Genesis editing in early monarchy

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I was skimming through From Paradise to Promised Land by TD Alexander and Story as Torah by Wenham regarding dating the Pentateuch, specifically Genesis.
I came across this is Wenham's book:
There are a number of indicators that Genesis was at least revised in the tenth century, including the table of nations, mentions of Dan, Ur of the Chaldees, the Edomite Royal archives in ch. 36 and details in the Joseph stories. However claims that there are even later elements are not so strong. Our argument is not that Genesis was lightly revised in the tenth century, but that it was significantly edited then so that its relevance to tenth century issues was apparent.
He doesn't seem to be a JEDP guy but, it seems as though, at least some of the claims, tend to be the mentality "well the future can't be told" so they see it as looking back.
What say you? Are these revisions problematic?


Puritan Board Graduate
All he's claiming is that names are being updated for the sake of clarity. So for instance, Ur of the Chaldees is considered to be a necessary clarification, as there may have been two cities called Ur, one of which was later occupied by the Chaldees (long after Abraham's day).

So far as revisions are concerned, I have no problem with the idea of a later editor being inspired, so long as we aren't saying that this affects the accuracy.


Puritanboard Amanuensis
The approach of Gordon Wenham is "a simpler source-critical analysis." It still aims to identify source documents, but to lay aside alot of the more extreme speculations based on history of religion presuppositions. He does not merely think in terms of "updates." In Gen. 2-11, for example, J is seen as the major contributor which used the material of P, and must therefore be seen as coming later than P. J engages in "editorial work."
Not open for further replies.