On Genesis, chapters 1-3.   Here are two links, but you can use any Bible at all with Genesis 1-3

Most scripture scholars claim that chs 2 and 3 were written as early as 900 BCE., in a culture still "archaic" in its ideas, whereas ch.1 was written by someone else by around 400 BCE, when 'historic' or classical thought was developing, after the beginning of the axial age. (We will see more about these eras and their labels soon.)  Yes, it sounds backwards to say that ch 1 was written after chs 2 & 3. But whoever finished editing the Book of  Genesis around 400 BCE got to decide how to organize the rest of the book and apparently decided to write his (it was almost certainly a male) own introduction to materials which had been passed on to him by tradition and texts.  To make things even more confusing, the material of the first chapter actually ends halfway through verse 4 of the second chapter.  That sounds very strange indeed,  But the chapters and verse divisions we use were added long after the bible was written. Whoever made the division between ch 1 and ch 2 made a mistake about where to place that division, the scholars think.
There are a few clues in the first 3 chapters to indicate that they come from two different authors or sources.  One is what God is called.  Chs. 2 & 3 call God "Yahweh."  So the author of these and similar later chapters is called the Yahwist (or Jahwist, following German usage).  The person who wrote the first chapter shows some interest in priestly concerns -- such as organizing the week into 7 days and offering special sacrifices to God by the priests on the 7th day or sabbath.  (This writer also may have produced some later major parts of the Pentateuch, i.e., the first five books of the Hebrew scriptures, that are concerned with priestly things such as sacrifice and purity codes.)

Assignment: 4 questions.  You can answer them in one single-spaced page, to save paper.

1.  Here is a claim about chs. 2 & 3 made by many scholars:  the God of these two chapters is very "anthropomorphic" compared to the God portrayed in ch. 1.  Find significant instances of such anthropomorphisms in ch. 2 & 3. Write out five or more of them as your answer to this question.

2. Most biblical scholars also claim that the description of the six days of creation in Gen. 1 should not be taken literally for two reasons. One reason is that it is written like poetry, or even a hymn with verses and refrain.   Identify whatever you can about Ch. 1 that makes it look poetic rather than literally historical.

3. Another reason for treating ch. 1 as somewhat poetic is that the pattern of the six days does not make literal sense (e.g. God creates light on day one but there is no sun or moon or stars until the 4th day).  Take verse 3 of ch. 1 as the beginning of the six days of creation.   Line up days 1, 2, & 3 on the left side and then on the right match 4, 5, & 6 like this and describe the general relation between 1, 2, and 3 on the one hand and  4, 5, and 6 on the other.  Give it a good try.

4. Some modern commentators see the Genesis 3 story of eating the forbidden fruit as a typical coming-of-age folktale, in which humankind departs from the innocence of childhood and enters into the trials and responsibilities of adulthood. Christian tradition, on the other hand sees the story as the story of the Fall from grace into sin. Explain which of these two interpretations makes more sense to you, and why, as well as why the other one does not make as much sense to you. (There is no right answer to this question, as far as I am concerned.  It is a question to open up possibilities you might not have considered before.)

When answering questions, please refer to specific lines in the text of Genesis. Keep up a dialogue with the text, to show that the text indeed says what you say it does, and so on. This is the procedure I ask you to follow in all the Reading Guides for the 198 "common readings."

Remember the rule:  any RG that has more than 5 typographical, spelling, or serious grammatical errors will be sent back to you to be done over. Do not trust your spell-checker to get everything.