First and Second Story of Creation

[Deacon_Joseph]

Hi all,
I will be teaching a small Bible study soon on Genesis, the story of creation. I have a few thoughts already about how to explain the fact that there are 2 creation stories. People seem to have a lot of questions about this one. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts. Thanks.

 

[rwoehmke]

Some texts are composed of writings on the same topic derived from separate oral traditions. When through time these were recorded in final form, the redactors, rather then discard one version of an event (creation) used both sources and did not combine and re–write them to form a single narrative.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I wonder if after creating the universe in Genesis 1, God then created an isolated garden in which He placed man - Genesis 2. The garden was shielded from the hazards and woes of the universe.

Note that here, as elsewhere, the writer was careful to record both without trying to make them fit. He [unlike some of our modern translators] feared losing some of God’s Word if he fitted it to his ideas.

 

[Zooey]

The 2 accounts do not contradict each other; on the contrary, they complement each other.
The first is the plain “bare bones” account; the second fills out the details.

And, after all, there are four Gospels, not just one…

HTH!!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Some texts are composed of writings on the same topic derived from separate oral traditions. When through time these were recorded in final form, the redactors, rather then discard one version of an event (creation) used both sources and did not combine and re–write them to form a single narrative.

I think this is the best assessment and statement of what probably is the case. The 1st account is of the Priestly writing, and the 2nd from the Yahwist tradition. Depending on translation, this can be pretty easily picked out due to the difference of reference to God as God, or Yahweh God.

The argument that the 2nd genesis is just a fleshing out of the 1st is, I think no scholars interpretation, but may be that of some people who require their bible to be inerrent

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think the issue of two creations is minor. Of course, one should answer directly and I believe correctly according to general standards of sound hermeunuetics, however, I would argue the main stress should be placed on the spiritual point.

For instance, the double story, shows how deeply our ancestors thought about God, how sincerely they honored God as supreme creator. How they saw themselves as connected with God, and responsible to Him. Obviously with meditation, one can come up with lots of wonderful spiritual truths that can be illicited from the text. Irogically it apprears to show that diversity of thought about God was very acceptable. Sadly our protestant brethern and fundamentalists in general have not learned this wonderful lesson.

 

[papaspicy]

I have taught this in the past to some of my classes. I always explain that one of the best ways to approach these, or any stories, is to look for what the author was trying to express or teach. Think of the movies that recently came out by director Clint Eastwood: Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. They address the same event, but deliver vastly different stories.

I think the ‘goal’ of the first story is to show the power and glory of God, and to show that humanity, made in the image of God, is the ultimate end and height of all creation. The second story is really part of a trilogy (Creation, Fall, and Cain and Abel). This creation story has a ‘goal’ of expressing the importance of love and that the ultimate end and height of creation is the relationship between man and woman, which in essence reflects the image of God. These stories are ultimately didactic in purpose, and so understanding what is being relayed will explain the necessity of two stories.

Just my :twocents:.

Pax

 

[YADA]

Along with the comments above, I have aways been struck by the creation stories from the story perspective…

As in the first story is told from the Creator in relation to the created…focused upon the God role of creation…from which the creation springs…God in relation to the world

The second story is focused upon the relationship of the created with their Creator…which is why you get the ‘rest of the story’ with sin and the fall of human kind…

Same story, different relationships / perspectives, which focus on different details and thoughts…and serving differing purposes…

 

[Nita]

Like Zooey, I don’t see any conflict either - and really like how each brings forward different aspects of God’s relation to His creation.

The first account includes all creation - the whole universe of matter and energy. The power and might of God is demonstrated and appropriately “Elohim” is used for God (triune God).

The second account focuses just on the planet earth. It shows the personal, loving involvement of God with His creatures, Adam and Eve. Appropriately, “YWHW”, God’s personal name is used.

Both accounts, with their different empheses, are needed to give a complete picture - to help us grasp the fullness of God and His creating activity.

Nita

 

[scottm]

The 2 accounts do not contradict each other; on the contrary, they complement each other.
The first is the plain “bare bones” account; the second fills out the details.

And, after all, there are four Gospels, not just one…

Read Genesis without the chapter and verse divisions. There is but ONE creation story. Just one. It’s starts out far, and zooms in to the Garden of Eden and little 'ol Adam. Movie scripts do this all the time. It’s a normal writing technique. You give the overview as an intro, and then zoom in for the close-up real story.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Read Genesis without the chapter and verse divisions. There is but ONE creation story. Just one. It’s starts out far, and zooms in to the Garden of Eden and little 'ol Adam. Movie scripts do this all the time. It’s a normal writing technique. You give the overview as an intro, and then zoom in for the close-up real story.

The Priestly, Yahwist, and Eloist traditions in the story of Genesis are well attestest to. I know of no serious scholar who argues there were not two stories conflated together from two separate writings. Again, in trying to force the text, you lose part of the message.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

I think the issue of two creations is minor.

it was not minor to me and misunderstanding the book of Genesis (the evangelical interp, not the Catholic one) was enough to keep me away from Christianity entirely for almost 5 years!

the Catechism brought me back and what I still do not understand I cover in faith until I do. please handle it carefully.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

it was not minor to me and misunderstanding the book of Genesis (the evangelical interp, not the Catholic one) was enough to keep me away from Christianity entirely for almost 5 years!

the Catechism brought me back and what I still do not understand I cover in faith until I do. please handle it carefully.

What I was alluding to is that the fact that there are two creation stories, as well as other double stories in the bible in no way diminishes the value of the texts. The Church does not and never has required a literal interpretation of the various books that comprise the Catholic bible.

I am truly sorry you got confused by some group of evangelicals. No one is handling the text uncarefully, most of us carefully research before we speak. You may choose not to believe in two genesis stories, but that is choice, not requirement.

 

[savedsinner]

You could read up on the creation accounts in Scott Hahn’s online bible study from his salvation History web site.

Genesis to Jesus

Lesson’s one and two give you some insights into the two creation accounts, which you might find helpful, especially if you want to include Catholic teachings in what you are relaying to your students.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You could read up on the creation accounts in Scott Hahn’s online bible study from his salvation History web site.

Genesis to Jesus

Lesson’s one and two give you some insights into the two creation accounts, which you might find helpful, especially if you want to include Catholic teachings in what you are relaying to your students.

I think Scott Hahn’s section on creation is quite good on several levels. Although I didnt read it thoroughly, I seemed not to address the 2 creation story problem, as I wouldnt expect it to. Hahn writes for new explorers if you will.

 

[scottm]

The Priestly, Yahwist, and Eloist traditions in the story of Genesis are well attestest to. I know of no serious scholar who argues there were not two stories conflated together from two separate writings. Again, in trying to force the text, you lose part of the message.

Ask them what their assumptions are, the assumptions behind the conclusion.

The assumptions are no stronger than wet paper.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. It’s funny how nobody every noticed two stories until the 1800s, in spite of the fact that our Catholic forefathers were FLUENT in the biblical languages, in spite of all the apologetical and exegetical work that they wrote over the centuries, and in spite of the fact that they could MEMORIZE the Bible yet people today can neither stand to attend a weekly Bible study nor listen to a homily longer than 10 minutes in length.

And yes indeed, in trying to force the text to fit flawed assumptions you do lose part of the message.

Even the Wikipedia article includes mention of the single-account theory. Google “two creation stories in genesis” and you’ll find discussions, some good and some bad. When I typed in the search this was at the top of the list:
apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi all,
I will be teaching a small Bible study soon on Genesis, the story of creation. I have a few thoughts already about how to explain the fact that there are 2 creation stories. People seem to have a lot of questions about this one. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts. Thanks.

As rwoehmke said ​

The use of doublets goes beyond Genesis, at least as far as Exodus 15 - there are two sets of Exodus narratives

It is a prejudice, nothing more, to assume that, to be true, a tradition can only ever come in one form - IMHO, the Bible gains immensely from telling more than one tradition of a event, more than one approach to it. Two versions of an event supplement one another - both tell us something about God, that we would not have if only version were given us. In the Bible at least, “variety” really is “the spice of life”.

Have you read Claus Westermann’s commentary on Genesis 1-11 ? He is very thorough in his treatment of Gen. 1-2.4a.

Those who dismiss the distinction between the Priestly & Jahwist sources out of hand & on principle could do far worse than read the last 60 or so pages of his commentary. Reasoned rejection is one thing - the late Ugo Cassuto, a Jewish scholar several times quoted in Westermann, did not believe in the validity of the Documentary Hypothesis either; but he did not rely on insults to make his point: that is the difference between Cassuto, & some Christians. If the DH is invalid, jeremiads about “modernism”, & calling its advocates bad names, do nothing to discredit it. Appeals to Church authority can’t settle the issues either.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think the ‘goal’ of the first story is to show the power and glory of God, and to show that humanity, made in the image of God, is the ultimate end and height of all creation. The second story is really part of a trilogy (Creation, Fall, and Cain and Abel). This creation story has a ‘goal’ of expressing the importance of love and that the ultimate end and height of creation is the relationship between man and woman, which in essence reflects the image of God. These stories are ultimately didactic in purpose, and so understanding what is being relayed will explain the necessity of two stories.

Just my :twocents:.

Pax

And we have a winner!!!

This is the way that I teach it as well.
One describes God Almighty Who can create something out of nothing with just a thought.
One describes God the Loving Father who carefully shapes man out of clay and then breathes His Life into His creation.

 

[spauline]

And I’ll throw this in additionally:

Certain ECFs discern the meaning of the days of creation as a foreshadowing of the REcreation of the world, that is, the REDEMPTION of humanity.

The parallels are then striking when we look at how the two narratives have man created at different points. In one account, man is created on day six, after all the other stuff. In the other account, he exists before much of anything was created.

A deeper meaning suggested here in light of the Father’s Tradition that Salvation history is seven (eight) progressive Redemtpive actions of God.

Without going into detail, one Father who delineates the ages places five of them in the OT (consider also Rev. 17 on the beast: “five have fallen”). So then pagan Rome is the sixth day, and truly in the sixth day, man was REcreated in the Image and Likeness of God, in that, already in the darkness of pagan Rome, God began to REcreate man by placing in him the sanctifying grace that he had lost so long ago in the Fall. Hence, when the darkness gave way to the light of Catholic Christendom, for the first time in human history since the Fall, multitudes of man regained the knowledge and love of God through the truth and grace of God in the Catholic Church.

But also consider the other story in Genesis, where man already exists before much of anything else is created. ANOTHER way to look at Salvation history. For even in very beginning, in the first day, God BEGAN to redeem humanity through the Flood, for the Flood cleansed the earth of unrighteousness and began a new world, a new world that is already beginnig to be redeemed, even though, for some four days remaining, only a small portion of humanity shall know the true God (the Jews).

Two different stories, two different ways of looking at the same spiritual meaning of Salvation history.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The 2 accounts do not contradict each other; on the contrary, they complement each other.
The first is the plain “bare bones” account; the second fills out the details.

And, after all, there are four Gospels, not just one…

HTH!!

On the contrary, there is a different order of creation in the two stories, which IS a problem if you’re a bible literalist (fundamentalist), it’s not a problem at all if you look at it from the perspective mentioned by RWOEHMKE, which is the one most scholars accept.

Personally I would empahsize that God created and did so with Love, not the HOW of the creation…also I would pick up on the theme of what it means to be made in the image of God. If you have issues, talk with your priest about where he would like it to go.