For the last century and a half a large percentage of commentators and theologians have interpreted Genesis 1-3 (and the rest of the Scriptures) through the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, one of the central theories of German Higher Criticism that became popular throughout the educated world. Rejecting the inspiration and truth claims of Scripture, these liberal scholars tried to explain the Bible in terms of evolutionary development from various, disparate primitive sources (or documents – whence ‘documentary’ hypothesis). Later editors supposedly worked over and collated these ancient documents or sources into what became the books of the Bible, leaving many internal inconsistencies and contradictions.

The first five books of the Bible or the Pentateuch, traditionally understood to have come from the hand of Moses, was – without compelling historical, linguistic or textual evidence – said to have been composed from at least four different sources, which were much later woven together, and by ‘pious’ pretence passed off as the work of earlier authors. The first three chapters of Genesis, for instance, were claimed to have been composed largely from three particular documentary sources. One came from the school of the Yahwist (because he or they employed the name ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Jehovah’ for God) and another from the Elohist school (which used the divine name ‘Elohim’. And, we are told, elements from the ‘Priestly’ and ‘Deuteronomic’ Schools were also involved. According to this theory which arose from the nineteenth century humanist imagination, the Yahwist gave one account of creation (largely found in chapter two of Genesis), while the Elohist (in conjunction with the Priestly) gave another creation account (inconsistent with the other one), largely found in Chapter One.

Nearly fifty years ago the Princeton scholar, Oswald T. Allis, effectively answered such ‘higher critical’ claims (such as variant or contradictory sources and multiple authorship of Genesis) in a book that has not yet been refuted: The Five Books of Moses (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publ. Co., 1947). His careful historical and linguistic research shows the Documentary Hypothesis not to be based on any compelling evidence from within the biblical text nor within known history, but rather based on the evolutionary theory of Darwin transposed into historiography. Even from within the ranks of scholars who accept many of the evolutionary assumptions of ‘Higher Criticism’, there have been serious challenges to this Documentary Hypothesis, such as the 1987 work of R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOT Press). While not advocating Mosaic authorship, Whybray demolishes the documentary approach, and among other criticisms, particularly notes the refusal of Higher Critical advocates of JEDP to take into account the cultural differences between ancient Israel and modern Europe.

Later works such as the standard conservative Old Testament Introduction of E. J. Young (26) as well as the Commentary on Genesis and The Documentary Hypothesis by the Jewish scholar, Umberto Cassuto of Jerusalem University confirm Allis’ main argument for the unity of the Pentateuch, and his contention that the documentary hypothesis is a figment of the ‘Enlightenment’ European mind. (27) Part one of R. K. Harrison’s Introduction of the Old Testament carefully critiques the documentary theory in light of international scholarship through the 1960’s. (28) Kenneth A. Kitchen of Liverpool University dealt helpfully with some aspects of Mosaic authorship in light of significant modern historical and linguistic research in ancient Near Eastern data. (29)

Some of the most careful scholarship from both Christian and Jewish sources, therefore, confirms the traditional belief in the single authorship of Genesis, and shows that the related theory of two contradictory creation accounts has no grounds in reality, but is

1. an imposition upon an ancient text of inappropriate evolutionary ways of thought, and
2. a misreading of a superscription as though it were a subscription.*

Dr. Douglas F. Kelly, Creation & Change, pp. 53-54

* [ In Genesis 2:4, the phrase ‘These are the generations’ (Hebrew toledoth) show that here is the beginning of a major shift of the book. It is a narrowing down of emphasis from the entire creation to one selected area, namely, mankind and his story.

That phrase is a superscription, a ‘title’, and brings nothing to a close, but introduces what follows. It points forward, not backward and is vital to understanding a correct interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis. Treating that phrase as a subscription leads to faulty understanding as a ’summary’.

This ‘signpost’ shows clearly there is one creation account, not two.

- Joel ]