Monopedilos - Creation and the "Documentary Hypothesis"

The Bible is perhaps the most significant document in human history. It is also the most controversial. With opinions of its value ranging from the inerrant Word of God to a quixotic collection of folklore, the Bible has been the subject of much criticism and devotion throughout the ages. The authenticity and authority of the Bible are often questioned. Modern scholarship has provided us with numerous methods of undermining biblical authority, the Documentary Hypothesis being the predominant scholarly view of the day. In an examination of the Documentary Hypothesis, it seems only fitting to start at the beginning, with the first two chapters of Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis level charges of multiple authorship and contradiction against the biblical account of Creation. In a defense of the unity and authority of the Bible, it is therefore insufficient to merely propose possible means of conflict resolution. We must instead demonstrate that source criticism is unwarranted and in error.

The Documentary Hypothesis has been evolving for over a century and had a rather unscholarly genesis. The theory alleges that the Pentateuch, the first five books of Old Testament canon were not authored by Moses as tradition informs us, but is instead a redaction of numerous ancient writings. These writings are usually attributed to four separate authors, although some scholars will even go further to suggest the multiple authorship of each of these four sources.¹ However, while numerous Scriptural manuscripts exist, no archaeological evidence of multiple sources has been found. Instead, source critics rely on internal evidence to support their theory. In Genesis 1-2 alone, five accusations are made in an attempt to debunk its unity: contradictions in details, vocabulary, style, the name used for God, and the inherent theology.

One of the first things that one might notice in a cursory reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is that the chapters seem to tell different stories regarding what was created when. Genesis 1 outlines the order of creation, and then this order is seemingly contradicted in the next chapter. According to Genesis 1, man and woman were created after the animals, which in turn were created after plants. Genesis 2 appears to change the order by beginning with the creation of man followed by plants, then animals, and finishing with woman.²

The vocabulary used in the two chapters also differs. While both chapters have God creating things, they use different words for the same action. Genesis 1 consistently uses the word Bara', (literally "created") while Genesis 2 consistently uses Yasar (literally "formed"). This aberration can also be seen in other word choices such as the Hebrew Ha'adam which is used in Genesis 1 to refer to humanity in general, but in Chapter 2 as the personal name of the first man God created.³

These first two chapters seem also to differ in literary style. These differences move beyond Genesis, however, and serve as defining characteristics of the hypothetical sources from which the Pentateuch is supposedly derived. Genesis 1 is written in an ordered, strict fashion. It is neatly organized into days with the events of each day clearly stated. It is a comprehensive account of the creation of the natural realm, giving focus to momentous events, such as the creation of the sun and moon as well as the different types of animals.⁴ These literary characteristics are generally assigned to the Priestly ("P") source. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the P source was written by the priests of Israel after the Babylonian exile, placing this source circa 587-539 BC. The resulting document was intended to set up a strict order, to contrast Judaism with Babylonian religions, and to give the people a renewed faith in God's covenantal promises.⁵

Genesis 2 seems to forsake this literary style in favor of a more flowing narrative approach. It is not a comprehensive description and in fact only makes passing references to the grand environment.⁶ Instead, this chapter centers on the creation and subsequent actions of man. Consequently, Genesis 2 presents a much more dramatic account of the events of creation.⁷ In addition, this section makes heavy use of anthropomorphism, a literary term used to denote human qualities assigned to deity.⁸ Some examples of anthropomorphism include, "The LORD God planted..." (v. 8), "The LORD God took the man and put him..." (v. 15), and "The LORD God fashioned..." (v. 22).⁹ These components are characteristic of the Yahwist ("J") source. Considered to be the earliest of the Old Testament authors, the J writer was said to be from the reign of Solomon, placing this source circa 961-922 BC. The Yahwist source is defined by things such as anthropomorphism, an interest in covenant, the idea of sin, and the use of the divine name, YHWH, from which the Yahwist source derives its name.

Perhaps the most obvious difference between Genesis 1 and 2 is the name used to refer to God. Chapter 1 makes use of Elohim (translated "God") exclusively while Chapter 2 uses the name YHWH (transliterated in most English texts as "LORD".) This change in name occurs exactly with the other differences and is also used by scholars to identify the sources of other passages of the Old Testament.¹⁰

Yet another discrepancy between the two chapters would appear to be the theology presented, especially with respect to the role and nature of God. Chapter 1 paints God as a distant being, His involvement with Creation being a detached one.¹¹ This concept is advanced further by examining the method of creation employed by God in Genesis 1. "Then God said 'Let there be...'; and there was..." God merely speaks things into existence. During the time of the author, the only earthly ruler who could expect to have his very words carried out was a king.¹² God is assigned a monarchic character that permeates the other passages assigned to the P source.

Chapter 2 presents a very different picture of God. As noted previously, the J source's use of anthropomorphism is prevalent in this passage and serves to illustrate the intimate nature of God. He is actively involved in the creation process, each different act being a result of His physical involvement. We no longer have the suppositional base of a distant potentate, but a close and intimate Master. The effects of this imagery can be seen by such examples as sixteenth-century art panels depicting God as a crowned, robed figure walking about on the earth, a physical and active agent in Creation.¹³

The general theologies of the two chapters also differ. Chapter 1, the P source is more cosmically oriented, showing preference for order and symmetry. God's nature is that of a majestic sovereign having transcendent qualities. Creation is accomplished by sheer command. Chapter 2, the J source is centered around man, dealing not with the ordered world but the cursed ground. God is intimate and gracious, more immanent in nature. Creation is accomplished by the work of His hand.¹⁴

All of the above mentioned differences do in fact exist. However, not only do they fail to support the idea of multiple authorship, they actually serve as proof of the unity of Genesis 1-2, if not the Pentateuch as a whole. But before we may understand how these differences uphold the integrity of the Bible, we must first examine the purpose of the first two chapters of Genesis.

"Two distinct stories of creation are contained in the first three chapters of Genesis"¹⁵ opens one volume on these two supposed accounts. Indeed, this error lies at the heart of every "scholarly" discussion of the topic. There are not, in fact, two accounts of Creation in the Bible, there is but one, as found in Chapter 1. Genesis 2 is not an account of Creation, it is a study on the nature of man.¹⁶ Consequently, many of the noted differences between the two chapters are not only explainable, they are to be expected.

Creation as recounted in Genesis 1 is a chronological look at the origins of the natural realm. It deals with what was created and in what order. Genesis 2 is not a chronological recounting of a series of events, it is a topical exposition of the nature of man and the introduction of sin into a perfect creation. This fact can be illustrated by a verse used by source critics to support their Documentary Hypothesis:

This verse contains one of the alleged discrepancies between the two sources as it seems to place the creation of man before the creation of the animals. However this verse says nothing about the creation of man relative to the animals. The only assertion that can be made is that the animals were created before being brought to Adam for naming.¹⁸ This is consistent with Genesis 1.

All of this notwithstanding, to claim that Genesis 2 is a separate creation account fails miserably on one simple principle. If we were to ever unearth a "J" source containing the account of creation as found in Genesis 2, it would be the only origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that makes no mention of such crucial elements as the Sun, the Moon, and the oceans. This account does nothing to even explain the creation of the earth.¹⁹ Therefore it is quite evident that Genesis 2 was never intended as a separate creation account, but instead as a sequel to Chapter 1, repeating only those details relevant to a discussion of the nature of man.

All the charges leveled against these passages are the result of mere ignorance of the nature and intent of the author of the Pentateuch. When we understand the different purposes of these two chapters, the differences in style, detail, vocabulary, and theology become logical and brilliant, and the contradictions disappear. The only potential problem remaining is the anomalous designation for God. It should be evident by now that this also was the intelligent design of a master writer who had a deep understanding of God.

Elohim and YHWH are but two of the many names by which God is referred in the Old Testament. Like the others, these two designations have deep significance that give purpose to each. As mentioned earlier, Elohim is the general word for God. This word denotes deity in general and can be applied in the plural as well, such as: "You shall have no other gods before me."²⁰ It is also used occasionally in the context of deference to earthly magistrates and this usage helps to understand its purpose in passages such as Genesis 1. As we have said, this chapter shows God in a more kingly role, thus the designation Elohim.

Here is where God reveals is personal name YHWH to Moses through the burning bush. YHWH is related to the Hebrew verb Hayah, (translated "to be".) Thus the personal name of God reflects His omnipresence and His personal, intimate nature.²² It is never pluralized as it is the true and living God's personal designation.²³ This name is rife with theological implications. As the nature of the name suggests, it is used in places that emphasize God's personal and intimate relationship with man, precisely as is Genesis 2. Asserting that these different facets of God's nature cannot perfectly coexist would amount to nothing more than arrogance, artificially limiting God's relational capacity to that of our own.

Volumes have been written to expose the errors of such "scholarly" theories as the Documentary Hypothesis, but no amount of post-secondary education or doctoral degrees could ever replace a pure and contrite heart, the only thing we need to bring to the Bible to learn its truths. The Bible is perhaps the most significant document in human history. It is also the most controversial. But the Bible was not written for the scholars. It was written for the spiritual training of God's people. A doctorate in divinity is not required for us to see Genesis 1 and 2 (indeed the entire Bible) as a seamless and unified work, divinely inspired and graciously given by a loving God. Only when we acknowledge His sovereignty and His wisdom can we then seek Truth and find it.

Forrester-Brown, James S, The Two Creation Stories in Genesis (Berkeley, CAL Shambhala, 1974)

Habel, Norman C. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)

Jackson, Wayne, "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?" Reason and Revelation March (1991): 9-12

Kikawada, Isaac M, and Arthur Quinn. Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985)

Pettegree, Andrew, The Reformation World (London and New York: Routledge, 2000)

Wiersbe, Warren W, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the Old Testament (Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1993)

1Kikawada, Isaac M, and Arthur Quinn. Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985) 9

2Friedman, Richard Elliot, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Summit Books, 1987) 51

3Kikawada, Before, p. 19

4Bandstra, Barry L, Reading the Old Testament (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999) 51

5Bandstra, Reading, p. 51

6Bandstra, Reading, p. 51

7Kikawada, Before, p. 20

8Habel, Norman C. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 27

10Kikawada, Before, p. 18

11Kikawada, Before, p. 20

12Bandstra, Reading, p. 55

13Pettegree, Andrew, The Reformation World (London and New York: Routledge, 2000) 124

14Habel, Literary, p. 27

15Forrester-Brown, James S, The Two Creation Stories in Genesis (Berkeley, CAL Shambhala, 1974) v

16Wiersbe, Warren W, Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the Old Testament (Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1993) 23

17Genesis 2:18-19 NASB

18Jackson, Wayne, "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?" Reason and Revelation March (1991): 9-12

19Jackson, Reason, p. 9-12

20Exodus 20:3 NASB, emphasis mine

21Exodus 3:13-14 NASB

22Weirsbe, Weirsbe's, p. 90

23Kikawada, Before, p. 18