R Evans, Genesis in Context - 10
← Index of Genesis in Context by Bro Roger Evans, 2021
10. Authorship and Genre in Genesis
| NB: not integrated into wiki |
Tradition asserts that Moses, the earliest recorded writer in Scripture, wrote the first five books of Scripture (the Pentateuch), including the book of Genesis.
It is of course possible that Moses wrote the text of Genesis, which is in third person narrative. But if so, then why did Moses, born and raised in Egypt and steeped in Egyptian culture, write in context of a Chaldean heritage?
Some claim that he relied on earlier documents such as possible writings by Abraham: although it speculative whether the nomadic patriarchs were literate. Some suggest that he had access to ancestral records (such as the claim by Wiseman that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were copied from Babylonian cuneiform tablets written by the ancients themselves;) however there is no proof that Moses was the transcriber, and indeed no man was present to write an eyewitness account of the first days of Creation. It is entirely possible that the pre-historical past was revealed to Moses by God through inspiration alone: yet Scripture is silent on authorship and process.
On the basis of textual evidence, many modern scholars regard the Pentateuch (the five books ascribed to Moses, including Genesis) as a redacted text containing excerpts from Moses’ writings and other records, and compiled at a later date; possibly during the Exile in Babylon. Indeed, the entire context of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is Babylonian rather than Egyptian: the familiarity of the Tigris and Euphrates relative to Gihon and Pishon requiring no geographic elaboration; the close similarities of the Flood account to the Babylonian flood narrative as mentioned above; and the Babylonian geographic setting of the post-Flood chapters. These evidences strongly imply the origin/compilation of these chapters in a Babylonian cultural context (most logically exilic) rather than the Egyptian cultural context that Moses was steeped in and trained in from birth.
That the remaining books of the Pentateuch were compiled by others after Moses’ decease is also supported by the observation that they are not written in first person, but in third person narrative, with quotations in first person where appropriate (just as the Gospels contain the words of Jesus in first person, but were compiled and written by others in third person narrative after His ascension). Additionally, the Pentateuch contains records indicative of posthumous and testimonial authorship (such as the declaration of Moses’ humility in Num. 12:3, which from his own pen would have been arrogance; and the account of his death and burial in Deut. 34).
It is indeed recorded that Moses wrote sections of text under Divine command (eg Deut 21:34); but such affirmations do not necessarily mean that Moses wrote the entire text. Rather these third-person attributions appear to cite excerpted sections of text from older writings by Moses. The genre and style of the Pentateuch strongly favours the nature of an editorial compendium, drawing multiple ancient texts into a contextual and coherent whole.
We are told that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore whether Moses wrote the books, or only part; or whether the Pentateuch was compiled and redacted by scribes working under inspiration, is immaterial. God has ensured that what is essential to our belief is preserved, and it is just as credible for Him to have inspired an editorial committee to redact and preserve a collection of writings, as it is for Him to inspire and preserve original texts. More important than authorship is readership; how we engage with the text that He has preserved for our instruction.
Setting all speculations of authorship aside, and turning to the text itself, the crucial question for understanding the first chapters of Genesis is this: what genre did God select to convey the message He wished to record?
For all literature, genre is a contextual key to how the document should be read. Scripture contains books written in a number of different genres. We immediately recognise the Psalms as poetry from their specific literary style. Kings and Chronicles are predominantly historical accounts: we recognise history from its systematic chronological narrative of ordinary human events. Future events are written in terms of prophecy; often employing symbols and figurative language to describe events and things not yet known. But what genre did God use to convey the elements of an unknown and unrecorded past?
In primitive human societies, the genres used to communicate the socially accepted record of a pre-historical past are generally of two kinds: myth and legend. Myth is a retrospective means of re-creating an unknown past; generally involving extensive use of miracle and hyperbole, and often evoking a lost golden age. In the paucity or absence of known truth, myth is regarded as if it were truth, providing a firm foundation for present certainty. As one author explains: “Mythical stories are a way of preserving collective memories that can be checked neither by the storyteller nor by the listener. Their function is not to explain what happened at the beginning of the world but to establish the basis of social or religious order, to impart a set of moral values.”[1] Legend is a narrative of the exploits and feats, often heroic, of one or more central characters, who may be fictitious, historical and/or ancestral; retrospectively providing firm foundation for ethnic and national identity. Could these be valid genres for the inspired records of Genesis?
We know that God inspired the book of Revelation. John tells us that He received the message in vision, and was taken up in spirit. The genre of the prophecy of Revelation is clearly not literal. God could have revealed the future as a historical narrative, specifying nations, names and dates; but He deliberately chose a genre of figure and symbol. This is immediately clear from the nature of the text, which speaks of dragons, beasts, mythical animals and falling stars.
We understand, from the use of third person narrative and from tradition, that the Gospels were written by four authors not by Jesus himself; and that they were written retrospectively after his ascension. We have no hesitation in quoting the cited words of Jesus as His statements; but this does not mean that we regard Him as the author of the four gospels (a reasoning strangely overlooked when we read the last four books of Moses, written in the same biographical genre).
We understand from internal attributions that the letters of Paul were written by himself, or at his dictation. Our comprehension of their nature arises from the genre in which they are written: they are communications to the churches, written in first person. We understand when reading the books of the Kings, that these are historical records of royalty and of a nation, with reign lengths, dates, records of public works, and accounts of historical interactions and events involving other nations.
It is clear from Scripture that God has inspired His message in a variety of different genres. In every case, genre is evident from the text. So when the genre of the Genesis text clearly employs the literary devices and elements of myth (chapters 1-11) and legend (12-50) what grounds do we have for disregarding these prompts, and insisting that Genesis should be read as literal history?
Retrospective Prophecy
When we approach Scripture, we often bring with us a subconscious bias that constrains our thinking. For example, ‘Prophecy’ is seen as an emotionally neutral term, which can cover Divine prophecy such as that of John, or human prophecy such as that of Nostradamus. However ‘myth’ and ‘legend’ are, to the Christian ear, “loaded” words, carrying the hostile sense of things invented by men. To describe Genesis in terms of myth and legend arouses an implication of human untruth: however myth and legend are clearly the genre in which the Divinely inspired chapters of Genesis have been written. To remove this bias, we could perhaps introduce the term “pre-phecy”, or, retrospective prophecy, to define God’s means of telling us what He wishes us to understand about the unrecorded past.
If it serves the purpose of God to foretell the future in non-literal terms, then surely it is also logical to accept that God can choose to reveal what He wants us to know about the past in non-literal terms. If His purpose in prophecy — to reveal His intentions without getting bogged down in incomprehensible futuristic detail — is best served by themes and concepts couched in symbolic language, then his primary purpose in speaking of the past — to reveal His nature and work as Creator and the origin of His plan and purpose — is arguably well served in a series of accounts that put Him at the helm, without getting bogged in areas of knowledge wholly unfamiliar to the target audience.
Just as prophecy describes future events in terms of present day settings — for example, horses as means of conveyance in war rather than tanks, vehicles or aircraft — so pre-phecy employs elements of the present in describing the past. It contains all the elements of a prequel (a retrospectively written account). Thus clean animals go in by sevens into Noah’s Ark, when clean and unclean animals were not differentiated until the Exodus, and are elements of the Law of Moses not of pre-Abrahamic Chaldean worship. So also the name of YHWH is used extensively in the first chapters of Genesis, even though God was not known to Israel by that name until the time of the Exodus (6:3). Likewise the holiness of Sabbath, promulgated by God in the Exodus from Egypt as a new observance to commemorate six days of manna (Exodus 16) and a seventh of rest from servitude (Exodus 23:12), is given a retrospective and etiological foundation, eighteen days later (Exodus 20), with novel reference to the Creation account.
The fact that there is no mention of Sabbath observance or a seven day week in the account from Abraham to Moses (apart from the annual seven day feast and holy days of Passover) supports the assertion that sennight and Sabbath were officially initiated at the Exodus, and were not ordained or observed from Creation (Exodus 12, 16). Indeed, as Jesus affirms, the Sabbath was made for man (as a period of rest and refreshment after slavery) not Man for the Sabbath (as a primordial commemoration of Creation). This strengthens the case for Genesis 1 being a prequel account; with the Creation record being a confirmation of Sabbath not the other way around.
The genre of Genesis, as for any book of Scripture, is revealed in its text and language, and in the literary style of its construction. Genesis 1-11, for example, is a series of insular and etiological narratives woven together by the unifying concatenation of genealogy. Each of the narratives has its unique literary style and purpose: the tightly structured form of the first Creation account and its etiology of the Sabbath; the fluid narrative of the second Creation account and the spiritually instructive events of the Fall; the repetitive, aria-style oral narrative of the Flood story; and the retrospective cultural apologetics regarding Canaan and Babylon which define their spiritual places in relation to Israel and to God.
Genesis 1-11 is a “pre-phecy”, a mythical and legendary accounting of God’s responsibility for all that exists, and a foundational establishment of His relationship and purpose with His creation. It is followed from chapter 12 onward by a retrospective and legendary account of the Patriarchal lineage of His chosen people Israel. To read a literal historical or scientific genre into the first eleven chapters, in clear contradiction of their literary style, is to misinterpret the word of God. To then wield this perversion of genre as an authoritative denial of the evidence of God’s handiwork written in Nature only compounds the error, which arises from our own ignorance and our mishandling of the Word.
As Saul of Tarsus learned by hard experience at his conversion, cognitive dissonance can be an impenetrable blindness of the heart, and a powerful enemy of truth. Likewise, we can find ourselves vehemently defending the purpose of God while actively destroying it: unless and until by God’s grace we too are ‘blinded by the light’, and our eyes and minds are opened.
The Purpose of Genesis 1-11
Why, we might ask, did God not communicate to mankind full scientific truth in the first place? Why does He ‘confuse’ us with inaccurate and ancient science and primitive origin stories?
The simple answer is, that he was not initially communicating with us at all. He was communicating His will and His purpose to men in an early civilisation, who held to a primitive and limited cosmology, and a worldview that attributed creation to the fiat acts of a pantheon of warring gods.
The fundamental purpose of Divine revelation to such people was to deny the existence and power of those fictitious gods, and to assert God’s authority and power as paramount. The most effective way to communicate with that original audience was in terms of their own comprehension. Just as Jesus healed what we now know as epilepsy under the guise of casting out an evil spirit (Mark 9:20), so God established His authority among His people in terms of the contextual cosmology of the day.
It is often asserted that the Babylonian creation myths and flood legends are corrupted versions of original accounts recorded in Genesis. However, Babylonian civilisation was flourishing long before the derivative, Hebrew civilisation which, as Genesis itself tells us, began with Abram, a Chaldean emigrant. The Genesis flood account is therefore more probably a Divine polemic on Babylonian mythology, than the other way around. Indeed, Genesis powerfully takes the Babylonian cosmogony of multiple warring procreating divinities, order in combat with chaos, and intrinsic conflict and evil, and turns it on its head; proclaiming a singular eternally existent God completely in control; who creates everything good, orders the universe, makes men in God’s image rather than as slaves to divinities: and attributes evil entirely to human moral choice[2]
The Divine pre-phecy preserved in Genesis 1-11 establishes a spiritual foundation for all of Scripture. It provides the fundamental framework of God’s plan for mankind. It retrospectively provides an etiology for the nation of Israel, her relationship to other nations, and our relationship to God. It establishes the nature and the outworking of His righteousness and of His character. It sets forth principles which are consistently taught and maintained throughout all of Scripture. It establishes God’s status as the one Creator and Sustainer of all things.
It establishes God as the originator of His first ambassador, Adam; the progenitor of the Royal line of Jesus Christ, the second Adam and God’s ultimate and righteous Ambassador and Saviour. It establishes our responsibility to God, the nature and origin of sin, and the consequence of punishment; the principle of the preservation of a Seed and of ultimate redemption in Christ, and the principle of standing separate from the corruption of ungodliness.
All of these principles and doctrines, unknown to science, and foreign to natural human thought, form an integral and fundamental part of the Christian faith. The moral and spiritual lessons of these chapters are indispensable. The “legend” style of the Fall account strongly implies the historicity of Adam as a real person; the mythological accounts providing the framework and setting in which He was placed as God’s first representative.
These eternal principles and doctrines were first given to a primitive people, who possessed scant knowledge of the laws of nature, other than a broad recognition of cyclicity and of dependable patterns (Ecclesiastes 1). Generally, they regarded all events as having a personal cause; if the cause was not human, then it was superhuman. Such “god- of the gaps” causation was attributed to the acts of a fickle pantheon of divine beings, to mythical sea-monsters such as Leviathan, and to celestial bodies (sun, moon and stars), all of which they regarded as deities.
The purpose of Genesis 1-11 was to refute all false gods, to assert God’s absolute authority over all things whether real or imagined; to define man’s relationship to his Creator, and to firmly attribute Divine causation to the fiat and direct control of a single and omnipotent God. This causative, hands-on worldview pervades all of Scripture, which is full of attributions of natural events to direct, manually-driven Divine action (for example Psalm 104, and Job 36-37). The archaic term “acts of God” used today by insurers to define natural events beyond human control, is a lingering relic of this causative worldview.
Today we understand the laws of nature by which God manages the universe. God is not seen as a direct operative cause, as much as a designer of the operative system. Instead of being the daily manipulator of sun, moon and stars, He is the one who has firmly established their laws of operation. That is not to say that he leaves it all to chance; but merely to confirm that he only intervenes in the process He has initiated when He deems it necessary. Instead of being the bell-ringer who manually tolls out matins, midday and curfew, he is the clockmaker who constructs the mechanism, pre-sets the chimes, and occasionally intervenes at will. While He is a “God of the gaps,” our filling of those gaps with knowledge of His ways does not supplant Him; rather it increases our awe at the intricacies and balances of the systems He created, set in place, and manages as required.
If God had revealed the facts of pre-history as we know them today to ancient peoples in terms of a literal narrative, He would have lost them in precocious and incomprehensible concepts, things which we only understand today as a result of centuries of accumulated discoveries and compounded proofs; and His spiritual message would have been obliterated in confusion. In the same way, had he given the Revelation as a literal history with a firm date for Christ’s return, generations of saints would have been deprived of contemporary hope, and discouraged by despair. Such an outcome would have been contrary to His purpose.
Genesis, as an ancient text, is a book about Divine causation and relationships. The limitations of comprehension of the original audience, in terms of natural laws and of scientific matters, do not, and should not, limit the power of the Message itself. Though our concepts of the world have changed, the eternal Word remains unchanging. Though heaven and earth decay, the word of God will never fail.
As our knowledge of the physical world increases, as we learn to decipher and to read the acts of God written indelibly in His ancient works, and to consciously substitute the meat of knowledge for the milk, the awesomeness, eternity and extent of the glory of God as seen in His creation is magnified and increased. For the Christian believer, Science is proof of the handiwork of God; it affirms God’s glory expressed in His creation, and underpins His infallible message.
However if we bind the Word to its primitive Babylonian context, to medieval Greco-Western contexts, or to 18th Century scientific contexts, as literal and infallible in every detail, we bind the wisdom of God to archaisms; and fail to progress from milk to meat. By denying the continuing scientific discoveries of the awesome processes of God’s creation, we deny His works: we destroy respect for God among those who observe and comprehend such things; and traduce God as surely as the serpent traduced Him before Eve.
- ↑ Jean-Pierre Luminet: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.03332.pdf69
- ↑ well presented in this lecture by Christine Hayes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANUD8IK12ms71
