inkpot & quill logo of Badgerholt
Return to blog post
Return to Patterns Menu

Patterns: Who Wrote Genesis?

An Introduction

by D M Doede

"Now, the phrase "@ëlleh thôlëdôth"( 1) (only five times and only in Genesis begs the question of why its usage was so limited, but I'll address why I think this happened in another post" (From "On the Generations Of: A Pattern of Usage")

So, why do I think that Scripture uses "@ëlleh thôlëdôth" (these are the proceedings of) only five times? Because I think that Moses used the phrase to identify the five writings he used to compile the book of Genesis. These writings tell the Story of the Line of the Promise from the rehabilitation of the earth to the death of Isaac. A sixth scroll (most likely written in Egypt) continued the Story from the selling of Joseph through the death of Joseph and ended the book in lieu of using the signature phrase "@ëlleh thôlëdôth." I think that Rûãch @Élöhîm (Spirit of God) preserved these five writings in the Line of the Promise down through the generations. Of course, Jacob brought them with him to Egypt. So, here's the first part of the essay I wrote telling the story of my research and conclusions. Introduction As I recall, the question that led me to try to find an answer to the question of who wrote Genesis was whether or not Job was the oldest book in the Bible. I don't think that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, but that's another essay. Still, that question started the ball rolling for my research into the structure and patterns of Genesis in recording the first part of YHWH's Story. In studying YHWH's Story over the past 20 plus years, as recorded in the Bible, I believe that Rûãch @Élöhîm has led me to the following conclusions:

Moses was not the writer of Genesis, but rather he was the editor of Genesis He edited together writings handed down in the Line of the Promise over the millennia. By having Moses do so, Rûãch @Élöhîm provided the historical context and continuity for Moses' story and the story of the children of Israel, which essentially began with the Exodus. By the time of Moses in Egypt, the writings had probably been copied onto scrolls of vellum or papyrus, whatever their original format had been. I think that Moses copied them (most likely with some editorial clarifications and/or additions) onto a single scroll to form the first book of the Law and to set the context for the Law.

Aside: I see in the text where Rûãch @Élöhîm had editorial clarifications or additions made after the fact by   later scribes or scholars. I do not think that later editing or additions void the authority or authenticity of   Scripture. I think that Rûãch @Élöhîm used whatever process He deemed necessary to obtain His desired   result: the infallible and authoritative Word of YHWH in the originals. Also, while I acknowledge that there are   copyist errors, I don't think that copyist errors detract from the authority of Scripture.   Also, while I acknowledge that there are copyist errors, I don’t think that copyist errors detract from the   authority of Scripture. Again, I think Rûãch @Élöhîm was in charge of the whole process and made allowances   for the inevitable copyist errors. I have found that a detailed study of the relevant passages relating to a significant   copyist error is extremely useful in resolving copyist errors.

Now, I still think that Moses edited together earlier writings handed down in the Line of the Promise, but I have recently come to realize that attributing the entirety of each of the six sections to the signature names alone is not taking into account the process Rûãch @Élöhîm used in recording YHWH's Story through his human agents. Rûãch @Élöhîm's methodology is complex and responsive. As an example, Rûãch @Élöhîm allowed for personal and geographic name changes, as well as for monetary valuation changes, over time through His editors. For example:

However, the king said to Araunah, "No, but I will surely buy it from you for a price, for I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God | which cost me nothing." So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. (2 Samuel 24.24, New American Standard Bible) But King David said to Ornan, "No, but I will surely buy it for the full price; for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, or offer a burnt offering which costs me nothing." | So David gave Ornan 600 shekels of gold by weight for the site. (1 Chronicles 21.24-25, New American Standard Bible)

Of course, using an editorial process begs the question of at what point during that process did Rûãch @Élöhîm declare a writing 'original and infallible.' In The Original Bible Restored,(2) Dr. Ernest L. Martin cited the ancient writers who attribute the final canonization of the 22 books of the Hebrew Scriptures to Ezra the scribe (480-440 B.C.). Perhaps that was the declaration point. I don't know. Still, since all we have are copies anyway, it’s probably not a question to which we really need the answer.

Aside: I understand that, in focusing on Rûãch @Élöhîm's role as Storyteller and the One who inspired the   human agents, I am taking a different perspective than mainstream Biblical scholars usually do. From   what I've read, mainstream Biblical scholars tend to focus on man's contributions, which were necessary   and significant. However, men did not have the big picture perspective that Rûãch @Élöhîm did in telling   YHWH's Story. Neither could the numerous human authors have meshed the various details so accurately   over the centuries in accordance with the main themes of YHWH's Story.   I believe that Rûãch @Élöhîm was definitely in charge of the process; He is the Author of the Bible. What's   interesting to me is looking at how Rûãch @Élöhîm crafted the written record of YHWH's Story using   so many different human authors.

Again, I doubt that I am the first or the only person to whom Rûãch @Élöhîm has set researching these questions. However, my research findings and conclusions are original and I'm going to write them up, even if others have already written up their similar or not similar research findings. My lead essay, "On the Generations of: A Pattern Usage in Scripture" can be found here. To summarize "On the Generations of: A Pattern Usage in Scripture," I concluded, based on my research and analysis, that the phrase "These are the proceedings (tôledôth) of X indicated the end of a section written by X, and that the phrase "Now/And these are the generations (tôledôth) of X" indicated the beginning of a genealogical list of the descendants of X. The first phrase occurs only in Genesis and (I contend) that it functions as a transition end point between writings by different authors. More Patterns Now, in looking at these ending transition points in Genesis in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, (3) which is the Masoretic text, I found other patterns within them. I also concluded that whoever came up with the chapter and verse divisions for the Masoretic text (c. early 13th century) (4) apparently did not see the patterns I see because the chapter and verse numbering is awkward with respect to the patterns. For example, the phrase "These are the proceedings of X" is not numbered as its own verse but rather it is the first part of a longer verse. However, I think that the medieval rabbinical scholars should have separated "These are the proceedings of X" as a separate sentence from the rest of the verse. They probably should have started a new paragraph, if not a new chapter, for the rest of the verse. I reiterate, these sentences are ending transition points between writings by different people. I acknowledge that the Septuagint (5) doesn't number these sentences separately either. In my opinion, formatting information was forgotten or not passed on or not copied correctly that should not have been forgotten. However, I don't think that the loss of this information detracts from the authority of Scripture. Otherwise, Rûãch @Élöhîm would have seen to it that it was not lost. I will be very curious to see the originals, which I'm confident are preserved in heaven, as they are not preserved on the earth (as far as we know). Recap Moses did not write Genesis but rather Rûãch @Élöhîm directed him to edit together writings that had been handed down in the Line of the Promise to his day. He likely added in some editorial comments and clarifications for his day, as others probably did later on for their day. These individual writings are identified in the Genesis text by the signature statements ending each section. The six sections are:

Gen 1.1 - 2.4a The book of the proceedings of the heavens and the earth (an oral story written down verbatim) Gen 2.4b - 5.1a The book of the proceedings of Adam (primarily authored by Adam) Gen 5.1b - 6.9a The proceedings of Noah [includes genealogical table] (primarily authored by Noah) Gen 6.9b - 11.10a The proceedings of Shem [includes genealogical tables] (primarily authored by Shem) Gen 11.10b - 37.2a The proceedings of Jacob [includes genealogical tables] (primarily authored by Jacob) Gen 37.2b - 59.26 End of Genesis (likely authors primarily Joseph and Judah, whose stories this section records)

In my second essay, I'll look at Section 1, Gen 1.1 – 2.4a: The book of the proceedings of the heavens and the earth

FOOTNOTES 1 My transliteration system is my own, loosely based on the official one, but re-worked for use in MS Word; the diacritical marks weren’t available  in MS Word in 1996 when I started my research (or, at least I didn’t know how to access them). I use @ for aleph and ø for ayin. Half the time I  could not tell the difference between the apostrophe and the reverse apostrophe due to bad eyesight. So, I found symbols that I could see and  easily distinguish between for clarity. Return 2 Martin, Ernest L. The Original Bible Restored. Pasadena: Foundation for Biblical Research. 1984, 326p. Return 3 Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W., eds. Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 1967/77, 1574p Return 4 Jewish Encylopedia.com, "Verse Division" accessed 8/1/2020 Return 5 Brenton, Sir Lancelot C.L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. London: Bagster & Sons. 1851 (2001, US: Hendrickson), 1138p, 248p. Return Return to blog post Return to Patterns Menu


Site Creator: Dori       This page last modified: September 21, 2020       Send correspondence to: dori@badgerholt[dot]com Legal Stuff:   Copyright 2020 by D.M. Doede. All Rights Reserved.   Permission to distribute this material via e-mail, or individual copies for personal use, is granted on the condition that it will be used for non-commercial purposes, will not be sold, and no changes made to the format or content.     When quoting, please keep the context and provide the source   URL: http://www.badgerholt.com.       Scriptures are cited from New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV) Young's Literal Translation (YLT), Geneva Bible, 1599 ed., Jay Green's KJ3' Literal Translation, Gary Zella's Analytical Literal Translation of the New Testament, or my own translation ( dmd).