An article appeared in the November 20, 2005 edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram entitled, “Putting the Right Labels on the Bible.” It was written by Marc Zvi Brettler, Chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University. You may read the article yourself at www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13211165.htm.

The Professor’s Claims

In the article Professor Brettler attempts to give reasons why Bible students should not view the early chapters of Genesis (specifically, the creation account in chapters 1 and 2) as historically accurate. After stating, “Most biblical scholars [including himself, EP] would call the initial chapters of Genesis a myth,” Brettler affirms that “there are strong indications that the initial stories in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament should not be taken literally.”

To bolster his claim of a non-historical Genesis account, Brettler offers the following:

The Bible disagrees with itself about how the world was created, offering in Genesis 1-3 conflicting accounts. In Genesis 1, man and woman are created together, after the land animals; in Genesis 2:18-23, man (Adam) is created first, then the land animals, then woman (Eve).

Which is it? This contradictory picture is a most unscientific way of depicting the world, suggesting that Genesis 1-3 should not be read as science.

There are other significant differences. For example, in Genesis 1, everything, including humanity, is created by the divine word of a majestic God. In the second and third chapters, a much more anthropomorphic God creates in a highly physical, human-like fashion -- for example, forming man "from the dust of the earth" and blowing "into his nostrils the breath of life."

I believe that ancients reading these two juxtaposed creation stories would have seen these contradictions and differences and would have read the first chapters of Genesis as something other than science or natural history.

Answering the Claims

Does the Professor make a valid point regarding “conflicting accounts” of creation? Or has he merely professed himself to be a fool (cf. Rom. 1:22) by not considering the totality of the evidence?

First, Brettler assumes that Genesis 2 was intended to be a chronological account of the creation in the same vein as chapter one. Such an assumption is without warrant. Genesis 1 is clearly chronological (day one is followed by day two, etc.). Genesis 2 serves another purpose—namely, to bring the focus of the book squarely upon man, the crown of God’s creative work. This it does by supplementing, not contradicting, the first chapter.

What of Brettler’s claim that Genesis 2:19 changes the order of creation from (1) animals, (2) man and (3) woman to (1) man, (2) animals and (3) woman? Is this a contradiction? In truth, Moses is not giving a chronological recitation of the creation in Genesis 2:19. The text does not state that God created Adam, then formed the beasts of the field at that moment. It simply affirms that God was responsible for having formed the animals that were brought before Adam—without any reference to when He formed them. Chapter one tells us when He did that—on day six prior to the creation of man.

A number of Hebrew scholars have written that the verb translated “formed” (yatsar) could be (and some say it should be) translated “had formed,” which expresses the idea that the animals were created prior to Adam (see Eric Lyons, The Anvil Rings, Apologetics Press, Inc.: 2003, pp. 24-28 and Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House: 1976, pp. 96-97). The NIV so translates yatsar, as does a footnote in the ESV. Therefore, Brettler’s claim of contradiction lacks the evidence needed to substantiate it.

Now let us give attention to the Professor’s assertion that the anthropomorphisms in Genesis two contradict the description of creation in chapter one. “Anthropomorphism” is the literary tool by which God is said to possess physical characteristics. This tool is used to illustrate and clarify certain truths. Since God is spirit (John 4:24), he does not have a physical body (cf. Luke 24:39). Yet, by using “anthropomorphism,” inspired writers speak of God as possessing hands, arms, eyes, ears, mouth, face and other physical characteristics (Isa. 59:1-2; Psa. 34:15-16). Brettler claims that in Genesis one, “everything...is created by the divine word of a majestic God,” while in chapter two God “creates in a highly physical, human-like fashion.”

Our learned critic again fails to recognize that Genesis one is a simple recitation of the fact of creation, while Genesis two adds supplemental, not contradictory, details. The anthropomorphic description of God’s creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis two merely describes in greater detail the factual statement in Genesis 1:27. Moses does not contradict himself at all.

The Professor’s attempt to cast reflection on the creation account in Genesis falls miserably short.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

First, it is amazing how easily and nonchalantly scholars call into question the inspiration and reliability of the Bible. Note how casually Brettler states, “The Bible disagrees with itself.” He writes that “Genesis 1-3 [offers] conflicting accounts.” He speaks of the “contradictory picture” of the creation account and the “two juxtaposed creation stories.” If the Bible is that unreliable, upon what basis can we trust anything contained therein? If it is not trustworthy in one area, it is not trustworthy in any.

Second, to call into question the historical accuracy of the creation account in Genesis is to call into question the reliability of Jesus. Or, as the Lord Himself put it, “If you do not believe [Moses’] writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:47). The Lord spoke of the creation of Adam and Eve as historical fact and used the formation of the home in Genesis two as the basis for his teaching on divorce and remarriage. If Genesis two records events that never really happened, then we may rightly charge Jesus with error. And if Jesus was in error in His assessment of Genesis two, what else could He be in error about?

Note this as well: Jesus referenced Genesis 1:26 and 2:24 in Matthew 19:4-5, yet gave no indication that those two Old Testament chapters were contradictory to one another.

 Third, after making all of his disparaging statements about God’s Word, Professor Brettler feels the need to offer this caveat near the end of his article, “It might sound as if I am knocking the Bible and taking away its authority.”

Well, Professor, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Eddie Parrish