Loading...In yesterday’s post I began to explain why scholars have thought that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were not written by Moses, but later, and that they represent not a single work by a single author, but a compilation of sources, each of them written at different times. The evidence for this view is quite overwhelming, and in the context of my textbook on the Bible, as in the context here, I didn’t really think it appropriate or useful to dig deeply into all the nuances and ins and outs. Instead, I gave some of the prominent data. Here is how I started to do that.
*************************************************************
The internal tensions in the Pentateuch came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways. Read them carefully yourself. Make a list of what happens in chapter one, then a list of what happens in chapter 2, and compare your lists. Among other things you will notice the following:
- According to Genesis 1, plants were created on the third day; only later, on the sixth day, were humans created. But not according to Genesis 2. There we are told that “the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground” before there were any plants or herbs on the earth (2:4, 7).
- According to Genesis 1….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! OR you may never know!! Remember, all proceeds go to charity. -
Great Blog Dr. Ehrman! Also very good comparison of the 2 accounts. I just wanted to make a comment about Genesis 1 that I like to discuss with my fundamentalist friends. If the land was filled with seed bearing plants and trees on “day 3”, how did they survive since the sun was not created until “day 4”? They respond with great confidence that the plants could survive without photosynthesis from the sun because it was only one day. I then tell them that the light was not my concern, the issue would be the absence of heat energy from the sun. I tell them that without that heat, the temperature on earth would be absolute zero (-273C or -460F) and nothing would be alive. There is usually just silence from them after that. Of course I could discuss other issues of not having the sun, like gravity but I just stick with the heat concern. Thank you for the time you put into your blog.
Ha! Right indeed!
It’s almost not fair to use actually scientific literacy in such discussions. Of course, it usually doesn’t go very far, since the rejoinder is often, “God is God, so he could make things happen however he wanted them to happen.” *sigh*facepalm*gentle shaking head*
In ancient Judaism, and then in Christianity, were these creation accounts read as legend and mythology or were they taken as factual events that actually occurred? More Fundamentalist Christians take these as real events. Since Jesus spoke of Adam they conclude that Jesus believed Adam to be an historical figure. Therefore, these are historical events and not mythology. I suspect that there have always been a mixture of those who took these stories literally and those that saw them spiritually/mythologically.
I don’t think ancient people differentiated clearly between myth and history they way we do. They almost certainly thought that what is described in these accounts is what happened.
My understanding is that most of what we now call the Old Testament began with scholars in the courts of kings in Palestine, creating these works as interpretations of older legends (and some possibly garbled memories of past historical events)–comparable to what the Greek playwrights like Sophocles did with Greek myths, except there was no popular audience for them. Very few people read them at first (very few people could read at all). But they were duly stored away in the archives, and then rediscovered, generations later–and by then they had taken on the glow of antiquity. Nobody remembered the people who had written them, so it was easy to make up authors for them, invest them with divine authority.
People need myths to justify their existence, their place in history, give them a sense of meaning. That has never changed, and I doubt it ever will. If not one set of myths, then another. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to understand the origins of our myths–we need to. But it won’t change our underlying needs. And we need to understand that too.
I always find it fascinating that Genesis 1 actually “gets it right” in saying plants existed before (non-aquatic) animals, and the (other!) animals came into existence before humans.
Me too!
Dr. Ehrman, in Nehemiah 8, Ezra the Scribe is supposed to have read aloud from “the Book of the Law of Moses” before a crowd of Jerusalemites. Regardless of whether this event is historical or not, in your professional opinion do you think the author of Nehemiah 8 is speaking of the complete Pentateuch as we have it today in the MT?
No, it’s hard to imagine, given time constraints. Maybe it’s the book of Deuteronomy??
I reviewed Genesis 1, 2, and 3 in the NRSV. I don’t know what the fine points are about why you and others prefer it over the RSV and would appreciate your thoughts on why you do–perhaps an entire post if you feel it warranted. I’ve used the RSV most of my life. What I definitely dislike about the NRSV are the section titles. Some seem to have interpretation built right into them. For example, although it has become second nature for many to equate Adam and Eve’s disobedience with sin–the first sin, it never uses the Hebrew word for sin (so a rabbi once told me); yet, it titles Chapter 3, “The First Sin and Its Punishment.” I’ve felt ever since the rabbi told me this that we get ahead of ourselves by claiming that their disobedience was the first sin. Among scholars who respect the NRSV, do any or many object to the titles it provides? The other problem with “The First Sin and Its Punishment” is that their disobedience was punished by God’s curses. I don’t know if the chapter title means to refer also to the expulsion but they were not expelled as a direct result of what they had done but for what they might go on to do, as God himself says in the story. Do you agree?
The translators of the NRSV had access, of course, to the RSV, and worked to improve it. I was their research grunt for a couple of years, and sat in on their translation sessions (when I was a grad student and then my first year after my PhD). The section titles are not part of the translation itself but are editorial additions. Best just to ignore them!!
Good to know it was not the translators’ work.
I noticed those differences when I first began reading the Bible. My question would be where did the name Yahweh come from? I also noticed what I think was two fathers of Cain and Able . One was Yah and one EL and wondered if they were paternal twins or if that was in use of two different cults? One elevated similar higher ranks in Cubs to Tigers ? Then again I tossed around the idea of his story verses her story .
There are long and hard scholarly debates about the etymology of the name YHWH; usually it is thought to be related to the Hebrew verb “to be” (see what God tells Moses about his name in Exodus 3)
To be or to become God? Would that sound like My God will one day come to fruition and if so wouldn’t each individual have a different name for god?
I’m not sure I understand your question.
I think the Adam and Eve thing evolved from some ancient stories regarding cultivation. (Of course the Middle Ages did their job on the “meaning” of the story.) Adama means soil, earth – Yeshua Ben Adama – Jesus the Man made of dust. Ewa means grains – like what we eat to survive, barley cakes and harvest things. In the old story, Eve and Adam live at Bahrain, an Island now a city. They have to leave when the food runs out (drought?) When the fruit runs out, Eve says “Adam why don’t you eat me?” He says “No, I’m going to plant you in the River for 40 days.” He also plants himself in the other branch of the River – Mesopotamia. After 30 days Eve pops out and goes over to Adam’s river, where he insists on remaining up to his neck in water for 10 more days. Then they are reunited and live happily or less happily, working, ever after. (Great story too where the Snake eats the apple when someone leaves it on the kitchen table while showering.)
I just feel so bad for that couple, punished for eating fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil before they even knew what good and evil were, since they had not yet eaten of the fruit that would give them that knowledge. . . . Not a problem for apologists, though, it seems.
No point in feeling bad for them if it is a fiction or myth. I agree though that, in the story, it seems terribly unfair to curse them for what they couldn’t possibly have understood. But they were expelled not for this but for what they might have gone on to do–eat from the tree of life.
I’ve read that the Yahweh story was written first. It seems like the generic Elohim one would naturally come first and then the more detailed specific one later, but that’s not what it seems to be. What’s the reason scholars believe the Yahweh was written first?
Also, I’ve studied this some… but is there any overwhelming evidence that some of the early Christians saw these as separate accounts?
There are long and complicated reasons for thinking the “J” source was the first written. I’ll say more about it in a later post. No, Christians and Jews have both traditionally seen these as a single account (with some scholarly exceptions)
Quick follow up… in what century do the first scholars (the exceptions you mentioned) notice these are two different accounts? Were any of these exceptions in the early church? It seems so obvious… it’s hard to understand how a guy like Jerome didn’t pick up on it…
Not in the early church. Some Jewish scholars started commenting on them in the Middle Ages.
Sorry. Last follow up for this one. To be clear, it was definitely Jewish scholars who first noticed the two accounts?
Yes, I *think* so. But I’m not sure — maybe someone on the blog does — whether Origen, e.g., commented on the passages back in the third Xn century.
Bart, I hope you won’t mind me asking a stupid question. I’m just a little puzzled about something you mentioned above. You said that the Hebrew word Elohim is “translated in English as “God” even though it is plural”. Does this mean that Genesis 1.1 should really be translated as “In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth” ? Is there any English Bible that uses the plural and, if not, why not?
No, it is normally used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the one God. The verbs used with it are in the singular, not the plural. There are different opinions about why the authors use Elohim in the plural; maybe a plural to denote his great majesty (like the Queen: We are not amused….)
In the Hebrew language sometimes the plural is used as a form of superlative. That is, you will pluralize a word in order to suggest it is superior or “the best”. Another well-known example in the Bible is the Book of Job where it refers to the “Great Beast” called Behemoth. Behemoth in Hebrew literally means “beasts”, because a behema is just a beast (commonly used to refer to large mammals, such as cattle, horses, lions, etc.), and the plural of behema is behemoth. But, as Dr. Ehrman points out in regards to Elohim, Behemoth in Job has singular verbs attached to it, suggesting that it’s not speaking of “beasts” plural, but in The Beast (i.e. the greatest of all beasts). And this, it is likely, is what was meant when God was referred to as Elohim. It meant he was the best, the greatest of gods — The God.
?
Talmoore, I would like to cite this information, if it is accurate, in my writings. Can you offer any citation or suggestion as to where I could find the information in a respectable publication? (Not to suggest you aren’t respectable. Ha!)
Talmoore, I most sincerely thank you for your posts. There is much to be learned and you have taught me much; perhaps not near as much as Bart, or Tabor, or Charlesworth, or Fredriksen, and the like, but you’re close! Keep them coming and never mind the length! I’d read your comments even if they were two pages long!
But why would someone putting this stuff together keep both accounts. This also works for Acts as well (Paul’s conversion)
Most people never notice the difference. The author probably knew both accounts and liked them both!
If we are born and raised in the church, I’ve come to believe, we are “conditioned” not to notice the differences; and most certainly not to question them if we do!
And yet, some do. What the factors are is not totally clear. Maybe certain parents produce children or a child who lacks respect for authority or who can spot phony authority more easily than others. Maybe, by temperament, one child is more interested in logic and evidence than children who aren’t as analytical or intellectual. Bottom line: I and others (not you?) have heard plenty of people talk about how they were raised in the church and were able to slough off all attempts at conditioning, who never took the party line seriously or came to not take it seriously.
The book I always recommend on the creation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060630353. It’s a nice slim volume and easy read, while getting across excellent information.
Enjoy life!
Excellent summary. Thanks
Is there a solid scholarly sense of how The tradition of Moses as the author began?
Nope, don’t think so. It goes way back to a time before there were any actual discussions about it, and was simply assumed for centruies.
In the second creation story, the reason Adam and Eve were exiled from the promised land is because they disobeyed God. Would you believe it’s taken me almost 40 years to “get it”?
In the second creation story it is Eden or paradise they are in, not the promised land. “The promised land” is an idea that comes much later, in the story of Moses. The punishment for their disobedience was the curses God pronounced upon them. That part of the story comes to a close. Then God realizes that, given what they had already done, it’s possible they might eat of the tree of life. THAT is why he expelled them–not directly because of what they had done but to prevent from doing something else.
How do fundamentalists reconcile these two different accounts? It’s always been a mystery to me how anyone could believe that the Bible is literally true when faced with these types of different accounts.
When I was a fundamentalist we said that it’s like an article on the sports page, where the first paragraph (Genesis 1) gives the overall summary, and afterward (Genesis 2) you get the play-by-play. It doesn’t actually work when you look at the details, but we didn’t dig too deeply into details at the time.
So, Dr. Ehrman, can you offer a view on what percentage of apologies apologist are trained in are substantive responses versus “dodge answers” such as above? I doubt there is a definitive answer but perhaps you have a feel for one?
Ha! I have no idea. But my guess is that some apologists would say these *are* substantive responses!
Off-topic: Can I ask you what you think of the following argument? Have you read this before?
Claim: Jesus did *not* think he was the Christ.
Justification of Claim: The argument is based on two premises:
Premise 1: Jesus was descended from David.
Premise 2: Jesus believed that the Christ was not descended from David.
Conclusion: Therefore — unless he was severely logically challenged — Jesus did not think he was the Christ.
Justification of Premise 1: That Jesus was descended from David is explicitly mentioned in our earliest sources, such as the letters of Paul, it is not contradicted by any similarly early evidence, and it is not especially implausible.
Justification of Premise 2: Jesus argued against the idea that the Christ was descended from David,as reported in our earliest narrative Gospel source, that of Mark, 12:35-37:
35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself, inspired by[c] the Holy Spirit, declared,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
till I put thy enemies under thy feet.’
37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.
No I haven’t.
Is it any good? What are the weak links?
Thanks!
The argument depends on thinking that Mark 12:35-37 represents the actual words and thinking of the historical Jesus.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman, I looked up Exodus 3 and now am just as confused , so good to know I am not alone .Then he said, “I am the God of your father,[a] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. In reincarnation that may well mean that Moses was once Abraham , then Isaac and then Jacob. If Jesus believed in or studied the Buddhist Philosophy he may well have believed he had gone full circle ” Ouroboros or Snake that ate its own tail.
ehyeh ašer ehyeh is I am who I am and YHWH, Jehovah, sounds so very different.
The terms are related not because the words sound alike in Exodus 3 but because they may be etymologically linked.
Dr Ehraman, if ehyeh aser ehyeh means ” I am who I am” and Moses was told to say that to the Pharaoh wouldn’t that mean the term was known by the Egyptians as well ? Is the book of Jashar a valid book ( the Ethiopian Copy ) That book used YHWH if I remember right, and only when Moses met Jethro the Midianite Priest . I did look those up and YHWH in my Concordance was ( to become, god to become , to become god , and my god to become) I think there were a few more. Stated that way almost sounds like each person has to become god in some sense.
Yes, there’s an obvious problem with the Pharaoh knowing Hebrew. But Moses is supposed to say this not to the Egyptians but to the Hebrews. There once was a book of Jasher, but it no longer exists.
I’ve seen it translated, “I will be what I will be.”
I have read the Ethiopian Copy of the Book of Jashar that is why I asked . I had given my copy to a library in California . I am not sure how good it is but bought it from the Deloris Press and that should still be on line.
When they speak of the J Document and the E Document that were used by the Priests during the Babylonian Exile along with Deuteronomy to construct the Torah, are they referring to actual scrolls or writings brought from Judah and Israel, or are these collections of oral memories from these regions?
They are actual writings.
Really! Have any artifacts of them ever been found?
Absolutely not! If they had, it would be front page news!
I seem to remember reading that El was the chief god of the Canaanites who lived on the top of a mountain who with his consort Asherah had 70 sons. I believe Baal was one of them. Yahweh was a storm god and a warrior god that was adopted by the people in Judea as the personal god. Was there any relationship between El and Yahweh?
They were originally two different gods who were later identified as the same god.
In my youth, I logged 1000s of hours of church(services,sunday school,training union, bible school,bible courses, revivials,etc) , I was a state bible sword drill champion, I was a deacon in the baptist church, however I was not aware of these issues untill many many years later after i started reading on my own. My first examination was the book “What your minister is afraid to tell you’ by Terry Cain(a methodist minister). Then, luckily I found your books which led me to a broad research. How can fundamentalists square these issues with the premise that all of the bible is “God breathed” and inspired in every word. It seems that that would be blasphemous.
In my view, it wouldn’t be blasphemous because the belief that all scripture is God-breathed is a human, not a divine, conception. So to disnbelieve it would be against man, not God. For it is a circular argument. You’re not going to read that line in Timothy and take it as “Gospel” unless you already believe it is part of the Word of God. You can’t take something whose truth depends on it being the Word of God to prove the book of which it is a part to prove the book is the Word of God.
You hit the nail on the head right there. I just had this discussion with a fundamentalist. He said Paul said that in his letter knowing by the Holy Spirit that his letter would be included in the Bible and it fits perfectly. I stated that last sentence in a very similar way, to which he replied “You need to get yourself, and your logic out of the scriptures.”
That’s an very strange claim from the fundamentalist about Paul. Not that the Hebrew canon had been established and closed, but, by Paul’s time, I think most Jews considered the Scriptures to have been written and completed. There was no Christian Bible (OT + NT) since there was no New Testament in Paul’s time. So how would his letter be included in the Bible?? I disagree anyway that his letters would fit with Scriptures as they then existed (the Tanakh or Septuagint) because Paul’s representations of Judaism, the Torah, God’s intentions are, in my view, so beyond the pale of Jewish beliefs. An example that is, for me, central is that God Himself says (according to Scripture) in Deuteronomy 30:8-14 that there are not only commandments and statutes to follow but the commandment to follow them. In that commandment, God says to Israel, “For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it” (11-14). Paul disagrees with God! Paul believes it is impossible to keep the law fully. Yet the Tanakh also describes at least five different men who followed the law, turning neither to the right nor the left. This fundamentalist, as is so often the case, is the one who is inserting his self and ego into scriptures.
I’m excited that you are devoting blogs to the Old Testament. I have nothing to add because this is new territory. Only want to say “Present and now accounted for.” … as usual, internet difficulties persist.
Professor thank you for your post, i was just wondering that because there is a documentary hypothesis with the Pentateuch, is there something similar with the rest of the bible, say the book of psalms since many psalms are in fact often repeated. I would very much appreciate a response i’m a big fan of yours.
Yes, the Psalms too go back to lots of sources. And so do some of the prophets (e.g., Isaiah). And Job. And Ecclesiastes. And of course in the NT, the Gospels!
Dr. Ehrman, do you know why the beginning of Genesis Chapter 2 (verses 1-4) are not the ending for Chapter 1? It seems like it would be a much better fit. It almost seems like somebody placed it where it is to try and blend the two creation accounts together. Since the original writings did not have paragraphs and chapters assigned to them, when were these paragraphs and chapters formed?
The person who invented the chpater division apparently read the passage differently from the way we do.
Bart, would you consider making an article about chapter division, and how it affects the way we study the Bible? I have noticed good examples of where chapter division significantly alters our perception of a text. And sometimes critical scholars will say “These 2 chapters were not originally here.” This would perhaps mean that those who instituted the division of chapters also noticed a literary seam, but not problematic enough to remove it from the canon. There’s all sorts of room for unnecessary speculation there, but it could be very useful to examine.
Interesting idea. The problem is — I”ve never though much about it! But maybe I’ll say a few words about where chapters and verses came from (since I do know something about *that*)
Yeah that would be perfect! Before any reasonable speculation can be done about how it affects the text, I suppose you would really have to know who did it, when, and how. A good example is 1st Samuel 25. It abruptly says “Now when Samuel died” after the preceding chapters make no mention of Samuel for quite some time. Scholars consider this to be an editorial note to prepare for a later chapter. But putting CHAPTER 25 above it in big bold letters makes it into a much smoother transition.
I came across this Hank Hanegraaff statement on you (he also slanders you saying your intention is to overthrow people’s faith, as I’m sure you hear ad infinitum and ad nauseam, but here’s his statement:
“The notion of different names for God must surely have Ehrman’s language students rolling their eyes in utter amazement and utter disbelief. As Hebrew students will immediately recognize the author of Genesis uses Elohim to identify God in both chapter one and chapter two. The only notable difference is that in chapter two the author adds Lord or Yahweh to Elohim. It is hardly a stretch to suppose that a single author would underscore the power of God in creation in chapter one and then emphasize that God in creation is likewise God in relationship with respect to humankind in chapter two.”
He acts as if you didn’t know this, which is absurd. I’m interested to hear what your reply to him would be if you don’t mind giving a terse version of it.
I’ve read it in Hebrew hundreds of times. I wonder if he reads Hebrew himself?
haha… yeah… I doubt it… he calls himself “The Bible Answer Man” (seriously!)… he’s got a lot to say about you I discovered… it’s my guess he’s never once reached out to you for clarification on any of your statements before writing all of these half-truths (at best) about you… do I guess right (that he’s never reached out to you)?
Yup, he’s not interested in contacting me (obviously!).
RE: Human Life spans in Genesis
Dear Bart,
Like many people, I’ve often wondered about the extreme ages mentioned in Genesis. While surfing the web recently I came upon this article on the subject: http://www.theopedie.com/IMG/pdf/pscf12-03hill.pdf
The author is professor Carol A. Hill. In case you are unfamiliar with her work (or don’t have time to click on the link,) she explains that the ancient Hebrews believed in numerology (which they copied from the Babylonians.) Thus numbers were not just used for math, they also had spiritual and religious significance. In her essay she shows how numerology works in Genesis. She argues that large numbers, especially numbers divisible by 3, 9, 6, 30 etc were often used to show honor to a distinguished person.
Therefore where Genesis 5-5 says “And all the days that Adam lived were 930 years; and he died,” a better translation that takes into account Hebrew numerology would be “And all the days that Adam lived (a distinguished life, he was awarded an age of) 930 years; and he died.
In my opinion the author gives the best, most rational explanation of human life spans in Genesis that I’ve ever heard of.
Do you have an opinion on this?
/Joe
I’d say it works for some numbers, but not so much for others. Lots of ancient texts from various civilizations maintain that the “elders” lived massive numbers of years!
I just watched a BBC documentary by some Old Testament scholars about the Garden of Eden. Apparently, Eden was a real place that people living in the ancient world were familiar with? The Adam and Eve story was likely an allegory about Ahab and Jezebel and had nothing to do with creation or the fall of humanity. They pointed out that the older stories about Eden are in Ezekiel and Isaiah. So fascinating!
Do you know of any books about this topic?
No, I’m afraid I don’t.
Do you agree with the idea that the two trees in the garden represent Asherah the Mother Goddess who was worshipped as the Mistress of the earth and represented in tree form?
And the serpent is regarded as the source of great wisdom and was frequently regarded in the ancient world as the messenger from the great Goddess and the guardian of her sacred precincts?
So the story represents God’s victory over Asherah?
No, I’m afraid I don’t.
Do the trees and serpent represent anything? What do you think the author is trying to present with the story?
I should post on that some time! But it would require an entire post, not a comment. Some complicated imagery there! (Interestng that in the older Gilgamesh epic it is a snake/serpent who steals the plant that can bring perpetual youth!)
Prof. Ehrman, I am a long-time admirer who got I think all of your Teaching Company lecture series (on cassette!) and have many of your books, as well. You may be amused to know that it was you, more than anyone else, who profoundly deepened my Christian faith by showing me how to separate the words of the Incarnate Word from the mountain of destructive church doctrine. It is a genuine honor to correspond with you.
Appreciation and flattery out of the way, my question for this thread: If, as seems likely, Jews got their “Great Flood” myth from the millennium-older, Sumerian “Epic of Gilgamesh” — presumably during their Babylonian Captivity — could the second creation story trace to that same source?
The way the “Garden of Eden” narrative is shoehorned into Genesis it looks to me like they kept their original creation myth and simply added this second one after it. Is there any support for this possibility — either in terms of differences in style, language etc. (a distinguishing element you have cited in a number of NT passages as suggesting the work of a different author) or documentary evidence from Mesopotamian archeological digs?
Great question. No, the Adam and Eve story does not come, so far as we can tell, from teh same source; in fact it was written much earlier, probably before the captivity (in what is called the J source). But yes, the two were added together; their styles are very different, and they are actually at odds with one another if you look at them in detail next to each other. I discuss all this, if you’re interested, in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Intoduction.
Thanks for the response. My own interest is actually in the teachings of Jesus. The origins of Jewish mythology is more a passing curiosity, so I am unfamiliar with the J source. The logical inference is that the first, “Seven Days” creation story is the earlier of the two. Does it also trace to J or come from some other, pre-Genesis work? In any case if the “Garden of Eden” version is also of Jewish provenance, how did such contradictory accounts not only coexist prior to being incorporated into Genesis, but manage to end up back-to-back in that book — without explanation or even so much as a perfunctory attempt at transition?
As it turns out, the account of the seven-day creation in Genesis 1 is from the P source and probably dates from centuries after the J account of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. The accounts were largely not seen as contradictory in the ancient world. How could they not see they were at odds? The same reason the vast majory of modern readers don’t see it either. Almost everyone has to have it pointed out to them before they realize it.
In the story of God creating Eve, why does the author have God use one of Adam’s ribs?
Why a rib in particular? I suppose Adam could do without it easier than without a femur? I don’t know! Near his heart and vital organs?
Since this did not happen, I wondered if the author got this idea from another writing that he saw. I have also read that the rib may have represented something bigger, like Adam’s side…that Eve was actually a major part of Adam. This seems off though due to how women were thought of as a lower version of man.