The time of Peleg

[railfan727]

What exactly is meant by the earth being "divided" during the time of Peleg (Gen. 10:25)?

Was this some sort of a geologic event? Or a division in the spiritual or political sense?

 

[georgeO]

That is a very good question that has been in question for a very long time. I've read several theories .
I only can say I just don't know. I would like to know but it's just one of those things that we just don't know for sure. I hope and trust that we will know one day.

 

[georgeO]

HelenS, I have read the link and have read a lot of setterfield website. I find it very interesting and informative . It is know doubt in my mind that you and Barry are doing an extremely good job of exhibiting Gods great and gracious benefit to us with the scientific knowledge that you share. I am forever thankful. But there are others also that I'm thankful of with their coming forth. I just don't know what happened long ago but I respect your research. This is an article that I find interesting

www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2014/11/19/Making-Sense-of-the-Days-of-Peleg.aspx.

 

[paidinfull]

Another possibility:

Keep in mind that the Biblical center of the earth is future Jerusalem and the focus is on future Israel. Pegal is the head of the nation from which will come the future nation of Israel. We have to consider what the Bible has as its focus: a geological event it barely touches on or a spiritual event that it quickly follows up on and that has repercussions to the end of the age? Soon after Gen.10:25 (in his time Gen.11:8) comes the biggest division the earth ever experienced and we are still is divided because of it i.e. the Tower of Babylon. Satan is still trying to unite the earth and today the NWO is his latest plan for Babylonian oneness. A direct consequence of this division is the UN mandate for Israel to divide the land. While it could be geological, that would have zero spiritual consequences for us and the Bible has a habit of ignoring major historical events that have no bearing spiritually. Jewish historians and many Biblical scholars look at it like this...

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg,.... Bochart (k) thinks, that either Peleg, or one of his posterity, in memory of him, gave the name of Phalga to a town situated on the Euphrates; though the reason of the name, as given by Arrianus, as he himself observes, was because it divided between the two Seleucias, as the reason of Peleg's name was:
for in his days was the earth divided; among the three sons of Noah, and their respective posterities; their language was divided, and that obliged them to divide and separate in bodies which understood one another; hence that age, in which was this event, was usually called by the Jews the age of division; whether this was done about the time of his birth, and so this name was given him to perpetuate the memory of it, or in some after part of his life, and so was given by a spirit of prophecy, is a question: Josephus, Jarchi, and the Jewish writers, generally go the latter way; if it was at the time of his birth, which is the sense of many, then this affair happened in the one hundred and first year after the flood, for in that year Peleg was born, as appears from Genesis 11:11.

and his brother's name was Joktan, whom the Arabs call Cahtan, and claim him as their parent, at least, of their principal tribes; and say he was the first that reigned in Yaman, and put a diadem on his head (l); and there is a city in the territory of Mecca, about seven furlongs or a mile to the south of it, and one station from the Red sea, called Baisath Jektan, the seat of Jektan (m), which manifestly retains his name; and there are a people called Catanitae, placed by Ptolemy (n) in Arabia Felix.

(k) Phaleg. l. 2. c. 14. Colossians 93. (l) Vid. Pocock. Specimen. Arab. Hist. p. 39. 55. (m) Arab. Geograph. apud Bochart. Phaleg: l. 2. c. 15. Colossians 98. (n) Geograph, l. 6. c. 7.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
Among the descendants of Arphaxad, Eber's eldest son received the name of Peleg, because in his days the earth, i.e., the population of the earth, was divided, in consequence of the building of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:8). His brother Joktan is called Kachtan by the Arabians, and is regarded as the father of all the primitive tribes of Arabia. The names of his sons are given in Genesis 10:26-29. There are thirteen of them, some of which are still retained in places and districts of Arabia, whilst others are not yet discovered, or are entirely extinct. Nothing certain has been ascertained about Almodad, Jerah, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, and Jobab. Of the rest, Sheleph is identical with Salif or Sulaf (in Ptl. 6, 7, Σαλαπηνοί), an old Arabian tribe, also a district of Yemen. Hazarmaveth (i.e., forecourt of death) is the Arabian Hadhramaut in South-eastern Arabia on the Indian Ocean, whose name Jauhari is derived from the unhealthiness of the climate. Hadoram: the Ἀδραμῖται of Ptol. 6, 7, Atramitae of Plin. 6, 28, on the southern coast of Arabia. Uzal: one of the most important towns of Yemen, south-west of Mareb. Sheba: the Sabaeans, with the capital Saba or Mareb, Mariaba regia (Plin.), whose connection with the Cushite (Genesis 10:7) and Abrahamite Sabaeans (Genesis 25:3) is quite in obscurity. Ophir has not yet been discovered in Arabia; it is probably to be sought on the Persian Gulf, even if the Ophir of Solomon was not situated there. Havilah appears to answer to Chaulaw of Edrisi, a district between Sanaa and Mecca. But this district, which lies in the heart of Yemen, does not fit the account in 1 Samuel 15:7, nor the statement in Genesis 25:18, that Havilah formed the boundary of the territory of the Ishmaelites. These two passages point rather to Χαυλοταῖοι, a place on the border of Arabia Petraea towards Yemen, between the Nabataeans and Hagrites, which Strabo describes as habitable.

 

[paidinfull]

Helen you may well be correct but you are always dogmatic that your interpretation is superior to the many scholars who hold a different opinion. These scholars are not idiots and don't present nonsense. I wouldn't say because your opinion differs your view is nonsense - it's just different. I think you opinion must be considered as much as those who differ and let the reader decide if one or the other has no basis. Miller's last paragraph here is a point of caution: we are Bible students first and scientists second...

Peleg, Pangaea, and Genesis 10:25
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Contrary to the opinion of many people, the Bible and science are in complete harmony with each other. When an apparent conflict presents itself, one can be assured that no genuine contradiction actually exists. Once all relevant evidence has been gathered, and that evidence has been handled correctly (i.e., subjected to accurate logical reasoning), the surface tension will disappear. Unfortunately, possessing an over-zealous desire to establish the Bible’s credibility, believers sometimes allow their exegetical analyses to be colored by the pressure of scientific consensus.

One example of this prejudicial influence is found in Genesis 10:25, which states that Peleg (meaning “division”) derived his name from the fact that “in his days the earth was divided.” Geologists largely believe that, at some time in the ancient past, the continents formed a single land mass called Pangaea. The “continental drift” theory (now better known as the theory of plate tectonics) postulates how this land mass subsequently fractured into several separate units and proceeded to “drift” to the positions that they presently occupy. Accordingly, some Bible commentators claim that Genesis 10:25 refers to this very phenomenon (e.g., Garton, 1991; Sewell, 1990).

It is true that the Bible does not preclude the postulation of a single land mass and a single ocean when God created land and sea at the Creation (Genesis 1:9-10). If, indeed, land was originally a single unit, one biblical explanation for the present multiple continents is the Flood of Noah’s day. The geological impact of a global deluge would have been catastrophic, dramatically reshaping and altering the surface of the Earth. Likewise, the fact that “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up” (Genesis 7:11) could have been responsible for tectonic movement. However, Genesis 10:25 most likely does not refer to the Earth’s continental divisions (see, for example: Leupold, 1950, 1:378; Whitelaw, 1950, 1:161; Clarke, n.d., 1:87; Keil and Delitzsch, 1976, 1:171). Rather, it is more likely referring to the human population of the Earth. Contextual indicators point to this latter conclusion.

First, the Hebrew term for “Earth” (‘erets) may be used figuratively to refer to the Earth’s inhabitants. In fact, two separate figures of speech employ this use: “synecdoche of the whole” and “metonymy of the subject” (Bullinger, 1968, pp. 578,638). A sampling of Old Testament verses where the figure of speech occurs just within Genesis include Genesis 6:11; 9:19; 11:1; 18:25; 19:31; 41:30,57 (Gesenius, 1979, p. 81; Bullinger, p. 578).

Second, verses both before and after Genesis 10:25 provide furtherindication that Moses was referring to a linguistic/political/human division rather than a physical division of the land mass. Earlier in the same chapter, he alluded to a separation of the peoples— “everyone according to his own language, according to their families, into their nations” (Genesis 10:5, emp. added). Later in the same chapter, Moses referred to the generational divisions of Noah’s descendants “in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood” (Genesis 10:32, emp. added).

Third, it is evident, contextually, that Moses provided a chapter of genealogical explanation (chapter nine) in order to set the stage for the Babel incident that follows immediately (chapter 11). Chapter nine functions as the link needed to bridge the account of the Flood with the next significant event of world history—the origin of humanity’s linguistic diversity (see Miller, Harrub, and Thompson, 2002). With no chapter break in the original autograph of Genesis, it is clear that “Earth” in the first verse of chapter eleven was used by Moses with the same meaning that it has in verse twenty- five of chapter ten. This conclusion is supported further by the allusions to national and linguistic separation in verses five and thirty- two of the same chapter.

Certainly, the Bible has been demonstrated repeatedly to be scientificallyadvanced, avoiding the blunders and inaccuracies of its literary contemporaries. This kind of accuracy stands as an eloquent witness to its divine origin. However, Christians must guard against imposing on the Bible the uncertainties and unproven assumptions of the latest scientific theories. The premature claims that often come forth from the scientific community constitute neither suitable nor unqualified controls for biblical interpretation.

REFERENCES
Bullinger, E.W. (1968 reprint), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (GrandRapids, MI: Baker).

Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).

Garton, Michael (1991), “Rocks and Scripture: From the Flood to Babel,”Origins, 4[11]:8-13.

Gesenius, William (1979 reprint), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Leupold, H.C. (1950 reprint), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Miller, Dave, Brad Harrub, and Bert Thompson (2002), “The Origin of Language and Communication,” Reason and Revelation, 22(8): 57-63, August.

Sewell, Curt (1990), “What Did Peleg See?,” Bible-Science Newsletter, 28[10]:1-2,4-5, October.

Whitelaw, Thomas (1950 reprint), “Genesis,” The Pulpit Commentary, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=4636

In the Days of Peleg
Ancient Documents Are Consistent with the Total Accuracy of the Bible’s Chronology.
by Larry Pierce on December 1, 1999
Also available in Español
Originally published in Creation 22, no 1 (December 1999): 46-49.

Ancient documents about the days of Peleg are consistent with the total accuracy of the Bible’s chronology.

Four generations after Noah, Genesis 10:25 records the birth of Peleg (meaning division) “for in his days was the earth divided”. Some suggest the continents of the earth were divided at this time. However, this seems unlikely, as such a process would have had to occur within a very confined time period. The resultant geological violence would be overwhelmingly catastrophic—like another Noahic Flood all over again. Any continental separation thus likely occurred during the Flood.1

The traditional interpretation, which seems more reasonable, relates this verse to the division of people/nations at the Tower of Babel event in Genesis 11. (Just like the English “earth” can have a variety of meanings, the Hebrew erets can also mean nation(s)—thus erets Yisrael, the land (nation, people) of Israel.) According to the biblical chronology as deduced by Archbishop Ussher, the Flood occurred in 2349–2348 BC, and Peleg was born in 2247 BC about a hundred years later. Do ancient writers shed any light on when this happened? The answer is a resounding yes.

Babylon begins
The year was 331 BC. After Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of De Caelo (“About the heavens”) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD) also deduced the same number.2

Egypt emerges
The Byzantine chronicler Constantinus Manasses (d. 1187) wrote that the Egyptian state lasted 1663 years. If correct, then counting backward from the time that Cambyses, king of Persia, conquered Egypt in 526 BC, gives us the year of 2188 BC for the founding of Egypt,3 about 60 years after the birth of Peleg. About this time Mizraim, the son of Ham, led his colony into Egypt. Hence the Hebrew word for Egypt is Mizraim4 (or sometimes “the land of Ham” e.g. Psalm 105:23,27).

Greece gets going
Artist’s reconstruction of the Tower of Babel. This view, modelled upon ancient ziggurats, is probably very similar to how it actually appeared. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC), who saw it on his way through Babylon, described it as having eight levels, and standing a colossal 60 m (about 20 modern stories) high.

According to the 4th Century bishop and historian Eusebius of Caesarea, Egialeus, king of the Greek city of Sicyon, west of Corinth in Peloponnesus, began his reign in 2089 BC, 1313 years before the first Olympiad in 776 BC.5,6 If Eusebius is correct, then this king started to reign about 160 years after the birth of Peleg.

Note that Babylon, Egypt, and Greece each spoke a different language. These ancient historians have unwittingly confirmed the extreme accuracy of the biblical genealogies as found in the Hebrew scriptures. The Tower of Babel would have had to have occurred before the founding of these other kingdoms. Babel (Babylon), being in the same region as the Tower, would have been one of the earliest kingdoms, of course.

Of the other kingdoms, the ones most distant from Babel would have been founded the latest. This is exactly what these writers have described. First Babylon, then Egypt, and then Greece were founded.

This tells us something about human nature too! After the Tower of Babel, people were forced to split into groups according to their new language. Humans are basically lazy. They would have moved away only as far from Babel as they had to in order to live in peace. However, population pressure, military force, or the desire to search for “greener pastures” would have induced them to move out further and further. So civilization would have slowly spread by periodic migrations from its centre at Babel.

Although secular historians ignore the events of Babel and the Flood, they assume civilization started in the Middle East, likely near Babylon, and spread out slowly from there. However, they use a time frame much earlier than the time deduced from the biblical chronologies.

An interesting piece of information comes from Manetho, who recorded the history of Egypt in the third century BC. He wrote that the Tower of Babel occurred five years after the birth of Peleg.7 If this was so, then this would confirm that the migrations recorded in Genesis 10 occurred over a period of time, for the apparent leaders of many of these national groups would have been very young children when the confusion of languages occurred.8

Whether secular reconstructions of history agree with it or not does not change the accuracy of the Bible.The lesson for us to learn is this. The Bible is accurate. Whether secular reconstructions of history agree with it or not does not change the accuracy of the Bible. We should use the biblical chronologies to determine where the secularists have gone astray and we should not amend the Bible to fit the latest secular speculations on history. This research area has largely been ignored by Christians in the last hundred years or so as they scramble to manipulate the Bible to conform to the latest secular reconstructions of man's history.
In recent years, some Christians have done an excellent job of restoring the authority of Genesis 1–4, 6–9. However, the genealogies in Genesis 5,10, and 11 (and the chronological portions in Kings and Chronicles) have been quietly surrendered to the domain of secular historians. Their destructive work on these chronologies has overthrown the faith of many. It is about time that this the biblical ground was reclaimed. If you could not trust the numbers in the chronologies of the Bible, why should you trust the words between the numbers? What limits would you place on your unbelief?

The Bible and chronology

There are three errors common in biblical chronology today. First, there are those who have a low view of the Bible and ignore its chronological data altogether. The ancient secular writers cited in the accompanying article provide independent support for the accuracy of the data in the Bible, which is based on facts, not myths as many liberals believe. Second, there are those who would shorten the period of the divided kingdom. Edwin Thiele9 is the main proponent of this. Thiele uses the fragmentary Assyrian chronology of the divided kingdom period by about 50 years, to fit the conjectured dates from Assyria. But this would mean that Babylon would have been founded way before Peleg and the Tower of Babel! Third, there are those who would lengthen the biblical chronology. One of the earliest were those rabbis in Egypt who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek to produce the Septuagint (LXX) in the third century BC. They arbitrarily added about 700 years to the biblical chronology for the period between Noah and Abraham, to make it agree with the works of Manetho. If what they had done was correct, then Peleg would be dead and gone (as would most of the leaders of the division of the nations) before the Tower of Babel happened.

Many modern biblical archaeologists, like the translators of the LXX, are just as guilty of the same thing today. Just as the LXX's translators listened to the fairy tales the Egyptian priests told them, most modern biblical scholars follow the just so stories told by secular historians and archaeologists who push the founding of Babylon and Egypt back thousands of years10

Footnotes

1. Baumgardner, J., Probing the earth’s deep places, Creation 19(3):40–43, 1997; Snelling, A. A., Plate Tectonics: Have the continents really moved apart? TJ 9(1):12–20, 1995.
2. Ussher J., Annales Veteris Testamenti, Flesher and Sadler, London, p. 5, 1654. (This work is in Latin. I am preparing a new English translation, which is scheduled to be published in September 2000. The paragraph number for this footnote is 49 in that revised work.)
3. Ussher J., Annales Veteris Testamenti, Flesher and Sadler, London, p. 5, or paragraph 51 in the revised work, 1654.
4. Even now, Egyptians call their country Mizr.
5. Ussher J., Annales Veteris Testamenti, Flesher and Sadler, London, p. 6, or paragraph 54 in the revised work, 1654.
6. Eusebius, Chronici Canones, Humphredurn Milford, London, Preface pp. 1–14, 1923. (This Latin copy was prepared by Johannes Knight Fotheringham.)
7. Manetho, The Book of Sothis, Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 239. (Loeb Classical Library 350). Manetho was the victim of many Egyptian fairy tales in constructing his chronology of Egypt. The Egyptians would place the Flood and Peleg’s birth much earlier than the Bible, but still they linked the Babel incident with Peleg's birth.
8. Ussher deduced that the division of the earth at the time of Peleg’s birth was Noah dividing the land among his grandchildren. They subsequently moved to Shinar, where they conspired to hinder this dispersion of them as commanded by God and begun by Noah, building the city and tower of Babylon (Babel). God frustrated this project with the confusion of languages, which was then followed by the dispersion of nations.
9. Thiele E., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Kregel, Grand Rapids, MI, 1994. The most mysterious thing about his work is the way he handled the Hebrew numbers to make them conform to Assyrian chronology. Little attempt was made to make Assyrian chronology fit the biblical chronology.
10. Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1954. On page 84 he states Egypt dates back to about 5000 BC. On page 97 he states that Susa near Babylon dates back to about 4000 BC. Since the biblical date for the Flood is 2349 BC, how long could these people tread water? Although this book was published in 1954, its opinions are reflected in newer works dealing with biblical archaeology. If anything the situation has become worse, not better, in the last fifty years. Unger is a very conservative and well-respected Bible scholar. If he could be deceived, how much more careful should we be today when so many more errors are afoot?

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/in-the-days-of-peleg/

 

[O4L]

I agree that much of the science posted in many of these threads is stated as absolute truth.

Science has been incorrect many times and theories have been modified or discarded when new information was presented.

I believe it would be better to offer some of this scientific information as possible/probable instead of absolute.

 

[georgeO]

HelenS, very good article. I'm curious to know how Genesis 26:5 ties into this. It has to be some kind of connection. It seems to me that there was some form of writing for this verse to be that was possibly passed down. What are your and Barrys thoughts on this? Thanks

 

[Hol]

In context Genesis 10:21-31 is giving us the line of Shem. It fits the context to think of Peleg, whose name means 'to divide' as the incident at the Tower of Babel.

 

[georgeO]

Genesis 26:5 possible meaning here

davelivingston.com/mosescompgenesis.htm

 

[georgeO]

From What Did Moses Compose Genesis?
by Dr. David Livingston


Evangelicals agree that Moses wrote Genesis and that the first five Bible books are "The Books of Moses." But, where did Moses get the information for Genesis? He wasn't present for any of the events mentioned in it.

We should notice first that neither Jesus nor the apostles, when quoting from Genesis, mention Moses' name in connection with it. However, they do call the first five books "Moses' Law." So, we may conclude that they believed it composed by Moses, but, perhaps, he used material written by others or received it some other way.

Evangelical Theory
Many evangelicals, believing in the inerrancy of Scripture, 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, he may have had it revealed to him over some period of time.

Another Theory
Other scholars, try to solve the problem a more difficult way. Difficult, because there is no evidence for it. They say Moses did not write Genesis, or even any of the Pentateuch, for that matter. It was put together by "pious" men during the time of Israel's kingdom and as late as the post-exile (post-Babylonian captivity). In order to gain credence, Moses' name was attached to it. Materials came from Babylonian and Canaanite myths and legends and from Israel's own "legends" and "oral tradition." From this viewpoint, little of it had been previously written as holy scripture, perhaps none. Thus, they would say it was a "pious fraud" used by the ruling body in Israel as a sort of religious "opiate" to pull the people together in the name of Moses.

This theory is commonly known as the "JEDP Theory." Many sharp minds both in Europe and the U.S. have devoted their lives developing the system and have written whole libraries of books based on speculation about it.

We consider this solution to the problem as unacceptable and would not even mention it except that community colleges, colleges, universities and even many seminaries now teach it as if it had some basis in fact, which it does not. (It is a situation parallel to evolutionary theory which is believed by "every capable scholar" but cannot be proven with scientific evidence.)

In contrast to the above, Meredith Kline ably says, "If Moses, in composing Genesis, was not dependent on Near Eastern literature that exhibits parallels to Genesis, neither did he ignore it. But it would seem that, where he deliberately develops the biblical account of an event so as to mirror features of the pagan version, it turns out to be for the polemical purpose of exposing and correcting the world's vain wisdom by the light of revealed theology. The elaboration of this is not possible here, but an illustrative case would be the treatment of the Babylonian epic account of creation, known (from its opening words) as Enuma Elish. Acquaintance with it is evidenced in the Genesis accounts of creation and of Babel-building, but in both passages the epic's world-view is repudiated, even ridiculed, and most effectively so at the points of obvious formal correspondence." (Kline 1970: 80).

New True Theory
There is a third way Moses may have received the material for Genesis. It might have come from Abraham, Jacob, Noah, and even Adam, as well as other men of God writing under the Spirit's inspiration. In other words, those who experienced the events wrote as eyewitnesses. How could the world receive more reliable documents, especially when II Peter 1:21 is taken into account? This could explain why Jesus and the apostles considered Genesis part of "Moses' Law." He compiled the writings of other men of God, but was not the original author.

Examining this third way in more detail, Meredith Kline says, "Beyond the prologue (1:1-2:3) Genesis is divided into ten sections, each introduced by a superscription embodying the formula 'elleh toledot,' 'these are the generations of . . .' The placing of the entire Genesis narrative in this genealogical framework is a clear sign that the author intended the account to be understood throughout as a real life history of individual men, begotten and begetting. This genealogical line is resumed in subsequent biblical historiography, the Genesis lists being recapitulated and carried forward until the lineage of Adam has been traced to Jesus, the second Adam." (See Luke 3:23-38 and Kline, ibid.).

Genesis Originally on Clay Tablets?
"In order to understand the significance of the Hebrew term 'toledot,' it will be necessary to examine the nature and format of cuneiform communications in the ancient world. Clay was the preferred material upon which the wedge-shaped symbols were impressed . . . The general style of a tablet furnished some indication as to its contents . . . and the material usually consisted of letters, contracts, invoices, business correspondence, genealogical tables, etc. It was normal practice. . . for single communications of this kind to commence with some sort of title, followed by the body of the text, and then a colophon, which would sometimes contain, among other things, a hint as to the identity of the scribe, or owner of the tablet and the date when the tablet was written . . . The title was normally taken from the opening words of the tablet . . . This practice . . . also occurs in the Hebrew Bible. . . ." (p. 543-4.)

• Tablet 1: Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. The origins of the cosmos
• Tablet 2: Genesis 2:5 - 5:2. The origins of mankind
• Tablet 3: Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a. The histories of Noah
• Tablet 4: Genesis 6:9b - 10:1. The histories of the sons of Noah
• Tablet 5: Genesis 10:2 - 11:10a. The histories of Shem
• Tablet 6: Genesis 11:10b - 11:27a. The histories of Terah
• Tablet 7: Genesis 11:27b - 25:12. The histories of Ishmael
• Tablet 8: Genesis 25:13 - 25:19a. The histories of Isaac
• Tablet 9: Genesis 25:19b - 36:1. The histories of Esau
• Tablet 10: Genesis 36:2 - 36:9. The histories of Esau
• Tablet 11: Genesis 36:10 - 37:2. The histories of Jacob

(Harrison 1969: 548. -- Probably the best explanation of this theory.)
"Colophon" = "Toledot": Key to Source Documents

Probably the principle use of the "colophon" was in filing the document. When libraries of tablets are found, there are usually hundreds or thousands of them. And it is clear they were stored on shelves. Problem: How do you find the tablet you want? Answer: just treat them like we do books today. On the spine at the edge, or end, there was a summary of the tablet's contents-- a "colophon" ("finishing line").

Now, if the ten or eleven sections of Genesis were originally separate documents, each would have had a "colophon" at the end describing at least the owner and contents of the document. These "colophons" in our Hebrew Bibles today would then consist of the phrase which speaks of the "toledots".

Thus, in connection with the Genesis "toledot," ". . . the principal facts concerning the individual involved have been recorded beforethe incidence of the phrase in question, and that they are not recorded after its occurrence . . . This peculiarity has been a source of perplexity and embarrassment to the vast majority of Bible critics who assume it introduces new material -- and thus does not make sense . . . ." (Harrison 1969: 545.)

Tablet with colophon, written in the time of Abraham.
Abraham Had Written Scripture
Abraham had written laws of Jehovah which he kept: Genesis 26:5 says he kept, among other things, Jehovah's statutes ("chuqqim") and laws ("torah"). A "chuqqim" is a written commandment, usually inscribed in stone (BDB,1962: 350:d). The word "chuqqim" comes from a root meaning to engrave, and hence denotes permanent and prescribed rules of conduct . . . (NBC 1930: 201.). These are not some other country's laws and statutes; they are Jehovah's own, and thus, we maintain, would be separate documents, themselves the Word of God.

"Abraham came from a country where the knowledge of writing and reading was common and from an important city mentioned in the code of Hammurabi . . . In that country traditions of the creation and the flood were preserved, which have much in common with those in Genesis. That is the very country also in which Genesis places the site of the Garden of Eden and where the confusion of tongues is said to have occurred. There, if anywhere, the remains of an original revelation concerning creation and an accurate story of the flood would be handed down. What could be more natural than that Abraham carried such records and genealogies with him from the banks of the Euphrates to the land of Canaan? 'Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac' (Genesis 25:5). Perhaps those priceless records were among his possessions. If so, they went down with Jacob into Egypt and formed the basis of Genesis 1-11 as written by Moses." (Raven 1910: 131-2.)

The main point Raven makes is that the Genesis sources were written down. The revelation of God was not committed to slipshod oral transmission for hundreds of years. The evidence that these were written documents is that whatever period or place they speak of fits into the culture and language of that place and time.

Or, another possibility is that the manuscripts were kept by the Kenites. When Moses was with the nomad-priest, Jethro, who loved Jehovah and served Him (Exodus 18:9-11), he may have received the records from which to compose Genesis. Jethro is called a "priest" (Exodus 2:15, 3:1). He could be none other than a nomad-priest of Jehovah, even as Melchizedek apparently was also a priest of Jehovah (although not a nomad). (The Kenites lived in the Negev, see: Judges 1:16.) That the Bible authors used other sources, not depending entirely on direct revelations from God, is clear from the list below:

Some Other Old Testament Sources After Moses

• Joshua 8:9. Described land "in a book"
• II Samuel 1-18. "Book of Jasher" (also mentioned in Joshua 10:13)
• I Kings 11:41. "Book of the Acts of Solomon"
• I Kings 14:19. "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel"
• I Kings 14:29. "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah"
• I Chronicles 27:74. "Chronicles of King David"
• II Chronicles 12-15. "Book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the Seer Concerning Genealogies"
• II Chronicles 20:34. "Book of Jehu, the son of Hanani - mentioned in the Book of the Kings of Israel"

Bibliography
Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; Briggs, C. A,.
1962 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. (BDB). Oxford: Clarendon.

DeWitt, D.
1977 "The Generations of Genesis." Bible and Spade (Spring Issue) pp.33-48.

Guthre, D., (Ed.)
1970 The New Bible Commentary.

Harrison, R .K.,
1969 Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Morris, H.,
1976 The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Raven, J. H.,
1910 Old Testament Introduction. New York: Revell.

Wiseman, P .J.,
1977 Clues to Creation in Genesis. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott.

 

[Brother Albert R.]

From What Did Moses Compose Genesis?
by Dr. David Livingston


Evangelicals agree that Moses wrote Genesis and that the first five Bible books are "The Books of Moses." But, where did Moses get the information for Genesis? He wasn't present for any of the events mentioned in it.

We should notice first that neither Jesus nor the apostles, when quoting from Genesis, mention Moses' name in connection with it. However, they do call the first five books "Moses' Law." So, we may conclude that they believed it composed by Moses, but, perhaps, he used material written by others or received it some other way.

Evangelical Theory
Many evangelicals, believing in the inerrancy of Scripture, 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, he may have had it revealed to him over some period of time.

Another Theory
Other scholars, try to solve the problem a more difficult way. Difficult, because there is no evidence for it. They say Moses did not write Genesis, or even any of the Pentateuch, for that matter. It was put together by "pious" men during the time of Israel's kingdom and as late as the post-exile (post-Babylonian captivity). In order to gain credence, Moses' name was attached to it. Materials came from Babylonian and Canaanite myths and legends and from Israel's own "legends" and "oral tradition." From this viewpoint, little of it had been previously written as holy scripture, perhaps none. Thus, they would say it was a "pious fraud" used by the ruling body in Israel as a sort of religious "opiate" to pull the people together in the name of Moses.

This theory is commonly known as the "JEDP Theory." Many sharp minds both in Europe and the U.S. have devoted their lives developing the system and have written whole libraries of books based on speculation about it.

We consider this solution to the problem as unacceptable and would not even mention it except that community colleges, colleges, universities and even many seminaries now teach it as if it had some basis in fact, which it does not. (It is a situation parallel to evolutionary theory which is believed by "every capable scholar" but cannot be proven with scientific evidence.)

In contrast to the above, Meredith Kline ably says, "If Moses, in composing Genesis, was not dependent on Near Eastern literature that exhibits parallels to Genesis, neither did he ignore it. But it would seem that, where he deliberately develops the biblical account of an event so as to mirror features of the pagan version, it turns out to be for the polemical purpose of exposing and correcting the world's vain wisdom by the light of revealed theology. The elaboration of this is not possible here, but an illustrative case would be the treatment of the Babylonian epic account of creation, known (from its opening words) as Enuma Elish. Acquaintance with it is evidenced in the Genesis accounts of creation and of Babel-building, but in both passages the epic's world-view is repudiated, even ridiculed, and most effectively so at the points of obvious formal correspondence." (Kline 1970: 80).

New True Theory
There is a third way Moses may have received the material for Genesis. It might have come from Abraham, Jacob, Noah, and even Adam, as well as other men of God writing under the Spirit's inspiration. In other words, those who experienced the events wrote as eyewitnesses. How could the world receive more reliable documents, especially when II Peter 1:21 is taken into account? This could explain why Jesus and the apostles considered Genesis part of "Moses' Law." He compiled the writings of other men of God, but was not the original author.

Examining this third way in more detail, Meredith Kline says, "Beyond the prologue (1:1-2:3) Genesis is divided into ten sections, each introduced by a superscription embodying the formula 'elleh toledot,' 'these are the generations of . . .' The placing of the entire Genesis narrative in this genealogical framework is a clear sign that the author intended the account to be understood throughout as a real life history of individual men, begotten and begetting. This genealogical line is resumed in subsequent biblical historiography, the Genesis lists being recapitulated and carried forward until the lineage of Adam has been traced to Jesus, the second Adam." (See Luke 3:23-38 and Kline, ibid.).

Genesis Originally on Clay Tablets?
"In order to understand the significance of the Hebrew term 'toledot,' it will be necessary to examine the nature and format of cuneiform communications in the ancient world. Clay was the preferred material upon which the wedge-shaped symbols were impressed . . . The general style of a tablet furnished some indication as to its contents . . . and the material usually consisted of letters, contracts, invoices, business correspondence, genealogical tables, etc. It was normal practice. . . for single communications of this kind to commence with some sort of title, followed by the body of the text, and then a colophon, which would sometimes contain, among other things, a hint as to the identity of the scribe, or owner of the tablet and the date when the tablet was written . . . The title was normally taken from the opening words of the tablet . . . This practice . . . also occurs in the Hebrew Bible. . . ." (p. 543-4.)

• Tablet 1: Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. The origins of the cosmos
• Tablet 2: Genesis 2:5 - 5:2. The origins of mankind
• Tablet 3: Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a. The histories of Noah
• Tablet 4: Genesis 6:9b - 10:1. The histories of the sons of Noah
• Tablet 5: Genesis 10:2 - 11:10a. The histories of Shem
• Tablet 6: Genesis 11:10b - 11:27a. The histories of Terah
• Tablet 7: Genesis 11:27b - 25:12. The histories of Ishmael
• Tablet 8: Genesis 25:13 - 25:19a. The histories of Isaac
• Tablet 9: Genesis 25:19b - 36:1. The histories of Esau
• Tablet 10: Genesis 36:2 - 36:9. The histories of Esau
• Tablet 11: Genesis 36:10 - 37:2. The histories of Jacob

(Harrison 1969: 548. -- Probably the best explanation of this theory.)
"Colophon" = "Toledot": Key to Source Documents

Probably the principle use of the "colophon" was in filing the document. When libraries of tablets are found, there are usually hundreds or thousands of them. And it is clear they were stored on shelves. Problem: How do you find the tablet you want? Answer: just treat them like we do books today. On the spine at the edge, or end, there was a summary of the tablet's contents-- a "colophon" ("finishing line").

Now, if the ten or eleven sections of Genesis were originally separate documents, each would have had a "colophon" at the end describing at least the owner and contents of the document. These "colophons" in our Hebrew Bibles today would then consist of the phrase which speaks of the "toledots".

Thus, in connection with the Genesis "toledot," ". . . the principal facts concerning the individual involved have been recorded beforethe incidence of the phrase in question, and that they are not recorded after its occurrence . . . This peculiarity has been a source of perplexity and embarrassment to the vast majority of Bible critics who assume it introduces new material -- and thus does not make sense . . . ." (Harrison 1969: 545.)

Tablet with colophon, written in the time of Abraham.
Abraham Had Written Scripture
Abraham had written laws of Jehovah which he kept: Genesis 26:5 says he kept, among other things, Jehovah's statutes ("chuqqim") and laws ("torah"). A "chuqqim" is a written commandment, usually inscribed in stone (BDB,1962: 350:d). The word "chuqqim" comes from a root meaning to engrave, and hence denotes permanent and prescribed rules of conduct . . . (NBC 1930: 201.). These are not some other country's laws and statutes; they are Jehovah's own, and thus, we maintain, would be separate documents, themselves the Word of God.

"Abraham came from a country where the knowledge of writing and reading was common and from an important city mentioned in the code of Hammurabi . . . In that country traditions of the creation and the flood were preserved, which have much in common with those in Genesis. That is the very country also in which Genesis places the site of the Garden of Eden and where the confusion of tongues is said to have occurred. There, if anywhere, the remains of an original revelation concerning creation and an accurate story of the flood would be handed down. What could be more natural than that Abraham carried such records and genealogies with him from the banks of the Euphrates to the land of Canaan? 'Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac' (Genesis 25:5). Perhaps those priceless records were among his possessions. If so, they went down with Jacob into Egypt and formed the basis of Genesis 1-11 as written by Moses." (Raven 1910: 131-2.)

The main point Raven makes is that the Genesis sources were written down. The revelation of God was not committed to slipshod oral transmission for hundreds of years. The evidence that these were written documents is that whatever period or place they speak of fits into the culture and language of that place and time.

Or, another possibility is that the manuscripts were kept by the Kenites. When Moses was with the nomad-priest, Jethro, who loved Jehovah and served Him (Exodus 18:9-11), he may have received the records from which to compose Genesis. Jethro is called a "priest" (Exodus 2:15, 3:1). He could be none other than a nomad-priest of Jehovah, even as Melchizedek apparently was also a priest of Jehovah (although not a nomad). (The Kenites lived in the Negev, see: Judges 1:16.) That the Bible authors used other sources, not depending entirely on direct revelations from God, is clear from the list below:

Some Other Old Testament Sources After Moses

• Joshua 8:9. Described land "in a book"
• II Samuel 1-18. "Book of Jasher" (also mentioned in Joshua 10:13)
• I Kings 11:41. "Book of the Acts of Solomon"
• I Kings 14:19. "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel"
• I Kings 14:29. "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah"
• I Chronicles 27:74. "Chronicles of King David"
• II Chronicles 12-15. "Book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the Seer Concerning Genealogies"
• II Chronicles 20:34. "Book of Jehu, the son of Hanani - mentioned in the Book of the Kings of Israel"

Bibliography
Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; Briggs, C. A,.
1962 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. (BDB). Oxford: Clarendon.

DeWitt, D.
1977 "The Generations of Genesis." Bible and Spade (Spring Issue) pp.33-48.

Guthre, D., (Ed.)
1970 The New Bible Commentary.

Harrison, R .K.,
1969 Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Morris, H.,
1976 The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Raven, J. H.,
1910 Old Testament Introduction. New York: Revell.

Wiseman, P .J.,
1977 Clues to Creation in Genesis. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott.

Has anyone heard about Ken Johnson Th.D? One of the books he has translated into English is the ancient book of Jasher. I am finding it an interesting read. I know, with all books, we have to read with discernment. But so far I think it might be the real article. Any way I was hoping some of you might have read it and can comment further, because it talks about what Noah wrote as well as what many others wrote who were well known ancient bible figures. I am only half way through the book and really enjoying it. I'm hoping only those who have read it will comment on it....thank you.
God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

 

[Brother Albert R.]

Hi Albert,
The book of Jasher is referenced in the Bible, but was not considered inspired/canonical. That is because it contains a lot of unverified stories and traditions. So read it and enjoy it but please don't treat it as part of the Bible -- it is NOT part of the inspired Word of God. A segment quoted from it does not verify the entire thing. Paul quoted from others' ideas, too, and some of them pagan.

Your advice is well received Helen and I'm sure it was with the best of intentions,
I have many books that are non-canonical, exta-biblical, Pseudepigrapha, Apocryphal and writings from the early church fathers. I read them, not as inspired by God, but rather as historical and educational in that It gives me some insight into the ancient past. I do appreciate your concern and warning. I am an avid reader when it comes to all things biblical and do not consider myself a novice. I am going to be 53yrs. old this year and have been a Christian since the age of 15. The bible has been the basis for all my beliefs and I have only been misguided when I took my eyes off my teacher God, and allowed others to influence me by their unbiblical beliefs. When I am dealing with some difficulties in my biblical studies, I consult with brothers who love The Lord and have Gods wisdom. I noticed you did not comment that you have read the book that I referenced...have you?
God bless you,
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

 

[Brother Albert R.]

Barry has read it. He was the one who answered you. I typed while he spoke. I have not read it.

But you are right about something: reading all you can from different ages helps you see the way people viewed things, thought, and expressed themselves. Before I married Barry I was deep into research on myths and legends. I was never able to continue as Barry's work took precedence, but I am quite sure that the vast majority of them are actually remembering things that happened and are cloaking them with stories, gods, goddesses, etc. Peeling away the myths is a lot of fun and very challenging. And it's easy to be wrong!

So I do understand your love of reading.

God bless you Helen And Barry,
You are both very reliable servants of the Lord. Your vast knowledge of science that is held in check by your love of the bible comes through in all your posts. I enjoy reading what you both post and rely on your wisdom in both areas (bible\science). Keep up the good work...
"Maranatha!!!"
your brother in Christ,
Albert R.

 

[sara ann]

In context Genesis 10:21-31 is giving us the line of Shem. It fits the context to think of Peleg, whose name means 'to divide' as the incident at the Tower of Babel.

yes yes yes....

 

[Hol]

Hol, on the Masoretic text, that is the case. Genesis 11 gives the ages involved. In the LXX chronology, the ancient one, you will see the difference in the charts on our page here:

Thanks Helen. I didn't have time to check your chart. First I need to do some research into your statements about the Masoretic text. So far I haven't found time for that, sigh, I'd hoped to learn more today.

 

[athenasius]

Helen thank you both for this fascinating study. Ive always figured it was beside the point to mention a split in the earth at the time of Peleg if it's what was meant by the dispersion of languages. I always figured that something happened to break things apart and it was more than just language differences pushing the different families apart on the face of the earht.

 

[Hidden]

This is interesting although I know squat about geology. lol

I wonder if the 6th seal would rearrange the planet again? Perhaps the landmasses coming together so that people will be together as God pours out His judgments. Maybe this is the reason why we cannot solve the location of Mystery Babylon for now. If you look at the world map, the previous empires (Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman) were all located in the general area of the Mediterranean. So if these lands come together, Middle East and Europe (including Asia and America), voila, you have the Mystery Babylon all in one place. Just food for thought, I guess.