Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Walter writes:

> In discussions on the meaning of Hebrew words and texts, an important
aspect
> not to be overlooked is the "dating" of the compositions.
>
> Finklestein, Silberman and MacDonald, all trained archaeologists have in
> recently released books proposed that the Primary History, Genesis-2 Kings
> was written between ca. 640-560 BCE.

Really!?

One thing seems certain from the archaeological record.
That is that the religion of the Jerusalem area was
predominantly non-monotheistic. Not only do we have
inscriptions from places Kuntillat Ajrud and Khirbet
el-Qom which talk of Yahweh and his Asherah, but we
also have a temple at Arad which features two massebot
with two altars in the final phase indicating an unbroken
double worship during the period of people like
Hezekiah and Josiah. There was a high place at Malhah
just outside of Jerusalem in continuous use throughout
the period, when according to the sources that these
guys want to date to the period high places were done
away with. At the same time cultic statuettes Asherah
were extremely popular within Jerusalem itself.

While there is not a trace of monotheism in the
archaeological record, the biblical accounts teem with it.
The two sources simply don't record the same situation.
As the archaeological record is securely dated to the
period, this means that the biblical record reflects a
different period, obviously later.

(There is in fact meagre traces of the Asherah religion
in the biblical literature, but she has been disfigured
enough not to cause any further reworking on the
material. Nevertheless, Ezekiel which is supposed to
have been written during the exile was very concerned
about the cult which could be found under "every
green tree", which of course didn't reflect any pre-
exilic of exilic situation, but plainly post-exilic Judah,
so there is a very strong endurance of polytheism into
the second temple period, despite the apparently
contrary temple position.)

We have to imagine that, after the reigns of those
no-gooders Manasseh and Amon, Josiah, who comes
to the throne at 8 years of age (and so is incapable of
deciding anything for several years), in the 31 years of
his reign, which includes the encroachments of the
Babylonians and the Egyptians was able to stimulate a
literature which includes the whole so-called
Deuternomistic history. As hope springs eternal, you
say, well sure, why not? For one thing as I point out
there is a conflict between the theology of the account
and that of the archaeological record. Another thing
is that the biblical record seems to think there was a
Judahite kingdom throughout the period down to
Hezekiah and Josiah, when the archaeological record
again points to the fact that Jerusalem was a
backwater until the destruction of Lachish, which was
the principal city of the zone. It is only then that a
Judahite *kingdom* appears in the archaeological
record, collecting the remains of what was left after
one wave of Assyrians had romped through the area.
(Jerusalem had the benefit of a very unassuming
position, up in the highlands that have very little to
offer any power with commercial interests.)

All hell broke loose after the death of Josiah with
foreign intervention and a succession of weak rulers
followed by the deportations of the ruling classes.
State literary efforts usually require a relatively
tranquil political environment. The lack of such an
environment should also exclude a literary flowering
during the stay in Babylonia. I think therefore that a
date of 640 - 560 for the writing of the "Primary
History" is not viable. We have to look much later.


Ian