An Attempt to Harmonize the Creation Accounts

An Attempt to Harmonize the Creation Accounts ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/zzbymXB4GDY/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [An Attempt to Harmonize the Creation Accounts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzbymXB4GDY) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #biblical-criticism #genesis #source-criticism #documentary-hypothesis #textual-analysis > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzbymXB4GDY > date created: 2024-12-19 10:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: An attempt to harmonize the creation accounts >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Review five recent Genesis commentaries supporting source criticism — addresses apologetic claims about unified authorship #biblical-criticism - [H2] Examine Hebrew lexical analysis of 'eretz vs cultivated field terminology — corrects misunderstanding of Genesis 2:5 #hebrew-language - [H3] Analyze chiasmus and toledot formula in Genesis 2:4 redactional theory — demonstrates editorial stitching of sources #source-criticism ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Word Room Video Response](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY) - [Twitter Discussion Referenced](https://twitter.com) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan responds to apologetic attempts to harmonize Genesis 1 and 2 creation accounts - Why it matters: Demonstrates how apologetic arguments misrepresent Hebrew language and ignore current scholarship - Key stakeholders: Biblical scholars, religious communities, students of biblical criticism - Risks and tradeoffs: Academic integrity vs. religious apologetics; scholarly consensus vs. faith-based interpretations - Bottom line takeaway: Recent critical scholarship strongly supports viewing Genesis 1 and 2 as separate, contradictory creation accounts stitched together by later editors ## 📖 Main Content McClellan critiques apologetic arguments that attempt to resolve contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 by claiming Genesis 2 focuses spatially on Eden or temporally on day six. The main apologetic strategy involves reinterpreting the Hebrew word "eretz" (earth) as merely "land" and suggesting "plants of the field" refers only to cultivated crops. However, this harmonization fails on multiple fronts. First, the Hebrew text of Genesis 2:19 describes creation of "every bird of the sky" (kol hashimim) after human creation, directly contradicting Genesis 1 where birds are created on day 5. Second, Genesis 2:5 uses a merism describing both wild (siach) and cultivated (eseb) vegetation, not just cultivated crops. McClellan presents evidence from five recent Genesis commentaries (Peterson 2024/2025, Hendel 2024, Gertz 2023, Carr 2021, Arnold 2020) showing scholarly consensus that Genesis 2:4a functions as a redactional "bridge" connecting two originally separate creation accounts. The toledot formula and chiasmus in 2:4 represent editorial techniques to stitch together the priestly account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) with the earlier non-priestly account (Genesis 2:4b-3:24). ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=0) — [H1] Introduction to apologetic harmonization attempt - Key idea: Responding to 55-minute video defending unity of Genesis creation accounts - Evidence: "This content creator is trying to defend the unity of the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2" #### ⏱️ [05:30](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=330) — [H2] Core apologetic argument about Hebrew "eretz" - Key idea: Apologist claims Hebrew "eretz" means only "land" not "planet Earth" - Evidence: "When that Hebrew word is used, it just means land or ground. And it doesn't mean the entire planet" #### ⏱️ [08:45](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=525) — [H3] McClellan's counter-argument on Hebrew usage - Key idea: "Eretz" consistently means "earth/planet" throughout Genesis 1:1-2:4 - Evidence: "Every red box is going around a place where the ESV rendered eretz as Earth in reference to the entire planet Earth" #### ⏱️ [12:15](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=735) — [H1] Birds of the sky contradiction - Key idea: Genesis 2:19 creates birds after humans, contradicting Genesis 1:5 - Evidence: "Every bird of the sky was not created until after the creation of the human, the planting of the Garden of Eden" #### ⏱️ [16:30](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=990) — [H2] Translation manipulation by modern versions - Key idea: ESV/NIV change Hebrew verb forms to avoid contradictions - Evidence: "Translations like the ESV decide they're just going to arbitrarily change the wiktol... and understand it as a pluperfect" #### ⏱️ [20:00](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=1200) — [H3] Hebrew merism in Genesis 2:5 - Key idea: Text describes both wild and cultivated vegetation, not just cultivated - Evidence: "Siach refers to wild shrubs... eseb refers broadly to vegetation... it's describing vegetation that grows wild and vegetation that requires cultivation" #### ⏱️ [25:45](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=1545) — [H2] Apologist acknowledges Hebrew supports McClellan - Key idea: Opponent admits lexical analysis but pivots to "rain means covenant" argument - Evidence: "Dan is right about basic lexical ranges. Siach does refer to wild shrubs" #### ⏱️ [30:15](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=1815) — [H1] Documentary hypothesis misrepresentation - Key idea: Apologist conflates all source criticism with classical documentary hypothesis - Evidence: "This is not entirely accurate... it's no longer the dominant position" #### ⏱️ [35:20](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=2120) — [H2] Toledot formula analysis begins - Key idea: Genesis 2:4a functions as editorial bridge between sources - Evidence: "Genesis 2:4a is added in order to introduce the pre-priestly creation account" #### ⏱️ [40:30](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=2430) — [H1] Peterson commentary evidence - Key idea: Most recent scholarship supports redactional bridge theory - Evidence: "This half verse was introduced as a transition between the priestly and pre-priestly accounts" #### ⏱️ [45:15](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=2715) — [H2] Multiple scholarly sources confirm consensus - Key idea: Five recent commentaries agree on separate creation accounts - Evidence: "They all agree that the priestly account of creation is a secondary later independent account" #### ⏱️ [50:00](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=3000) — [H3] Chiasmus argument addressed - Key idea: Literary structure doesn't prove unified authorship - Evidence: "Genesis 2:4a was composed with Genesis 2:4b in mind... to stitch the priestly creation account to the earlier non-priestly account" #### ⏱️ [53:30](https://youtu.be/zzbymXB4GDY?t=3210) — [H1] Conclusion on apologetic methodology - Key idea: Apologists engage pre-digested caricatures, not actual scholarship - Evidence: "They're not actually directly exposed to critical scholarship... getting secondhand reports through other apologists" ## 📚 References - [Peterson Genesis Commentary](https://example.com) - Old Testament Library 2024/2025 - [Hendel Genesis 1-11](https://example.com) - Anchor Yale Bible 2024 - [Gertz Genesis 1-11](https://example.com) - Historical Commentary on OT 2023 - [Carr Genesis 1-11](https://example.com) - International Exegetical Commentary 2021 - [Arnold Genesis](https://example.com) - New Cambridge Bible Commentary 2020 ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Modern apologetics attempts to resolve Genesis contradictions by claiming the Hebrew word for "earth" only means "land" in Genesis 2, but this ignores consistent usage throughout Genesis 1-2 - The creation of birds "after" humans in Genesis 2:19 directly contradicts their creation on day 5 in Genesis 1, forcing translators to manipulate Hebrew verb forms - Current biblical scholarship overwhelmingly supports viewing Genesis 2:4a as an editorial bridge connecting two originally separate creation accounts, not evidence of unified authorship ## 📰 Newsletter **Biblical Scholarship vs. Apologetic Harmonization: What Recent Genesis Research Reveals** This week's deep dive examines how modern biblical criticism handles apparent contradictions in Scripture - specifically the two creation accounts in Genesis 1-2. While apologetic approaches attempt harmonization through linguistic arguments, recent scholarship reveals sophisticated editorial techniques used to combine originally separate sources. The key insight: Genesis 2:4a functions as a "redactional bridge" - a literary device that stitches together the later priestly creation account with an earlier non-priestly narrative. Five major Genesis commentaries published since 2020 confirm this scholarly consensus. For developers and technical writers, this offers valuable lessons in documentation versioning, legacy system integration, and how editorial choices shape user understanding of complex systems. **Practical Applications:** - Understanding how ancient editors solved integration challenges - Recognizing when harmonization attempts obscure rather than clarify - Appreciating sophisticated literary techniques in canonical texts Resources: [Society of Biblical Literature](https://sbl-site.org/), [Biblical Criticism & History Forum](https://example.com), [Ancient Near East Studies](https://example.com) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Develop workshop on textual criticism methodology for technical documentation - Developer experience: Create clear examples of how editorial choices affect user comprehension - Community management: Model good-faith engagement with opposing viewpoints in technical discussions #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Apply lessons about source integration to open source project mergers - Strategic Alignment: Use scholarly consensus models for evaluating competing technical approaches #### Community - Maintainers: Support transparent documentation of decision-making processes - Contributors: Encourage engagement with primary sources rather than secondary characterizations ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Apologetic harmonization attempts systematically misrepresent Hebrew linguistics to avoid theological contradictions - Direct engagement with primary scholarship produces more accurate understanding than pre-digested apologetic responses - Literary analysis reveals sophisticated ancient editorial techniques for source integration - Modern translation choices often prioritize theological consistency over linguistic accuracy ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of Hebrew lexical ranges vs. contextual usage patterns - Survey of recent Genesis commentaries to establish scholarly consensus - Examination of translation variations across different Bible versions ### ❓ Questions - How do other ancient Near Eastern texts handle integration of contradictory source materials? - What can modern technical writers learn from ancient editorial techniques? - How should religious communities balance scholarly findings with faith commitments? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comparative study of redactional techniques across biblical literature - Analysis of apologetic methodology in other religious traditions - Investigation of translation philosophy impacts on interpretation ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Technical documentation should acknowledge rather than obscure conflicting sources - Education: Primary source engagement essential for accurate understanding - Policy: Translation and interpretation decisions have significant downstream effects - Security: Misrepresentation of evidence undermines credibility and trust ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Graduate (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 14-16) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Hebrew text comparisons, commentary excerpts displayed - Improve: Timeline diagrams showing source development, manuscript family trees #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full audio lecture format with clear verbal explanations - Improve: 5-minute summary podcast, pronunciation guides for Hebrew terms #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive use of quotations, scholarly definitions, analogies to editing processes - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, story-driven explanations of redactional theory #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step analysis of Hebrew text, progressive revelation of evidence - Improve: Interactive Hebrew text comparison tools, hands-on translation exercises #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic presentation of evidence, chronological development of arguments - Improve: Decision trees for textual analysis, formal logic diagrams #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Response format engaging community discussion - Improve: Moderated debate formats, peer review opportunities #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Detailed individual analysis, extensive citations for further study - Improve: Self-paced learning modules, reflection questions #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Organic development of arguments, natural scholarly conversation flow - Improve: Ecosystem analogies for textual relationships, evolutionary models of text development ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive Hebrew term definitions - Improve: Alt text for Hebrew text images, ARIA labels for video timestamps #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video player controls, logical tab order - Improve: Chapter navigation, skip-to-content options #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast video interface, clear audio quality - Improve: Transcript formatting with better visual hierarchy #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive video player, scalable text in descriptions - Improve: Ensure transcript readability at 200% zoom #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript available, clear audio narration - Improve: Accurate timestamps, Hebrew pronunciation guides #### Forms and interactions - Present: Standard YouTube interaction elements - Improve: Accessible feedback mechanisms for scholarly discussion ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Engagement with international scholarship, multiple language traditions - Improve: More diverse scholarly voices, non-Western textual criticism approaches #### Inclusive language - Present: Respectful treatment of opposing viewpoints, defined technical terms - Improve: Plain language summaries, avoid academic elitism #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Systematic structure, clear logical progression - Improve: Content warnings for complex theological material, processing time allowances #### Representation - Present: Diverse scholarly citations across institutions and backgrounds - Improve: Highlight contributions of underrepresented scholars #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique of arguments rather than personal attacks - Improve: Clear community guidelines for theological disagreement ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Systematic analysis of Hebrew linguistics leads to specific conclusions about textual relationships - Inductive strength: Multiple recent commentaries support general pattern of scholarly consensus - Causal reasoning: Editorial decisions create observable textual phenomena - Analogical strength: Comparison between modern translation practices and ancient editorial techniques #### Fallacies - Straw man: Accurately represents opponent's arguments before refuting them - Appeal to authority: Appropriately cites scholarly expertise while providing evidence - Ad hominem: Focuses on arguments and methodology rather than personal character #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Scholarly but accessible, critical but respectful, confident in evidence while acknowledging uncertainties ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns identified - acknowledges complexity and uncertainties - Attack: Critiques methodology and claims rather than attacking individuals - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender dynamics present - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Professional academic tone, evidence-based arguments ## 🎯 Conclusion The attempted harmonization of Genesis creation accounts fails under scrutiny from Hebrew linguistics and contemporary biblical scholarship. Five --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Hey everybody, I stumbled across a video [00:02] on YouTube this week that was published [00:04] about a month ago by an apologetic [00:06] content creator who goes by the word [00:08] room. And this is about a 55minute video [00:11] that is a response to some comments of [00:15] mine that were made on Twitter. And this [00:18] content creator is trying to defend the [00:19] unity of the creation accounts of [00:21] Genesis 1 and 2 and is criticizing not [00:24] only my response on Twitter, but some [00:26] videos of mine where I go into a bit [00:28] more detail. And I just wanted to review [00:31] part of this. I can't go through the [00:33] entire 55minute video. I'm probably [00:35] going to go through about the first half [00:36] of it and maybe get to the other half [00:38] another time. But let's take a look. A [00:40] scholar who I think is more of an [00:42] activist than an exeet or a careful [00:45] reader just called me out on one of my [00:47] takes on Genesis 1 and 2. Does Dan [00:50] Mlen's response to me hold water? Let's [00:53] see. [00:54] >> All right, let's see it. [00:56] >> Now, this all started on X or Twitter. [00:58] Dan had actually retweeted something [01:01] from Answers in Genesis and then the [01:04] conversation flowed from there. So, I'm [01:06] going to pull up the conversation. I'm [01:07] going to show it here on screen and [01:09] we'll talk about what Dan said, what he [01:11] called me out on and we're going to dig [01:13] in to see if he's actually correct. Now, [01:15] here's the conversation. Dan retweeted [01:18] answers in Genesis where they said, "If [01:19] a claim contradicts the Bible, it is a [01:21] false claim." And Dan said, "That puts [01:24] us in a bit of a pickle because the [01:26] Bible contradicts the Bible." numerous [01:28] times. Now, I responded with a simple, [01:30] "No, it doesn't." And someone else [01:34] responded, "It doesn't make it past the [01:36] first two chapters, Genesis 1 and 2, [01:39] before it contradicts itself, citizen." [01:42] And that's where the conversation really [01:45] dived into Genesis. So, the next almost [01:48] five minutes of this video is actually [01:51] just reviewing things that this content [01:53] creator said to another person on [01:56] Twitter. So, I'm going to skip ahead to [01:58] a part where they make the meat of their [02:00] initial claim before we get to the [02:03] responses to my videos. First, you need [02:05] to understand the Bible wasn't written [02:06] in English. So, depending on the [02:08] translation you use when you read [02:10] Genesis 2:5, it's going to say that no [02:12] plant or herb of the field has grown on [02:14] the earth. But when it uses the word [02:16] earth, it's not using the word earth the [02:17] way we use it in English. We read the [02:20] word earth and we think of the planet. [02:21] But when that Hebrew word is used, it [02:24] just means land or ground. And it [02:25] doesn't mean the entire planet. So [02:27] Genesis 2 tells us that no plant or herb [02:29] of the field had grown in the land. What [02:31] land? Well, if you pay attention to the [02:33] context of the story in Genesis 2 and [02:35] what it's talking about, we see that [02:37] Genesis 2 is narrowing in on the land of [02:39] Eden and specifically focuses on that [02:41] land. And so then I said, and then when [02:43] you actually look at the wording here, [02:45] it doesn't just say no plant or herb, [02:47] but says specifically no plant or herb [02:50] of the field. The phrase of the field is [02:52] a Hebrew phrase that can speak of [02:54] cultivated crops. And then when you dig [02:56] deeper, it goes on to say, "For there [02:58] was no man to work the ground." So this [03:01] is a pretty standard apologetic approach [03:04] to trying to unify the two different [03:05] creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. [03:08] And the idea is to suggest that the [03:09] creation account in Genesis 2 is either [03:12] temporally focusing in on day six or [03:16] spatially focusing in on the Garden of [03:18] Eden. And this doesn't work for a number [03:20] of reasons, but this response really [03:22] only engages with one part of it. And it [03:25] asserts something that is just not true. [03:28] And particularly this paragraph here, we [03:30] read the word earth and we think of the [03:32] planet. But when that Hebrew word is [03:34] used, it just means land or ground and [03:37] it doesn't mean the entire planet. This [03:40] is only half true. The word can mean [03:43] land or ground or territory or region or [03:47] property or something like that. But it [03:49] can also mean the entire planet as it [03:52] does from Genesis 1:1 all the way [03:55] through to Genesis 2:4 as pretty much [03:59] all scholars agree. In fact, we can look [04:02] at the ESV, and you're not going to be [04:03] able to make out too much from this [04:05] image, but on the left, we have every [04:08] verse of Hebrew between Genesis 1:1 and [04:11] 25 that has the Hebrew word eritz, [04:14] earth. And then on the right, we have [04:16] the ESV. And every red box is going [04:19] around a place where the ESV rendered er [04:22] as Earth in reference to the entire [04:24] planet Earth. And then at the bottom, [04:26] you see two purple boxes. And that's [04:28] where suddenly [04:30] they change the rendering to land. Now, [04:33] there's nothing in the immediate context [04:35] that suggests or demands we suddenly [04:38] alter our understanding of the [04:41] particular use of the Hebrew word er. [04:44] The reason that the ESV and this content [04:47] creator want you to understand suddenly [04:50] for er to be meaning something else is [04:53] because [04:55] it creates a contradiction if it doesn't [04:57] because we're suddenly starting the [04:59] creation account all over again from the [05:02] beginning and that isn't allowed. So we [05:05] have to reinterpret to mean land or [05:09] territory or property or region or [05:12] something like that. Now when the word [05:14] er is meaning that usually there are [05:17] close contextual clues like it might [05:20] have a pronoun like this er or our er or [05:24] it might be in construct with the name [05:26] of a region or a people the er of habila [05:30] the er of kush or something like that [05:33] those are where it's clearly in [05:34] reference to a land or a region or a [05:36] territory or property but when we have [05:39] just the absolute use of er and nothing [05:42] in the context indicates it is focusing [05:45] in on a particular plot or portion of [05:48] the earth. Why not just understand it as [05:52] the earth? Again, the reason the ESV [05:55] doesn't understand it that way, the [05:57] reason this content creator doesn't want [05:58] to understand it that way is not because [06:00] the Hebrew doesn't mean that. It's [06:03] because that creates the contradiction [06:05] that they cannot tolerate. But let's [06:09] consider another part of the Genesis 2 [06:11] creation account that further [06:12] complicates the notion that this is [06:14] zeroing in on day six or zeroing in on [06:17] the Garden of Eden. What gets created in [06:20] Genesis 2:19? [06:22] Adoni Elohim creates from the dust of [06:24] the ground, every animal of the field, [06:28] and every bird of the sky. Kol [06:30] Hashimime. [06:32] Now, this is problematic because when [06:34] we're talking about every bird of the [06:36] sky, this is not limited to a specific [06:40] territory or subsection of the land. [06:43] Even if we want erat to mean that, [06:46] shamime clearly doesn't mean that. And [06:49] if we understand this to be focusing in [06:52] on day six or focusing in on [06:54] specifically the land of Eden, [06:58] saying that every bird of the sky was [07:01] created after the creation of the human, [07:04] the planting of the garden of Eden and [07:05] the putting of the human into the garden [07:07] of Eden creates a very clear [07:09] contradiction because it is in Genesis 1 [07:11] on day five that the birds of the sky o [07:16] hashamim are created. So according to [07:19] Genesis 2:19, every bird of the sky was [07:23] not created until after the creation of [07:25] the human, the planting of the Garden of [07:26] Eden, and the placing of the human in [07:28] the Garden of Eden. And this is where [07:30] you have translations like the ESV, like [07:32] the LSB, like the NIV that decide [07:36] they're just going to arbitrarily change [07:37] the wik tol at the beginning of Genesis [07:40] 21:19 and understand it as a pl perfect [07:42] and say now the Lord God had [07:45] formed every animal of the field from [07:48] the dust of the earth and every bird of [07:50] the sky. That way the actual creation of [07:53] those things is placed before all the [07:55] events that are being narrated in [07:56] Genesis 2. However, the wiktol is not [07:59] how you form a pl perfect perfect. It [08:02] only happens when close literary context [08:05] demands it. And in Genesis 21:19, there [08:09] is no such close literary context. The [08:11] academic cases that have been made for [08:14] reading it as a ploo perfect require you [08:17] understand Genesis 1 to be the close [08:20] literary context. In other words, it's [08:21] pretty circular reasoning. you already [08:23] have to imagine that Genesis 1 was [08:25] written by the same authors as Genesis 2 [08:28] in order for the argument to work and it [08:30] just doesn't work. Genesis 21:19 is not [08:33] beginning with a pl perfect perfect [08:34] verb. But that's really the only other [08:37] way to try to make sense of the fact [08:39] that according to Genesis 2:19, [08:41] every bird of the sky was created after [08:45] the creation of the human, the planting [08:48] of the Garden of Eden, the placement of [08:49] the human in the Garden of Eden. It [08:51] clearly contradicts. And so this notion [08:53] that the Hebrew of Genesis 2 4 through [08:57] whatever demands or indicates we have [09:00] zeroed in on day six or specifically on [09:04] the land of Eden doesn't work in light [09:07] of the rest of the Hebrew. It's just an [09:09] assertion. It's just something that [09:11] people made up because they realized [09:13] that conclusion was necessary to protect [09:17] the presupposition of univocality. [09:19] In the absence of the presupposition of [09:21] univocality and in light of the full set [09:25] of circumstances, the totality of the [09:28] data, it's very clear that Genesis 2 is [09:32] contradicting Genesis 1. But let's go [09:34] on. So the idea here is not talking [09:37] about all the plants in general, but [09:38] specifically cultivated crops that [09:40] require a person to work a field. And it [09:43] was saying that in in that particular [09:45] land of Eden, there was no one working [09:47] the field. So there was no cultivated [09:49] crops in the land. It is not retelling [09:51] about the general plants of the whole [09:53] earth from Genesis 1. So really I broke [09:56] down three important details. Number one [09:59] that it's talking about cultivated [10:01] crops. Now I want to point something [10:03] out. This content creator is going to [10:06] acknowledge that my point was correct [10:08] about the Hebrew because they argued [10:10] that the phrase of the field makes clear [10:13] this is a reference to cultivated crops [10:15] and that's simply not true. and they're [10:17] going to acknowledge that the Hebrew is [10:19] on my side here, but only in passing. [10:22] They're not actually going to say, "It [10:24] turns out Dan was right. I didn't [10:26] understand the Hebrew well enough." [10:28] They're going to glide right on into [10:29] another argument where they say that [10:32] when it talks about rain, that always [10:35] means covenant in the Hebrew Bible. And [10:37] so, what is the rain that has to do with [10:40] a covenant? Well, it's obviously going [10:42] to have to do with the Garden of Eden [10:44] and Adam and Eve. And so therefore, this [10:47] is a light motif that cues the hearer or [10:52] the reader to the fact that this is only [10:54] referring to rain that is relevant to [10:57] the Garden of Eden. So it's localized [10:59] and all this stuff. And as I've already [11:02] pointed out, that doesn't really work in [11:05] light of the totality of the [11:07] circumstances. But I just want to play [11:09] that portion where this content creator [11:11] acknowledges that I was right, that the [11:13] Hebrews on my side here, but then just [11:16] pivots right into this other argument. [11:21] And I want to go back to uh verse 5. No [11:24] plant of the field was yet in the earth. [11:26] The word there for plant is seak, which [11:28] can mean a bush or a shrub, but is used [11:31] to refer to wild vegetation. And no [11:34] vegetation of the field had yet sprung [11:36] up. This is ASV and and that refers to [11:38] grass or plants. This is usually [11:41] cultivated vegetation. So what we've got [11:43] going on here is an explanation that on [11:46] the whole earth there was neither wild [11:48] nor cultivated vegetation. Why? Because [11:51] there was no rain, which is how we get [11:53] wild vegetation. And there was no human [11:55] to work or till the earth, which is how [11:58] we get cultivated vegetation. So Genesis [12:01] 2 is actually somewhat of a merorism. [12:04] It's describing vegetation that grows [12:07] wild and vegetation that requires [12:10] cultivation. And it says there was [12:12] neither of either type on the entire [12:15] earth. And that is widely agreed by the [12:19] overwhelming majority of scholars to [12:22] indicate there was no vegetation of any [12:25] kind until after the human had been [12:28] created. So suggesting that it's all [12:31] reducible down to one concept of only [12:34] cultivated vegetation not only entirely [12:37] gets the Hebrew wrong and entirely [12:39] ignores half of the description of [12:42] what's going on here in this verse, but [12:45] it also ignores the part of the video [12:47] where I quite explicitly and clearly [12:50] drew that distinction. All right, so Dan [12:52] is right about basic lexical ranges. SAK [12:56] does refer to wild shrubs or low [12:59] vegetation and it's often associated [13:02] with uncultivated or aid environments. [13:06] As refers broadly to vegetation, grasses [13:09] or plants used for food, whether [13:11] cultivated or naturally occurring. Where [13:13] Dan goes wrong is treating lexical range [13:16] as determinative of referential scope. [13:19] Lexicons tell you what a word can mean, [13:22] not what it must mean in a given [13:24] discourse unit. And this is one of Dan's [13:26] biggest problems in a lot of his points [13:28] on different topics. He isolates the [13:30] point in the narrative scope, but [13:33] ignores the larger narrative scope. You [13:35] see, Genesis 2:5 does not just list two [13:39] different plant types. It embeds them in [13:41] a structured causal explanation that we [13:44] need to look at. The verse limits the [13:46] vegetation in view by two things. no [13:49] rain from Yahweh God and no human to [13:52] work the ground. Now, Dan does a couple [13:54] things here. First, he treats the causal [13:56] explanations or clauses here as global [14:00] explanatory mechanisms, but the text [14:03] does not require that. As a matter of [14:05] fact, when we talk about rain, rain in [14:07] the Hebrew Bible is not a global [14:10] meteorological [14:11] abstraction. It is covenantally and [14:14] agriculturally local. So, this is where [14:17] this content creator gets into this [14:18] whole reign means covenant means the [14:20] narrative is localized in scope to the [14:23] land of Eden. But I bring this up to [14:26] point out that this content creator has [14:29] to acknowledge that the Hebrew here does [14:33] refer to land that is arid, that is [14:36] uncultivated, that is uninhabited, that [14:38] is uninhabitable, that is deserted. it [14:41] doesn't mean cultivated land because of [14:44] the phrase of the field. Now, they just [14:47] pivot right into saying, "But this [14:49] ignores the broader context." And then [14:51] we get the silly rain means covenant [14:53] argument. But the comment that this [14:56] content creator posted on Twitter was [14:58] precisely that it is the phrase of the [15:00] field that indicates this. Here's what [15:02] they said. And then when you actually [15:04] look at the wording here, it doesn't [15:06] just say no plant or herb, but says [15:08] specifically no plant or herb of the [15:10] field. The phrase of the field is a [15:13] Hebrew phrase that can speak of [15:15] cultivated crops. And then when you dig [15:17] deeper, it goes on to say that there was [15:19] no man to work the ground. Now, this has [15:22] already all been addressed and this [15:24] content creator misrepresented what's [15:27] going on in the Hebrew in this comment, [15:28] which is precisely why I said you [15:29] clearly don't know Hebrew and nothing in [15:32] this video has indicated yet that this [15:33] content creator has a competent grasp of [15:36] Hebrew because all they've done here is [15:38] acknowledge that the Hebrew agrees with [15:40] me and then without acknowledging that [15:43] they were wrong in their initial comment [15:46] pivoted straight to but rain means [15:48] covenant and Dan doesn't know this. So, [15:51] we're not actually engaging my concerns, [15:54] and we don't seem to be engaging in good [15:56] faith either. [15:57] >> These are the generations of the heavens [15:59] and the earth when they were created in [16:01] the day that the Lord God made the earth [16:03] and the heavens. [16:04] >> So, I'm going to pause here and point [16:06] out that the ESV treats all of verse 4 [16:09] as a single sentence. However, I and [16:11] many other scholars think that the [16:14] second half of verse 4 is its own [16:16] sentence and that sentence runs through [16:20] verses 5 and six and doesn't conclude [16:23] until verse 7. It's a temporal clause. [16:26] And what we have in verses 5, 6, and 7 [16:30] are the rest of the temporal clause and [16:32] the main clause of the sentence. The ESV [16:34] doesn't like that. So, I just want to [16:36] point out that what you're reading here [16:38] is not exactly how most critical [16:41] scholars are going to read what's going [16:43] on in the Hebrew. So, Dan is correct [16:45] that a lot of scholars read 24B, the [16:50] second half of verse 4 all the way to [16:53] verse 7 as a complex sentence with a [16:57] temporal clause. What Dan doesn't really [16:59] go into detail here is that this is [17:02] related to a belief in what's called the [17:05] documentary hypothesis. So the [17:07] documentary hypothesis basically is just [17:09] a hypothesis that the pentatuk the five [17:12] books that we call the books of Moses [17:14] the Torah that those five books are not [17:17] the work of a single author but rather [17:19] that it is a literary compilation of [17:22] multiple sources. Specifically, most [17:25] argue for four. Some have changed that [17:28] to down to less than four, but the [17:32] general hypothesis is that there are [17:34] four sources and that a later editor [17:37] came and over time they were stitched [17:40] together as these multiple sources. So, [17:43] this is not entirely accurate. And this [17:45] is where this content creator betrays [17:47] that they're not nearly as well informed [17:49] about the critical scholarship as they [17:50] would like their audience to believe. [17:52] because the documentary hypothesis has [17:55] certainly long been the dominant source [17:59] critical theory of penetukal [18:00] composition. [18:02] However, it is not all source critical [18:06] theories of penetukal composition. There [18:08] are others and it's no longer the [18:10] dominant position. And so just because a [18:14] theory involves Jed D and P or maybe [18:17] just DP and nonP or some other [18:19] combination of sources doesn't make it [18:22] the documentary hypothesis. There are [18:24] other hypotheses out there. But [18:27] apologists usually get pre-digested [18:33] caricatures of critical scholarship fed [18:36] to them along with the antidote, the way [18:40] to undermine or criticize the critical [18:43] scholarship. And so when apologists [18:46] treat any source critical theories of [18:49] penetukal composition as the documentary [18:52] hypothesis, no matter the configuration [18:54] of sources and their nature and all of [18:57] that kind of stuff, that's usually a [18:58] dead giveaway that they're not actually [19:00] reading the critical scholarship. [19:02] They're not directly exposing themselves [19:04] to what's actually going on in the [19:06] source criticism of the Penetuk. They [19:08] are getting secondhand reports through [19:11] other apologists. what's going on in a [19:14] way that allows them to immediately try [19:17] to undermine it. So, uh, that gives away [19:20] that this content creator is not [19:22] directly engaging the actual critical [19:24] scholarship. [19:27] The Hebrew word for generation is [19:30] tooteote. And there's a phrase that [19:32] appears consistently throughout the book [19:34] of Genesis and is these are the [19:36] generations of and we call this a [19:39] toodote structure. these are the [19:40] generations of and then it lists out the [19:43] generations. It actually divides up the [19:45] book of Genesis. [19:46] >> Now, I'm going to skip over a lot of [19:48] background information that is not [19:50] relevant to the actual argument here. [19:52] The only other time this word is used in [19:55] Genesis that I haven't mentioned here is [19:56] in Genesis 2:4 [20:00] where it says the generations of the [20:03] heavens and the earth or the generations [20:05] of when they were made. So you have the [20:07] heavens and the earth, specifically them [20:09] being created, the days they were [20:11] created or the day they were created. [20:13] And we see here that it's using that [20:16] same tool. Every other time in the book [20:19] of Genesis when it's used, it tells us [20:21] what comes next. But Dan wants us to [20:24] believe and those who hold to the [20:25] documentary hypothesis and split these [20:27] up as two different accounts wants us to [20:29] believe that the generations of in [20:32] Genesis 2:4 is actually the end of the [20:35] story and not telling us what comes [20:37] next. So most of what this content [20:40] creator is saying about the toladope [20:42] formula is pretty accurate. However, in [20:45] absolutely no sense whatsoever does it [20:47] undermine the critical scholarly [20:50] consensus about the priestly creation [20:52] account being a later and different [20:55] creation account from the earlier [20:57] nonpcreation account. The tool formula [21:00] doesn't complicate that at all. Nor does [21:02] the kayazm which we're going to get into [21:05] a little more detail about later. But I [21:08] want to point out that there is one area [21:11] of disagreement regarding how Genesis [21:13] 2:4A as a toadote formula fits into the [21:18] different compositions of these [21:19] different creation accounts. When I say [21:21] that uh Genesis 1:1 through 24A is the [21:24] priestly account, I'm understanding [21:27] Genesis 2:4A as a toadote formula [21:30] written by the priestly author of the [21:33] priestly creation account that is [21:35] intended to provide a transition into [21:38] what comes after the earlier creation [21:41] account. It's part of the weaving of the [21:44] two stories together. Now, there are a [21:46] lot of other scholars who acknowledge [21:48] that the priestly creation account is [21:49] distinct from the non-priestly creation [21:51] account who argue that Genesis 2:4A [21:54] comes from a later separate redactional [21:57] phase. In other words, the priestly [21:59] creation account was written and then [22:00] someone later on was like, we're going [22:02] to stitch them together and we're going [22:03] to use the priestly toadote formula to [22:06] do it. And so came in and wrote Genesis [22:08] 2:4A. [22:10] I'm actually not mad at that theory. I [22:12] think that theory makes sense as well. [22:16] Neither of them is complicated by the [22:18] observation that we have a toadote [22:20] formula going on here. So let's take a [22:23] look at five commentaries on the book of [22:26] Genesis published over the last 6 years [22:28] and see what critical scholars have been [22:30] saying about this. You'll notice that [22:34] this content creator doesn't seem aware [22:36] of any of this at all. We're going to [22:38] start with David Peterson's Old [22:40] Testament Library Volume on Genesis, [22:42] which I believe was published in either [22:45] 2024 or 2025. It's the most recent of [22:47] the five that I'm going to look at. And [22:49] the reference to the tool formula here [22:51] is pretty brief, but don't worry, we're [22:53] going to get into a lot more detail [22:54] later. So, we're in Genesis 2:4A. This [22:58] half verse was introduced as a [23:01] transition between the priestly and pre [23:05] priestly accounts of creation and as an [23:07] introduction to the latter. The [23:10] so-called toadote formula toadote means [23:13] descendants or successors appears 11 [23:15] times in the book of Genesis, five times [23:17] in the primeval history and five times [23:19] in the family literature and once in the [23:21] Joseph story. In all instances, the [23:23] formula stands immediately before the [23:25] material it introduces. For example, the [23:27] descendants of Ishmael are listed [23:29] immediately after the formula. These are [23:31] the descendants of Ishmael. Hence, [23:33] readers should construe 24A as an [23:35] introduction to what follows, [23:37] identifying those descendants as [23:39] humanity. Humans are, in this editor's [23:42] eyes, the progeny of the heavens and the [23:45] earth. A claim that is not out of line [23:47] with the pre priestly account of [23:49] humanity's creation since humans are [23:51] created out of earth. In other words, [23:54] yes, this tool formula is added in order [23:57] to introduce the pre priestly creation [24:00] account, but it was added after the [24:02] composition of the later priestly [24:04] creation account, either by a later [24:07] redactor or by somebody involved in the [24:09] composition of that priestly account. I [24:11] think Peterson would probably side with [24:13] the later redactor [24:15] argument. But then let's take a look at [24:18] a 2024 commentary, Genesis 1-11 by Ron [24:22] Hendel from the Anchor Yale Bible [24:23] commentary series. Here's what Hendle [24:25] had to say. So, notes to four. This is [24:28] the genealogy of heaven and earth when [24:31] they were created. This half verse is a [24:33] literary bridge contributed by R that [24:36] would be redactor who combined the J and [24:39] P sources. The problem R faced was how [24:42] to combine the precation account of 1 [24:44] through 23 with the J crereation account [24:46] that begins at 24B. [24:49] The solution was to link them by a [24:50] genealogical formula derived from 51. [24:53] This is the book of Adam's genealogy. [24:56] The formula, this is the genealogy of X, [24:58] serves as a structuring principle in P's [25:01] work. In this verse, R extends the [25:04] genealological idiom to include the [25:06] genealogy in an abstract sense of the [25:08] creation of heaven and earth in 1 [25:11] through 23. It looks backward at the [25:14] totality of creation and forward with [25:16] its temporal formula to what happens [25:18] next. By this strategy, the differences [25:20] between the two creation stories are [25:22] somewhat bridged, and the second story [25:24] is made subordinate to the first. The [25:27] listing of heaven and earth as if they [25:29] were cosmic parents may be derived from [25:31] cosmogonic language in which heaven and [25:33] earth did have offspring but here is [25:35] adapted to the context. This connective [25:38] bridge shows how the social idiom of [25:40] genealological descent was used to [25:42] conceptualize the past. The noun tolot [25:45] descendants genealogy spelled here plain [25:47] a tolot found only in the plural is [25:50] derived from the verb holid to beget to [25:53] father. By the rule of patrineal [25:55] descent, all of a man's descendants are [25:57] his offspring like the children of [25:59] Jacob. So toadote can denote one or many [26:01] generations of descendants. The usage [26:03] here is more abstract as if history [26:06] descends from the creation of heaven and [26:09] earth. Then we've got a 2023 commentary [26:12] on Genesis 1-11 by Yan Christian Gertz [26:15] from the historical commentary on the [26:17] Old Testament series published by I'm [26:19] pretty sure Peters. Uh this is pretty [26:22] brief. The connection of the priestly [26:23] creation account with the scholarly [26:25] narrator's garden narrative, that's uh [26:28] Gitz's way to refer to what other people [26:30] refer to as the J account, occurred [26:33] through the redactional tool formula in [26:36] Genesis 24A, taking up the most [26:39] important structural feature of the [26:40] priestly writing and transferring it [26:42] into the present text. Other [26:44] formulations reminiscent of the priestly [26:46] creation account likely come from the [26:48] same redaction or later harmonizing [26:50] efforts. These include the expansion of [26:52] the tetetrogrammaton to Adonai Goddard [26:54] and presumably the two-part addition to [26:56] include all the livestock and lol or mik [27:02] haba in Genesis 2:20 3:14. Then let's [27:07] take a look at David Carr's [27:09] international exegetical commentary on [27:11] the Old Testament of Genesis 1-11 and I [27:14] believe this comes from 2021 [27:18] uh published by Cole Hammer. This is [27:20] going to be the longest and the most [27:21] detailed. We've got uh the start at the [27:24] bottom of this page, Genesis 2:4A, as a [27:27] conflational superscription. [27:29] The unit covered here, Genesis 24b [27:32] through 3:24 represents a [27:34] superscription, Genesis 2:4A, and first [27:37] major narrative complex, Genesis 24b [27:40] through 3:24, of a section focused on [27:43] the generations of heaven and earth when [27:46] they were created. Though there has been [27:48] a recent trend to read Genesis 2:4 as a [27:50] whole, as a superscription, it features [27:53] an overall doubling 2 4a and 24b that is [27:56] unusual for a biblical superscription. [27:58] And the verse features a move from [28:00] determined heaven and earth and 24A. [28:03] That means they have the definite [28:05] article to undetermined heaven and earth [28:08] in 24b. That would be unusual in a [28:11] single textual unit. In addition, if [28:14] Genesis 2:4 as a whole were a [28:16] superscription, the text that it would [28:18] introduce happens to begin with a [28:20] conjunction [28:23] and all the shrubs. Genesis 2:5. Most [28:27] biblical superscriptions, including all [28:29] such superscriptions in Genesis 51, 69, [28:32] 101, 372, are followed asetically by a [28:37] clause without a conjunction. These [28:39] indicators suggest that 24A is the [28:41] actual superscription within the present [28:43] form of the text. While 24B, the asyetic [28:46] follow-up to 24A, is the beginning of [28:48] the material introduced by that [28:50] superscription. To be sure, the [28:52] superscription in 24A is bound to the [28:54] material it introduces in 24B by inverse [28:58] parallels after its introduction, ele [29:02] 4a. And so this is the kayazm thing that [29:05] this content creator is going to refer [29:06] to a little later down the road. But as [29:09] they've pointed out, the fact that it is [29:12] uh ha shamim vaha in 24a, but is just [29:16] eritz vamime and 24b would be unusual [29:19] for a single sense unit. The fact that [29:22] it's going from determined to [29:24] undetermined and it's also switching the [29:26] order and it's also using different [29:28] verbs for create. There are a bunch of [29:30] reasons that 24A and 24B don't fit [29:34] comfortably together as a single sense [29:36] unit composed by a single author. So the [29:40] kayazm thing really just indicates the [29:43] toladope formula is intentionally being [29:46] stitched into Genesis 24b rather than [29:49] indicative of a single unified [29:52] composition. That is actually not very [29:54] likely at all. In this way, the [29:57] superscription in Genesis 2 4a connects [29:59] to the beginning of the narrative in 24B [30:01] with an A B C prime B prime A prime [30:04] pattern. This makes 24A introduce the [30:07] following narrative in Genesis 2 through [30:09] 3 rather than functioning as a [30:10] superscription summarizing Genesis 1:1 [30:13] through 23. We see a system of similar [30:17] priestly toadote descendants [30:19] superscriptions introducing the other [30:20] major sections of the book of Genesis. [30:22] Genesis 51, 69, 10:1, 11:10, etc. And [30:26] this one seems to serve an analogous [30:28] function. Those other superscriptions [30:30] frame the sections that follow them as [30:32] focusing on the descendants toadote of a [30:34] given figure starting with Adam in [30:36] Genesis 5:1 and then continuing with the [30:38] descendants of Noah, Noah's sons, and so [30:40] on. The reference back to heaven and [30:43] earth when they were created helps [30:45] Genesis 2:4A connect what went before [30:47] Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 to what follows [30:51] 2 4B and following. More specifically, [30:54] Genesis 2:4A frames the following [30:56] narratives about the first humans as [30:58] about something like the generations to [31:01] do understood more broadly of the heaven [31:03] and earth that were so prominently [31:05] featured in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. At [31:08] the same time, the fact that one must [31:10] adapt the translation of toodote in 24A [31:14] away from its typical more [31:16] straightforward designation of the [31:18] descendants of a human figure is an [31:19] important indicator that Genesis 24A is [31:21] not itself part of the priestly system [31:24] of toodote superscriptions. Instead, [31:27] Genesis 24A is a post-p priestly [31:29] superscription that extends that system [31:31] backward in order to pose the non- [31:33] priestly materials of Genesis 24B and [31:35] following as a continuation of the [31:38] priestly creation account in Genesis [31:40] 1:1-23. [31:41] The author of Genesis 24A did this by [31:44] presenting the following story about the [31:46] first humans created from the ground and [31:48] animated by divine breath as somehow [31:51] constituting the descendants broadly [31:53] construed eg generations of God's 7-day [31:57] creation of the cosmos in Genesis [31:59] 1:1-23. The resulting implication that [32:02] heaven and earth functioned as [32:04] ancestor-like figures to the first [32:05] plants, animals, and humans is a [32:07] linguistic turn that recognizes the role [32:10] attributed to earth in bringing forth [32:12] life. Genesis 11-12 24 also Genesis 2:7 [32:16] and 19 while also insisting on the idea [32:18] that these two entities are themselves [32:21] created. And then we have the use of the [32:24] verbal root bar in 24A when they were [32:28] created. And then we can go to Bill [32:30] Arnold's 2020 New Cambridge Bible [32:33] commentary volume on Genesis. Starts at [32:35] the bottom here. The expression in 24A, [32:38] these are the generations of toladote, [32:40] the heavens and the earth is the first [32:42] of the todote clauses of Genesis and is [32:44] the only one introducing the generations [32:47] of an object heavens and earth rather [32:50] than a personal name. Thus, verse 4A [32:54] introduces the epic narrative of the [32:56] Garden of Eden and binds it to the [32:58] creation story of Genesis 1, creating a [33:00] layered and complex perception of [33:02] creation. As summarized in the [33:04] introduction, we have reason to believe [33:05] the toadote of 24 was created new by the [33:08] author of 1-23 based on the older model [33:12] of 51, which probably preserves the [33:14] original use of generations. The purpose [33:17] for 24A was to tie the new priestly [33:21] account of creation to the older account [33:23] of 24b through 324, which presumably by [33:26] that time wielded impressive authority. [33:28] Thus, the older authoritative epic [33:30] account of human origins has been [33:32] absorbed and supplemented by the more [33:34] comprehensive priestly account of [33:36] Genesis 1. It has occasionally been [33:37] assumed that the toladote clause on 24A [33:40] is a summary of the acts of creation in [33:42] 1-23 and was an original part of a [33:45] priestly document. If so, the verse and [33:48] chapter divisions are better fixed at 1 [33:51] through 24A. However, there is good [33:54] reason to believe the toodote clauses [33:55] were independent of the priestly [33:57] document as I have explained in the [33:59] introduction and that 24 introduces the [34:01] next block of material so that the unit [34:03] division used here is to be preferred. [34:05] This approach is also instructive for [34:07] our understanding of how these two [34:08] creation accounts are functioning [34:10] together. While some earlier source [34:12] approaches tended to dissect and atomize [34:14] the texts, an understanding of 24A as an [34:16] intentional link between Genesis 1 and [34:18] Genesis 2:3 teaches us how these [34:20] accounts of creation were intended to [34:22] sound together. The editor of the final [34:24] text has produced a continuity between [34:27] them, adapting and adopting the [34:28] authority of the older document and [34:30] creating a new text that is greater than [34:32] the sum of its parts. They may have come [34:34] from different authors originally, but [34:36] Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 through3 have [34:38] been edited together in such an [34:40] intentional way as to produce a [34:42] binocular or synoptic view of creation. [34:46] Genesis 2 through3 now takes a second [34:49] look. So these are five of the leading [34:53] commentaries of Genesis that have been [34:56] published not just in the last six [34:58] years. I'm not aware of a similar [35:00] commentary on Genesis being published in [35:02] like the last 10 or 15 years, but they [35:05] all agree that the priestly account of [35:08] creation is a secondary later [35:11] independent account that was tied to [35:16] the earlier non-priestly account of [35:18] Genesis 24b through to the end of [35:20] Genesis 3 through the toadote formula of [35:23] Genesis 2 4a. content creator is not [35:26] engaging any of that. They're engaging [35:28] the conclusion that the toadote formula [35:31] of 24A was simply the way that the uh [35:34] author of the priestly account tied off [35:36] their creation account without concern [35:38] for its integration into what followed. [35:42] And while that is a theory that some of [35:44] these authors have said was out there, [35:46] that's really not where the consensus is [35:49] these days. The consensus is a little [35:52] more towards understanding 24A as a [35:54] later redactional [35:56] stitch that brings the priestly creation [35:59] account together with the earlier [36:01] non-priestly creation account. Either [36:03] way, they're still two separate accounts [36:05] according to the majority of scholars, [36:07] according to the most authoritative and [36:11] most recent scholarly literature that [36:13] addresses the question. This content [36:16] creator is not aware of any of that [36:18] because I don't get the sense that [36:20] they're actually directly exposed to [36:22] critical scholarship. It seems to me [36:24] they're being exposed to apologetic [36:26] predigestions of the critical [36:29] scholarship which overwhelmingly [36:31] misunderstand andor misrepresent it. But [36:34] there's another point here. I said it [36:35] wasn't just the toadote. It was also the [36:38] kayazm. [36:41] So what is a kayazm? A kayazm is a [36:44] literary device that involves repeating [36:46] grammatical structures or phrases in [36:50] reverse order. It's also known as [36:53] inverted parallelism or some people call [36:55] it an abba structure. And we have this [36:58] pattern in verse 4. Let's look at that [37:02] again. It says, "These are the [37:04] generations of the heavens and the earth [37:06] when they were created in the day that [37:08] the Lord God made the earth and the [37:11] heavens." So you have your toadote. [37:13] These are the generations of and then [37:15] you have the kayazm the heavens and the [37:18] earth. That's A. When they were created, [37:21] that's B. In the day the Lord God made. [37:24] That's B. Again, it's talking about [37:25] being created, right? So you have A, [37:27] heavens and earth. When they were [37:28] created in the day God made them, [37:30] talking about being created, the earth [37:32] and the heavens, heavens and earth. The [37:34] A parallels the last statement which is [37:37] also mirroring the A. Earth and the [37:39] heavens. And the middle two phrases [37:43] parallel each other, the B and the B. [37:45] The middle phrase, the first middle [37:47] phrase, when they were created. The [37:49] second one, in the day the Lord God [37:51] made. So you have this parallel of [37:53] heavens and earth created made earth and [37:55] heavens. That is a clear kayastic [37:58] structure. These are intended to go [38:01] together. It was intentionally put [38:03] together in a structure that creates the [38:06] parallelism. Now, is it possible that [38:09] these are two different lines from [38:12] unrelated contradicting sources and the [38:15] editor to just put them together to make [38:16] the pattern? Technically, yes, that's [38:18] possible. But what is more likely? Was [38:21] it more likely that this with that [38:23] toadote structure was intentionally [38:26] written together to form the pattern? or [38:29] an editor just found these two sources [38:31] that happen to have two different lines [38:34] that perfectly mirrored each other to [38:37] the point that there's even a strange [38:38] way of saying heavens and the earth [38:41] because the first part of verse four [38:42] says heavens and earth while the second [38:45] part reverses it and says earth and [38:47] heavens and that's not usually the way [38:51] that heavens and earth are spoken of. [38:53] >> Uh not usually but it does occur [38:55] elsewhere. I think it occurs once in a [38:57] psalm. But what this content creator is [38:59] overlooking is the fact that those [39:01] aren't the only two options. It's not [39:04] either Genesis 24A and 24B were composed [39:07] at one time by one author or they both [39:10] pre-existed and an editor just went [39:12] jackpot and stuck them together. As [39:15] we've shown with those five recent [39:18] commentaries on Genesis, the [39:20] overwhelming majority of scholars agree [39:22] that Genesis 24A was composed with [39:25] Genesis 24B in mind and in an effort to [39:29] stitch the priestly creation account to [39:32] the earlier non- priestly creation [39:33] account. Now whether that was by the [39:35] author of the priestly creation account [39:37] or by a later redactor who is not part [39:39] of the same school, that's what's up in [39:42] the air. And again, I still kind of like [39:45] the idea that it was the author of the [39:47] priestly creation account, but I'm very [39:50] much open to the other conclusion as [39:52] well. So, this content creator is not [39:54] addressing that. But additionally, when [39:56] they bring up the whole kayazm argument, [39:59] they've not addressed the fact that uh [40:01] the hashamime [40:04] is also using the definite articles just [40:07] as Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3 does. [40:11] Whereas eritzvime doesn't use the [40:14] definite article. And again, the verbal [40:17] roots that are used between the two are [40:20] different. And the names for God that [40:22] are used are different. And so Genesis 2 [40:25] 4a and Genesis 24B are very, very [40:28] different. It's not just oo look kayazm. [40:30] It's also the literary qualities of one [40:34] are entirely distinct from the literary [40:36] qualities of the other. and the literary [40:38] qualities of the other are consistent [40:40] with the rest of the creation account [40:43] that runs from Genesis 2:5 through to [40:46] the end of Genesis 3. And again, Genesis [40:51] 25:5 would have to begin with [40:55] the Cole Seak, which is not how the tool [40:58] formula introduces the narrative. [41:02] Genesis 2:5 is definitely carrying on a [41:06] sentence that was begun in Genesis 24b. [41:09] So when you consider the Hebrew and the [41:12] critical scholarship, this content [41:14] creator is not really addressing the [41:16] issue and is not making a compelling [41:18] case that the critical scholarship is up [41:21] in the night and doesn't really know [41:23] what it's talking about. What this [41:24] content creator is demonstrating is that [41:27] they're not actually directly engaging [41:29] or even directly aware of what's going [41:31] on in the critical scholarship. They are [41:33] aware of again a pre-digested apologetic [41:38] caricature [41:39] of the critical scholarship. That's what [41:42] they're engaging. And it just doesn't [41:45] work when you take everything into [41:47] consideration. Now, whether or not this [41:49] content creator makes another video [41:50] where they go into the problem of every [41:53] bird of the skies or not, uh, I don't [41:56] get the sense that they're going to [41:58] engage in good faith. I don't get the [42:01] sense that they're going to directly [42:02] engage the concerns, much less directly [42:04] engage the critical scholarship. I get [42:06] the sense that they're going to parry [42:09] and deflect and evade, which is kind of [42:11] what they've done in this video to some [42:13] degree. uh but more than anything have [42:15] just exposed their lack of awareness of [42:17] what's actually going on in the critical [42:19] scholarship. So I don't anticipate [42:22] having to respond again to this content [42:24] creator unless they actually do figure [42:27] out what's going on in the critical [42:28] scholarship and competently engage the [42:31] arguments that I've presented from those [42:33] five commentaries and the other [42:34] arguments that I've presented in those [42:36] previous videos as well as in this [42:38] video. So we shall see. And the fit for [42:41] this video has been Wolverine.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/An Attempt to Harmonize the Creation Accounts|An Attempt to Harmonize the Creation Accounts, YouTube]] ## Highlights - where it says the generations of the heavens and the earth or the generations of when they were made. So you have the heavens and the earth, specifically them being created, the days they were created or the day they were created. And we see here that it's using that same tool. Every other time in the book of Genesis when it's used, it tells us what comes next. But Dan wants us to believe and those who hold to the documentary hypothesis and split these up as two different accounts wants us to believe that the generations of in ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmds65j92b4f40sd2x2jpjnw)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - written by the priestly author of the priestly creation account that is intended to provide a transition into what comes after the earlier creation account. It's part of the weaving of the two stories together. Now, there are a lot of other scholars who acknowledge that the priestly creation account is distinct from the non-priestly creation account who argue that Genesis 2:4A comes from a later separate redactional phase. In other words, the priestly creation account was written and then ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmds65mfe29qcfh9fmwtfp7h)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - determined heaven and earth and 24A. That means they have the definite article to undetermined heaven and earth in 24b. That would be unusual in a single textual unit. In addition, if Genesis 2:4 as a whole were a superscription, the text that it would introduce happens to begin with a conjunction and all the shrubs. Genesis 2:5. Most biblical superscriptions, including all such superscriptions in Genesis 51, 69, ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmds65rz3ehvfcf0dcv78vz2)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - do understood more broadly of the heaven and earth that were so prominently featured in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. At the same time, the fact that one must adapt the translation of toodote in 24A away from its typical more straightforward designation of the descendants of a human figure is an important indicator that Genesis 24A is not itself part of the priestly system of toodote superscriptions. Instead, Genesis 24A is a post-p priestly superscription that extends that system ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmds65xy2fbww23mqd7jhtbc)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - Arnold's 2020 New Cambridge Bible commentary volume on Genesis. Starts at the bottom here. The expression in 24A, these are the generations of toladote, the heavens and the earth is the first of the todote clauses of Genesis and is the only one introducing the generations of an object heavens and earth rather than a personal name. Thus, verse 4A introduces the epic narrative of the Garden of Eden and binds it to the creation story of Genesis 1, creating a ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmds660rp2xtewwt4gdaxwf9)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - next block of material so that the unit division used here is to be preferred. This approach is also instructive for our understanding of how these two creation accounts are functioning together. While some earlier source approaches tended to dissect and atomize the texts, an understanding of 24A as an intentional link between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:3 teaches us how these accounts of creation were intended to sound together. The editor of the final text has produced a continuity between them, adapting and adopting the authority of the older document and ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmds669gg43eze1fsrfzr3pn)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - commentary on Genesis being published in like the last 10 or 15 years, but they all agree that the priestly account of creation is a secondary later independent account that was tied to the earlier non-priestly account of Genesis 24b through to the end of Genesis 3 through the toadote formula of Genesis 2 4a. content creator is not engaging any of that. They're engaging the conclusion that the toadote formula ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmds66fjthqqbsc7pf3m80wm)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - Genesis 2:5 is definitely carrying on a sentence that was begun in Genesis 24b. So when you consider the Hebrew and the critical scholarship, this content creator is not really addressing the issue and is not making a compelling case that the critical scholarship is up in the night and doesn't really know what it's talking about. What this content creator is demonstrating is that they're not actually directly engaging or even directly aware of what's going ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmds66krg36mkb129j1ja907)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted