Dual Creation Stories in Genesis

[Jeff Lebowski]

I found some interesting stuff in the Oxford NSRV bible yesterday. I was reading the introduction to the Pentateuch and there was a discussion on whether or not Moses was actually the author, as opposed to it being a collection of writings from various authors (including Moses perhaps). One of the points discussed was the fact there are actually two different accounts of the creation in Genesis, making it appear that accounts from two authors were combined into one. In spite of having read Genesis countless times, I never noticed this before. But sure enough, it is right there, plain as day. The first story is found in:

Genesis 1:1 - 2:3

In this account, God created the world by word ("Let there be ...") and it was over the six-day period we are familiar with. Man was created last, on the sixth day, and it explicitly says that both "male and female" are created (1:27-28). By 2:3, everything is wrapped up and God rests from His labors.

Then in Genesis 2:4, a second account begins. In this case, the earth is created first, then Adam, then plants, then animals, then Eve. This is the story where Satan gets involved.

Anyway, I had never noticed the dual account angle before. I simply merged both stories into one.

Of course, I may be last one in this crowd learn this. But I thought it was pretty fascinating.

[The Borg]

I have always viewed this as an expounding of what was stated previously. Not two seperate accounts. Just a further explanation of what/how it happened.

[BarbaraGordon]

That's what I've tried to think too, but I don't know if it's accurate or not. I think my resistance to the dual stories is due to the fact that I learned of them from a whacked-out atheist liberal feminist literature professor. Guilt by association.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

That's what I've tried to think too, but I don't know if it's accurate or not. I think my resistance to the dual stories is due to the fact that I learned of them from a whacked-out atheist liberal feminist literature professor. Guilt by association.

While I don't do Hebrew Bible by professional standards, I have taught the Pentateuch issue before, and there is simply NO WAY that it is a further expounding from the same source. It is two different sources from two different time periods, plain and simple. There has been no dissent from this position from a critical perspective ever since Wellhausen articulated it. It's just too plain not to see. Any arguments are over when the sources were written, not whether there are two different sources. I went into a scholarly study of this with a mind to think that it was all the same, just an expounding. It sure didn't take long to change my mind. If you only read the KJV, this may be obscured enough that you could get away with honestly thinking otherwise. But once you swallow the red pill and read it in Hebrew or a good translation, AND the scholarly literature, I just don't think there's any way to be honest with yourself AND maintain the old view.

I guess whacked out theoreticians can be right too :-).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

If you only read the KJV, this may be obscured enough that you could get away with honestly thinking otherwise. But once you swallow the red pill and read it in Hebrew or a good translation, AND the scholarly literature, I just don't think there's any way to be honest with yourself AND maintain the old view.

After reading it in the NRSV I went back and read it in the KJV and in the book of Moses in the PoGP. It essentially reads the same way in all three accounts.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I guess whacked out theoreticians can be right too :-).

Don't you hate it when that happens? They go and actually cite, you know, sources and stuff.

[Indy Coug]

I think the PofGP and temple accounts provide enough clarification on the order of things.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I think the PofGP and temple accounts provide enough clarification on the order of things.

Thank goodness someone pointed that out. Nothing left to discuss.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I think the PofGP and temple accounts provide enough clarification on the order of things.

This is a tautology. How can accounts relying on base text X clarify the accuracy of what is in base text X, let alone clarify source-critical issues surrounding the text? This is what drives me nuts about non-critical thinking. You make a theological assertion, and you don't even seem to be aware of the underlying assumptions already inherent in your assertion (assuming that inspired material must adhere to post-enlightenment concerns). People do the same thing even now with the JST supposedly being restoration of text, and this was debunked by faithful scholars long ago. All the temple account and PofGP do is magnify 18th century texts which were meaningful at the time. It says nothing about sources of the Pentateuch which were CLEARLY written by different authors at different times. If it had to be an either or proposition, than many LDS scholars who have accepted the obvious would have dismissed the PoGP already. Fortunately, there is the possibility that God doesn't care about the sources of Genesis. He just wants to inspire people, right? So the KJV, as inaccurate as it is, would be just fine to base these inspired texts on, wouldn't it? If you're going to stick with pre-enlightenment thinking, don't apply it uncritically to post-enlightenment categories [*edit* I mean to say Enlightenment categories].

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

This is a tautology. How can accounts relying on base text X clarify the accuracy of what is in base text X, let alone clarify source-critical issues surrounding the text? This is what drives me nuts about non-critical thinking. You make a theological assertion, and you don't even seem to be aware of the underlying assumptions already inherent in your assertion (assuming that inspired material must adhere to post-enlightenment concerns). People do the same thing even now with the JST supposedly being restoration of text, and this was debunked by faithful scholars long ago. All the temple account and PofGP do is magnify 18th century texts which were meaningful at the time. It says nothing about sources of the Pentateuch which were CLEARLY written by different authors at different times. If it had to be an either or proposition, than many LDS scholars who have accepted the obvious would have dismissed the PoGP already. Fortunately, there is the possibility that God doesn't care about the sources of Genesis. He just wants to inspire people, right? So the KJV, as inaccurate as it is, would be just fine to base these inspired texts on, wouldn't it? If you're going to stick with pre-enlightenment thinking, don't apply it uncritically to post-enlightenment categories [*edit* I mean to say Enlightenment categories].

So what you're saying is that the Moses Chapter 2 and the endowment ceremony are simply derivative accounts that solely rely upon the biblical texts available circa 1830?