Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Here you are confusing the final editing of the text with the origin 
of the traditions, or trying to assume that these are contemporaneous. 
R. Abraham ibn Ezra was on the right track if he recognised that a few 
passages were later editorial revisions. So their dating can only give 
us a possible date for the final editing of Genesis, and tell us 
nothing about the dating of earlier versions, whether written or oral 
tradition.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Genesis and Gilgamesh
Author:  <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il> at Internet
Date:    18/01/2000 09:15


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."

-
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office 44905
Israel