Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Walter Mattfeld wrote:

> I guess where we differ is that I suspect you see the Pentateuch as
> Pre-Exilic and being only modified or updated in Persian times, which is the
> usual understanding by main-stream Humanist scholarship, while I suspect it
> is an original creation of the Persian era, incorporating earlier traditions
> and stories.

Dear Walter,
Not necessarily. There may be more truth to the opinion that Ezra wrote
the
Torah than people think. In any case, there is much in it that
presupposes both
the Josianic Reform and the Babylonian Exile. For example, though the
Priestly
Lev. 17 pre-dates the Josianic Reform, the Priestly Korach Narrative of
Num. 16
postdates it. Both Lev. 26 and Deut. 28 would seem to be post-Exilic,
though
perhaps only the Assyrian Exile of the Northern Kingdom may be indicated
in one,
or both, of these.
In sum, I have no firm opinion on this subject and await either further
evidence
and/or arguments.

> I suspect we may also differ on the meaning of  "Torah" from the thrust of
> your above argument. Evidently you understand Torah to mean the Pentateuch.
> I understand Torah to be only the Book of Deuteronomy (I could be persuaded
> for the legal and cultic parts of Leviticus & Deuteronomy as being the
> original Torah).

[JSafren] Wrong, Walter. The word Torah as used throughout the
Pentateuch has
many different meanings. In Deut 31, the word apparently refers to one
of the
redactions of Deuteronomy. On this see Weinfeld's writings, especially
his entry
on Deut. in ABD.
Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, Torah is simply a list of instructions,
rules,
laws, e.g., "This is the Torah of the psoriasis-sufferer" (translating
ha-metzora'). Obviously neither the Pentateuch nor Deuteronomy.

[snip]

> The final clue for the dating of the pentateuch is the blessing of Japheth
> by Noah, which I understand is an allusion to Cyrus Medo-Persian empire
> co-ruling Canaan with the Jews (Shem). I know you believe that the absence
> of Persia in Genesis 10's table of nations is a marker that the work is
> Pre-Exilic. But as I have explained in earlier posts, Persia _is present_ as
> Madai, the Persians being called Medes by Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, and the
> South Arabian Mineans. Did you receive my paper titled "Dating the
> pentateuch the Japheth Mystery" ?  I can send it to you, it explains in
> greater depth the Madai/Persian connection than the earlier brief postings
> on the subject to this list.

[JSafren] I would much appreciate your sending me that paper. But the
Table of
Nations is very explicit and detailed in presenting what it knows about
world
ethnography. All sorts of minor tribes are mentioned - everything that
comes
within the author's ken. It just doesn't seem logical that, had the
author known
about Persia, he wouldn't have mentioned it.
Yours,
Jonathan

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