Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your post. We seem to be approaching this literature from very
different directions.

Ian:
>>"Could you say what it is about these passages that make you 
>>think specifically of Egypt (in the "Middle Kingdom")?"

Peter:
>Well, here are some points from John Bright's "History of Israel" (3rd 
>edition, SCM 1981): "There are, of course, some anachronisms... 

I could argue about Bright's optimistic reading, but I think that would be
getting us even further away from Biblical Hebrew, so I'll let it rest.

Ian:
>>"...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."

Peter:
>That is, one heterodox Jewish sect may have made relatively little use 
>of Genesis... 

Calling the writers of the texts found at Qumran "one heterodox Jewish sect"
is almost certainly misrepresenting those writers. The 800 odd texts written
by well over 700 scribes is not a corpus that represents a small sect. There
are works in both Hebrew and Aramaic and more than one dialect of each.
Hence we have not one single community's literature. The contents of the
scrolls is extremely temple oriented (temple scroll, temple treasure, temple
rosters, liturgies, works concerned with sacrifices and the red heifer,
"Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifices", etc), obviously not the work of the
Essenes and probably produced in or around the temple. MMT ("Some deeds of
the Torah") is a defence of temple purity.

If anyone is interested in non-sectarian analyses of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
they might like to look at my DSS pages: 

       http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/dss.htm


>...But it is, I think, not disputed that the book was written 
>long before this, certainly before its LXX translation!

I don't think that the date of completion of Genesis is undisputed

I gather you're referring to the pseudepigraphic report called the Letter of
Aristeas, who tells us about the translation of the Seventy. What exactly
was translated by the original Seventy? The Pentateuch was clearly not a
single combined work by DSS times: they clearly circulated separately. MMT
("Some deeds of the Torah") mentions the "book of Moses". Given the
popularity of Deuteronomy amongst the DSS and the internal claim that
Deuteronomy contained the words of Moses, it is likely that Deuteronomy was
that book of Moses. One form of it is the best candidate for what the
Seventy translated. But then, when did they do it? Second century BCE?

>You wrote: "The Hittite information in Genesis is patently wrong"
>
>Do you have any solid evidence to prove that there were NO people 
>called Hittites in southern Canaan in (say) the 19th century BC?

There seems to me to be a logical problem here about proving the inexistence
of a proposition. How would you react to someone asking "can you prove that
no Martians ever visited the earth"?

The Hittites were an Indo-European group which moved south through the
Caucasus sometime after the 19th century BCE: that which was to become the
Hittite capital was still a palaeo-Assyrian colony in the 19th century. It
was not until a few centuries later that they made their present felt in
Anatolia. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest there was a group
called Hittites in southern Palestine at any period. There was no
Indo-European presence felt in the region until the arrival of the
Philistines in the twelfth century. There seems to have been no occasion
when a group of Hittites could have lived in the area.

Can you show any datable evidence whatsoever to show that there ever were
Hittites in southern Palestine?

>>>According to Genesis, Abraham and other patriarchs 
>>>came from Mesopotamia,
>>
>>"Ur of the Chaldeans... that nice anachronism..."
>
>But I did not mention Ur, as I know there are problems with that text, 
>I was thinking of Haran.

I do understand there are difficulties with Chaldeans, though not Ur: it
existed for an several millennia and I think it was still in existence
during the time of the exile, the time when the Chaldeans were around. The
use of the population name "Chaldeans" specifically dates from
Nebuchadnezzar's time and is one indication of a late dating of at least
some part of Genesis.

>You wrote: "Does one need a long list of indications pointing to a 
>later date for the construction of Genesis than what has already been 
>provided?"
>
>I haven't seen any indications pointing to a late date for the 
>sources, only indications pointing to a later (i.e. Moses' time or 
>later) final redaction.

I guess I need to get more specific. Let me elaborate on the problem
regarding the Philistines who forced there way into the coastal plain in the
twelfth century. The patriarchal tales have the Philistines already in
Palestine several centuries before. Not only do we have Ramses III's account
of his war which halted their progress, but there is a wealth of
archaeological material that shows the wake of their progress across from
Asia Minor over Cyprus, destroying Ugarit and down the Levantine coast. They
arrived with a loud bang, yet the biblical literature is silent regarding
their arrival, working on the assumption that they had always been on the
coast. In fact the table of nations in Gen10 mistakenly thinks that the
Philistines were related to the Egyptians. The biblical lack of awareness of
the arrival of the Philistines, supposedly after the arrival of the Hebrews,
indicates that the conquest clearly didn't happen when indicated and as
reported in the OT/HB. This is in accord with the notion that Genesis was
written late as the Philistine information does not denote awareness of the
real situation.

Gen14 shows very little understanding of earlier populations when it
mentions kings of "Shinar" and Elam participating in a war in the Valley of
Siddim (Dead Sea area). This is so improbable that kings from southern
Mesopotamia would have crossed the full length of the fertile crescent to
take part in a war with the totally insignificant powers of the southern
Dead Sea area that one can discount it out of hand as a later folk tale.

Again in Gen14 we have Abraham going into Dan. Obviously an anachronism. Dan
had not been apportioned at that stage.

Yet again in Gen14 we have the Melchizedek tale inserted into a story about
the king of Sodom: this is interesting because of its use of el elyon a sure
sign of the second century BCE. The earliest work to use the full term to my
knowledge was 1Esdras (its Hebrew original, at least). The only other
example in the OT/HB is the Asaph psalm 78. Daniel contains the Aramaic
equivalent. Other works that used the term include Ben Sira and DSS works
such as the Genesis Apocryphon. The Most High God (theos hypsistos) is
closely related to the Hasmoneans: the Assumption of Moses mentions some
kings, the Hasmoneans, as priests of the Most High God. The term seems to
have fallen out of use with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. The
Melchizedek tale is probably second century BCE along with the DSS
speculation on the same subject 11QMelch.

I have been writing examples as they come to me and, although I could go on,
perhaps it is not necessary. I have shown grave problems with the Hittite
information, with the Philistines, with the Chaldeans, with el elyon (and
other things), which I think should be enough to show that there are extreme
dating problems that suggest that Genesis was written far after the times it
was purportedly written. (If you'd like me to find more indications of late
dating of Genesis, I'd be happy to work on the subject more, but may best be
dealt with off-list.)

>>Nahman Avigad wrote... "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."
>
>I'm not sure why he needs to wonder as 1 Kings answers his question: 
>the city was extended greatly in Solomon's time, on to the northern 
>hill which has not been investigated - and probably expansion in that 
>direction had already started in David's time. 

We have a type of description in the OT/HB of the temple and the palace that
indicates the location and sizes of these structures. If they existed, what
have they to do with the size of the "city", given that the main population
didn't live either in the temple precincts or in the palace?

>Doubtless Avigad, as an 
>archaeologist, would wish to confirm this by excavation, but as that 
>is impossible at present 

This is manifestly not correct. There have been so many excavations in and
around Jerusalem that show the city's structure through the centuries.
Avigad's book is filled with photography showing numerous excavations, all
of Ophel, much of the old city itself, there are a warren of tunnels under
Jerusalem now from archaeological work. The city walls from various epochs
have been fairly well mapped -- not full tracts, but sufficient points to
show the progress of the later walls. When old buildings have been
demolished archaeological work is done before anything new is built.

>I suggest that we (at least provisionally) 
>accept the only evidence we have which is the written record. 
>Meanwhile, one can do a surprising amount in an area 400m x 150m (the 
>size of the City of David according to the map in my Bible) - try 
>comparing with the sizes of walled cities in Italy which were city 
>states in the Middle Ages.

(I live in Italy and know some of these cities quite well, and some of the
bigger ones, eg Florence, Urbino, surprise me that they were so big: the
Ducal palace at Urbino would take up about a third of Ophel by itself.)


Cheers,


Ian