Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Jonathan D. Safren wrote:


>Dear Rolf,
>You have made some cogent points in your pointing out our ignorance as
>to when the actual autographs of various biblical books were written.
>But we do have some terminus a quos:
>There are several indications in the Torah that it could not have been
>written before the First Temple Period. Take, for example, Gen. 36:31:
>"And these are the kings who ruled over Edom before there reigned a king
>over Israel (or: before their reigned an Israelite King [over Edom]).
>This could not have been written before Saul and possibly not before
>David.
>R. Abraham ibn Ezra, writing in the 12th century, pointed out 12 verses
>which were of post-Mosaic origin.
>We also have such indications for other books of the Bible.
>So you can't make this blanket statement:
>
>"Frankly speaking, we know nothing about the origin of Hebrew Bible
>autographs, and I see no compelling reason to reject the possibility
>that
>such manuscripts existed before the time of the oldest copies of
>Athrahasis, Enuma Elish, and Gilgamesh."
>


Dear Jonathan,


Being a linguist rather than a historian or archaeologist I usually discuss
language rather than history. But sometimes I feel I should say something
regarding historical subjects as well, particularly when hermeneutical
principles are at stake. I would be happy to know the 12 verses of R.
Abraham ibn Ezra.

I have two remarks regarding Genesis 36:31.

(1) How can we know that this text is not an interpolation?

In the parallel texts found in the Accordance  CD, the following text is
listed.

Gen. 36:31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before
there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

1Chr. 1:43 Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before
any king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor: and the
name of his city was Dinhabah.

Why could not Genesis 36:31 be an interpolation based upon 1 Chronicles 1:43?
In that case, Genesis 36:31 does not say anything about the time of the
writing of the *Torah*.

I asked a conservative about Genesis 36:31. He answered. "In Genesis 17:6
and Deuteronomy 17:14-20 Moses fortold that his people, after entering
Cana'an would ask for a king to rule over them. He even gave instructions
as to who may and who may not be selected and what such a king must do. On
this background Genesis 36:31 can be an expression of Moses' anticipation
about his words coming true."

It seems to me that the possibility of an interpolation is a stronger
argument than this one, although it is stronger than several arguments for
Genesis adopting material from Mesopotamian sources. Analyzing the
conservative's argument, it needs no presupposition of inspiration, its
foundation is only the belief that the words in the Torah that Moses wrote
it, be true. And further, the words of Genesis 36:31 are not typically
anachronistic. If we read a book with the publishing year 1930 and we find
the words "World war I" we know this is an anachronism, because the
knowledge of a second World War is hardly possible before it happened. But
to say that *a king* has not yet appeared is not problematic at all,
because kings has appeared at all times.


I therefore stick to my previous claim that we know nothing about the
autographs of the Tanach. Let me go a step further. According to the
chronology of 1 Kings 6:1, the children of Israel left Egypt in the middle
of the second millennium BCE, and according to the Torah account Moses
wrote its words at this time. I am concerned neither with history nor
chronology in this post but only with hermeneutics. And I repeat: I am not
aware of any compelling evidence showing that there was not a man called
Moses who wrote the Torah or parts of it at this time!

I am aware of many good and not so good arguments regarding a post-exilic
writing of the whole Tanach, and of similar arguments regarding the writing
of some of the books in the First Temple Period. However,what surprises me
greatly, is the lack of awareness inside the different "schools" that
*proofs* are lacking, and that their *evidence* is based upon this
assumption which is based upon that assumption which is based upon this
assumption... All of us entertain particular viewpoints and have taken
certain standpoints. It is natural that we seek evidence and use it to
argue for our own position, but such historical evidence is not
*conclusive*. So why all this dogmatism which sometimes is no less than
fundamentalistic dogmatism? Our views of history is not better than our
assumtions and our interpretation of historical artifacts.

 Your argument above is logical and quite modest, because you are just
seeking a terminus a quo, but even this is very problematic in my view. And
a decision regarding Gilgamesh from Genesis or Genesis from Gilgamesh is
even more difficult to obtain.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo