The first two chapters of Genesis include two different accounts of origins. I’m intentionally not using the word ‘creation’ since that word carries way too much baggage that we can certainly do without. The first account is Genesis 1.1-2.3 and the second is Genesis 2.4-25.
The two accounts are remarkably different, notably in the way God is mentioned. The first account uses the word אֱלֹהִ֑ים (Elohim) exclusively, whereas the second uses both אֱלֹהִ֑ים (Elohim) and יְהוָ֥ה (Yahweh). The first account focuses on the ‘days’ on which God worked while the second can be read to have been done in a single ‘day’. The first focuses on the origins of various aspects of this universe while the second is focused solely on the garden that God planted.
The Documentary Hypothesis, proposed by Karl Heinrich Graf and Julius Wellhausen, may suggest ways in which the text in its current form came to be.1 However, the simple fact of the matter is that, no matter what the origins of our text, the final editor saw nothing amiss in placing these two accounts of origins adjacent to each other. What this means is that, if we have problems with the text of these two chapters, especially in the ‘discrepancies’ that they contain – for example, with respect to the duration of the process and the order in which things came to be – then the problem lies with the hermeneutic we are using to interpret the text.
Hence, while interpreting these two accounts, it is imperative that we determine what kind of literature we are dealing with and, if possible, what the circumstances surrounding their compositions were. Failing to do this would be disrespectful to the text and to the people who wrote it with certain purposes in mind. Failing to fully take into account the genre of the text we are trying to interpret is a sign of disrespect toward the God we believe has given the scriptures to us.
The evening-morning cycles in the first account and the repeated ‘and God said’ .. ‘and there was’ constructions indicate a certain rhythm to the account and leads me to agree with Todd Patterson that the first account is poetic in nature and should be interpreted as poetry.2 What this means is that we have to identify the poetic structures within the text and use them as a guide to aid our interpretation.
The second account lacks the poetic structures of the first until the end, when Adam reacts when he sees Eve. Apart from this ending, the rest of the second account is straightforward prose and should be interpreted in that way. However, when we deal with this passage much later in this series, we will see that interpreting the text correctly involves identifying the key themes behind the text.
So join me next week, when we begin our study of the first account of origins.
Prayer:
Almighty, Creator God, we are amazed at how you have brought these scriptures to us. No matter what the history of writing, we know that these are the books through which you, by the power of your Spirit, intend to lead and guide us. Enable us to engage with the scriptures with humility and wonder. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.
1. Documentary Hypothesis. New World Encyclopedia. (Accessed on 26 December 2018).↩
2. Patterson, Todd. Genesis 1:1-2:3 The Creation Account as Hebrew Poiesis. (Accessed on 26 December 2018). Against Jackson, Wayne. Is the Genesis Creation Account Poetry? (Accessed on 29 December 2018). Jackson’s arguments are ad hominem, using supposedly pejorative terms to describe those who disagree with him. Articles that do this should be treated with caution. Moreover, his arguments are full of logical fallacies, especially that of generalization.↩
Purposes Crossed 