Genesis III

Usually when an English teacher introduces a book to a class, they start out with some information about the author.  Who wrote the book?  To whom?  When?  Why?  It’s often very important to have this kind of information to figure out what the book is all about.

I didn’t introduce Genesis in this way, though...and, if you’ll read your Archer book, you’ll see why.  Archer devotes more than 100 pages to such questions before he even gets to the book itself!!!  Certainly some fascinating questions there, but it seems to me far more important to deal with question of what the book is about.

 It seems to me that Genesis is really two things: like all creation myths, it is an attempt to explain man and his place in the universe.  It explains why things are the way they are.  But also, maybe even more important, Genesis is a great book of hope. It says that the universe is essentially good, and though evil is real enough, God is in control and will ultimately achieve his purpose through mankind. Further, those who obey him will be blessed even in the midst of an evil world.
In understanding the Hebrews, it’s important to remember this fundamentally positive view, a great contrast to Mesopotamian pessimism.  Seems to me very danger in dealing with questions of authorship, etc. to overlook basic theme.  But now that we have looked at basic theme, well: we can go backwards and begin to look at authorship, structure, etc.
Who wrote this book? When was it written?  Obviously, no agreement—but we can make some good guesses—and some really stupid guesses!!!

External evidence:

Long Christian and Jewish tradition that Genesis, and rest of Pentateuch comes from Moses.
Certainly Bible itself points to Mosaic authorship of the substantial portion of the Torah.

Internal evidence:

Deuteronomy 5:1 says, “And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.”

Bible also says Moses gave specific commands for preserving portions of the law. Deut. 27:1-3 says, “And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day.  And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister: And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee.”

Joshua indicates that these commands were kept. Jos 8:30 says, “Then Joshua built an altar unto the LORD God of Israel in mount Ebal, As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up [any] iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel. And all Israel, and their elders, and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, as well the stranger, as he that was born among them; half of them over against mount Gerizim, and half of them over against mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded before, that they should bless the people of Israel.  And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law.  There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.

But the Bible only designates certain portions of the Torah as definitely from the hand of Moses, and there are a few verses which it would be very strange for him to have written:

Deuteronomy 34:5-9

So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to he word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And Moses [was] an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.  And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping [and] mourning for Moses were ended. And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Natural enough to assume that Moses wrote most of Deuteronomy, and Joshua finished it up.
Now for most of the Torah, that’s a reasonable enough, though often questioned, explanation. Moses, Joshua, perhaps with some assistance from Miriam, Aaron, or a scribe or two wrote the Exodus—Deuteronomy.  If that’s so, what we have is eyewitness accounts, no very great question about where they got their information.

Genesis different.  The events described are 400 years before the time of Moses and more—so—another question: if Moses wrote Genesis, where did he get his information? What were his sources?

Source criticism:

There are other indications that the writer is combining earlier texts.

Genesis 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Gen 10:1 Now these [are] the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

Ok.  The writer seems to be using some earlier sources.  If author is Moses, one might speculate that some of his info. comes from Joseph (retained by Hebrews somehow in Egypt), other info. from Moses father-in-law Jethro, a Midianite priest (Midian a descendent of Abraham).

Can we do more?

In 1753, a French Physician, Jean Astruc, stated a promising theory.  He observed that in Genesis One and Two (and in much of the rest of Genesis) two different names are used for God.  Maybe, said Astruc, this is evidence of two different sources Moses is using.  These sources “E” for Elohim and “J” for Jehovah, the two differnt names for God.

Notice that Astruc is not at all questioning Mosaic authorship.  He’s just seeing if he can figure out a little better how Moses worked.

But Source criticism soon went in a very different direction.

In the early 19th century, the French philosopher August Comte had developed a theory on religious progress.  The human race had progressed through different stages—animist, polytheist, monolatry (henotheism), monotheism, and finally the positive.

A new generation of Biblical scholars ended up combining Comte’s theory of religious development with Astruc’s source criticism.  For no particularly good reason, they decided Moses was too early for the purely monotheistic ideas in much of the Torah, and they decided the Torah had been written much later.  Their theory, the theory taught again and again today, came to be called the Wellhausen (or Graf-Wellhausen) hypothesis.  This hypothesis was that there are a number of sources combined in the Torah.

J—written around 850 BC
E—written around 750 BC
P—a priestly source around 650 BC (maybe associated with reforms of Josiah)
D—a Deuteronomist who writes around 550 BC (maybe associated with Ezra)

This approach not only 19th century approach to scripture.

Form criticism

At same time, source critics were trying to divide up Torah into various sources, other critics were trying a very different approach.  The form critics carved up Torah (particularly Genesis) into small units—each called a pericope.  Then they tried to classify each of these segments.  Aetiological myth, etymolgical myth, ethnographic myth, etc.  Foremost among the OT form critics, Herman Gunkel.

How useful are Source and Form criticism?

How useful is all this?  Well, lots and lots of people get their Ph.D. doing this type of work, and secure for themselves a certain amount of fame.  But in terms of understanding Torah better, it seems to me lots of wasted effort.

1.  Intitial assumptions wrong.  Graf, Wellhausen, and Gunkel lived before the great days of archaelogy, and made some very bad assumptions.  WF Albright has shown that the Comtian model is wrong: polytheism, animism, monotheism side by side at many times, not a chronological development.  The assumption that Moses couldn’t write turns out to be absurd.  Extensive libraries (e.g., Ebla) well before Moses.

2.  Name of God criteria for separating sources won’t work.  Much of “E” material more like the “J” material than other “E” material, so one has to have an E1 and an E2.   And how valid is the name thing in the first place. (*Who created the world? *Pray for us...note word you use for God!)

Gen 28:13—22, And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I [am] with thee, and will keep thee in all [places] whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done [that] which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew [it] not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful [is] this place! this [is] none other but the house of God, and this [is] the gate of heaven. Gen And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put [for] his pillows, and set it up [for] a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.  And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city [was called] Luz at the first. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: And this stone, which I have set [for] a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.
Note also Genesis 2—not Jehovah, but Jehovah Elohim!!!!!

Other problem, doc. hypothesis people concentrated too much on identifying sources, neglected overall picture of book. Assumed final author didn't really know what he was doing because final product appeared awkward to them. How could any intelligent man put Genesis one and two in the same book???
*What's the answer? Answer lies in a couple of things. Should one alter one's sources? Contemporary historian would tend to--ancient authors for the most part did not. But most important part of answer lies in technique of composition. What we have found over and over again is that the plan of works from ancient near east follows standards different from our own.
#1. Emphasis on repetition. Author's reinforce there theme by repetition of similar incidents. But not identical incidents. Theme and variation an important pattern (cf. Epic of Gilgamesh). Thus authors are looking for similar events. Look at Proverbs 5, for instance. Two creation accounts, repetition of covenant with Abraham, Abraham passing of wife as sister, Isaac passing off wife as sister. Two conflicts between Hagar and Sarah. Jacob cheating Esau of blessing, and of birthright.
#2 Organization not chronological. Inverted parallel structure.