The Formation of the book of Genesis

A D Clinkscales

The book of Genesis has been a kind of laboratory for the development and
practice of modern approaches to biblical interpretation. The beginnings of
modern biblical criticism coincided with the rise of scientific and historical
thinking, and those shifts in understanding of knowledge and of the world were
brought to the study of Genesis. There is at present a wide range of approaches to
the books interpretation and a great deal of controversy focused on particular
sections such as the creation stories of Gen 1-11 and the story of the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah (chaps. 18-19.)
Among the first modern interpreters were source critics, scholars who noticed
repetitions and contradictions, as well as multiple names for God across the book.
They speculated that Genesis comprises three separate written sources of
documents from various times that were woven together to create the book in its
present form. These different written sources help explain some oddities in the
text, such as the presence of multiple names for God, repetitions of events, and
seeming differences in styles of speaking about God. For example, Gen 1-2:3 calls
God by the general Hebrew word for God (Elohim), whereas Gen 2-3 adds the
proper name Yahweh, usually translated Lord, to produce the name Lord God.
An example of repetitious stories in Genesis occurs when Abraham twice
endangers his wifes life by lying to a monarch (12:10-13:1; 20), and his son Isaac
does the same thing with Rebekah (26:1-11).
The source critical theory, often called the Documentary Hypothesis, articulated
most fully by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), applies not only to Genesis but to all
five books of the Pentateuch. These documents include the Yahwist (J), from the
mid-10th cent. BCE, the Elohist (E) from a century later, and the Priestly writer (P),
writing during the sixth or fifth century. The theory also includes the
Deuteronomist (D) source, but that material has more importance for other books
of the Pentateuch, most notably Deuteronomy. Subsequent generations of
interpreters have modified the hypothesis in a number of ways, but the theory
remains in place as a general description of how Genesis came to its present form.
The Documentary Hypothesis, sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis, holds
that the Pentateuch was derived from originally independent, parallel and
complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a
series of redactors.
Even in the Middle Ages some rabbis had voiced doubts about the traditional view,
but in the 17th century it came under increasing and detailed scrutiny. In 1651,
Thomas Hobbes, in chapter 33 of Leviathan, marshaled a battery of passages such
as Deut 34:6 (no man knoweth of his sepulcher to this day, implying an author
living long after Moses death); Gen 12:6 (and the Canaanite was then in the
land, implying an author living in a time when the Canaanite was no longer in the
land); and Num 21:14 (referring to a previous book of Moses deeds), and
concluded that none of these could be by Moses. Others, including Baruch Spinoza
and Richard Simon came to the same conclusion, but their works were condemned,
several of them were imprisoned and forced to recant, and an attempt was made
on Spinozas life.
In 1753, Jean Astruc printed (anonymously) Conjectures sur les memoires
originaux, dont il parait gue Moise sest servi pour composer le livre de la Genese

The Formation of the book of Genesis

A D Clinkscales

(Conjectures on the original accounts of which it appears Moses availed himself in

composing the Book of Genesis). Astrucs motive was to refute Hobbes and
Spinoza the sickness of the last century, as he called their work. To do this, he
applied to Genesis the tools of literary analysis which scholars were already using
with Classical texts such as the Iliad to sift variant traditions and arrive at the most
authentic text. He began by identifying two markers which seemed to identify
consistent variations, the use of Elohim or YWHW (Yahweh) as the name for
God, and the appearance of duplicated stories, or doublets, such as the two
accounts of the creation in the first and second chapters of Genesis and the two
accounts of Sarah and a foreign king (Gen 12 and Gen 20). He then ruled columns
and assigned verses to these, the Elohim verses in one column the YHWH
verses in another, and the members of the doublets in their own columns beside
these. The parallel columns thus constructed contained two long narratives, each
dealing with the same incidents. Astruc suggested that these were the original
documents used by Moses, and that Genesis as written by Moses had looked just
like this, parallel accounts meant to be read separately. According to Astruc, a
later editor had combined the columns into a single narrative, creating the
confusions and repetitions noted by Hobbes, Spinoza, and others.
The tools adapted by Astruc for biblical source criticism were vastly developed by
subsequent scholars, most of them German. From 1780 onwards Johann Gottfried
Eichhorn extended Astrucs analysis beyond Genesis to the entire Pentateuch, and
by 1823 he had concluded that Moses had had no part in writing any of it. In 1805
Wilhelm de Wette concluded that none of the Pentateuch was composed before the
time of David; since Spinoza, D was connected with the priests of the Temple in
Jerusalem during the reign of Josiah in 621 BC; beyond this, scholars argued
variously for composition in the order PEJD, or EJDP, or JEDP: the subject was far
from settled.
For much of the 20th century Wellhausens hypothesis formed the framework within
which the origins of the Pentateuch were discussed, and even the Vatican came to
urge that light derived from recent research not be neglected by Catholic
scholars, urging them especially to pay attention to the sources written or oral
and the forms of expression used by the sacred writer. Some important
modifications were introduced, notably by Gerhard von Rad (1901-1971) and
Martin Noth (1902-1968), pioneering the traditional-historical approach to biblical
studies, who argued for the oral transmission of ancient core beliefs guidance out
of Egypt, conquest of the Promised Land, covenants, revelation at Sinai/Horeb, etc.
in the formation of the biblical texts. Noth first attracted widespread attention
with The Scheme of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, 1930 positing that the Twelve
Tribes of Israel did not exist prior to the covenant assembly at Shechem described
in the book of Joshua. In A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 1948, Noth set
out a new model for the composition of the Pentateuch. Noth supplemented the
documentary hypothesis seeing the Pentateuch as composed of blocks of
traditional material accreted round some key historical experiences. He identified
these experiences as Guidance out of Egypt, Guidance into the Arable Land,
Promise to the Patriarchs, Guidance in the Wilderness and Revelation at
Sinai, the details of the narrative serving to fill out the thematic outline. Noth and
von Rad applied form criticism to the documentary hypothesis.

The Formation of the book of Genesis

A D Clinkscales

Although this theory of composition is not pursued with the same intensity as it
was earlier, it has left an important legacy with theological implications. Whether
and how written sources are visible in the text, there is a strong interpretive
consensus that Genesis was composed from many pre-existing materials by many
people over a long period, stretching from the time of the united monarchy to the
Babylonian and Persian periods centuries later. This means that Genesis is the
written testimony of the people, testimony embraced and retold over the centuries
for new situations. The book imparts their faith in the one God, Creator of all,
whom they meet over and over in the crises of their existence as a people. Rather
than being the work of one inspired moment, or one angelic revelation to one
human being, Genesis is a book of the people that comes into existence over a long
process of inspiration.
There are two ancient traditions regarding authorship of Genesis and the
Pentateuch. One holds that Ezra, a leader during the time of the restoration from
Babylon during the 4th cent. BCE, was the author of the Pentateuch, a tradition that
arises from the reading of the law in Nehemiah (8:1-12). The other more
prominent tradition concerns Mosess authorship. In light of modern theories of
composition, the tradition of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch stands as a
theological claim rather than as a literary one. Moses appears for the first time in
the book of Exodus, not Genesis, but he is a central human figure in the formation
and deliverance of Israel. His spirit of worship, obedience, and courage stands
over the five books symbolically. Traditions of his authorship probably served as a
way for the ancients to gain authority for their writings by attaching his name to
them. His importance as the liberator and covenant mediator between God and
Israel grows through the generations and makes him symbolic author of the book.
Present scholarship focuses on the narrative construction of the book as whole, the
way its parts fit together to create a certain thematic and narrative coherence
despite the compilation of Genesis from many kinds of literature. Interpreters
generally maintain that the final version of the book was shaped by the priests
concerned with the rebuilding of the Judean community after its destruction by the
Babylonians. For them, worship of the one God, faithful to divine promises of
progeny, land, and blessing, would enable the community of Israel to find its true
identity and its proper relationships with other peoples. Related to the books
composition is the modern discovery of ancient texts that exhibit many affinities
with stories in Genesis. These include the Babylonian Creation Epic, the
Gilgamesh Epic, and others that have similar accounts of creation and of a
disastrous flood. These similarities reveal that the writers of Genesis drew upon
the oral and written literature of their time and culture, but often they altered the
perspectives of their neighbors, recasting the borrowed tradition to tell of the one
God who creates and sustains the cosmos.
Modern biblical criticism (the study and investigation of biblical writings that
seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings)
begins with the 17th century philosophers and theologians Thomas Hobbes,
Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon and others who began to ask questions about the
origin of the biblical text, especially the Pentateuch. They asked specifically who
had written these books: according to tradition their author was Moses, but these
critics found contradictions and inconsistencies in the text that, they claimed,

The Formation of the book of Genesis

A D Clinkscales

made Mosaic authorship improbable. Spinoza provided an analysis of the

structure of the Bible which demonstrated that it was essentially a compiled text
with many different authors and diverse origins; in his view, it was not revealed
all at once.
Spinoza suggests that the method of interpreting Scripture does not widely differ
from the method of interpreting nature. For as the interpretation of nature
consists in the examination of the history of nature, and therefrom deducing
definitions of natural phenomena on certain fixed axioms, so Scriptural
interpretation proceeds by the examination of Scripture, and inferring the
intentionof its authors as a legitimate conclusion from its fundamental principles.
By working in this manner everyone will always advance without danger of error,
that is, if they admit no principles for interpreting Scripture, and discussing its
contents save such as they find in Scripture itself and will be able with equal
security to discuss what surpasses our understanding, and what is known by the
natural light of reason. Spinoza suggests that Scripture very often treats of
matters which cannot be deduced from principles known to reason: for it is chiefly
made up of narratives and revelation: the narratives generally contain miracles,
that is, relations of extraordinary natural occurrences adapted to opinions and
judgment of the historians who recorded them: the revelations also were adapted
to the opinions of the prophets, and in themselves surpassed human
comprehension. Therefore the knowledge of all these that is, of nearly the whole
contents of Scripture, must be sought from Scripture alone, even as the knowledge
of nature is sought from nature. As for the moral doc trines which are also
contained in the Bible, they may be demonstrated from received axioms, but we
cannot prove in the same manner that Scripture intended to teach them, this can
only be learned from Scripture itself.
The universal rule in interpreting Scripture is to accept nothing as an authoritative
Scriptural statement which we do not perceive very clearly when we examine it in
the light of its history. The history of a Scriptural statement comprises: (1) the
nature and properties of the language in which the books of the Bible were
written, and in which their authors were accustomed to speak. We shall thus be
able to investigate every expression by comparison with common conversational
usages. Since all the writers both of the OT and the NT were Hebrews, a
knowledge of the Hebrew language is most necessary, not only for the
comprehension of the content of the OT and the characteristics of the NT. (2) an
analysis of each book and arrangement of its contents under heads; so that we may
have at hand the various texts which treat of a given subject. Lastly, a note of all
the passages which are ambiguous or obscure, or which seem mutually
contradictory. Passages are clear or obscure according as their meaning is
inferred easily or with difficulty in relation to the context, not according as their
truth is perceived easily or the reverse by reason. We are at work not on the truth
of passages, but solely on their meaning. We must take special care, when we are
in search of the meaning of a text, not to be led away by our reason in so far as it is
founded on principles of natural knowledge (to say nothing of prejudices): in order
not to confound the meaning of a passage with its truth, we must examine it solely
by means of the signification of the words, or by a reason acknowledging no
foundation but Scripture.

The Formation of the book of Genesis

A D Clinkscales

Although the literal meaning is repugnant to the natural light of reason, if it cannot
be clearly overruled on grounds and principles derived from its Scriptural
history, it, that is, the literal meaning, must be the one retained: and
contrariwise if these passages literally interpreted are found to clash with
principles derived from Scripture, though such literal interpretation were in
absolute harmony with reason, they must be interpreted in a different manner, i.e.
metaphorically.
In addition to the sources of ambiguities common to all languages, there are many
peculiar to Hebrew: (1) firstly, an ambiguity often arises in the Bible from our
mistaking one letter for another similar one. (2) a second difficulty arises from the
multiplied meaning of conjunctions and adverbs. (3) The third very fertile source
of doubt is the fact that Hebrew verbs in the indicative mood lack the present, the
past imperfect, the pluperfect, the future perfect, and other tenses most frequently
employed in other languages; in the imperative and infinitive moods they are
wanting in all except the present, and a subjunctive mood does not exist. (4) There
are no vowels in Hebrew. (5) The sentences are not separated by any marks
elucidating the meaning or separating the clauses. The ancients wrote without
points. Their descendants added what was lacking, according to their own ideas of
Scriptural interpretation; wherefore the existing accents and points are simply
current interpretations, and are no more authoritative than any other
commentaries.
If we read a book which contains incredible or impossible narratives, or is written
in a very obscure style, and if we know nothing of its author, nor of the time or
occasion of its being written, we shall vainly endeavour to gain any certain
knowledge of its true meaning. For being in ignorance on these points we cannot
possibly know the aim or intended aim of the author; if we are fully informed, we
so order our thoughts as not to be in any way prejudiced either in ascribing to the
author or him for whom the author wrote either more or less than his meaning,
and we only take into consideration what the author may have had in his mind, or
what the time and occasion demanded. I think this must be tolerably evident to all.
The nature and efficacy of the natural reason consists in deducing and proving the
unknown from the known, or in carrying premises to their legitimate conclusions;
and these are the very processes which our method desiderates. Though we must
admit that it does not suffice to explain everything in the Bible, such imperfection
does not spring from its own nature, but from the fact that the path which it
teaches us, as the true one, has never been tended or trodden by men, and has
thus, by the lapse of time, become very difficult, and almost impassable.
The meaning of Scripture is only made plain through Scripture itself (context), and
even in questions deducible from ordinary knowledge should be looked for from no
other source.
For as the highest power of Scriptural interpretation belongs to every man, the
rule for such interpretation should be nothing but the natural light of reason which
is common to all not any supernatural light nor any external authority; moreover,
such a rule ought not to be so difficult that it can only be applied by very skillful

The Formation of the book of Genesis

A D Clinkscales

philosophers, but should be adapted to the natural and ordinary faculties and
capacity of mankind.
Discovering the world behind the textHistorical, Sociological, Source, Form,
Redaction Criticism
[Social context in and of the text]
Discovering the world in the textLiterary, Structuralism, Rhetorical, Narrative,
Canonical Criticism
[Perspective of Author, Characters, and God]
Discovering the world in front of the textReaders Response, Ideological
Criticism; Postmodernism (Relativistic); Deconstructionism;
[Sermonic Post-claim; Christian
Reclaim]
Inspiration of Scripture refers to the supernatural influence of God (Holy Spirit)
by which man is moved to communicate to others by writing that which God
wished communicated. It refers to the special authoritative character of the Bible
as expressed in terms of its being inspired.
Thomas Hoffman, while describing the faith-encounter with God in Scripture in
terms of human psychic and social experience, (1) is describing authentic
encounter with God, i.e., revelation, in terms well within Christian understanding
of these terms, (2) acknowledges that there are other legitimate models for
describing such experiences, but (3) maintains that the psychic and social model is
not only legitimate but that it has several definite advantages over more traditional
models, the most important being that it gives a much more convincing account of
the phenomena in the light of the currently accepted results of biblical scholarship.
Paul Achtemeier suggests that inspiration and authority lay within the entire
process of the creation of the text, from the writing to the collecting and compiling
of the canon. In addition, he argues that inspiration does not stop at with the
canonization of the text, but continues as the interpreter is helped by the Holy
Spirit.
Many other authors, including James Barr, either reject inspiration or describe it in
very humanistic terms.
Thomas Hoffman affirms a modification of the traditional Catholic position of
inspiration of Scripture as a viable theological idea.
Hoffman offers a more realistic and useful conception of inspiration:
Inspiration of Scripture is a unique authority, not to be equated with other aspects
that seek to express the same authoritative character such as inerrancy,
normativeness, canonicity, uniqueness, sacredness. Phenomenological
examination of these aspects affirms that they should be studied independently and
are not related as necessary effect to cause or contribute. Hoffman asserts that
normativeness and canonicity are closely related to inspiration with regards to the
scared place of the Bible in the church.

The Formation of the book of Genesis

A D Clinkscales

Hoffman deals with the notion of an inerrant Bible. Drawing attention to the oft
neglected questions around what God does to bring about an inspired book. The
old deductive ship was to ascribe Scripture inerrancy based on the qualification of
having been inspired.
Biblical inspiration was traditionally defined as a supernatural influence of God
(Holy Spirit) by which man is moved to communicate to others by writing that
which God wished communicated. This was further refined by distinguishing an
active sense (the action of God), a passive sense (the effect of Gods action on the
human author), and a terminal sense (the biblical book).
The faith community purports three essential components that affirm a sacred text:
the literature is revered as (1) inspired, i.e., originating from and communicating
the Spirit of God; (2) in some sense normative for the community; in some basic
sense normative for Christian faith, and (3) canonical, having official and unique
authoritative status; received and reverenced by the church.
Inspired = a divine energy (ruah, pneuma) characteristic of Christ, which vivifies,
energizes, animates, articulates,
Hoffman maintains that the apostolic church understood inspired to mean simply
a writing in which they experienced the power, truth, etc., of the Spirit of Christ,
one which they could then point to as animated with the Spirit of Christ. Through
the time of Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century, scholarship has shown that the
word inspired was freely applied to the works of early Christian writers outside
the Bible. The Spirit was understood to be given to all Christians, recognized by
orthodox and charismatic post-apostolic alike. However, there is variety and
degree
Books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Epistle of Clement, and the
Epistle of Barnabas might have the first and second components and simply lack
the third.
It is the churchs decision, and this alone, not some inherent component of
inspiration or normativeness, that is the ultimate reason why a book is or is not
canonical.
Canon = a collection of texts accepted as inspired and normative by a virtually
universal consensus of the religious community and by official designation of its
teaching authority.
The OT, including the deuterocanonical books, is canonical from the sixth century,
although doubts about the deuterocanon persisted until Trent.
For three quarters of the Christian era (1) a real canon of sacred books did and
does exist in the church and in Judaism; (2) it was not absolute, ironclad,
unchallenged. The other two components of the uniqueness of scripture was a
truly human process as well as being perceived in faith to be a divine one.
Hoffman differentiates the inspired character of the biblical texts only in degree, if
at all, from other inspired writings. He emphasizes the human recognition and
the human decision of the believing community.

The Formation of the book of Genesis

A D Clinkscales

Hoffman rejects the term inerrancy as corresponding in any helpful way with
actual results of human study of the Bible; it is inadequate to deal with current
understanding of how religious truth is contained and perceived in sacred texts.
Since the model for the study of inspiration is inductive and experiential, then the
biblical inspiration itself must be humanly recognizable, that it then is not found
exclusively in Scripture, and finally something else must account for the unique
character of the Bible.
The Spirit blows where she wills, and the Christian must engage her at the place of
encounter which she chooses.
Hoffmans proposal seeks to break the bonds that fastened inspiration inseparably
to inerrancy and/or exclusively to the unique character of the Bible. It also breaks
out of both the old model which focused on the action of God upon the human
authors and the deductive methodology that accompanied it, neither of which was
able to deal with the questions that inductive disciplines were asking of the biblical
text.
One who comes to the text in the Spirit of God will find that Spirit abundantly in
the text.