What is the tablet theory of Genesis authorship, and is it biblical?

It is possible that Moses, the inspired penman of Genesis, was led to use existing records left by the patriarchs, in so far as they suited the Divine purpose, and also that he was led to indicate it in this way. From Genesis 5:1, onwards, we have a Divinely given history of things, that may well have been taken from humanly recorded tablets of most ancient date, just as again and again in the Books of Kings and Chronicles we have allusions to the other books of reference written by prophets and scribes.

Two other remarks we make. First, what we may call the rejected line is always mentioned first; then the accepted line: Adam before Noah: The sons of Noah before Shem: Ishmael before Isaac; Esau before Jacob. Thus from the outset do we see indicated what is so clear in the New Testament, and plainly stated in Hebrews 10:9, "He takes away the first, that He may establish the second."

In claiming the Mosaic authorship of this book, it is not meant that no records were kept before the time of the great lawgiver. There is nothing contradictory to the truth of inspiration or the thought of Moses' authorship in the possibility, we may say probability, of genealogies having been kept, and possibly also narratives more or less full, of persons and events which took place prior to the time of the Exodus. But what historian can write a narrative of former times without making large and liberal use of the material at his disposal? Thus there is no contradiction in the thought that Moses made use of whatever lists and narratives there may have been in existence before him. There is, however, something to be said even upon this side of the subject.

According to an old tradition, not only Genesis (also called the first book of Moses), but the whole Pentateuch (from Greek pente - five and teuchos - container for scrolls) were written by Moses. As far as Exodus to Deuteronomy is concerned, Moses was an eyewitness and partly even main character. When writing Genesis, apart from direct revelations of God (for example the report on the creation of the world in Genesis 1-2), he could possibly have referred to documents from the time of the patriarchs (for example the genealogies of Genesis 5:10-11 and 36). Under the direction of the Holy Spirit of God Moses wrote everything down. As he was a prophet, the words of 2 Peter 1:21 apply to him as well: "Holy men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit."

Moses in composing his work made use of sources — written documents or oral traditions — under Divine inspiration, and conformably to the purpose which he had in view, so as either to adopt the wording or only the sense, abridging or amplifying as required.

1892 1 A manifestly new section begins with Genesis 2:4, though with unmistakeable reference to the chapter before, which it summarises as an introduction to a fresh point of view that looks on to the end of Genesis 3. The opening words here and elsewhere are supposed by some who deny neither Moses nor inspiration to indicate that Moses thus interwove separate documents preserved by the heads of the Semitic race, and that this fact is one of the strongest internal testimonies that we have to do with genuine historical records. No believer need deny the principle if God's inspiration be truly maintained. Moses may have been inspired to incorporate ancient records where authentic, as Luke gives us the confidential letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix. Only it is hard if not quite impossible to conciliate some eleven such documents with the perfect unity that pervades Genesis, especially as a divinely ordered type, i.e., prophetically of the future. But the grand truth overlooked is the reality of divine inspiration and its incomparable character and depth. Documents or not, this is certain. And what document could there have been of the creation? God alone could have given that. Take also this first of "the generations" how could even Adam have furnished anything of the sort?

If then God led Moses, in writing the book of Genesis, to make use of documents written (say) by Noah, Shem, the Patriarchs, Joseph and any others, there could be no valid objection on that score. But the unity of style and plan, which pervades each part in the face of all that petty criticism has ever alleged to the contrary, does stand adverse to any such theory. The essential condition is that God should inspire His chosen vehicle to convey to us the truth as He intended it for His own. It cannot be denied on solid ground that the alphabet even of Greece and Rome points to a Shemitic source, though it may have reached them according to the common tradition through a Phoenician or an Egyptian channel. In the days of Moses, at least in the wilderness, the Bible bears testimony that reading and writing prevailed among the Israelites, not merely in a sacred or learned class, but even largely among the rest (Deut. 6:9; Deut. 11:20; Deut. 24:1, 3). Thus from the earliest date of inspiration there was no difficulty of finding writers or readers.

Is it true then that the book of "Genesis is a compilation, and is stated so to be?" Is it the fact that these "generations" prove it to consist of so many separate documents, each beginning with this title? Let us see.

If Moses had been led of God to use a quantity of earlier documents for the writing of Genesis, of contemporary records for Exodus or Numbers, I do not see how this could impair the inspiration of the Pentateuch. For we know little of the mode in which God wrought inspiration, though we are authoritatively taught the result, and we cannot but be sensible of its essential difference from all other writings in the working out of the divine purpose, and in the exclusion of human imperfections stamped on it. But even the more sober, who contend for the tessellated composition of the Pentateuch, have as yet presented no evidence but what can be better accounted for otherwise: especially as they confess "a unity of plan, a coherence of parts, a shapeliness, and an order" which satisfy them that, as e.g. Genesis stands, it is the creation of a single mind. Is it not forgotten that the opening chapters for instance, largely at least, could not have been narrated by Adam himself any more than by Moses from personal knowledge? God necessarily must have communicated the account of creation, as also of the flood, two of the parts most attacked, and I will add with least reason, by infidel temerity.

If Moses had been led of God to use a quantity of earlier documents for the writing of Genesis, of contemporary records for Exodus or Numbers, I do not see how this could impair the inspiration of the Pentateuch. For we know little of the mode in which God wrought inspiration, though we are authoritatively taught the result; and we cannot but be sensible of its essential difference from all other writings in the working out of the divine purpose, and in the exclusion of human imperfections stamped on it. But even the more sober, who contend for the tessellated composition of the Pentateuch, have as yet presented no evidence but what can be better accounted for otherwise: especially as they confess "a unity of plan, a coherence of parts, a shapeliness, and an order" which satisfy them that, as e.g. Genesis stands, it is the creation of a single mind. Is it not forgotten that the opening chapters for instance, largely at least, could not have been narrated by Adam himself any more than by Moses from personal knowledge? God necessarily must have communicated the account of creation, as also of the flood, two of the parts most attacked, and one might add with least reason, by infidel temerity.

The five books of Moses manifest how wonderful were the revelations made to God’s faithful servant. There may have been much that Moses received that had been handed down from the fathers, but what he wrote was given by inspiration of God, the Holy Spirit controlling the pen of the servant of the Lord. Whatever the fathers may have known of the creation, and the forming of the earth for man’s habitation, it must be evident that only God could have made known to any one what He did in the beginning, and before man was formed out of the dust of the earth. The same can be said about the flood. What Moses wrote has the divine stamp on every detail, and is given with an assurance and accuracy that marks it as divine.

The writer of Genesis, who was no doubt Moses (Luke 24:27) could not get his information from anyone but God. People have supposed that he gathered material for this book from other human sources, but this is settled by 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." Humans have imagined all kinds of silly answers to the question of origins, but none of these answers comes near to the majestic dignity and truth of what God has revealed in the book of Genesis.