Historicity of the Characters and Events in Genesis

¶ … GENESIS HISTORY OR MYTH?

Genesis is the first book of the Bible. It contains incredible stories of the creation of the universe, man's fall from grace, the story of Noah and the great flood, and the stories of the first generations of man. This book is perhaps one of the most controversial as well. The contents of the book are not as source of dispute. However, the interpretation of the content is a source of great scholarly debate for many reasons.

The first source of debate is exactly what type of work Genesis constitutes. Conservative Christians consider Genesis to be a history. Using this interpretation, events in Genesis happened exactly as written. Other more liberal interpretations consider Genesis to be something other than a historical account. There are many liberal viewpoints on how to categorize Genesis. Some believe that Genesis is an allegory, others a myth, and still others compare it to the Viking Sagas. This paper will examine both sides of this issue and present evidence to support both viewpoints. It will discuss the major accepted viewpoints surrounding the Book of Genesis.

Conservatives and Liberals argue on the historical accuracy, literary classification and other points of Genesis. The arguments are presented as if they are about the entire Book of Genesis. However, the true essence of the question lies in solving the problem of authorship. In this respect, several models have solved this question, at least as far as the latter portions of Genesis are concerned. The tablet theory of Genesis clearly identifies authors for at least ten of the eleven sections of Genesis. The only section for which no author can be found using any currently held theory is for the creation story. This research will support the thesis that the argument for the authorship of Genesis does not concern the entire Book of Genesis, but rather the only true argument lies in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:4, the creation.

Overview of Prevailing Liberal and Conservative Theories

The underlying question regarding the many viewpoints about the literary categorization of Genesis is the question of how and who wrote it. Genesis exhibits several different writing styles. Strict conservatives tend to ignore this fact and proclaim that Moses wrote the entire book start to finish as God dictated it. They purport that it is the direct and exact word of God as transcribed by one person. Other conservatives acknowledge the different writing styles and still hold that it is the direct word of God, but that different people were used as instruments to accomplish the task.

Liberals, however, are quick to point out that Genesis demonstrates several very distinct literary styles and language patterns. There are several theories to explain this phenomenon. One popular theory is the "JEDP Documentary Hypothesis" (Sewell, 1994). This hypothesis states that many of the stories in Genesis were passed down through the generation orally, with each telling adding embellishments and deletions, much as with the "telephone game" that children play. In this game one person whispers something to a person, who in turn whispers it to someone else. In the end the story that is returned to the original teller and many times only slightly resembles the original. According to JEDP theory these oral traditions were written down by four different authors known as J, E, D, and P. The JEDP theory supports the categorization of Genesis to be that of a myth.

The JEDP theory does not lend support to the historical accuracy of the Book of Genesis and is highly disputed by the Conservatives. A contrasting theory is presented by the conservatives called the "Tablet theory" (Sewell, 1994). This theory suggests that portions of Genesis were originally written on clay tablets by men who personally experienced the events. The tablets were said to be assembled by Moses into the book now known as Genesis. Conservatives favor this idea as the tablets are considered to be an eyewitness account and therefore should be historically accurate. This supports the idea that Genesis should be a historical account (Sewell, 1994).

Archeological Evidence limited amount of archeological evidence does exist that would suggest multiple authorships of various sections of Genesis (Sewell, 1994).

Literary evidence also supports this theory. It appears that Genesis was written by several men and that these men did sign their names at the end of their respective section.

Archaeology has uncovered complete libraries which can be dated to the time of Abraham. The digs at Mari revealed writings that contained named used in the Bible such as "Peleg, Terah, Abram, Jacob, Laban, and others" (Sewell, 1994). They cannot be linked directly to the Biblical characters that they represent, but they do show that those names were in usage at that time. The Nuzi archive held over 20,000 clay tablets, mostly legal documents and laws and customs of the land (Sewell, 1994).

The existence of these documents, does not confirm the historical accuracy of Genesis, but does lend credibility to the tablet theory held by conservatives.

The beginning of the Liberal movement

Until the late 1700s, the conservative ideology was the primary mode of thought concerning the Bible. Ideology was passed down from the educated upper class and religious leaders to the population at large, who had virtually no choice, but to accept the ideas being handed to them and in some cases in history, handed down by law. The lower class was largely illiterate and uneducated. They looked to the educated leadership to tell them how to interpret their surroundings. The late 1700s saw an advancement of educational level in the population at large. Many more were literate and the arts and philosophy were a thriving source of debate in many social circles. Education was no longer a thing only afforded to the upper class and religious circles. It was during this time that some began to doubt and critically examine the dogmas that had been handed down to them in earlier ages.

Criticism of the Bible, as we know it today, was started by G.W.F. Hegel in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Hegal was a German philosopher who taught that religion developed gradually, over a long period of time. He believed that religion developed in stages with the rest of civilization (Sewell, 1994).

Charles Lyell published the "Principles of Geology" in 1830 which first described the "Geologic column" (Sewell, 1994) that formed the basis of modern paleontology and archeology. He described the strata and how they relate to geologic chronology. This work set the stage for Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" in 1859 (Sewell, 1994). These theories captured the imagination of scientists and a brutal debate ensued between religious conservatives who held to the old doctrines and those who believed that the Bible was a nice piece of literature, but was not supported by science. Conservatives called the ideas of "scientists" blasphemous and scientists called conservative ideas "ridiculous."

Those agreeing with the scientific viewpoint later formed the basis for the liberal movement. In the beginning these two movements were in direct opposition. Since those early days, many degrees of conservative and liberal thought have evolved. It is now no longer and "all or nothing" debate and both sides can agree with the other on some basic points, such as the multiple authorship of Genesis.

It was another theologian, K.H. Graf and one of Hegel's students, Julius Wellhausen, who first formulated the JEDP theory. These early proponents of the theory based their premise on the idea that the early parts of Genesis could not have been written in the time periods that they described, as writing was not invented until 1000 BC (Sewell, 1994). They condsidered Genesis to be a compilation of sagas, epics, and poetry that had been passed down for many millennia before being compiled and written down.

The JEDP theory says that the various authors, who wrote down these sagas can be identified by the name they use for God. The J-author used Jehovah, the E-author used Elohim, the D. And P. authors were named for Deuteronomic and Priestly (Sewell, 1994). This theory caused many people to lose confidence in the historic accuracy of the Bible, which further served to fuel the liberal movement.

The History of the Tablet Theory

The tablet theory was first examined by Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman, who was stationed in Mesopotamia. He was heavily interested in the archaeology of the area and held a special interest in clay tablets that had been dated to before the time of Abraham. Commodore Wiseman's son updated the original 1936 works of his father in 1985 (Wiseman, 1985).

Wiseman found that the old clay tablets contained phrases at the end that named the author and had words to identify the subject of the tablet. Dates were also included in some of these phrases. In cases where the passage was continued, there was a phrase that indicated the tablet where the work was "to be continued" (Sewell, 1994). The records of these ancient people was extensive, containing family histories and many other documents.

Research began to notice that Genesis is divided into sections by phrases that are translated literally into "These are the generations of..," much in the same style as the clay tablets described by Wiseman. Early researchers mistakenly believed that these phrases signaled the beginning of a passage, however, the old texts placed these phrases at the end. It is therefore likely that in Genesis, these phrases signal the end of a passage, rather than the end (Sewell, 1994). The most prominent place that supports this idea is in Genesis 37:2, which begins "These are the generations of Jacob...." From that point forward the text describes Joseph and his brothers and almost nothing about Jacob. The story of Jacob is the theme of the previous section (Sewell, 1994). The idea that the phrase is the leading phrase does not make sense in this case. This would be more consistent with the structure used in the clay tablets. Currently, many archaeologists agree that the portions of Genesis after chapter eleven are historically accurate (Sewell, 1994). Many will agree further that if one takes the end phrases as the writer of the previous passage, that the tablets contain details that could only be known by the person who experienced these events. This means that the person who is mentioned is the one who wrote it.

Other Theories

The tablet theory gives much support to the historical accuracy of Genesis, after chapter eleven. It is easy to believe that the genealogy and stories in the later chapters are true. The latter part of Genesis is easy to digest in the human mind. It is the first part, that lends itself to the imagination of the reader. Humans conversing with snakes, terrible floods that destroy ever-loving creature except the one that was chosen by God to survive, these are the elements of myth and legend. Here is the heart of the controversy.

Harding University professor, Donald England, attempted to resolve the controversy over the first half of Genesis by proposing that Genesis, particularly the creation story is not a view of the material world at all, but rather represents symbolically the struggles of the spirit (Thompson, 1982). Dr. England recognized that the differences between scientists and conservative Christians on the subject of the creation story and the origin of man were not reconcilable and that as the current argument stood, neither side could gain sufficient evidence to prove their side one way or another. He offered this alternative idea, that would essentially end this conflict, by making it an invalid point. If the passage were about spiritual matters, rather than material ones, then the argument of who was right simply did not apply.

Dr. England said,

There is no world view presented in Genesis 1. I believe the intent of Genesis 1 is far too sublime and spiritual for one to presume that it teaches anything at all about a cosmological world view. We do this profound text a great injustice by insisting that there is inherent within the text an argument for any particular world view" (England, 1972, pp. 124).

If we take Genesis in Dr. England's context, then the creation story can be compared to stories found in Far Eastern writings, such as the ancient Chinese myths and in Hindu and Bhuddist writings. According to Dr. England's proposal, the creation story may describe the advancement and enlightenment of the human soul.

There are two types of creationists, progressive and old-earth. Both these creationist positions agree that Genesis is describing material world events and do not acknowledge the writings of Dr. England. Zimmerman tried to shed light on these two conservative creationist views by first posing a question that must be resolved before the others can be started. Zimmerman believes that the first step in solving the dispute is to evaluate the literary style of Genesis. He says, " Unless we decide the kind of literature we are dealing with, we cannot perform good exegesis. If it is historical prose, that is one thing. If it is poetry or myth or saga or symphony, that is quite another" (Zimmerman, 1972, p. 102).

Zimmerman suggests that this must be the first step and that the other arguments are invalid until this basic question is answered first. The other arguments make the assumption that the first part of Genesis is a history and ignore any other possibility. If Genesis is a history, then the other arguments remain where they are today. However, if Genesis is a saga or myth, then there is no argument on the basis of historical accuracy in the first place.

In Introduction to Genesis, Dolphin (2002) proposes that if Genesis is not historical fact, then it at least answers several philosophical questions and therefore should be considered a philosophical work. Both Zimmerman and Dolphin downplay the importance of Genesis as a historical work and promote its importance in the areas of spirituality and philosophy. Dr. Henry Morris agrees and points out that the first part of Genesis answers several basic philosophical questions. He feels that Genesis answers the philosophical questions of atheism, polytheism, pantheism, naturalism, humanism, dualism, evolutionism, and materialism (Morris, 1976).

It would seem as if these more spiritual answers to the historicity of Genesis would provide a common ground on which all could stand. They essentially negate the argument of the historical accuracy of Genesis by diverting the attention to other realms. However, instead of resolving the issue, these new angles only served to fuel the conservative/liberal argument. These two groups hold on tight to their materialistic interpretation of genesis (Stambaugh, 1995).

On this subject, Richard Lewontin, a proclaimed evolutionist, comments,

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a-priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door..." (Lewontin, 1997, p. 31)

Stambaugh (1995) places the writing of Genesis, by Moses, at approximately 1400 BC. At that time, according to Stambaugh, approximately 2500-4000 years would have passed from the time Adam left the garden. His work supports that theory that Genesis had a single author, Moses. He attributes the various differences in writing styles to the idea that Moses took his material from different sources. The three sources that Stambaugh proposes are 100% direct inspiration from God, oral traditions passed down from Adam through the Seth to Abraham, etc., or the third option, written records preserved by various rulers. All of these sources would have been supplemented by God-given material, regardless of human content and origin (Stambaugh, 1975). Stambaugh's ideas represent a highly conservative twist on the liberal JEDP theory. It is obvious that the liberal JEDP theory had an influence on his opinion and that this was his attempt to reconcile, in his mind, obvious discrepancies in the traditional conservative, historical viewpoint. He acknowledged the liberal viewpoint, but was not willing to abandon his conservative view. He therefore brought the two together in his own writings.

The Eleven Divisions of Genesis

Both liberals and conservatives agree that there are eleven distinctive divisions in Genesis. Each of these divisions ends with the phrase, "These are the generations of..." Or some similar phrase. As discussed earlier, it was once thought that these phrases signaled the beginning of a passage. However, the works of Wiseman would indicate, these phrases signal the end of a passage. This is consistent with other clay tablets of the time and there is no indication that the pattern is different in Genesis.

Taking this approach, we find the following section in Genesis, as signaled by these end phrases. "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth" (Genesis 2:4) ends the first section. There was no human observer to record the events of creation week (Boice, 1998). Therefore, the author of this section is one of the greatest points of controversy between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives say that God himself was the author. Liberals feel that this is not true and that we simply do not know whom the author is.

The authors of subsequent sections reveal themselves in no uncertain manner. The next ten sections are as follows, "This is the book of the generations of Adam" (Genesis 5:1), "These are the generations of Noah" (Genesis 6:9), "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth" (Genesis 10:1), "These are the generations of Shem" (Genesis 11:10), "Now these are the generations of Terah" (Genesis 11:27), "Now these are the generations of Ishmael" (Genesis 25:12), "And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son" (Genesis 25:19), "Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom" (Genesis 36:1), "And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in Mount Seir" (Gen. 36:9), "These are the generations of Jacob" (Genesis 37:2) (Boice, 1998). The toledoth model of genesis supports the tablet theory in its structure.

If the historical accuracy of Genesis is based on authorship as the only criterion, then it can be found that taking the Toledoth model of Genesis, authorship is known for all, but one section but one, the creation story. This would mean that the flood story is to be taken as an actual account as reported by Noah, the author found in the "by line" at the end of the story. "How can this be true?" say the liberals. One theory might be found in psychology and philosophy. Human beings are limited to their experiences in this world. Our experiences form our perceptions. Two people might witness the same event and report in two entirely different lights.