Banyai at t-online.de
Sat Feb 17 04:52:10 EST 2001
I didn´t expect to return to the subject so soon, but since I incidentally
stumbled over new evidence concerning the subject, I no longer regard my
hypothesis about the origins of the begin-title/end-title, lying in the
bureaucratic practice to note the subject of a papyrus roll as well at its
beginning as at the manuscripts end, as ill-demonstrated.
I may remind to those reading this post, that I brought the jewish practice of
calling the individual bible books after their beginning secntences in connection
with that same hypothetic bureaucratic procedure.
Reading the admonitions of Ipuwer, an Egyptian papyrus pertaining probably to the
2-nd intermediate period (the same rough period to which I attribute the Exodus
story), I stumbled, as I just mentioned, over the same end-title practice. The
beginning of the manuscript is too damaged to be able to say if anything like the
begin-title once occured.
Its end reads:"This is what Ipuwer said, when he answered the majesty of the
All-Lord: ....". This is the only place where the name of the author, Ipuwer
appears, and the end-title means so much as "these were the words of Ipuwer ..."
in the manner the end-titles in Numbers or else occur.
I find this interpretation of the begin-title/end-title as being of great
importance for our understanding of the genesis of a number of biblical texts,
which are in consequence to be regarded as mere conglomerate of shorter "scratch"
texts, pasted together by means of an anecdotical "Rahmen-Handlung" by some late
And it proves to be a serious challenge for those of us insisting too much on a
dependence of the biblical historical writing on the elenistic and greek
history-writing (supposed to be somehow contemporary). I just state in a short
manner: we can not identify this practice of pasting and stucking together
documentary pieces on such a scale and consequence in the work of any greek
All the best,
More information about the b-hebrew