Paul Dexter

9-21-17

11:00 AM

REL 250WI

Interpretation Paper #1

The Creation Story is one that has been told to countless generations of Jews, Christians,

and gentiles alike. Its effects are profound within worldwide cultures, rippling across societies

with implications relating to everything from astronomy to gender relations to science itself, and

its own theory of creation. As with any story from the Bible, it is traditionally seen as one long

narrative, stretching all the way back from Earth’s creation. However, in academic analysis of

the Bible, it can be observed that the Bible is not, in fact, one long narrative. Rather, it is a

complex array of differing stories from different times and cultures, organized centuries ago by a

select group of Christians that could discern the surviving written and oral traditions. And it turns

out that the very first story in the entire Bible, stemming all the way back in time, is a story that

has been told not once, but twice in two different ways. When we look at the characteristics of

the Yahwist and Priestly sources, we can read the Creation Accounts and identify the differences

between the two most commonly merged stories in literature and theology. The Creation

Accounts from Genesis 1:1–2:4 and Genesis 2:4–3:24 are starkly different in their plots,

descriptions of creation, and style. These differences can be attributed to different authorship by

the Priestly and Yahwist sources.

To understand the differences in the Creation Accounts, one must understand the

common differences found throughout the Bible. Bible scholar Julius Wellhausen created a

theory concerning the stories’ differences in what is now known as the Documentary Hypothesis

(Coogan 47). Essentially, it states that there were likely four different sources that wrote the
Bible, and these sources are known (in chronological order) as the Yahwist, Elohist,

Deuteronomist, and Priestly sources (Coogan 52). However, since the Creation accounts can be

most easily categorized by the Yahwist and Priestly sources, this paper will focus on the Yahwist

and Priestly sources. The Yahwist source includes several important characteristics: First, the

Hebrew text uses the term “Yahweh” to address God (Coogan 48). Second, God tends to be

highly anthropomorphic, and is commonly seen in the text walking alongside and talking to

certain human figures, despite his immense divine powers (Coogan 48). Third, the stories written

by the Yahwist source tend to be slightly more coherent when placed together as a single, unified

story arc (Coogan 48). Alternatively, there is the Priestly source, which was most likely created

by the remaining priests of Hebrew tradition following the destruction of the Temple of

Jerusalem (Coogan 51). In accordance with the needs of priests, the stories by the Priestly source

tend to focus on the details of religious law, such as diet, sabbath, and the like (Coogan 51).

Therefore, the Priestly source is slightly drier to read than the stories of the Yahwist source; the

hypnotic, repetitive style is conducive to religious rituals that the priests would perform. The

Priestly source calls God “Elohim”, until Moses is introduced as a character (Coogan 50). The

terms “male” and “female” are distinguished, and God tends to create covenants with humanity

(Coogan 51). Most importantly, the Priestly source displays God as a transcendent being that

composes the cosmos from above, and is not anthropomorphic at all (Coogan 50-51).

Knowing these sources, one can begin to understand the crucial differences in the two

Creation Accounts. First, we can discern the beginning and end of the separate accounts of

creation by paying attention to the way God is addressed in the stories. In the entirety of Genesis

1:1–2:3, God is referred to as God, and only God. According to the Documentary Hypothesis,

the Yahwist source refers to God as “Yahweh”, translated as “Lord God” in the text. The Hebrew
word for “Lord”, “Yahweh”, does not appear a single time in these passages. Therefore, the

passages from Gen 1:1–2:4 can be attributed to the Priestly source. Also, the dry, basic style of

the writing indicates that the creation passages from Gen 1:1–2:4 are authored by the Priestly

source. At Gen 1:4, for example, the text states: “And God saw that the light was good”, and

again at Gen 1:9, the text states: “And God said”. The Priestly account stops after Gen 2:3, where

God is referenced this way two final times: “So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it,

because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.” Accordingly, the

Yahwist account of creation begins at Gen 2:4, when God is always called “Lord God”. Opposite

to the Priestly creation account, “Lord God” appears almost every single time God is referenced

in the Yahwist account. For example, at Gen 2:7, the text states: “then the Lord God formed

man.” The trend continues in Gen 3:8, where it states: “They heard the sound of the Lord God

walking in the garden.” Finally, the Yahwist account ends at Gen 3:23, where “the Lord God

sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.” Due to the

use of “Lord” or “Yahweh” in the text, the creation passages from Gen 2:4–3:24 can be

attributed to the Yahwist source.

Now, reading the text as two separate stories, one can notice differences between the

them. Upon closer inspection, the two accounts appear to have entirely different ideas

concerning the order of creation, as well as how humans were created. In addition, certain events

are omitted entirely from the two accounts. Simply put, the two accounts of creation have

different plotlines with different characters and settings.

In the Priestly account, from Gen 1:1–2:4, God creates the Earth in this order: Earth,

light, day/night, sky, sea, land, vegetation, stars, sun, moon, animals, and humanity. Whereas in

the Yahwist account, in Gen 2:4–3:24, God creates the Earth in another order: Earth, heavens,
sea, man, vegetation, animals, and woman. While the order is similar, it is not the same. For

example, in the Yahwist account, the heavens are created all at once, prior to everything else

(Gen 2:4–2:6). Alternatively, the Priestly account distinguishes the creation of the stars, sun, and

moon after the creation of sea, land, and vegetation (Gen 1:14–1:19). In addition, the Priestly

source says that men and women are formed at the same time, whereas the Yahwist source states

that men and women were created separately. In Gen 1:27, the text says: “So God created

humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created

them.” In the Yahwist account, God creates man from the dust of Earth (Gen 2:7), then creates

woman by removing man’s rib and generating a female from the bone (Gen 2:21–2:23).

Furthermore, this places not only the order of mankind’s creation in conflict, but also creates

contradictions between the accounts, since humanity is formed in different ways by God.

It is worthy to note the fact that the two accounts omit certain events from each other’s

plotlines. As stated earlier, the only overlap between the two accounts is the creation of mankind.

The remainder of the two stories have entirely different focuses on entirely different events. In

the Priestly account, Gen 1:1–2:4, most of the plot centers around the creation of the Earth from

the empty cosmos (Gen 1:1–1:26). It is only at the end of the story that humanity is the focus of

the plot. In contrast, the Yahwist account, Gen 2:4–3:24, places most of the focus on humanity’s

initial stint in the garden of Eden, as well as the lessons they learn and the punishments they earn

for their misdoings. The Priestly account does not mention the garden of Eden at all. Likewise,

the Yahwist account barely includes anything about the creation of the Earth and the cosmos.

The only time the cosmos is addressed in the Yahwist account is at Gen 1:4, where the text

states: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The remainder of the story

only focuses on the entities created on Earth and their interactions inside the garden of Eden.
 Ultimately, these differences beg the question: Why are the two accounts so different

from each other? To answer this, it is crucial to note the sources of these accounts. Recall that the

Priestly source runs its story from Gen 1:1–2:4. Its structure is very dry, noted by the simplistic

“God saw that it was good” that is repeated throughout Gen 1:1–2:4. “Yahweh” is not referenced

in the first account, and basic traditions such as Sabbath are written in this account. Also recall

that the Yahwist source runs its story from Gen 2:4–3:24. The structure is written much more

like a story, with a coherent plot, characters, conflict, and resolution. God is prefaced with

“Yahweh” almost every time. Alternatively, etiologies are established instead of traditions. For

example, the reason for painful childbirth is explained in Gen 3:16, where the text states: “To the

woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing.’” The two accounts are

different because they serve different purposes to their respective authors. According to the

Documentary Hypothesis, the Yahwist source is the oldest source, predating the destruction of

the Temple of Jerusalem. The stories told by this source are the old oral traditions of the Bible,

and thus are not stated as dry, boring rituals like the Priestly source. The story was meant to be

told as a story; one that could grab the attention and imagination of ancient followers of proto-

Judeo-Christian faiths. The creation of the Earth is not as important to this story, so it is largely

omitted in the Yahwist account in favor of the story of the first humans. In contrast, the Priestly

source was written by priests of ancient Israel, in the years following the destruction of the

Temple of Jerusalem. The dry, hypnotic structure is not written as a story because the story was

not as important to the priests; rather, they focused on the elements that they could use to

promote traditions and rituals. The order of the creation of the cosmos was important to them,

since they needed to understand the power of their God, as well as their God’s kindness for

giving humanity and the universe the gift of existence.

different sources for different purposes, which story are faithful Jews and Christians to follow?

Surely, as culture continues to change by these stories, this question may be answered.