Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorships. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to those variations? Indeed there is. Furthermore, there are a number of factors which militate against the notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent and contradictory accounts of the creation. Think about these points.
(1) There is method in the emphases of these two sections of scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind ” in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is a special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc.
This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observes that the
“technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118).
(2) These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. (This procedure is not unknown in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.)
Professor Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:
“There are different emphases in the two chapters . . . but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1” (p. 53).
(3) There is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the sun, moon, and stars, etc.
Archer points out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the sun, moon, seas, etc. (Archer, 1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.
Even Johnston, who is sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis (at least in part), is forced to concede:
“The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man” (p. 90).
The following summary statement by Kenneth Kitchen is worthy of notice:
“It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the ‘two’ accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism” (pp. 116-117).
Conclusion
When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been carefully considered, one thing is clear. An objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics. It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,” but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine