Are There Two Creation Accounts In Genesis?
Summary
TLDRThis video script explores the debate over the unity of the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. It challenges the Documentary Hypothesis, which suggests these accounts are from separate sources combined by a redactor. The script argues for a unified narrative, highlighting literary and thematic coherence, parallels in ancient Near Eastern texts, and the possibility that the accounts complement each other rather than contradict. It also discusses the potential influence of a later redactor on the text and questions the preservation of original sources, concluding that Genesis 1-11 likely functions as a cohesive narrative.
Takeaways
- 📜 The script discusses the debate over whether the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory or complementary, challenging the Documentary Hypothesis that suggests they are from separate sources.
- 🔍 It highlights that some scholars argue for a unified narrative, suggesting that the two accounts were intentionally written to complement each other rather than contradict.
- 🌐 The script points out that the style change between Genesis 1 and 2 is not necessarily indicative of different sources, drawing parallels to other ancient texts that also change style.
- 🎭 It mentions ancient Near Eastern accounts that contain doublets of creation, suggesting that Genesis 1 and 2 might follow a similar pattern of general and specific creation narratives.
- 🌳 The argument is made that Genesis 2 is not a second creation account but a continuation that focuses on the specifics of human life and relationship with God in the context of the garden of Eden.
- 📖 The script discusses the possibility that the supposed distinctions between the J and P sources in Genesis might be illusory, with both sources showing close ideological ties.
- 👥 It suggests that the anthropomorphic language attributed to the J source is also present in P, and the use of divine names like Elohim and Yahweh may signify different narrative focuses rather than separate sources.
- 🕋 The script draws parallels between the Garden of Eden and the Tabernacle, suggesting that the garden functions as an archetypal sanctuary and that Adam's role aligns with that of a priest.
- 📚 It also notes the structural and thematic coherence in the broader context of Genesis 1-11, which might be disrupted if the text is forcibly divided into J and P sources.
- 🔗 The conclusion is that the text of Genesis 1-11 functions well as a unified narrative, with the first part covering general aspects and the second part detailing specifics, challenging the need to separate it into contradictory accounts.
Q & A
What is the Documentary Hypothesis and how does it relate to the creation accounts in Genesis?
-The Documentary Hypothesis is the idea that the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible, was originally composed of four separate sources, which were later combined into one text. It suggests that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are two distinct accounts from different ancient Israelite sources, which were allegedly combined by a redactor into the present form of the Pentateuch.
How do some scholars argue that Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to function as a unified narrative?
-Some scholars argue that Genesis 1 and 2 were written to complement each other, with Genesis 1 covering the creation of the world and humanity in general terms, and Genesis 2 focusing on the specifics of mankind's creation and relationship with God in the context of the Garden of Eden. This approach sees the two accounts as a doublet nature of a unified text, similar to other ancient Near Eastern texts.
What evidence is there to suggest that the two creation accounts in Genesis are not contradictory but complementary?
-Evidence includes the literary structure of Genesis, where Genesis 1 sets the stage for the cosmos and humanity, and Genesis 2 provides a detailed sequel focusing on the specifics of human creation and life in the Garden of Eden. Additionally, the presence of similar themes and motifs in both accounts, such as the establishment of light and the creation of humans in the image of God, suggests a coherent narrative flow.
How do ancient Near Eastern texts provide a parallel to the doublet nature of the creation accounts in Genesis?
-Ancient Near Eastern texts, such as the Atrahasis, contain doublets of creation stories, where one account covers general terms and another provides specific details. This parallels the structure of Genesis, where the first account is more general and the second more specific, suggesting a similar narrative technique.
What is the significance of the 'toledoth' formula in Genesis 2:4 and how does it relate to the narrative flow of Genesis 1 and 2?
-The 'toledoth' formula in Genesis 2:4 is used to introduce the chapter and suggests a continuation from the events of Genesis 1. It implies that the events of Genesis 2 occurred after the seven days of creation described in Genesis 1, indicating a narrative flow rather than a contradiction.
How does the concept of 'Imago Dei' (image of God) in Genesis 1 relate to the detailed accounts in Genesis 2 and 3?
-The concept of 'Imago Dei' in Genesis 1 is expanded upon in Genesis 2 and 3, where the specific roles and relationships of the first humans, Adam and Eve, are explored within the context of the Garden of Eden. These chapters provide commentary on what it means to be created in the image of God, including the unique relationship between male and female, the search for knowledge, and the exercise of free will.
What is the significance of the geographical focus in Genesis 2, and how does it differ from the cosmic focus of Genesis 1?
-Genesis 2 focuses on a specific geographical region, the land of Eden, where God creates a garden and places the first humans. This is a departure from the cosmic focus of Genesis 1, where the creation is universal. The shift to a specific location allows for a detailed exploration of human life, work, and relationship with God in a sacred space.
How do the themes of Genesis 1-4 relate to the structure and symbolism of the Tabernacle as described in the Priestly texts?
-The themes of Genesis 1-4, including the creation, the establishment of humanity in a sacred space, and the fall from grace, parallel the structure and symbolism of the Tabernacle as described in the Priestly texts. This includes the consecration of space, the duties of priests, and the importance of sacrifice, suggesting a unified narrative that aligns with the cultic practices of the time.
What challenges are there to the Documentary Hypothesis regarding the preservation of sources in the text of Genesis?
-Challenges to the Documentary Hypothesis include the difficulty in separating the sources without disrupting the literary unity of the text, the presence of motifs and themes assigned to one source throughout the other, and the observation that ancient scribes rarely preserved their sources intact but rather used them to create new texts.
How does the structure of Genesis 1-11 support the argument for a unified narrative rather than a combination of separate sources?
-The structure of Genesis 1-11, with its parallel accounts of creation and recreation, the fall of humanity and civilization, and the inclusion of genealogies, suggests a coherent narrative flow that would be disrupted by separating the text into different sources. This structure supports the argument that the text was written as a unified narrative.
Outlines
📜 The Documentary Hypothesis and Genesis Interpretation
This paragraph introduces the concept of the Documentary Hypothesis, which suggests that the first two chapters of Genesis present two distinct creation accounts that were later combined. It discusses the differences between the accounts, such as the order of creation and the inclusion of the Sabbath. Scholars have assigned these accounts to different sources within the Pentateuch, known as the J and P sources. However, critics argue that these chapters may have been intended to complement each other, with Genesis 1 providing a general overview and Genesis 2 focusing on specifics. The paragraph also mentions examples from ancient Near Eastern literature where similar narrative techniques are used, suggesting that the Genesis accounts could be part of a unified narrative rather than separate sources.
🌳 Literary Structure and Unity in Genesis 1-2
The second paragraph delves into the literary structure of Genesis 1 and 2, challenging the notion that they represent contradictory accounts. It discusses the chiastic structure of Genesis 2:4, suggesting that the chapters were intended to be unified. The paragraph also explores the use of the toledoth formula, which is typically used to introduce the descendants or what comes after a person, implying a sequential rather than contradictory relationship between the chapters. Furthermore, it examines the focus of Genesis 2 on a specific geographical region, Eden, and how it complements the broader creation narrative of Genesis 1. The argument is made that Genesis 2 is a sequel to Genesis 1, providing details on the creation of humanity in a specific context, rather than a separate creation account.
🛡️ Sanctuary Symbolism and Priestly Themes in Genesis
The third paragraph explores the presence of sanctuary symbolism and priestly themes throughout the Eden narrative in Genesis 2 and 3. It draws parallels between the Garden of Eden and the Tabernacle, noting similarities in layout, symbolism, and function. The paragraph discusses how the garden's entrance, the presence of precious stones, and the central location of the Tree of Life mirror the design of the Tabernacle. It also examines the role of Adam as a priestly figure within the sacred space, performing duties akin to those of the Levites. The narrative's focus on the establishment of humanity's role and relationship with God in the context of sacred space is emphasized, suggesting a coherent and intentional literary design rather than a compilation of disparate sources.
📜 The Coherence of J and P Sources in Genesis 1-4
This paragraph continues the examination of the literary unity of Genesis 1-4, challenging the Documentary Hypothesis's division of the text into J and P sources. It points out the presence of priestly language and themes in sections typically attributed to the J source, suggesting a more complex interweaving of sources than previously thought. The paragraph also discusses the narrative flow and thematic connections between the creation, the fall, and the subsequent chapters, arguing that they form a coherent sequence rather than a disjointed compilation. The argument is made that the text, as it stands, functions well as a unified narrative, with each part contributing to the overall message and structure, rather than being a patchwork of separate sources.
🌟 The Unified Narrative of Genesis 1-11
The final paragraph broadens the scope to Genesis 1-11, arguing for the text's unity and coherence as a single narrative. It discusses the structural and thematic parallels between the creation and recreation accounts, the fall of humanity and civilization, and the inclusion of genealogies. The paragraph also addresses the challenges to the Documentary Hypothesis posed by the consistent narrative flow and the difficulty in separating the sources without disrupting the text's literary unity. It concludes by suggesting that Genesis was written as a unified narrative, with the potential use of sources that have been integrated into a singular, cohesive story that resonates within its cultural and religious context.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Documentary Hypothesis
💡Pentateuch
💡Redactor
💡J Source
💡P Source
💡Sacred Space
💡Imago Dei
💡Cosmic Temple
💡Anthropomorphism
💡Cultic Sequence
Highlights
Genesis 1 and 2 appear to present two different creation accounts, leading to scholarly debates on their origins and relationship.
Source critical scholars suggest that the Pentateuch, including the creation accounts, was compiled from four distinct sources by a redactor.
Critics argue that the differences between the two creation narratives may indicate they were meant to complement each other rather than contradict.
Ancient Near Eastern literature often contains doublets or parallel accounts of events, suggesting a similar narrative technique in Genesis.
The style change between Genesis 1 and 2 might not indicate different sources but could be a literary device similar to other ancient texts.
The ' Documentary Hypothesis' is challenged by evidence suggesting that Genesis 1 and 2 were intended as a unified narrative.
The use of the toledoth formula in Genesis 2:4 suggests a continuation from the general to the specific, rather than a new creation account.
The focus of Genesis 2 is on a specific geographical region, Eden, rather than a repetition of the creation of the entire world.
The lack of cultivated crops in Genesis 2:5 is not a contradiction but a detail specifying the agricultural state of the region of Eden.
The creation of animals in Genesis 2 is for the purpose of being named by man, not for inhabiting the Earth, indicating a specific event within Eden.
The narrative of Genesis 2 explains how humans function in sacred space, in contrast to Genesis 1 which addresses the cosmos.
The presence of both J and P elements throughout Genesis suggests a more complex relationship between the sources than a simple combination.
The structure of Genesis 1-11 shows a parallel flow that would be disrupted if J and P sources were separated, indicating a unified narrative.
The number of divine designations in Genesis is evenly distributed between the creation and post-creation narratives, suggesting a deliberate literary structure.
The concept of the 'Imago Dei' (image of God) in Genesis 1 is further elaborated in Genesis 2-3, reinforcing the idea of a unified narrative.
The parallels between the Garden of Eden and the Tabernacle, including sanctuary symbolism and priestly functions, challenge the distinction between J and P sources.
The narrative flow and thematic consistency in Genesis suggest that it was written as a cohesive text rather than a compilation of separate sources.
Transcripts
if you pick up your Bible and start at
the very beginning you can read the
Genesis creation account in chapter 1.
but in Chapter 2 we find what appears to
be another creation account
man has created before plants and
animals but woman is not created until
the very end
whereas in Genesis 1 plants come first
then animals and then both male and
female are created together in the image
of God
because of this many Source critical
Scholars suggest there were two distinct
creation accounts they were part of
different ancient Israelite sources
allegedly a redactor combined four
different sources from Israel's past
into the present form of the pentateuch
the five books of Moses
when this happened the two creation
accounts were put side by side in the
pentateuch even though they contradict
however this hypothesis is not without
its critics there is a lot of evidence
that suggests Genesis 1 and 2 Were Meant
to function as a unified narrative
thank you
the documentary hypothesis is the idea
the five books of Moses the pentateuch
was originally four separate sources
that were combined into one
Genesis 1 to 11 is a mix of the J and
the P source
Source critics will assign the creation
account of Genesis 1 to 2 4A to the
peace Source in Genesis 2 4B to 426 to J
the reason for this is because it
appears on the surface that the two
accounts contradict at the end of the
first account God has finished his work
of creating plants animals and humans
and then rests
but then in Genesis 2 it says there were
no plants in the land
then it appears man is created again
followed by plants animals and then
woman
so it is argued that the best
explanation for these alleged
differences is that there were two
separate creation accounts combined into
one
however it may not be that these two
accounts contradict it may have been
written as they were to complement each
other
first a change in style between Genesis
1 and 2 may not be an indication of
different sources James W Watts says
Egyptian myths Mortuary autobiographies
and Royal inscriptions often switched
between prose to himnic poetry and Back
Again
Joshua Berman notes the Kadesh
inscription preserves two accounts of
the same battle and they vary in style
and details of how the battle played out
merely having two different accounts
side by side is not necessarily evidence
that we have two sources stitched
together
second Isaac kikawada has argued there
are ancient near Eastern accounts that
contain doublets of the creation of
mankind
one in general terms in another and
specific terms
he draws attention to the atrocasus and
the story of enki and ninma
in the atrocasus the goddess mommy
finishes her work and then says she has
completed her tasks and the workload of
the Gods has been transferred to mankind
but then we read after this she goes on
to create seven pairs of humans marriage
and childbirth are instituted and then
the people begin laboring for the Gods
so could we conclude there are two
creations of humanity in the atrohasis
kikawata suggests the first section
covers General aspects regarding the
creation of mankind and how their fate
will be decreed then the second half
covers the creation in specific terms
part two is a sequel in specifics that
follow the general proclamations of the
first half
he says the technique of bringing two
independent Parts together into a
unified narrative is quite similar to
the way in which a bicolon and poetry is
composed namely by juxtaposition of two
similar materials according to the
principle of parallelism of the members
in Genesis the first account covers the
creation of the world and how God
controls the cosmos
humanity is only spoken of in general
terms
the second account hones it on Mankind
and how man is meant to live in his
world and his relationship to God
having two accounts side by side one
covering General aspects and another
covering details may not be an
indication of contradictory accounts
from different sources but represented
doublet nature of a unified text
like what we find in other texts from
the ancient near East
furthermore it can be challenged that
the two accounts were contradictory
instead they may complement one another
John Walton Catherine McDowell have
suggested Genesis 2 and 3 were meant to
be a sequel to Genesis 1.
Genesis 2 4 uses a toledoth formula to
introduce the chapter
First Source critics often break this
verse up stating the first part belongs
to P or Priestly redactor and the second
part is the opening of the J account
however the whole verse itself has an
internal chiastic structure with
infinitive construct forms of the Hebrew
verbs to create and to make found at the
center of the chiasm
this suggests the chapters Were Meant To
Be unified and cannot be divided as
Source critics suggest
Genesis 2 4 was meant to be understood
as the beginning of the account that
focuses on specifics while being
understood to flow seamlessly from
chapter one
second when this phrase appears at other
places in Genesis it always is used to
introduce the descendants of someone or
what comes after the person
given this logic when the phrase is used
in Genesis 2 the author is likely
suggesting that what follows happened
after the seven days of Genesis 1.
following the ancient near Eastern
parallels we discussed Genesis 1 can be
seen as referring to the cosmos in
humanity in general terms then Genesis 2
and 3 focus on the specifics about what
comes after the general proclamations
from the prior chapter
Humanity was elected to be the image of
God in Genesis 1. but what this means is
not specified
as McDowell suggests the following
chapters are meant to provide commentary
on what this means
moreover Genesis 2's focus is not on the
whole Cosmos as is the case in Genesis
1. but its focus is on a specific
geographical region that lacked
agriculture
the reference of there being no plants
in verse 5 and 6 seems qualified so as
to indicate that they refer to
cultivated crops rather than General
vegetation of Genesis 1 available to The
Gatherer
so it's not a reference to there being
no plants yet thereby contradicting
Genesis 1. but a reference to the lack
of cultivated crops
in other words the authors of Genesis 2
are noting there was no cultivation yet
in this uncultivated land
the text also refers to this region as
being watered by a Mist implying it is
referring to a specific location which
had this feature
then the text specifically notes the
events of Genesis 2 are taking place in
a region called Eden where God planted a
garden
it is there only in the garden that God
creates every tree that is Pleasant to
the site and good for food
this is not referring to a second
creation of plants over all the Earth
and this suggests everything that
happens in Genesis 2 occurs only in Eden
which does not include the whole planet
trickway manager admits what we have on
the surface level in Genesis 2 is a
garden planted for the maintenance of
humans and man's work here has the
primary function of providing food
Additionally the animals of Genesis 2
are not made to fill the Earth instead
within the garden the type of each
animal is made for the purpose of being
named by the man
this is not an account of making the
animals to inhabit the Earth but an
event when each animal was named
humans of Genesis 2 are not spoken of in
general terms the chapter refers to a
specific couple either called or made
for the specific purpose of working in
the garden
there is also no mention of light or day
and night being established no
luminaries created and no mention of sea
creatures
if this is another creation account it
seems to lack essential aspects and has
a different Focus
so Genesis 2's focus is different from
Genesis 1.
Genesis 1's focus is on the whole Cosmos
then God hones it on a specific area the
land of Eden to cover specifics that
happen after the seven days of Genesis
1.
which is meant to explain further what
it means to be the image of God
a couple is placed in the garden to work
it whereas in Genesis 1 humanity is
spoken of in general terms before God
planted a garden in Eden it had Adam and
Eve tend to it
John Walton says Genesis 2 explains how
humans function in Sacred Space and on
its behalf in contrast to Genesis 1
which addressed how Sacred Space
functioned for Humanity
thus in terms of narrative flow does not
appear the two accounts necessarily
contradict one is focusing on the cosmos
and Humanity in general terms the second
is a sequel which elaborates in specific
terms on what it means to be the image
of God which takes place in a specific
geographical region
does not refer to the whole Cosmos and
so it's not a recreation of everything
that happened in Genesis 1.
but the argument can be made that it was
a redactor that modified the accounts so
that Genesis 2 functioned as a sequel to
Genesis 1. originally they were
separated in J in the P Source but a
redactor reworked them so they
functioned as a cohesive text
this is possible but we have to ask if
this occurred how was the redactor able
to preserve its sources while reworking
them to fit together
additionally there are other factors
which may indicate the proposed
distinction between J and P and Genesis
1 and 3 is illusionary
Benjamin kilker notes we can find P
elements and motifs throughout the Eden
narrative
first we see Sanctuary symbolism
throughout Genesis 2 that aligns with
Priestly texts concerning the
arrangement of the Tabernacle
the garden's entrance was on the east
side which aligns with the entrance for
the Tabernacle being on the east side as
well
the garden was associated with golden
precious stones which were used in the
breastplate of the high priest
numerous exegetes have pointed out the
menorah of the Tabernacle symbolized the
Tree of Life
the Tree of Life along with tree of
knowledge of Good and Evil were in the
middle of the garden
similar to how the holy of holies of the
Tabernacle was at the center of it
the Torah was kept in the Ark of the
Covenant and merely touching it would
have brought death
similar to E's claim touching the tree
would have brought death
G.K Beale says the tree of life itself
is a good candidate to be considered as
the model for the lampstand placed
directly outside the holy of holies the
lamp stand in the Tabernacle and the
temple looked like a small flowering
tree with seven protruding branches from
a central trunk
three on one side and three on the other
side and one branch going straight up
from the trunk in the middle
Exodus 25 31-36 pictures to the
lampstand having a flowering and
fructifying appearance of a tree with
bulbs and flowers branches and almond
blossoms
not only does the Garden of Eden match
the Priestly description of Sacred Space
of the Tabernacle but we also see Adam
functions as a priest within the Sacred
Space
Genesis 2 15 has God take the man and
put him in the garden to work and keep
it
these two words are used in Priestly
text to summarize the duties of the
priests and Levites
the closest parallel was found in
numbers 1867 which reads and behold I
have taken your brothers the Levites
from among the people of Israel they are
a gift to you given to the Lord to do
the service of the tent of meeting and
you and your sons with you shall guard
your priesthood for all that concerns
The Altar and that is within the veil
and you shall serve I give your
priesthood as a gift and any Outsider
who comes near shall be put to death
Catherine McDowell also suggests Genesis
2-3 was meant to be understood as
commentary on how Humanity was given the
Imago day in Genesis 1. she says the
Imago de concept falters as a
comprehensive definition of man because
it fails to include certain human
aspirations which are vital to human
life including the unique relationship
between male and female the search for
knowledge including the knowledge of
Good and Evil and human capacity to
assert Free Will against the will of God
thus Genesis 2 redefines over and
against Genesis 1 26-27 what it means to
be human
in other words Genesis 2 was meant to be
understood as picking up where Genesis 1
left off and explaining what it means to
be the image of God and how this plays
out in the relationship between God and
humans
this connects the anthropology and
themes of Genesis 2 3 with the
presentation of the Imago day in Genesis
1.
Aaron and the priests also are not
allowed to enter the Tabernacle until
the Eighth Day
because it will take seven days for
their ordination to be complete
this is comparable to the combination of
Genesis 1 and 2 where God takes seven
days to inaugurate the cosmos as his
Temple after the Sabbath God then allows
a Priestly figure to enter into the
Sacred Space of a garden
PJ Kearney argued the six commands in
the instructions for building the
Tabernacle correspond to the six days of
creation
thus just as the ordination of a priest
happened on the Eighth Day implicit in
Genesis 1 and 2 the ordination of Adam's
priesthood happens on the eighth day as
well after the seven days of creation
kilker says as Moses and Aaron could
only enter the Ted of meeting after the
seven days of its consecration Adam may
enter the Garden of Eden only after the
seven day creation of Genesis 1.
some may suggest this comparison does
not work since sacrifices to God were
not performed in Genesis 2.
but we should note that the altar is
outside of the tent of meeting
the sacrifice only allowed the priest to
enter the Tabernacle it was not part of
the duties within it where they would
meet with God likewise in the garden we
should not expect Adam to be performing
sacrifices yet due to the fact that the
fall has not yet occurred and he is
already within the Sacred Space of Eden
Gordon Wenham says the Garden of Eden is
not viewed by the author of Genesis
simply as a piece of Mesopotamian
Farmland but as an archetypal Sanctuary
that is a place where God dwells and
where man should worship Him
so far we can find close parallels to
the order of Leviticus A9 and Genesis 1
2. but we can see this even continues on
with how Leviticus 10 parallels Genesis
3.
Genesis 3 recounts the fall of Adam and
Eve in Leviticus 10 recounts the sin of
Aaron's sons
after they died Leviticus records they
were carried out in their coats the same
word used in Genesis 3 21 when Adam and
Eve are exiled from the garden with
garments of animal skin
Genesis 3 also notes after the sin of
eating from the tree they realized they
were naked and immediately took measures
to cover their nakedness
this reflects Priestly regulations
regarding the need to cover one's
nakedness in the presence of God
additionally after the death of Aaron's
sons Moses warns Aaron and his remaining
Sons to not go outside the entrance of
the tenant meeting lest they die
which is reminiscent of e-sphere she
will die if she eats of the fruit
they are even warned to not have strong
drink in the Ten of meeting lest they
die which eludes to Genesis 2 and 3 in
the forbidden fruit in the garden
the formulation of God Walking In The
Garden in Genesis 3 8 is used to
describe the divine presence in the
Tabernacle
Gordon Wenham says the same term is used
to describe the divine presence in the
later 10th Sanctuary Leviticus 12 16
Deuteronomy 23 15 2nd Samuel 7 6-7
Gigi Harper adds that there are lexical
parallels between Genesis 2 and 3 and
Leviticus 11 concerning dietary
regulations he says the implications of
this are spelled out via shared motif of
eating forbidden food that connects
Israel's story to Adams a connection
perhaps further indicated by the
possible structuring of Leviticus 11 15
on Genesis 3 14-19
when Adam and Eve are exiled the garden
is then guarded by a cherub with a
flaming sword
these cherubim are worked into the
curtains that make up the wall of the
Tabernacle
last we see in Genesis 4 that after the
fall the sons of Adam and Eve must offer
up sacrifices to meet with God
which is similar to the priests of
Leviticus offering a sacrifice to enter
the Sacred Space of the Tabernacle
Leviticus 10 mentions proper offerings
which include fat and grain offerings
this alludes to the offerings Kane and
Abel brought
Leviticus 10 15 also has the same word
used in reference table sacrifice which
God accepted
thus Gordon Wenham even go so far as to
say on this interpretation of Genesis 1
there is a very smooth transition to
Chapters two to three it is usually held
at Genesis 2 3 came from the yahwistic
source whereas one one to two three and
the sanctuary regulations in Exodus that
explain the symbolism came from the
Priestly source
whatever the stylistic differences
between the sources our interpretation
suggests that ideologically the J and P
sources are much closer to each other
than is usually held
thus an interesting pattern emerges in
Genesis 1 the glory of God fills the
cosmic Sanctuary over seven days which
parallels Priestly texts that speak of
seven-day consecration themes and shows
where God comes to dwell arrest
Genesis 2 picks up on the 8th day when
priests are appointed to serve God in
Sacred Space
in Genesis 3 due to Disobedience of a
dietary command Adam and Eve are
banished from the inner realm and they
can no longer be naked before God's
presence
Genesis 4 shows the importance of
sacrificing to meet with God and that
God accepted Abel's animal sacrifice but
not Keynes
thus we see a cultic sequence which has
strong Affinity to Priestly text and has
a coherent narrative flow
on the other side we can see aspects
associated with j in the Priestly
account of Genesis 1.
it has been argued Priestly texts speak
of God as distant from Humanity whereas
Jay texts anthropomorphize God
Catherine McDowell notes we can see
anthropomorphic language in p
while the deity is presented
anthropomorphically in Genesis 2 5 to
324 in Genesis 1 he speaks both to the
Heavenly hosts into the man and the
woman and he creates not only with para
but also with Asa as in Genesis 2.
he also sees or perceives he names he
sets and on the seventh day he finishes
the work he has done in rests
some bring up the fact that Genesis 1
uses Elohim and Genesis 2 uses the
Divine name
which has been used to distinguish
between sources
but McDowell notes the distinction is
faulty because the Eden narrative refers
to God as Yahweh Elohim
the switch may also reflect a change in
the story when focusing on the cosmos
generally the term Elohim is used but
when the text speaks of God relating to
man and woman in more intimate ways the
Divine name is added to signify a more
personal closeness and represent God
entering into a covenantal relationship
so it seems we have a lot of Priestly
language and themes in Genesis 2 to 4.
and some themes assigned to J and the
Priestly account
which works against the idea these were
originally two sources a redactor
combined into one
now with the similarities we can find in
the text assigned to J were actually the
work of a later redactor who wove
Priestly themes into the text then we
have to ask how he was able to change so
much while at the same time preserving
so much of the original sources for
later Scholars to reconstruct
in other words if the text was altered
by a later redactor then how can we know
the sources are even preserved in the
text
as numerous Scholars have pointed out
ancient scribes rarely preserve their
sources in the texts but instead use
sources to make a completely new text
thus the Genesis narrative they simply
relied on sources but was a unified
unique text when it was produced
Benjamin kilker says we should read
Genesis 1 to 4 as an introduction to the
cosmic Temple symbolism of the
Tabernacle whereby Genesis 1 to 3
introduces the three levels of Holiness
holy of holies holy anti-chamber
Courtyard and Genesis 4 the place of
sacrifice at the entrance of the tent
I doubt that the so-called two creation
accounts have ever been written to be
read separated from each other
adding to this Kenneth Matthews notes
that between Genesis 1 and 4 there are
exactly 70 Divine designations with 35
occurring in the first part of God
establishing the cosmos as his Temple
and the other 35 in the second half
detailing man's relationship with God
the 70th mention results in the climax
of people calling on the name of the
Lord
which suggests the two sections Were
Meant to function as one single unified
narrative
looking out Beyond this section and at
the rest of Genesis 1 to 11 we see there
is a mere structure in the text
Genesis 8 9 parallels the structure of
Genesis 1 3.
Genesis 8 follows the same literary
sequence of Genesis 1. then in Genesis 9
Joshua John Van e notes the Covenant
given there is a restatement of what we
find in Genesis 1 27-30
Noah is then in a garden and is called a
man of the soil which parallels the
account of Adam in Genesis 2.
both are then corrupted by fruit naked
have their senses affected contain a
tempter in the story with both tempter's
Offspring being cursed and conclude with
both having their naked discovered
the overall structure of Genesis 1 to 11
also has a parallel flow in the
narrative structure
Genesis 1 is the creation account
whereas Genesis 8 is the recreation
account after the flood
then what follows in both is an account
of God's relationship with Humanity then
in both we see the fall of the man of
God
followed by the fall of the family then
the fall of civilization
with both having a break in the story to
include a section on genealogies
breaking the sequence up between J and P
ruins this mere structure
it is strange that on the documentary
hypothesis When J and P were combined
they created this unique and parallel
sequence
seems more likely that Genesis 1-11 was
written as a unified narrative without
preserving two sources of the text that
were stitched together
now this is not to say there were no
sources used in writing Genesis or that
there are no redactional layers
we are merely pointing out that the text
as it stands works well as a unified
narrative and it is not hopelessly
contradictory which can only be resolved
by positing two sources that were
stitched together
it is also unlikely the sources the
authors used are preserved in the text
and can be pulled out and separated
too much of the literary Unity is
destroyed and even if we attempt to do
this we still find motifs and themes
assigned to One Source throughout the
other
and given the asianaries from Context
the text can function as it is as a
unified narrative within their cultural
context
the first part covers the general
aspects and the second part covers the
specifics humanity is given the Imago
day but what this means is explained in
detail in the following chapters
therefore we have good evidence to
suggest that text is a unified narrative
not a combination of contradictory
accounts
foreign
浏览更多相关视频
Does the Bible Say the Earth is 6000 Years Old?
BA First Year History I Chapter 1 Sources Of Ancient Indian History I DU regular / Sol / Ncweb
Noah's Flood: Biblical Archaeology
What I Missed For Years In Genesis 1 [Deeper Insights]
BOMBSHELL NEW FOOTAGE OF 9/11 ATTACKS CONFIRMS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF TOWERS | Redacted News
ORIGENS DA BÍBLIA: Descubra quem inventou os livros bíblicos.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)