Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

 Ian Hutchesson wrote in the thread  Re[2]: burial (was Life after Death):



>Genesis supplies enough evidence that it was put together long after the
>period it represents. The first creation account has a few images that are
>strongly connected with the Babylonian creation account (Enuma Elish), when
>the spirit of God hovered over the waters (tehom) -- just as the winged
>Marduk did over the water chaos (tiamat) -- and the waters were separated
>above and below -- just as Marduk separated tiamat --, suggesting at least
>the Babylonian period.

Dear Ian,


With all respect to your vast knowlege of ancient history and archaeology,
I beg to disagree with your points above.  In some respects, it is with
archaeology as with the anecdotal man who was charged with murder. Two
witnesses testified that they had seen him committing the crime, but then
he mustered 20 witnesses who had not seen him comitting the crime, and he
insisted that he must be aquitted - because 20 is ten times more than 2!

In my Accadian class we have read Enuma Elish and Atrahasis so I know the
accounts quite well. The similarities between these accounts and the first
chapters of Genesis are so numerous and so specific that it is impossible
that they have different origins. The usual view is that the account in the
Bible borrows from the Babylonian or Sumerian accounts - tablets with these
accounts are at least 800 years older than Hebrew manuscripts. However, if
we compare the quality of the Hebrew and Babylonian/Sumerian accounts we
find the greatest difference. (I am not in this context arguing for divine
inspiration of the Bible, just making some literary judgements) While the
biblical account is sublime and differentiate between the valuable
attributes of one God in contrast with the imperfections of mankind, the
Babylonian/Sumerian accounts speak of many gods who are just as degraded as
mankind. Therefore, I  see no problem with a view that both accounts stem
from a common source, with the difference in quality due to the different
religions, or even less likely, that the Sumerians borrowed from a "Hebrew"
original.  C. Westerman (1974) "Genesis 1-11 A Commentary", page 105 says:
"It is impossible phonetically and grammatically to derive TEHOM from the
Babylonian Tiamat."

Because I work with linguistics rather than with theology I can look at the
criticisms of the Bible from some distance. I am in no way impressed! For
instance, how many of the students who have been taught about "The
Deuteronomistic historical work" and take it as absolute truth that a great
part of the OT was compiled very late, have at the same time been drilled
in "the problem of induction" or Duhem's problem? In fact, there is a great
need for researchers and students to be more critical toward their own
hypotheses and presuppositions than toward the texts thew work with. I do
not suggest that you are not a critical scholar, but all of us have to
build on information accumulated by others, and much of this information -
some of it being presented almost as truth - is questionable indeed.
Several of the arguments you use for a late date of Genesis are fine but in
no way conclusive. Honestly speaking, pushing all the unfounded hypotheses
away, I am not aware of one single datum which *explicitly* shows that
Genesis cannot have been written in the 14th century BCE, which is the date
we arrive at, given the dates of the Bible itself. (NB: I am neither
arguing for nor against a 14th century date, I am just calling for hard
data and pointing to the problem of induction.)


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo