# Criticism of Genesis



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

Was Genesis written by two different authors in two different time periods?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 15, 2005)

No, it was written by Moses. However, some believe that has gone through the hands of editors, for tidying up a bit.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

My professor claims that recent Hebrew scholarship has shown that it was probably written by two authors: one priestly section and one personal section corresponding to sections utilizing Elohim vs. YHWH.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 15, 2005)

Matthew, read "Survey of the Old Testament" by John Walton. He argues against that idea and the correlated idea of henotheism.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

A shorter article, perchance (perprovidence)?


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 15, 2005)

I don't claim to be a scholar on the issue by any means, but I have read much of the higher criticsm and find it wanting. The presuppositions of those who deny Moses' authorship seem forced and stretched. 

One example is the two accounts of creation you mentioned. Some scholars seem to think that Moses would not use the word Elohim and then use the word JHWH. But I really wonder why not? If Moses wrote (or dictated) the Pentatuch during the course of his life, or over the 40 years' wanderings, why could he not use different words? My own uninspired essays are not restricted to a certain vocabulary or style.

I have no problem with the idea that Moses wrote all of the Pentatuch in various times, places, in separate manuscripts, and then either he or his scribe compiled them. 

But the main reason I hold to Moses' authorship is simply because Jesus referred to him as the author. It doesn't matter to me whether he compiled and edited ancient manuscripts, dictated his thoughts to various scribes, or even had his writings collated after his death. They were inspired because we are told so.

Vic


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 15, 2005)

Thank you Vic and Mark! Those thoughts and resources will be of much assistance to me.


----------



## Peccant (Nov 28, 2005)

God "wrote" the Book.
Moses "recorded" it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 28, 2005)

This is an "OT Introduction" subject, as it deals with authorship, possible sources, etc. Sober, well-informed, highly educated men have written sizeable volumes on the subject that are both accesible to the layman and rather confirmatory of faith than subversive of it. E.J. Young, R.K. Harrison, Gleason Archer, and others come to mind. They represent the conservative end of the spectrum, and advocate the traditional position (which has not changed to much over the years), versus the liberal-critical position, which prides itself on "cutting-edge" scholarship (which bascially changes all the time).

About the only thing the critics can agree on from age to age is that the traditional position can't possibly be right. A mediating position has emerged during the latter part of the 20th century, led by Brevard Childs, that has adopted the "canonical criticism" approach. This says: don't get to bogged down in speculations about _how_ the book was put together, or who wrote it. Accept the critical presuppositions that biblical religion is simply one evolutionary species, *and* accept the traditionalists arguments that the books exhibit undeniable signs of unity of thought, theme, and structure. In other words,, pretend that the books were written (essentially) by one author, accept the "latest and greatest" ideas about time and place of composition, and accept the "canonical form" that we have received. And study the books that way.

This "pretend it is what it claims" approach was necessary to save the critical method from utter irrelevance. They had to turn back toward traditionalism, because to go any farther out into radicalism would completely atomize their studies. in my opinion, post-moden theology, and beyond--the most radical subjectivist/revisionist critics--have nothing relevant to say to anyone. Their very presuppositions make anything they say to anyone else meaningless. The turn back by the "canonicists" did, in fact, mark the "end of the historical-critical method," the title of a small book by a man named Maier, I believe.

It is important to discover the attitudes that authors bring to their work. Critical scholars are no more neutral in their approach than traditional ones. They are not interested in the "facts as they find them, or going where they lead." They do not believe Moses (if there _was_ a Moses) wrote the Pentateuch, or received Genesis himself, or the parts of Genesis that formed the backbone of the introductory volume to the Bible. This presupposition blinds them to any evaluation of the evidence that would support such a view. Just like my predeliction to accept Mosaic authorship, as biblical self-attestation would have me believe, is not up to serious challenge--not without giving me something much deeper to rest my confidence in than word-variation and a history-of-religions approach to Bible study.

In the end, there are only two positions. Either the confidence in the fixity and veracity of the biblical witness, or atomistic subjectivism. All mediating positions are oriented toward one of these two poles.

[Edited on 11-28-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------

