Genesis 1-3 - A Tale of Two Stories (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Comparison of the Two Genesis Creation Accounts
Orthodox Christian belief maintains that the creation account in Gen 1 is synoptic and the creation account in Gen 2 expands on the activities performed on day 6. However, many biblical scholars have observed that there are significant differences between these creation accounts which make the synopticexpansion relationship of Gen 1 and Gen 2 not straightforward. In this paper, the first creation account (defined as Gen 1.1-2.3) is compared and contrasted with the second creation account (defined as Gen 2.4-3.24). Some 36 parameters are used to make the comparison. This includes the comparison of literary structures, such as literary framework, literary style and plotline, and the comparison of literary contents, such as the portrait of God and the portrait of mankind, in the two creation accounts. The study shows that whatever parameter is applied there are significant differences. For example, in Gen 1.1-2.3 ʾāḏām refers to mankind (plural), while in Gen 2.4-3.24 ʾāḏām refers to an individual man. With many of the parameters there is not only a significant difference between the accounts, but there is also a conflict between the differences such that both accounts cannot be true. For example, in Gen 1.1-2.3 God (Elohim) is portrayed as transcendent and sovereign over, and separate from his creation. In Gen 2.4-3.24, God (YHWH Elohim) is portrayed as immanent and actively involved in his creation. These portraits of God are mutually contradictory. The final conclusion of this comparative study is that Gen 2.4-3.24 conflicts with Gen 1.1-2.3 in multiple ways. Thus, the proposition that Gen 1.1-2.3 is synoptic and Gen 2.4-3.24 (or even Gen 2.4-25) is a resumption-expansion of this synopsis is untenable. Gen 1.1-2.3 and Gen 2.4-3.24 should be regarded as separate and independent creation stories.
THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF THE CREATION STORY IN GENESIS 1:1 - 2:3
At the heart of Genesis 1 is a masterpiece of parallelism. However, in the long history of Christian scholarship, recognition of the parallelism structures and literary hues in the Hebrew has been critically missing. The reason is obvious—after the fellowship of early believers lost its Hebrew speaking majority and leadership, the church became colorblind to this painterly Hebrew content for most of its history. The parallelism was not rendered in the Septuagint and Vulgate. The substituted Latin or Greek texts gave only a black and white image of the Hebrew—impairing interpretation for nearly two millennia. Though it is now common to hear of the dual triad of days and the chiasm in Day 4—the discovered structure is vastly more elaborate. The use of parallelism in the first creation story is extensive and so pervasive that it intones the phrasing of every verse. Found parallelism includes: 70+ text parallels, 12 synonymous parallel restatements, 9 parallel creation commands, 6 chiasms, 2 synthetic thematic parallel day-groups of 3 days each, and 2 inclusios. The entire parallelism structure is concisely presented on two pages (page 5 and 6). Included is a simple Literary Structure Study Translation (page 8) formated so English readers can easily see the Hebrew parallelism structure.
Genesis 1-2 Cohesive or Contradictory Narrative.pdf
2018
There is some disparity between scholars on whether Genesis chapters one and two can be read as a cohesive narrative or not. It has been suggested that they are too contradictory and can not be reconciled. Others have suggested that chapter two is a retelling of the chapter one narrative. I suggest they are cohesive and necessary counterparts that should be read together. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 may be the most important pieces of literature in the entirety of human history. It is actually pre-history, as history infers recorded or recordable human interactions or human experience. Moltmann frames it so well, “When one hears this chapter (chapter one)… one realizes that something has been expressed that has never really been said before nor since.” It is my intention to argue that the two creation narratives can be viewed as separate writings but best understood as companion perspectives: a Divine Ontic perspective and a Adamic Epistemic perspective. Scholarly source criticism says that the two were written by different authors in different centuries. This may be true, but that does not prove they are contrary narratives. Chapter 1 can be viewed as a character perspective of the Divine accounting for the differing language, syntax, and chronology than Chapter 2, which is seen and accounted for by a limited, and newly formed Adam. Adam’s limited knowledge stymies his ability to reflect or contemplate prior events. I suggest Radiation Decay Theory as an example of why such limits could exist. Finally, I contend it is the fusion of the unique metaphysical and physical character perspectives, and how they relate to Creation, that bring contiguous cogency to the two narratives and can synthesize disputed differences.
A Literary and Cultural Analysis of the Creation Narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:3
[This is a DRAFT paper. In an updated paper to be released, some information will be changed and the presentation refined.] Genesis continues to defy. Centuries of attempts to shape it to conform to the prevailing paradigm have created a theoretical maelstrom, around which swirl literal theories of chaos. So unsettled are the waters that much of the Genesis text is still in darkness due to modern cultural presuppositions, prior creedal beliefs, and conflicting inherited scholarship. The effort in this study is to look afresh and minimize prior theoretical, creedal or genre expectations. The goal is to discover the original intent of the author that is obscured by cultural and literary expectations. The proposed approach is merely a grammatical-historical method with a heightened awareness of original cultural context and literary genre to overcome hindering eisegesis influences. This approach lead to the documentation of a highly detailed literary structure which is beautiful and inspiring. The structure has been outlined by others before, but the present study provides a number of tables detailing the structure to a greater level. In addition, a historical survey of selected Ancient Near East cosmologies near the time of the writing of Genesis, provides the perspective of the original audience which we can temporarily enter to review the discovered structure. It reveals the polemic purposes that motivated the narrative's structure and wording which have often been mistaken for other purposes or derived from other processes that were concomitant to the commenter's worldview and not Genesis.
The book of Genesis lays the foundation for the entire Bible, and chapters 1 and 2 are the footing upon which the rest of the Bible rests. These facts place Genesis in a prominent position as perhaps the most important book in the Bible for forming a well rounded Christian worldview and chapters 1 and 2 are the apex of that understanding (Brueggemann, 2010, p. 11). Genesis chapters 1 and 2 include key pieces of the framework for biblical leadership and convey God's intent that man should take a leading role in subduing and caring for His creation. This paper provides an exegetical analysis of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and concludes that God is sovereign and has mandated men to have dominion over the earth. GENESIS 3 Genesis 1 and 2
Linguistic and Thematic Parallels Between Genesis 1 and 3
2002
Introduction A superficial glance may give the impression that there are no points of correspondence between Genesis 1 and 3. However, a deeper and more exhaustive analysis from linguistic, literary, and thematic perspectives reveals that there are indeed significant similarities between these two chapters. Generally, scholars have attributed Genesis 1 and 3 to two different literary sources: the Priestly (P) source for the redaction of Genesis 1 and the Jahvist (J) source for the redaction of Genesis 3. The immense majority of the studies on Genesis 1 and 3 sustain this view. Scholars have analyzed the linguistic and thematic parallels between Genesis 1 and 2, but there are no systematic and deep studies of the linguistic, literary, and thematic correspondences between Genesis 1 and 3. This article will establish that such linguistic and thematic parallels between Genesis 1 and 3 do indeed exist.
Reflections on the Old Testament: The Creation Narrative - Genesis 1:1 - 2:25
2024
What is the significance of the creation narrative in Genesis? How was it read/heard by early readers/hearers? Are there actually two accounts of creation here, or just one? And, what does the biblical creation account mean for us? This essay answers these questions and more as the author takes both a macro and micro approach to reading these ancient narratives.
The Textual Unity of Genesis 2-4 Against the Backdrop of the History of Exegesis
2014
The thesis explores the literary unity of the narratives of Adam-Eve and Cain-Abel supplemented with an inquiry into the history of traditional exegesis. Most contemporary studies and commentaries reflect a varied understanding of the textual relationship between the narratives of creation and sin in Eden and outside of it (Gen 2:4b–4:16). According to one dominant stream of historical tradition, the unit of Genesis 1–3 is delimited and expounded apart from the juxtaposed chapter 4. A key figure in this hermeneutical tradition is Augustine, who devoted his Genesis commentaries to chapters 1–3 apart from the sin narrative of Cain. An important implication arising from this thesis is that Christian exegetes of Genesis should be aware of, and avoid, any uncritical adoption of the tradition represented by Augustine in their reading of the stories of the origins. According to another historic exegetical tradition of Jewish and Christian interpreters the narratives of creation and sin are...
GENESIS 1:1-2:3 AS A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE TEXT TYPE 1
The 'genre' of Genesis 1 has long been debated, with approaches centering largely on traditional form criticism. From a textlinguistic perspectiveespecially examining such elements as clause types, word order, grounding, lexical repetition, prose particles, and linear structuring-this study argues that the first periscope of the Hebrew Bible is better read as a historical narrative text type in its own right.