The Book of Genesis
Hi Prof! Thank you for posting all these clarificatory pronouncements on a yet controversial topic. This forum is indeed very educational for each and everyone of us, and hoping that as we go on, we would yet deepen our understanding of the various topics that concern our faith in the Almighty.
It’s true and I agree that there is really no evidence that the Yahwists/sacred writers copied or borrowed from the pagan mythological stories. There are, in fact so many stories ranging from the story of creation, the tree of life, and even the great floods. Consider the mythological stories originating from the ancient Near East regarding the formation of man from earth/ dust as mentioned in the cosmogonic poem Enuma Elish (the 6th table describes in line 1-38 how the creation of man came about.) Note the commonality in the biblical text and Enuma Elish re: the theme of forming man from material already available: dust/soil/earth.
There is also parallelism regarding the Yahwist description of the “tree of life” which stands in the Garden of God, beside the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gilgamesh epic.)
Then, there are also Mesopotamian parallels to the narrative of the floods.
With all these parallelisms, do we have to consider all these as mere coincidences? Could there be an analytical (and theological) explanation except for the fact that the Yahwist/sacred writer had direct inspiration from God? What were the basis or inspiration of the pagan writers, if there were? Is this suggestive of their belief in a “supreme being” aside from their numerous gods?
Hi Joni! Your comments are loaded with questions which I will hope to answer also. In the meantime I have a couple of questions to ask which I hope you will also answer. You casually used the term Yahwist to refer to the writer of Genesis (or maybe pat of it). 1) Who is this Yahwist? a) Moses b) a person who wrote directly under the direction of Moses or c) a person already distant from the time of Moses. 2) Can you cite any magisterial pronouncement which allows a Catholic to subscribe to a documentary theory which directly denies Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?
Now to your questions.
1) With all these parallelisms, do we have to consider all these as mere coincidences? My reply: They are not mere coincidences and there are possible explanations to this and it is my opinion that to suppose based from the similarities that the sacred writer borrowed from pagan mythological sources is not the only one nor the most consistent. First because it may and it does happen that 2 stories be similar without borrowing from each other. Newton and Leibnitz were both credited for inventing Calculus and we cannot accuse one of borrowing from the other. Second, because as I have already pointed out there is a tendency for scholars who subscribe to the documentary theory to highlight the similarities and ignore the differences. I think the differences are more pronounced and more numerous than the similarities as to put into serious doubt any theory of derivation. Third, because there is another tendency for those of your view to conclude that where there are similarities found that it is the biblical writer who borrowed and not the other way around. It is equally if not more probable that the pagan mythological accounts are corruption of the correct tradition on which the biblical account is based to saying that the biblical accounts are purification of the pagan mythological accounts. Fourth, the documentary theory is based on an unproven assumption that the biblical accounts were written at a later period in order to allow room for so-called borrowings, Fifth, because the previous magisterial pronouncement on this issue does not allow us to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch which is precisely what the documentary hypothesis does.
2) Could there be an analytical (and theological) explanation except for the fact that the Yahwist/sacred writer had direct inspiration from God? My reply: First, the explanation that Moses was able to write what is contained in the Pentateuch because he had direct inspiration from God is to me the most consistent with biblical data and both Jewish and Church tradition as reflected in the writings of the early fathers. It is I think too presumptuous to suppose that on this very important issue both Jewish and Christian tradition had it all wrong for many centuries until modern biblical scholarship had it finally right. It was through Moses that the Israelites received the Law directly from God in Mount Sinai. If we go by the principle used in the documentary hypothesis theory then it is also possible to suppose that the sacred writer borrowed part of the Law from their neighboring cultures since there are also similarities which can be found. However, this goes against the clear teaching of the Sacred Scriptures. Secondly, this is not the only analytical and theological explanation for it is possible that an authentic tradition was also preserved (i.e., from patriarchal age to the mosaic age) as evidenced in later biblical writings which bases itself on authentic tradition.
3) What were the basis or inspiration of the pagan writers, if there were? Is this suggestive of their belief in a “supreme being” aside from their numerous gods? My reply: Since God cannot contradict himself and his revelation is pure then he could not have inspired the pagan writers responsible for making the pagan mythological accounts which while containing similarities with the biblical account also contains several irreconciliable contradictions with the biblical account. The pagan notion of a supreme being as reflected in paganistic cultures and religion are corruptions of who God really is although it still retains the primordial idea of a power/s higher than man. Pagan practice of polytheism and idolatry are corruptions of the worship which should be rendered to the one true God. This is what St Paul explains in Romans 1:21-23.