Malachi151

According to "The Bible Unearthed" the Torah, including Genesis was composed during the 7th century BCE. They case they make for this is good enough, but they leave tons of questions unanswered.

Even if Genesis as a work was composed in the 7th century and the narrative of a patriarchs was "invented" at that time, clearly Genesis also contains much earlier traditions as well.

Also, though Ur and Mesopotamia is mentioned in "The Bible Unearthed" they never really explain how or why there is clearly such a strong early Mesopotamian influence on the first few chapters of Genesis.

So does anyone here has some idea of how the premise that Genesis was composed in the 7th century BCE fits with thee other earlier truly Mesopotamian influences as well?

storytime

It's like a pieceworked quilt. You might complete a few scraps here and there, then 500 years later someone else will come along and add their new blocks of design to the pattern. Eventually after centuries your quilt is placed on display for the world to see. Some of it is of course tattered, torn and full of rat holes. But you try to imagine what kind of thread was used, how the dye was cast in coloring, and ask yourself why the thing stinks so darn bad.

I hope someone offers a more scholarly answer, to your most interesting topic.

gstafleu

That Genesis was "composed" in the 7th century does not necessarily mean it was composed from scratch. I see no problem with the idea that the 7C composition incorporated preexistent bits.

Gerard Stafleu

vid

actually my understanding on "Biblie Unearthed" video (don't have the book) was that Torah was simply *compiled* back then, by editing and joining various traditions and documents, in order to unite people. AFAIK that also fits well with documentary hypothesis.

Malachi151

Agreed, but the book provides no insight into where the other earlier sources came from, or why a work complied in the 7th century in Jerusalem would so prominently feature such early Mesopotamian influences.

Malachi151

Well, according to the book, and their case makes sense, it wasn't just complied in the 7th century, but significant elements of the narratives were also written in the 7th century, especially when you get into the stories about the patriarchs, not so much the creation or flood stories perhaps (though they make no comment on this actually).

spamandham

In regards to the first point, agreed. But that's outside the domain of the book. The purpose of the book is to explore the archeology in regards to the OT.

In regards to the second point, I disagree. The book thoroughly covers how Judaism grew out of Mesopotamian influence (even though it doesn't discuss the influence of the Epic of Gilgamesh specifically).