Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Rolf Furuli wrote::

> [JSafren]>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.
>
> [RFuruli] 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.

[JSafren] Ibn Ezra lists them in his commentary on the words "on the other 
side of the
Jordan" in Deut. 1:1. They include:

1. Gen. 12:6 "and the Canaanite was then in the land".Meaning that this verse 
was
written when the Canaanite was no longer in the land, i.e., after the 
Conquest and
Settlement.

2. Gen.22:14 "as it is said today, 'On the Mt. of YHWH he/it shall be seen", 
refering
to the Temple Mount, which wasn't called by that name until after the Temple 
had been
built. In Moses' time, the Mt. of YHWH or the Mt. of God, was Mt. Sinai..

3. Deut. 1:1 "on the other side of the Jordan" - written from the point of 
view of
someone living on the western side of the Jordan, which Moses never crossed.

4. Deut. 3:11 "[Og's bed] is in Rabbat of the Ammonites" How did it get 
there? And
when? Moses carefully left the Ammonites there because they were too strong, 
and
turned to the weaker kingdoms of Og and Sihon.

5. Deut. 34:5-12, from "And Moses died" So who wrote the rest of the chapter? 
The
ancient Rabbis had a problem with these verses.

>
>
> [RFuruli] 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*.

[JSafren] It is agreed by even the most conservative that Chronicles is  
Second Temple
book. You are saying then, that sometime after Chronicles was written, someone
interpolated part of it into Genesis? So if there are late interpolations in 
Genesis,
how do you know what is early and what is late? Then why not say the same for 
the
Flood Story?
You cannot explain away phenomena in this way just because they run counter 
to your
thesis (though many do that) unless you have better evidence than that. Gen. 
36
presents a description of Edom as it was known to the author. The king list 
fits quite
well into that context.
Yours,
Jonathan

>
>
> 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
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.