Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Of course Yitzhak there are moral lessons as well in any small story but
that doesn't seem to change the main focus that this is a story about how a
foreigner came to be the great grandmother of King David. The story is rare
not so much that it involves marrying a Moabite woman insomuch as it
involves the continuation of a family line that would otherwise have
dissolved had it not been for the union between Boaz and the Moabite woman.
It's almost like propaganda. A bit like saying 'Yes David was the offspring
of a foreigner but let's not made a big deal out of it and question his
right to be King of Israel because what a good foreigner she was'.

You make a good point about 4:7. Perhaps 1:1 also does indicate it was
written down later. I'll stop using the word 'may' and say that the written
story MUST have been based on an earlier oral version (on the assumption
that it wasn't just made up). 3 generations is a fair chunk of time. 3
generations is long enough for shoe swapping traditions to change and not so
long to make an oral tradition unreasonable. But I guess the main point is
why do genealogies stop twice at David in chapter 4? Why not go on to
Solomon? Or some other king? Why stop there?

The most reasonable explanation is that it was written down when David was
king and to settle any questions about his questionable ancestry. You can
almost imagine the odd over zealous voice saying 'Why should the son of a
Moabite be our king. We are a holy nation. The
Moabites are the children of incest.'

James Christian

On 19 May 2010 22:00, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:36 PM, James Christian wrote:
> > First, I think we should look at the way the book presents itself before
> > considering other factors for dating the book. Verses 17b to 22 may well
> > have been added to the book at a later date but they seem to suggest that
> > the book can be no later than the time of David.
>
> Why?
>
> > The book in its entirety
> > seems to have little value other than a story of David's lineage.
>
> Not necessarily.  It deals with Moabite relationships.  We know Moabites
> were
> an issue in Second Temple period times.  See Deut 23:4 quoted in Neh 13:1.
> So perhaps it had more value than just a story of David's lineage.
>
> > no great percentage of Israel's populace would be particularly interested
> in
> > David's lineage until he had become king. The tradition that Samuel wrote
> > this book would seem to fit
>
> How does it fit?  What is your evidence?
>
> > I suppose if we are to do a professional job of dating the book we need
> to
> > establish boundaries both for late composition and early composition. Its
> > earliest composition, of course, aside from final comments on David's
> > lineage COULD be no earlier than the time of the events themselves. A
> > version of the story MAY have circulated in oral tradition or even in
> > written form until the time of David. It's not every day that something
> like
> > this happened so doubtlessly the story was gossiped about. Something like
> > its final canonical form MAY well have been penned in David's reign with
> the
> > genealogy pinned to the end.
>
> (Capitalized above) - could - may - may -- all hypotheticals with no
> evidence
> to support them.  Furthermore, how do you know that it is not everyday that
> something like this happens?  (Just what is "something like this"?)  What
> is
> your evidence that this was something out of the ordinary?
>
> None of this relates to Yigal's question which specifically asked for
> linguistic
> evidence.  But also, you ignore verses like 4:7 which explicitly say that
> the
> story was written long after the fact.
>
> > As for establishing a late boundary I'll let the minimalists take over
> and
> > present their case. Then we can start taking each statement apart and
> giving
> > it a date.
>
> I don't think there are any minimalists on this list.  Those generally
> identified
> as minimalists, such as Thomas Thompson are no longer members of this
> list, because they found little value in it.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>