The Difficulty
Genesis opens with two creation narratives that differ in significant ways. Genesis 1 uses Elohim; Genesis 2 switches to YHWH Elohim. Genesis 1 is structured and liturgical; Genesis 2 is earthy prose. The order of creation differs: Genesis 1 moves from water to plants to animals to humans (male and female together); Genesis 2 begins with dry land, creates a single human, then plants, then animals, then woman.
Responses
Complementary / Zoom-In
Tradition: Evangelical / Conservative Summary: Genesis 1 is the wide-angle panorama; Genesis 2 zooms in on the sixth day.
The dominant evangelical reading. Genesis 2 is not a second account but an expansion of Day 6. The apparent order differences are resolved by reading the Hebrew verb in Gen 2:19 as pluperfect: God “had formed” the animals. The different divine names reflect different aspects of God.
Strengths
- Preserves unity of authorship
- Explains the name change theologically
- Long pedigree
Weaknesses
- The pluperfect reading is possible but not the most natural
- The differences in initial conditions (watery chaos vs. dry desert) are harder to explain
Further Reading
- Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Moody, 1994), chs. 8–9
- Kenneth Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26 (NAC, 1996)
- Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (NICOT, 1990)
Documentary / Source-Critical
Tradition: Mainline / Academic Summary: Two originally independent creation traditions (P and J) were woven together by later editors.
The Documentary Hypothesis identifies Gen 1:1–2:3 as the Priestly source (P) and Gen 2:4ff as the Yahwist (J). Each reflects a different community’s theology. The editorial seam at 2:4 marks the transition.
Strengths
- Explains the literary, theological, and vocabulary differences comprehensively
- Widely held in mainstream scholarship
Weaknesses
- The Documentary Hypothesis itself is under revision
- Can be perceived as undermining Mosaic authorship
Further Reading
- Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (Harper & Row, 1987) — the accessible classic
- Joel Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch (Yale, 2012)
- For a critique: Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis (Magnes Press, 1961)
Literary-Theological / Canonical
Tradition: Post-Liberal / Canonical Summary: The two accounts are deliberately paired: Genesis 1 answers “What is the structure of reality?” and Genesis 2 answers “What is the human vocation?”
Whatever the compositional history, the canonical text deliberately places these two accounts together. Together they provide a richer theology of creation than either alone.
Strengths
- Takes the final form of the text seriously
- Theologically the richest reading for preaching
Weaknesses
- Can seem to sidestep the historical question
Further Reading
- Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation, 1982)
- J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image (Brazos, 2005)
- Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC, 1987)
Framework / Non-Literal
Tradition: Reformed / Science-Engaged Summary: Genesis 1 is a literary framework organized topically to teach theology, not science.
The Framework Hypothesis notes the six days are organized in two parallel triads: Days 1–3 create domains; Days 4–6 fill them with rulers. John Walton’s “cosmic temple inauguration” argues Genesis 1 describes God assigning functions to an already-existing cosmos, inaugurating it as his temple.
Strengths
- Resolves the science/Scripture tension without dismissing either
- Walton’s functional ontology is historically grounded in ANE thought
Weaknesses
- “The days aren’t literal” is a hard sell in some congregations
Further Reading
- John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (IVP Academic, 2009)
- Henri Blocher, In the Beginning (IVP, 1984)
- Denis Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation (Wipf & Stock, 2008)