1

John Christmann

Religious Studies 0125

February 9th, 2015

Comparing & Contrasting the Creation Myths in Genesis

There seems to be more than one creation story in Genesis. The accounts of creation

differ in numerous ways, many of which seem to reveal things about the different intentions of

the authors. This paper will lay out some of the differences between the two accounts found in

Genesis, and then briefly analyze them to discover what they can reveal about their respective

sources. First, it will be made clear that there are distinct creation myths in Genesis by listing

some of the key differences between the alleged accounts. After the distinct myths are

established, the differences used to distinguish them will be analyzed. Once the analysis is

complete, a critique of its contents will be considered and ultimately rejected.

The first of the two distinct creation myths to be analyzed is found in Genesis between

the first verse of the first chapter and the third verse of the second chapter (Genesis 1:1-2:3). The

order of creation goes from the separation of light and darkness, to the creation of the firmament

to divide the waters, to dry land and vegetation, to the separation of day and night and the

creation of the moon, sun, and stars, then to the creatures of the air and sea, then land, and finally

humans (Collins 2004, 76).

The second myth differs from the first in various ways. While the first has it that the

entire act of creation extends over six days, with mankind being formed on the sixth, the second

version says that man was created distinct from woman on the first day; the heavens and the

earth were created on the first day, and Genesis 2:4-7 does not distinguish the day the heavens

and the earth were formed from when man was created, so it seems to be the case that the second

2

version has man being made on the first day. Other instances of the order of creation being

include man and woman being created separately (Genesis 2:21-23), and man being formed

before all plants and animals are created (Genesis 2:18-20).

Besides the order of creation, there are other differences. The first version frequently

includes pronouncements of the form. “God saw that it was good” (Collins 2004, 76). In the

second story, creation seems to take place over the course of one day, since it is not explicitly

stated that the distinct acts of creation are staggered across six days as in the first version. There

is an emphasis in the first version on forming boundaries that separate things, such as the

firmament and the distinction between day, night, darkness, and light (Collins 2004, 76). Also,

and importantly, according to Collins, the seventh day of creation can be seen as God

inaugurating a Sabbath day (Collins 2004, 76). Unlike the second version, the goodness of all of

creation is stressed in the first story (Collins 2004, 77).

There are several things that can be learned about the authors of these distinct creation

myths by analyzing the differences referenced above. The alleged author of the first version is

referred to as the Priestly Writer (Batto 1992, 41). The second version is written by a source in

what is called the Yahwist tradition (Collins 2004, 67). The day of rest in the first version can be

read as an observance of the Sabbath; according to Collins, “The fact that the whole process ends

in a liturgical observance is typical of the Priestly source” (Collins 2004, 76). Also typical of the

Priestly source is, “the emphasis on separation - of light and darkness, upper waters and lower

waters, and so on. In the Priestly creation, everything must be in its proper place” (Collins 2004,

76). Furthermore, the goodness of creation is emphasized in the first version, whereas the second

deals with more negative aspects of creation, such as sin and evil (Collins 2004, 77).

3

The differences brought out to distinguish the Priestly Writer from the Yahwist tradition

can now be further analyzed, albeit speculatively, to bring out unique aspects of these two

sources. While this section is extremely speculative, and based on limited information, such an

analysis probably has sufficient basis in fact to constitute a useful endeavor, nonetheless. First,

the emphasis on the goodness of creation could bring out theological presuppositions of the

Priestly Writer; the goodness of creation reflects the nature of God, which is to be the paradigm

of goodness (Collins 2004, 77). The Yahwist tradition seems to take creation to be more neutral

or partially negative (Collins 2004, 77), wherein mankind can either obey or disobey the creator;

by disobeying, mankind falls, and human nature becomes such that it is mired by sin. So there is

a sort of emphasis on the neutrality of creation prior to mankind’s fall. There was the possibility

of either a flourishing mankind or a fall, and that time of possibility can be seen as neutral

between the two possible outcomes. The Priestly Writer seems more interested in showing

creation as an exemplification of the goodness of the creator, whereas the Yahwist takes the story

to be mainly about the creation of humans and the human drama (Collins 2004, 76-77).

The speculative analysis of the evident differences between the two accounts can be

challenged in a few ways. First, the distinction between a neutral and positive account can be

challenged. One could read the two accounts as complementary to each other; the first merely

states that creation as such is good, while the second emphasizes the inherent instability of the

creation of creatures capable of a meaningful relationship with their creator. Those morals are

not contradictory, as a meaningful relationship with the creator can be seen as good in itself even

if it carries with it the potential for evil. The capacity to be in a meaningful relationship with the

creator may require something like freedom of choice, which necessarily entails the capacity to

choose not to be in that relationship. Furthermore, with this way of reading the two stories, the

4

distinction between one version being about creation exemplifying the goodness of the creator

and the other being about humans and the human drama can be challenged. First, the human

drama can itself exemplify the goodness of the creator over time, which dissolves any supposed

contradiction between the two versions. Second, the first version need not be read as being about

something other than mankind’s creation; the order of creation is not directly related to the

hierarchy of creation in relation to the creator. Also, perhaps the creation of humanity right

before the day of rest is itself an indicator of the importance of humanity to the creator. So, it

can’t be easily concluded from the speculative analysis of the differences between the two

versions that the sources had different intentions for their respective creation stories.

The criticism of the analysis of the respective differences between the two creation

stories casts it into doubt; however, it may not be conclusive. First of all, the intentions of long

deceased sources are always doubtful. So, even if the analysis is ultimately inaccurate, it may

provide useful ways to read and interpret the text, which may then help to refine the hermeneutic

method itself. Second, the differences between the two versions must reflect some differences

between the sources, even if this way of bringing them out is not necessarily accurate. The two

versions have clear contradictions in the order of creation, especially with respect to mankind.

The glaring differences demonstrated above must be accounted for by differences in the

backgrounds of the respective sources. Part of the backgrounds would obviously be their

theological traditions. So, attempting to analyze the two stories in such a way as to reconcile the

differences may not be a useful way of proceeding. The criticism of the proposed analysis is an

implicit attempt at reconciliation of clear differences, and therefore it may not be a particularly

useful means of textual interpretation.

5

So, while there are key differences between the two creation stories found in Genesis, and

those differences are not easily reconcilable, it isn’t obvious that the proposed analysis gets at the

facts of the matter with respect to how the sources intended for their stories to be taken. There is

always a problem with deciphering the intentions of an author, and when the authors being

discussed aren’t alive, it only gets worse. While the speculative analysis proposed above may

have some merit, it clearly cannot capture the intentions of the authors. However, that may not

be as big a problem as it seems; the intentions of the authors are, by their very nature,

uncapturable. An attempt at providing a coherent explanation of what makes the differences

significant is a valuable hermeneutic device. Furthermore, an attempt at explaining those

differences must take those two stories to be different. The explanation provided by the critique

does not take the differences between the two versions seriously; it merely attempts to explain

them away. So, even if the speculative analysis is not necessarily accurate, it captures something

important that the analysis implicit in the critique leaves out - the clear differences between the

creation accounts reflected by their respective genealogies of creation. Whether or not an

analysis in terms of strictly theological differences held by the authors is ultimately the best way

forward remains to be seen. What can be seen is the importance of taking the differences

seriously.

Works Cited

Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, KT: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992

Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004.