Was the Book of Genesis Revealed to Moses from 1:1 to 50:25?

There might be some old commentaries that would lead to believe so.

However, recall the Hebrew name of the book is also the incipit of a passage.

Bereshit.

It means "to biblion tes Geneseos" but it also means "en arché" (Genesis 1:1)

ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.

I hold that God revealed this to Moses on Sinai up to 2:4

Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὅτε ἐγένετο

But, as in Hebrew, this passage (pericope or parasha) has the same name as the entire book, some will, very erroneously, hold that either Moses knew nothing at all from simple oral tradition about Joseph in Egypt, or he didn't trust the traditional knowledge.

From 2:5 to 50:25, Moses accessed tradition from the participants. (The verses before Adam was created would have been revealed to him rather than to Moses, and while 1:28 to 30 ould have been part of this, this was doubled and superseded by God's granting Moses a vision).

Here is how Haydock figures this out:

— Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

(On basically all of Genesis 3, and probably Genesis 2, but added onto other comments on Genesis 3:24)*

As he used Ussher chronology and I use a LXX based, my own view of "minimally overlapping generations" is somewhat different in detail:

I have often cited Father George Leo Haydock's last comment on Genesis 3, which does not make this blunder, and I only disagree on the exact number of minimal overlaps of generations. On the other hand I think, Abraham received chapters 1 to 11 or 2 to 11 (if contrary to Hunter's view the creation days were revealed to Moses rather than Adam, or re-revealed to Moses after the tradition had lost them) and no more than that orally, but from chapter 12 on his scribes could write things that were preserved in the Beduin tribe from his day to the settling in Egypt, with appropriate copies whenever the tribe divided. And even with LXX chronology, Abraham is the sixth, which is even better than Moses being the eighth, in minimal overlaps.

Sylvester Joseph Hunter on Genesis, Henry Morris on 15 Cubits

So, unlike a certain physics teacher I've spoken with** (and who had the attitude of schooling me on each argument, despite winning only one, and that by a sleight of hand), George Leo Haydock and Sylvester Joseph Hunter were actual Catholic priests, were also not illiterate in humanities by being narrowly concentrated on "science" and still sharing its commonest overreaches into philosophy and such a clear humanities issue as reliability of oral tradition.

They were also experts on Catholic theology on this matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pentecost Lord's Day, 24.V.2026

---

* Genesis 4 involves information later than Adam's life, as is certainly the case with Genesis 5 and ensuing, so Genesis 3:24 was the latest practical place to set this comment.

** Our dialogue:

Entretient avec Hans-Georg Lundahl
Gamaliel | 13 mai 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbA12hcq6Q4

my correction of his sleight of hand:

New blog on the kid : Einstein aurait prouvé que ...
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/05/einstein-aurait-prouve-que.html