Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Knapp <sknapp AT megsinet.net>]

Ken Litwak wrote:
> 
> Second, the two works are SO different theologically, that
> I think is it plain that Genesis is written as a polemical anti-myuth
> attack on the views of Israel's neighbors. OTherwise, if i8t merely
> depeneded upon EE, it would be polytheistic, have gods with little or no
> moral standards, and not creation ex nihilo.

This is precisely my view of the matter, Ken.  The writers of the
Biblical text sought to very clearly differentiate their conceptions of
deity from the Babylonian models (as well as the Canaanite) and part of
that process included the use of imagery familiar to the ancient reader
from Babylonian religious tradition.  

I am inclined to go a little beyond your comment, however, and suggest
that this polemic was constructed in reaction to the powerful influence
of specifically Babylonian religion, even more so than Canaanite.  The
imagery of the Genesis material has more parallels with Babylonian
cosmology than anything presently known from Ugarit, Alalakh, or other
West Semitic locales.  That the Primeval History has a particular
anti-Babylonian bias is, I think, further evidenced by the inclusion of
the Tower of Babel motif.  

From what we know of the monarchic period, the influence of Babylonian
religion was apparently not direct at that time.  The need for an
anti-Babylonian polemic would have been most pronounced during and
immediately after the period of exile, arising from the need of the
Babylonian Yahwistic exilic priesthood to win over the hearts and
consciences of those in Babylon who would eventually resettle the former
state of Israel/Judah.  I believe that in the monarchic period Yahwism
was one religion among many in Israel (yes, even in the Jerusalem
temple), but the exile afforded its principle practitioners an
opportunity to assert the uniqueness of their beliefs and conceptions of
deity.  The success of this group in securing political advantage early
in the Persian period is the principle reason that the Bible takes its
present shape.  (In the ideology of an Ezra I would be accused of having
placed the cart before the horse with that remark.) They have cast or
recast Israelite religious traditions in a fashion which intends for
Yahwism to arise as uniquely right for the land of Israel.  The Bible
interprets and justifies their domination of the land, and insists upon
a Yahwistic monotheism.

For me then, the apparently polemical nature of the Primeval History is
one indication that the Genesis accounts represent a late tradition. 
Although the story images they recast are sufficiently ancient as to
allow a writing of the Genesis material centuries earlier, the
Babylonian focus of the polemic places them in close range of the time
when Babylonian religion was the greatest threat: the exile.  BTW, the
irony present in the Tower of Babel story when it is compared to the
grandiose claims of Babylonian religion as center of the world, suggests
that this story arises AFTER Babylon has fallen.  If so, the present
text of Genesis must be post exilic.

-- 
Stephen A. Knapp, sknapp AT megsinet.net
PhD candidate, Old Testament Biblical Studies
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Part time faculty: Department of Theology
Valparaiso University (Indiana)