Two accounts of the Creation of Humankind

Note to the educator: 

The subject matter of this unit compares the two accounts of the story of the creation of humankind in the first two chapters of Bereshit. The texts in this lesson represent distinct approaches to  textual inconsistency following the traditional approach that the Torah is a literary whole.  There are alternative approaches that deal with textual inconsistencies of this type. The following background provides information on the traditional approach and biblical scholarship such as the Documentary Hypothesis.

Traditionally it was assumed by both Jews and Christians that the Five Books of Moshe are a literary whole, all written by the one hand of Moshe at the direction of God. Although there were individuals here and there that made remarks leading one to wonder what they really thought about the authorship of the Torah, the first person of import to critique and question the Torah was undoubtedly Baruch Spinoza. However, as a field of study, Biblical Criticism did not come into its own until the 19th century.

Biblical scholars who entertain the idea that there were multiple authors of the Torah text focus on perceived inconsistencies and differences between tellings and retellings of narratives or of laws, focusing on vocabulary (including the use of different names for God) and literary style, and apparent theological and historical differences between sections.

There are thus some scholars who apply this technique to their analysis of the first and second chapters of Bereshit and raise the possibility that these stories were written by more than one author. While the texts in this lesson come from the traditional approach that the Torah is the word of God authored by Moshe,  the thinkers and scholars presented in this lesson try to understand why there are two separate accounts and what the differences can teach us.

Bereishit 1:26-28 and Bereishit 2:7, 15-23

Comparing the creation of adam in Bereishit 1 and Beresihit 2: As one reads of the creation of humankind in Bereshit 2, an entirely different perspective from that appearing in Chapter 1 is revealed. What appears to be different about the story as well as the status of humanity vis-à-vis God?

Balancing two aspects of humankind: In Chapter 1 the Torah stresses the creative act of God. It also suggests that humankind bears a striking resemblance to the divine. Yet, in Chapter 2, adam, the human, is “formed” (not “created”) from a pre-existing substance. That substance is “the dust of the earth.” Furthermore, the original Hebrew text reveals the close etymological relationship between the word אדָָם (adam) and the word אדֲָמהָ (adamah, earth) from which the adam was formed. The Torah is clearly trying to underscore the humble origins of humanity. It is true that God breathed life into this earthly creature, but this creature nevertheless remained inextricably bound to the earth. This is supported further by the description of humanity’s function and purpose.

Human’s relationship to the world as conveyed by both versions: In Chapter 1, humankind was told to “be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it . . .” Conquest and domination are entirely absent in the second account of the creation of humankind. In Chapter 2, the adam, whose origins are from the ground, is placed in Gan Eden and told “to till and tend it.” He is authorized to eat of the fruit of the trees that are pleasant to the sight and delectable in taste, but these are gifts provided through God’s benevolence, and due to the human necessity to eat to survive. The fruit that the land yields is not a result of his exercising his intelligence to devise methods by which he may best benefit from it. In fact, in this context, humankind is not even created betzelem Elohim. It is formed from the earth and commanded to live in harmony with it. A further difference between the chapters is that in Chapter 1 humankind is given free reign to rule and master the earth, while in Chapter 2, it is placed within the confines of Gan Eden and the fruit of at least one of the trees there is forbidden to him. Upon scrutiny of the text, one can see a sharp contrast between the first two chapters of Bereshit. If the Torah wishes to convey clear directives, how can it present such radically different accounts? Is humanity lofty because it was created in God’s image? Or is it lowly, having been created from the earth? The following texts represent distinct approaches to this textual inconsistency.

Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the World 46

The concept of humankind vs.  the reality of humankind: Philo suggests that the Chapter 1 creation of humankind, “the first man who was made according to the image of God,” presents an idea, a concept, but not a real creation, while the second story describes humankind as a composition of elements from above and below, “a composition of earthy substance and divine spirit.” In this  way, Philo applies one of the most central concepts of Plato’s philosophy to Bereshit. 

The Soul and the Body: And so, while Chapter 2 speaks of the human being “perceptible by the external senses,” and as such is part of the rest of the corporeal world that can be perceived by the senses, and is therefore fallible, Chapter 1 speaks of the idea or form of the human being, the human being that is real, “perceptible only by the intellect, incorporeal, neither male nor female, imperishable by nature,” and thus indestructible and perfect. In this way, Philo explains the difference between the first two chapters of Bereshit, but at the same time, models the best of what the Hellenized world had to offer the Jew – borrowing from Greek philosophy and concepts to use them to understand better God’s word and law.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith

Two types of human (found in each of us): Soloveitchik offers a remarkably insightful approach to our textual dilemma. These two biblical versions of the creation of humankind symbolize, to his view, “two  representatives of humanity” – two distinct types of human beings.

Adam the first: the adam of the first chapter of Bereshit, who was created in “the image of God,” was endowed with intellect and the power of creativity, and was given the mandate to use these faculties to gain control of nature and subdue it (see Bereshit 1:28). He is “aggressive, bold, and victory-minded. His motto is success, triumph over the cosmic forces.”

Adam the second: the adam of the second chapter of Bereshit, is not concerned with conquest and power. This being is intrigued by the mystery of Creation and by God the Creator, whose true nature is never revealed. Having been created from the ground, “from the dust of the earth” (Bereshit 2:7), this adam looks at the world with humility, with the “awe and admiration of the child who seeks the unusual and wonderful in every ordinary thing and event.” Rather than trying to master the world, this being is driven to try to understand its meaning and purpose.

Both Adams are God’s will: The novelty of Soloveitchik’s position is that both Adam the first and Adam the second, both areas of endeavor, are legitimate expressions of God’s will. Human beings are expected, on the one hand, to utilize their power and intelligence to dominate and gain control over nature. On the other hand, they can also reflect on the purpose and meaning of that which they behold. They must “till,” “tend,” and preserve the world (Bereshit 2:15), and retain their humility in the face of the wonder of the universe and the cosmic forces. This tension within humankind is one of the great paradoxes of existence. Which direction should an individual choose? How can a person know what is right for them? Or should a person follow their natural inclinations to one type or the other? Alternatively, could it be that Soloveitchik means for each person to try to somehow live as both personality types? Yet another way of understanding this is that Soloveitchik might not actually be discussing each and every individual and is instead more concerned that both types be amply represented in society as a whole? 

In Soloveitchik’s read of the biblical account of Creation, more than being a narrative or poem of the beginnings of the world, these verses actually reveal some important ideas about the nature and purpose of the human being in this world. At the same time, his perspective opens the door to more questions.

Rabbi David Kimchi (Radak), Bereshit 1:27

Three Hebrew words for create: Radak analyzes three verbs in this brief excerpt from his extensive commentary to the first chapter of Bereshit. He notes that two of the three verbs, ברא (baro) and עשה (asoh), can be used to describe the construction of anything – whether it is corporeal or not. Not so the verb יצר (yatzor), a verb that is used only with the formation of the corporeal, the physical, the tangible. In this way, Radak differentiates the two accounts of creation, especially the creation of the human being. 

Creation of the soul in chapter 1, and the body in chapter 2: The second chapter uses the verb יצר specifically, as it says, ויַיִּצֶר (vayitzer; Bereshit 2:7) in telling of the formation of the human from the dust of the ground. For Radak, the use of the verb יצר here signals that the verse is speaking of the formation of the physical aspects of the person. The first chapter uses the verb ברא, as it says, ויברא (vayivra; Bereshit 1:27). For Radak, this verse could also be speaking of the creation of the physical aspects of the person. However, there the verse speaks of the creation of the human being “in God’s image.” Radak allows his theology to inform his interpretation of the verse, and thus he moves to see “God’s image” as being something that is incorporeal. Given that the verse is speaking of the creation of something modeled after the incorporeal, it must be discussing something that is itself incorporeal, and so he introduces the idea that the verse must be telling of the creation of the soul. As such, the verb יצָֹר could not be used there, and only בּרָאֹ or עשֲֹׂה would have syntactically fit into the context.

Like Philo and Soloveitchik, Radak reconciles the two chapters by showing how each chapter speaks of a different matter, a different aspect of the creation of the human being. There is no contradiction between the chapters. 

Bereishit 2:7, 15-23