Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>]

---------- Original Message ----------

>[...]
>> Additionally, we have to consider the great probability that the source 
>> material for
>> Genesis came from other languages and was translated into Hebrew at the 
>> level
of
>> redaction. [...]

>What language do you suggest that a theological narrative about Yahweh was
originally
>composed in?

Who in the world could know? It completely depends on your view of who wrote 
them.
Take Weisman's theory as a marker. He believes that the various Toldot 
sections
were written by (roughly) God, Adam, Noah, Shem, Terach, Abraham, Isaac, 
Ishmael,
Joseph. I asume from this lineup that he believes in the Tower of Babel 
account as
well as the flood. So with this in mind, he probably believes that the first 
2 accounts
were written in some Ursprache that God created the world in, or 
proto-semitic, if he
believes that the langauge of the "righteous" was not corrupted by babel. 
>From there
he could list a range of semitic languages such as Akkadian and/or West 
Semitic to
cover the point up to Abraham, and from there Canaanite or Hebrew would 
probably
be the language, though Weisman sees a greater Egyptian influence in the part 
that
he attributes to Joseph, and it might have been written in that language.

But you see this is all WILD speculation built on one fundamentalistic view 
of how
things came to be. A more liberal scholar would roll his eyes at such a thing 
and come
up with something completely different, though equally wildly speculative. My 
point
here, which is something that funadmentalist and liberal can agree on, is 
that we have
invested all of our energy into looking at Genesis as a very late (certainly 
post mosaic)
mish mash of sources, but redaction theory can see Genesis as a mish mash of 
very
early (perhaps pre-mosaic) sources as well (though redacted at a later - at 
least
mosaic or post mosaic -, if not universally late - David to the exile - 
date). According
to the latter view, the probability that these very early sources were 
written in
languages other than Hebrew is not only high, but almost demanded. A more 
liberal
scholar would be inclined to posit Sumerian and older non-semitic languages 
such as
Hittite as possibilities as well. But who can know? I am trying to see what 
you guys
thing about the possbility that Genesis is a translation (at least partially) 
at this point,
and am not so interested in determinging the source language. I think the 
best we can
really hope for is to analyse our current text for traces of culture to 
determine the
cultural location, and therefore broad age of the sources at this point, such 
as by
analysing toldot phrases to see if they are source boundaries and if they are 
in fact
babylonian.

One point that would be interesting in pursuing would be areas where literary 
style,
theme, culture, content, and historical-critical analysis would demand a 
change in
sources but where the grammar won't allow it. This would be an evidence for
translation with an interest in smoothing the transition between accounts. 
Take my
example that I wrote Dave a few days ago where I put the break between 
Genesis 1
and 2 at the beginning of 2:7, making the second account start with a 
vayyiqtol. Such
a transition is only possible if the accounts were translated as they were 
pasted
together.

Admittedly, one of my interests is in showing that the exciting field of 
redaction theory
(with its myriad opportunities to let an intelligent scholar flex his 
intellectual muscle
and come up with wild ideas about the generation of the biblical text) need 
not be
reserved for those who fancy that the bible is some grand lie made up by some
parisian opium addict in the thirties (or, more accurately, a group of them). 
Being
candid, I will say that I am of the conviction that the genesis text came to 
be on Mt.
Sinai through the combined redactionary efforts of Moses and Davar ha-Shem at 
a
very early date, but the story behind the efforts of our two heroes is one 
that is equally
as exciting as the JEPD notions of my more liberal counterparts. But even for 
the
liberal scholar, I feel there is a need to breathe some life into redaction 
theory, as this
davidian-exile Pentateuch has just gotten boring. Now for the fundamentalist, 
the "old
redaction" approach really only applies to Genesis, but the liberal has the 
added fun of
playing with 4 millenia old akkadian/sumerian/protosemitic sources (or proto 
sources)
for the entire Torah, or at least parts of it. I would just like to see the 
monolithic "late
torah" have some competition. Someone on this list (a liberal, by every 
reckoning)
came to a mid-second millenia date for parts of Deuteronomy by comparing its 
style
to hittite legal contracts. I found that exciting. I would like to see less 
binding to the
language and grammar and more attention to style, content and theme when 
dating
biblical books. I think there is ample cause to say that the books are 
translations (in
part) and that we really should not be worrying about vayyiqtols and the like 
when
dividing sources. At least in the traditional sense. Lovers of grammar need 
not be
dismayed, however, as grammar is still useful for exegesis, and exegesis is 
the key to
determining thematic and cultural character for a text.

I know you certainly weren't asking for everything that I have said, but I 
thought I would
take the opportunity to express these views to the list. Sorry if I have 
bored or
frustrated you.



Jonathan Bailey
MA Kandidat
Hochschule für Jüdische Studien
Heidelberg