User:Rednblu/tempMinorityOpinionPage

Creation according to Genesis refers to the description of the creation of the heavens and the earth by God, as described in Genesis the first book of the Bible. The text was originally written by the early Hebrews, if not earlier. The text spans Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the book of Genesis. The Original Hebrew has been translated into a number of English translations, including the King James Version, the New Living Translation, the Revised Standard Version, and theNew American Standard, among others.

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.

Michelangelo's painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel shows the creation of the stars and planets as described in the first chapter of Genesis.

Translation and Authorship

The author of the text is unnamed in the text, and a variety of theories have arisen regarding authorship.

Mosaic authorship hypothesis

According to Hebrew and Christian tradition, the first 5 books of the Bible, or Pentateuch, were written by Moses, with some updates from a later editor. This would include Deuteronomy 34, which records the death of Moses. A number of passages indicate that Moses wrote at least part of the Pentateuch, but no passage explicitly ascribes the book of Genesis to Moses. (Benware 1993).

Several possibilities have been suggested as to how Moses came to write the text:

• he may have received it all by oral traditions, passed down over the centuries from father to son, which he then collected and wrote down, (Morris 1981).
• he may have taken actual written records of the past as part of his education as an Egyptian prince, collected them, and brought them together into a final form. (Douglas 1990). Or as leader of the Israelites, he may have been in possession of written records of the past handed down from the Israelite ancestors.
• he may have received it all by direct revelation from God, either in the form of audible words dictated by God and transcribed by him, or else by visions given him of the great events of the past, which he then put down in his own words. (Morris 1981).

Some believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Others believe that Moses wrote the text, but not under any divine inspiration.

Critics argue that belief in Mosaic authorship is unjustified because the text does not claim to be written by Moses; because large portions of the text were written about events long before Moses lived, or (in a few cases) after he died, were therefore not firsthand knowledge, and must have originated elsewhere; and because stylistic, vocabulary, and structural changes exist in the text indicating multiple authors and redaction.

JEPD authorship hypothesis

Modern Biblical critics posit that the first two chapters of Genesis are a composite of two different literary strands: the "Jehovist" (10th century BC), and the "Elohist" (9th century BC); and that the strands were compiled by an unknown redactor. 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 postulated source streams include:

• Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, which exclusively uses the word Elohim to describe God, is ascribed to the Elohist, who biblical critics believe used Elohim exclusively.
• Genesis 2:4 to 2:24, which exclusively uses the word Jehovah to describe God, is ascribed to the Jehovist, who biblical critics believe used Jehovah exclusively.

Biblical critics assert that the two passages tell the story of creation in different ways, and that there are inconsistencies between the two accounts. They conclude that the most probable explanation for the two inconsistent accounts is that a redactor combined the two independent creation stories into the final text which we have today.

Those rejecting the methodology of biblical criticism argue that when a biblical text is measured against the scholar's own concept of unity and found wanting, this probably says more about the biblical scholar's sense of unity than about the text's prehistory. (Carr 24).

Theories of textual interpretation

The single account theory

Some scholars believe that the Genesis account is a single coherent report of creation, which is divided into two parts. The first part, from 1:1 to 2:3, describes the creation of the Heavens and the Earth; the second part, from 2:4-24, describes the creation of the Garden of Eden, and Humanity. One such scholar wrote, "[T]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 full accounts of the creation, as between 1:1 to 2:3 and 2:4-24. They then argue the existence of contradictions between the passages. For a description of the asserted contradictions, see The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

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

Literary intent

• Some understand the passage literally, as meaning that God created the Earth exactly as described.
• 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 understand the passage literally.

"In the Beginning"

• Some understand 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 understand 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 understand 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.

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 several 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.

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 two different authors. Such proponents point to the 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, a retired Archaeology Professor of the University of Liverpool, 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 no one denies the unity of authorship.

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, those who argue that the differences in the accounts are unresolvable point to several historic factors that would have allowed the contradictory accounts to survive uncorrected. Prior to the modern era, factors that would have made correction difficult included mass illiteracy, hand copying of manuscripts prior to the printing press, early rules preventing translations of the scriptures into common languages, church discouragement and punishment of critical analysis of scripture, and the church's canonization of texts as they were. In early times, there were few incentives or opportunities to criticize scriptural text.

How apparent the differences are depends on the translations. For example, some modern English Bibles translate the two different words for God--Yahweh and Elohim--both as God. Others, however, such as the Revised Standard Version, translate Elohim as God, and Yahweh as Lord. In addition, some translations (e.g. the New International Version) have rendered the start of the second section as the day when--as if it was a review of past events--rather than on that day--as if it were a first recording of events.

The dual perspective theory

File:Michelangelo OnePaintingOrTwo.jpg

Sistine ceiling, Michelangelo, 1512. Two paintings very close to each other separated everywhere by unpainted stone. From a dualistic perspective, both one painting and two.

Biblical scholar Pamela Tamarkin Reis (2001) proposes that Genesis 1 and 2 can be seen as either one painting with two panels or as two separate paintings. Both are appropriate. She draws the parallel with the ancient story-telling technique that Kurosawa employed in the movie Rashomon. In that movie, the same series of events are told through the eyes of four different people, and of course realistically there are contradictions in the different narratives. And you could make sense out of that movie either as four different stories or as four people having four different realistic narratives of the same story.

Accordingly, Ms. Reis analyzes Genesis 1 as God's narrative and Genesis 2 as man's narrative. In Genesis 1, the style of narration is very orderly and logical, proceeding from basics like heaven and earth, through plants and animals to man and woman. And everything is "good" or "very good." Ms. Reis suggests that the story-teller has a bit of whimsy in noting how perfect everything is from God's view.

In contrast, in Genesis 2, man tells the story from his own self-centeredness. Man is created first, of course. And there are a few flaws. Man is alone, without a woman. Whereas, in Genesis 1, the phrase is "heaven and earth" repeated several times, in Genesis 2, God makes "earth and heaven." And another thing, in Genesis 2, there is that troubling notice that "there was no one to till the ground." That sounds like a lot of work, an unending task--very unlike the completeness of Genesis 1.

Even the words used in Genesis 1 suggest serenity, the godly plane of existence. For example, in Genesis 1, the word for God is Elohim, the generic and distant God, while God's name in Genesis 2 is the personal and very sacred YHWH Elohim, the Lord of God. Even the verb of making is different in the two narratives, in the first narrative the verb is the Hebrew "arb" which means "create from nothing," something that only God can do. In contrast, the verb in the second narrative means "make," God "made earth and heaven." Maybe man cannot make earth and heaven, but at least man can make many things from what is already lying about. And then there are those interesting details about where to find gold and lapis lazuli--only in the second narrative, of course. From God's view in the first narrative, gold is not even mentioned; gold is something only in man's narrative.

From all of these clues, Ms. Reis suggests that Genesis 1 and 2 make sense either way, just as for Kurosawa's Rashomon. They make sense as two different stories. Or they make sense as two narratives of the same story from different personal perspectives: that of God and that of man.

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

P.N. Benware, "Survey of the Old Testament", Moody Press, Chicago IL, (1993).

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

J.D. Douglas et al, "Old Testament Volume: New Commentary on the Whole Bible," Tyndale, Wheaton, IL, (1990)

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)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New International Version (UK))

= Categories

(don't put this into the main categories as it looks messy, but do put them in if this page gets back into the main namespace)

Category:Creation stories Category:Holy scripture Category: Biblical criticism Category:Creationism