Curt Sewella <\/b><\/p>\n
Many pastors, writers, and even seminary professors rely on the \u201cJEDP Documentary Hypothesis\u201d to explain how the book of Genesis was originally written, (See Bible & Spade, Spring 1993, page 34.) This concept says that for many centuries the stories were passed down orally, usually with embellishments or deletions, and were not committed to writing until much later than the events they describe. Naturally, this idea does not inspire confidence in the literal accuracy of the account. It is favored by theologians of a liberal bent<\/i>.<\/p>\n
In contrast, the \u201cTablet Theory\u201d suggests that portions of Genesis were originally written on clay tablets by men who personally experienced the events described. The tablets were later compiled by Moses. Since the original writers were said to be eye-witnesses, their accounts should be historically accurate<\/i>.<\/p>\n
This article briefly describes the development and implications of these two theories.<\/p>\n
Why Religious Liberalism?<\/b><\/p>\n
Why did so many theologians become critical of Biblical truth? Do they have any scientific basis for their doubts? Not really. Doubting criticism started on a large scale with G.W.F. Hegel (1770\u20131831), a German philosopher who taught that religion, like the rest of civilization, developed gradually. He said that primitive \u201ccave-men\u201d began a polytheistic worship of the things around them. Later, he said, higher concepts such as a supreme God evolved in people\u2019s minds.<\/p>\n
A quasi-scientific basis for retreat from Biblical authority took root when, in 1830, Charles Lyell published Principles of Geology<\/i>, which first described the so-called \u201cGeologic Column.\u201d Here the age of a rock stratum was supposedly given by the types of fossils which it contains. This idea set the stage for Charles Darwin\u2019s publication, in 1859, of his famous Origin of Species<\/i>. His organic evolution theory captured the imagination of most scientists.<\/p>\n
There is no real technical basis for not believing the Bible as it was written. Nowhere does the Biblical text mention anything that implies evolution, nor is there any Biblical incident that\u2019s been absolutely proven wrong. The only reason to doubt the clear text of the Bible is an attempt to compromise with secularism, and its rejection of God. But most evolutionary scientists object just as much to theistic evolution as they do to miraculous creation. And most theologians don\u2019t really understand the philosophical principles of evolution \u2014 they don\u2019t realize that you cannot attribute a <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:1 (Winter 1994) p. 24<\/p>\n
secular theory to God. This compromise does not really work, and it is a dangerous path to follow.<\/p>\n
The Documentary Hypothesis<\/b><\/p>\n
Evolutionary theories influenced Hegel\u2019s student, theologian K.H. Graf (1815\u20131868), and his student Julius Well-hausen (1844\u20131918). From an idea first proposed by Jean Astruc (1684\u20131766) they developed the \u201cJEDP Documentary Hypothesis\u201d of higher criticism, which said that the early sections of the Old Testament could not have been written during the times they described. They believed this because they mistakenly thought writing had not evolved until about 1000 BC. Therefore they assumed wrongly (again) that sagas, epics, poetry, etc. which later were used to compose the Bible were passed down orally for millenia. The result was that the early books of the Bible were written by various unknown scribes during the Divided Kingdom era beginning about 800 BC, and continued until after the Babylonian Exile.<\/p>\n
CLAY TABLET CONTAINING A BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE, NOW PRESERVED IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
These books are said to have been compiled or redacted from stories, or documents, which were distinguished by the name used for God. The J-Document used the name Jehovah, the E-Document used Elohim, while the D and P documents were named for Deuteronomic and Priestly. This teaching led many people to lose confidence in the Bible\u2019s authenticity.<\/p>\n
Archaeological Discoveries<\/b><\/p>\n
Did Hegel, Graf, Wellhausen, etc. have any good basis for their JEDP theory? No, there has never been any trace of the \u201cdocuments\u201d they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly), and even in their day there had been some good archaeological finds that contradicted the very basis of their theory \u2014 that early writing was unknown. More recently, scholars and archaeologists have uncovered excellent proofs of the truth of the Bible\u2019s historicity. There have been complete ancient libraries uncovered, and enough translations made to confirm Biblical events described in the life of the patriarchs. Many of these libraries date from far before Abraham\u2019s time. Excavations at Ebla, Mari, and Nuzi have all yielded much confirmation of Old Testament history. The Mari archives contained actual names used in the Bible \u2014 Peleg, Terah, Abram, Jacob, Laban, and others. These cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters, but they do show that those names were in use early.<\/p>\n
The Nuzi archive had some 20,000 clay tablets; many were legal documents describing laws and customs of the land. They explain a number of Biblical incidents <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:1 (Winter 1994) p. 25<\/p>\n
that used to seem strange to us, but were simply normal customs for that era.<\/p>\n
The Tablet Theory<\/b><\/p>\n
During his tour of duty in Mesopotamia, where much of the earliest Bible activity took place, Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman became interested in the archaeology of that area, and especially in the many ancient clay tablets that had been dated to long before the time of Abraham. He recognized that they held the key to the original writings of the early Bible, and especially the book of Genesis. He published Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis<\/i> in 1936. More recently his son, Professor of Assyriology D.J. Wiseman, updated and revised his father\u2019s book.1 <\/p>\n
He found that most of the old clay tablets had \u201ccolophon phrases\u201d at the end; these named the writer or owner of the tablet; they had words to identify the subject, and often some sort of dating phrase. If multiple tablets were involved, there were also \u201ccatch-lines\u201d to connect a tablet to its next in sequence. Many of these old records related to family histories and origins, which were evidently highly important to those ancient people. Wiseman noticed the similarity of many of these to the sections of the book of Genesis. Many scholars have noticed that Genesis is divided into sections, separated by phrases that are translated \u201cThese are the generations of…\u201d The Hebrew word used for \u201cgeneration\u201d is toledoth<\/i>, which means \u201chistory, especially family history … the story of their origin.\u201d2 Most scholars have recognized that these \u201ctoledoth phrases\u201d must be important, but they have been misled by assuming incorrectly that these are the introduction to the text that follows. (Several modern translations have even garbled these phrases.) This has led to serious questions, because in several cases they don\u2019t seem to fit. For example, Genesis 37:2 begins, \u201cThese are the generations of Jacob.. .\u201d But from that spot on, the text describes Joseph and his brothers, and almost nothing about Jacob, who was the central character in the previous section. However, Wiseman saw that the colophons in the ancient tablets always were at the end, not the beginning. He applied this idea to the toledoth<\/i> phrases in Genesis, and found that in every case it suddenly made good sense. The text just preceding the phrase \u201cThese are the generations of. . .\u201d contained information about events that the man named in that phrase would have known. That person would be the logical one to write that part. In other words, each toledoth<\/i> phrase contains the name of the man who probably wrote the text preceding that phrase. Or, in still other words, the book of Genesis consists of a set of tablets, each of which was written by an actual eye-witness to the events described. These tablets were finally compiled by Moses. Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old \u201cdoubtful criticism\u201d theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.<\/p>\n
Tablets Lead To Better Understanding<\/b><\/p>\n
As an example of how the Tablet Theory can assist our understanding, consider the common accusation that a conflict exists between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, in terms of the sequence of creative actions. This criticism is not valid, since Chapter 2 does not attempt to say \u201cThis happened and then that happened.\u201d This apparent conflict is partly because of peculiarities in words; it only shows up in some languages. The English language has definite past, present, and future tenses for its verbs, but Hebrew (the language of Genesis) does not. In Hebrew, the relative timing <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:1 (Winter 1994) p. 26<\/p>\n
must be taken from the context, not the actual words themselves. In Chapter 1, the timing is definitely stated \u2014 these events took place on the sixth day, and in the order stated (animals, then man and woman). This chapter is written from the Creator\u2019s viewpoint (on His tablet), and outlines the exact things He did. But in Chapter 2, there are no timing statements. This chapter is written from a different viewpoint (probably by Adam himself), and describes events as he saw them. He first told of the huge task that he had been given by God (naming the animals) and how he did that. These verses show that Adam was a very intelligent person and a knowledgeable biologist, not the ignorant \u201ccave-man\u201d that some people imagine. The Hebrew words in Genesis 2:19 could have been translated, \u201cAnd out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast. . .\u201d It seems to this writer that Adam simply put verses 19 and 20 (naming the animals) at this spot for his own convenience, not for indicating sequential action, so that he could then move on to the more pressing matter of the establishment of the human home, family, and population growth. He went on to describe the creation of his wife (which had happened previously), and then moved smoothly into their activities together.<\/p>\n
TABLET DIVISIONS<\/b><\/p>\n
Tablet No.<\/p>\n
Starting Verse<\/p>\n
Ending Verse<\/p>\n
Owner or Writer<\/p>\n
1<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 1:1<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 2:4a<\/b><\/p>\n
God Himself?<\/b><\/p>\n
2<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 2:4b<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 5:1a<\/b><\/p>\n
Adam<\/b><\/p>\n
3<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 5:1b<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 6:9a<\/b><\/p>\n
Noah<\/b><\/p>\n
4<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 6:9b<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 10:1a<\/b><\/p>\n
Shem, Ham & Japheth<\/b><\/p>\n
5<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 10:1b<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 11:10a<\/b><\/p>\n
Shem<\/b><\/p>\n
6<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 11:10b<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 11:27a<\/b><\/p>\n
Terah<\/b><\/p>\n
7<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 11:27b<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 25:19a<\/b><\/p>\n
Isaac<\/b><\/p>\n
8<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 25:12<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 25:18<\/b><\/p>\n
Ishmael, thru Isaac<\/b><\/p>\n
9<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 25:19b<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 37:2a<\/b><\/p>\n
Jacob<\/b><\/p>\n
10<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 36:1<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 36:43<\/b><\/p>\n
Esau, thru Jacob<\/b><\/p>\n
11<\/b><\/p>\n
Genesis 37:2b<\/b><\/p>\n
thru<\/b><\/p>\n
Exodus 1:6<\/b><\/p>\n
Jacob\u2019s 12 sons<\/b><\/p>\n
Summary<\/b><\/p>\n
The Tablet Theory is reasonable, it doesn\u2019t violate any known fact, it offers a more satisfactory explanation of all the facts, it\u2019s in good accord with other Scripture, and it adds the authenticity of being composed of eye-witness accounts. We would do well to just believe the simple teaching of the Bible, as God inspired it. To do otherwise is an insult to its Author, our Creator God.<\/p>\n
For further information on this proposal, refer to Rethinking Genesis by Duane Garrett. The first chapter of his book was published in Bible and Spade, Volume 6, Number 2, Spring 1993<\/i>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Curt Sewella Many pastors, writers, and even seminary professors rely on the \u201cJEDP Documentary Hypothesis\u201d to explain how the book of Genesis was originally written, (See Bible & Spade, Spring 1993, page 34.) This concept says that for many centuries the stories were passed down orally, usually with embellishments or deletions, and were not committed … Continue reading “DOCUMENTS,
\nTABLETS, AND THE HISTORICITY OF GENESIS”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}