The Use of Divine names in the Creation Stories

Many Biblical scholars believe that the first two Creation stories found in the first two chapters of Genesis were written centuries apart. Many Biblical translations (including the more respected Jerusalem and NAB versions) both include such views in the written introductions to the book of Genesis. Yet the belief is not just stated, but it is often presented as factual.I would like to deal with one major theological reason why scholars believe that the two Genesis stories were written generations apart. The concept I will address is the issue surrounding the usage of Divine names, and why I believe that the more understanding of such terms is mistaken.When describing the Creator, Genesis 1 refers to Him as Elohim which simply is the word for God. The story found in Genesis 2 uses the name YHWH. All believers accept that both terms refer to the same individual, but some scholars believe that since a single author would have used the same term, then Genesis must have been written by more than one author. To this the great Hebrew scholar Umberto Cassuto responded, The designation of Elohim was originally a common noun that was applied to the One God of Israel and to the heathen gods. (Documentary Hypothesis, 18). Describing the meaning of YHWH, Cassuto would reply, The name YHWH is a proper noun, the specific name of Israel’s God (Documentary Hypothesis, 18). Do we recognize the distinction? Elohim simply means God (and has in the past meant ‘god’) while YHWH is one nation’s name for Elohim.For a long time, the form of criticism that allows for multiple authorship of the Torah relied solely on the difference in the Divine names that are given. But rather than we merely assuming multiple authorship, it must first be asked why different words are used to describe the same supernatural Being? The answer is that YHWH is named when the author intends to present God as a personal character who has relationships with His people. We see the name used specifically where the Hebrew nation is involved, because certain parts of the Bible were written entirely to them. Elohim, the word ‘God’, has a more universal outlook and purpose. Elohim is the Transcendent Being, the All-Powerful One, who rules above the entire universe, rather than just over one particular nation.If such a description of each term is appropriate then we could almost predict in advance whether a particular book would use Elohim or YHWH. Sure enough, the books of prophecy always use the name YHWH. This is because it is the people of Israel that are being commanded to turn from their sinful ways. The prophecy is connected and intended for Israel so the universal Elohim would be less appropriate than the given name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, YHWH. The only exception is the Book of Jonah, but this need not bother us for Jonah is an exception in several other categories as well, the most obvious being that it is the only Book of prophecy that is a narrative. It should also be mentioned that the latter part of Isaiah has the term `El being used. Looking to the Law, we find that YHWH is also used through out the entire set of commands. The reason again is that the Law was given to the Israelites rather than another culture such as the Moabites. In the Wisdom literature that includes Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and many of the later Psalms, Elohim is used. This is because these books are not just for the Israelites but have a general outlook that would include all peoples. Hence the general, universal term is being used. Much of the others narratives use both Elohim and YHWH, depending on the particular situation.Genesis 1 uses Elohim. This is because Elohim is presented as creating all with the mere words, ‘Let there be’ Power is the obvious attribute of God in this story, for Elohim creates and rules over all. There is nothing wrong with this, for it is true. But it leads us to Chapter 2. Here Elohim, whose name is YHWH, shows a concern about the people. The bulk of this second creation story is concerned primarily with YHWH relationship with the humans that he has created. Genesis 2 shows Elohim not merely as the Powerful One, but also always refers to Him by His name YHWH and shows that he has concern for His people. I believe that the stories compliment each other, but I will submit more on this issue another time.The primary purpose here is to encourage all who read their Bible, that when they see different names for the same supernatural being used, it is not to be assumed that this is a case of multiple authorship (particularly in the Torah) but rather one should ask what purpose the author had in referring to the same Being by different terms.Kelly J. Wilson

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Excellent analysis and most persuasive. I've notice how opponents of the truth of scripture try to say many authors and now you show how it is supeior to see a greater intent. This should conquor once and for all the confidence (if not thye assertion) of multiple authors.
Rob

That might be true if the only difference was what words were used to describe GOD, but that is only one of the factors that lead to the multiple author school of thought. There is also the fact that two totally different stories are told in many sections of Genesis, that there are two creation tales, two flood tales and so on. There are stylistic differences, content differences and often the different stories interspersed with a piece of one right next to a piece of the other with alternating sections repeating the same tale but having exclusionary differences.This is not limited to Genesis either. Infact, throughout the old testament there are many examples of divergent theologies, divergent cultures, that have been brought together almost like an anthology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

we *HAD* a thread for genesis 1 v genesis 2. but i think someone closed it because it got a lot off track.your observation has merit. eloyhim and hashem are used differently. eolyhim is more inclusive, where the proper name is exclusive.but, there's a couple problems. god is called not only by his name and by god, but by two other variants as well. in genesis 35:11, among other places, god calls himself "El" or "El Shaddai." some argue this is a singularization of eloyhim, but there is also a canaanite god that bears this name. god is also called the tetragrammaton directly followed by eloyhim, such as in genesis 2. this is to set him apart from the other gods.the other problem is that eloyhim doesn't exactly mean god in the sense we'd think of it. god calls moses by this name once, saying that he is god over pharaoh, exodus 7.the third problem is that the two stories are written in entirely different styles. the idea of multiple authorship doesn't come from the names alone, although that was what made it most obvious. the first story is a plaigarized babylonian myth.now it does match up that the more general name for god is used in the more general (creation of everything) story and the more specific name for god is used in the specific (first hebrew) creation story. but i suggest that your cause-effect relationship is backwards.if genesis 1 is younger than 2, as every other stylistic element points to, the generality of the story would have more to do with the dwindling of the hebrew faith in babylon, as their cultures began to overlap just slightly. it's more general because they were applying it to more people.is the name of god that's used linked to specificity elsewhere, btw?

Hi Kelly, But you do know that the first person to highlight this irregularity of the interchanging of Elohim and Yahweh was Jean Astruc, who actually never denied Mosaic authorship Genesis. Even when Eichhorn strengthened the theory (highlighting more doublets) he also didn’t deny that Moses wrote Genesis, so maybe you could provide me with a couple of scholars, out of the ‘some scholars’ that you mention, that: For a long time, the form of criticism that allows for multiple authorship of the Torah relied solely on the difference in the Divine names that are given. As others have pointed out, this displays an extremely superficial understanding of the subject, there is a lot more besides the two names to consider, the use of doublets and triplets is another issue. The ‘ragged’ edges of where one text has been spliced with another are also a problem that exists in all the books from Genesis to II Kings.To repeat a recent example from the Book of Judges 3:31 we can see one of these 'ragged edges', see how verse 3:31 obviously doesn’t belong there: After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad. He too saved Israel. This appears right after the eighty years of peace initiated by Ehud, there is no information given as to why Shamgar was ‘saving’ Israel, the text preceding tells us that Israel was at peace.The first few verses of chapter 4 highlight the interpolation even more severely: 1 After Ehud died, the Israelites once again did evil in the eyes of the LORD . 2 So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. 3 Because he had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.
4 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. If this was unedited then verse one should read ‘after Shamgar died’, it only makes sense when Judges 3:31 is removed from the text.The ‘history’ books of the Hebrew Bible have been composed from at least four different sources, and brought together by a redactor, the two names, or the ‘title’ Elohim and the personal name Yahweh, are not the sole reason for multiple authorship.There is also the difficulty of anachronisms and tales of events after Moses’ death to consider.Brian.

Brian,The first Christian that we have making the distinction between Divine names was one who came shortly before the time of Astruc. A German named Witter; his words were not generally accepted. Outside of Christianity the difference in Divine names goes back to a twelfth century Jewish rabbi, named Ibrahim ben Ezra. You are right however, in pointing out the irony that the man who posed the challenge to Divine names (Astruc) did believe in Mosaic authorship yet his work would later come to be viewed as the foundation for multiple authorship.Do you really need me to name scholars who believe that the creation stories were written by more than one author? Maybe I am just misunderstanding the question.An earlier individual mentioned that the difference in Divine names is not the only reason why scholars concluded that there were multiple authors. That person is right, and so are you in mentioning the repetitions in certain tales, supposed contradictions as well, and even the death of Moses. These are all worth discussing, but I was just commenting on this one issue.I am also aware of the Documentary Hypothesis which you reference towards the end of your post. This is also something I can comment on, but topics get really off-topic if one is to general in their outlook. For now just deal with the title and material I brought forward.Finally as a member who now only has three posts, I would caution you who have nearly 1200 to be very careful with your accusations. You state that a desire of mine, that favors a more objective reading of the Bible, is 'extremely superficial' in my understanding of the Bible. Such a statement is unacceptable, and you should be more cautious as your own first point includes a historical error. (That Astruc was the first person to highlight the Divine Name irregularity). If I was as discourteous as certain statements of yours present you as being, I'd say such a comment shows historical ignorance.Kelly J. Wilson

HI Kelly, The question was asking for the names fo scholars who believed in multiple authorship based solely on the different names and nothing else. I am unaware of anyone who bases multiple authorship solely on these two names alone, thanks. There was no accusation, I apologise if it came across that way, maybe I should reword it along the lines of 'to say that mulitple authorship of the Genesis creation myths is based solely on the two names given is only one resason that scholars give for positing multiple authorship, and your posts suggests that there are no other issues involved.'Brian.

Brian,
I understand your question now. I am also unaware of anyone who believes in multiple authorship on the basis of the difference on divine names alone. Having said that, the first individuals who are credited with noting the difference in divine names, used this as the basis for suggesting multiple sources. Further research would give other evidences as well, and multiple sources would lead to multiple authorship. It was the Divine names that first triggered this reaction. Perhaps this is a better way to say that which was stated in the orginal post.Kelly J. WilsonThis message has been edited by Kelly. J. Wilson, 10-13-2004 10:48 PM

HI Kelly, Thank you for explaining this, I understand fully now what you are informing us of.It does appear though that the scholars who claimed multiple authorship based on the two names, have ultimately been proven correct in their claim of multiple authorship, albeit not just based solely on their original hypothesis.Would you agree then, that the Genesis creation myths are the work of more than one author, but this cannot be determined exclusivley from the interchanging use of Elohim and Yahweh?Form and source criticism are subjects that I hope to study more in the future, I wish I had more time at the moment, but I have too many irons in the fire right now.Thanks again.Brian.

You ask: "Would you agree then, that the Genesis creation myths are the work of more than one author, but this cannot be determined exclusivley from the interchanging use of Elohim and Yahweh?"My answer would be no. I believe that despite certain difficulties raised, the Creation stories, were written by only one man.Kelly J. WilsonThis message has been edited by Kelly. J. Wilson, 10-14-2004 09:09 PM