Let me echo the recommendation to read "Who Wrote the Bible", by Richard Freidman. This is easy and excellent reading, and gives a great popular introduction to the documentary hypothesis. It reads like a mystery novel, and I found it absolutely riveting when I first met up with it some years ago. Get the second edition.
There is an interesting
interview with Friedman at beliefnet, in which he explains his view of the development of the bible (especially the Torah), and the concerns of the writers.
Although there are strong words spoken across the divisions of liberal and conservative scholarship (for want of better labels), in many cases this comes down to matters of emphasis. Effectively all scholars, both liberal and conservative, recognize that there are sources prior to the bible; and also that the Torah is now a single structure worthy of study in its own right.
A simplified account is available at
Documentary Hypothesis, from "Religious Studies" at the University of Pennsylvania.
The relevance to the thread is that Genesis in particular is a mix of the J, E and P sources, with J and E so tightly integrated that it is sometimes useful to simply see them as one prior source. The first (and younger!) creation account is "P" (Priestly) and the second (older!) is from JE (Jahwist or Jerusalem, and Elohist or Ephraimitic).
This textual analysis helps illuminate the particular concerns and emphases of the two creation accounts. Hence I have called a Genesis 1 a defence of monotheism, and jar has described it as distinguishing Judaism. This emphasis is perfectly apparent in the form of the story structure as literature. The emphasis also turns out to be consistent with some more subtle clues in use of language and symbolism, which have been used to identify the writer as "P" (Priestly).
The second account Genesis 2-3 is (IMO) harder to analyse; but here also the symbols and the literary style identify the writer and are consistent with that writer’s larger concerns.
We have a potential problem here in the wings; people will need to take care not to merely dismiss one side or the other as "non-Christian" or "non-scholarly".
This whole area reflects a style of analysis called "higher criticism", or "textual analysis". You'll find it used in any advanced tertiary level course in biblical studies associated with the major universities; but may be described very negatively in some seminaries having a tight linkage to a particular denominational group.
Any major university with a program in bible studies will have lots of books on this. A common reference is the
Anchor Bible Dictionary, and when I was looking into this some ten years ago, Friedman was the a major contributing writer to sections in the Dictionary dealing with the subject.
Cheers -- Sylas
(Added in edit. Thanks for the reminder on topic, jar. I'm going to go back and prune my post a little.)
This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-22-2005 21:36 AM
PPS. Major pruning complete. I consider what remains to be on topic, since the metaphors and concerns of the two creation accounts are reflections of the sources. But I agree that debating the validity of higher criticism in detail would be a distraction.
This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-22-2005 21:55 AM
Fix Friedman link. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 02-24-2005 10:47 AM
™ Version 4.2