Pateo.nl : Wholly Science - Johan Oldenkamp

On the Origin of the Book of Genesis

The thesis that the texts of the Biblical Book of Genesis s were originally written in cuneiform on clay tablets was proposed and argued by Percy John Wiseman (1888-1948) in his 1936 book, “New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis” (see also here). It has been translated into German (and probably other languages), but all English and German editions are currently out-of-print. There is an undated German version, “Die Entstehung der Genesis” (presumably the first edition of 1957). This version includes some updates proposed by Dennis J. Wiseman, the author’s son, an archeologist then at the British Museum in London. His father, Percy Wiseman, had been working as an archeologist in Iraq for many years.

This is a summary of Wiseman's book:

1. Writing was very common in Babylonia at least from the late 4th millennium BCE onward. It was used for ordinary things, as well as for important ones. One wrote on clay tablets using cuneiform script (developing over time). This writing culture extended at least to the middle of the 1st millennium BCE and as far west as the countries of the eastern Mediterranean. Cuneiform was readily understood in Egypt, as well (cf. the Tell-el-Amarna tablets of 1400 BCE). Apparently, important people had their genealogies and other historical events written on tablets, which were then kept and copied as family documents. It would be surprising if the biblical patriarchs had not done so with their own genealogies and with the wonderful divine promises they had received. The reference to a "book" or "written record" ("sepher") in Gen.5:1 states as much.

2. Some relevant characteristics often found on those tablets are as follows. At the bottom, a seal of the author or owner of the tablet was imprinted, sometimes a date was indicated. In order to link different tablets belonging to the same longer text, titles, keywords, and sequence numbers were used. Linking keywords consisted of a word or a group of words occurring at the beginning or end of one tablet, which were repeated at the beginning or end of the next one. The name of the owner, the date of writing, and the title of the tablet or series of tablets were placed in a "colophon" at the end of the text (not at the beginning).

3. The key for discerning the structure of Genesis is the word "toledoth", translated "account of", "lines of", "generations", or "genealogy". The usual word for "generation" is "dor". But "toledoth" is used in a very specific context only: it marks the colophons at the ends of clay tablets. Most bible editions link this expression to what follows; this is a mistake, due to ignorance of the ancient writing customs. Connecting the "toledoth" with the preceding text, rather than with what follows, solves various textual difficulties, at the same time; in Gen.2:4, Gen.37:2, Num.3:1, the "toledoth" clearly cannot refer to what follows. These colophons define 11 tablets covering Gen.1-36, with their authors/owners indicated (except for 2:4a):

(1) 1:1 - 2:4a, the heavens and the earth;

(2) 2:4b - 5:1a, Adam;

(3) 5:1b - 6:9a, Noah;

(4) 6:9b - 10:1a, sons of Noah;

(5) 10:1b - 11:10a, Shem;

(6) 11:10b - 11:27a, Terah;

(7) 11:27b - 25:12, Ishmael;

(8) 25:13 - 25:19a, Isaac;

(9) 25:19b - 36:1, Esau;

(10) 36:2 - 36:9, Esau;

(11) 36:10 - 37:2a, Jacob.

Each of the tablets (apart from the first one) includes only items which the author/owner could have known from his own experience. The 12th section of Genesis, including 37:2b - 50:26, does not conform to the tablet scheme: it deals with Joseph's history in Egypt, where different writing customs obtained, using papyrus. Apart from the end chapter(s), it may have been commissioned by Joseph. This section contains Egyptian words and concepts indicative of an intimate knowledge of the corresponding environment, whereas Gen.1-11 similarly contains Babylonian ones, but nothing Egyptian. Interestingly, Exodus to Deuteronomy contain no such Babylonian words.

4. Some keyword links between the tablets are found at (tablet number and b for beginning or e for end are given in parentheses):

(1b) 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth" - (2b) 2:4c "God Yahweh made the earth and the heavens";

(2b) 2:4b "when they were created" - (3b) 5:2b "at the time they were created";

(4b) 6:10 "Shem, Ham, and Japheth" - (5b) 10:1b "Shem, Ham, and Japheth";

(5b) 10:1c "after the flood" - (6b) 11:10b "after the flood";

(6e) 11:26 "Abram, Nahor, and Haran" - (7b) 11:27b "Abram, Nahor, and Haran";

(7e) 25:12 "son of Abraham" - (8e) 25:19 "son of Abraham";

(9e) 36:1 "Edom" - (10e) 36:9 "Edom"

(10e) 36:9 "father of Edom" - (11e) 36:43 "father of Edom".

In places other than at the beginning of a tablet or near the colophon at the end, such repetitions are hardly ever found. Some so-called doublets seem to be a consequence of multiple authors (e.g. the sons of Noah).

5. Some residues of ancient methods of dating a tablet (near the colophon) are found in 11:26a; 25:11b; 36:8; 37:1.

6. During the 40 years in the Sinai desert, Moses wrote the first complete Genesis edition by copying the tablet copies handed down to him. This tablet collection constituted Israel's "bible" at that time. Moses added the Joseph section to Genesis, then, in Exodus, he continued exactly where this Joseph record left off. Exodus presupposes the knowledge given in Genesis. In his other 4 books, Exodus to Deuteronomy, Moses repeatedly emphasized that God ordered him to write these accounts, but never in Genesis. If Genesis had been revealed to him by God directly, Moses would have said so. Similarly, Jesus and the apostles constantly referred to Moses as the author of Ex. to Deut., but never when quoting Gen. In compiling Genesis, Moses kept the colophons which indicate the sources of his information. He was very careful not to modify anything, not even eliminating duplicate expressions used as tablet links or originating from different authors writing about the same events. He did not update antiquated expressions (e.g. geographical designations) and ancient concepts, which might not have been understood by his contemporaries, but explained them (e.g. Gen.14). The idea of a merely oral tradition of the Genesis material is pure fiction: now much is known about the ancient Mesopotamian writing customs.

7. The first tablet simply uses the designation "God", Elohim, for God. It must have originated in a time before polytheism arose. In contrast, the second tablet gives a specific name for God, in combination with Elohim, to distinguish the real God from the false gods of emerging polytheism. Finally, before the exodus, God for the first time reveals his name specifically as "Yahweh" (Ex.6,3). The apparent contradiction to the frequent occurrence of "Yahweh" in Genesis is resolved by assuming that Moses, when compiling Genesis, specifically replaced the earlier designations of God which were more specific than "God" with the new name Yahweh. During the many centuries of writing, copying and translating the Genesis tablets, the pictographic and later cuneiform script changed and the language developed from Sumerian to Hebrew. In particular, the designations used for God changed connotations during the development of the polytheistic religions. While in the beginning, "Elohim" (God) was unmistakably clear; later "El Elyon" (God Most High) or "El Shadday" (God Almighty) were more precise designations for the true God in contradistinction to the heathen gods; finally, these terms, too, were usurped for polytheistic use. When Israel was established as a separate nation through the exodus, God revealed his special name "Yahweh" (I am who I am), which from now on was identified specifically as the name of the God of his people of Israel, thus preventing further polytheistic corruption. Elohim, El Elyon, and El Shadday are titles of God, Yahweh is his name. When polytheism grew, the gods needed names to distinguish them, as the "god" titles became ambiguous. Moses therefore, when translating the ancient texts into contemporary Hebrew, chose the new, unique name Yahweh to translate any ancient designation marking God's uniqueness, such as El Shadday or El Elyon (these titles were retained only in very specific situations where the categorical distinction between God and gods was emphasized, at a time when these titles were not yet used for pagan gods). The changed cultural environment forced Moses to use this "anachronism". Every Bible translator has the same problem. Should one use the name "Allah" for God in Arabic translations, or designations like "Lord of heaven", "Most high Ruler", or "Spirit", which are intimately coupled with the original pagan religions, in Chinese translations?

8. The completely different picture given by Source Criticism (or "Higher Criticism") was developed at a time when virtually nothing was known about the archeological findings which demonstrate what the ancient Mesopotamian cultures really were like. Now it is known that many of the source-critical starting assumptions, like writing unknown, polytheism before monotheism, not more than one divine name per author, late origins of the Pentateuch texts, etc., were simply mistaken. Unfortunately, this entire source-critical construction survived, with only minor modifications, being adopted even by many evangelical scholars.

9. One of the problems the source-critical scholars had, was of course the use made of Torah texts by Jesus and his apostles. This led Semler to formulate his theory of accommodation, saying that Jesus knew that these texts were not written by Moses, but didn't say so, accommodating himself to the erroneous beliefs of his time. Wellhausen then even claimed that Jesus didn't know it himself (kenosis, Jesus having "emptied himself", Phil.2:7). Semler called Jesus' trustworthiness into question, Wellhausen his knowledge of reality. Yet Jesus never hesitated to challenge the mistaken views of his contemporaries, particularly the bible scholars. Why did he never introduce them to source criticism? Jesus and the apostles took the reports of Genesis to be historical.

>From the beginning, biblical theology was based on history.

10. The account of creation on the first tablet differs in type from all other tablets. Clearly, no one could have written it from personal experience. Its contents transcend by far any ancient worldviews, but nevertheless it is written in a way Adam could understand. It is not presented as a vision, but expressed in direct statements. It contains neither myths nor legends, nor any trace of a philosophical system, or of specifically Babylonian, Egyptian, or Jewish views. It is unique.

11. There are parallels between several of the Genesis tablets and many Sumerian cuneiform tablets from the third millennium BCE, such as creation, the genealogy of Gen.5, and the flood. But in each case, the Babylonian version is clearly a badly degenerated derivative of the Genesis accounts, contaminated with a debased polytheism and exaggerations. Source critics dated Genesis late, claiming its accounts to be "purified" versions of the pagan myths, as a consequence of their gratuitous assumption that biblical monotheism evolved from an original animism through polytheism. But from what we know now, it certainly would be a mistake to interpret the Genesis texts on the basis of the Babylonian myths. Egyptian myths (e.g. the cult of the dead) never entered the biblical texts in any way, although the Israelites repeatedly were under Egyptian influence. So why should Babylonian myths have done so? The fact that the tablet copies translated by Moses remained free of any polytheistic corruption also documents the clear monotheism not just of Abraham and his descendants, but of all the patriarchs involved.

Source: Dr. Peter Ruest (link)