Creation in Genesis 1-3 (Part 3–Comparing P & J)
Properly demarcating the two ancient Israelite creation accounts that exist in Genesis 1-3 is additionally important because it provides the opportunity to compare structural and grammatical parallels that exist (or do not exist) between them and to analyze their possible implications. I have provided the following table of the first several verses of each account in order to facilitate comparison.
|
P (Genesis 1.1-3) |
J (Genesis 2.4b-7) |
|
When God began to create the heavens and the earth
|
In the day of YHWH-God’s making the earth and heavens
|
|
(Now the earth was a formless waste, and darkness was over the deep…)
|
before there was any plant of the field in the earth… |
|
Then God said, “Let there be light”… |
then YHWH-God fashioned man from the dust of the ground… |
The parallels here are important for several reasons. As can be seen from the translation provided for P in the preceding table, the first clause stands as the protasis of a subordinate temporal clause introduced by the preposition bereshith. This parallels the J account which also begins with a clear subordinate temporal clause. Furthermore, it is important that both clauses are then followed by disjunctive circumstantial clauses which supply coterminous parenthetical material for the preceding temporal clauses (much like a parenthesis in modern English). In each account these circumstantial disjunctive clauses are then followed by a conjunctive apodosis introducing God’s first creative act, as seen by the translation “then.” These parallels and additional grammatical considerations, I believe, strongly indicate that verse one in the P account be subordinated to verse three, with verse two set off as a parenthesis. This analysis, in turn, complements the earlier conclusion, reached through literary analysis, that Genesis 1.1-2 serves as an introduction to the first creation story describing the cosmos’ pre-creation state.
This is plausible but how strong can a grammatical reading actually be? Do authors always use grammar correctly?
Comment by john f. — February 19, 2009 @ 8:20 am
john f.,
I think that I have not used grammatical evidence independently. I have made other arguments–literary, historical, cultural, etc.–throughout this series (and I am planning three more segments with additional evidence and argumentation). However, I think that the grammatical evidence here (and in the other segments) is fairly strong and straightforward. Moreover, I think the fact that the grammatical evidence fits together so well with my other arguments is significant. I believe that the strength of my conclusion(s) lies not in any one argument alone, but in the convergence of several lines of discussion.
Comment by The Yellow Dart — February 19, 2009 @ 9:52 am
What YD presents isn’t grammar but literary form. Confusing the two is not merely a mistake of grammar (grin).
Comment by Blake — February 19, 2009 @ 10:36 am
I thought John was here referring to the brief discussion of clause sequencing.
TYD
Comment by The Yellow Dart — February 19, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
And I think that Blake’s comment does tie in well with what I was trying to say in comment 2.
Best wishes,
TYD
Comment by The Yellow Dart — February 19, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Yes, I see your broader argument and find it very strong. I just don’t know how much the grammatical argument strengthens it in this case. We don’t know what the original grammar of this selection was; we don’t know the identities of the redactors etc. A grammatical argument of this type works better when such factors are controlled for such as in texts of modern literature.
I think your grammatical analysis is correct, and of course I certainly agree with all of your ultimate conclusions about this stuff — I was just off handedly expressing my own doubts about the strength of this particular approach.
Comment by john f. — February 23, 2009 @ 11:47 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
Comment by mark — April 16, 2009 @ 5:22 am