Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:01, 18 November 2004

This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Talk:Genesis creation narrative. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Creation according to Genesis refers to the description of the creation of the heavens and the Earth by God, contained in the biblical book of Genesis. The text was originally written by the early Hebrews. The text spans Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the book of Genesis.

Genesis is canonical for both Christianity and Judaism, and thus is often taken as being of spiritual significance. For a discussion of the comparison between the first two chapters of Genesis and the theory of evolution, see Creation vs. evolution debate.

Authorship

The author of the text is unnamed and unknown. Hebrew and Christian tradition ascribes it to Moses. Modern Biblical critics posit several unknown authors, and at least one redactor (whom some postulate to be Ezra).

Interpretation

Things Created

• Some interpret the text to refer to the creation of the entire universe, and translate the first verse of Genesis as "In the Beginning." Related to this is the belief in creatio ex nihilio, creation out of nothing.
• Some interpret the text to refer to the creation of the entire universe, but suggest that God must have withdrawn some of his own being to make room for the creation. Related to this are various beliefs meant to explain the presence of evil in the world
• Some interpret the text to refer to the creation of order in the universe. They point out that In the beginning is not a literal translation of the Hebrew text into English. The Hebrew text lacks the definite article, and many have suggested it should be translated as When God began to create the Heaven and the Earth. This interpretation implies that there was unordered matter in the universe before God began to order it, and implicitly rejects the doctrine of creatio ex nihilio.

Duration of creation

• Some interpret the passage literally, as meaning that God created the Earth exactly as described, in seven days of 24-hours.
• Some interpret the passage literally, but interpret small parts of the text with slight variation. Examples include "Day-Age" creationists (who believe that "day" should be interpreted as "age", implying that creation took place over long periods), and "Gap" creationists (who interpret 1:2 as meaning that the Earth became void, indicating that the original creation was destroyed, left void for a significant period of time, and then restored.).
• Some interpret the passage figuratively, as meaning that God created the Earth and Life by his own power, that he greated it Good, that he entrusted it to Humankind; since they see such power in the allegory, they see no reason to necessarily interpret the passage literally.

Theories of textual interpretation

The single account theory

Some scholars believe that the Genesis account is a report of creation, which is divided into two parts, written from different perspectives: the first part, from 1:1 to 2:3, describes the creation of the Earth from God's perspective; the second part, from 2:4-24, focusing on the creation of the Garden of Eden, and Humanity. One such scholar wrote, "he strictly complementary nature of the accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting." (Kitchen 116-117).

The dual account theory

Other scholars, particularly those ascribing to Biblical criticism and the Documentary hypothesis, believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are two separate accounts of the creation, as between 1:1 to 2:3 and 2:4-24. One such scholar wrote, "The book of Genesis, like the other books of the Hexateuch, was not the production of one author. A definite plan may be traced in the book, but the structure of the work forbids us to consider it as the production of one writer." (Spurell xv).

The dual perspective theory

Other scholars, such as Pamela Tamarkin Reis, assert that the text can be read either as one account or as two accounts from different perspectives, as the text uses a literary device to describe the same events first from the perspective of God, and second from the perspective of Humanity.

Specific issues of textual interpretation

Timescale

• The dual account theory asserts that the first story describes the creation of plants, animals, and humans over a period of many days, the second story describes these things of happening on the same day.
• The single account theory asserts that the first segment of the story describes the creation of plants, animals, and humans of the course of many days, and the second segment picks up where the first leaves off, focusing on the creation of the Garden of Eden, and the creation of domesticable plants, ("plants of the field and herbs of the field");

Use of different words for God

The first section exclusively refers to God as Elohim (often translated God), wheras the second exclusively uses the name Yahweh (often translated Lord, though sometimes as God).

• The single account theory asserts that Hebrew scriptures use different names for God throughout, depending on the characteristics of God which the author wished to emphasize. They argue that across the Hebrew scriptures, the use of Elohim in the first segment suggests "strength," focusing on God as the mighty Creator of the universe, while the use of Yahweh in the second segment suggested moral and spiritual natures of deity, particularly in relationship to the man. (Stone 17).
• The dual account theory asserts that the two segments using different words for God indicates different authorship and two distinct narratives, in accord with the documentary hypothesis.

The creation of Eve

In the first section, God is described as having created Man and Woman. In the second section, God is described as having created Eve from Adam's rib.

• Proponents of a dual account proclaim that the apparant creation of Woman twice is clear evidence of two parallel contradictory accounts.
• Proponents of a single account approach this in different ways.
  • Some consider that the tale in the second section is a detailed look at events in the first, and not to be considered as a chronologically later or separate event.
  • Others proclaim that the first account is a reference to Lilith, whom they claim was Adam's first wife (who is often indirectly referred to, but only explicitely at Isaiah 34:14). They also claim that this explains how Cain and Seth were able to marry without committing incest.

The creation of birds

In the first section, the Hebrew description of the creation of birds (Genesis 1:20) translates word-for-word as God said waters bring forth creature having life birds fly above Earth open firmament Heaven. Due to the terse grammar in the Ancient Hebrew language, the passage is ambiguous as to whether there ought to be a comma or a hyphen between the words life and birds. Thus, when producing readable translation, it is ambiguous as to whether it should be God said let the waters bring forth life and God said let birds fly or God said let the waters bring forth life such as birds that fly, and in consequence, some translations differ.

In the second section, birds are described (Genesis 2:19) as being created as So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (Revised Standard Version).

• Proponents of two accounts argue that the Hebrew text, in the first section, is part of one clause, the implication being that God created the birds from water, an inconsistency with the second passages claim that God created them from the ground. In addition, they point out that, if this was not the intended meaning, the author ought to have noted the ambiguity and corrected it. Their basis for such textual analysis is the knowledge of early languages that is built up by Historical linguistics, about which they proclaim is sufficient that there is little reason to doubt the ambiguity existed.

• Proponents of one account assert that since there is ambiguity in the first section, then given the choice between a completely inconsistent and a completely consistent translation, they choose the latter, subsequently seeing no reason to believe that the passage means that the birds were created out of the waters. They claim that the current understanding of Ancient Hebrew grammar is not complete, and the author therefore probably didn't see an ambiguity in the text to be corrected.

Writing style

Though not so obvious in translation, the Hebrew text of the two sections differ both in the type of words used and in stylistic qualities. The first section flows smoothly, wheras the second is more interested in pointing out side details, and does so in a more point of fact style.

• Proponents of two accounts proclaim that it is one of the principles of textual criticism that large differences in the type of words used, and in stylistic qualities, support the existance of a different author. Such proponents point to the successful attempts (e.g. The Book of J by David Rosenburg) to separate the various authors of the Torah (The first five books of the Old Testament), claimed by the Documentary Hypothesis, into distinct and sometimes contradictory accounts.

• Proponents of the single account argue that style differences are not indicative of multiple authors, but simply indicate the purpose of different passages. For example, Kenneth Kitchen has argued that stylistic differences are meaningless, using the evidence of such things as a biographical inscription of an Egyptian official in 2400 B.C., which reflects at least four different styles, but about which he claims that there is no doubt of the unity of authorship. Biblical scholar Pamela Tamarkin Reis (2001) draws the parallel with the ancient story-telling technique of telling a tale through the eyes of different people. In this case, through the eyes of God in the first passage (God's work being incessently good, and serene), and through the eyes of man in the second (man having particular note of the unendingness of work), and thus realistically there are contradictions in the different narratives.

The likelihood of parallel inconsistent accounts

• The single account theory asserts that it is unlikely that the text would have survived for three to four thousand years in such an obviously contradictory state, and that it is therefore much more likely that the two segments are consistent with each other, with the first being general and the second being more specific to the creation of humans and the garden.
• However, opponents of this theory point out that
  • due to mass illiteracy, the absence of a printing press, and (later) rules preventing widespread availability of the scriptures in the vernacular, few outside the church had access to the scriptures, and the church having canonized and interpreted them, had no incentive to criticize them, making secular textual criticism a relatively recent phenomenon.
  • In addition they point out that some modern English translations render Yahweh and Elohim both as God and, in addition, some translators (e.g. the New International Version) have rendered the start of the second section as the day when rather than on that day, making the differences and the border between the sections more difficult to notice in English versions.
  • Furthermore, many allege that the text only originates from around 700BC or earlier, and very quickly became something that had to be read out, or chanted, in certain ecclesiatical languages (such as Church Latin, enforced as the exclusive language up until the reformation), incomprehensible to the listener.
  • Also, they claim that it was held together by the insistence on Orthodoxy, from a very early stage in the church, which produced threats of excommunication, enforced exile, mob murder, heresy trials, and, after the 13th century, the inquisition, making people who noticed fear for their lives if they mentioned it to anyone.

References

Reis, Pamela Tamarkin (2001). Genesis as Rashomon: The creation as told by God and man. Bible Review 17 (3).

Kitchen, Kenneth, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Tyndale, 1966, p. 118

G.J. Spurrel, Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.

Davis, John, Paradise to Prison - Studies in Genesis, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975, p. 23

Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David The Book of J, Random House, NY, USA 1990.

Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible?, Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987.

Stone, Nathan, Names of God, Chicago: Moody Press, 1944, p. 17.

Nicholson, E. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen Oxford University Press, 2003.

Tigay, Jeffrey, Ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986

Wiseman, P. J. Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, USA 1985

External Links

Sources for the biblical text

• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (Hebrew text)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (King James Version)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (Revised Standard Version)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New Living Translation)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New American Standard Bible)

• Creation stories
• Holy scripture
• Biblical criticism
• Creationism
• Bible stories