Customer Reviews

Ancient records and the structure of Genesis: A case for literary unity

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The "Gilgamesh Epic" records a story of a world-wide flood and pre-dates Genesis. So some claim that this invalidates the Genesis record. But P.J. Wiseman presents an interesting theory in this regard in this book.

He believes that Moses did not WRITE Genesis but rather TRANSLATED it from ancient stone tablets written in Cuneiform script. The tablets each would have been originally written by eye-witnesses of the particular events, or those who received their information from eye-witnesses.

He breaks Genesis into parts according to the phrase "These are the generations" (KJV; "This is the history" - NKJV; "This the account" - NASB; NIV; Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12,9; 36:1,9; 37:2).

He compares the use of this phrase and the structure of each section to the stone tablets written in cuneiform script. Many of these tablets have been discovered and they date to the third millenium BC.

Wiseman's theory is that Genesis is translated from individual tablets which would have contained the material before each occurrence of the above phrase. So the narratives of the creation of the universe (Gen 1) and of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2) would have been written on one tablet by Adam as these events were revealed to him by the only Eye-witness of the events, God Himself.

The narratives of the Fall and subsequent events would have been written on another tablet by Adam as an eye-witness of the events. Adam then passed each of these tablets on to his descendant Seth. Seth then recorded the events of Gen 5 and passed the tablets to his descendant Noah. Noah then recorded the events of Gen 6-9 and passed the tablets to his descendant Shem, and so one until Joseph. Joseph then recorded the final chapters of Genesis and placed all of the tablets in the library of the pharaohs. Moses then, while in pharaoh's court, would have had access to these tablets. He then translated them into his native Hebrew.

The above theory "fits" with various evidences in the Scriptures. For instance, it would explain such passages as Exod 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD [YHWH], I was not known to them." But the Tetragrammaton appears in Genesis, making for an apparent contradiction. However, this problem is easily explained if Moses translated, but did not write, Genesis. While translating, when Moses came across the name for God in the cuneiform tablets, he used the Name God revealed to him to translate it. So the Name YHWH was not known to Abraham and other Genesis figures.

Also, note that in the Bible Genesis is never said to be written by Moses, whereas the other four books of the Torah are. For instance, in Matt 18:4-5 Jesus refers to two quotes from Genesis. He introduces them with the general phrase, "Have you not read...." But in verse 8, when referring to a passage from Deuteronomy, Jesus specifically attributes the statement to Moses.

In addition, Wiseman's theory is consistent with the relationship of Gilgamesh and Genesis. There are some similarities between the two, yet many important differences. More specifically, if Genesis was translated from stone tablets written by the main characters of the events, then these tablets would pre-date the writing of Gilgamesh. Meanwhile, Gilgamesh was based on oral transmission of the events.

So the record in Genesis would be the accurate record; whereas Gilgamesh would be a somewhat "twisted" record. Being based on oral traditions passed over centuries, the latter would be expected to keep some of the main points intact but alter many of the details.

Wiseman's theory also fits with the archeological evidence of the character of the ancient cuneiform, stone tablets as compared to the Genesis narratives. There are many similarities in the writing structure between them. He summarizes all of the evidences on pages 144-148 of his book.

He concludes by stating: "These twenty-four strands woven together make a cumulative muster of evidences, so exceptional both in character and importance, that they establish the antiquity of Genesis as a contemporary record of events upon a sure foundation. This foundation is the internal testimony of the book itself, supported by the external corroboration of archeology."

I don't know if I agree with all of Wiseman's ideas. But I do find them interesting.

Although not given the attention it is due by the more traditional scholarly press, this small book proves conclusively that Genesis was written originally on clay tablets in cuneiform by the patriarchs themselves.
The author, who visited archaelogical sites early in this century and studied the methods of creation and transmission of texts from one tablet to another has been able to show conclusively that the book of Genesis has the section ending "markers" that were used in the very earliest writings of man dating from 3000 B.C.
His theory is both intriguing and convincing, and deserves greater attention than it received when it was published. If he is vindicated the traditional JEPD methodology for describing the collation and transmission of the Genesis stories will be thrown on its ear completely. For this reason the more liberal school of biblical criticism has ignored the findings of Wiseman.

Conservative Christians will find in this book the sort of evidence that "demands a verdict." I highly recommend it for all students of the Bible who have an open mind for the truth, and especially for those who are interested in seeing, once again, that the Bible is exactly what it has always claimed to be.

The most important and overlooked work on the first page of the Bible. Wiseman offers a simple, and I believe accurate explanation of the structure of Genesis 1. It is amazing that both the scientific and theological communities have missed this. It resolves once and for all the conflict between the Creationists and Evolutionists. Wiseman says, "If you're looking to this 'creation account' to learn the origin of life on earth, you're looking in the wrong place. The account doesn't address the mechanics of how things came to be." Wiseman has also published these ideas under the title "Creation Revealed in Six Days" - also out of print.

For a while I suspected that there were written records passed down from patriarch to patriarch, carried on Noah's Ark, and continued to be passed down from patriarch to patriarch, till they got to Moses, the author of the book of Genesis. I shared my thoughts with my pastor, and he then went to his library and pulled out Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis!

I took it home that night, and read the entire thing in one day!

We are often told that the most ancient people of Genesis didn't know how to write, that Moses was probably the first one who could write (because he learned how to write in the palace of Egypt). Isn't this the same thing we always hear -- that God's people aren't as smart or as capable as everyone else?

After reading Mr. Wiseman's book, in which he presents a very solid case, I came away believing that the ancient Patriarchs were indeed very intelligent people, and, in fact, they may have been the ones who developed writing and passed those skills on to their children, many of whom didn't stay faithful to God, but did go on to make a name for themselves in the world. So the backslidden kids got the credit for knowing how to write; but the Patriarchs faded from view (except for in the Bible narrative), because they weren't trying to make a name for themselves in the world, but rather stay true to God.

I HIGHLY recommend this book.

Makes great sense, more than any other opinion that I have read on in the past; very convincing; well documented.

A fascinating parallel is listed below; the Bible wins again :) .

"The Discovery of Genesis - How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language", by C.H. Kang and Ether R. Nelson, Concordia Press, 1979.

Wilt Blaak.

Book arrived in good condition. Book was overpriced because it is out-of-print, but I'm still happy with the book.