Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt AT teol.ku.dk>]

Dear Jan,
I like your suggestions very much.

        [Thomas L. Thompson] I had written:  
> >1) that the table of nations has 'been
> >finalised' in Genesis is more than is apparent. The existence of a
> variant
> >geography of nations in Jubilees suggests that we should ask whether this
> >table isn't perhaps 'finalised' in Jubilees? Or is Jubilees a potential
> >source for Genesis?
>   I agree with you that Genesis and Jubilees are not interdependent, but
> rather seem both to be secondary traditions. Your list with GEnAp, Jos and
> Ps-Philo is a great help, though I have doubts about establishing families
> of traditions. I particularly have doubts about 'Ur-Genesis' as useful,
> both because of my own expectation that that level of the tradition might
> well have an entirely different context and function than Genesis implies
> and because it seems to prejudice us in favor of seeing Genesis  with a
> more integral pedigree among the five extant traditions.   
         You wrote: 
> a) order of the sons of the sons of Noah:
> 
>    1. Genesis  -> Japheth, Ham, Shem  (+ some further generations)
>    2. Jubilees -> Ham, Shem, Japheth  (only to first generation)
>       (Ham is first for narrative purposes)
>    3. GenAp    -> Shem, Ham, Japheth  ( "        "        "    )
>    4. Josephus -> Japheth, Ham, Shem  (Gen. augmented with geography)
>    5. Ps-Philo -> Japheth, Ham, Shem  (Gen. plus fuller genealogy)
> 
>                        "Ur-Genesis" (ie some earlier redaction)
>                               |
>             -------------------------------------
>             |                                   |
>      ----------------                -----------------------
>      |              |                |                     |
>   Jubilees*       GenAp*         Josephus             Pseudo-Philo
> 
> Again it is interesting that Genesis doesn't actually displace Canaan to
> Africa. It naturally lists Canaan amongst the sons of Ham, but I can't see
> a displacement story as there is in Jubilees. Going on Gen. 10:15ff there
> is no indication other than a Palestinian basis for the group. Jubilees,
> by
> giving the actual land grab, is either adding to the traditions or drawing
> on ones probably not available to Gen.
> 
        [Thomas L. Thompson]  I agree that Jubilees discusses the
displacement while Genesis in this respect seems only to have the tie with
Ham, but places Canaan in Asia in Gen 12.

        [Thomas L. Thompson]  You wrote in response to my objection to the
use of the word exile for chronology:
> While this may be true in its statement, I had in mind ideas that would be
> available to people put in contact with the area of southern Mesopotamia,
> knowledge of Ur, Chaldeans, Elam, Shinar, even Arpachshad, as well as
> Babylonian creation and flood traditions. Hence I had in mind a time
> during
> or after the stay of the Jerusalem elite in Mesopotamia. (And as contact
> was maintained between Jerusalem and Babylon at least during the time of
> Herod and almost certainly for quite some time before, the fertilisation
> of
> ideas could have come any time post-destruction.)
> 
        [Thomas L. Thompson] This however seems to require only that people
came from Mesopotamia to Palestine: hence a quo must be placed very early.
The enuma elish, for example is used as a ritual text during the entire
first millennium. Your reference to Jerusalem elite in Mesopotamia is
apparently a rationalistic paraphrase from the Bible a la Barstad or the
like. I would give my eye teeth if I could establish an historical
connection between such worthies from Jerusalem and the (much later?)
sources for the Babylonian talmud, etc.
        I don't know what the implied history is behind your
'post-destruction'. Which destruction? and, if the biblical 586, why
post-destruction?
        I wrote:
> >4) What are we dating: the earliest known references to concepts such as
> Ur
> >Kasdim? the clustering of such concepts in geographical histories? the
> >latest of such terms (and thus an a quo for this particular geographical
> >construction? 
        [Thomas L. Thompson]  
        Y0u answered: 
> Partially the datings of the diverse references in the table in an effort
> to show that the table is a composite with elements referring to items
> from
> different centuries. (And naturally the latest indications do provide such
> an a quo.)
>  [Thomas L. Thompson]   Here I would start thinking about the potential
> contemporaneity between Jubilees, Genesis and GenAp, but all quite clearly
> seem to be secondary uses of this geographical narrative which is a
> well-known Hellenistic form, so your a quo must be ca. 4th cent. at the
> very earliest.  
> 
        You wrote 
> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough in the earlier post, but I don't
> know how one could date "Ur of the Chaldees", unless you are referring to
> the term itself and not the place. Then again, perhaps I just didn't
> understand your point here.
>  [Thomas L. Thompson]  ´See my Historicity, p. 303. 
> 
        You wrote 
> While I don't have problems with the difference regarding dating of
> Genesis
> and that of its contents, I don't see your distinction between part of it
> and its contents, unless you're talking of the the life of items contained
> in Genesis before they reached the Genesis tradition.
        [Thomas L. Thompson]  Yes, except I would call it the Massoretic
tradition.

        Thomas