Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

The Patriarchal traditions, whatever their origins, reached their final 
literary
forms at different times and by different hands. Therefore some of them will
bear the marks of earlier or later periods than others.
For example, in my 1989 paper on "Ahuzzath and the Pact of Beer-sheba", ZAW
1989, I made the point that the Abrahamic version of the Pact of Beer-sheba in
Gen. 21 represents a later stage of the tradition than the Issac tradition of
Gen. 26, and this on the basis of the secondary character of Ahuzzath, who
appears only in the Gen. 26 vwersion.
I demonstrated that his title, mere'ehu, commonly understood as "his 
companion"
or his advisor", is to be understood as the merhu(m) (root r'y), the 
supervisor
of the royal pasturages and the pastoralist populations dwelling thereon, a
position that appears at Mari, and whose functions were defined to some extent
by by Victor Mathews in his book on Pastoral Nomadism in Mari (if I remember 
the
title correctly) and in greater detail by myself in my study "merhum and
merhutum in Mari", Oruientalia 1982.
The author of the Isaac version of the Pact of Beersheba still remembered the
function of this official when he composed his version, and this explains the
presence and active part played by Ahuzzath in the treaty ceremony - very
reminiscent of ARM II 37; while the author of the Abrahamic version no longer
knew of such an official and therefore left him out and downgraded the part
played by the remaining secondary figure, Phicol. And indeed, the list of
Solomonic state offficials appering in I Kings makes no such mention of such 
an
official.
Sincerely,
--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel




"Thomas L. Thompson" wrote:

>         Jonathan Safran writes
> > The "anachronism" argument about Ur Kasdim falls if we accapt that the
> > appearance of the Chaldeans is tied to the appearance of the Arameans in
> > the 12th century and connect this with other evidence that the
> > Patriarchal traditions originate in the 12th-11th centuries.
> >
>         [Thomas L. Thompson] Granted that if the patriarchal stories are to
> be dated to the 12-11th centuries,  the reference to Ur Kasdim--or to the
> Philistines--could not be posed as an argument against that. Certainly, my
> Historicity book of 1974 specifically took the beginning of the Iron Age as
> the earliest conceivable date that many of the elements in the story could
> have existed. I did not however date the composition of the traditions: only
> an a quo at that time. However, as I have understood the 'anachronism'
> argument, one must also deal with a lot of elements and not merely one or
> two of the more datable items. In 1975, Van Seters (Abraham in History and
> Tradition) proposed the 6th century as a period where one might best be free
> of likely anachronism. I don't see where his arguments need change in regard
> to any earlier dating of the texts. In 1992, I proposed a more comprehensive
> 'anachronism' argument, based on the implicit understanding of 'Israel' in
> the traditions, arguing that the traditions imply a post-exilic ideology.
> The argument is not as simple as the Ur Kasdim one. Others have made a
> variety of arguments in the same direction.
>         Thomas