Engaging Mark Moore's Revealed Cosmology

The title of Mark's article is called "How Do You Tell A Polemic From An Original Exposing Corrupted Accounts?

The title of Mark's article is called "How Do You Tell A Polemic From An Original Exposing Corrupted Accounts?

This title seems an odd way to begin an article when the view held by scholars that Genesis is anti-myth polemic, is that it's an original account replacing corrupted accounts. Therefore, to start, this title depicts a problem no one is attempting to address. 

The topic seems to navigate toward "was Genesis one corrupted or merged with other ideas in neighboring cultures?" and to this, I think the majority of Scholars would agree that it doesn't borrow through corruption, but rather it exposes myth with truth. 

He states, "Right now, most scholars assume the other ANE creation accounts came first because creation accounts have been found with some similar elements before the life of Moses would have occurred, around 1400 BC."

Unfortunately, this isn't accurate. We assume that other Ancient Near East accounts are older because they are older. It has little to do with Moses, as most scholars don't try to authorize the Genesis. Mark is referring to an internal dating system in the Bible, based upon 1 Kings. For this, I say, I am completely adherent and believe that is justifiable for the conversation. However, the dating of Genesis 1 in comparison with other texts has to do with the manuscripts, the archaeological findings (biblical at that), and so forth (1). There have been plentiful archaeological findings that support the Bible but do not support a tablet theory. For this, we will discuss in a full-length article. 

Mark continues, "The use of "toledoth" ("these are the generations of") phrases throughout the part of early Genesis that was set in Mesopotamia (and the first generation born in what is now Israel) indicates that whatever early Genesis is, the writers intended it to be viewed as a series of ancient accounts strung together. Aren't the scholars always urging us to view the text through the lens of those who lived when it was written? Well, early Genesis was written as a series of ancient accounts that were edited together into a single great story which unfolded over time."

He, sadly, makes a stupendous claim there but does not cite any evidence backing this claim. This idea is worthy, but you'll find that the Bible has a theological thread ordained by God, not an authorship thread that was dependent upon man. The claim above is unsustained in textual criticism, archaeology, and hermeneutics. 

He continues the claim, If I write an anthology of ancient Greek stories it would be wrong to say that accounts from the last days of Rome were older than the accounts in my book just because my book was compiled long after Rome. The book may not be as old as Rome, but the stories in them are older. This I think is the relationship between Genesis, the accounts used to compile Genesis, and the ANE texts which came in between.

If Mark is stating that the events of Genesis are older than the text of Genesis 1, then I would concur. I believe that or rather can concede on the authorship of Moses, but I would contest the usage and the date of composition by Moses of Genesis 1. (Note, I do no believe Moses penned the rest of Genesis himself but used a scribe - whole different article). 

Mark then proceeds to show the similarities of the Mayan mythology with that of the Genesis mythology. He explains this in hopes of eluding to the conclusion that because Mayans had no interaction with the Ancient Near East, you cannot conclude that Genesis was written later but very old. At least, I believe that is his argument. 

There are a few glaring flaws with this type of thinking and leapfrogging cultural archaeologies. For starters, this created the fallacy of distancing which I assert takes the eyes off the topic and transitions it onto something very distant. The topic is if Genesis is polemic against the anti-myth cultures of the Ancient Near Eastern context. The assertion of the account of the Maya origin, of which we know little, other than a Spaniard found it and translated it. Oh, but we do know that it was written around the 1550 CE. 

Therefore, the suggestion that the Mayan's account of origins could not have any inference to the vastly more ancient origin stories of the Ancient Near East is not the only speculation; it is highly unprobable speculation especially if one believes in a literal flood and a literal babel. For someone who wishes to connect everything centrically, you disconnect pieces of history to quickly. 

Second, the Mayan account lines more up with that of Egyptian accounts than it does with Genesis, but I will not get into the archaeological irony of that fact. The issue is that Mark says, "the story of Chapter One is very old...." yes, it is ancient, much older than the Mayan civilization. That does nothing to disprove the dating presented in the Polemic research of Genesis. Absolutely nothing. 

So, I must note, I enjoy Mark and his research. I really enjoy engaging with his papers and I hope he engages with mine. There is no better way to get to the truth than sharpening iron with iron. In the coming weeks I will be releasing some articles that I am writing on dating Genesis One, the Authorization, the Argument against Tablet Theory, the Theory of Moses and Genesis One (that is, that Moses penned Genesis one but used scribes for the rest of Genesis) and addressing JEDP. 

----

  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3142823?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

  2. https://www.ancient.eu/Maya_Civilization/

  3. Early Genesis by Mark Moore Article: https://earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2020/03/how-do-you-tell-polemic-from-original.html?fbclid=IwAR3Iat_Ly0dCNSmSVioO0VFuXXlaj2RO6E9i5EoKVatPq0aXnV443lxSYDQ