(15 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...I have started a brief thread on the Pentateuch and why scholars think that it was not written by a single author – Moses or anyone else – but is composed of several sources later patched together. In my previous post I started giving the reasons for thinking so, the literary tensions found in the opening chapters of Genesis. I continue here with this theme. Again, this is taken from my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
*******************************************************************
The literary inconsistencies of Genesis are not unique to these two chapters. On the contrary, there are such problems scattered throughout the book. You can see this for yourself simply by reading the text very carefully. Read, for example, the story of the flood in Genesis 6-9, and you will find comparable differences. One of the most glaring is this: according to Gen. 6:19 God told Noah to take two animals “of every kind” with him into the ark; but according to Gen. 7:2 God told him to take seven pairs of all “clean animals” and two of every other kind of animal. Well, which is it? And how can it be both?
You can find similar differences in other parts of the Pentateuch. In the next chapter, for example, we will be looking at the ten plagues that Moses miraculously performed against the Egyptians in order to convince the reluctant Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go free from slavery. These are terrific stories, as good as the accounts of the Patriarchs in Genesis. But scholars have long detected similar discrepancies. It has been noted, for example, that in the fifth plague, the LORD killed “all of the livestock” of the Egyptians (9:6). So, based on this account one would think that “all” of the livestock were, indeed, dead. But then, just a few verses later…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR PAYING MEMBERS. If you’re not a paying member, PAY!!! It doesn’t cost much, you get a lot, and every dime goes to charity!
Dr. Ehrman, on a slightly different topic, I have long wondered whether Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise (1670) at all influenced the development, many years later, of the Historical/Critical approach to biblical scholarship. I had to read this book in college and while the political part more or less mirrored Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, the theological part was intriguing to my much younger self. Spinoza noted that the books of the Bible were “texts with a history” and he noted the difficulties arising from repeated copying and the absence of spaces between words, among other things. Beyond that, he suggested that these books were intended (by God) for the people of the time in which they were produced, expressed in words and ideas that they were capable of understanding. He also went so far as to suggest that the Jews were chosen by God not due to any particular virtue or merit, but because they were in particular need of help and guidance–which can’t have gone over well with his fellow Jews.
Great quesiton! I don’t know! Maybe someone else on the blog can respond and tell us?
I love it when you go OT on us! Yesterday you wrote in an aside that you doubted there was a historical Moses-I thought now would be a good time to ask if you had a personal favorite among the competing theories explaining the history of Monotheistic Judaism, such as Dever’s escaped Canaanite slaves theory, or the fringe assertion that Akhenaton’s chief Priest Oserseph “became” the historical Moses when Akhenaten died and the Amun cult took over and cast him out? Any others you like?
Yes, I incline to the idea that there were a few escaped slaves who ended up in Canaan, whose stories got blown up way out of proportoin over the centuries. Most other theories just seem too wildly speculative to me.
I highly recommend Bart’s book “The Bible,” Oxford University Press, 2014. … Enjoyable reading. Without it I would have little knowledge of the contents of the Old Testament.
Dr. Ehrman, as I’ve come to understand the story of the Patriarchs in the Torah it appears to be an ethnonymic etiological myth. That is, it’s an attempt to explain the origins of tribal names and history using the mythical tales of specific legendary patriarchs. For example, the reason the Israelite tribes seemed to have such a cultural affinity was chalked up to the twelve tribes being descended from twelve brothers. And the reason why the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were the most powerful and wealthy was that they are both descended from the most favored of the original twelve brothers, Joseph. The reason the tribe of Benjamin was the smallest and the weakest is that they are descended from the youngest of the twelve brothers (ignoring the fact that the book of Judges then goes on to explain that Benjamin was small and weak because of an internecine war later on). The etiological myth also explains why some tribes are more civilized and blessed than others, some being descended from the legitimate wives of Jacob (Rachel and Leah), some being descended from concubines (Bilhah and Zilpah). The etiological myth of the patriarchs also attempts to explain affinities between the Israelite tribes and their neighbors. For instance, the Israelites recognized a close relationship with the Edomites, so in their legend the Edomites are literally the cousins of the Israelites (the Edomites descending from Isaac’s son Esau, while the Israelites descended from Isaac’s son Jacob.) The Israelites’ disdain for their neighbors Ammon, Moab and the Phoenicians shows throw in their etiological myth, in which Ammon and Moab are a product of incest (between Lot and his daughters) and the Phoenicians (Canaanites) are cursed by having been descended from Noah’s son Ham, who was shamed by seeing his father’s “lewdness” (never mind the fact that the Phoenicians/Canaanites were actually Semites, same as the Israelites). Anyway, the etiological propaganda behind the Pentateuch is so glaringly obvious as to make its historical value very questionable indeed.
Yup, this is pretty much my view too.
My favorite book for JDEP is Richard Elliot Friedman’s _Who Wrote The Bible?_ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060630353
Enjoy life!
Look for his other related books, “The Hidden Book in the Bible” and “The Bible with Sources Revealed”. These later books were a real treat as follow-ups to “Who Wrote the Bible?”.
Thank you my friend, I will make sure I have my local library order them for me. Friedman’s little book is one that have given about 6-8 times to folks in my life that have wanted to know a bit more about the Hebrew Scriptures. I used to like carrying a copy around in my back because it was inexpensive enough that if I found someone interested in the topic I could simply give it to them, and find myself another copy in some used book store.
I’ve studied to topic (mostly of the historical Jesus) since the late 1980s, so the Hebrew Scriptures are not really my main interest. But it is handy to know about them for even that study. For example, I have come to believe over the years that almost all the Jesus material or stories come from a re-working of Hebrew Scriptures stories.
I have to give credit to getting off on the right foot study wise to the great Robert M. Price (who BTW just had a birthday yesterday (7/7)… and I am happy to report via an email exchange I had with him that YES… he did enjoy a birthday pizza.
Again, thanks for the book recommendations… as I said, I will have my local library get me copies.
Enjoy life!
—