Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

George,

whether the story is historical or not or whether we categorise it as myth
or legend is irrelevant to the point I raise. I am asking you which target
group of readers of the Torah was most likely to have benefited from its
inclusion.

1) Would a redactor in the time of returning captives from Babylon have felt
the returning captives could better relate to this genealogy if he included
reference to the story of the guy who found some hot springs in the desert?
Not very likely! Agreement with Samaritan tradition suggests this story
predates the exile *at least*.

2) Would a redacting priest/scribe of the first temple period have felt that
temple going Jews from Jerusalem and pilgrims from the rest of Judah have
benefited from the story's inclusion in the genealogy? Again, not very
convincing is it?

3) Would a redacting leader of Hebrew nomads living in the desert not too
far away from hot springs the nomads had likely encountered during their 40
year sojourn in the desert have felt that his target readership would have
benefited from the story's inclusion? Probability is now hitting the roof!
Green lights are flashing all over the place! Confidence scores are soaring!

The point I raise to you George is that of probability. We can make all
kinds of fanciful theories about how this was part of a large legend with
spectacular superhuman events but there is no data to back up these fanciful
theories and taken at face value the data suggests scenario (3) to be the
most likely.

If I were to decide to make a good forgery with the aim of convincing my
audience of the age of the text this is definitely the kind of hallmark I
would like to include.

James Christian

On 17 May 2010 03:21, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

> James, familiarity with the aetiological tale does not in any way lend
> credence to the historicity of that tale. Whether it was local nomads or
> distant pygmies who 'preserved' the tradition doesn't really matter all that
> much. There is nothing by which to make a statement either for or against
> the historicity of the aetiology. It might be an historical reminisce, it
> might not be. How do we know? We can't know for certain. Therefore, the
> option you are taking about an old and probably reliable tale is motivated
> by a personal assumption, not by an objective fact. You might well be right,
> but my point is that we simply cannot know, and it could go either way.
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>