11

Except the book of Genesis, I believe that it is possible to make some plausible possibilities on how the books of the Bible were written. Moses wrote about himself, Joshua recorded his conquest of Canaan, some priests or prophets recorded the stories of Gideon, Samson and Ruth. Samuel recorded the events in his lifetime, historians recorded the chronicles of the kings of Israel, prophets wrote down their visions and messages from God, the apostles recorded the life of Jesus, apostles wrote letters and John wrote down his visions.

Now, I can't make any hypothesis how Moses could write down the stories which were around 2000 years before him. The Creation story where no one was there to witness is the most astounding account. Genesis contains many complicated contents such as the years of the first men, thousands of names, complicated family trees, detail stories of people and such.

How have historians and theologians explained how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis?

  • 3
    Are we forgetting the Oral tradition? More than likely the stories were handed down before Moses "wrote them." Did Moses author them? – The Freemason Nov 15 '13 at 13:40
  • See also the question "Who documented Biblical events before Moses?" – Andrew Shanks Jul 7 at 13:24
8

Pretty clearly, there has to be a mixture of revelation and tradition in Genesis. There are several time periods written about in Genesis, and these should be examined individually:

  1. Creation

    Clearly the only observer to the Creation was the Creator. (Or no-one if you are disinclined to believe in a Creator, but from a Christian perspective, no one other than the Creator is even claimed to be present.) That said, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Creator spoke to Adam about his Creation process, and that an oral tradition would have developed around it.

    Seeing as we exist, and most people are going to ask 'How we came to be' at some point, it is very easy to assume that a narrative tradition would have been passed down at some point. Indeed, pretty much every culture has a narrative myth of some kind - the Egyptians, for example, thought the world was masturbated into existence - passed down from generation to generation.

    Thus the fact that there is a Creation story is not unique. That the world is created ex nihilo is, however, usually attributed uniquely to the Jews. That alone is a sufficiently startling claim to either be passed down or be something revealed. The startling dissimilarity to other local myths leads many scholars to assume something difference happened to the Jews - regardless of the scholar's status of belief. This culture either composed something unique or was given a special revelation. Which it is a clearly a matter of faith in either direction.

  2. Antedeluvian Period of Cain & Abel, Enoch, the Flood, and Babel

    One could ask how we "know" that William Wallace tried to liberate Scotland against the rule of Edward Longshanks. The paper records are scant, but the story is strong and compelling - much like the tales of Genesis 1 - 12. Indeed, many scholars see this as a special case within Bible, and so if any part of Scripture is going to be questioned for its historical value, it is this one.

    That said, it is not an impossibility that this faithfully records the witness of the period. Indeed, the "list of kings" in Genesis 5 bears a striking resemblence to the historical record of the Sumerian kings of antiquity, lending credence to the idea of traditional narrative being passed down. Christians obviously disagree over how to read Scripture as a whole but there is no compelling archeological or extrabiblical evidence in either direction.

    Indeed even "dialog" from these Pilgrim and Settler experiences is "documented", in much the same fashion as appears in these stories, showing that tradition can be documented in an "historical" fashion, even if not with the same precision as modern historians can do with modern history.

  3. The Abrahamic Narrative (Genesis 13 - 50)

    By the time of Abraham in Genesis, a qualitative difference appears in Genesis. While 2000 years of history is glossed over in scant detail in the first 12 chapters, the remainder of the book concentrates on just 4 generations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. The events here probably may take place around 1800 - 1700 BC, and begin to take a much more detailed perspective. Here, for example, we know the names of all the children and the wives. We learn about their rivalries and their rise to power.

    The situation, from Moses' perspective, would be much more akin to that of a modern American to say, the Pilgrims and Myles Standish, or the founding of Jamestown and Pocohantas. As part of the founding mythos of Moshe's culture, it is not all surprising that these events would be part of family history, passed down from generation to generation. And, if Moses lead his people out of Egypt in 1440BC, it would be surprising the history - especially in an oral culture - had not been passed down. Here, no revelation would have been necessary, as it would have been as common knowledge as say, George Washington "chopping down a cherry tree".

Thus, in sum, Moshe probably would have relied on a combination of passed on historical narrative and special revelation in order to write about the things that happened before him. But we do the same things today, so it isn't surprising in the least.

5

One hypothesis is that God instructed Moshe, not only what to write on the stone tablets, but also what to write on the scrolls, while Moshe communed with God during the 40 days on Mount Sinai.

  • That means, Moshe came down from mount Sinai with a scroll and two stone tablets? – Mawia Nov 15 '13 at 12:24
  • You're right. I don't recall that happening. Alternatively, he came down with the tablets and later wrote the scroll as time went by (whenever God instructed him to write words "in a book"). – user900 Nov 15 '13 at 16:21
3

How have historians and theologians explained how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis?

Historians do not explain how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, simply because the consensus of historians is both that Genesis is not historically accurate and that Moses did not write this Book. Although theologians are not in total agreement as to how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, they nevertheless agree that he did, with the most common explanations involving revelation.

The Associates for Biblical Research say many evangelicals solve the problem by assuming that Moses received the entire book by direct revelation. Perhaps while on Mt. Sinai, along with the law, Moses received it by something like dictation. Or, while spending 40 years in Midian, God may have had it revealed to him over some period of time. Another proposal put forward is that the material for Genesis might have come from Abraham, Jacob, Noah, and even Adam, as well as other men of God writing under the Spirit's inspiration. It can be seen that the Associates believe that the truth lies in one of these hypotheses, although they have no information to support their view.

Answers in Genesis rejects the Documentary Hypothesis as a fabrication of unbelievers, then postulates that, as a prophet of God, Moses wrote under divine inspiration, guaranteeing the complete accuracy and absolute authority of his writings.

1

Exodus 33:17-23

17 And the Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name.”
18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”
19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock.
22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.
23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

Moses had a face-to-face experience with the Lord, meaning he would get "caught up" or "raptured" into the throne room and get a vision of the past all the way back to creation (this is what it means when the Lord said "you will see my back" in verse 23). He was one with the Lord in a cleft in the rock (verse 22) meaning he took on the mindset or divine nature of Christ. Every high priest that entered into the Holy of Holies or most sacred place would be translated into an angel and get caught up into the throne room. He was not allowed to have ANY thoughts on his mind other than the Lord. He then would see a vision of past events and get a revelation that he would bring back to the people for the restoration of all things. When he came out, he was considered "Emmanuel" or "God with Us". This is how Moses was able to write all accounts of creation up until his time.

Reference: www.forerunnertv.com / Forerunner Ministries International

0

Since we can only guess anyway, I will add another possibility.

Everything, or at least some things, after the tower of Babel could have already been recorded. Also, these recordings could have included pre-flood information.

Today writers often create a work of their own which is based on the work of many others, including those who came before them. I have seen no reason to believe that the writing of Genesis as we have it could have not been the same.

Moses could even have had the post-tower information as it was written by eye-witnesses. Perhaps Abraham wrote about the travels of his father and himself. Abraham and his descendents had lots of people with them; perhaps any one of them recorded the events.

Since languages were confused after the tower of Babel, it seems unlikely that anyone could read any writings that were left from pre-tower times. However, such writings very well could have also existed, and the linguistically-confused people after that event could have retained much of the knowledge and re-written it.

As for pre-flood information, it is possible that Noah could have preserved some writings which could have been included in the pre-tower collections, but because our knowledge of the events from Adam to Lamech is so limited, that could just as easily have been passed down orally as has already been mentioned by Affable Geek.

Another thing worth noting is that, if you take the bible literally, including creation and flood, the farther back you go in history the less degraded the human genome would be and the better off people would have been physically, and even if not physically superior they at least lived longer and therefore had an easier time accumulating knowledge and information. This could have made it easy to keep things recorded mentally and passed on orally.

This answer has been a bit of a speculation, but I don't think the question can be answered otherwise, as can be seen by the other two answers. Unfortunately, we can only guess.

-1

After studying The Book of Jasher, it is obvious to me, that Moses obtained his information from this book. The Book of Jasher is nearly an exact account of what Moses wrote in Genesis, except with more details. The author of the book of Jasher and the time period of which it was originally written is a mystery, but it is validated as authoritative in several references in the Bible: II Samuel 1:18, Joshua 9, and Joshua 10:13.

However, however, Moses' version leaves out important details that helps us understand certain passages that have been confusing for a long time. Check out: http://triumphpro.com/jasher.pdf

  • 2
    The "Book of Jasher" you read is not the same one referenced in the OT and is only a few centuries old at most. – curiousdannii Jul 7 '18 at 14:28
  • I agree that there have been many fraudelent versions. My understanding is that the 'Book of Jasher' you are referring to, that was translated from the Septuagint into English, IS only a few centuries old, and the original is still considered a missing ancient text. However, there are many Bible scholars/teachers who also believe book this book (in Hebrews means "Book of the Just Man"), which could be Enoch, and that it was part of the original Scriptures taught by the Hebrews since before the flood, which is where Moses learned this. – Lori Boyters Jul 7 '18 at 21:03
  • Welcome to Christianity.SE. For a quick overview, please take the Site Tour. For more on what this site is all about, see: How we are different than other sites. Meanwhile, I hope you'll browse some of the other questions and answers on this site. – Lee Woofenden Jul 7 '18 at 23:17

protected by Community Jul 8 '18 at 1:31

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.