Jay R. Feierman
What was the copying fidelity across
individual story tellers and over
generations of the orally transmitted
creation myths that eventually were
memorialized in writing and canonized as
Genesis (bereshit in Hebrew) sometime
between 600 and 450 B.C.E?



Certain aspects of Christianity, like “original
sin” are based on words alleged to have been
said in the Garden of Eden in Genesis.
Issues involving the relationship between the
two sexes (men and woman) are also
influenced by words alleged to have been
said in the Garden of Eden.
Etc.
It is not possible to know or even to investigate the copying
fidelity of the orally transmitted creation myths in Genesis
prior to 600 – 450 B.C.E., when they were written down in
Hebrew as a part of Genesis.




Yes, indirectly in several ways
The Navajo Native Americans in Arizona only officially wrote
(published) a canonical version of their creation myths in
1971, Navajo History. EthelouYazzi, Ed. Many Farms, AZ:
Navajo Community College Press.
There are about 25 unofficial versions of Navajo creation
myths transcribed from the oral version by anthropologists
and others for about 100 years prior to 1971.
We can compare the different unofficial transcribed oral
versions with the 1971 canonical version.


Yes, indirectly among the various Athabascan
tribes (Navajo and Apache in the American
Southwest) who split into smaller bands and
tribes approximately 38 times over the last
several hundred years.
We can compare unofficial (non-canonical)
written versions of the different creation
myths for copying fidelity.


Yes. The Hopi tribe (located within the larger
Navajo Reservation in Northern Arizona) split
apart in historical times in 1904.
We can compare the copying fidelity of the
orally transmitted creation myths of the two
factions that were unofficially (noncanonically) transcribed by non-Hopi people
based on the orally told stories
Across the 38 different Athabascan tribes from
Alaska and Canada to the Americal Southwest
 Within the Navajo over the past 100 years compared
to the canonical written version in 1971
 Within historical times in the Hopi of Arizona

1. Came across the Bering Straits from Siberia to Alaska
about 10-15,000 years ago.
2. Stayed in Alaska for about 10,000 years
3. Divided 38 times in North America
4. We can look at the copying fidelity of their orally
transmitted creation myths
1. Almost no resemblance in creation myth
theme or details between the northern
(Alaska and Canada) Athabascans and the
Southwest United States Athabascans
(Apache and Navajo)
2. As Apaches splintered into various “bands”
the creation myths varied, primarily in detail,
occasionally in theme, or similarly named
Gods who did different things.


Of the 25 or so un-official versions published
the past 100 years, there is usually a general
resemblance in theme.
The details vary over time and over two
different medicine men (priests) who told the
story at the same point in time.
The Hopi maintain a complex religious and mythological
tradition stretching back over centuries. However, it is
difficult to definitively state what all Hopis as a group
believe. Like the oral traditions of many other societies,
Hopi mythology is not always told consistently and each
Hopi mesa, or even each village, may have its own version
of a particular story. But, in essence the variants of the Hopi
myth bear marked [thematic] similarity to one another.
From Wikipedia on Hopi Mythology
Split was over how much contact with Europeans should
occur
The conservatives, who wanted less contact, left Oraibi and
formed a new village, Hotevilla
Within a few years the Hotevilla village had a new creation
myth that even featured different Gods (creators).
What are the functions (in a biological
sense) of religious creation myths?
Orally transmitted creation myths among the Native Americans were and
are highly mutable and impermanent
There is no reason to presume that the orally transmitted creation myths
that eventually became Genesis are any different.
Creation myths are group-binding mechanisms. They are not historically
accurate or truthful accounts of a group’s origin.
The theological implications of this finding are beyond the scope of this
paper.