Anat

Thanks, Joel.

What kind of linguistic work has been done on the sources? For example, if you take the Genesis doublet regarding the escape/expulsion of Hagar, Genesis 16 (J version) uses the word 'shifha' for handmaid, whereas Genesis 21 (E version) uses the word 'amah'. Is this difference in vocabulary carried to other instances? What about differences in grammatical forms?

Killer Mike

I would recommend the textbook "Introduction to the Old Testament" by Bernard Anderson.

Anat

Could the Mesopotamic influence on the supposed J in Genesis 1-11 have been transmited via a western Semitic tradition? How many of those stories have equivalents in Ugarit, for example?

OTOH, if J (and E, or should I say - non-P, non-D materials?) aren't unique documents but collections of stories from a variety of sources over a long period the above question isn't as important. However, I cannot see how the patriarchal stories could possibly be later than D, as they seem to reflect an earlier stage of the development of the YHWH cult, with legitimate altars all over the country.

As I see it, the purpose of the patriarchal stories is to justify territorial claims to 'the promised land' (while excluding closely related nations) and to sanctify the holy cities - Shechem, Bethel, (Jeru)salem, Hebron, Ber-Sheva (any others?). Then the Joseph story (with the side story of Judah and Tamar) is about the rivalry between the two kingdoms, with the leadership of Judah vs Joseph, and Benjamin stuck in the middle (Joseph and Judah have their confrontation over his fate, the way the land of Benjamin was the location of the border skirmishes between the kingdoms). I'm still not sure what to make of Reuben's role as the firstborn, though he obviously loses his status to Judah in more than one way. Am I making any sense?

Anyway, now that I am aware of the controversy over the documents, I appreciate the attitude of the Israeli Ministry of Education to teach that the text is probably the result of a compilation of previous sources without going much into the specifics.

Benni72

Have you heard about the works of Alexander Nemirovskii? This Russian historian of the Near East, despite being a committed nontheist, claims that there is a historical core to the Patriarchal tradition. From his PoV, it didn't make any sense for ancient Hebrews to invent a Mesopotamian origin of their people, given their antipathy to Babylon and Assyria. This theory also explains why they called themselves ibri (those who had crossed a river), reserving the name Canaanites for their enemies, which seems rather strange if the Hebrews evolved in Canaan as well. Nemirovskii dates the migration of the Semitic tribes that later gave rise to Israel, Edom, Moab and Ammon from Mesopotamia via Damascus to Transjordan and Palestine at 1400-1350 BC, which seems to be confirmed by local contemporary sources as well. As for the archeological and lingustical evidence, it is hardly conclusive.

Anat

So why did Abraham and Isaac spend so much time in a 7th century BCE town (B'er Sheva)? With a 14 century BCE patriarchs, what does Nemirovskii do with the Egypt story? When does he place it if at all? And the conquest story?

Why couldn't there have been traditions about a local founder (Abraham), an Aramaic founder (Jacob) harmonized together into one lineage, with the Mesopotamian origin added on during post-exilic times?

Benni72

AFAIK, Nemirovskii considers B'er Sheva a later embellishment. The stay in Egypt is placed late under XIX dynasty, and the conquest about 1180 BCE. As for your version, what was the reason for adding the Mesopotamian origin?

A book by Nemirovskii (in Russian) is available at http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/1904319/ He is also the founder and moderator of the Web forum http://www.wirade.ru/cgi-bin/wirade/YaBB.pl

Anat

Those returning from exile in Babylon would have added the Mesopotamian origin as inspiration for themselves and for others to follow them.

Anat

So Nemirovskii places the conquest later than the Merneptah stele? And what evidence does he have for any conquest in Canaan, other than that of the Sea Peoples?

dlrs

About the order of the OT prophets: almost all of them were ordered by length (number of chapters). That's why they are called major and minor due to their length.

Benni72

Doesn't seem very plausible to me. But I'll tell Nemirovskii if I have a chance of contacting him again. (He is a rare guest on the Net, and even his forum is run mostly by other mods.)

Yes. According to him, the Merneptah stele refers to the first attempt of the early Israelites to make it into Canaan.

Biblical tradition. And how can one tell cities destroyed by the Sea Peoples apart from those conquered by Israelites? Anyway, the conquest was rather long and gradual, even according to Judges and Samuel.