Book of Genesis
The Book of Genesis constitutes the first book of the Pentateuch, or Torah, in the Hebrew Bible and the initial volume of the Old Testament in Christian canons, encompassing 50 chapters that delineate the creation of the universe and earth, the emergence and proliferation of human sin, the global flood, the scattering of nations, and the origins of the Israelite lineage through the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.[1] Traditionally attributed to Moses circa the 15th century BCE, its authorship remains contested in biblical criticism, with the dominant academic view—shaped by the documentary hypothesis—positing compilation from disparate Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly sources between the 10th and 5th centuries BCE, though this framework encounters challenges from internal textual unity and historical allusions inconsistent with late dating.[2][3] Divided structurally into primeval history (chapters 1–11), which addresses theological foundations like divine order amid chaos and covenantal judgment, and patriarchal narratives (chapters 12–50), which trace God's promises of land, descendants, and blessing amid familial strife and providence, Genesis underpins monotheistic cosmology and ethics central to Judaism and Christianity.[4][5] Its accounts, including the six-day creation and Noachian deluge, provoke ongoing debates over literal historicity versus symbolic interpretation, particularly in reconciling with empirical geological and genetic data favoring extended timelines and localized cataclysms over global supernatural events.[6]
Authorship and Composition
Traditional Mosaic Authorship
The traditional view attributes the authorship of Genesis, as part of the Pentateuch, to Moses, who composed it during the Israelites' 40-year wilderness period following the Exodus, approximately 1440–1400 BCE.[7] This attribution rests on the premise of divine revelation, whereby God disclosed the primeval history (Genesis 1–11) and patriarchal narratives (Genesis 12–50) to Moses, enabling him to record events antedating his era.[8] Proponents argue that Moses may have incorporated and edited pre-existing records, such as genealogies (e.g., Genesis 5:1, 10:1, 11:10, 25:12), but unified the text under inspiration, evidenced by consistent literary style and theological motifs across the Pentateuch.[9] Biblical texts repeatedly depict Moses writing divine instructions, as in Exodus 17:14 ("Write this as a memorial in a book"), Exodus 24:4 ("Moses wrote all the words of the Lord"), and Deuteronomy 31:9 ("Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests").[7] While Genesis lacks explicit self-attribution to Moses, its integration with Exodus—sharing vocabulary like toledot ("generations") formulas and abrupt transition at Genesis 50:26 to Exodus 1—implies a single author bridging pre- and post-Mosaic eras.[10] Other Old Testament books reinforce this by referencing "the book of the law of Moses" (Joshua 1:8; 2 Kings 14:6), treating the Pentateuch as a cohesive Mosaic document.[11] Jewish tradition, codified in the Mishnah and Talmud and echoed by first-century writers like Philo and Josephus, unanimously ascribes the Torah to Moses without qualification.[12] The New Testament upholds this, with Jesus citing "the book of Moses" (Mark 12:26) and stating, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me" (John 5:46), while apostles reference Mosaic writings as authoritative (Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5).[7] No ancient sources contest this until medieval rabbinic speculations, and archaeological finds like the Ketef Hinnom silver amulets (c. 600 BCE), inscribed with the priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24–26, attest to the Pentateuch's early circulation in a form consistent with Mosaic origins.[7] This tradition persisted unchallenged in orthodox communities, prioritizing direct textual claims and historical testimony over later critical theories.[2]The Documentary Hypothesis
The Documentary Hypothesis posits that the Pentateuch, including the Book of Genesis, originated from the redaction of four primary documentary sources—designated J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deuteronomist), and P (Priestly)—compiled by editors between the 10th and 5th centuries BCE, rather than from a single author such as Moses.[13][14] This model emerged from 18th- and 19th-century biblical criticism, emphasizing literary inconsistencies as evidence of composite authorship, including variations in divine nomenclature, narrative doublets, stylistic differences, and theological emphases.[15][16] The hypothesis traces its roots to Jean Astruc's 1753 Conjectures, which identified two sources in Genesis based on the alternating use of YHWH (Yahweh) and Elohim as divine names, suggesting pre-existing written traditions rather than authorial whim.[14] German scholars like Johann Gottfried Eichhorn expanded this in the late 18th century by distinguishing J (using YHWH, narrative-focused, from Judah circa 950 BCE) and E (using Elohim, from northern Israel circa 850 BCE), while Karl Heinrich Graf and Julius Wellhausen in the 1860s–1870s integrated D (legalistic, tied to Josiah's reforms circa 622 BCE) and P (genealogical and cultic, exilic or post-exilic circa 500 BCE), positing a sequential composition and redaction culminating in the final form during the Persian period.[17][18] Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1878) systematized the theory, arguing that evolutionary development from simpler J/E narratives to more complex P reflected Israel's religious history, though this relied on assumptions of cultural progress without archaeological corroboration for the posited documents themselves.[19] In Genesis, proponents attribute chapters 1–11 (primeval history) largely to P (e.g., structured creation in Genesis 1:1–2:3, with repetitive formulas like "and it was so" and emphasis on cosmic order) and J (e.g., anthropomorphic depictions in Genesis 2:4–3:24, where man is formed before plants), citing contradictions such as differing creation sequences—plants and animals before humanity in Genesis 1 versus humanity prior in Genesis 2—as evidence of merged traditions.[13] Patriarchal narratives (chapters 12–50) blend J and E, identifiable through regional cues (J's southern locales like Bethel, E's northern like Shechem), duplicate etiologies (e.g., two wife-sister stories in Genesis 12 and 20, or altars at Bethel in Genesis 12:8 and 35:1–7), and vocabulary variances (J's vivid, earthy prose versus E's more abstract style), with P inserting genealogies (e.g., Genesis 5, 10, 11) for chronological frameworks.[20][21] Flood accounts (Genesis 6–9) exemplify interleaving, with P's measurements (e.g., ark dimensions in 6:15–16) and ritual purity themes contrasting J's dramatic, animal-centered episodes (e.g., raven and dove in 8:6–12), purportedly creating a coherent but discrepant whole upon combination.[22] These identifications depend on subjective criteria like anachronistic terms or theological priorities, with no extant source manuscripts to verify the divisions.[23]Criticisms of Source Criticism and Alternatives
Critics of source criticism, particularly the Documentary Hypothesis (DH), contend that its methodology relies on subjective criteria lacking empirical verification, such as presumed contradictions, repetitions (doublets), and variations in divine nomenclature, which often reflect literary artistry or theological emphasis rather than distinct documents.[24] [25] For example, alleged doublets like the two creation accounts in Genesis 1–2 are interpreted by proponents as evidence of separate sources (P and J), yet critics argue this imposes a double standard, as similar repetitions occur in undisputed single-author ancient Near Eastern texts without invoking multiplicity.[26] No ancient manuscripts preserve independent J, E, D, or P strata; instead, the transmitted Hebrew text exhibits a cohesive narrative structure, with linguistic and thematic unity that undermines claims of late redaction from disparate origins.[27] [19] Umberto Cassuto's 1941 lectures systematically challenged the DH's core pillars, arguing that divine name variations (e.g., Yahweh vs. Elohim) serve contextual or covenantal purposes within a unified composition, not source markers, and that purported anachronisms or stylistic divergences are overstated or resolvable through ancient literary conventions.[25] [28] Similarly, R. N. Whybray's 1987 methodological study exposed circular reasoning in source attribution, where hypothetical sources are posited to explain perceived inconsistencies, yet the criteria for dissection—such as vocabulary or theology—fail to yield consistent results across scholars and ignore the possibility of authorial variation within a single work.[29] [30] These critiques highlight how 19th-century formulations of the DH, influenced by evolutionary models of religious development, prioritized skepticism of Mosaic claims over textual and archaeological coherence, with subsequent refinements (neo-DH) retaining many unproven assumptions.[31] [32] Alternatives to the DH emphasize textual unity and earlier composition. The traditional view attributes Genesis substantially to Moses around the 15th–13th century BCE, corroborated by internal references (e.g., Exodus 17:14, 24:4) and ancient Jewish testimonies like those in the Talmud, positing minimal later glosses rather than wholesale redaction.[33] The Supplementary Hypothesis suggests a core Yahwistic narrative expanded by additions, avoiding the DH's fragmentation while accounting for stylistic shifts.[34] For Genesis specifically, the Tablet Theory proposes compilation from cuneiform-style tablets authored by eyewitnesses (e.g., Noah's toledot in Genesis 6:9 or Terah's in 11:27), aligning with ancient scribal practices evidenced in Mesopotamian records and explaining colophons as source indicators without requiring late invention.[35] [36] These models gain traction from archaeological parallels, such as unified epic traditions in Ugaritic texts, which resist similar source-splitting despite comparable repetitions.[26]Textual Transmission and Variants
Key Ancient Manuscripts
The primary ancient witnesses to the text of Genesis consist of Hebrew fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls, early Greek translations in the Septuagint tradition, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, with the Masoretic Text representing a later standardized Hebrew recension supported by earlier consonantal evidence. These manuscripts, spanning from the third century BCE to the early medieval period, demonstrate a high degree of textual stability for Genesis compared to other ancient literature, though variants exist that inform scholarly reconstruction of the proto-text.[37][38] The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in caves near Qumran, include approximately 20-25 manuscripts or fragments of Genesis, dated paleographically from the mid-third century BCE to the first century CE. These Hebrew texts, written primarily in the Jewish script with some in Paleo-Hebrew, cover portions from nearly every chapter, such as 4QGen^b (Genesis 1-5, ca. 200 BCE) and 1QGen (Genesis 2-3, late second century BCE). They align closely with the later Masoretic Text in about 60% of variants, supporting the antiquity of that tradition, while other readings occasionally match the Septuagint or Samaritan versions, indicating a pluriform textual landscape before standardization.[39][38][37] The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch initiated in Alexandria around 250 BCE, provides an early rendering of Genesis based on a Hebrew Vorlage similar to but distinct from the Qumran texts. Surviving manuscripts include Codex Vaticanus (ca. 325-350 CE), which preserves Genesis 1:1 onward with omissions in later chapters, and Codex Sinaiticus (ca. 330-360 CE), offering a complete Genesis text. These codices reveal expansions or shortenings absent in Hebrew witnesses, such as added material in Genesis 1:9, highlighting translational liberties or textual diversity.[40][41] The Samaritan Pentateuch, preserved in Samaritan Aramaic script, attests to an ancient Israelite textual tradition diverging from the proto-Masoretic line, with over 6,000 variants from the Masoretic Text, about one-third aligning with Septuagint or Dead Sea Scroll readings. While complete manuscripts date to the medieval period, Qumran fragments like 4QSam^a suggest its features circulated by the second century BCE, including harmonizations like emphasizing Mount Gerizim in Genesis 12:6.[42]| Manuscript Tradition | Approximate Date Range | Language/Script | Key Features for Genesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 4QGen fragments) | 250 BCE–68 CE | Hebrew (Jewish/Paleo-Hebrew) | Fragmentary coverage of most chapters; high fidelity to Masoretic base text with proto-Samaritan and Septuagint-like variants.[38][39] |
| Septuagint (e.g., Codex Vaticanus) | Translation: 250 BCE; MSS: 4th CE | Greek | Full translation with interpretive expansions; basis for early Christian citations.[40] |
| Samaritan Pentateuch | Tradition: pre-100 BCE; MSS: medieval | Samaritan Hebrew | ca. 6,000 MT variants, including ideological edits; Qumran parallels confirm early existence.[42] |