Who wrote the Book of Genesis?

Moses! Why do you ask? The Book of Genesis (Genesis from this point forward) and the other four books in the beginning of the Old Testament of the Christian Scripture (these collection of books is also called the Pentateuch) have always been attributed to Moses.

Well, the reason why I write this post is, first, to confirm that Moses is the essential or substantial author of the current text of Pentateuch that we posses (from AD 11th century). What do I mean by that? Well I'm getting to that later. Second, I will debunk one theory about the authorship of Genesis that, in my opinion and others, do not have a solid foundation.

(In my previous post, I alluded to the fact that my small group is currently studying Genesis. This post should have been written a long time ago.)

The Authorship of Moses

Now, why do I say that Moses is the essential or substantial author of the current text of Genesis (and the Pentateuch) that we posses? Well, consider these verses:

Genesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

Genesis 36:31 Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

In Abram's time that city was not named Dan (14:14) but Laish, and the reference to the kings of Israel (36:31) which comes much later (and the context of the 36:31 is not discussing prophecy) shows that the text of Genesis was later revised, modernized and supplemented as needed for later generations.

From the perspective of the content of text, whether Moses personally wrote all of Genesis or not, is not important. Genesis is an artistic masterpiece, with concentric patterns and unity of contents. The modern references to the city of Dan and kings of Israel did not change the core contents of Genesis at all. Moses is the main driving force for the structure, content, and purpose of the Genesis, and all of the Pentateuch.

You may ask, do I still believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture? Yes and yes! Do I believe that the Scripture is the product of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Yes! Those will be topics for another day.

The Documentary Hypothesis

Now, let's move on to something else. The so called, critics, those who emphasizes the higher criticism approach to the biblical text (we refer to them as critical scholars from this point forward), would like to tell you that Genesis, and all the Pentateuch, is put together by 4 groups of people at different times with different agendas (they focus on the author and the motivation for writing the text, for example, instead of on the text itself).

This misguided approach is called documentary hypothesis. The critical scholars look at the different names use for the Divine: Yahweh (LORD), Elohim (God), the repetitions of certain sections, changes in style, differences in theology throughout the Pentateuch. They concluded that a later redactor pieced together four separate documents to compose the final work: J (Yahwist, 905 B.C.), E (Elohist, 850 B.C.), D (Deuteronomist, 620 B.C.), and P (Priestly Code, ca. 500 B.C.).

The variations in divine names are easy to explain, Yahweh is used to emphasize covenantal relationship with Israel, Elohim is used to emphasize His universality with all the nations. Furthermore, the usage of the different divine names, was littered among sections that it is so hard to isolate a certain divine name to a section that is claimed from one source. This difficulty brings us to another point that it is so hard to classify which part belongs to which source that there was never a consensus among the critical scholars on how to classify different parts of the Pentateuch into J, E, D, P. Might it be that a single ultimate author, the Holy Spirit, is behind all that?

There are other critical approaches that are not discussed here: Fragmentary Approach, Supplementary Approach, Form Criticism and Tradition Criticism.

The Return to the Text

According to Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III, in their book, An Introduction to the Old Testament,

The cutting edge of scholarship is devoting less and less energy (there are exceptions; see Emerton) to the question of sources and more and more to the final composition of the Pentateuch and the individual books within it.

This trend away from documentary analysis is attributable to two causes: (1) problems with the method and (2) newer and more holistic approaches to the text.

Fortunately, the critical scholars have returned to emphasizing on the thematic unity of the Pentateuch in recent years.

When they did that, they discovered that Genesis has a "literary unity that displays artistic brilliance" (Dillard and Longman).

*Emerton, J. A. "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative, Part II," VT38 (1988)

Literary Approach to the Pentateuch

in the 1980s and 1990s, biblical scholars' attention was capture by literary approach to the Bible. The questions concerning origins and historical references are put aside and the focus is put on the literary quality of biblical narratives.

This is where we should be spending the most of our attention and energy, on the final form of the text, "given to the Church by God as canon for its edification" (Dillard and Longman).

The Problem of Evil

(These is a summary of John Frame's treatment of the Problem of Evil in his book, Apologetics to the Glory of God.)

Various disasters and calamities that had hit us in recent memories have raised a serious question toward those of us who believe in God:

"Where is God? How can he let these kinds of things happen to us?"

Generally, this has been called "the problem of evil." Why "problem"? I think because it is perceived to be problem for Christians who believe in all powerful and all loving God. It is often formulated this way (in one way or another):

Premise I: If God were all-powerful, he would be able to prevent evil.
Premise II: If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil.
Conclusion: So, if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no evil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premise III: But there is evil.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.

This is a philosopher's way of formulating this problem, even though it is oft repeated by non-philosophers, with or without the intent to silence Christians. Alvin Platinga has demolished the problem as presented above just by using logic. Please consult his work to find out more. However, the real pain, suffering, and evil exists. One do not just go to a parent who just lost their young child in a senseless drunk driving episode by someone else then started reciting and debunking the logical argument presented above.

This is a serious issue, such that Mr. Frame labels as "perhaps the most serious and cogent objection to Christian theism."

Is There An Answer?

He said that if we are seeking to vindicate God's providence in every instance of evil, he cannot supply that, and doubt if anyone else can. Nor, can we supply a totally satisfying theoretical reconciliation between divine sovereignty, goodness, and evil.

However, Mr. Frame continues, if what we want is help to go on trusting God despite unexplained evil, that he can do. His focus in on what the Bible teaches concerning the problem of evil because "the Bible itself brings us as close to an answer as we are likely to get."

He started by listing the "answers" as presented by people from various philosophers and theologians that are either unbiblical or inadequate (presented briefly below):

1. The Unreality-of-Evil Defense: Evil is a lack of good being where good being ought to be. Remember the good to evil like heat to cold or light to dark illustrations? (Denying premise 3 above)

2. The Divine-Weakness Defense: God does not overcome all evil because he cannot do so--although he does do his best. (Denying premise 1 and 2 above)

3. The Best-Possible-World Defense: This world, for all its evils, is nonetheless the best world which God could have produced. Certain evils are logically necessary to achieve certain good ends.

4. The Free-Will Defense: Evil came about by the free choice of rational creatures. Since free choice was in no sense controlled or foreordained or caused by God, he cannot be held accountable for it.

5. The Character-Building Defense: Man was created in a state of moral immaturity. For man to come to full maturity, it was necessary for him to undergo various forms of pain and suffering.

6. The Stable-Environment Defense: A stable environment is necessary for human life. However, a stable environment opens up the possibility of evil. For example, the law of gravity will not be temporarily repealed to save me from falling down the stairs.

7. The Indirect-Cause Defense: This is commonly found in Reformed theology. The argument seems to be that since God is the indirect rather than the direct cause of evil, the bears no blame for it. For example, God is the ultimate cause of this blog post, but he is not its author, I am.

8. The ex Lex Defense: God is ex lex, "outside of the law." For example, he tells us not to kill, yet he retains for himself the right to take human life.

9. An ad Hominem Defense: Since a non-believer in God has no basis to distinguish good from evil (since God is the ultimate standard of good), he has no right even to raise the question of evil.

A Biblical Response

1. God is the Standard for His Actions

Mr. Frame continue to provide what the Scripture taught and according to him "it brings us as close to an answer as we are likely to get." Scripture never assumes that God owes us an explanation for what he does. See for example in the book of Job, towards the end, God turns the table to be the questioner, of no less than sixty questions in succession. Job never learns why he has had to endure suffering. To pick one example in New Testament is Paul's argument in the book of Romans chapter 3 and 9. He never answer why all the seemingly unjust things happens, he just said that God's sovereignty should never be questioned and that God is holy, just, and good.

This is not the same as saying that God is ex lex, that he is "outside of the law." God's righteousness is the standard for our righteousness. But as sovereign Lord, God may sometimes do things that our finite minds cannot comprehend.

2. Scripture Gives Us a New Historical Perspectives

Why are the biblical writers so sure of God's justice and goodness? They certainly were aware of the evil going around them. It is simply this: "Because God says so."

The Scripture also reveals how God reveals his justice and goodness throughout the history. Our considerations should cover the past, the present, and the future outlook as revealed by God in the Scripture.

a. The Past: The Wait and the Dialectic (of justice and mercy)

There were certainly a lot of waiting for people in the midst of sufferings. The waited for deliverance from God and for God to vindicate himself. When Jesus finally came, the wait is over.

How can we reconcile between the justice and goodness of God? The atonement did just that. In Christ, the just penalty for sin is paid once for all. In Christ, those who place their faith in Him receive lavish mercy beyond our imagination.

It is true that the atonement does not explain genocide or the suffering of little children. If God could reconcile his justice and mercy where it seems impossible, can we not trust in him to vindicate himself again?

God already solved the most difficult form of evil through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Does it not make sense to trust and obey him, even in the midst of suffering?

b. The Present: The Greater-Good Defense

God is even now using evil for his own good purposes. However, this has to be considered from the perspective of God (theocentric) rather and man (anthropocentric). God's ultimate purpose is to glorify himself, and man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. Without this distinction, the greater-good defense cannot be distinguished from paganism hedonism.

Considering greater-good from the perspective of God does not require us to ignore the happiness of human beings. God cares for the greater-good for his whole creation. However, this is not universalism, the doctrine that all human beings will be saved. Scripture teaches that some will endure eternal punishment for their wickedness.

As we see evil being used for good again and again in Scripture (The story of Joseph comes to mind), can we not accept in faith that the evils that are yet unexplained have a purpose in the depths of God's mind?

c. The Future: Some Scripture Songs

We are still waiting for the final vindication of God's purposes, and indeed of God's justice, goodness, and power. He promised that he will vindicate himself and will erase all evils, pains, and sufferings. In the last day there will be no problem of evil. Whatever unanswered questions and or doubts remains at that time, we will completely happy and content to live with.

This, again, is the call to keep trusting and obeying God, despite all the wickedness in the world.

3. Scripture Gives Us a New Heart

Our hearts are warmed as we hear the gospel (Luke 1:16-17). There should not be even an ounce of pride in our own ability. We can only be thankful that God has been wonderfully merciful to us, despite our sin. There are evil in the world, God has taken care of forgiving the evil in out own hearts for the sake of Christ.

The closest we can get to providing the answer to the problem of evil is in the changed values and perspective as we look at the problem of evil because of the changed heart.

-o0o-