Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your post. I must say I'm not an Egyptologist, nor a Hebrew
scholar or student.

>I am no Egyptologist and can only report what I have read at second 
>hand. But I am referring to the (traditional) period of the Patriarchs 
>which is roughly the "Middle Kingdom" and perhaps the Hyksos period in 
>Egypt. I have read that the picture of Egyptian life in Genesis 39-50, 
>perhaps especially 41:41-57 and 47:13-27, fit well with the general 
>picture of life in Egypt in this period, but not with later periods.

I must admit that I can't see, if you replace the word "Egypt" with
"X-landia" and "Pharaoh" with "king", what in these passages would make you
think of anything specifically Egyptian let alone "Middle Kingdom" -- we
have little knowledge of life under the Hyksos. (The image of slavery in the
second passage makes me think of the post-exilic Jewish situation at home --
Zech11:4-7.) Could you say what it is about these passages that make you
think specifically of Egypt (in the "Middle Kingdom")?

>As for the agricultural nature of the Pentateuchal laws, I was not 
>trying to argue here that the whole Pentateuch was written by Moses, 
>but only that it is not implausible that some of it was (Genesis and 
>at least parts of the law code). 

While books like Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are well
represented amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, Genesis is, despite the number of
fragments, surprisingly poorly represented, suggesting that it had not
developed too much support by the second and first centuries BCE.

I have pointed out that there is no hope of such stories as Abraham and
Sarah (or Isaac and Rebekah) in Gerar having any historicity, given the
problem that the Philistines did not arrive in the Levant until the twelfth
century several centuries after the reputed times of the patriarchs: they
are anachronistic. The Hittite information in Genesis is patently wrong,
showing a temporal separation from the reputed times. There is a grand
weight of evidence that gives little hope for anything being dated to the
middle to late bronze ages. If anything is actually from that period I can
see no way of ever knowing.

>Also, you have given evidence that 
>Genesis was re-edited at a later period, including updating of place 
>names, but not that it has no basis in sources from the "Middle 
>Kingdom" period.

I've just come back from dinner with my next-door neighbour, an Egyptologist
excavating near Luxor each year, who would not be drawn into a discussion on
the subject of Genesis presenting a convincing "picture of life in Egypt in
this period" looking at me in distain for even contemplating the subject.

>According to Genesis, Abraham and other patriarchs 
>came from Mesopotamia, 

Ur of the Chaldeans... that nice anachronism. But then "of the Chaldeans"
may have been added later. Then again so might the whole phrase. There is
too much speculation involved to take seriously the hypothesis that any
substantial materials have survived from the patriarchal period. Does one
need a long list of indications pointing to a later date for the
construction of Genesis than what has already been provided?

>so that accounts for them bringing stories of 
>Mesopotamian origin - perhaps from a different part of Mesopotamia 
>where less polytheistic versions of the same stories were current.

When you consider that the sanctuary at Kuntillet Ajrud (ninth century BCE)
in southern Judah talked of Yahweh and his consort, Asherah, it is difficult
to imagine that that culture didn't support a polytheistic religion at that
time. How many pillars is Jacob attributed to having set up? At early
temples there was not just an altar but a pillar and a tree (the Asherah).
Deuteronomy 12:3 talks of destroying the pillar and the Asherah. The Hebrew
colony at Elephantine (5th century BCE) was also Yahweh polytheistic, having
*two* consorts. Obviously there was a later effort to remove the bulk of
polytheism from the sacred works, but we are still left with traces of it:
calling God with a plural form, God being greater than any other god, God
holding his place in the midst of other gods...

>I am not sure how valid your archaeological argument for the small 
>size of Jerusalem can be, since much of the site, the Temple area and 
>its surroundings, has surely not been excavated. This area would have 
>been sufficient for quite a sizeable town as well as the Temple.

The site of the Old City at the end of the eleventh century BCE is extremely
limited in size, never more than one hundred and fifty metres in width
falling southward from Mount Moriah. The walls of which have been located --
the eastern wall was about two thirds of the way down into Wadi Kidron.
Nahman Avigad wrote the following in his archaeological guide to Jerusalem
(I'm translating from an Italian version, "Gerusalemme: Archeologia nella
citta' santa" p21): "It is difficult to understand how a city like this
could have served -- despite its topographical limitations -- as capital of
the country and a royal residence, as the national and religious centre and
as a place of inhabitation." He goes on to wonder how long it stayed this
dimension.


Ian