Listen to 702 DZAS Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (a segment of Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay of Back to the Bible Philippines) every Tuesday and Thursday 7:00PM.
Ang argument na tutugunan natin ngayon ay “Moses did not author Genesis 1 because an Elohist writer writing from a later time wrote it based on a pagan document called Enuma Elish.” Ang Enuma Elish ay isang Babylonian na kwento ng creation* written early in the 2nd millenia BC at basehan ng isang napakalaking Babylonian festivity at least nung panahon ni Nebuchadnezzar nung 6th century BC. Opo mga alamat po siya na ayon sa ilang mga liberal professors dito sa atin na nagtuturo pa sa mga conservative Bible schools at seminaries mismo at galing din sa kanila narinig natin ang idea na alamat nga ang pinagbasehan ng nagsulat ng Genesis 1. Concern po natin ang argument na ito dahil it challenges the credibility ng mga statements ng Bible concerning Mosaic authorship. Pati ang ating Panginoong mismo sinasama ang Mosaic authorship sa mga teachings na natanggap niya.
In Mark 10:4-8, Jesus quoted Gen. 2:24 as coming from Moses. In Mark 7:10, Jesus quoted the Ten Commandments as coming from Moses. In Mark 10:3 Jesus refers to Deut. 24:1f as being from Moses, and in Matt. 8:4 Jesus quoted Lev. 14 as coming from Moses.†Concern din natin siya as we try to exemplify yung commitment ni Paul sa 2 Corinthians 10:5 that says, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.” We believe that when an argument puts into question the clear testimony of God in Scripture, we are duty-bound to provide defense and in the graphic words of Paul, “demolish arguments.” While it is okay to expose itong mga pinapadala ng mga churches na young seminarians sa mga schools na ito, it is also good to orient them kung ano ang mga kakaharapin nilang mga views sa mga lugar na iyan par akahi papano maging open sila sa mga iba-ibang views and hopefully able to see yung mga positive at negative points ng mga liberal views na ito.
Ang foundational na suspicion na nilalatag ng argument natin ngayon na si Moses ang author ng Genesis ay dahil daw sa magkaiba ang pangalan na inassign ng writer or writers sa Diyos sa Genesis 1, at ito ay Elohim at sa Genesis 2 naman ay Yahweh. We have reason daw to suspect its authorship because of the discrepancy in the two names. Ang tawag dito ng nakausap kong liberal professor ay discrepancy sa grammar daw. Dahil dito sa form na ito ng grammar, he would then transition to the different sources of Genesis 1 and 2. For Genesis 1 he assigned the source as the Enuma Elish; at sa Genesis 2 source naman daw ay ang Gilgamesh Epic.‡ Tulad ng nabanggit ko kanina, ang Enuma Elish ay isang Babylonian na kwento ng creation. Ang Epic of Gilgamesh naman ay isang epiko galing sa Mesopotamia o mas kilala ngayon as Ancient Iraq na meron ding creation story.
Kakaiba ngayon ito sa nakagisnan nating tamang turo, na si Moses ang may akda at ang kanyang pag aakda ginabayan ng Banal na Espiritu at may direct instructions from God na magsulat. Hindi porke nakagisnan natin yan ay tatalikuran natin habang tumatanda tayo. False reasoning po ito kasi ang truthfulness ng isang katuruan hindi nakasalalay sa pabagu-bagong panahon. Napakalinaw sa aklat ni Moses na may mga pagkakataon pa na direkta siyang ini-instruct ng Lord na isulat ang mga kakatapos pa lang na pangyayaring naranasan niya. For example, Exodus 34:27 “And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Moreover, Christ confirms this truth, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:36-37). Hindi nakapagtataka kung magugulat ang isang member ng simbahan at makakarinig siya ng katuruan na ang Genesis ay kinopya lamang sa mga paganong mga alamat.
Kung ang support sa claim ay “somebody else writing from a later time wrote it based on a pagan document called Enuma Elish” kasama diyan ang mga important na mga katanungan na When was it written? Who wrote it? What were the circumstances of its writing?
In answering these three questions, yung liberal professor na kausap ko re-assigned the date of writing of the Pentateuch to a later one. Sinabi niya na mali yung 15th century BC na traditional dating ng Genesis. Hindi si Moses ang nagsulat at questionable pa kung may Moses nga daw na nag exist. Dadalhin niya ngayon ang date of wrting sa 6th century BC para maging relevant siya sa isang Babylonian festivity na nagbunsod daw ng pagsusulat ng Genesis. Nung 15th century BC kasi wala pa yang pyesta na yan. The argument goes ayon dito sa professor na the reason why the writer of Genesis 1 utilized the Enuma Elish was to subvert or wasakin ang creation idea ng festivity na ito. This Babylonian spring festival is called Akitu. Akitu is a word that means “barley-cutting” o “tag-anihan” sa Sumerian language at sa Akkadian naman it means “New Year.” Sa fourth day ng Akitu, nire-recite ang Enuma Elish. Ito daw ang gustong i-subvert ng Elohist na author. So hiniram nya yung kwento at linagyan nya ng Jewish monotheistic twist. Sa pakikpaglaban na ito sa dominant at oppressive power ng Babylon kinasihan daw ng Diyos na word of God ito. Ganito daw ang paraan ng pag-inscripturate at process of inspiration ng Diyos, na mukhang naging anti-imperialist revolutionary na myembro ng National Democratic Front.
Tactical din yung pag usog papunta sa 6th century BC kasi kung around that time nga naman naisulat ang Genesis 1 di may reason nga na nangopya yung writer kasi kung ang Genesis 1 ay naisulat ni Moses nung 15th century BC, wala pa nung nagsusulat ng Enuma Elish. Naisip siguro nila na impossible naman na kumopya si Moses sa isang document na hindi pa naisusulat.
Ano ang physical documentary evidence na kumopya nga ang Genesis 1 sa Enuma Elish? Actually wala.
But what do our evidence suggest? What we actually have are fragments of an old scroll of the book of Genesis na nakuha sa Dead Sea Scroll. Although mga punit punit na siya at maari nyong makita yung picture pa non sa Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library website na ilalagay ko sa FB page, what we see are texts from the final form of Genesis.§
I perfectly understand how a change of name would suggest the skepticism netong mga taong eto, pero the presence of skepticism doesn’t prove that the assertion na si Moses ang may akda has been defeated. For clearly it is very easy to structure a complementary relationships between Genesis 1 and 2 and we can even use the prevailing idea of the times concerning the name Elohim. Simplehan lang natin ang sagot sa pagkahaba habang gymnastics na gagawin ng mga dini-deny ang Mosaic authorship ng Genesis 1 and 2.
Sa Genesis 1 Moses used Elohim to represent the prevailing idea of his time that God is the creator -- the all powerful being, the source of all things. He pictured here as immense in power. Sa Genesis 2, ginamit ni Moses ang Yahweh to refer to the covenant name of God showing Him as a God who relates to human beings -- the crown of his creation. Next episode po talakayin natin ang message ng two chapters na ito that would give us an understanding of Moses’ intention sa kanyang grammar. Sa susunod na episode po, we will focus on the unity ng Genesis 1 and 2 para hindi tayo magkaroon ng pagdududa na hiniram lang yan sa mga paganong alamat and see the messsage of the literary structure na gustong ituro sa atin ng Diyos through the writings of Moses.
(C) Photo Credits. 4 tablets of the Enuma Elish.
----------
* Joshua J. Mark, “Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation,” in Ancient History Encyclopedia; accessed at http://www.ancient.eu/article/225/
† "Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch," in Theopedia (website); accessed at
http://www.theopedia.com/mosaic-authorship-of-the-pentateuch
‡ Wiki, sv “Epic of Gilgamesh”; accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
§ "Plate 663," in The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library (website); accessed at
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-277259
No comments:
Post a Comment