drive you away from God but toward him in the long run, because God is the author of the natural world and our intellects and whatever is ultimately true can be attributed to him. It is our interpretations of his ongoing revelation which can be faulty, but the “Spirit of truth” is always there to help us along. Not trying to sound like an expert know-it-all but just wanted you to know of my own journey. I pray God’s blessings on your path as well.
Diane

Here are a couple of introductory level books on the subject. One Pro (Who Wrote the Bible by Friedman) and one against (The Documentary Hypothesis by Cassuto). I think its best to read both for some beginning balance although the discussion is much more complex especially since Cassuto wrote nearly 60 years ago. 

“The Documentary Hypothesis”
Umberto Cassuto

http://www.amazon.com/Documentary-Hypothesis-UmbertoCassuto/dp/9657052351 

Who Wrote the Bible?
Richard Elliott Friedman

http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

Thanks for your wonderful thoughts, Diane.

Norm, those are both great books, but I’m not sure limiting this to a discussion of a classic version of the documentary hypothesis is going to address the issues. It is too limited, and regardless of which side he finds more convincing, HornSpeils concerns about the the Pentateuch won’t be fully addressed. Even if one can show that the DH is fully flawed, a developmental history of the Pentateuch and a post-exilic final form are essentially pillars upon which OT scholarship is built.

Hornspeil, you might want to look at the first few pages of “Old Testament Survey” by Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush, or maybe Brevard Childs “Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.”  Also, Bruce Waltke’s Old Testament Theology is conservative but also very clear on the post-exilic date of what he calls Israel’s “Primary History” (Genesis -2 Kings). Those are just beginning points.

Hornspiel

I’d also add that Jesus Christ is indeed Lord and savior. There was a bodily resurrection and Jesus is at work today in the world and in our lives. I think our analysis begins here and works outward.

There has been a false debate raging for several generation. For many years it was uncritically assumed that certain individuals wrote certain books were fact-for-fact “reporter on the scene” accounts of historical events. People who opposed the faith set out to destroy it by demonstrating it was not historically accurate, debunking authorship, and so on. That created a counter-movement against the detractors and we are still in that conflict today.

If we begin by realizing the cultural contexts of the Bible we realize both of these camps are wrong. Many passages we had taken as “reporter on the scene” history are not, but disproving they were “reporter on the scene history” does not discredit their credibility. It means we had not properly understood these writings and how they actually give support for our faith when scene through Ancient Near Eastern eyes. I think the biggest challenge on the journey is to overcome the false dichotomy of its all “reporter on the scene” history or its all wrong.

Hi Pete, you wrote:

“This is a clear indication that the second creation story does not speak to contemporary science. Hence, (1) it cannot and should not be harmonized with contemporary science,”

Science is not particularly the issue here, history is.  Why should we not regard these versions as well as the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh, Ziusudra, and Berossus as varying depictions of the same historical event?  Why should we think that a massive, albeit local, flood did not happen in a region that was notorious for flooding?  What do we know that would weigh against such an event from happening?

If you toss in the archeological data, which is scientific by the way, the remains of what were called “flood layers” were found in at least four of the principle cities in southern Mesopotamia that were dated to ca. 2900 BC - not a bad date after all, and a date agreed upon by Davis Young, David Rohl, Robert Best, Carol Hill, and me, among others.

Then we have their reaction to survivng floods evidenced by mud brick mounds they began erecting after the “Big One.”  Is that evidence not “scientific”?

BTW, I’m curious to know where the statue of “Gilgamesh” is displayed and why the aritst would have depicted a Sumerian king in Akkadian dress.  Doesn’t anybody do research any more?

Pete,

The reason I recommend those books is that both make good arguments that are helpful. In doing so I think it highlights to the observant reader that we need to be careful in overly defining opposing ideas without due consideration. I tend strongly toward your understanding but Cassuto’s book was helpful in grasping some of the nuanced issues that need to be kept in perspective.  Also as you are pointing out it may be more helpful to start with some simpler concepts as one travels down the path of understanding how the scriptures came to us. It sure took me a while to grasp these issues and Waltke’s and Waltons’s Genesis commentaries were both helpful as well.

PS. I’ll let you work on Jeff and Dick concerning the Genesis authorship.

Thank you for the posts Dr. Enns.  I have benefited greatly from them as well as others here at Biologos.  Like Hornspiel, I am struggling through many of the issues, i.e., who wrote the Pentateuch, evolution, etc.  I am a conservative, Reformed Christian and appreciate knowing that people who love the Lord Jesus are here and encouraging and helping those of us struggling through these very big issues.