Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 07.22 13/03/00 +0100, Walter Mattfeld wrote:
>In a recent post to this list (14 Feb. 2000) Professor Jonathan D. Safren
>noted that the Jewish Humanist scholar Spinoza (ca. 1670 CE) suspected that
>Ezra had written the Torah:
>
>"Spinoza's idea that Ezra wrote the Torah is still a pretty good guess (but
>only that)."

It was a rather amazing idea for 1670 CE.

>If Ezra wrote the "Primary History" (Genesis-2 Kings), 

[I don't really see any justification for a notion of a '"Primary History"
(Genesis-2 Kings)'. It's simply a periphrastic means of referring to a
canon of sorts. Qumran shows that the documents circulated separately and
were treated differently, and makes us wonder how much of documents like
Kings were in existence before Hasmonean times -- it's interesting to note
that the Animal Apocalypse knows no king worth mentioning after Solomon.
Just how much of Genesis was written? When was the book of Joshua brought
into the "Primary History" fold? We have no good idea when the "Primary
History" got into that state.]

There are numerous grave problems regarding the canonical book of Ezra. For
330 years ago, Spinoza's idea was radical. Today, we have to consider the
evidence for the existence of Ezra as well. When the figure is not cited
until Josephus, when there are no indications of the book except for a
scrap or two which could be 1Esdras or Ezra from Qumran, when no rabbi or
church father quotes from the book until relatively late, when the Aramaic
is seen to be confused, and when Josephus favours the form of the book of
1Esdras over Ezra, there is no reason to consider the character of Ezra as
having existence in historical space. He may have existed, though I doubt
it, but there is no prima facae case for arguing on the basis of that
possible existence.

>then it is most
>unlikely that he would have written the statement found in Ge. 13:7,
>describing the historical situation in the days of Abraham and Lot-
>
>"At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites dwelt in the Land"
>
>This statement suggests to some commentators that the narrator is explaining
>to his audience a situation that currently doesn't prevail, i.e., there are
>no Canaanites or Perizzites presently in the land.
>
>That Ezra would not have written this is suggested by comments attributed to
>him in Ezr.9:1-
>
>"The people of Israel...have not separated themselves from the peoples of
>the lands...from the CANAANITES, the Hittites, the PERIZZITES, the
>Jebusites, the Ammonites..."
>
>How many years must elapse after Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem (ca. 458 BCE
>according to some schools of thought), such that the national conscience
>would have no memory of Canaanites and Perizzites having dwelt in the land-
>100 or 200 yrs perhaps for the memory banks to have become erased,
>warranting such a statement as Ge. 13:7 ?
>
>This anomaly would suggest that Ge. 13:7 is perhaps a late gloss of either
>the Late Persian or perhaps even Hellenistic periods, the 4th-3rd centuries
>BCE.

This sort of logic can only make sense if one assumes the existence of
Ezra. How about something to show his existence to offset the fact that
where he is expected, something prior to or contemporary with Ben Sira
49:11-13 or 1Enoch89:73ff (neither of which know an Ezra)? If you want to
use something as a benchmark, you have to establish the benchmark!

Extending Spinoza's idea we could conclude that much of the torah may have
been written around the time of the Hasmoneans, for that's when we see it
emerge.


Cheers,


Ian