Friday, September 16, 2011

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

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Who Wrote the Book of Genesis?


Who Wrote the Book of Genesis?
By Peter Salemi
 
 

The biggest misunderstanding among Bible scholars today, is that Moses wrote the book of Genesis. If we look at the entire Bible, you will notice that all of it has been written by eyewitness accounts. Many assume that the book of Genesis was made up of oral traditions. Just a bunch of stories passed on from one generation to the next, or that Moses borrowed from the pagans, the stories of Noah, and creation, and then wrote his own version in the Hebrew Bible. Is the Hebrew Bible a borrowed version of the pagan versions of the flood and creation, or is it the other way around? Is the book of Genesis the ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, and as time when on, and the populations grew, and as man moved away from the center knowledge, the creation accounts got all corrupted, hence we have the pagan accounts of creation from the Babylonians, etc.. and the original document was the book of Genesis?
The views are starting to change believe it or not. Many people are starting to realize that Moses DID NOT plagiarize these accounts of creation, and the flood. In stead there is evidence that Moses took the earlier documents of Adam, Noah, Abraham Enoch Isaac, and Jacob, these documents that were passed on from one generation to the next, and put them together into one book called the BOOK OF GENESIS!
After many excavations in the Middle East, archaeologists have found Ancient writings called "cuneiform" writings that date back all the way to 3500 B.C. Adam was still alive at that time, and so writing could have gone back even farther. So Adam could have composed his EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN!
It may be a surprise to some people, but the reference to writing is found in Genesis 5:1 which says: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." This suggests that the that art of writing was known within the lifetime of Adam, which could make writing as old as the human race itself!
Cuneiform writing became the system used by all civilized countries east of the Mediterranean-Assyrian, Babylonia, Persia, and the Hittites. Cuneiform writing consists of wedge-shape 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 would have used this system of writing.
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 B.C., from Palestinian officials to the Egyptian government-all written in Cuneiform.
It is no wonder that God allowed Pharaoh's daughter to raise Moses. He could have easily learned cuneiform writing, so he could easily translate the Hebrew cuneiform tablets of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, and Adam for the Israelites in the wilderness. Even in the book of Acts, in chapter 7 verses 21-22 Stephen says: "And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son...And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds."
It is absurd to think that God would entrust his sacred word to the fragile memory of human beings. Scripture reveals the opposite. In Deuteronomy 31:19-21 Moses was given a song to teach the people, and was specifically commanded to write it down so that it would not be forgotten. Obviously God had little faith in oral transmission. The Bible is not written in that way. He told Isaiah to "Take thee a great roll, and write..."(8:1). "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:" (30:8). He told Jeremiah also to "Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book" (30:2). The Bible is written by EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS about what God DIRECTLY TOLD THEM AND WHAT THEY SAW, NOT BY ORAL TRANSMISSION! Should we expect less from the book of Genesis? Remember God does NOT change his ways (Malachi 3:6).
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 the phrase, which is found 11 times in Genesis (2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:9, 37:2). The translators of the Septuagint (The Greek Old Testament) regarded that phrase as being so significant that they gave the book its name after the term. Genesis is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew TOLeDOT, "generations." Lubenow writes: "It is common for ancient records to begin with a genealogy or register documenting close family relationships" (Bones of Contention, p.216).
But who wrote Genesis 1:1-2:4? Adam could not have written about his own creation, or the creation of the universe. Duane Garrett in his book Rethinking Genesis; The Source and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch explains that Moses at Sinai, since, "Moses wrote all the words of the LORD," (Exodus 24:4), must have written this part of Genesis when he communed with God on top of the Mountain. He says, that "Genesis 1 has NO PARALLEL anywhere in the ancient world outside the Bible. The creation myths from Egypt and Mesopotamia can hardly be set alongside Genesis 1 as a parallel in any meaningful sense. It must be regarded as an example of a genre unique to the Bible" (p.191, emphasis added). Since there is no corrupted version of the first chapters of Genesis, then it was not written from the time of Adam. It must have been written later! Garrett explains that Moses communed DIRECTLY WITH GOD, and he gave him the revelation of the origin of the Universe!
This is a lengthy quote but important to understand the origin if these beginning chapters:
"The most obvious formal aspect of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is its heptadic structure. More precisely, it has a 6 + 1 structure, the seventh day being set apart by the fact that on that day God rested. As a literary form, this structure reappears in only one other place. Remarkably, this place is the book of Revelation in the New Testament.



"These parallels are the three 6 + 1 heptads of Revelation 6:1-8:1; 8:2-11:19; and 16:1-2 1. In each of the three, the pattern is of six related events followed by a seventh, which is somehow significantly different. In 6:1-8:1, there are the seven seals, and the fury of the first six is followed by the silence of the seventh. In 8:2-11:19, the judgments unleashed by the first six trumpets are followed by the doxology following the seventh. And in 16:1-21, the torments poured out of the first six bowls are followed by the cataclysm of the seventh.
"Revelation is apocalyptic and visionary. Can there be any formal relationship between this and Genesis 1 ? The obvious parallel is in the 6 + 1 heptadic structure. Instead of seals, trumpets, or bowls, there are seven days. But there is more in parallel here than form alone. Both are alike in intention because both give the divine view of the outer limits of history. Revelation gives the heavenly view of human history with a view towards its culmination. In Genesis 1, the focus is the initiation of the world and its history. I suggest that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is visionary and revelatory and that Moses, the premier prophet of the Old Testament, is the direct author of this material.
"The 6 + 1 pattern does appear in one other place, in Exodus 24:16ff, not as a literary form but as a reference to a historic event. In Exodus 24:16, we read of Moses being called up to the mountain of God. For six days the cloud covered the mountain, but on the seventh day Moses went up the mountain into the cloud and remained for forty days. In addition, the text tells us that Moses was for a long time alone with God on Sinai. If we may draw all this together, while in God's presence Moses may have received direct visions and revelations, and one of these revelations was of creation in the 6 + 1 pattern already established at Sinai.
"The seven days of Genesis 1, therefore, are neither the actual length of time of the creation event nor a mere anthropomorphism. They are the seven days of divine revelation to Moses. Genesis 1 may thus be regarded as revelatory, as in the formal structure of apocalyptic vision, and as having the intention of giving the divine view of the initiation of human history.
"What does this say for the redaction of Genesis 1-11? If Genesis 1:1-2:3 is directly from Moses, it implies that the whole ancestor epic pattern of Genesis 1-11 was not complete until he composed the prologue, 1:1-2:3. Also, if the toledoth sources were maintained as independent sources in the Egyptian sojourn, it is impossible to imagine that the material of Genesis 1-11 had anything like its present form until the whole was redacted. A possible solution, therefore, is that Moses took the triadic core sources, the story of Babel, the toledoth material, and the revelation of Genesis 1, and brought the whole together as the ancestor epic we now call the primeval history, Genesis 1-11" (pp.191-193, emphasis added)

Mesopotamian Writings
In 1936, P.J. Wiseman wrote a book entitled New Discoveries About Genesis. Wiseman seems to have found the key that unlocks the details of authorship of Genesis. His thesis is that there are several internal clues in Genesis that reveals how it was written; and that the actual authors of Genesis were Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, Ishamel, Isaac, Esau, Jacob and Joseph; That the authors other than Joseph, probably wrote in cuneiform on clay tablets; and that Moses, utilizing these records, with the "wisdom of the Egyptians" that he learned in Egypt, was the redactor or EDITOR OF GENESIS RATHER THAN ITS AUTHOR!
Wiseman says that every time we see the phrase "This is the book of the generations of...", that the NAME in that phrase is most likely the AUTHOR AS WELL!
Wiseman by internal evidence suggests that Genesis was written on a series of clay tablets as follows:
Wiseman's Assessment of the Book of Genesis
Genesis 1:1-2:4
Origins of Heaven and Earth. No author is given. Wiseman suggests that it was God himself, who wrote as he wrote the Ten Commandments, on clay tablets. According to the Text it was written after creation itself, then he must of taught Adam to write. Garrett's explanation is more feasible looking at the historical evidence.
Gen. 2:5-5:2 Tablet written by or belonging to Adam
Gen. 5:3-6:9a Tablet written or belonging to Noah
Gen. 6:9b-10:1 Tablet written by or belonging to the sons of Noah
Gen. 10:2-11:10a Tablet written by or belonging to Shem
Gen11:10b-11:27a Tablet written by or belonging to Terah
Gen. 11:27b-25:19a Tablet written by or belonging to Isaac and Ishmael
Gen. 25:19b-37:2 a Tablet written by or belonging to Esau and Jacob
Gen. 37b
It is significant that the last colophon (meaning the phrase "generations") is at Genesis 37:2a. From Genesis 1 to 11, the Mesopotamian setting and local color are obvious. From Genesis 12-37a, that influence persists. However, from Genesis 37b to the end, 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 without colophons (colophons are only associated with clay tablets).

The Role of Moses
Because of the education in the household of Pharaoh, Moses had the finest SCHOLARLY TRAINING OF THAT DAY! Moses first task would have been to organize the book under the guidance of the Holy Spirit-as a unified whole. Luke actually did the same thing (Luke 1:1-4). By retaining the colophons, Moses clearly indicates the sources of his information. Just as a scholar documents his sources of information today, by FOOTNOTES OR END NOTES, so Moses documented his sources that constitute the framework of the book of Genesis (see Kidner, pp.23-24, Creation and Blessing).
Moses second task would have been translation. Any tablets written in Mesopotamia would have to be written in Hebrew. Moses,because of his education would have been qualified to do so, as well as Joseph's written document. Since Joseph wrote in Egyptian Moses could have translated it to the Hebrew.
The third task for Moses as the editor would be to bring place names up to date for the Israelites of the Exodus. Geographic names change, and this updating is clearly seen in Genesis 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 15 and 17. Some of the place names between the time of Abraham and Moses had become obsolete in the 400 years between them. 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 in Genesis 23:2, 19, and 35:19. These up-dated place names were for the Israelites as they entered Canaan.
Several passages also 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 tablets, had to have been written BEFORE the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Since these cities were destroyed (Gen. 19), never rebuilt, and their very location was forgotten, it is obvious that this tablet telling of the settlement of clans near those cities had to be written while those cities were still standing!
Question Answered!
So did Moses borrow from the ancient pagan stories of the creation and the flood? From all the evidence that we have seen, the answer is an absolute NO! If anything, the pagans knowing the original story, but as time went on, got corrupted in the telling, and we have the creation and flood myths Babylon, Assyria etc... The book of Genesis is the ORIGINAL AND EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!
Norman Geisler writes: "In the ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborated legends, BUT NOT VICE VERSA. In the ancient Orient, legends WERE NOT SIMPLIFIED or turned into pseudo-history (historicized) as have been assumed for early Genesis...The recent discoveries of Creation accounts at Elba confirm this. The library of more than 17, 000 clay tablets pre-dates the Babylonian account by about 600 years. The creation tablet is STRIKINGLY CLOSE TO GENESIS...This shows that the BIBLE CONTAINS THE ANCIENT, LESS EMBELLISHED VERSION OF THE STORY and transmits the facts without the corruption of the mythological rendering" (When Skeptics Ask, p.182, emphasis mine). You see, as the stories get OLDER, they more and more RESEMBLE THE BOOK OF GENESIS, so the book of Genesis had to be the original account, and as Geisler says it was NEVER THE OTHER WAY AROUND! We have the true version of what happened by the people who actually WITNESSED IT! Thank God for the preservation of his word! ....

Taken from: http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

'Toledoth' Explains Abram's Pharaoh


 
Abram’s “Pharaoh” Biblically Named
and Archaeologically Identified
 
Damien F. Mackey
 

Toledoth and chiasmus, the keys to the structure of the Book of Genesis,
lead us to a real name for this Pharaoh.
  1. 1. The Toledoth Guide

Since it was common in ancient Egyptian documents for the ruler of Egypt to be referred to therein simply as Pharaoh (Egyptian per-aa. “The Great House”. “Palace”), critics are not correct in their claim that the lack of an Egyptian name (e.g. Khety, Thutmose or Ramesses) for the ruler in the case of the Abram and Joseph narratives of Genesis (cf. 12:15 & 39:1) is a further testimony, as they think, to these texts being unhistorical. Since these texts refer to the ruler of Egypt only as “Pharaoh”, it is argued that we ought not to take them as being serious histories.
It appears, however, from a consideration of the structures of the Book of Genesis, that the Holy Spirit may have a trick for us all, at least in the case of Abram’s history. From the now well-known theory of toledôt (or Toledoth, a Hebrew feminine plural), we might be surprised to learn that so great a Patriarch as Abram (later Abraham), did not sign off the record of his own history (as did e.g. Adam, Noah, and Jacob). No, Abram’s story was recorded instead by his two chief sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

“These are the generations of Ishmael ...” (Genesis 25:12).
“These are the generations of Isaac ...” (Genesis 25:19).

So, there were two hands at work in this particular narrative, and this fact explains the otherwise strange repetition of several famous incidents recorded in the narrative.
And it is in the second telling of the incident of the abduction of Abram’s wife, Sarai (later Sarah), that we get the name of the ruler who, in the first telling of it is called simply “Pharaoh”. He is “Abimelech” (20:2).
Admittedly, there are such seeming differences between the two accounts, as regards names, geography and chronology, as perhaps to discourage one from considering them to be referring to the very same incident; and that despite such obvious similarities as:
- the Patriarch claiming that his beautiful wife was his “sister”;
- the ruler of the land taking her for his own;
- he then discovering that she was already married (underlined by plagues);
- and asking the Patriarch why he had deceived him by saying that the woman was his sister;
- the return of the woman to her husband, whose possessions are now augmented.
The seeming contradictions between the two accounts are that, whereas the first incident occurs in Egypt, and the covetous ruler is a “Pharaoh”, the second seems to be located in southern Palestine, with the ruler being “King Abimelech of Gerar”, and who (according to a somewhat similar incident again after Isaac had married) was “King Abimelech of the Philistines” (26:1). Again, in the first account, the Patriarch and his wife have their old names, Abram and Sarai, whereas in the second account they are referred to as Abraham and Sarah, presumably indicating a later time. In the first account, the “Pharaoh” is “afflicted with great plagues because of Sarai”, whereas, in the second, “God healed Abimelech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children” (20:17).
The differences can be explained fairly easily.
Ishmael understandably wrote his father’s history from an Egyptian perspective, because his mother, Hagar, was “an Egyptian slave-girl” in Abram’s household, and she later “got a wife for [Ishmael] from the land of Egypt” (cf. 16:1 & 21:21). Ishmael names his father “Abram” because that is how he was known to Ishmael. Moreover, the incident with “Pharaoh” had occurred while the Patriarch was still called Abram. Isaac was not even born until some 25 years after this incident. His parents were re-named as Abraham and Sarah just prior to his birth. So, naturally, Isaac refers to them as such in the abduction incident, even though they were then Abram and Sarai. Again, there is no contradiction geographically between Egypt and Gerar because we are distinctly told in Ishmael’s account that it was just before the family went to Egypt (12:11) that Abram had told his wife that she was to be known as his sister. Gerar is on the way to Egypt.
Finally, whether the one whom Isaac calls “Abimelech” was still, in Isaac’s day, “Pharaoh” of Egypt, as he had been in former times, he was most definitely at least ruler over the Philistines at Gerar. Perhaps he ruled both lands, Egypt and Philistia. Be that as it may, the Holy Spirit has apparently provided the name of Abram’s “Pharaoh”. But one needs to respect His literary structures to discover that name. We now know his personal name: “Abimelech”.
In Hebrew it means “Father is King”.
Since Abimelech is not an Egyptian name, though (see discussion of this in 2. below), and since the other designation that we have for him is simply “Pharaoh”, that data, in itself, will not take us the next step of being able to identify this ruler in the Egyptian historical (or dynastic) records. But that our Abimelech may have - according to the progression of Ishmael’s and Isaac’s toledôt histories - ruled Egypt and then gone on to rule Philistia, could well enable us to locate this ruler archaeologically. Dr. John Osgood has already done much of the ‘spade work’ for us here, firstly by nailing the archaeology of En-geddi at the time of Abram (in the context of Genesis 14) to the Late Chalcolithic period, corresponding to Ghassul IV in Palestine’s southern Jordan Valley; Stratum V at Arad; and the Gerzean period in Egypt (“The Times of Abraham”, Ex Nihilo TJ, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77-87); and secondly by showing that, immediately following this period, there was a migration out of Egypt into Philistia, bringing an entirely new culture (= Early Bronze I, Stratum IV at Arad). P. 86: “In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain”.
This new phase would seem to correspond very nicely with the time of Narmer, since, at this very archaeological phase, according to Osgood (ibid., p. 85): “Belonging to Stratum IV [at Arad] Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer ...”. Now Narmer was either the first pharaoh of Egypt’s First Dynasty or the last pre-dynastic ruler of what is sometimes known as Dynasty 0 (or perhaps he was both).
  1. 2. The Chiasmus Guide

In response to a further tentative suggestion that I have made that Abimelech might even have been the same as Lehabim (i.e. abim-e-leh), the third son of Mizraïm (or Egypt) (Genesis 10:13), a reader, Ken Griffith, has disagreed with me on the basis of these names supposedly having different Hebrew meanings (his e-mail 29/11/10):
The semitic name Abi-melech means “father is king”.
The name Ley-haw-beem (Lehabim) means “flames” and the im is the plural form.
That said, they were probably cousins, as Abimelech, being a Philistine, would be descended from the Caphtorim out of Mizraim.
And (also 29/11/10):
My error. The Philistines came from the Casluhim, not the Caphtorim (Cretans),

I put forward the proposition that these Mizraïmite names probably originated in Sumerian Mesopotamia, where the ‘im’ ending was common (e.g. Alulim; Utnapishtim; Mesalim). The Hebrews may just have given the (perhaps foreign) name, “Lehabim”, an intelligible Hebrew form, “Abimelech”.
Griffith then (his e-mail 02/12/10) came up with the very interesting proposal of chiasmus that he thought might even verify my view, Abimelech = Pharaoh. He wrote:
…. Though men can write chiastically, only God can write historical chiasmus by causing events to happen in a symmetrical manner.
I am quite open to the idea that Abimelech might have been the Pharoah. However, you need to deal with the literary structure of the passage in question. I think chiasmus is a far better explanation in this case than having two authors. ….

Ken has thus further confirmed my merging of “Pharaoh” with “Abimelech” by kindly providing a chiastic structure for this part of the Book of Genesis. But before I give his more complex version of this, here is a very simple one from I. Kikawada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was (Ignatius Press, 1989), p. 95 :
Sarai and the Pharaoh (chapter 12)
The saving of Lot (chapter 14)
Covenant for land (chapter 15)
Covenant with Abraham (chapter 17)
Covenant for seed (chapter 18)
The rescue of Lot (chapter 19)
Sarah and Abimelech (chapter 20)
Now, here is Ken Griffith’s version of it:
Genesis 12-
A - Promise, Test (leave father's house), Worship
Promise of Blessing
Leave and go to another land.
Abraham & Lot Depart
Promise of Land
Builds Altar

B - Crisis, Attack, Conflict, Child

1 - Attack on Woman (Pharoah)
Famine
Goes down to Egypt
Call yourself my sister
Plagues
Abram leaves with wealth

2 - Crisis with Lot and Canaanites ( Sodom plundered )

Abraham "comes up" from Egypt
Great Wealth
Parts the land with Lot
God promises all the Land he can see.
dwelt by Terebinth trees of Mamre
Amraphel 4 kings invade
Abram Rescues Lot
Melchizedek blesses Abram
Bread and Wine
Plunderestored

3 - Promise Hagar Sarah Conflict I

Vision "I am your shield and reward"
Abram - I have no children
Your descendants shall be as stars
Proof of giving land
Covenant with halved animals
Prophesy of Egyptian bondage
God goes between pieces
Promise of land from Nile to Euphrates

Sarai No children
Gives Hagar in 10th year
Child Conceived
Hagar offends Sarai

Hagar flees pregnant, prophecy of Ishmael
Hagar returns, bears Ishmael, Abram 86

C.

Abram 99, God makes new covenant
Abram -> Abraham, father many nations, very fruitful
Circumcision
Sarai -> Sarah, will have son
Abraham circumcised Ishmael, and household

B' – Crisis, Attack, Conflict, Child (Sodom destroyed)

2'. Crisis with Lot and Canaanites
Lord appears by terebinth trees of Mamre, judgment on Sodom
Son will appear in a year
Sarah laughs, his name shall be laughter (Isaac)

Abraham intercedes for Sodom
If there were 50 I would save it.
If there are 10 I would save it.
God & Abraham depart

Angels enter Sodom
Lot gives lodging
Men of City demand men
Angels blind them
Angels say, collect your family
Son in laws don't listen
Lot flees with family
Lot escapes to Zoar
God overthrows cities
Lot's wife turned to vapor
Abraham goes to where he had met with God
Sodom and Gomorrah and plain smoking like furnace
God remembered Abraham and delivered Lot

Lot with his daughters
Birth of Moab and Ammon

1' - Attack on Woman II leading to Child (Abimelech -> Isaac)
Abraham journeys South (goes down), delt between Kadesh and Shur
"she is my sister"

Abimelech King of Gerar sends for Sarah
God warns in dream
Abimelech judges Abraham sends him away with money.

Lord visits Sarah as promised,
Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son, at set time.
Abraham calls his son Isaac.
Abraham circumcised Isaac.
Sarah rejoices.

3.' [ Promise + Sarah -> Hagar conflict II ] (This time Hagar gets the promise.)
Child weaned and feasted.
Ishmael scoffed and sent away.
Hagar meets God again in desert.
God promises great nation to Ishmael
Hagar finds water and gets a wife for her son from Egypt.

Abraham makes a covenant with Abimelech
Abraham finds his own well of water at Beersheeba.
Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, in land of Philistines.

A' Promise, Test, Worship
God calls Abraham, tells him to go to Land of Moriah
Abraham goes.
God tests him with Isaac.
Builds Altar
Abraham obeys.
God promises many descendants, stars of heaven and seashore, possess gates of enemies. Blessing.
Abraham returns to Beersheba and dwelt there.
[End of Ken’s chiasmus]
Note how B. 1 and B’. 1’ merge beautifully with “Pharaoh” in B. 1 reflecting “Abimelech in B’. 1’.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

How Genesis came to be





* February 2nd, 2010 12:21 am ET
* By Terry Hurlbut, Creationism Examiner


Moses receiving the tablets of the law (João Zeferino da
Costa, 1868)

One of the most contentious debates known to Biblical scholarship is the question of how the first book of the Bible, called Genesis, came to be. Most "Higher Critics" of the Bible do not even accept that it was written, in the belief that writing did not exist at that time. But archaeological evidence developed in the twentieth century shows that Genesis was indeed written, on a series of clay tablets containing clear clues that Moses was able to use to compile this remarkable work.

The favorite Higher Critical theory of Genesis is the Documentary or JEDP Hypothesis, officially credited to K. H. Graf and Julius Wellhausen but which probably began centuries earlier, with the French physician Jean Astruc. According to this theory, the Bible had four separate sources, each of which used a different name for God: the Yahwist or Jehovist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomic, and the Priestly. These documents were supposed to have been first written at about 800 BC (well into the era of the Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah).

Jean Astruc (National Library of Medicine)

But early in the twentieth century, archaeologists found clay tablets clearly predating this era and going back as far as the time of Abraham. Notable among these were the Ebla Tablets, at least one of which named all five Cities of the Plain mentioned in the War of the Ten Kings, in which Abraham had to come to the rescue of his nephew Lot after King Chedorlaomer of Elam had conquered the five cities and taken Lot hostage.

Air Commodore P. J. Wiseman, RAF, examined many of the ancient tablets and discovered certain common features. He first published his findings in 1936, and after that his son, D. J. Wiseman, published a revised edition of his book, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis: A Case for Literary Unity, in 1985. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, ISBN 97808407750223.)

The key feature of these tablets were colophon phrases, placed at the end of the tablets and naming the author or owner, the subject, and a date (usually as a king's regnal year). The elder Wiseman compared this feature to a turn-of-phrase that appears ten times in the Book of Genesis, and once in the Book of Exodus. In each case it begins with the word ?????? (toledoth), traditionally translated as "generations" and more literally meaning "genealogical annals" or "family history." Wiseman concluded that all these phrases, traditionally considered to introduce the text following, were actually identifiers of the text preceding them. Thus, "Annals of Adam" (Genesis 5:1), or "Annals of Noah" (Genesis 6:9a), or "Annals of Shem, Ham and Japheth" (Genesis 10:1).

A clay tablet found at Ebla, Syria (Wikipedia)

Most of these toledothim were probably on clay tablets, though the literal translation of the phrase tzeh sepher toledoth Adam (this is the scroll of the annals of Adam), for example, suggests that the annals of Adam came to Moses in scroll form. Only one of these annals (the first, or the Annals of Creation) had no author's name; Sewell, in Bible and Spade, suggested (1994) that God dictated these annals directly to Adam, thus making them the first-ever written document, the first-ever instance of stenographical dictation and transcription, and perhaps even the first writing lesson.

The remaining tablets are all attributable to the person named after the appearance of the word toledoth. The eleventh and last section of Genesis remains in minor dispute. Sewell suggested that it ended with Exodus 1:6 and is properly called "The Annals of Joseph and his Brothers." Damien Mackey asserts that this section is not part of the toledothim at all, but is an account written on papyrus, largely at the direction of Joseph and perhaps by Joseph's vice-regal scribes. In support of Mackey's hypothesis, the word toledoth does not appear in Exodus 1:6; instead one finds the Hebrew ???? (ha'dor), literally "the generation."

That Exodus is very short on details from the death of Joseph to the birth of Moses cannot be coincidence. Obviously Moses began writing with the frankly hazardous circumstances of his birth and (temporary) adoption into the Egyptian court. Eventually he would inherit the toledothim, in all their forms (tablet, scroll, or papyrus), and compile them into one continuous and chronological narrative.

....

Taken from: http://www.examiner.com/creationism-in-national/how-genesis-came-to-be?render=print