I would suggest that the documentary hypothesis is more nuanced and developed than "the posited clumsy cut and past composite" description given below. A. E. Speiser's commentary on Genesis also points to "many Mesopotamian elements and words in the early chapters of Genesis," and anyone who has compared the story of Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh Epic with the story of Noah, or noted other near eastern parallels would be likewise aware. But I do not think that such elements in and of themselves argue for a tablet hypothesis.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Clarke
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: BIBLE: Genesis tablets
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.
Tablet Number Ancestry Narrative Body Colophon
Owner/writer Date
1. 1:1-2:4 1:1 1:2-2:3
Creation 2:4a
Heaven & Earth 2:4b
2. 2:4c-5:2 2:4c-2:6 2:7-4:26
Creatin/Fall 5:1a Adam 5:1b-5:2
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
Flood 10:1a
Ham,Shem,Japheth 10:1b
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. 11:27b-25:12 11:27b 11:27-25:11
Abraham 25:12 Ishmael
7a. 25:13-25:19a 25:13-18
Ishmael 25:19a Isaac
8. 25:19b-369 25:19b 25:20-35:29
Isaac 36:1 Esau
8a. 36:2-9 36:2-7
Esau Family 36:9 Esau 36:8
8b. 36:10-43
Esau Descendants 37:2a Jacob 37:1
9. 1:1-37:1 1:1-37:1 37:2- 50:21
Joseph Joseph?
50:22-26
Postscript Moses?
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 - 20:58:18 EST