Two Gods Make One

The Tension between the God of P and the God of J

            The reading of the story of the flood in Genesis 6:5 – 9:17 is one that often feels old and familiar and careful reading is something I have never done (until now). The suggestion of taking the two intermingled  sources, the Priestly referred to as P and Yahwist referred to as J, and separating them brings insight into many things that the intended readers of this text felt or knew about the nature of God.

I have decided to focus on the “face” of God in the two separate accounts, in other words, ask the question: In broad terms, what kind of God is portrayed in each of these accounts, and how does intermingling these accounts complement those two interpretations? I believe these two distinct portraits of God create a fuller and more compassionate vision of the nature of God. I strongly feel these two sources compliment and coexist by filling in the gaps to the understanding of God’s actions.

Using the study guide, I began by dividing the text into sections based on the fact that the P source uses “God” when describing God and the J source uses “LORD” as described on page 8 of our study guide. This very quickly allowed me to divide large portions of text. What was especially useful for me was to create a three columned spreadsheet, in which the text was printed on the left side, and the assignation of the texts to either P or J were then printed in separate columns on the middle or right column. This gives good visual separation.

Secondly, I rechecked the work looking for the repetitions in text which allows us to infer the verses are from two different sources. Such repetitions include verses 6:5 (assigned to P) in which the “LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great on the earth,” and verse 6:11 (assigned to J) in which we learn that “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.” Another example is verse 6:7 (assigned to J) it speaks of the “LORD” stating that the earth will be blotted out along with the humans, and this sentiment is repeated in verse 6:13 (assigned to P) in which God tells Noah that he will “put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them (humans), now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.”

In dividing the texts into P and J, I encountered verses 7:17-24 in which I could not clearly determine the source. For these verses I consulted the study notes from the Revised Standard Version of the New Oxford Study Bible. This source indicated that in these verses P and J are “thoroughly interwoven.” (1)  Also helpful in dividing the text was consulting the writing of Walter Brueggemann in which he states:

“…in the extended flood narrative … the two strands are interwoven into a remarkable literary coherence with Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-12; 8:20-22 forming the basis of J and 6:9-22; 7:13-16; 8:14-19; 91-17a the primary

Articulation of P.” (2) 

            One of the most useful exercises for me was to view these two narratives as literature focusing mainly on the character development of God. What is especially evident to me is that God in the P account shows little character development or emotion, whereas the God of J grows in understanding and realization of the inadequacy of past actions taken.

            As we look at the beginning of each narrative God does the same thing but with different motivations. In the J account, God “was sorry that he had made humankind on earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” (v. 6) and is “sorry he ever made them” (v. 7). Instead of merely blotting out humans, God destroys his entire creation in what to me I feels like a fit of emotional anger, grief, and regret. Walter Brueggemann writes similarly in which he states:

"…verse 6 shows us the deep pathos of God. God is not angered but grieved. He is not enraged, but saddened. He does not stand over against but with his creation" (3) 

            The verses above contrast starkly with the P account in which God seems devoid of any personal regret, grief, or even anger. One of the biases that I used to bring to this story is that God was angry with humans in the flood story and this is an action of an angry God. Yet as you look at the language of P it reads much more like a rational factual decision; anger is not mentioned as a motivation. In looking at verse 13 we are back to the language of Genesis 1, in which God in verses 6:12-13 “saw that the earth was corrupt; and all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. And God said to Noah, ‘I have determined to make an end to all flesh…’” God seems to mete out consequences with actions, but reading on, it is devoid of any emotive words, it is more a statement of fact and God is moving forward with a solution to fix the problem.

            As we continue with P’s theme of a God of power and control I am especially struck by the verse 7:16 in which the complete and awesome power of God goes even to the most mundane of actions. As Noah and the animals are entering the ark, it reads: “And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the LORD shut him in,” (underlining added by me). Though the use of “THE LORD” seems to indicate that it may be part of the J account, Brueggemann assigns it to P, and to me it seems to fit in that Noah is unable to even close his own door, God must.

            This theme of Godly control is further evidenced in verses 6:14-16 in which God instructs Noah to make the ark along very specific dimensions, and Noah remains shut up in the ark and god then “remembers Noah, which I interpret as meaning God kept Noah safe. God also causes the waters to continue to abate (v. 8:1-5) and even commands Noah to leave the ark for the first time (v.8:16).

            This contrasts nicely with the J account; Noah has much more of a part of the story and is in some ways more proactive in that he works with God instead of having God do everything. The J account mentions the “ark” but says nothing about how it was built (v. 7:7), Noah determines when it is safe to come out of the ark and makes the determination that the waters had subsided by sending a dove and having it return with a “plucked olive leaf,” and later to have it not return at all. (v. 8:6-11).

            Lastly, in looking at how or if God changes, in the J account God comes to a realization that I find disturbing. In 8:21 it is written:

                        “…the LORD said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse

                        the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of

                        the human heart is evil from youth…’”

Again, the emotional language of God speaking from “his heart” and the following words are in a way God admitting that all of this destruction was unnecessary.  This is further supported bye Gerhard Von Rad, in which he writes: “So far as that is concerned – Calvin says in his exposition of the passage – God would have to punish man with daily floods.”  (4) Von Rad also postulates that the contrast between God’s “punishing power and supporting grace, which pervades the whole Bible, is here presented almost inappropriately, almost an indulgence, and adjustment by God towards man’s sinfulness.”(5)  Brueggemann writes:

"The heavy discernment about humankind in 8:21 does not stand alone. The statement about humankind is kept in close connection to the passion and responsive grief of God. What distinguishes God in this narrative from every other God and from every other creature is God's deep grief. That grief enables God to move past his own self interest and to embrace his creature-partner in new ways."(6)

This gives us a reason for the covenant in Chapter 9. What is interesting about Genesis 9:1-17 is that God establishes his covenant never to destroy the earth again by flood, yet gives no reason why. God does bless Noah and his family, and re-invokes the Creation language telling them to “be fruitful and multiply” (v. 9:1) and re-establishes the dominance of humans by instilling the “dread of you on every animal on the earth.” (v. 9:2) which are acts of the powerful – acts that only make sense when attached to God’s realization about humankind’s inability to change. This gives very good illustration of how the two texts work together.

In the study guide it was noted that it is of the opinion of many that the P source was written at the time of conquest and trauma. It then stands to reason that when under oppression one yearns for a powerful and controlling God who is in charge of the situation. Yet, the J account, in my interpretation, is essential in bringing the “heart” of God to the fore in that God acts for emotional reasons, sometimes in anger, yet always with sound judgment as the P account seems to suggest. J gives us the heart of God, one who can grieve, and P gives us the judgment and power. This, to me, is the most important way these texts work together, and thus allows greater explorations and insights too numerous for a paper of this length.

Bibliography

Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis, Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982

Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003

The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible with the Apocrypha , New Revised Standard Version, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, USA: Third Edition, 2001

Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis (Old Testament Library), Philadelphia: Westminster 1961