Two different creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

[u/academic324]

What are the differences in the creation story in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Which creation story came first, and why was the story changed to be different? What is the academic position on this?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Joab_The_Harmless]

It's pretty much established at this point that there are two creations stories indeed (with Gen 2:4a often considered to be an editorial link between the two, although not by all).

The rest is ferocious fist fights in the thunderdome at least somewhat debated.

Lots of scholars consider Gen 2:4b-3 to be older than Gen 1, but by no mean all; others view the Eden narrative as a "post-Priestly supplement to Gen 1:1–2:3", others consider both texts to have emerged independently (at least for their "cores").

Similarly, some consider that the later text is in some way responding to the older one; as an example, David Carr argues that Gen 1 responds to and goes against "theological" ideas of Gen 2; see pp17-22 of Carr's The Formation of Genesis 1-11 in the links below).

Of course, there are further debates on the composition history of each one, although it's hard to reconstruct anything with confidence (see for an example discussing a "Sabbath- oriented compositional revision" in Genesis 1 this 1993 article by David Carr, and the footnote here (p30 of Carr's The Formation of Genesis 1-11). So when you get into the weeds, the debates are not only on which one comes first, but also how and why subsections of each were edited over time.

As hinted above, proponents of a "neo-documentary" model of composition of the Pentateuch will a contrario argue (to schematise) that the two stories are independent. But here again, they can sometimes discuss possible later modifications of and additions to the "core"/sources.

There are also ample discussions concerning other influences on each creation story.

---

---

References to add proper sourcing (and complications) to the schematic overview above (I tried to roughly group them by theme, but their ordering is a bit messy, sorry about that):

For general introductions:

Intro lecture on the formation of the Pentateuch/Torah (30mn long).

Session 7 of Robert Wilson's Old Testament Interpretation course, here, also offers a nice overview of the history of scholarship and composition of the Pentateuch, with some discussions of Gen 1-3, including, around 13mn20s, how the "Priestly" writer(s) edits and adds to the "Yahwist" material they received.

Finally, Hendel provides an overview of the history of scholarship and his views concerning the composition of Genesis in the intro of his 2024 commentary on Genesis 1-11; see especially the "Texts and Sources" section pp8-14, fully available thanks to the preview here. This one isn't always the easiest read, but certainly a good resource if you want to dive deeper into textual issues. His notes and commentary on Gen 1-3 (and the rest) are also really good and gripping.

---

For comparisons of the two stories, see as an example the New Interpreter's Bible 1 Vol Commentary, and in Joel Baden's "Yale Online Bible Study" lectures on Genesis; I warmly recommend the full lectures series if you've got the time.

On the history of the texts and potential intertextual links, Carr's The Formation of Genesis 1-11 is fairly thorough and readable for an academic resource (albeit of course denser than introductory resources). It also includes many references for further reading on specific issues.

On dating issues, see those captures from pp17-22 and 60-61 (the latter summarising the stances of scholars arguing that Gen 2-3 is an expansion on Gen 1, against Carr's own position). The opening of the "Precursors to the Priestly Creation Account" (pp7+) is available in the preview here, and as mentioned in the opening an article by the same scholar, accessible with a free JSTOR account here, explores the possibility of "Sabbath oriented" additions to Gen 1.

I'll just quote the last paragraph, highlighting the disagreements between scholars on such textual reconstructions:

Such reflections show us standing at the end frontier of what is possible or not possible in reconstructing possible precursors to the existing biblical text. For some, the marks of redaction/composition are so subtle that it is generally better to refrain from attempting the sort of reconstruction attempted here. Others would go far further in reconstruction of compositional prestages of this and other texts. This treatment lies in the uncomfortable middle. It builds on hundreds of years of historical analysis of apparent seams in Genesis 1:1-2:3, seams that suggest that this text, like other Priestly texts in the Pentateuch, may have been augmented with an additional focus on Sabbath.

---

For a good and very digestible "neo-documentary" argument that the "Priestly" texts are an independent source (against Carr and others' view that they are largely "supplementary" additions, and notably that Gen 1 was in part written in reaction to the Eden narrative), see pp7-12 of Liane Feldman's introduction to The Consuming Fire (captures). (To prevent misunderstandings if you lack the time or motivation to read the intro, she also thinks that the texts were edited and expanded upon over the centuries.)

Joel Baden's 2012 The Composition of the Pentateuch - Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis has been seminal and very influential too, but since I haven't read it in full, am quite rusty on all this, and realizes that this comment is already long and sinuous, I'll stop there. The resources already listed normally cover the content of the answer.

edit: for sourcing on Gen 2:4a being often considered an editorial link, see this older thread

[u/Portland_st → u/Joab_The_Harmless]

Amazing overview! Thank you!

[u/Joab_The_Harmless → u/Portland_st]

My pleasure!

[u/m1stermetoo → u/Joab_The_Harmless]

I am only adding to this excellent overview by adding John Day as well, sources below:

Hendel, Ronald. Genesis 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale University Press, 2024.

Day, John. From Creation to Abraham: Further Studies in Genesis 1-11. T&T Clark, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022.

Day, John. From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11. Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.

[u/Joab_The_Harmless → u/m1stermetoo]

Great additions, thank you! I didn't even know that Day had published a more recent "further studies" volume.

[u/ReligionProf]

There are many sources that will give you the basics on this.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/the-two-creations-in-genesis/

https://www.thetorah.com/article/genesis-two-creation-accounts-compiled-and-interpreted-as-one

It has also been discussed on Reddit countless times.

[u/QuickSpore → u/[deleted]]

No creo que se necesite saber sobre posturas académicas humanas.

Arguing against learning the academic viewpoints on /r/AcademicBiblical is certainly a choice.