Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2–3

[godotwaiter]

Listening to you this time struck me that besides being an intelligent scholar you have a big heart for those who are repeatedly marginalized because of what people want/need the Bible to say to make them feel good. Thank you and keep up the good fight.

[MpM-rj]

Wow. While I am a non-believer, I have always been fascinated by mythology and ancient religious texts. Your presentation is what you claim, a scholarly presentation. I look forward to more history and context on Biblical texts.

[archivist]

This is one reason why I say no one can be a Bible literalist. The accounts cannot be reconciled.

[xxUsernamexx]

A few points I would add:
A) The chapters are split up a bit awkwardly, so the Genesis 2 - 3 account starts with Genesis 2:4. The first three verses of Genesis 2 are actually the end of the Genesis 1 account.
B) The Genesis 1 account refers to the deity as Elohim, which is typically rendered as "God" in English-language Bibles. The Genesis 2-3 account refers to them as YHWH Elohim, typically rendered as "the LORD God." (Except when the serpent is speaking, then it's just "God." Not sure why.) Once we get to Chapter 4, the deity is referred to as simply YHWH / the LORD, without God at the end. Lots of interesting implications to these name changes.
C) For anyone wondering why these accounts aren't reconcilable, there are a lot of reasons, but one you can look at has to do with the creation of plants. If you look at Genesis 1:11-13 and Genesis 1:26-31, you'll find that the God / Elohim of this account first created plant life on the third day, three days before they first created human beings. Compare this with Genesis 2:4-9. Here, it's explicitly stated that no plant life or vegetation existed when the LORD God / YHWH Elohim created the first human. This is only one of many differences regarding the order in which the events of creation took place, but I picked out plant life because it strikes me as a particularly clear example.

[gklgspy]

Thank you for consistently delivering this message Dan.

[RustyWalker]

Eve being blamed for being deceived because that verse goes on to say, "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." If he was there all along, then he must've at least seen and maybe heard the talking snake yet isn't described as deceived, but if he wasn't deceived why did he eat it? It's one of the most bizarre lines in the story. Either he was deceived and ate it just like Eve so they must have been equally culpable, or he wasn't deceived yet ate it anyway despite being perfect. Somehow, perfection doesn't entail automaton-level obedience, even though neither had eaten from the tree of knowledge and knew disobedience was wrong. It smacks of punishment being due to not doing as you're told because of who told you and their authority, not because you were doing anything immoral or wrong. That kind of makes sense as society shifted away from agrarian to settled and the appearance of leaders and kings demanding obedience due to their title, especially with regard to something like tax collection and surrendering a portion of what you've laboured to grow because some person calling themselves a king takes it under threat of force or death.

[Guishan_Lingyou]

I have always found it very interesting that both creation accounts were left in the bible -- that it wasn't cleaned up to make one consistent narrative. To me that suggests that the people who put those two accounts one after the other were not expecting their audience to treat the text as a historically accurate account.

[AndrewReesonLeather]

Right after watching this I was shown an apologist's video telling me that actually there are no contradictions and it all fits together. 🙄

[DanielWesleyKCK]

Genesis 1 is specifically structured to follow the pattern of priestly behavior. Just as priests are commanded in Leviticus (and derivative texts such as Ezekiel) to "separate", "distinguish", etc... many things, God in Genesis 1 behaves just like a priest in how day and night, sky and land, land and sea, etc... are "separated".

This is literature in service of an established pattern, not a purely historiographical or theological account.

[MusicalRaichu]

I wonder why people ignore other creation accounts in the Bible Job 38 and Ps 104?

[dirtydish]

Biblical Grifters: Damn you, Dan! We survived your predecessors and we will survive you!

[fordprefect]

Differing Conceptions of the Divine Creator

The very beginning of the Bible presents one of the clearest pieces of evidence that the Torah is composed of various sources, more or less complete, written documents that have been woven together to comprise the text that we now have. Some readers know this theory well, and may have accepted it, perhaps incorporating one of the many models that this site has outlined about how such ideas might be integrated into Judaism. For others, this theory is more novel, or its basis is unclear.
To address these different audiences, this piece has two parts. The first outlines why I, as a biblical scholar, believe that the beginning of Genesis contains two different creation stories. But for me, outlining these sources is just the beginning, a prerequisite for understanding each source on its own terms. Thus, the second part will explore the different God depicted in each section.
Part 1
The Sources of the Creation Stories
I begin with a simple question: According to Genesis, in what order were the land animals, man, and women created? This “simple” question has two different answers. According to Genesis 1:24-27, God creates the land animals (vv. 24-25), and then man and woman (vv. 26-27). However, in Genesis 2:7, God creates man, and then in v. 19 creates animals, and in v. 22 creates woman. Thus, the commonly heard idea that Genesis 2 is an elaboration upon Genesis 1, filling in various details, does not work—the two accounts tell different stories.

Credit Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler

[kkiller]

Perhaps part of the reason that the Genesis 2-3 narrative is not well loved by later Jewish writers is the obvious Greek pagan influence on the garden narrative. In an increasingly Hellenized world, maintaining ethnic identity would be a priority for the priests and scribes. Greek literature has about a thousand year head start on Hebrew literature, and the garden narrative is the most salient and obvious Greek influence: a woman named Zoe leads a man into a paradise of promiscuity (Göttingen Septuagint) where they get an entheogen from a serpent which grants self knowledge. Bring that up to a modern Christian and they get all defensive about it -- it's obviously a sore spot that needs to be massaged a bit.

[prtauvers]

OMG- imagine how different the World would be if they never included Gen 2 and 3!

[denzilbelgium]

Oh man that was so interesting and helpful. Why on earth don't 6-day creationists address this difference, I wonder when it's so glaringly obvious?

[joelupinacci]

After DE converting in the last 5 years though it took decades, reason would tell me that any supposed holy, God created written communications to us mortals would be self-evidently, revealing in any time, or tongue. This communication would have to be absolutely unimpeachable by anyone reading it, any person, a child, an elder whatever. There would be no room for doubt, for opinions in perception, of doctrinal dissention or sectarian conflicts because an all-knowing being could do this. It hasn't happened.
To make it easier in what I'm saying, anyone at any time in any language would immediately be gobsmacked, convinced, without forming a thought about questioning the truth of this information, whether read or played through recording, undeniable to 100% of people. It just doesn't happen.

[Tonoborus]

Is there a version of the Bible that re-arranges things so that once can read it from what are theorized to be the oldest work toward the newest elements? I see the text (or rather all the voices that added to it over time) in conversation with itself/one-another.

One hypothesis I heard in an undergraduate old testament class was that Genesis 1 was possibly written during the exile and is a response to the Babylonian creation myth. Not sure if that is still a credible idea these days but the idea that a hebrew scholar was exposed to that creation account and in an effort demarcate their conception and role of the divine from that of the religions tradition he was suddenly surrounded by is so much more interesting to me. And in my view leaves room for inspiration (mitigated by human imperfection).

[Genesis-xdid]

Don’t LDS believe that Genesis 1 is a “spiritual” creation by God and 2-3 are the physical creation by Jehovah or the pre-mortal Jesus? How do you respond to their way of thinking?

[Darisiabgal]

"Nobody else seems to care about the passages of Genesis 2 and 3"

Lilith cared😂

[timhallas]

It's especially interesting when you know the source of these early Hebrew stories. The Babylonian myths.. and the many gods of the 1st Hebrews.