Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Thanks, Stephen for a provocative post.

Stephen Knapp wrote:
>I ... 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.  

There is no evidence that the Hebrews ever knew directly about Ugaritic or
Alalakh bulture, besides we are going back to the second millennium BCE and
there is no archaeological support for any contact whatsoever. Babylonian
culture however is another matter, which the Hebrews got to taste during the
exile. It was probably then that the Hebrews got to know Babylonian cult
traditions (and this you go on to indicate).

If the Yahweh-centred polytheism as indicated by both the inscriptions at
Kuntillet Ajrud and the papiri from Elephantine are indicative, the Hebrews
were until exilic times polytheistic, so I can only see later developments
toward the monotheism that we find recorded in the OT/HB with only faint
traces of the earlier polytheism showing through the cracks.

>The success of [the returnees from exile] in securing political advantage 
>early
>in the Persian period is the principle reason that the Bible takes its
>present shape.  

Yes, this seems to me reasonable.

>(In the ideology of an Ezra I would be accused of having
>placed the cart before the horse with that remark.)

It's difficult to use Ezra as indicative of the fifth century. Giovanni
Garbini has written extensively on the extreme lateness of the present text
of Ezra, building on C.C. Torrey's early work on that book, regarding the
unreasonable nature of its Aramaic. There are numerous textual reasons as
well for doubting the veracity of Ezra as a primary source for the fifth
century. I therefore would worry about Ezra's ideology here!

>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. 

I personally don't find it so polemic toward the outside world as much as
propagandistic toward its own population that continued to raise pillars and
grow sacred trees well into the second temple.

>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.

As you might guess, I agree... basically!?


Ian