The book of Genesis has been the subject of debate among theologians and biblical scholars for hundreds of years. These debates have brought about the rise of many theological claims. Through the methods of comparing, contrasting and literary analysis these so called bible experts believe that there are two independent creation accounts found in Genesis and that the book was constructed by multiple authors as opposed to a single. Advocates of this theology use the existence of supposed contradictions in the text and differences in characteristics of deity. It’s worth examining these claims using the same technique of comparing and contrasting the two creation accounts to see if they truly stand.
The traditional view has established Moses as the primary author of the Torah but a theology known as the Documentary Hypothesis has challenged this notion. The basic idea is that the Torah was composed of multiple authors usually four of them known by the letters J, E, P, and D and put together and edited by an editor called a redactor, simply named R. This theory is also known as the JEPD theory. In the book The Old Testament: It’s Formation and Development Arthur Weiser said “It is evident that the Pentateuch cannot be the continuous work of a single author. This is shown by the existence of two differing accounts (doublets) of the same event: thus e.g. the story of the creation in Gen. 1 and 2:4ff…” (72-73). Advocates of this theology support their claim with many ideas but we shall consider primary two of them here with a brief discussion on a few others further on. First they claim that the God of Genesis in the first chapter is different than the God of Genesis in the second chapter and also that there seems to be a conflict in the order of creation events found in chapter one as compared with chapter two. We shall take a look into each claim separately.
According to theologians, scholars and even college professors who support the Documentary Hypothesis there seems to be a difference in the characteristics of God presented in Genesis one as compared with those of God found in chapter two. In a nutshell they basically explain that the God of chapter one is presented as an, absolute, all powerful, all knowing, cosmic creator of the both the heavens and earth. In chapter two they then claim that God is presented in a more human fashion with human like characteristics and is only responsible for the creations on the earth and not necessary of the earth or the heavens, therefore not a cosmic creator God. Commonly they support this claim by explaining that in the second chapter God breathed, planted, formed, commanded, ect.. all of which are human characteristics or actions. On such basis the advocates then conclude that we are looking at two different kinds of Gods one absolute and one anthropomorphic of lesser status.
While the advocates are correct about the use of the humanistic actions and words being applied to God in chapter two, what they fail to realize is that a similar set of words are used to describe the absolute creator God in chapter one. For example in Genesis chapter one God spoke, “then God said, Let light be! And there was light.” (KJV, Gen 1.3), God saw, “And God saw the light, that it was good,…” (Gen 1.4), in fact God even planted in chapter one, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” (Gen 1.11). Let us examine this third verse to see how it shows that God indeed did plant. If we look at the sentence fragment “bring forth grass” and then look up the Hebrew word for forth in this sentence we find it to be daw-shaw’ a primitive root which means to sprout according to Strong’s Concordance. The word grass is from the Hebrew word deh’-sheh which means a sprout but it also has the same Hebrew root as the word forth which again means to sprout. The word sprout is a verb which means to begin to grow, as a plant from a seed and it can also mean to put forth buds. As we clearly see God did not just create fully grown trees and multitude blades of grass in a single instant. In fact he sprouted them into being or planted them and they grew. Clearly we see humanistic actions and attributes being used in describing God and his creation in chapter one. The very existence of these set of words being found in chapter one makes the theologian’s whole argument on the matter not only invalid but also as some scholars have put it, “illusory” (Kitchen, 1966, p. 118).
Another issue that theologians and advocates seem to express if that of the order of creation events in Genesis. According to them in chapter one God created the animal life before he created man and woman but in chapter two he created first man then the animal life and finally woman. At first the critics seem right but as with many things of the bible at first glance there seems to be a contradiction but in reality there is none. The first chapter of Genesis is an overview of the creation with mankind being the climax of all the creations. The second chapter merely picks up were the first left off and providing all the missing details that were not present in the first chapter while putting the focus now on man. The first chapter is an outline and chronological listing of the creation events which absolutely implies an order. Doctor of Divinity Howard Agnew Johnston stated in his book Bible criticism and the average man the following:
The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man. (90)
With that said we shall consider if there is indeed a contradiction in the creation events.
Let us examine the following verse fragment, “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; …” (Gen 2.19). The verb formed here is the past perfect tense of the word. A verb in the past perfect tense always references an action that was already completed in the past. For example in the sentence, Janice had studied before the test, the verb studied refers to a point of time in the past when she completed the action of studying. Similarity in the verse above the word formed is referring to an action already completed in the past. In fact the Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision of 1752 reads the same verse as, “And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air…” (Gen 2.19). In this translation it is clearly seen that God having already formed the animals are preparing them to be named by Adam. We already know from chapter one that the animals were created before man and now that we know the word formed actually refers to a point of creation in the past already completed we see that there in fact is no contradiction, the animals were indeed created at a point in time before man in the second account. In fact in the light of scrutiny chapter one complements chapter two not contradicts it.
There are many more claims to consider for the Documentary Hypothesis, such as multiple names being used for God, stylistic differences implying multiple authors and many more. Briefly stylistic differences don’t hold much weight in an agreement because it is rooted in the idea that a single author must has a distinct style of writing. It negates the idea of authors having the ability to change their style of writing to suit the tone of the subject at hand. For example I am sure that Stephen King’s letter to an a court official for a legal matter would vary very much so in style and tone from say one of his horror novels. Furthermore the uses of multiple names for God also does not necessary imply multiple authorship. The major fundamental flaw in this claim is the critics misunderstanding of God’s name. The ambiguity comes from the fact that God has only has one name but many titles. Lord, Elohim, and even God are all titles for Creator, they are not personal names for the Creator himself. Therefor this theory is viewed from an erroneous perception yielding it invalid.
At the end of the day there is no original manuscript nor an absolute translation. There are by now thousands of translations of the bible and transliteration of it’s many words. Biblical critics and scholars will continue to ague over semantics, translations and as one theology goes another comes. The bible is a book of faith after all and literary analysis will only get you so far. There is also a spiritual aspect to this book and scholars who think they can personally break down the scripture’s meaning using literary analysis might be setting themselves up for failure. For we must remember that the bible is of no private interpretation, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2Pe 1:2).
David Espejo
