Mormons, Genesis & Higher Criticism

Mormons, Genesis & Higher Criticism

Scott G. Kenney

Old Testament complexity	Many modern Christians would like to forget the Old Testament: its contradictions, violence and obscurity make it unpleasant for those who prefer the apparent simplicity of the New Testament.	Sunstone vol. 3 no. 1 (November–December 1977), 8–12.
New Testament	Yet Christianity is unalterably tied to the earlier scripture. Jesus and his followers were fervent believers in the Old Testament. Early Christians were eager to prove Jesus was the Messiah by showing that he fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. Christianity's roots in Israel have not been severed. The New Testament cannot be understood without the Old; modern revelation cannot stand independent of ancient.
Old Testament problems	But the Old Testament presents Latter-day Saints with many theological and historical problems. There are times when Mosaic morality seems to border on the barbaric, and the cultic requirements approach superstition. It is difficult to accept the one who taught men to forgive one another freely and to love even their enemies, as the author of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Or he who invited all who are "heavy laden" to "come unto me," as the same who centuries earlier had prohibited all lepers, illegitimate children and menstruating women from participating in the religious life of Israel.
Contradictions	In addition to such theological and moral questions, there are the confusing, even contradictory narratives. Did Noah take one pair of every animal on board the ark, or one pair of unclean and seven pair of clean animals? (Yes to both.) Who tried the ruse of telling a foreign ruler that his wife was his sister, only to be discovered in the nick of time? (Abraham twice, Isaac once.) How was Saul selected to be Israel's first king? (1) By verbal instruction from God to Samuel, (2) by the casting of lots, or (3) by virtue of his standing head and shoulders above the other men? (All of the above.)
Literary style	Finally, there is the Old Testament's style—from tantalizing snippets ("when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown"), to the interminable (not to mention sexist) genealogies—"And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel; and Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat" and begat and begat.
Sacred history	To be sure, the Old Testament is a complex, difficult work. But it can also be a glorious, uplifting experience—the word of God. As sacred history, it discloses one nation's experience with the true God in times of war and of peace, of honor and ignominy, affliction and redemption. On the personal level, the profound insights of its dramatic narratives and poetic reflections reveal the timeless perplexities of the human condition. The Old Testament arouses the reader's sensibilities to greater spiritual awareness by confronting him in kaleidoscopic fashion with a God both hidden and revealed; known yet unknowable; eternal and unchanging, yet paradoxically the creator, sustainer and guarantor of all change in life and process in history—a God that leads ever onward out of the past.
Variant texts	Early Christians realized that the God of the Old Testament could be misunderstood because of scribal errors in the manuscripts—omissions, emendations, missing fragments and other problems inherent in transmission of the text through the centuries. As early as Origen (ca. 185–254), critical comparisons were made of known manuscripts to determine which variant texts were most likely authentic, This process, known as "textual criticism," continues to the present day, benefiting most recently from the discovery of Old Testament texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. Thousands of variants have been noted in Old Testament texts, but relatively few are significant for the average reader. Although the textual improvements and refinement of translation techniques (not to mention clarifying misunderstandings of archaic King James terminology) make a modern translation indispensable for any serious Bible student, the bottom line of modern textual criticism is that the King James Version is still an excellent translation of remarkably reliable texts.
Higher criticism	For all its importance in establishing correct texts, however, textual criticism has been unable to provide answers to the perplexing contradictions, confusions, repetitions and inconsistencies of the established texts. These problems have been addressed by a number of disciplines collectively known by the unfortunate misnomer higher criticism, as distinguished from the "lower" textual criticism.
Flood story sources	In the late nineteenth century, "higher critics" discovered that many Old Testament difficulties could be resolved by postulating multiple authorship. For example, scholars believe that the flood narrative in Genesis 6–9 consists of two separate accounts woven together by a devout editor who regarded both versions as sacred and refused to remove or explain contradictory details. The unknown authors of these two accounts have been designated by scholars as P (Priestly writer) and J (Yahwist or Jahwist).	The Flood Narrative
	In its present form, as a single narrative, the account of the Flood has a number of literary and logical difficulties. But if the text is viewed as two separate accounts woven together, the problems dissolve. Each account is fairly complete, with its own introduction, reasons for the flood, set of instructions, account of the destruction, and aftermath.	(See the Flood text on page 9.)
Yawhist account	According to the Yahwist, the Lord (portrayed in almost human terms) suffers on account of man's wickedness and determines to rid the earth of man and animals, except for Noah, on whom he has mercy. Noah is instructed to take seven of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal with him.
	Yahweh sends rain for forty days and nights. Noah waits three weeks and disembarks. Yahweh smells the sacrifice Noah offers and, talking to himself, promises never to smite the earth again with such a curse.
Priestly account	The Priestly writer, however, refers to deity as "God" (Elohim), because according to his tradition, God was not known as Yahweh until that name was revealed to Moses Exodus 6:2–3). God perceives the corruption of "all flesh," instructs Noah in the minutiae of ark construction, and commands two of every animal to be taken aboard, before the waters above the heaven and below the earth engulf the earth in cosmic chaos. After a year and ten days, order is restored. God establishes a covenant with man, affirming man's role as the ruler for God on earth, and makes a second covenant with all life that the cosmic flood will not be used again.
History of the Church	The idea of writing sacred history by combining different accounts should not be new to Latter-day Saints. Much of our own documentary History of the Church was created in this fashion by Wilford Woodruff and George A. Smith, even though the title page indicates it is a "History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, by himself."
King Follett discourse	For instance, in his excellent article, "The Reliability of Joseph Smith's History" (Journal of Mormon History, 1976), Dean Jessee demonstrated how the following paragraph from the King Follett discourse was composed:
	But meddle not with any man for his religion: all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a natural and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.
King Follett sources	The first sentence is from Wilford Woodruff's diary, as he recorded his recollections of the speech (also attested in substance by Thomas Bullock). The second is from William Clayton's report. The third sentence is attested by Willard Richards and Thomas Bullock, followed by a sentence combining the versions rendered by Clayton and Bullock. The editor took the liberty of adding a word or two here and there, but basically preserved the wording provided by his witnesses.
Source criticism	Fortunately some of the written sources from which the History of the Church was composed are still available. Source criticism frequently must be conducted without the benefit of original evidence, forcing the scholar to rely on internal evidence alone. Richard L. Anderson, for example, has argued persuasively ("Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised," BYU Studies, Spring 1970) on the basis of characteristic content, terminology and structure, that many anti-Mormon affidavits supposedly written by various residents of the Palmyra area were in fact written by one man, or at least adapted from his original.
Documentary hypothesis	Using essentially the same techniques, Bible scholars have examined the Old Testament and distinguished four basic literary sources in the Pentateuch: J, E (Elohist), P, and D (Deuteronomist, which does not appear in Genesis).
Yahwist/Priestly perspectives	As noted, P refers to deity as Elohim ("God"), as opposed to J's Yahweh or Yahweh Elohim ("Lord, Lord God"). P's God is the transcendent creator (Genesis 1–2:4) who wields cosmic power by decree-he speaks, and light appears, the waters divide above and beneath the earth, the earth produces vegetation and animal life. Order is formed out of chaos. Man is created in the image of God, male and female, his vice-regent on earth. Yahweh, on the other hand, is much more intimate and personal, almost human. He fashions man from earth and breathes life into his nostrils. Then Yahweh realizes man will need a helpmate, so he creates the animals and brings them to the man to name. Unfortunately, none of the animals seems quite right, so Yahweh puts the man to sleep and builds a woman from his rib. Later, as Yahweh is walking in the garden in the cool of the day, he discovers that the man and woman have sinned and he casts them out (Genesis 2:4b–4:26).
	The Priestly writer's world is heaven-oriented: history proceeds according to God's plan. Personalities are minimized; only the formal relations between God and his covenant people are central. J's world, conversely, is human-oriented, his stories full of psychological insight. Men are free agents, and even the patriarchs are not above questionable behavior. Jacob exploits his brother's hunger to wrest the birthright from Esau. Then, at Rebekah's suggestion, he deceives his father to obtain the blessing and is forced to flee for his life from his irate brother. He can expect little help from his angry father (Genesis 25:29–34;27). But P is concerned to maintain the purity of the line through which the covenant is transmitted. He knows nothing of Jacob's shenanigans. According to P, Jacob leaves Haran to find a suitable wife, blessed freely by his father (Genesis 28:1–5).
	Stylistically, P is characterized by a solemn and majestic tone, frequent repetition, and a preoccupation for genealogy and statistical detail. J appeals to the imagination, rather than the intellect, with picturesque images, dramatic dialogues and economical use of words. E is often difficult to distinguish from J, but in general is more interested in events than people, tends to explain more than J, and puts Yahweh at more of a distance by interposing angels and/or dreams between deity and man. One reason for positing the existence of E is the accounts in Genesis 12:20–20, 20:1–18, and 26:6–11. Abraham travels to Egypt and tells the pharaoh that his wife is his sister, to protect himself. The deception is discovered at the last minute and Abraham is ordered out of the country. Later, the two try the same trick with Abimelech of Gerar. Abimelech is embarrassed when the scheme is uncovered, but apparently not sufficiently to learn his lesson, for he falls for the same line from Abraham's son Isaac later on—just as Abraham learned nothing from his Egypt experience.
	E. A. Speiser, in the Genesis volume of the highly respected Anchor Bible series, suggests that J recorded the Abraham-Sarah-Pharoah-Egypt and Isaac-Rebekah-Abimelech-Gerar episodes, while E, receiving the tradition from independent sources, telescoped the stories into one —the Abraham-Sarah-Abimelech-Gerar account.
Oral sources	In recent decades attempts have been made to go beyond the written sources described above. In form criticism and the study of oral tradition, scholars try to get at the existing blocks of material used by J, E, P and D in creating their accounts. As in every literary "science," higher criticism is open to constant revision and occasional revolution. For example, Speiser no longer believes P can be attributed to one author in the sixth-fifth century B.C., but thinks it is more likely that a school of writers reaching back into early Israelite times authored these sections. J, the earliest recognized source, is commonly assigned to the tenth or ninth century (during the reign of David and Solomon). E has been dated in the ninth or eight century, with J and E being combined after the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.). D (primarily the book of Deuteronomy) is generally considered a product of the sixth century B.C. All of these written sources are at some distance from the thirteenth century date of Moses' life, but scholars recognize that many traditions used by these authors pre-date even Moses.
J and E	For instance, traditionally in the upper class of Hurrian society (from which Abraham emigrated) a man who wished to give his wife increased legal and social status adopted her as his sister. It is quite possible that Abraham and Isaac, in declaring their wives to be their sisters, were according their spouses additional protection, not, in effect, exposing them to abuses in order to protect themselves. Since this custom was not practiced in Israel, the stories likely became garbled and the point lost over the centuries. Consequently, J and E, being separated by geography and generations from the cultural context, were left with traditions they recognized as authentic but embarrassing (Genesis 20:11).
Significance of higher criticism	But what have the marriage customs of the ancient Near East to do with twentieth-century Latter-day Saints? Or the number of animals taken aboard the ark? Very little. And if higher criticism had no more significance than explaining biblical trivia, it would be deserving of the oblivion to which Mormons have consigned it for the past century. But, in fact, higher criticism goes much farther.
	By providing a historical framework for the authorship and development of the Old Testament, biblical scholars have opened the door to understanding the different theological orientations of scriptural writers. These differences play an important role in accounting for "historical" as well as doctrinal discrepancies.
Theological priorities	It was important for the Yahwist tradition, for instance, that Noah have enough animals aboard the ark to offer sacrifices and still have sufficient to propogate the species. The Priestly writer, on the other hand, was more concerned with the centrality of the Covenant, a unifying theme he emphasized throughout Israel's history.
Differences do not disqualify	In this case neither the historical nor the theological differences are of much significance for Latter-day Saints. But what may be instructive is the way these differences were handled. Neither account was laundered or sanitized to avoid embarrassing conflicts. The differences disqualified neither as an inspired voice in Israel.
Common purpose	Apparently, it was their point of agreement which validated these witnesses—belief in the one true God and his participation in the life of Israel. The compilers of the Old Testament recognized the value of retaining each legitimate perspective—perhaps because they believed that the purpose of sacred history and theology is not to provide clarity or consistency or empirical facticity, but rather to bring people to God.
Human aspect of scripture	The value of higher criticism is its ability to disclose the human aspect of scripture. As readers come to understand the point of view of the various authors and see the points they are trying to make in writing sacred history, readers enter into the process themselves and become participants with the Yahwist and the Elohist and the Priestly writer. Scripture is not an end, but a means to God. Biblical scholarship can illuminate elements of that revelatory process that have long been ignored by Latter-day Saints.
Recommended reading	For an excellent introduction to higher criticism, see Norman Habel's Literary Criticism of the Old Testament, from the outstanding Old Testament Series of Fortress Press (also including What Is Form Criticism? Tradition History and the Old Testament, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, The Historical-Critical Method, The Old Testament and the Historian, The Old Testament and the Literary Critic, and several more short volumes on the New Testament). Richard N. Soulen's Handbook of Biblical Criticism (John Knox Press) is a helpful guide to terminology that may be unfamiliar to the beginning student.
		The Flood Narrative Higher Criticism Reprints Home