And so we begin.
Don’t kid yourself: there are two very different and mutually contradictory accounts of creation in the Bible. The second follows immediately after the first, which makes their mutually irreconcilable natures even more obvious. The typical apologetic response is to claim that there are no contradictions (big surprise there) because each account focuses on different issues, but this is a very weak argument. It ignores the abrupt shift in authorial tone, the contradictory nature of God in each account, the mechanisms of creation, and even the very order of creation. I will address each of these topics below.
First, however, I want to point out something deeply interesting. Let me provide a summary of the creation of the universe:
In the beginning, there was chaos. This is depicted as an endless ocean, or abyss. There is no distinction between heaven and earth; both are unified as one. Through divine intervention, these primordial waters are divided into two halves, an upper half and a lower. These are separated by the dome of the sky, into which are placed the sun, moon, and stars. Below the dome, the earth is divided once again; the dry land is collected together into a single mass, and the waters form the salt-water oceans. Fresh water emerges from below the land and waters the ground, from which plants grow. Humans are created from the stuff of the ground itself: first a single man, and then a woman from out of the man’s body. Animals are brought to the man, who confers upon them their names. The creation of man and the naming of the animals takes place in an idyllic garden, where the humans are forbidden to eat the fruit of a magical tree which would confer upon them eternal life and limitless knowledge. The humans disobey, and are condemned to mortality.
That is a pretty accurate summary of the events recounted in Genesis. However, I was not summarizing Genesis. I was summarizing the Mesopotamian account of creation recorded in the Enuma Elish, which preceded the Bible by hundreds of years. I was also summarizing the creation of the world as believed by the ancient Egyptians. In fact, these myths are common throughout the ancient
Judaism was the product of syncretism, the blending of multiple religious traditions. Syncretism was found throughout ancient belief systems, particularly polytheistic religions – and there is plenty of evidence that Judaism itself was originally polytheistic. Christianity was extremely syncretistic in nature as it spread throughout
Back to Genesis itself, the two differing creation myths are the result of the attempts to edit together different source texts. Genesis is primarily comprised of two sources, called the Priestly source and the Jahwist source. The Jahwist is older, but, by the time the Bible was edited together, the Priestly Source had achieved a greater level of authority, largely because it favored the priesthood, which transmitted the religion. Genesis 1-2:3 recount a Priestly account of creation; the remainder of Genesis 2 recounts the Jahwist account. (Note that here is where we first encounter a bizarrely arbitrary chapter break: why not put the entirety of the first creation account in Genesis 1? Was this an attempt on the part of early editors (not the original Editor) to disguise the existence of two differing creation myths? Regardless, when I refer to Genesis 1, it is to the first creation myth contained mostly in Genesis 1, and Genesis 2 will refer to the second creation myth.)
Note the change in tone: Genesis 1 is written in a very impersonal but more poetic style; Genesis 2 is more immediate but also cruder. Note also the words used for God himself: in Genesis 1, the term used is simply “God”, while Genesis 2 uses “LORD God”. The differences here are largely lost in English, but, in the original Hebrew, Genesis 1 uses the term “El”, but Genesis 2 uses “Yahweh” (or, more accurately, “YHWH”). This is importance when one considers the ancient Semitic origins of the Judaism.
The Book of Enoch did not survive to be included in the Tanakh/Old Testament. It was only found in its entirely in the Dead Sea Scrolls during the twentieth century. If it had been included, it would have provided additional details about the nature of the universe and the nature of God himself. These details are in line with those of the ancient Semitic religion, and other ancient Middle Eastern religions.
Originally, El and Yahweh were not considered to be the same god. El was the father of 70 children, one of whom was Yahweh. Each of these children was the patron deity of a particular tribe or city, and Yahweh happened to be the patron deity of the people who would become the ancient Hebrews. Theirs was a henotheistic religion, in which multiple deities are acknowledged, but one is worshipped as particularly important. As the Hebrews transitioned to a monotheistic belief system, the characters of Yahweh and El were combined into one. The Priestly source cites the more impersonal father god El as the creator, whereas the Jahwist source cites the more personal Yahweh.
(Note that “El” is cognate with the Arabic term for God, “Allah” or “al-Lah”, as used in Islam. Note also the interesting coincidence that the Greek translation of the Tanakh/Old Testament is called the "Septuagint", a word derived from the Greek word for "seventy" - possibly an acknowledgment of the otherwise lost significance of that number.)
It is noteworthy that Yahweh himself is never described as creating the universe itself, but only humans, plants, and animals upon an already extant earth. Yahweh is a more personal, more direct god; however, he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. For example, when Adam and Eve hide from him after eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God asks them where they are; other examples occur later in the Jahwist text. In contrast, whereas El is omnipotent and omniscient, he is also remote and impersonal, more a force of nature than a humanlike personality.
Furthermore, there is a distinct difference in how El and Yahweh go about their separate acts of creation. El “speaks” the universe into existence. In ancient language, the terms for “speech”, “breath”, and “spirit” were related; one may read this account of creation as El imbuing spirit into the universe, or breathing the universe into existence. In comparison, Yahweh adopts a more physical means of creation. He “plants” a garden in Eden; he “forms” man out of the dust of the ground; he “takes” one of Adam’s ribs to create Eve. One can easily imagine him doing all of this with his hands, because all of these terms describe an act which is performed with the hands. Yahweh is more of a mechanic, whereas El is more of an engineer.
However, even these differences are not enough to appease the apologist, who will state that they are there to shift focus from the impersonal to the personal. I find this argument unpersuasive, given the abruptness of the shift, as well as the relationships to other local religions described above. The most difficult task of the apologist is to reconcile the difference orders of creation: in Genesis 1, animals are created before humans, but, in Genesis 2, they are created after. This also produces one of the silliest attempts at apologetics we will encounter.
The apologist will state that Genesis 2:19, which states “the LORD God formed every beast…”, can be translated in the pluperfect, as “the LORD God had formed every beast…”. However, if this were so, why was this translation not used? Although I focus on the KJV, for this particular issue I compared the translations of multiple English versions of the Bible, including the Torah. In only one of them, the New International Version, was the translation “had formed” used. The NIV is one of the newest translations, and an attempt was made in it to reconcile contradictions in the original text; I do not consider it authoritative for that reason. Furthermore, the NIV is usually rejected by the more fundamentalist Christians who would be most served by its apologetic translation. Once again, I do not find the apologetics persuasive.
On a personal note, I rather like the language of Genesis 1. I mentioned above that it is poetic, and I find it rather pleasant in tone. The opening line, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”, is understated; the authors did not feel the need to exaggerate the shear awesomeness of such a feat, and that adds immensely to its power. If only the rest of the Bible would maintain the quality of this opening chapter, but, unfortunately, it does not. Rarely will we encounter such powerful language again.
No comments:
Post a Comment