Loading...I have been explaining that while at Princeton Theological Seminary, I started finding that there could be mistakes in the Bible. My first realization of this involved my study of the Gospels, but I was studying the Hebrew Bible as well, and I finally got to the point where I had to admit there appeared to be mistakes there as well. Lots of mistakes. Contradictions, discrepancies, historical errors. And these show up right off the bat, in the book of Genesis.
Let me detail some of the differences I started finding, as I later summarized them, many years later, in my textbook on the Bible, where I talk about why Moses almost certainly didn’t write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible, Genesis through Deuteronomy) and about some of the tensions one finds in the text.
*************************************************************
As already mentioned, the critical scrutiny of the traditional view of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch deepened and became more rigorous as scholarship advanced. In addition to the problems just mentioned, other troubling features of the narratives came to the fore. I have already mentioned the fact that there are numerous anachronisms in the stories of Genesis: camels were not domesticated in Canaan in Abraham’s time (despite what is said in the stories), for instance – or in the time of Moses. So too the Philistines did not exist as a nation yet (even though they show up in these chapters). Nor did the city of Beersheba. The stories that contain such references could not have been written in Moses’ day in the 13th century BCE; they must have be dated to a time no earlier than the 11th century or so, and possibly much later.
What is more, there are clear indications that these books were not written by one author at all, especially in the internal tensions that can be found among the stories and the various doublets that they present.
The internal tensions came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than …
For the Rest of this Post, you need to JOIN to read! So JOIN! It won’t cost much, and all contributions go to fight hunger and homelessness.
Dr. Ehrman, what is the name of your textbook on the Bible?
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction.
Where did the idea that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch come from?
We don’t know who actually came up with it, but it was a widespread Jewish belief already several centuries before the Christian era.
I think complicated attempts to reconcile Biblical discrepancies are actually points *against* Biblical inerrancy. For if the Bible was really the word of God, presumably God would want it to be clear and intelligible to even the least scholarly people, not confusing and conflicted.
So true. Many of the Gnostics of the first couple of centuries of Christianity argued that the god of the Old Testament was actually a lesser deity. That is an easy belief to arrive at when one looks at things like you mentioned.
Just for the record, I know many who believe the Bible is intentionally flawed by a sovereign God, intentionally confusing to blind his creation from the truth so that only a few will see the spiritual meaning underneath the words. That, essentially the inerrancy debate is used to deceive people from the real point.
If I’m to pull apart this assumption, it seems to argue for across the board non-literalism. If this is so, it makes you wonder why the Bible? Other myths have deep truths hidden under the strange words that you can find if you look for them.
The author of genesis states that when God made man it was good, indeed, very good. Two questions. How does God himself define good? And if creating man without the knowledge of good and evil was what God says was “good” as is stated in Genesis, how would Adam and Eve have known God was good and disobedience to God’s command was evil? And to take this a step further, didn’t God know that man could never be “good” with Satan around, which is why he will have to lock him away in order for man to no longer be tempted to evil?
For me, the “huge” problem, is with the most important part of the Old Testament, The Ten Commandments. God gives Moses a set of commandments and then, after the first set is destroyed, tells Moses that he is going to give him another exact copy of the first set only to give him a completely different set of commandments. Hmmm? How can that one be explained?
I’ve heard some explain that the different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are merely two different parallel accounts of creation each of them emphasizing on different perspectives of the creation and they each focus on a different part of the creation.
Genesis 5 adds a different view on the genealogy of Adam and adds more detail to his line of descent then the earlier account that focuses more on Cain and Abel
Yes, that’s precisely the view that I’m arguing does not actually work when you look closely at the text.
Do you have a book that lists all the problems? Or do you plan to write one or a series of blog posts?
I deal with lots of the major problems in the New Testament, at least, in my book Jesus Interrupted.
What convenient timing. I just recently finished reading Genesis. What’s interesting is how some of the english translations vary on Genesis 2:19. The NRSV has “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal . . . ” whereas the ESV has “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[f] every beast of the field . . .” leaving the door open to the lay audience like myself to see that as saying the creation of animals had already taken place, and as being consistent with chapter 1. However, the footnote for the passage in the ESV says, “Or And out of the ground the Lord God formed . . . ” As a believer and being familiar with the popularity of the ESV among evangelicals, and absolutely no knowledge of Hebrew, I’m curious if this choice of wording is debatable, or if the ESV editors simply tried to smooth over the contradiction by hiding the correct reading in a footnote.
Yes, the ESV is just smoothing over the problem.
I gave up on Christian Bibles and finally purchased three translations of the Hebrew to English – AND The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.
Have you reviewed “Let’s Get Biblical”, volumes 1 and 2 by Rabbi Tovia Singer? I don’t buy into everything claimed, but he has pointed out a number of passages that are absolute perversions of their Scriptures by Christains.
No I haven’t
The Hebrew of that part of Gen 2:19 is: וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה
Literally, it says, in Hebrew: “So created, YHWH Elohim, from the clay, all living things of the field.”
Note:
– The sentence starts with a waw prefix, which is usually translated as “and,” but, depending on context, can also mean “but” or “also” or “yet” or “so”. In this case, because of the context of the previous verse, Gen 2:18, the meaning is closer to “so”.
– The Hebrew word I here translate as clay — adamah — is directly connected to the same root for Adam, or “man”. In other words, both Adam (or human beings in general) and the “living things of the field” are made from adamah (clay, dirt, ground, earth, etc.)
– The word I here translate as “created” — yitzer — carries the connotation of forming or moulding or otherwise sculpting out of a material. In other words, the “living things” are sculpted out of the adamah. The tense is the simple perfect, meaning it’s just a plain old preterite. Hebrew grammar doesn’t have complex verb forms like the pluperfect, e.g. “having created” or “having had created” etc. Such temporal aspects must be implied within the context of the sentence.
– The word I here translate as “living things” — chayyat — literally means living things, but, by way of context (i.e. “of the field”) suggests animals that live on grasslands, such as cows, horses, gazelles, sheep, goats, and ungulates in general. Specifically, the author means to say the domesticated, pastoral herd animals.
And man is referred to as “beasts” elsewhere in the Bible…
Not related to OT inconsistency, I traded in some books to Half Price Books tonight and grabbed a copy of “Peter, Paul and Mary Magdelene” with the proceeds, which I then put in a “Little Free Library” that happens to be next to a church up the street. I’ve always wondered-do published trade authors see any residuals from second hand transactions like that? If not, I hope you don’t mind (and I hope that choosing that particular LFL wasn’t too passive-aggressive.)
Occasionally!
Great points about the disharmonies between Genesis 1 and 2. And as I’ve pointed out in previous replies, Christian apologetics fails miserably at addressing the viable criticisms of things like this. (The same is true for inconsistencies throughout the Gospels). To reiterate previous replies – the scriptures are most certainly divinely inspired, but not as something to be processed as literal history and cohesively compared. The Bible is an esoteric book full of divine clues to show us we are in a false reality-construct. (I am very interested in your thoughts on all of this.)
What you mention about God not being “named” until Genesis 2 is very important. Notice that Gen. 1:1 says the Elohim created the heavens and the earth, but when Yahweh is introduced in Gen. 2:4, it says he created the earth and the heavens. (They are flipped.) That is a divine clue that Yahweh is not the supreme, true benevolent God. In Genesis 1, everything was “GOOD” according to the Elohim. But when Yahweh is introduced, here comes sin, death, the corruption of creation, pain through childbirth, etc. (The Elohim BLESSED the male and female when he/they told them to be fruitful, but Yahweh CURSED everything and added pain to childbirth.)
The same can be said for eating from the trees. The Elohim said that man could eat from ALL the trees, but Yahweh forbade man to eat from the tree of good and EVIL – that he created. (Remember, all was good in Genesis 1. There was no “evil.”) So again, while under Yahweh’s administration (earth/heavens), man has been living under a corrupted and even false reality, and not the true utopian reality of heavens/earth. This is the divine “riddle” that Christians, and Jews, and even Muslims (Allah = Yahweh) have yet to figure out. They are giving their energies over to the “God” of the corruption of creation. Man is thus choosing this corrupt existence by choosing to worship that God instead of the true benevolent Creator(s) of Genesis 1 – the Elohim. Thoughts?
Yup, these are problems!
I always found it interesting in Genesis the passage “Then God said, “Let US make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness” (plural) and then switches to singular in the next passage, “So God created mankind in HIS own image,
in the image of God HE created them; male and female HE created them.”
Lots of theological questions in just a couple of verses! Almost makes me think someone added the second (singular) passage to alleviate confusion from the earlier plural passage but in doing made it even more confusing.
What is you opinion about the cabalistic meditations that speculate that in Genesis 1:1 “bereshit bara elohim et hashamayim ve et haaretz” Elohim is actually the object of the creation and not its subject i.e. Elohim is created similarly to the heavens and the earth and that the subject (real creator) is another hight emanation or god (that is not present in the above text but can be derived in various ways)?
These meditations are always creative and amazing, but they rarely seem to get at what the author was actually trying to say.
Given that Genesis was written men (and not by some immaterial deity), and by virtue of the very text, the authors were not witnesses to what is reported (for example, they don’t say, “I saw God create the heaven and the earth,”, or “I saw Noah build his ark”), why would anyone think that what is written is literally true? The authors were simply not there.
I think the idea is that God inspired these people to write the truth.
Dr. Ehrman, I have always been troubled not only by the discrepancies between Genesis 1 & 2, but also by the strange quotations of “Lord God” at the end of Genesis 3: “Then the Lord God said: See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever (Genesis 3:22)?” Who is “Lord God” talking to, here? Angels? The other two “trinity” components? Other “Gods”? And why has “Lord God” only now (in this verse) become concerned about man eating from the “tree of life” and becoming immortal?
It’s the same people “God” is talking to when he says in chapter 1 “Let *us* make man in *our* own image.” Usually it is thought that God is talking to his divine council, the divine beings who are with him in the beginning (see also Job 1)
Fascinating! What strikes me as odd, here, is the concern that man might live on forever if the tree of life is eaten from. “Lord God” is so concerned, in fact, that he sets a guard at the path to the tree of life, presumably, to prevent the now “fallen” man from eating of the tree and living forever as a result. But isn’t that a major tenet of the Christian faith, the belief that we will all live eternally somewhere (in either heaven or hell)? We all live forever in that sense, don’t we? There are even passages in the OT (Daniel 12:1-3, etc.) that *seem to* suggest that all of mankind experience an eternal afterlife somewhere, which is why the concern about man living forever in Genesis 3:22 makes little sense to me. You may have already written about this, but what, in your opinion, is the writer trying to convey in his portrayal of “Lord God” being concerned about Adam and Eve living forever? Is this simply a different tradition in which an eternal afterlife was not thought possible as a result of “original sin”?
I think the idea is that they would never die if they ate the fruit. But yes, on the other hand, they would not have died if they restrained from eating from the *other* tree. So why would they have to eat from the fruit of the tree of life to live forever? It doesn’t really add up. But I will say there is no idea of “original sin” in this passage — that’s a much later Christian doctrine about how all humans have inherited a sin nature because of what Adam and Eve did.
The words of God in Genesis don’t imply eternal damnation from the “Fall”. We can see in the Hebrew Scripture that God told Cain he would be accepted/forgiven if he improved himself, and that he was capable to conquer sin and not have it reign over him or posses him. Since Jesus said to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God – this should be the first precept understood – that repentance to go back and do as God said to do will bring restoration of being accepted by God – not the magic cross or the magic wafer… but doing what God said is good and knowing the differences between good and bad or secular and holy.
Regarding the problems in the order of creation between Genesis 1 & 2, what are your thoughts on the NIV rendering the waw consecutive in wayyiṣer by a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed…” in Genesis 2:19? Is this at all a plausible translation, or is this just an attempt at damage control? Seems like it misses the whole point of the narrative that the animals were created in response to God’s declaration that it was not good that man should be alone (2:18).
I think the translators were trying to get rid of a rather obvious problem!
When YHWH said, If you eat, you will die, is it true that he may have meant, If you eat it, if will kill you, not necessarily, If you don’t eat it, you’ll never die. Or is there a clear presumtion of original human immortality in the Gen. 2 creation myth?
Interesting idea. Hadn’t thought of that.
The Big Question: Was there death before The Fall?
I figure “yes”. I don’t see any indication that Adam and Eve were created “physically immortal” at all.
But, that’s just me.
I see lots of options here:
1. Potentially, they could have lived their lives in the Garden, then simply died there.
2. They could have lived their lives in the Garden, and if they ate of the Tree of Life, then they could have lived there as “immortals”.
3. One could argue that they were indeed created as physically immortal beings, but if they were, it brings up the question of what the heck the Tree of Life was about.
4. One might want to somehow distinguish between “physical immortality” and “spiritual immortality”, and go down that path. Were Adam and Eve created both physically and spiritually immortal? Or, perhaps, physically mortal and spiritually immortal? Maybe physically immortal and spiritually mortal? Hey, who knows? And, of course, this whole topic became quite a matter of much discussion over quite a few centuries, among the Jews.
Bottom Line: All we get from these first chapters of Genesis (up to, and including the Flood), are just “smatterings” of into (although, it is important info). This account of creation is the *beginning* of a story, but the *end* of the story is a long, long, LONG way off.
Seems to me that God introduced the beginning in a way to cause anyone to do a double take and note distinctions between the accounts, as a preface to His saying to carefully observe the distinctions He gave in the Torah (Law). I do appreciate your clarification of what you’ve come to understand so far, and give a very good definition to fundamentalist.
I have yet to find any reason to believe Jesus claim to anything but a unique prophet who was to ascend to the Ancient of days (Daniel), and that he taught the Instructions in Righteousness in a way never taught by any other prophet.
There is no doubt every book of the NT was altered, just as the Christians of Rome also altered the Hebrew Holy Scripture to fit false Christian doctrines taught by Paul and his disciples. Thankfully we still have the Hebrew accounts and the DSS for confirmation of what they were in Jesus’ day.
This article seems very interesting, and I would love to read more about the Old Testament. So I was wondering if you could recommend a good book on these shorts of issues?
Depends what kind of book you want. You might start with my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (half of which is on the OT), and the bibliography I provide. Or if you want a book devoted entirely, say, to the authorshp of hte Pentateuch, maybe Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?