Two creation stories?

[Iosias]

Moses was on Mt Sinai for quite awhile with God. How do any of us know what the conversation was on that mountain, or the revelations that Moses received while in the presence of God?

I know of no conservative evangelical who argues that Genesis was ahistorical. Most conservative evangelicals accept that Moses would have used earlier sources to write Genesis.

Further, the earliest Tradition makes no reference to Sinai:

"My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, O LORD, have given me." (Deut 26:5-10)
​

See, Von Rad's The Form Critical Problem of the Hexateuch.

 

[Assyrian]

See, Von Rad's The Form Critical Problem of the Hexateuch.

Hexateuch? Is that including Joshua?

 

[Big Mouth Nana]

I know of no conservative evangelical who argues that Genesis was ahistorical. Most conservative evangelicals accept that Moses would have used earlier sources to write Genesis.

Further, the earliest Tradition makes no reference to Sinai:

"My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, O LORD, have given me." (Deut 26:5-10)
​

See, Von Rad's The Form Critical Problem of the Hexateuch.

Say what Iosias??!!! Just because it doesn't mention Sinai in Deut doesn't mean a thing. Exodus does. I could say that Golgotha wasn't mentioned in the OT in Isaiah 53:5 when the Messiah was prophesied to die, even though He was crucified there in the NT. No thank you on Von Rads. I just spent a month in Eschatology trying to disprove The Book of Enoch with it's contradictions to what the bible states. I'm strictly a bible only woman, so why would I need to read about the problems with the Hexateuch? I have all 39 books in the OT which I believe implicitly. The Hexateuch only has the first 6

 

[Iosias]

Hexateuch? Is that including Joshua?

Yep.

 

[Iosias]

Say what Iosias??!!! Just because it doesn't mention Sinai in Deut doesn't mean a thing. Exodus does.

Von Rad's essay was pioneering and is well worth a read. My point was that the narrative of the Pentateuch is build up from a variety of sources. These sources stem from cultic activities where a confession of faith was said. Deuteronomy is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, confessions. What we find in Scripture is the Sinai Tradition and the Settlement Tradition. We can then deduce that the earliest recording of the Exodus did not include the Sinai Tradition hence it not being mentioned in the earliest creed.

We can see the historical development in the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus:

Then Joseph took an oath from the children of Israel, saying, “God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here.” So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. Now these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt; each man and his household came with Jacob: Reuben, Simemon, Levi, and Judah; Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons (for Joseph was in Egypt already). And Joseph died, all his brothers, and all that generation. But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
​

So red is Genesis and blue is Exodus. Now note this:

Then Joseph took an oath from the children of Israel, saying, “God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here.” So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. Now these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt; each man and his household came with Jacob: Reuben, Simemon, Levi, and Judah; Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons (for Joseph was in Egypt already). And Joseph died, all his brothers, and all that generation. But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.

​

Can you see now how we can find repeats and additions to the basic story. So we can posit that the original looked like this:

Then Joseph took an oath from the children of Israel, saying, “God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here.” So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.

​

Over time this was added to to become what we read today.

 

[marktheblake]

Can you see now how we can find repeats and additions to the basic story.

Normal Hebrew writing style, I forgot what its called. I don't for a second consider that justifies addition to the original texts.

I don't believe that we can retrieve the "original version" but we can note differing traditions within the Pentateuch.

there is some valid thought there but its unprovable unless the original version is found.

 

[gluadys]

Normal Hebrew writing style, I forgot what its called. I don't for a second consider that justifies addition to the original texts.



there is some valid thought there but its unprovable unless the original version is found.

Of course, if Iosias is right, (as I believe he is) there is strictly speaking no "original version" of the Pentateuch prior to the final editing. All older versions are partial ones from one tradition or another and do not contain the full text of the Pentateuch as we know it today.

 

[Iosias]

I don't for a second consider that justifies addition to the original texts.

I am not clear what you mean by "original texts". Through form criticism we try to get behind the written source to understand its historical development. A good and easy example is that of the end of Genesis and the start of Exodus as I noted above. But lets look simply at Exodus 1:1-8:

1 Now these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt; each man and his household came with Jacob: 2 Reuben, Simemon, Levi, and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; 4 Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. 5 All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons (for Joseph was in Egypt already). 6 And Joseph died, all his brothers, and all that generation. 7 But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.
​

There is a break in the flow of narrative from Genesis 50:26 and Exodus 1:1. This stems from the splitting up of the text into distinct "books". Can you see that if we start to read from Genesis 50:26 and then jump to Exodus 1:8 we get a more natural flow of narrative:

So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
​

It could be argued that you can still get a natural flow by jumping straight to verse 7:

So Joseph died, being one hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt. But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
​

However I hope the point is shown that we are able to discern clear breaks in the narrative which stem from unnatural additions. So we would argue that one of the above represents the 'original' or more accurately is an older text. You could then argue that this was added to or you could argue that this was added to another text.

So Noth argues that at a later period a priestly writer (P) wrote an account of the exodus for a later generation adding to that earlier texts (J and E). Hence the final form of the Pentateuch is the product of editorial activity.

there is some valid thought there but its unprovable unless the original version is found.

It's not unprovable, we just need to know what we are looking for as I hope the above has illustrated briefly.

 

[Iosias]

there is strictly speaking no "original version" of the Pentateuch prior to the final editing. All older versions are partial ones from one tradition or another and do not contain the full text of the Pentateuch as we know it today.

 

[Assyrian]

Hexateuch? Is that including Joshua?

Yep.

That is interesting because I was just reading about Joshua continuing the book of the Moses wrote. Josh 24:26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. Way back then what we now have in the book of Joshua was part of the same book as much of the Pentateuch.

 

[Iosias]

That is interesting because I was just reading about Joshua continuing the book of the Moses wrote. Josh 24:26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. Way back then what we now have in the book of Joshua was part of the same book as much of the Pentateuch.

What is also interesting is that the covenant renewal ceremony of Josh. 24 is founded upon the Sinai Tradition. Here, year on year, at the feast of Tabernacles Yahweh would renew the covenant with his people.

So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. Then Moses commanded them: "At the end of every seven years, in the year for canceling debts, during the Feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing. Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law. Their children, who do not know this law, must hear it and learn to fear the LORD your God as long as you live in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess.
​

 

[Assyrian]

Of course, if Iosias is right, (as I believe he is) there is strictly speaking no "original version" of the Pentateuch prior to the final editing. All older versions are partial ones from one tradition or another and do not contain the full text of the Pentateuch as we know it today.

That is something I have been thinking about. Could it shed light on some of the questions about the Gospels? For example John seems to have two endings, one at the end of ch 20 and again at the end of 21. Does the end of Ch 20 only look like a conclusion? Was chapter 21 added later by someone else? Or did the author (John?) work on his manuscript over many years working through a number of versions and revisions? Is ch 21 part of a later version of the same book by the same author? It could explain why some manuscripts don't have John 8 the woman taken in adultery, or even the controversial end of Mark 15:9ff.

 

[marktheblake]

I am not clear what you mean by "original texts".

If there were later additions as you demonstrated further then there were original texts that existed before the additions.

There is a break in the flow of narrative from Genesis 50:26 and Exodus 1:1. This stems from the splitting up of the text into distinct "books".

Could that have been intentional (by Moses)?

 

[Iosias]

If there were later additions as you demonstrated further then there were original texts that existed before the additions.

I thought you may have been thinking along these lines. I think you are starting from a misconception about transmission history. One of the best proponents of what I am arguing was Martin Noth though he is not without his problems. Try also How the Bible Became a Book by Schniedewind. All I would say is that if you do some reading around this issue you will realise that the questions do not have easy answers.