If I may interject here, P.J. Wiseman's understanding of Genesis
consisted of two independent elements; that the days of Genesis 1 were
days of revelation (published, and that Genesis is a series of
sequential sub-documents, each headed by the colophon "These are the
generations..." ("New discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis",
originally published in 1948) The first is generally regarded as
texturally strained, but the second I think is still potentially valid
and was subsequently supported by PJ Wiseman's more famous son DJ
Wiseman, Professor of Assyriology at the University of London..
Wiseman's theory is completely different from the posited clumsy cut and
paste composite authorship of the documentary hypothesis. It is many
years since I read the book but Wiseman would reject the methodology of
identifying authorship on the basis of different names for God, and
points to many Mesopotamian elements and words in the early chapters of
Genesis and the appearance of Egyptian elements later.
Blessings
Jon
Robert Schneider wrote:
> Hello, all, I've renamed this Subject to pursue Allen's response
> to Jim's comments. I have some questions regarding Wiseman's "Tablet
> Theory"? Perhaps Allen can answer them. (1) First, the clay
> tablets. What evidence is there for clay tablets written in Hebrew
> (Semitic) script or a cuneiform script that turns out to be Hebrew?
> If there are such tablets, how far back can they be dated? Have any
> such tablets been found in any excavations in the Holy Land or
> elsewhere in the Middle East? Wiseman's hypothesis--it is that rather
> than a theory--requires the existence of such tablets if it is to have
> any merit. (2) In what language were these hypothetical Genesis
> tablets written? Can anyone know? (3) I think what Allen means
> by "literary style" is "literary form": (Title, Body and Colophon).
> According to the Documentary Hypothesis, distinct literary styles can
> be discerned in the text of Gen. 1-11 and elsewhere, which is one of
> the major arguments for JEPD. I want to focus on Gen. 6-9. Many
> ordinary readers as well as literary critics have discerned two
> strands within the Flood Story, based on differences of language,
> expression, the name of God (Yahweh in some places, Elohim in others),
> and style (things like instructions to Noah are repeated, but with
> differences, etc.) When I ask my students to read 6-9 very carefully
> many of them spot these differences. Does Wiseman grant that this is
> so, or does he insist that these distinctions are illusory and that
> this is an integrated text in the same style by one writer? Using his
> hypothesis, perhaps a supporter might concede that there are two
> accounts woven together and postulate that some unknown writer at some
> unknown time took down the oral tradition of one of Noah's sons and a
> second writer put down another oral tradition of another son(?),
> likewise, on these hypothetical clay tablets, and that Moses redacted
> them. That would be a kind of documentary hypothesis within the
> tablet hypothesis. (4) On what basis does Wiseman claim that Isaac
> preserved the story of Ishmael, or that Esau preserved the story of
> Isaac? I recall reading a tablet theory in one of Henry Morris'
> books, in which he claims that these tables were written down by the
> family descendents; does Wiseman also, or does he postulate (followed
> by Allen) that they were handed down orally and written down at a
> later time? And on what basis can Wiseman establish that these
> accounts are actually the work of the person postulated? "This is the
> lineage of Isaac" does not mean "I, Isaac, am telling you this
> story." (5) Finally, where did Moses get the tablets? What
> evidence is there that he came into possession of such clay
> documents? I am glad that Wiseman agrees that Genesis is an edited
> text and based on oral traditions (?), but I am exceedingly skeptical
> of his reconstruction. A hypothesis without evidence is hardly worthy
> of the term, so I would want to see some evidence. Next fall I shall
> teach a course in Genesis to jr. and sr. religion majors at a nearby
> college. It will be interesting to see what they make of the literary
> styles of the text, and whether any of them is familiar with some
> version of this tablet hypothesis. Bob
> Schneiderrjschn39@bellsouth.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Roy
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:23 PM
> Subject: Re: What are the odds?....Or, a great and Mighty
> God
> According to Wiseman's "Tablet Theory" as opposed to the
> JPED theory, Genesis is composed of some 11 manuscripts
> edited by Moses into a single manuscript that were
> originally written in the literary style used on clay
> tablets from the eras during which the events of Genesis
> happened. That literary style consisted of a Title, Body
> and Colophon. The colophon ending stated that the preceding
> story in the body was the account of (or belonged to, or
> written by) some person and usually included a date. The
> following table gives a breakdown of Genesis using the known
> literary structure of ancient clay tablets.
>
Colophon
Tablet Number Ancestry Narrative
Body Owner/writer Date
1. 1:1-2:4 1:1 1:2-2:3 2:4a 2:4b
Creation Heaven & Earth
2. 2:4c-5:2 2:4c-2:6 2:7-4:26 5:1a Adam 5:1b-5:2
Creatin/Fall
3. 5:3-6:9 5:3-5:32 6:1-8 6:9a Noah 6:9b
4. 6:10-10:1 6:10 6:11-9:29 10:1a 10:1b
Flood Ham,Shem,Japheth
5. 10:2-11:10 10:2-32 11:1-9 11:10a Shem
6.
11:10b-11:27a 11:10b-25 11:26 11:27a Terrah
7. 11:27-25:11
11:27b-25:12 11:27b Abraham 25:12 Ishmael
7a. 25:13-18
25:13-25:19a Ishmael 25:19a Isaac
8. 25:19b-369 25:19b 25:20-35:29 36:1 Esau
Isaac
8a. 36:2-9 36:2-7 36:9 Esau 36:8
Esau Family
36:10-43
8b. Esau 37:2a Jacob 37:1
Descendants
9. 1:1-37:1 1:1-37:1 37:2- 50:21 Joseph?
Joseph
50:22-26 Moses?
Postscript
> Within this interpretation of Genesis, the literary units
> include a list of ancestors, the narrative body, and the
> colophon. In the case of the first "tablet," gives then
> ancestry of the universe for the Creation Week narrative.
> It ends with whose history it is of (the heavens and the
> earth) and dates it to "when God made heaven and earth) The
> second "tablet" give the history of Adam.
>
> Chances are that these originated as oral stories which were
> later written down in the literary style of the times. Just
> when the switch from oral to written occurred is not evident
> in the stories. However, it is likely that Moses simply
> edited these several documents into one document still
> keeping the literary structure of the times.
>
> So who wrote "In the beginning God. ...
>
> Who knows. The story probably began as what God told Adam
> and Eve. They passed on the story, along with their own to
> the following generations. Eventually the stories were
> written down and eventually ended up in the Torah and the
> Bible.
>
> AllenFrom: Jim Eisele <jeisele@starpower.net>>> Gen 1:1 In
> the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> > What are the odds that this was not "written" by God?
> > I would like to start the bidding at 1 in 300.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 21 2002 - 16:17:48 EST