Scholars Who Argue Genesis 2 Predates Genesis 1
Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918)
Contribution: Wellhausen, a foundational figure in the Documentary Hypothesis, argued in his seminal work Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1878) that the Yahwist (J) source, which includes Genesis 2:4b–25, is older than the Priestly (P) source, which includes Genesis 1:1–2:4a.
Arguments:
Linguistic and stylistic evidence: The J account in Genesis 2 uses a more anthropomorphic, narrative-driven style (e.g., God as a potter forming man from dust, walking in the garden) and the divine name YHWH, which Wellhausen associated with an earlier, less abstract theology. In contrast, Genesis 1 uses Elohim and a structured, cosmic framework, suggesting a later, more systematized theology.
Historical context: Wellhausen dated J to the 9th–8th century BCE (during the divided monarchy of Israel and Judah) and P to the 6th–5th century BCE (during or after the Babylonian Exile). The earthy, localized focus of Genesis 2 reflects an earlier agrarian society, while Genesis 1’s universal scope aligns with the Priestly concerns of exile and restoration.
Theological development: The J account’s focus on human relationships and a single garden contrasts with P’s emphasis on cosmic order and Sabbath, which Wellhausen saw as a later priestly agenda.
Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932)
Contribution: In his work Genesis (1901), Gunkel, a pioneer of form criticism, argued that Genesis 2 reflects older oral traditions that predate the more formal, written Priestly account in Genesis 1.
Arguments:
Oral tradition: Genesis 2’s storytelling style, with its vivid imagery and anthropomorphic depiction of God, suggests roots in ancient Israelite oral traditions, potentially from the 10th–9th century BCE or earlier. Genesis 1, with its repetitive, liturgical structure, appears as a later, written composition.
Mythological parallels: Gunkel noted that Genesis 2 shares motifs with older Near Eastern creation stories (e.g., humans formed from earth), suggesting it draws on earlier cultural traditions, while Genesis 1’s abstract monotheism counters Babylonian cosmology, pointing to a post-exilic context.
Genre: Genesis 2 is a narrative myth, while Genesis 1 is a cosmological hymn, which Gunkel saw as a later development in Israelite religion.
Gerhard von Rad (1901–1971)
Contribution: In his commentary Genesis (1949), von Rad, a prominent Old Testament scholar, supported the view that the Yahwist account (Genesis 2) is older than the Priestly account (Genesis 1).
Arguments:
Theological simplicity: The J account’s focus on human origins, the garden, and divine-human interaction reflects an earlier, less theologically sophisticated stage of Israelite thought. Genesis 1’s emphasis on cosmic order and Sabbath observance aligns with Priestly concerns during the exile.
Historical setting: Von Rad dated J to the Solomonic era (10th century BCE), seeing it as a product of Israel’s early national identity, while P reflects the needs of a post-exilic community reconstructing its identity.
Narrative coherence: The J account’s informal, story-like quality contrasts with P’s systematic, almost legalistic structure, suggesting J’s greater antiquity.
Richard Elliott Friedman (b. 1946)
Contribution: In Who Wrote the Bible? (1987) and The Bible with Sources Revealed (2003), Friedman, a leading contemporary proponent of the Documentary Hypothesis, explicitly argues that the J source, including Genesis 2, predates the P source, including Genesis 1.
Arguments:
Source dating: Friedman dates J to around 848–722 BCE (during the reigns of the Judahite and Israelite monarchies) and P to around 600–500 BCE (late exilic or post-exilic period). Genesis 2’s use of YHWH and its focus on Judahite concerns (e.g., Eden as a localized paradise) suggest an earlier southern (Judahite) origin, while Genesis 1’s universalism and priestly vocabulary align with a later context.
Textual independence: Friedman notes that Genesis 2’s account stands alone as a complete creation story, with no dependence on Genesis 1, while Genesis 1 appears designed to preface and organize earlier traditions.
Contrasts in style: Genesis 2’s earthy, human-centered narrative contrasts with Genesis 1’s abstract, orderly creation, which Friedman sees as a later theological reflection.
Claus Westermann (1909–2000)
Contribution: In his three-volume commentary Genesis 1–11 (1974), Westermann, a leading Genesis scholar, argued that the Yahwist account in Genesis 2 is earlier than the Priestly account in Genesis 1.
Arguments:
Tradition history: Westermann saw Genesis 2 as rooted in older, pre-literary traditions that emphasize human creation and divine intimacy, likely from the early monarchic period. Genesis 1, with its focus on cosmic structure and Sabbath, reflects a later Priestly redaction.
Theological focus: The J account’s concern with human life and relationships (e.g., Adam and Eve) contrasts with P’s interest in divine transcendence and ritual order, which Westermann tied to the exilic or post-exilic period.
Cultural context: Genesis 2’s agrarian imagery (e.g., God planting a garden) fits an earlier, rural Israelite society, while Genesis 1’s cosmic scope responds to the theological challenges of the Babylonian Exile.
Additional Notes and Counterarguments
Consensus in Critical Scholarship: The view that Genesis 2 (J) predates Genesis 1 (P) is widely accepted among scholars who adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis or related source-critical approaches. The dating of J to the 10th–8th century BCE and P to the 6th–5th century BCE is a standard position in critical scholarship, though exact dates vary.
Alternative Views:
Some scholars, like those following the Supplementary Hypothesis (e.g., John Van Seters), argue that J might be later than traditionally thought, potentially exilic, but still often place it before P. Van Seters, in Prologue to History (1992), suggests J was a historian compiling earlier traditions but still predates P’s final redaction.
Conservative scholars (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen or R.K. Harrison) reject the Documentary Hypothesis and argue for a unified composition of Genesis, often attributing it to Moses (13th century BCE) or an early single author. They would not see Genesis 2 as predating Genesis 1 but as part of a cohesive narrative.
Minimalist scholars (e.g., Thomas L. Thompson) question the historical reliability of both accounts and may argue that both Genesis 1 and 2 are late compositions (post-exilic), though they often still see J traditions as older than P.
Challenges to Dating: Precise dating is difficult due to the oral origins of many traditions, the lack of direct archaeological evidence, and debates over linguistic markers (e.g., whether YHWH usage definitively indicates an earlier text).
Summary
Scholars like Julius Wellhausen, Hermann Gunkel, Gerhard von Rad, Richard Elliott Friedman, and Claus Westermann explicitly argue that Genesis 2 predates Genesis 1, primarily based on its attribution to the Yahwist source (J), which they date to the 10th–8th century BCE, compared to the Priestly source (P) of Genesis 1, dated to the 6th–5th century BCE. Their arguments rest on linguistic, stylistic, theological, and historical grounds, with Genesis 2’s anthropomorphic, narrative style seen as reflecting earlier traditions than Genesis 1’s abstract, cosmological framework.
Blessings,
) I have no desire to persuade any responder to my view. If I do respond it’s either to correct what I perceive is a misunderstanding of something I wrote or to a question directed to me. So, thanks for the responses and enjoy the discussion.