From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 00:58:26 EDT
The subject of the Genesis tablets may have been mentioned before on
this list, but I don't remember any discussion.
The thesis that the Genesis texts were originally written in cuneiform
on clay tablets was proposed and argued by Percy J. Wiseman in his 1936
book, "New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis". It has been
translated into German (and probably other languages), but all English
and German editions are out-of-print. I couldn't find any library copy,
either. Now a friend sent me a photocopy of 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. The
father, Percy J. Wiseman, had been working as an archeologist in Iraq
for many years.
Here I should like to present a short summary of the main points of
Wiseman's thesis, in order to ask the experts and others among you what
you think about it. Are there points that are no longer defensible (or
never were)? Are there others that must be modified? Are there any
relevant newer finds or other data? Please don't just refer to the
opinions of some authorities, but summarize the relevant arguments and
evidences for any criticisms you might have. What follows is my summary
of what I found most important in Wiseman's book (but without any
comments of my own).
Peter Ruest
Percy J. Wiseman, "New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis"
..............................................................
1. Writing was very common in Babylonia at least from the late 4th
millennium BC 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 BC 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 BC). 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
traditing 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 unmistakeably 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 Millenium BC, 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 tradited to 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.
PR
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 28 2002 - 02:02:34 EDT