An Author Interview from Books At a Glance
Would you like to watch the video interview or listen to the audio? Sign-up today for access to these features and more.
Greetings, I’m Fred Zaspel and welcome to another author interview here on Books At a Glance.
Today we are talking to Dr. Duane Garrett about his landmark work, Rethinking Genesis: The Source and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch. It has been out for some years now. I just recently came across it in my own study of Genesis – I had no idea what I had been missing. A really fascinating read.
Duane, welcome to Books At a Glance – great to have you with us.
Garrett:
Thank you very much! Good to be here.
Zaspel:
You write that “For decades evangelicals argued against the reigning critical views on the origins of the Pentateuch without presenting a well-reasoned and researched alternative that took seriously not only the data of the text but also the data of history and culture.” So, tell us what your book is all about and what the contribution is that you have sought to make.
Garrett:
When I wrote the book the documentary hypothesis was still the reigning hypothesis. This is the JEDP theory. That theory still holds sway in some areas. Critical scholars have moved onto other positions now, but the documentary hypothesis still exists. At that time, it was just about the only theory, the standard, and consensus every critical scholar held to. There were numerous apologetical works that sought to answer the documentary hypothesis. I found these helpful in terms of answering the claims.
They would say it claims, for example, that the name Yahweh was only used in the J text, and they would show how this does not work. Or the documentary hypothesis claims you can extract the E document from Genesis, and you have a coherent complete story. They would argue, I think rightly, that it was an incomplete story. It had huge holes that had to be filled by what is elsewhere in Genesis. They did a really good job of answering the arguments in favor of the documentary hypothesis. I also felt they just fell back on the conservative position on Mosaic authorship and a much older book of Genesis as a default position. They did this without giving a coherent explanation of where Genesis came about and came from.
I agreed the default position was a good one, but I felt there was another step that needed to be taken and that was to argue that we can look at the book of Genesis and we can see something of how it was written in terms of possible sources that are implied in the text. These sources imply a very early date for Genesis and an early unification for Genesis. Unlike the documentary hypothesis, they do not contradict each other. The documentary hypothesis J and P, for example, have radically different theological outlooks.
I argued that none of that is necessary if we look at the text and try to understand what is going on in the text. We can see how all the material comes together in a unified text and how it reflects the ancient near eastern culture and ideology of the late second millennium B.C. which is much earlier than the documentary hypothesis. We can sustain therefore the traditional view of Genesis Mosaic authorship and so forth. It was an attempt to say we do not just need to attack the documentary hypothesis we need to come up with an alternative hypothesis that is coherent with our beliefs about the origin of Genesis.
Zaspel:
Let’s talk sources. What indications are there in Genesis itself that some earlier source materials lie behind it?
Garrett:
For example, one thing I deal with a lot in the book is repetition where stories will very strongly echo each other or parallel each other. The most obvious and famous is the story of Abraham or Isaac trying to pass off his wife as his sister. In the book, I detail several other places where you have passages that closely parallel each other and have a lot of similarities. In the documentary hypothesis, parallels are taken to be signs of different sources. In other words, if story A closely parallels story B then they are from different sources.
What I argue is that in the ancient world the opposite is the case. In the ancient world, when people were giving narrations the thing they look for and that makes for a compelling narrative is the presence of parallel events. I use that date to say this looks like these parallel sources could have been originally told before the Exodus. Some of the stories could have circulated orally in Israel. They had a coherent story in three parts of how the patriarchs tried to pass off their wives as their sisters. In the ancient world, this would make for a compelling model to tell a story in this way. Then I argue that if you have all these accounts that are narrated that way then isn’t it possible that when Genesis was put together as a unified book that you were not going to present the stories and their similarities. You would break it up into a coherent sequential narrative. I argue the origin of Genesis and how it came about.
Zaspel:
In the opening verses of his Gospel, Luke tells us explicitly of the historical research and investigation that went into his writing, and you make mention of this in your book several times. How might this kind of a model inform the making of Genesis?
Garrett:
It would be true for Luke and Matthew. The main point is when Luke introduces his Gospel, he explicitly tells us that he listened to other sources. He diligently examined the material and compared it, then he wrote out his history. We see the same thing in the Old Testament where you have something like Chronicles where at some points it is making use of prior narratives. The point is when people think of inspiration, they should not think that bypasses the need for the author to carefully investigate sources.
Sometimes people will speak of inspiration as someone sitting down and an angel or the Spirit narrated the story to them. But we have Luke explicitly telling us that is not how it happened. Luke is inspired and guided by the Spirit, but he clearly used sources. I can carry this a little further. I mentioned Matthew. Most people would affirm that Matthew used sources and drew upon Mark. Matthew was a disciple and there with Jesus. We have a person who was there right with Jesus and his earthly ministry who looked at a prior account of the life of Jesus, and he wrote it out in his Gospel.
My larger point is that inspiration does not obliterate the need for sources and careful authorial work. Scripture is written under the guidance of the Spirit to produce a compelling, coherent narrative. That is my main point in the book where I mention Luke and his use of sources. We should not say that Genesis was inspired and so we do not need to worry where anything came from. We can tell when a biblical author wrote a historical account that he either used sources or was there through the whole thing.
Zaspel:
Explain how all this fits along with a commitment to inspiration and the Mosaic authorship of Genesis.
Garrett:
In terms of direct revelation, I refer to Genesis 1. Everyone knows that in Genesis 1:1-2:4 creation is divided into seven days. You have a sevenfold pattern. I noticed when Moses is on Mount Sinai in the book of Exodus. He goes up on the mountain and is there for seven days. Especially in Revelation, you have these revelations that are given in sevens. What I argue is that you have parallels from ancient literature that tells us the sevenfold pattern is an indication of revelation. There could be no source for creation. No one was there but God. For something like that you do need direct revelation the same way John needs direct revelation when he is composing the book of Revelation because it all comes directly from God.
How does this impact Mosaic authorship? Going to my Matthew analogy again, even if someone is there, he can still use sources. But Moses was not there. He was no more present than you and I were. Based on biblical analogy I argue he used sources except for things that did not come by divine revelation. They were explicitly revealed to him such as the creation narrative. My main point is that the use of sources does not in any way challenge or question Mosaic authorship. Direct revelation from God is something that would require an exceptional profit to receive a revelation of creation.
Zaspel:
What is the significance of toledoth in Genesis, and what is their function and role?
Garrett:
Toledoth in traditional translation is generations. We who grew up on older translations know that it will say, “these are the generations.” Some people will argue that Genesis is entirely broken up. The major divisions of Genesis are the toledoth patterns. In my book, I try to demonstrate how I think the whole book of Genesis is organized. The toledoth passages have an important transitional function in terms of carrying the reader from one narrative to another. You finish with the story of creation and the fall. Then you have a toledoth passage in Genesis 5 and that transitions you to the flood narrative in chapter 6 and following. They are important but, in some interpretations, they make a little bit too much of them.
Zaspel:
What has your work yielded in regard to understanding the larger structure and theme of Genesis?
Garrett:
The main thing that I see going on in Genesis is that it is a story of creation and redemption. If you look at the structure that I try to argue for in Genesis, it comes out a little more fully. The basic idea is we have a prologue to the story in Genesis 1-11. Then a dramatic moment in Genesis 12:1-3 when God calls Abraham. At that moment God elects Abraham not only as a chosen man and his family the chosen line, but that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through him.
In my opinion, what we have in Genesis 12 and the election of Abraham, is that Israel is the elect and chosen people. They receive great blessing from God. But they are chosen for a purpose. That purpose is in verse 3, “through you all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” It is God’s program to bring about salvation to the earth through the election of Israel. There is a theme of alienation in the book. Abraham leaves his homeland and is a stranger in a land that he has no kinship ties.
Then you have the story of Jacob who is sent back to his ancestral land. He is a stranger and treated as an alien. You have this constant theme of the people of God being aliens in the lands they are sent to. That opens all kinds of biblical themes. In the Pentateuch, it leads to the story of the Exodus where God comes to his people in bondage and brings them to a land that is their own. The ultimate fulfillment of the idea is that we are all in Christ. We are aliens in this world. We are outsiders and sojourners. We are called to a purpose and mission. We wait until we are gathered into heaven.
Zaspel:
Why do you call the Abraham narrative “the Gospel of Abraham,” and what then was its purpose?
Garrett:
You have the story of the patriarchs. They go into Egypt and settle and are put into bondage. I ask what the hope of these people was. I believe all the stories of Genesis would have been important, but the main point would be God choosing them and promising the land. From generation to generation, they had this account that was maintained and circulated.
We are chosen by God, someday he is going to remove us from Egypt and bring us into our own home and land. I use that as an analogy for the Gospel. We are like sojourners in a place that is not our home. We have the promise God will take us to himself and we will be with him forever in heaven. That is where I see a strong parallel that the Israelites and Christians have of a promise.
Zaspel:
Your book is not a commentary on Genesis, and so it is not the typical kind of reference a preacher would consult while doing sermon prep through Genesis. Explain for us how your work would be of use to the preacher and strengthen his study.
Garrett:
As preachers, it is hard to know what to do when we come to Genesis. Some preach through the whole book, but it may be tough on the congregation. If we break up Genesis and talk about what it would have meant to the ancient Israelites, then it is transferable to a Christian congregation. We can do this instead of just going over the promises and how it is fulfilled in Christ. But we also can say for many Israelites this was the only hope they had. They knew that God had chosen Abraham and promised the land. They hung on to that hope.
From generation to generation, they maintained their identity in Egypt. They knew who they were, strangers and not Egyptians. When God comes and delivers them, they have this wonderful fulfillment. We believe in the return of Christ but to actually see and experience it will blow us away. We believe it but it seems so far off. It is an encouragement to know it has happened before with the Israelites.
Zaspel:
Before we let you go give us a brief overview of your book.
Garrett:
The book opens with a summary and a standard refutation of the documentary hypothesis. I move into arguments for how we can see parallels to Genesis within itself. There are parallels to ancient literature that indicates they come out of a certain world. I work through parts of Genesis where I put together where Genesis came from. Genesis does come from sources. This all came together in the time of Moses and became the book of Genesis. This gives confidence in the book. It has parallels in how we experience the faith and how we experience the Gospel.
Zaspel:
We are talking to Dr. Duane Garrett about his remarkable book, Rethinking Genesis: The Source and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch. One of our objectives here at Books At a Glance is to acquaint our readers with books that are most helpful. It was in my own study of Genesis recently that I came across this book and found it extremely helpful in gaining a grasp of the structure and theme of Genesis. If you are planning to preach or teach through Genesis, this is a book you will not want to be without.
Duane, thanks so much for your good work and for talking to us today.
Garrett:
Thank you very much, it was a pleasure.
Buy the books
RETHINKING GENESIS: THE SOURCE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE FIRST BOOK OF THE PENTATEUCH, by Duane Garrett