Confusion in Genesis

[patrick457]

Ops, sorry For the ostracon to be really hebrew. Because it requires the assumption that the israelites were using proto-canaanite.

I wouldn’t put it that way. We could assume that the Israelites indeed used the local ‘proto-Canaanite’ (given how that term could mean different things in different contexts I’m putting it in quotes) script, but the problem is, they were not the only ones in the area who were using said script (cf. the Phoenicians, the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites or the Aramaeans). Which is why we couldn’t say with 100% certainty that the ostracon is an Israelite artifact, since as mentioned everyone in the area at that time is speaking almost the same language (the Canaanite branch of the Northwest Semitic language family) and using almost the same abjad, with some variations of course.

 

[patrick457]

That said, Moses couldn’t be the author of any part of the Pentateuch, Hebrew is too young for it, and it’s easier to conclude Genesis is a corruption of Sumerian records, rather than otherwise.

And by ‘author’ do you mean the modern sense of the word, where you have to be the one who actually wrote the stuff down on some writing medium to be considered the ‘author’?

 

[farpinho]

I wouldn’t put it that way. We could assume that the Israelites indeed used the local ‘proto-Canaanite’ (given how that term could mean different things in different contexts I’m putting it in quotes) script, but the problem is, they were not the only ones in the area who were using said script (cf. the Phoenicians, the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites or the Aramaeans). Which is why we couldn’t say with 100% certainty that the ostracon is an Israelite artifact, since as mentioned everyone in the area at that time is speaking almost the same language (the Canaanite branch of the Northwest Semitic language family) and using almost the same abjad, with some variations of course.

I see. That’s more or less what I had previously imagined, though I had the idea that the israelites already had the hebrew as a final language, but used the local script instead. But, since these languages weren’t very distinguishable like you said, I take there aren’t any verbs or words that are exclusive to the Israelites that could be used to identify the authorship?

 

[buffalo]

And by ‘author’ do you mean the modern sense of the word, where you have to be the one who actually wrote the stuff down on some writing medium to be considered the ‘author’?

The toledoths would say that Moses was the compiler of Genesis and had possession of both tablets and oral information. Presumably, this would be “protected by God”.

 

[patrick457]

I see. That’s more or less what I had previously imagined, though I had the idea that the israelites already had the hebrew as a final language, but used the local script instead. But, since these languages weren’t very distinguishable like you said, I take there aren’t any verbs or words that are exclusive to the Israelites that could be used to identify the authorship?

There are actually linguistic quirks peculiar to Hebrew and for that matter, the other Canaanite languages AFAIK. For example, the copula verb “to be” in Phoenician is kn (in agreement with Arabic) as opposed to Hebrew and Aramaic hyh. Moabite and Edomite have retained the feminine ending -at (-t), which has mostly become -āh in Biblical Hebrew (e.g. qryt “town”, Biblical Hebrew qiryāh, but cf. construct state nominal form as in qiryát Yisrael “town of Israel”), same goes for Ammonite, albeit in a lesser extent (e.g. ’šħt “cistern”, but ‘lyh “high (fem.)”).

Now the problem with the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription is that the writing is poorly preserved. While there are claims that the ostracon uses words characteristic of Hebrew, others argue that the words alleged to be indicative of Hebrew either do appear in other languages or don’t actually appear in the inscription.

 

[Gorgias]

If you look at the churches listing of the parables of Jesus in the NT. They do not contain the “parable of Genesis” or the “parable of Noahs ark”.

I wasn’t suggesting that Genesis was merely a parable. Rather, I was addressing YoungCatholic86’s question about what “truth” means. I was making the case that parables themselves are true, even if we wouldn’t say that they’re historically accurate.

 

[patrick457]

The toledoths would say that Moses was the compiler of Genesis and had possession of both tablets and oral information. Presumably, this would be “protected by God”.

I’m wondering as to how would you answer this? (From Wikipedia)

Biblical scholar Victor Hamilton states that Wiseman’s hypothesis was “the first concerted attempt to challenge the hypothesis” of introductory colophons. Hamilton does however identify several problems with what he terms the “Wiseman-Harrison approach”. Firstly, “in five instances where the formula precedes a genealogy …, it is difficult not to include the colophon with what follows.” Secondly, the approach requires the “unlikely” explanation that “Ishmael was responsible for preserving the history of Abraham”, Isaac for Ishmael’s history, Esau for Jacob’s and Jacob for Esau’s. The third problem he identifies is that Genesis is narrative not biographical, as that approach would suggest. [Hamilton, Victor (1990). The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series) 1-17, pp. 8-11.]

Herbert M. Wolf describes the theory as “an attractive one”, but suggests that it has “serious shortcomings”. Firstly, he suggests that toledoth almost always fit more naturally with the verses that they precede than with the verses that precede them. Secondly he doubts if Moses would be able to read writing made before the Tower of Babel. Thirdly he also suggests that the pairings of preservers and preserved histories are “unlikely”, given the “rivalry and jealousy” involved and the lack of contact between Esau and Jacob. [Wolf, Herbert (2007). *An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch, .p65] The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament says that Wiseman’s view is “unconvincing” and distinguishes between the Babylonian colophons and the toledoth of Genesis, in that the colophon is a repetition, not a description of contents, the owner named is the current owner, not the original, and the colophons do not use the Akkadian equivalent of the toledoth as part of their formula. [Walvoord et al. 1985, p. 22.]

 

[minichibi]

And by ‘author’ do you mean the modern sense of the word, where you have to be the one who actually wrote the stuff down on some writing medium to be considered the ‘author’?

Yes.

 

[patrick457]

Yes.

Then you have a very narrow definition of what an ‘author’ is.

 

[farpinho]

Yes.

If your grandfather tells you a story, and years after he dies you decide to write it down and publish a book with the story he told you, would you say that the author of the story is you or your grandfather?

 

[patrick457]

If your grandfather tells you a story, and years after he dies you decide to write it down and publish a book with the story he told you, would you say that the author of the story is you or your grandfather?

Another example. In Romans 16:22, we get the following: “I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.” But the letter begins with “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus …] to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints.” So, who exactly was the ‘author’ of Romans: Tertius or Paul?

 

[triumphguy]

Some points:

The Church does not want us to make literal fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture.

Our Church does not teach creationism or intelligent design.

It is not against Church teaching to believe in evolution.

We Catholics must believe that humans are descended from A man and A woman who sinned and turned against God.

We are asked to use scholarship to red scripture and to use our intellects in understanding scripture, it’s origins and sources, and the various voices in which Scripture speaks.

We are however to believe that the Scriptures are God’s Word, and in scripture we come to know the Word, and the scriptures are where we meet the Word made Flesh.

 

[buffalo]

Some points:

The Church does not want us to make literal fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture.

Our Church does not teach creationism or intelligent design.

It is not against Church teaching to believe in evolution.

We Catholics must believe that humans are descended from A man and A woman who sinned and turned against God.

We are asked to use scholarship to red scripture and to use our intellects in understanding scripture, it’s origins and sources, and the various voices in which Scripture speaks.

We are however to believe that the Scriptures are God’s Word, and in scripture we come to know the Word, and the scriptures are where we meet the Word made Flesh.

and we are to follow the constant teaching and understanding of the Church in regard to these matters.

 

[triumphguy]

Absolutely: just as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have taught.

 

[grannymh]

That said, Moses couldn’t be the author of any part of the Pentateuch, Hebrew is too young for it, and it’s easier to conclude Genesis is a corruption of Sumerian records, rather than otherwise.

Makes no difference whatsoever.

When Divine Revelation is involved.

 

[patrick457]

By the way, C.S. Lewis once wrote the following.

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic-there is only one right answer to a sum, and all one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

 

[Gorgias]

it’s easier to conclude Genesis is a corruption of Sumerian records, rather than otherwise.

This whole “corruption” thing amazes me – in whichever direction you assert it happened.

At the Republican convention, apparently, one of the speakers stood up and said “we built it”. Now, if you were to compare that statement to President Obama’s earlier statement, “you didn’t build that”, how would you characterize it? That the Republican statement was a corruption of Obama’s? That Obama’s is a corruption of the GOP’s? Or maybe, given what you know about timelines, that the Republican statement took a meme that was well-known, and, based on an intent to assert something – using this well-known idea – created their own, distinct idea?

Corruption? :nope: Hardly…

 

[johnnyjones]

Some points:

The Church does not want us to make literal fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture.

Our Church does not teach creationism or intelligent design.

It is not against Church teaching to believe in evolution.

We Catholics must believe that humans are descended from A man and A woman who sinned and turned against God.

We are asked to use scholarship to red scripture and to use our intellects in understanding scripture, it’s origins and sources, and the various voices in which Scripture speaks.

We are however to believe that the Scriptures are God’s Word, and in scripture we come to know the Word, and the scriptures are where we meet the Word made Flesh.

It is not against church teaching to believe in the creation account of Genesis.

Not “A man and A woman”. The church teaches we are sinners due to the fall of Adam & Eve.

 

[triumphguy]

It is not against church teaching to believe in the creation account of Genesis.

Not “A man and A woman”. The church teaches we are sinners due to the fall of Adam & Eve.

It is not against Church teaching to personally believe in the creation account as written by Genesis. However, it goes against the way the Church has actively sought the truth and been a world leader in many areas of science to actively deny the right of science to ask questions about geology, archaeology, anthropology and evolution, etc.

By A man and A woman I mean not Adam and Eve as a concept.

Not Adam as “man” in the generic sense etc.

This is the sense in which Pope Benedict used the phrase “a man and a woman” when he wrote on this topic. I don’t have the source to hand, but if it floats your boat I will find it.

There are those in the Church who would go further and say that while it’s OK to believe in it yourself, don’t teach it to kids.

 

[johnnyjones]

It is not against Church teaching to personally believe in the creation account as written by Genesis. However, it goes against the way the Church has actively sought the truth and been a world leader in many areas of science to actively deny the right of science to ask questions about geology, archaeology, anthropology and evolution, etc.

By A man and A woman I mean not Adam and Eve as a concept.

Not Adam as “man” in the generic sense etc.

This is the sense in which Pope Benedict used the phrase “a man and a woman” when he wrote on this topic. I don’t have the source to hand, but if it floats your boat I will find it.

You are right, the church does not pursue the concept of our origins based on instant creation. The church has an interest in geology, archeology , anthropology etc. which is reasonable. The study of sacred scripture is also actively sought by those seeking the truth of creation.

Do you believe in a literal Adam & Eve as the church does?