Thursday, September 22, 2011

Wiseman hypothesis explained

 

The Wiseman hypothesis, sometimes called the Tablet Theory, is an alternative view of the authorship of Genesis and is opposed to the far more popular JEDP documentary hypothesis as well as the traditional view of authorship by Moses. It suggests that the book was written before the time of Moses by various authors.

History

The Wiseman hypothesis was originally presented by Percy J. Wiseman (1888-1948), an air commodore for the Royal Air Force and neither a professional archaeologist nor a Middle East scholar. While on tour in the Middle East, Wiseman found it of interest to visit archaeological sites and learn of the ancient histories of the region. He visited such places as Ur and Kish, and along the way collected cuneiform tablets and inscriptions and familiarized himself with ancient Mesopotamian composition. Upon studying the tablets, Wiseman found that ancient convention was for the writer of a particular tablet to write his name at the end of the document, as opposed to modern practices of an author presenting his name at the beginning of many kinds of articles. Coupling this with the recent discovery that writing had existed at least as early as 3000 BC, he formulated a hypothesis that the authors of Genesis had actually signed their names within the text. He published his idea in the book New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis 1936. His son, Donald J. Wiseman, an Assyriologist at the University of London, presented a revised edition titled Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis in 1985.

The hypothesis

The Wiseman hypothesis bears resemblance to the documentary hypothesis in that it proposes multiple authors for Genesis. What is radically different is that the hypothesis places these authors before the time of Moses rather than after. Also very different is that the authors would have been directly involved in the events described in the book and not temporally isolated, as would be the post-Moses scribes. Because the Wiseman hypothesis would, if true, imply that the events described in the book of Genesis are not mythical, its main adherents are evangelical Christians.

Authors

Instead of invoking unnamed individuals, the hypothesis takes the stance that colophon statements at the end of an account provide the identity of the author of a particular history segment. The first such claimed colophon by a human author is at Genesis 5:1-2, where Adam supposedly gives his name and a final summary of the account. The very first appearance of what may be interpreted as a colophon, however, is Genesis 2:4. Proponents of the hypothesis assert that God may have written the first chapter of Genesis himself.
The following lists the authors and account transitions as proposed by Curt Sewell:[1]
Tablet
No.
Starting
Verse
Ending
Verse
Owner or Writer
1 1:1 2:4a God Himself (?)
2 2:4 5:1a Adam
3 5:1b 6:9a Noah
4 6:9b 10:1a Shem, Ham, and Japheth
5 10:1b 11:10a Shem
6 11:10b 11:27a Terah
7 11:27b 25:19a Isaac
8 25:12 25:18 Ishmael, through Isaac
9 25:19b 37:2a Jacob
10 36:1 36:43 Esau, through Jacob
11 37:2b 1:6 Jacob’s 12 sons

Redacting

After the accounts were written and handed down through the generations, the hypothesis proposes that Moses compiled them together and edited portions of the text. In the case of the biblical dispersion of languages, Moses may have had to translate the accounts into Hebrew, though some Christians assert the possibility that the original language before Babel had been Hebrew.[2] Those who hold lower criticism views believe that the edits made by Moses were likely of such minor nature as adding updated place names as minor notes so that contemporary readers would understand geographical locations. An example is Genesis 23:19, where the place name Mamre is followed by “that is, Hebron.”

Material

The material that the accounts would have been written on is unknown. As suggested by the name Tablet Theory, the original writing could have been on clay tablets. The tablets would have been handed down from generation to generation, and eventually copied to another medium such as papyrus or parchment. In the compilation, as well as with the passage of time, certain colophon markers would have lost their meaning, and thus may have been dropped from the text.

Hypothesis compared to other views

Advantages

An advantage over the documentary hypothesis is that the Wiseman hypothesis presents a list of falsifiable authors rather than a number of unnamed scribes. It also incorporates known conventions of ancient writing. Unlike the hypothesis of authorship by Moses, it does not involve the necessity of God revealing past events directly to Moses. The Wiseman hypothesis also deals with some apparent breaks in flow, such as the recap of the creation at the beginning of Genesis chapter 2.[3] Additionally, certain redactions make sense if it was a compilation by Moses of a much older source, such as place name notes. Furthermore, the Old Testament never explicitly states that Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

Disadvantages

Critics have claimed that not all of the colophons appear where one would expect were the hypothesis correct. Also, while it apparently takes into account various evidences from within the text as well as from archeology, the Wiseman hypothesis requires that a written record was preserved and handed down not only for the thousands of years from Adam until Moses, but also from Moses until the modern era. Supporters respond that, given the long lifespans recorded in Genesis, the early transmission of the text need only have required a few hand-offs, e.g., from Adam to Seth, Seth to Noah's family, Noah's son Shem to Abraham's family, and from Joseph through an intermediary to Moses. Finally, critics claim the accounts of Genesis, particularly in chapters 1-11, when taken literally do not line up with scientific and historical research into the ancient past.

References

  1. ©1998-2001, by Curt Sewell. All rights reserved. Used by permission; Originally published by the archaeological magazine Bible and Spade, Winter 1994, Vol. 7, No. 1
  2. The Origin of Speeches: Intelligent Design in Language by Isaac E. Mozeson, Lightcatcher Books, 2006.
  3. http://www.creationism.org/lang/Lang2DecadesCrtn/Lang2DecadesCrtn_8.htm Two Decades of Creationism CHAPTER VIII

See also

Taken from: http://everything.explained.at/Wiseman_hypothesis/

Moses the Toledot Compiler

 
  • ....Funny I was just studing the Toledot of Genesis today. I was reading a brilliant paper by Damien F. Mackey called, 'The "Toledoths" of Genesis'. It made the case that the phrase, "These are the generations of..." is a signifier of the original work on clay tablets which most likely belonged to each family and which Moses and the elders of Israel eventually complied.
  •  
  • Excellent Job... this is going to be great
  • @21crosscheck21 Thanks and God bless.
  • Great video.
  • @smartwarlord Thanks and God bless.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Introduction to Genesis

....

In a very real sense, the book of Genesis is the most important book in the world, for it is the foundation upon which all the other sixty-five books of God’s written Word have been based. When Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, gave a key Bible study to His disciples on the way to Emmaus, He began with Genesis!

“Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). We would do well to follow His example. If we want to understand the New Testament, we first need to understand Genesis; the New Testament contains at least two hundred direct quotations or clear allusions to events described in Genesis–more than from any other book in the Old Testament.
All the great doctrines of Christianity–sin, atonement, grace, redemption, faith, justification, salvation, and many others–are first encountered in Genesis. The greatest doctrine of all–the special creation of all things by the eternal, self-existent God–is revealed in the very first chapter of Genesis, the foundation of all foundations.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the greatest attacks on the Bible have been directed against the integrity and authority of Genesis. Since the only alternative to creation is evolution, these attacks are all ultimately based on evolutionism, the assumption that this complex universe can somehow be explained apart from the infinite creative power of God.
The creation account in Genesis is supported by numerous other references throughout the Bible, and this is true for all the later events recorded in Genesis as well. To some degree, archaeological discoveries, as well as other ancient writings and traditions, also support these events, but the only infallibly correct record of creation and primeval history is the book of Genesis. Its importance cannot be over-estimated.
Authorship
Until about 200 years ago, practically all authorities accepted the fact that Moses wrote Genesis and all the rest of the Pentateuch as well. The first writer to question this seems to have been a French infidel physician, Jean Astruc, about the time of the French revolution. Astruc argued that two writers wrote the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, on the basis of the different names for God used in the two chapters. Later writers during the 19th century, notably the German higher critic Julius Wellhausen, developed this idea into the elaborate documentary hypothesis of the origin of the Pentateuch.
According to this notion, the Pentateuch was written much later than the time of Moses, by at least four different writers or groups of writers, commonly identified now by J, E, D and P (standing for the Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly documents, respectively). Although some form of this theory is still being taught in most liberal seminaries and college departments of religion, it has been thoroughly discredited by conservative scholars. This is discussed further in the Introductions to Exodus and other books of the Pentateuch. In any case, there is no valid reason to question the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, except for Genesis itself.
For Genesis, however, there is real substance to the documentary idea, though certainly not in the Astruc/Wellhausen form. In fact, it seems very likely that Moses was the compiler and editor of a number of earlier documents, written by Adam and other ancient patriarchs, rather than being the actual writer himself. After all, the events of Genesis took place long before Moses was born, whereas he was a direct participant in the events recorded in the other four books of the Pentateuch.
It is reasonable that Adam and his descendants all knew how to write and, therefore, kept records of their own times (note the mention of “the book of the generations of Adam” in Genesis 5:1). These records (probably kept on stone or clay tablets) were possibly handed down from father to son in the line of the God-fearing patriarchs until they finally were acquired by Moses when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. During the wilderness wanderings, Moses compiled them into the book of Genesis, adding his own explanatory editorial comments where needed. Genesis is still properly considered as one of the books of Moses, since its present form is due to him, but it really records the eye-witness records of these primeval histories, as written originally by Adam, Noah, Shem, Isaac, Jacob and other ancient patriarchs.
The respective divisions of Genesis can be recognized by the recurring phrase: “These are the generations of�.” The archaeologist P. J. Wiseman has shown that these statements probably represent the “signatures,” so to speak, of the respective writers as they concluded their accounts of the events during their lifetimes.
The Hebrew word for “generations” (toledoth) was translated in the Septuagint Greek by the Greek word genesis (used in the New Testament only in Matthew 1:1, there translated “generation”). Thus these divisional notations have indirectly provided the very name for the book of Genesis, which means “beginnings.”
It is interesting to note, as an indirect confirmation of this concept of Genesis authorship, that while Genesis is cited at least 200 times in the New Testament, Moses himself is never noted as the author of any of these citations. On the other hand, he is listed at least 40 times in reference to citations from the other four books of the Pentateuch. There are also frequent references to Moses in the later books of the Old Testament, but never in relation to the book of Genesis.
In sum, we can be absolutely confident that the events described in Genesis are not merely ancient legends or religious allegories, but the actual eyewitness accounts of the places, events and people of those early days of earth history, written by men who were there, then transmitted down to Moses, who finally compiled and edited them into a permanent record of those ancient times.

From What Did Moses Compose Genesis?

 
by Dr. David Livingston


Evangelicals agree that Moses wrote Genesis and that the first five Bible books are "The Books of Moses." But, where did Moses get the information for Genesis? He wasn't present for any of the events mentioned in it.
We should notice first that neither Jesus nor the apostles, when quoting from Genesis, mention Moses' name in connection with it. However, they do call the first five books "Moses' Law." So, we may conclude that they believed it composed by Moses, but, perhaps, he used material written by others or received it some other way.
Evangelical Theory Many evangelicals, believing in the inerrancy of Scripture, solve the problem by assuming that Moses received the entire book by direct revelation. Perhaps while on Mt. Sinai, along with the law, Moses received it by something like dictation. Or, while spending 40 years in Midian, he may have had it revealed to him over some period of time.
Another Theory Other scholars, try to solve the problem a more difficult way. Difficult, because there is no evidence for it. They say Moses did not write Genesis, or even any of the Pentateuch, for that matter. It was put together by "pious" men during the time of Israel's kingdom and as late as the post-exile (post-Babylonian captivity). In order to gain credence, Moses' name was attached to it. Materials came from Babylonian and Canaanite myths and legends and from Israel's own "legends" and "oral tradition." From this viewpoint, little of it had been previously written as holy scripture, perhaps none. Thus, they would say it was a "pious fraud" used by the ruling body in Israel as a sort of religious "opiate" to pull the people together in the name of Moses.
This theory is commonly known as the "JEDP Theory." Many sharp minds both in Europe and the U.S. have devoted their lives developing the system and have written whole libraries of books based on speculation about it.
We consider this solution to the problem as unacceptable and would not even mention it except that community colleges, colleges, universities and even many seminaries now teach it as if it had some basis in fact, which it does not. (It is a situation parallel to evolutionary theory which is believed by "every capable scholar" but cannot be proven with scientific evidence.)
In contrast to the above, Meredith Kline ably says, "If Moses, in composing Genesis, was not dependent on Near Eastern literature that exhibits parallels to Genesis, neither did he ignore it. But it would seem that, where he deliberately develops the biblical account of an event so as to mirror features of the pagan version, it turns out to be for the polemical purpose of exposing and correcting the world's vain wisdom by the light of revealed theology. The elaboration of this is not possible here, but an illustrative case would be the treatment of the Babylonian epic account of creation, known (from its opening words) as Enuma Elish. Acquaintance with it is evidenced in the Genesis accounts of creation and of Babel-building, but in both passages the epic's world-view is repudiated, even ridiculed, and most effectively so at the points of obvious formal correspondence." (Kline 1970: 80).
New True Theory There is a third way Moses may have received the material for Genesis. It might have come from Abraham, Jacob, Noah, and even Adam, as well as other men of God writing under the Spirit's inspiration. In other words, those who experienced the events wrote as eyewitnesses. How could the world receive more reliable documents, especially when II Peter 1:21 is taken into account? This could explain why Jesus and the apostles considered Genesis part of "Moses' Law." He compiled the writings of other men of God, but was not the original author.
Examining this third way in more detail, Meredith Kline says, "Beyond the prologue (1:1-2:3) Genesis is divided into ten sections, each introduced by a superscription embodying the formula 'elleh toledot,'  'these are the generations of . . .' The placing of the entire Genesis narrative in this genealogical framework is a clear sign that the author intended the account to be understood throughout as a real life history of individual men, begotten and begetting. This genealogical line is resumed in subsequent biblical historiography, the Genesis lists being recapitulated and carried forward until the lineage of Adam has been traced to Jesus, the second Adam." (See Luke 3:23-38 and Kline, ibid.).
Genesis Originally on Clay Tablets? "In order to understand the significance of the Hebrew term 'toledot,' it will be necessary to examine the nature and format of cuneiform communications in the ancient world. Clay was the preferred material upon which the wedge-shaped symbols were impressed . . . The general style of a tablet furnished some indication as to its contents . . . and the material usually consisted of letters, contracts, invoices, business correspondence, genealogical tables, etc. It was normal practice. . . for single communications of this kind to commence with some sort of title, followed by the body of the text, and then a colophon, which would sometimes contain, among other things, a hint as to the identity of the scribe, or owner of the tablet and the date when the tablet was written . . . The title was normally taken from the opening words of the tablet . . . This practice . . . also occurs in the Hebrew Bible. . . ." (p. 543-4.)
  • Tablet 1: Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. The origins of the cosmos
  • Tablet 2: Genesis 2:5 - 5:2. The origins of mankind
  • Tablet 3: Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a. The histories of Noah
  • Tablet 4: Genesis 6:9b - 10:1. The histories of the sons of Noah
  • Tablet 5: Genesis 10:2 - 11:10a. The histories of Shem
  • Tablet 6: Genesis 11:10b - 11:27a. The histories of Terah
  • Tablet 7: Genesis 11:27b - 25:12. The histories of Ishmael
  • Tablet 8: Genesis 25:13 - 25:19a. The histories of Isaac
  • Tablet 9: Genesis 25:19b - 36:1. The histories of Esau
  • Tablet 10: Genesis 36:2 - 36:9. The histories of Esau
  • Tablet 11: Genesis 36:10 - 37:2. The histories of Jacob
(Harrison 1969: 548. -- Probably the best explanation of this theory.) "Colophon" = "Toledot":  Key to Source Documents
Probably the principle use of the "colophon" was in filing the document. When libraries of tablets are found, there are usually hundreds or thousands of them. And it is clear they were stored on shelves. Problem: How do you find the tablet you want? Answer: just treat them like we do books today. On the spine at the edge, or end, there was a summary of the tablet's contents-- a "colophon" ("finishing line").
Now, if the ten or eleven sections of Genesis were originally separate documents, each would have had a "colophon" at the end describing at least the owner and contents of the document. These "colophons" in our Hebrew Bibles today would then consist of the phrase which speaks of the "toledots".
Thus, in connection with the Genesis "toledot,"  ". . . the principal facts concerning the individual involved have been recorded before the incidence of the phrase in question, and that they are not recorded after its occurrence . . . This peculiarity has been a source of perplexity and embarrassment to the vast majority of Bible critics who assume it introduces new material -- and thus does not make sense . . . ." (Harrison 1969: 545.)
tablet with colophon from time of Abraham
Tablet with colophon, written in the time of Abraham.



Abraham Had Written Scripture
Abraham had written laws of Jehovah which he kept: Genesis 26:5 says he kept, among other things, Jehovah's statutes ("chuqqim") and laws ("torah"). A "chuqqim" is a written commandment, usually inscribed in stone (BDB,1962: 350:d). The word "chuqqim" comes from a root meaning to engrave, and hence denotes permanent and prescribed rules of conduct . . . (NBC 1930: 201.). These are not some other country's laws and statutes; they are Jehovah's own, and thus, we maintain, would be separate documents, themselves the Word of God.
"Abraham came from a country where the knowledge of writing and reading was common and from an important city mentioned in the code of Hammurabi . . . In that country traditions of the creation and the flood were preserved, which have much in common with those in Genesis. That is the very country also in which Genesis places the site of the Garden of Eden and where the confusion of tongues is said to have occurred. There, if anywhere, the remains of an original revelation concerning creation and an accurate story of the flood would be handed down. What could be more natural than that Abraham carried such records and genealogies with him from the banks of the Euphrates to the land of Canaan? 'Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac' (Genesis 25:5). Perhaps those priceless records were among his possessions. If so, they went down with Jacob into Egypt and formed the basis of Genesis 1-11 as written by Moses." (Raven 1910: 131-2.)
The main point Raven makes is that the Genesis sources were written down. The revelation of God was not committed to slipshod oral transmission for hundreds of years. The evidence that these were written documents is that whatever period or place they speak of fits into the culture and language of that place and time.
Or, another possibility is that the manuscripts were kept by the Kenites. When Moses was with the nomad-priest, Jethro, who loved Jehovah and served Him (Exodus 18:9-11), he may have received the records from which to compose Genesis. Jethro is called a "priest" (Exodus 2:15, 3:1). He could be none other than a nomad-priest of Jehovah, even as Melchizedek apparently was also a priest of Jehovah (although not a nomad). (The Kenites lived in the Negev, see: Judges 1:16.) That the Bible authors used other sources, not depending entirely on direct revelations from God, is clear from the list below:
Some Other Old Testament Sources After Moses
  • Joshua 8:9. Described land "in a book"
  • II Samuel 1-18. "Book of Jasher" (also mentioned in Joshua 10:13)
  • I Kings 11:41. "Book of the Acts of Solomon"
  • I Kings 14:19. "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel"
  • I Kings 14:29. "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah"
  • I Chronicles 27:74. "Chronicles of King David"
  • II Chronicles 12-15. "Book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the Seer Concerning Genealogies"
  • II Chronicles 20:34. "Book of Jehu, the son of Hanani - mentioned in the Book of the Kings of Israel"

Bibliography
Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; Briggs, C. A,.
1962 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. (BDB). Oxford: Clarendon.

DeWitt, D.
1977 "The Generations of Genesis." Bible and Spade (Spring Issue) pp.33-48.

Guthre, D., (Ed.)
1970 The New Bible Commentary.

Harrison, R .K.,
1969 Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Morris, H.,
1976 The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Raven, J. H.,
1910 Old Testament Introduction. New York: Revell.

Wiseman, P .J.,
1977 Clues to Creation in Genesis. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott.




Homepage         Articles





© 2003 David Livingston
 
Taken from: http://davelivingston.com/mosescompgenesis.htm


How Was Genesis Composed?



Excerpted from Marvin L. Lubenow. 2004. (Revised edition.) Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House. Pages 316-325.

Marvin Lubenow is professor of Bible, theology, and apologetics at Southern California Bible College and Seminary in EI Cajon, California. He has spent more than thirty-five years researching the human fossil issue and frequently speaks and writes to defend the creationist position.

[page 316]

 Chapter 31 — GENESIS:  The Footnotes of Moses

The precise circumstances of the composition of the book of Genesis have been a matter of continual interest for Bible scholars. Since there is strong internal as well as external evidence that Moses wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and since the Pentateuch is considered to be a unit, the approach of most conservative scholarship has been that Moses wrote Genesis also.
     Nowhere does Scripture say, however, that Moses actually wrote the narratives or the genealogies of Genesis. There is no statement in Genesis referring to Moses as its author, as there clearly is in the other books of the Pentateuch. Not even Christ or the apostles say that Moses actually wrote or spoke the words they quote from Genesis. While accepting the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, conservative scholars have not detailed the means by which Moses received his information. There are three possible means by which Genesis was composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: (1) Moses received his information by direct revelation; (2) Moses wrote Genesis using material passed on by oral tradition; or
[page 317] (3) Moses wrote or compiled Genesis using earlier-written documents. Literary items in Genesis make the first possibility seem unlikely. The second possibility also seems remote because of the probability of information being lost or degraded in oral transmission. The third option seems most likely. The majority of evangelical scholars accept some version of the third view but give few details.
ANCIENT WRITING
     One of the arguments used by critics of the past century in their attack on the historicity and integrity of Genesis was that the art of writing went back only to the time of David, about 1000 BC. Hence no portion of Genesis could have been in written form before that time. It is now known that these critics were not only wrong but very wrong. By the 1930s, our museums were rich with cuneiform writing on clay tablets dating back to 3500 BC. Excavations of the royal archives at Ebla, in northwest Syria, possibly dating as far back as 2700 BC, reveal that writing at that early date was commonplace. It was not necessary in that era for the average person to know how to read and write, but writing was readily available to everyone through a class of professionals known as scribes. In fact, the ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians seemed unwilling to transact even the smallest items of business without recourse to a written document. This characteristic is dramatically seen at Ebla.
     It may surprise some to learn that a clear reference to writing is found in Genesis 5:1: "This is the written account of Adam's line." This suggests that the art of writing was known within the lifetime of Adam, which could make writing virtually as old as the human race. To a creationist, this is not surprising. It is obvious that at the time of their creation, Adam and Eve knew how to speak. Yet language is incredibly complex, and no one understands its origin. The ability to write is more complex than the ability to speak. However, since God created our first parents with the ability to speak, it is reasonable to suggest that he created them with the ability to learn to write as well. A naturalistic, evolutionary origin of language stretches credulity.1
     Cuneiform writing became the system used by all civilized countries east of the Mediterranean—Assyria, Babylonia, Persia—and by the Hittites, who are mentioned seven times in Genesis, beginning at Genesis 15:20. Cuneiform writing consists of a series of wedge-shaped impressions (cuneia means "wedge") made in plastic clay. The Hebrew word for "to write" means "to cut in" or "to dig." Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all would have written in cuneiform. Cuneiform was not a specific language but a method of writing on clay tablets, and it embraced many languages and dialects.
[page 318] The clay of the Euphrates Valley is remarkable for its fineness, as fine as well-ground flour. The scribes would mix a bit of chalk or gypsum into the clay to keep the tablets from shrinking or cracking. They were then dried in the sun or in a kiln. These clay tablets are the most imperishable form of writing material known, next to stone. It is possible that the two tablets on which God wrote the Ten Commandments were actually clay tablets (Exod. 32:15-16). The western Asian archaeological record suggests that virtually everything written before Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, and much after that, was written on clay tablets in cuneiform.
     As early as 2350 BC, clay envelopes were used for private clay tablet correspondence and sealed with a private seal. A reference to this seal is found in Job 38:14, which is believed to have been written before the time of Abraham. Judah carried a seal with him and gave it to Tamar (Gen. 38:18,25). Joseph was given Pharaoh's seal ring (Gen. 41:42), which enabled him to act in an official capacity on behalf of Pharaoh.
     Although papyrus was the common writing material in Egypt, cuneiform writing was understood, as the Tell el-Amarna tablets, found in Egypt in 1888, reveal. Among these clay tablets were letters, dated about 1400 BC, from Palestinian officials to the Egyptian government—all written in cuneiform.
     Those who do not consider the early chapters of Genesis to be reliable history use oral transmission as the explanation for those chapters of the book. But it is absurd to think that God would entrust his eternal Word to the fragile memory of humans. Scripture teaches the opposite. In Deuteronomy 31:19-21, Moses was given a song to teach to the people. He was specifically commanded to write it down so that it would not be forgotten. God said that forgetting is what the people were disposed to do. Obviously, God has little faith in oral transmission.
THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS
     All scholars agree that the most significant and distinguishing phrase in Genesis is "these are the generations of." Commentators of all theological schools divide the book around that phrase, which is found eleven times in Genesis (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10,27; 25:12,19; 36:1,9; 37:2). The translators of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) regarded that phrase as being so significant that they named the book after that term. Genesis is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew toledot, "generations."
     It is common for ancient records to begin with a genealogy or a register documenting close family relationships. Because several of the toledot phrases in Genesis are followed by genealogies, scholars have almost universally assumed
[page 319] that the toledot phrase serves as an introduction to the section that follows. Hence the major sections of Genesis have been made to begin with the toledot. Since the person named in the toledot does not figure prominently—if at all—in the narrative that follows, the word has taken on the meaning of "descendants" ("these are the descendants of").
     Yet the lexicon defines toledot as "history, especially family history" or something associated with origins. This would mean that the term is concerned with ancestors rather than descendants. It also suggests that the phrase looks back to the preceding narrative rather than looking ahead to what follows.
     The first use of toledot in Genesis 2:4 ("these are the generations of the heavens and the earth") clearly establishes that this reference at 2:4 is looking back rather than ahead. Nothing following Genesis 2:4 deals with "the heavens and the earth." Many commentators recognize that here toledot looks back, even though they interpret the other occasions where it is used as looking ahead. They fail to see that Genesis 2:4 is the key, and that all of the toledot phrases refer back to the previous material.
     James Moffatt, in his translation of the Bible, actually lifted the toledot phrase out of Genesis 2:4 and transferred it to Genesis 1: 1 so that it serves as an introduction to the first chapter. Other liberal writers have stated that this phrase was out of place at Genesis 2:4 or that it was put there by a compiler merely to serve as a transition.
THE COLOPHON AND MESOPOTAMIAN WRITINGS
     In 1936, P. J. Wiseman wrote a book titled New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis. Wiseman seems to have found the key that unlocks the details of the authorship of Genesis. His thesis is that internal clues in Genesis reveal how it was written; that the actual authors of Genesis were Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, and Joseph; that the authors, other than Joseph, probably wrote in cuneiform on clay tablets; and that Moses, using these records, was the redactor or editor of Genesis rather than its author.
     Wiseman's work was recently edited and reissued by his son, Donald P. Wiseman, a noted evangelical scholar.2 The younger Wiseman was assistant curator of western Asian antiquities at the British Museum and later professor of Assyriology at the University of London. He is also general editor of the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series. Donald Wiseman endorses his father's work, as does R. K. Harrison, professor of Old Testament, University of Toronto, who has incorporated it into his monumental Introduction to the Old Testament.3 Although P. J. Wiseman is often cited by evangelical scholars,
[page 320] his remarkable insights into the composition of Genesis are not well-known by the evangelical community.
     Wiseman asked this question: How was information recorded and how were documents formulated in ancient Mesopotamia, which was the geographical context of much of the book of Genesis? The heart of Wiseman's contribution to the problem of the formulation of Genesis was his insight in identifying the toledot phrases in Genesis with ancient Mesopotamian colophons. A colophon is a scribal device placed at the conclusion of a literary work written on a clay tablet, giving—among other things—the title or description of the narrative, the date or occasion of the writing, and the name of the owner or writer of the tablet.
     It is not surprising to the student of ancient Eastern customs that many of their literary habits were precisely the opposite of our own. For instance, the Hebrews commenced their writing on what to us is the last page of the book and wrote from right to left. In ancient Mesopotamia (Iraq), it was the end and not the beginning of the tablet that contained the vital information regarding date, contents, and ownership or authorship. This custom was widespread and persisted for thousands of years.
     Perhaps the most striking aspect of the colophon practice was that the name in the colophon was the name of the owner or writer of the tablet. Sometimes the owner would also be the writer. If a person was not able to write, however, he would hire a scribe to do the writing for him. The scribe would include not his own name but the name of his employer—the owner of the tablet. Thus it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of the colophon at Genesis 5:1: "This is the written account of Adam's line." Not only does the Hebrew word sepher mean "book" or "a complete writing," but the presence of Adam's name suggests that it was a written account owned or written by Adam, not just a written account about Adam. Genesis 2:4–5:1 gives evidence of being a firsthand, eyewitness account of the experiences of Adam, possibly written by him on a clay tablet.
     Derek Kidner (Tyndale House, Cambridge) understands the impact of the Hebrew word sepher at Genesis 5:1.
The opening, This is the book . . . , seems to indicate that the chapter was originally a self-contained unit ("book" means "written account", of whatever length), and the impression is strengthened by its opening with a creation summary, and by the set pattern of its paragraphs.4
     However, Kidner rejects Wiseman's theory that Genesis contains a series of colophons in which the names given are the names of the original writers or owners of the tablets. "By insisting on a complete succession of named tablets the theory implies that writing is nearly if not quite as old as man."5
[page 321] At the risk of being thought a bit naive, one could ask what is wrong with the art of writing being nearly as old as the human race. Here is where preconceptions enter in. If one believes that God created humans directly as humans, there is nothing at all wrong with the idea. The problem is really with Kidner. He is a theistic evolutionist. His philosophy demands that humans not be that intelligent that early in their history. Therefore, Adam could not have known how to write. It's rather gracious of Kidner to allow Adam to be able to speak. This is not the only occasion when Kidner forsakes solid biblical exegesis because of his preconceived notions about origins.
     Colophons also included the date or occasion of their writing. It is easy for us in the twentieth century to miss this fact, because we date our writings by the calendar. Not so the ancients. The creation account (Gen. 1:1-2:4) is dated "in the day that the Lord God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 2:4). "In the day" equals "when" and implies that the creation account was written very close to the actual time of creation, not centuries later. In Genesis 37:1-2, Jacob dated his tablet as having been written "when he lived in Canaan." Although by our standards that phrase is not precise, it does reflect a specific period in Jacob's life. Before that time he spent many years working for Laban in Haran. After that period he lived with Joseph in Egypt until his death. Leviticus (although probably not written on clay tablets) is dated as having been written when Moses was "on Mount Sinai" (Lev. 27:34), and Numbers is dated as having been written when Moses was "on the plains of Moab" (Num. 36: 13). This type of dating was accurate enough for the people of that era, considering the nature of their society.
     The use of colophons persisted almost unchanged for over three thousand years in ancient Mesopotamia and elsewhere. Colophons are found in the Ebla tablets in northwest Syria (2700 BC) and in the Akkadian texts from Ras Shamra (1300 BC). Colophons continued at least until the time of Alexander the Great (333 BC), and they are not unknown today. In one of my English Bibles, at the end of the epistle to the Romans, is this statement: "Written to the Romans from Corinth, and sent by Phoebe, servant of the church of Cenchrea." Readers of Time and Newsweek will recognize that many of the major news articles have the name of the author and the place of writing at the end of the article, such as, "Written by Susan Smith in Washington." These are all suggestive of colophons.
THE AUTHORS OF GENESIS
The internal evidence suggests that Genesis was written on a series of clay tablets as follows:
[page 322] Genesis 1:1–2:4 Origin of the heavens and the earth. No author is given. P. J. Wiseman suggests that the author was God himself, who wrote it in the same way he wrote the Ten Commandments, probably on clay tablets. According to its date, as given in the text itself, it was written very soon after the act of creation.
Genesis 2:5–5:2 Tablet written by or belonging to Adam.
Genesis 5:3–6:9a Tablet written by or belonging to Noah.
Genesis 6:9b–10:1 Tablet written by or belonging to the sons of Noah.
Genesis 10:2–11:10a Tablet written by or belonging to Shem.
Genesis 11:10b–11:27a Tablet written by or belonging to Terah.
Genesis 11:27b–25:19a Tablets written by or belonging to Isaac and Ishmael.
Genesis 25:19b–37:2a Tablets written by or belonging to Jacob and Esau. Esau's genealogy may have been added later.
     It is significant that the last colophon is at Genesis 37:2a. From Genesis 1 to 11, the Mesopotamian setting and local color are very obvious. From Genesis 12 to 37:2a, that Mesopotamian influence persists. Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees, Isaac sent back there for his wife, and Jacob got his wife from Haran and worked there for many years. From Genesis 37:2b to the end, however, the setting and local color change dramatically. We are now in Egypt. This section has a strong Egyptian flavor and was probably written by Joseph on papyrus or leather; hence it is without colophons, which are only associated with clay tablets.
     Strengthening the arguments presented thus far is the fact that in every case the person named as the owner or writer of the tablet could have written the contents of that tablet from his own personal experience. It is also significant that in every case, the history recorded in the various tablets ceases just prior to the death of the person named as the owner or writer of the tablet.
THE ROLE OF MOSES
     All of the tablets could have come to Moses in the way that family records were normally handed down. Nothing would have been more precious to the patriarchs than their family histories and genealogies. It is possible that there were many sets of these tablets and that each member of a patriarchal family had his own set. Of all the personal items that Noah would have taken on the ark, he would have considered his family histories the most precious and most worthy of preservation.
[page 323] Because of his education in the household of Pharaoh, Moses had the finest scholarly training of that day. He would have known how to read the languages of the cuneiform tablets, as well as Egyptian. Cuneiform writing was well-known in Egypt because of Egypt's relationship with Mesopotamia. Moses's task would have been first of all to organize the book—under the guidance of the Holy Spirit—into a unified whole. The use of previously written documents in no way does violence to the concept of verbal plenary inspiration. Luke also tells us that he used previously written documents (Luke 1:1–4). It is reasonable to assume that each of the original writers of the tablets was guided by the Holy Spirit as well. By retaining the colophons, Moses clearly indicates the sources of his information. Just as a scholar today documents his sources with footnotes or endnotes, so Moses documented his sources of information with the colophons. These colophon divisions, based on the different sources, constitute the framework of the book of Genesis.6
     Moses' second task would have been translation. Any tablets written in Mesopotamia would have needed to be translated into Hebrew. If this translation had not been done before Moses' time, Moses would have been qualified to do it. Joseph's records, if written in Egyptian, would also have needed to be translated into Hebrew by Moses.7
     The third major task for Moses, as the redactor or editor, would have been to bring place names up-to-date for the Israelites of the exodus. Geographic names change, and this updating is seen clearly in Genesis 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 15, and 17. This tablet, written in Abraham's day, had in it many geographic names that had become obsolete in the over four hundred years between Abraham and Moses. It is indicative of Moses' deep regard for the sacred text that he did not remove the old names but just added an explanatory note telling of the new names. Such notations are also seen at Genesis 23:2, 19; and 35:19. Genesis 23:2, 19 also indicate that these notations were made before the Israelites entered Canaan, since Moses had to state where these places were. Had the Israelites already been in the land, these notations would not have been necessary.
     Several passages indicate the antiquity of the tablets Moses had in his possession. In Genesis 16:14, regarding the well or spring to which Hagar fled, Moses added this note: "It is still there, between Kadesh and Bered." Genesis 10:19 is one of the most important evidences of the great antiquity of the book of Genesis. This passage, part of Shem's tablet, had to have been written before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Since these cities were destroyed (Genesis 19) and never rebuilt, and their very location was forgotten, this tablet telling of the settlement of clans near those cities obviously had to be written while those cities were still standing.
[page 324] IMPLICATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE
     The implications of this evidence for the origin of Genesis are staggering. Rather than Genesis having a late date, as is universally taught in nonevangelical circles, the evidence implies that Genesis 1–11 is a transcript of the oldest series of written records in human history. This is in keeping both with the character of God and with the vital contents of these chapters. It is reasonable to expect that the first humans created by God would have had great intelligence and language capabilities and that God would fully inform them as to their origin.
     This research also confirms the idea that the Genesis creation and flood accounts are the original accounts of these events and were not derived from the very different and polytheistic Babylonian accounts.8 It also supports the fact that monotheism was the original religious belief and not a later evolutionary refinement from an earlier polytheism.
     This research further serves to falsify the widespread idea that Genesis 1 and 2 give conflicting accounts of creation. It also suggests that the higher-critical theories on the composition and date of Genesis are factually bankrupt.
     Just as God has not left us in doubt about our destiny, so he has not left us in doubt about our origin. We have the footnotes of Moses.
POSSIBLE EDITORIAL INSERTIONS BY MOSES FOR CLARIFICATION
Genesis 10:5 "From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language."
Genesis 10:14 "from whom the Philistines came"
Genesis 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17 Geographic clarifications.
Genesis 16:14 "it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered."
Genesis 19:37b "he is the father of the Moabites of today."
Genesis 19:38b "he is the father of the Ammonites of today."
Genesis 22:14b "And to this day it is said, 'On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.' "
Genesis 23:2, 19 Geographic clarifications.
Genesis 26:33 "and to this day the name of the town has been Beersheba."
Genesis 32:32 "Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon."
[page 325] Genesis 35:6, 19, 27 Geographic clarifications.
Genesis 25:20 "and to this day that pillar marks Rachel's tomb."
Genesis 36:10-29 Esau's genealogy probably added later.
Genesis 47:26 "—still in force today—"
Genesis 48: 7b "that is, Bethlehem."

References 1. See John Korgan, "Free Radical: a word (or two) about linguist Noam Chomsky," Scientific American (May 1990):40–44.
2. P. J. Wiseman, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, ed. Donald J. Wiseman (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985).
3. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 542–53.
4. Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 80.
5. Ibid., 24.
6. Some recent evangelical writers question that the toledot phrases are colophons. However, their objections are not weighty and can be adequately explained. See Kidner, Genesis, 23–24; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 69–74; and Duane Garrett, Rethinking Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 94–96.
7. There is some question as to just when Hebrew came into common use as a language. There is abundant reason to believe that it was in common use in Moses's day.
8. For examples of colophons in Enuma Elish, a Babylonian creation account, see Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 25–45.

For further reading: "Five Arguments For Genesis 1 And 2 As Straightforward Historical Narrative" <http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=62>
"Genesis 2:4 and the Meaning of 'Day' in Genesis 1" <http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=54>

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

JEDP Revisited


 

THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS'
Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?



Should Theology, Religious Studies and Comparative Religion Students Take the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP System) Seriously?

Are the 5 Books of Moses (The Torah), a hotch-potch of largely unconnected writings by later writers?

The Intellectual Arrogance of Julius Wellhausen.

I recently wrote a letter. Upon reviewing my letter before posting it, I noticed that my letter was structured in 5 clear sections. In these sections I covered five different topics so my vocabulary naturally changed as I moved on to differing topics; in other words, my letter varied stylistically as I moved on to a different subject. I was immediately reminded of the 'Documentary Source Hypothesis.' I found myself musing on the ridiculous possibility that some "higher critic" might discover my letter in 1,000 years and decide that those five sections must have been written by five different writers (possibly at five different times) because of the stylistic/vocabulary changes as I changed my topic! Ridiculous you say? Sure it is, but this is exactly what some have done to parts of the Old Testament (attempts have also been made to undermine the New Testament in such a manner but far less successfully).
I want to introduce our readers to a number of links/writings which expose the sadly flawed Graf/Wellhausen Documentary Source Hypothesis.

 
Just what is this system (often known as the 'JEDP' system)?

UPDATE!!


The concept that all early religion was animistic or naturistic and that belief in Monotheism was a late arrival as a result of 'evolving religious thought' is now even more seriously undermined by Rodney Stark's exhaustive 2007 study of religious development. Stark's 'The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief' (HarperOne, 2007), simply must be consulted by any who want to go deeper with this subject. In this book, Stark uncovers much useful information on the antiquity of Monotheism. He writes,
"Despite decades of faulty reports that early religions were crude muddles of superstition, it turns out that the primitive humans had surprisingly sophisticated notions about God and creation."
The system arose in the 19th century and was the work of certain scholars who accepted the 'history of religions' school of thought. This was the application of evolutionary principles to the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible). These people were very accepting of the principle of evolution and rejected any concept of a God who 'knows the end from the beginning.' They believed that the earliest form of religion was primitive and animistic with early man having no concept of One God (Monotheism). Therefore, they reasoned, the concept of One God found in the Torah was clearly an anachronism, being back-projected by much later writers! Their minds were already made up on this point before they even started their "research"- Of course, these people were not likely to accept much within the Torah in any case since they were mostly quick converts to the (then) fledgling theory of evolution.
These liberal scholars who were committed to Theological Naturalism - ruling out any possibility of a supernatural God, set out to deconstruct the Old Testament and were especially interested in the Torah since it appeared to contradict much of their dogma. I was exposed to some of this system when at University but even our 'dyed in the wool' liberal Old Testament lecturer presented the JEPD system with a mighty 'pinch of salt' - he told us that the system has been regularly revised by later scholars and that, while the basic schema is still accepted, much has changed within the overall approach, and much likely to continue to change. Our lecturer seemed intent on being postmodernist in approach and so he seemed to have a 'You can believe whatever you like' attitude. Not necessarily a helpful approach!
Hermann Gunkel along with others of the "history of religions" school assumed that many of the stories narrated in the final text of Genesis, for example, were taken originally from imaginary stories about pagan gods and were gradually transformed by Hebrew poets into imaginary stories about an imaginary Hebrew God in relation to imaginary patriarchs who were projected as founders of the nation.
So, if we are to believe people like Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932), and others of their school of thought (in fairness, Gunkel, who was more interested in the Psalms, thought Wellhausen had gone too far in his literary claims about the Pentateuch), the Old Testament writers were utterly deceitful people with a complete disdain for the truth; moreover, we are asked to believe that a succession of writers over a very long period of time remained utterly committed to maintaining this deceitful and lying approach about the origins and history of Israel! But does that not fly in the face of the wonderful moral teaching (including the commandment not to bear false witness), which we find within the Old Testament itself?
Does this theory really 'stack up' ?
Can we really accept the notion that the writers and compilers of the Old Testament were the biggest historical liars of all time? Or should we reconsider the credentials of the Wellhausen/Gunkel gang?
We need to understand that people like Wellhausen, and then Gunkel, completely rejected any concept of a God who might inspire every word of Holy Scripture, immediately making the judgment that this could not possibly be the case, therefore any other explanation of the Old Testament was bound to be preferable.
Okay. So how did the 'JEDP' system work?
Essentially, attempts were made to find different authors who had contributed to the Torah; this led to the breaking up of the 5 books into four sections, J, E, D, and P.
How were the lines drawn? Differences of writing style and vocabulary were looked for (even though all of us change style/vocabulary whenever we change our topic in any written work).
J (from the divine name Yahweh -- in German, Jahweh); it was said to have originated in Judah between 950 and 850 B.C. and pieces of it are scattered in sections from Genesis through Numbers.
E (the Elohistic source, from the prevalence of the word Elohim); it was said to have originated in the northern kingdom of Israel between 850 and 750 BC. It too, is scattered from Genesis through Numbers.
P (the Priestly source, so called because it seems most concerned with aspects of the formal worship in the temple); it was said to come from the exile or shortly thereafter -- sixth to fifth centuries B.C. Mostly made up of the genealogies and priestly ritual described in Genesis through Numbers.
D (the Deuteronomic source, so called because it includes mostly just the book of Deuteronomy); the author or editor of this section was assumed to be responsible for the framework of the historical account that runs from Joshua through 2 Kings. D was regarded as having reached its final form during the reign of Josiah, when the priests "found" the book of the law (2 Kings 22:3-23:25).
But not all agreed with all of the components, some thought 'E' was the oldest part but others thought 'J' the older part. Various redactors (editors) came along and added bits throughout an amazingly long period of time (according to the theory). Some even thought that there were two Elohist writers, but the work was so closely intermeshed with 'J' that attempts to separate the authors were deemed problematic. It apparently did not bother these Bible critics that sometimes violence was done to the natural flow of a passage, where a particular letter 'source' was thought to give way to another.
I could go on and on... But there is really little point; some of the theories became quite extreme and bizarre and it is almost surprising that much of it ever won acceptance!!
But we have to keep reminding ourselves that not one iota of real, hard evidence exists for any of it!! Moreover, indications of real unity within the first 5 books of the Old Testament are actually abundant, but - like the theory of evolution which it was largely based upon - it was the right theory at the right time for a group of godless and materialistic pseudo-intellectual 'scholars' who wanted to set up a wholly materialistic model of religious history, without any reference to the supernatural, and, yes, undoubtedly also wanted to make a name for themselves in the new academic world of 'higher biblical criticism.'
In 1966 Professor Kenneth Kitchen wrote,
' . . . Even the most ardent advocate of the documentary theory must admit that we have as yet no single scrap of external, objective evidence for either the existence or the history of J, E, or any other alleged source-document..' (p. 23, Kitchen, K.A. (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale).
That was written in 1966, but about 40 years later the situation is even more bleak since it is now obvious that no evidence to support Wellhausen's theory will ever be found.
The documentary hypothesis has a number of problems - some of which, the original documentary theoryists could not have been aware of in the century in which they wrote; Kenneth Collins points one out in his essay, 'The Torah in Modern Scholarship' (find link to the full essay lower on this page),
'The documentary hypothesis was originally based on the supposition that the events in the Torah preceded the invention of writing, or at least its use among the Hebrews. This is because Julius Wellhausen lived in the nineteenth-century, but nineteenth-century notions about ancient literacy have been completely refuted by archaeological evidence. The documentarians have not updated the documentary hypothesis to take this into account, so we still find them assigning very late dates to their hypothetical sources of the Torah.... Archaeology has shown that writing was common during the time in which the events of the Torah were to have taken place.'
My Old Testament lecturer was either ignorant of the much greater knowledge of the ancient world which we now have, or he was being disingenuous when he stated that the theory has been greatly revised, and will continue to be, but still stands. The truth is that the very foundation which the history of religions school was based upon (the concept that the earliest forms of religion were simple, naive and animistic, and that belief in one all-powerful God was a late arrival), has now largely been demolished! We know much more about the religion of the ancients than the devisers of the 'JEDP' system ever did. We now know that the belief in one all-powerful God is very, very old - just as Genesis claims! Many obscure and ancient peoples and tribes have now been able to put their side of the case, and the concept of one all-powerful God as an original belief is to be found everywhere. Some of these tribes have even explained how various 'holy men' within their tribes tried very hard to hold on to Monotheism, as more corrupt strains of religious belief - such as animism - later arose!
Today, in the face of evidence from archaeology, the Dead Sea scrolls, and much more available information about the languages of the ancient world, dependence on the Wellhausen theory is looking increasingly unfeasible and, indeed, inexcusable. We now have thousands of Old Testament texts and fragments to compare and in every single case the format found in our Old Testaments is validated - if the documentary theory were really correct surely some manuscript evidence would have been discovered somewhere to reveal the work of these dishonest men and their literary conspiracy? Is not the fact that conspiracies and plotters are always discovered one of the strongest lessons of human history? Let us remind ourselves once more that the documentary theorists never produced a single shred of real evidence for their literary theory! Happily now at last there is a welcome and growing trend among scholars to view the Pentateuch as a literary unit again.
Despite this, there are still websites around which present the Documentary Theory as though it was the very latest learning, apparently unaware that many of the points which they make have long since been disproven/overturned.
The tragedy of all this is that for over a hundred years many Theology and Religious Studies students have been indoctrinated in a system which wholly discredits the claims of the Old Testament to be the inspired Word of God. We have to keep reminding ourselves that Jesus fully backed up the truth and authenticity of Moses and of the 'Law, Prophets and Writings' (the Old Testament), by frequently quoting from it. He based His authority and credentials upon the Old Testament! And yet some who claim to be followers of Jesus have gone along with the practise of breaking the Old Testament up into these (purely imaginary) divisions and sections, even pontificating on whether or not Moses actually existed. There is now no need for such scepticism! How odd that a system can continue to enjoy some kind of existence long after its very foundations have crumbled!!
Taken from: http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm

Saturday, September 3, 2011

The Tablet Theory or the Wiseman Hypothesis


Tablet theory

The Tablet Theory or the Wiseman Hypothesis, is the concept that the book of Genesis was written by the individuals with whom the text mostly concerned, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.

Contents

....

History

The theory was presented by Percy J. Wiseman, who during a tour in Mesopotamia as an air commodore in the Royal Air Force, found an interest in studying ancient civilizations of the region. He visited a number of excavation sites and archeologists and collected cuneiform tablets and inscriptions while familiarizing himself with the writing conventions of the ancient Mesopotamians. He noted the correlation between the method of recording authorship in pre-Abraham clay tablets and the style of Genesis. Wiseman pointed out in his 1936 book that ancient tablets carried at the end the name of the scribe (or owner) as well as information on the author (or owner) and the date of the recording, much like the way in which newspaper reporters today provide that same information at the end of news articles. This pattern seemed to make sense of the outline of Genesis, which divides narratives with a statement on the central figure of the preceding text and then proceeds to list a series of generations to set up the following narrative. Despite his publication and his son's updated edition printed in 1936, the Tablet Theory has not received much attention over the JEDP Documentary Hypothesis.

Authorship and compilation

The following lists the authors and account transitions as proposed by Curt Sewell:
The "tablets," if written in this proposed time frame, would have been written in the language of the time and passed down from generation to generation. These were later all translated into Hebrew, granted that Hebrew was not the language of the antediluvian world. The tablets would likely have been separate pieces, and when put together in one account, possibly on papyrus or parchment, portions of certain colophons may have been dropped for lack of necessity, while the text itself was kept unchanged. There is clear textual evidence that Moses, when he compiled the accounts, put notes on updated place names after the original, out of date names. An example is in Genesis 23:19 :
And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan. Genesis 23:19 (KJV)
The theory also fits with the oft cited "double creation account." The opening recap of Genesis 2 can be seen as a shift of perspectives as a second author picks up the history, namely Adam.

Opposing views

Tablet theory and the Documentary Hypothesis

The Tablet Theory is in direct opposition to the Documentary Hypothesis (also called the JEDP theory) and its presupposition that the events were written down long after they had transpired, or that the earlier parts of Genesis are a complete myth. Proponents of higher criticism state that writing had not yet arisen in the time of the earlier parts of the book of Genesis, and it has been claimed that Genesis had not been compiled until the time of Israel’s captivity in Babylon. However, such claims have no supporting archaeological evidence and rely almost entirely upon speculation, while the Tablet Theory is founded upon the known and verified style of ancient scribes.

Tablet theory and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch

It has been stated that the theory is contrary to the traditional view by both Christians and Jews that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, either from revelation from God or from oral tradition. It should be realized, however, that Moses would have translated the tablets from their original non-alphabetic script and non-Hebrew language into Hebrew, thus beginning the formation of the Biblical canon. The tablets would not have been written in Hebrew because the original language of Abraham and his ancestors was not Hebrew. See Gen. 31:46,47, where the language of Abraham's kinfolk in Haran was not the same as the language that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had learned in Canaan. The script of the tablets would not have been alphabetic because the earliest examples of alphabetic writing only go back to about the time of Moses. Over the years, several authors have conjectured that someone who knew both Egyptian and Hebrew was the inventor of the alphabet, because Egyptian hieroglyphs contain symbols for the consonants, but the Egyptians never realized they could write everything using just these symbols. Hebrew, like Egyptian, originally used only consonants, showing the likely Egyptian predecessors of the alphabet. Moses, who was "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22) is therefore a logical choice for the original inventor of the alphabet. If this was the case, then his translation of the tablets into the Hebrew alphabetic script, sometimes adding explanatory notes, was the means that the Holy Spirit used to start the formation of the Biblical canon. (Joseph is another candidate for the inventor of the alphabet.)
Moses was familiar with the use of colophons, and he used them in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as summary lines. In Leviticus, for example, a colophonic summary appears at 14:32 and at the end of chapters 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 26, and 27. The last sentences in Leviticus and Numbers are colophons for the respective books. Although Moses would probably have written on parchment, not on tablets, he showed his familiarity with the earlier tablets by occasionally using their colophonic structure in the records he made of his own time.

Interesting consequences of the Tablet Theory

Several insights are gained into the structure of Genesis if the Tablet theory is true. Some of these are listed here.
  • It means that from the beginning, the accounts of Scripture were usually written by eyewitnesses. An exception is the toledoth of Terah (Genesis 11:10b to 11:27a), which consists entirely of a genealogical list that Terah passed on from his ancestors. Toledoth is the Hebrew word that is translated "generations" in the KJV. A better translation that shows its meaning in these first chapters of Genesis is "histories" or "sacred history" (the word is plural in Hebrew).
  • It explains why there are two accounts of creation, the first going from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4a, and the second from there to the end of chapter 2. The first account deals with the creation of the universe from God's perspective. Although man is the crown of that creation, the first chapter discusses first the heavenly bodies and the plant and animal kingdoms that were created before the creation of man. The second account is written more from man's perspective, starting with man in the garden, and then the description of the garden and the surrounding geography.
  • Consistent with this idea, the second chapter of Genesis deals with things that Adam would have known about from his own experience. In order to make clear to the modern reader the ancient literary convention being followed in the first 36 chapters of Genesis, Genesis 5:1 should be translated "This concludes the book of the histories (sepher toledoth) of Adam . . ."
  • Genesis chapter 1, however, deals with the creation of the entire universe, to which man was not an eyewitness. The colophon for this section does not name any human author. In place of such a name there is provided the name of God: " . . . when the Lord God created the heavens and the earth." The Lord God here provides a record of things to which man could not have been an eyewitness, and, in a sense, signs his own name to this first toledoth (sacred history).
  • The first toledoth (Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a), in the original Hebrew, is written in extremely simple language. There are only about 90 basic word-forms in the chapter when we take into account verbal and noun forms of the same root. Examples of this are or for 'a light' in Gen. 1:14, 15, 16 and the verbal form or (give light) and participle maor, 'light-giver' in these same verses. There is not a name yet for the sun and the moon; they are simply "the big light" and "the small light" (Genesis 1:16). The repetitive structure of the accounts for the various days also produces an easily understood pattern. It has been proposed that the simple style of this chapter in dealing with profound concepts about the creation reflects a very early time in man's history, when God was teaching man how to read.
  • A theological point in this regard is that man, ever since Adam and Eve, always had a written revelation to which he was held accountable. The translation of these tablets into Hebrew by Moses began the formation of the Biblical canon.
  • The colophonic structure (each of the toledoth ends with a catch-line naming the history and its author or owner) explains why Genesis 11:26 states that Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Terah, only to have this information repeated in the next verse. The toledoth of Terah finishes in Genesis 11:27a with the phrase "this concludes the toledoth (sacred history) of Terah," after which this catch-line is repeated at the beginning of the next toledoth. Wiseman points out that the repetition of a catch-line is another distinguishing feature of this early style of writing.
  • It explains why Genesis 37:1a ("this concludes the histories of Jacob") is not followed by a list of the genealogy or generations of Jacob, as would be expected from the traditional translation "These are the generations of Jacob." The same is true of Genesis 2:4a, where the translation "the generations of the heavens and the earth" would lead us to expect that what follows should be a list of the descendants of the heavens and the earth.
  • It explains why Moses, who translated these tablets into Hebrew, was familiar enough with the colophonic structure that he used colophons extensively in his own writing (see prior section).
  • The idea that Scripture, from the very first chapter of Genesis, was usually written by eye-witnesses (or taken from official and reliable records, as was the case for the chronological data of the kingdom period) sheds an interesting light on Genesis 7:20. The authors of this toledoth were, according to the Tablet Theory, the three sons of Noah (Genesis 10:1a). Their remark that the mountains were covered to a depth of fifteen cubits (about 26 feet, using the old cubit of 21 inches) reflects what they experienced during the months in which the Ark was afloat. They knew that no land was seen. They also knew that at no time before the final appearance of the mountains did the bottom of their vessel touch anything. They therefore concluded that all land must have been submerged to at least the depth of the draft of the Ark. Fifteen cubits or 26 feet is a reasonable measure for the draft of a ship the size of the Ark (525 feet long and 52 feet high according to the old cubit). Consequently, if this idea is true, Genesis 7:20 provides a measure of the amount of the ship's hull that was under the waterline; it was half the ship's total height.
  • According to the Tablet Theory, the account of the Flood was written by eyewitnesses, not by some late-date editor or story-teller who was putting together disparate accounts from the 'J' and 'P' sources, as maintained by scholars with an anti-supernaturalistic bias. Recent scholarship has shown that the Flood account has an artistic unity that is reflected in its remarkable chiastic structure, as explained in the article on chiasmus. No adequate explanation of the literary unity of the Flood account has ever been given by advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis, but it is explained completely by the Tablet Theory, as well as by a proper doctrine of the inspiration of all Scripture. See the chiasmus article for more details.

Related References

See Also