For those biblical scholars who have had the unfortunate experience of having the JEPD theory of the Documentary Hypothesis jammed down their throats the past forty years in Catholic biblical scholarship, and as long since the time of Julius Wellhausen in the late 1800s, this will be a real treat. This article will show what an absolute sham Catholic biblical scholarship has been since the 1960s; how innocent Catholics have been deceived by these pseudo-scholars; and why Catholic students all over the world have lost the faith. After you read this article, if you own Raymond Brown's "New Jerome Biblical Commentary," it may come in handy this winter when you need kindling for the fireplace. I hear that liberal biblical scholarship burns especially well. I can just hear those pages crackling now!

For those who are not biblical scholars, "JEPD" refers to the theory of modern liberal scholars positing that the the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) were not written or complied by Moses (as the Bible claims) but by a series of unknown authors separated by many hundreds of years. For example, the Documentary Hypothesis claims that Genesis 2 was written long before Genesis 1, the latter being written between 587-517 BC just before the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon. In the scheme of the J-E-P-D hypothesis, Genesis 1 was a "P" (Priestly) document. Why? Because, we are told, the Jews needed a refresher course on their divine heritage and there was no better place to start than with a wonderful creation story in order to get everyone excited about their return trip to Jerusalem. In other words, the "priest" or his trusty scribe who wrote Genesis 1 was basically making up a fairy tale for the delight of those returning captives.

All this hypothesizing comes under the name of "Catholic biblical scholarship," but it is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the Bible. If the Bible is a product of men, then it is prone to mistakes, and that is why these same "biblical scholars" teach that the Bible cannot be trusted when it gives historical information, or if a certain book claims to be written by a certain author. If you've had enough of this intellectual garbage, you will find the following paper to be very refreshing. If it were possible, his paper should be at the head of every Bible issued today, to make up for the fabrications perpetrated on the public by the fantasies of Julius Wellhausen and company for the past hundred and fifty years. For your convenience, I will underline what I believe are the more important points of the essay.

Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.

The "Toledoths" of Genesis

By Damien F. Mackey

This article is all about the true structure of the Book of Genesis; a structure that is so simple and straightforward - as the reader is going to discover - that even a child would have no trouble understanding it in its basic form. The chief credit for having laid bare this structure in all its profound simplicity belongs to the British scholar, P. J. Wiseman⁽¹⁾, upon whose thesis the following article will be based.

Introduction

As the brilliant Australian philosopher Gavin Ardley⁽²⁾ pointed out, there are two ways of going about the process of analysing or dissecting something, depending on one's purpose. Ardley well illustrated his point by comparing the practices of the anatomist and the butcher. When an anatomist dissects an animal, he traces out the real structure of the animal; he lays bare the veins, the nerves, the muscles, the organs, and so on. "He reveals the actual structure which is there before him waiting to be made manifest"⁽³⁾. The butcher, on the other hand, is not concerned about the natural structure of the animal as he chops it up; he wants to cut up the carcase into joints suitable for domestic purposes.

In his activities the butcher ruthlessly cleaves across the real structure laid bare so patiently by the anatomist. "The anatomist finds his structure, the butcher makes his"⁽⁴⁾.

The same sort of analogy may be applied, I believe, to the different methods that have been employed to analyse the structure of the Book of Genesis. Here I am only going to contrast the archaeologically-based approach, as used by P. J. Wiseman and others⁽⁵⁾ (which method, I believe, resembles that of the anatomist in Ardley's example), with the Graf-Wellhausen approach (that to my mind approximates to the activities of the butcher).

Astruc's Theory

It was really Jean Astruc (d. 1766) who invented the theory of separate documents, based on the Divine names used. The French physician found that in the first 35 verses of Genesis (chapters 1-24a), the word 'Elohim', "God", was used, and no other Divine name; while in chapters 2:4b to 3:24, the only designation given is 'Jehovah Elohim', "Lord God" - except where Satan uses the word God.

Astruc claimed that the passages must have been written by different writers; for if Moses himself had written the whole of it, first-hand, then we should have to attribute to him this singular variation, in patches, of the Divine name.

This was really the beginning of the documentist dissection, into fragments, of the Book of Genesis. By the middle of the 19th century, owing largely to the efforts of the German critics K. H. Graf (d. 1869) and Julius Wellhausen (d. 1918), liberal scholarship had, to its own satisfaction, isolated four main Pentateuchal sources: J-E-D-P.

Thus it was alleged that a writer who used 'Elohim' was the author of a so-called E document, and the writer who used 'Jehovah' was the author of "J"⁽⁶⁾. But since some verses that were obviously written by the same person contained both names for God, an editor had to be introduced, then a "redactor". A Deuteronomist source, "D," was identified⁽⁷⁾. After a century of conjectures and further redactors, it was decided that a further document, "P" (Priestly) had been written nearly 1,000 years after Moses, and so on ....

In this way Genesis has been reduced to a series of confused fragments and authors, in order to account for the way in which the name of God is used in the book. The fourfold sigla, JEDP, of Graf-Wellhausen is now dogmatically retained (though in modified form) in academic institutions the world over. Nonetheless, the critical scholars have to admit that their literary expedients break, not only the logical, but also the grammatical sequence of the passages. As Wiseman commented⁽⁸⁾: "It is confusion confounded!"

Really, since what was formerly known as the "Documentary Hypothesis" had its inception based upon an unrealistic premise: the presumption that a single author would not be likely to use more than one name to designate God, it does not come as a surprise to discover that the modern end-product of such a line of reasoning is a totally artificial form of analysis; a butcher-like activity, ruthlessly cleaving across the natural structure of the scriptural texts - so chopping and hewing them into fragments that their original form and shape are no longer recognisable. Wellhausen himself had in fact acknowledged that the result of all of this dissecting was "an agglomeration of fragments"⁽⁹⁾. Despite this, his History of Israel (1878) "gave him a place in Biblical studies comparable, it was said, to that of Darwin in biology."⁽¹⁰⁾

The Archaeological Approach

Because of the newness of the science of archaeology - a science that is only about 150 years old - we can say that from an archaeological/historical point of view the study of Scripture is still in its infancy. Pre-archaeological theories, such as those advanced by the 19th century documentists, suffer from an almost total ignorance of the methods and styles of the ancient scribes, since these really became known only in our present century, after the vast libraries of the ancient world had been excavated and their data slowly and painstakingly sifted by modern sholars.

The modern awareness of ancient scribal methods would serve to show up with embarrassing starkness the numerous defects in the old "Documentary Hypothesis".

P.J. Wiseman, on the other hand, was fortunate to have had the opportunity of participating in some of the most important archaeological digs that took place in Mesopotamia midway through this present century; for example, that of Sir Leonard Woolley at the site of Ur, and of Professor S. Langdon at Kish. Wiseman had many discussions about ancient writing methods and related subjects with these and other scholars (most notably, Professor Cyril Gadd).

In the light of all of this first-hand evidence and expertise that had become available to him, Wiseman found himself perfectly equipped to re-examine the structure and authorship of the Book of Genesis. He discovered that the book's structure was really quite straightforward, and was completely explained by the facts of archaeology. In true anatomist fashion - according to Ardley's analogy - Wiseman was able to lay bare the real structure of the Book of Genesis, and thereby scientifically to expose, by stark contrast, just what an unholy mess the JEDP dissecters were leaving behind them. In fact, nowhere do the clumsy techniques of the documentists show up so embarrassingly as when contrasted against the light of Wiseman's patient uncovering of the real structure of the Genesis texts.

Wiseman had at least been prepared to concede on behalf of the early documentists, as an excuse for their radical fragmenting of the texts, that they had not been in a position to compare the literary form and structure of Genesis with other ancient methods of writing, that would have enabled them to have read Genesis in the light of the times and circumstances in which it was written. But, in the case of contemporary exegetes, he considered that:

"... it cannot be regarded as other than serious that notwithstanding archaeological discoveries, many still read Genesis not as ancient, but as though it had been written in relatively modern times."⁽¹¹⁾

The mistake had been made, he said, despite the very obvious fact that the Genesis narrative itself "is constructed in a most antique manner by use of a framework of repeated phrases."⁽¹²⁾ These phrases, that form the skeleton of the structure of Genesis, are of two kinds, namely (a) COLOPHON phrases and (b) CATCH-LINE phrases, the former being the more important.

In the following pages I shall try to bring home to the reader the full significance of these literary indicators, colophon and catch-line, that reveal the Book of Genesis to be a most ancient document - much older than the documentists would have it. My explanation will lead naturally into a special consideration of the controversial and famous first chapter of Genesis. A grasp of the proper and true structure of the Book of Genesis will enable the reader to understand why, for example, biblical commentators have proposed the so-called "two accounts of Creation" theory (Genesis 1 and 2), and how this theory ought to be modified.

Also, following Wiseman, I shall be able to account quite simply for the perplexing problem of the variations of the Divine Names throughout Genesis; a variation that has led the documentists to fragment so much of the Scriptures into their J and E compartments.

Who borrowed from whom? Did the authors of the scriptural books really borrow much of their written material, their stories, their poetry, their wisdom, from the pagan mythology and the literature of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians, for instance, or do the latter owe a debt to the Hebrews? Since here I am interested only in the Book of Genesis; my question can be more specific: Which are the more ancient, the accounts of Creation, the Fall, the Flood, Babel, etc. in the Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian writings, or those recorded in Genesis?⁽¹³⁾.

This is a further question that I shall be addressing in the following pages.

THE KEY TO THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS

(A) The Colophon Phrase

Documents written in Mesopotamia were generally inscribed upon stone or clay tablets. It was customary for the ancient scribes to add a colophon note at the end of the account, giving particulars of title, date, and the name of the writer or owner, together with other details relating to the contents of a tablet, manuscript or book.⁽¹⁴⁾ The colophon method is no longer used today - the information originally given in a colophon having been transferred in our day to the first or title page. But in ancient documents the colophon with its important literary information was added in a very distinctive manner.

Thus the colophon ending to one of the mythological Babylonian accounts of creation reads⁽¹⁵⁾:

"First tablet of...after the tablet...Mushetiq-umi...A copy from Babylon; written like its original and collated. The tablet of Nabu-mushetiq-umi [5th] month Iyyar, 9th day, 27th year of Darius."

My primary purpose in this article will be to demonstrate that the MASTER KEY to the method of compilation that underlies the structure of the Book of Genesis is to be found in the use of the colophon.

Now scholars seem to agree at least that structurally the most significant and distinguishing phrase in the Book of Genesis is the phrase:

"THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF..."

The formula is used eleven times throughout the Book of Genesis. Wiseman, commenting on the importance of this phrase, wrote:

"... for so significant did the Septuagint translators regard it, that they gave the whole book the title 'Genesis'", which is the Greek version of the Hebrew word for "generations."⁽¹⁶⁾

Following Wiseman, though, I shall be preferring the Hebrew word for "generations," Toledoth.

The Toledoth formula, "These are the generations of ...," is to be found in the following places throughout the Book of Genesis:

Verse Wording

2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth".
5:1: "This is the book of the generations of Adam".
6:9: "These are the generations of Noah".
10:1: "These are the generations of the sons of Noah".
11:10: "These are the generations of Shem".
11:27: "These are the generations of Terah".
25:12: "These are the generations of Ishmael".
25:19: "These are the generations of Isaac".
36:1: "These are the generations of Esau".
36:9: "These are the generations of Esau".
37:2: "These are the generations of Jacob".

In the past, scholars of all schools had recognised what was obvious, and had admitted the importance of the repetitious Toledoth phrase. However, as we are going to find, there is a disturbing tendency amongst more recent exegetes practically to ignore the phrase, as though it did not even exist in the text. Moreover, it seems that virtually all have misunderstood both its use and its meaning.

There is a simple reason for this, as Wiseman has explained. Many of these sections of Genesis that conclude with a Toledoth, commence, "as is frequent in ancient documents, with a genealogy or a register asserting close family relationships."⁽¹⁷⁾ This has led commentators to associate the Toledoth phrase, "These are the generations of ..." with the genealogical list where this follows. Hence they have assumed that this phrase is used as a preface or introduction.

For instance, S.R. Driver wrote in his Genesis [commentary]:

"This phrase...properly belongs to a genealogical system; it implies that the person to whose name it is prefixed is of sufficient importance to mark a break in the genealogical series, and that he and his descendants will form the subject of the section which follows, until another name is reached prominent enough to form the commencement of a new section."⁽¹⁸⁾

But Dr. Driver's assertion is plainly contrary to the facts, as anyone will realise simply by reading through the narrative of the Book of Genesis.⁽¹⁹⁾ It does not take the attentive reader long to discover that the Toledoth phrase does not always belong to a genealogical list, for in some instances no genealogical list follows. Hence Wiseman was entirely correct when he stated that "the main history of the person named has been written before the 'Toledoth' phrase and most certainly it is not written after it."⁽²⁰⁾

To illustrate this fact, Wiseman pointed firstly to what he called the "classic example" of the second Toledoth: "This is the book of the generations of Adam" (Genesis 5:1). After this Toledoth we learn nothing more about Adam, "except his age at death." Again, the record following the phrase, "These are the generations of Isaac" (Genesis 25:19), clearly is not a history of Isaac, but of Jacob and Esau. Similarly, after, "These are the generations of Jacob" (Genesis 37:2), we read mainly about his son Joseph⁽²¹⁾

Commentators have been puzzled by these presumed peculiarities. But the whole thing ceases to be puzzling as soon as one realises that the Toledoth phrase is not an introduction, or the preface to the history of a person, as is so often imagined. "Rather", as Wiseman had discerned, "it is to be read as a colophon ending, for only as such does it make proper sense."⁽²²⁾

So much for the first part of Dr. Driver's statement that the Toledoth is tied to a genealogical system. When we test the second part of his statement we find that it, too, does not square with the facts and is therefore quite erroneous. Driver had imagined that the Toledoth phrase had served to introduce the next "prominent" person in the narrative. Who would doubt, however, that the most "prominent" individual in the Book of Genesis is ABRAHAM? He, more than all the other great Patriarchs, would be entitled to be named in a Toledoth were Driver's interpretation correct. "Yet," as Wiseman had observed, "it is remarkable that while lesser persons such as Ishmael and Esau are mentioned, there is no such Toledoth phrase as "These are the generations of Abraham."⁽²³⁾

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10