Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Jonathan D. Safren wrote:



>Dr. Mattfield's indicators for dating Genesis are accepted by all Bible
>scholars not adhering to a fundamentalistic view. In other words, you
>have to start from an agnostic point of view, not a preconceived set of
>beliefs.


Dear Jonathan,

It is correct that a preconceived set of beliefs have no place in science
and that research should start from an agnostic point of view. However, the
dualistic portrayal of Bible scholars on the one hand and fundamentalists
on the other is too simple. There may be a third group, as well, namely
those who both want to take  an agnostic point of view toward the text and
toward the work of those who take an agnostic view toward the text.  I have
often wondered why scholars who in such a fine critical way work with their
material, fail to apply a critical view toward their own work.

Thomas Kuhn, whose area is the philosophy of science, has studied how
scientific progress is achieved. His conclusion is that a particular
discipline has a paradigm that is used in an axiomatic way. More and more
data accumulates against this paradigm, but it is explained away ad hoc.
But suddenly, by forces comparable to a religious conversion, the old
paradigm is rejected and a new one is created.And the basis of this process
is not objective reasoning. If we are honest, there is a strong conformity
pressure at the universities. Research and results that are going to give
promotion ought to be inside the frame of "what are accepted by all Bible
scholars". Just think of your own first reaction if you were asked to
evaluate a thesis entitled "Evidence for the writing of the Torah before
the First Temple Period", or "Evidence for the writing of the Torah in 1400
BCE." Even though the author had used sound scientific methodology and
drawn reasonable conclusions, I am sure you and many others would have been
prejudiced against such a work even before reading it.

The basic point of those who take an agnostic stand toward the work of the
agnostics, is that the results are not more *certain* than the axioms and
assumptions (or paradigm) on which they are built. For instance, most Bible
scholars accept the substance in the view that JEPD sources can be found in
the Torah and that Deuteronomy- Kings is one unit which was composed late
in the 7th century or later. Such views are used as axioms, and of course,
we need axioms, because we cannot start our research with "cogito ergo
sum". A problem arises, however, once it is forgotten that one's research
*do build* upon axioms, or when the axioms are accepted almost as truth
propositions. And sad to say, this is often the case. We should remember
that even the JEPD view or the deuteronomical historical hypothesis are
built upon evidence that can be interpreted in different ways, and either
hypothesis is *very far from* being certain.

The approaches of Walter, Niels, and your own approach are all sound and
scientifc (though it seems that Niels is the more critical towards his own
results). Each of you have made a good case for your supposed date of
biblical books, but all the cases build upon much *reasoning* /and negative
evidence/ (e.g. "Had Genesis been written in the 5th century or later, one
would have expected mention of Persia in the List of Nations in Gen. 10.
Since Persia arises in the mid 6th century BCE, therefore Genesis, or at
least Gen. 10, must predate the mid-6th century BCE.), and this reasoning
is built upon ussumptions which are built upon assumptions. Nothing wrong
with that, but it should be admitted that the conclusions are not better
than these assumptions!

Let me give one example. Since Gunkel or even before him, a particular good
argument for a conection between Genesis and Babylonian sources was THWM of
Genesis and TIAMAT of Enuma Elish. However, Claus Westermann,1984,"Genesis
1-11, p 105 wrote: "It is impossible phonetically and grammatically to
derive THWM from the Babylonian Tiamat; THWM has a masculine ending, Tiamat
a feminine; the H of the Hebrew THWN cannot be explained as deriving from
Tiamat ...There is widespread agreement then that THWM and TIAMAT go back
to a common Semitic root; but the occurrence of THWM in Genesis 1:2 is not
an argument for the direct dependence of the creation account of Gen 1 on
Enuma Elish." Someone may disagree, but in any case, a very good argument
has been shown to be doubtful.

While I can see there are arguments for a later date for the Torah than
1400 BCE, none of the arguments presented so far are conclusive in my mind,
and being agnostic toward the cases of the agnostics, I have to fall back
on my previous claim and say that we can know nothing definitely about when
the Torah was written.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo