Thread by @DrPJWilliams

Thread on the literary relationship between the accounts of Creation in Genesis 1-3.

Looking critically at the idea that 2 totally independent accounts of creation have been brought together with little editing in such a way that the 2 accounts are still largely identifiable.

A common scholarly view is represented by this picture of R.E. Friedman's 'Bible with Sources Revealed'. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is attributed to the Priestly source (P), and 2:3b-3:24 to the Yahwist source (J). 2:3a is thought to come from a redactor (editor).

It's not my purpose here to claim that there are not different literary sources behind Genesis, but rather to demonstrate that the hypothetical sources show deep thematic connections which would be surprising if they were truly independent.

The problem with the view that an editor discovered two completely different sources and then found that with almost no effort they could be fitted alongside each other, is that the editor is too lucky with how the themes and language of the passages dovetail.

For the purposes of this thread I will refer to Gen 1:1-2:3 as the first account and 2:4b-3:24 as the second.

Now some things shared by both accounts:

Specific actions of naming (1:5, 8, 10 vs. 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).

Prominent focus on the lexeme 'adam 'man', 'humanity'

Commands given to the 'adam.

Mention of ruling (Hebrew root mšl) and concern with authority (1:16, 18 vs. 3:16).

Interest in fruit of trees (1:11 vs. 3:2).

Interest in seed (1:11-12 vs. 3:15).

Interest in what may be eaten.

Implicit or explicit restrictions on eating.

Assumption of original human vegetarianism.

Animal vegetarianism of 1:30 concurs with the docility of animals in 2:19.

Contain examples of God speaking using 1st person plural.

Otherwise incredibly rare, e.g. Gen 11; Is. 6.

In 1st occurrence God says 'let us make 'adam in our image *according to* (Hebrew kĕ) our likeness' (1:26).

In the 2nd God says 'behold the 'adam has become like (Hebrew kĕ) one of us' (3:22). Both passages stress similarity between 'adam and God.

The tanninim 'sea creatures' of 1:21 receive a particularly prominent mention while the nachaš 'serpent' is prominent in ch. 3.

The term in 1:21 may have serpentine associations & the 2 terms can co-occur in parallelism (cf. Isaiah 27:1).

First account has heavy emphasis on goodness of creation. This probably implies a contrast with later.

The second has an analogue to this in the temptation-curse narrative, which moves from a good to a bad situation.

Likewise the curse of ch. 3 is much more effective when there is a full statement of the goodness of creation. Without the first account the significance of the curse is less clear.

Though the first account lacks the tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the second account contains it, the second account knows how to avoid the tetragrammaton because it avoids using YHWH in the Serpent's words (3:1b, 3, 5).

The themes of blessing and cursing are often complementary in the OT: the first account contains blessing (1:22, 28; 2:3) and the second contains curses (3:14, 17).

The 2 narratives avoid contradictory blessing or cursing.

1:28 blessed the 'adam of 1:27.

3:17 studiously avoids cursing the 'adam, instead cursing the 'adamah 'ground'.

1:22 blesses things in the sea and the air, but there's no blessing in the first account for land creatures.

Why not?

Because 3:14 God curses the serpent a land creature.

Similar biblical avoidance of cursing what has been blessed is seen in contrasting Genesis 9:1 with 9:25.

The first account has the repeated theme that God 'saw that X was good' (Hebrew: ra'ah + ki + tov).

This is echoed in 2:18 when God says it is not good (tov) for man to be alone, and in 3:6 where the woman 'saw that the tree was good and she took' (ra'ah + ki + tov + laqach).

All four of these lexemes occur in order in 6:2 when 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were good and they took ...', but 6:2 follows 6:1 where the theme of human multiplication from 1:28 comes.

In both passages humans are said to eat ('akal) greenery ('esev): 1:29 vs. 3:18.

Common phrases such as nepheš chayyah 'living animals' occur in both (1:20, 21, 24, 30 vs. 2:7, 19).

There are many outstanding questions about these texts, but I hope that this thread gives a sense of the degree of thematic complementarity across these chapters, which also complement each other by focussing respectively on the cosmic and then human/personal levels.

I find it hard to believe that an editor simply happened to find two independent accounts which fitted together without needing adaptation.

But if you allow an editor to have adapted sources substantially the sources are no longer really identifiable.

Here as elsewhere I find that excessive emphasis on sources can distract us from reading the text as it stands. As it stands, it is better to see one narrative fabric than two pieces of fabric joined by a rough seam.