Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

First, I would like to make it clear that I wasn't really intending to
present a strong position. Merely wanted to establish the late boundary of
composition (in terms of when pen was put to scroll).

I've read through your post and understand your logic. It largely involves
adopting a view of the story that removes the focus from how David got such
a funny genealogy to whether it is OK to be a Moabite or not. The story is
evidently an exceptional one. Just like the story about Rahab who helped the
spies. The point is about demonstrated faith in Yhwh and then acceptance by
his people. I don't think this a general story about how cool it is to be a
Moabite. It's more a story about how there was once an exceptionally good
Moabite who managed to win Yhwh's favour and not only be accepted by his
people but have the priviledge of bearing David's ancestors.

You've brought the discussion to a focus by asking who the most likely
target readership was. This brings up also to the question of how likely it
would be for an oral tradition of the story to circulate for 400 years
before anybody actually made an official version that would be canonised.

I suppose one important lead in the discussion should also be to trace the
tradition that Samuel wrote it. How old is the tradition? What is the oldest
attestation of the tradition? Were there any competing traditions? Was the
tradition provided within any logical framework to back it up?

James Christian

On 21 May 2010 00:19, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:

> James, basically, your all argument boils down to a simple one -- Had the
> story been written later than David, it would have included at least
> Solomon
> as well.  Well, the simple reason is that the genealogy of David's
> descendants
> might have been so well known.  It was David who was considered the head
> of the dynasty -- thus the Messiah is a descendant of David, and God's
> promise is voiced in terms of David -- the light of David.  So David was a
> significant figure that adding anyone else might detract from the message
> of the story.  Ruth and Boaz were ancestors to David, the most righteous
> king.
>
> Additionally, you bring up Ruth 1:1.  You suggest that "three generations
> is a fair chunk of time."  What is your evidence for this?  Anyway, the
> last judges were Samuel's children -- see 1 Sam 8:1.  So it is quite clear
> that "the days of the judges" were less than three generations away
> during the time of David, at least as far as the Bible describes it.
>
> In the now closed Gen 36 thread (named in honor of Genesis 30), you made
> a strong point about searching the history for the most appropriate time.
>  So
> yes, you could theorize that there were some people who objected on
> account of David's ancestry.  But if so, where are their voices?  Why does
> Saul never says -- "Listen guys, he is a Moabite.  He can't come in our
> camp.
> Forever!"  Why doesn't he point to David's hero (1 Chr 11:46) and say,
> "Look
> at Itmah! his hero is a Moabite!"  None of this is described.
>
> In contrast, in Nehemiah's day we do see it described.  So if we had to
> take the most appropriate time period, we would choose Nehemiah's
> day, because now we don't have to theorize there were Moabites trying
> to gain legitimacy.  We know it!
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>