Jordan Peterson's contribution to Evolutionary Fall Theology

I mean, I don’t know if you provided much direct evidence at all. As I understand it, the argument goes like this: in our pre-exilic biblical books, certain vocabulary words are not attested that are in Genesis 1-11, but these are then mentioned in our exilic and post-exilic works, and so Genesis 1-11 is an exilic/post-exilic work. By that very logic, if I find a handful of vocabulary words in the entirety of Genesis 12-50 that don’t appear in our few pre-exilic works, I could use this same argument to claim that Genesis 12-50, too, is exilic/post-exilic. I’m sure neither of us would be willing to accept this argument.

If you could demonstrate that some vocabulary in Genesis 1-11 didn’t exist before the exile, then that would be something else. However, an argument from silence can’t demonstrate that. This is why I say that your argument might give an indicator, but definitely not a proof or serious evidence for why we should date Genesis 1-11 to the exilic/post-exilic period. In my view, I date the Pentateuch to the pre-exilic period since I can find a large number of traditions in this work that originated in the pre-exilic period, some of them unknown in the exilic/post-exilic period. I’m not sure if I have any specific proof from Genesis 1-11, though.

Something that most of us will have to come to is that there’s no serious evidence, one way or another, to be able to date Genesis’ primeval history. We can make tentative estimations at best. I think this is something we’d be able to agree on.

@ManiacalVesalius,

I think your first 2 sentences are “dogs that don’t hunt.”

Scribes taught to write Cuneiform were taught the Sumerian pronunciations, as well as the Akkadian/Babylonian pronunciations.

It’s not very different from “sacred process” we put our seminary students through (for centuries?) when we teach them Greek. They learn the names of the Greek letters. They learn the sounds of them. They learn what the Greek words sound like in the LXX. And they learn what they mean when translated into Latin.

No that is not the argument. That is only one small part of the argument. I posted a seven point argument, and you’re only referring to one point.

But that’s not the logic being used. You’re not addressing the other six points of the argument.

But it’s not an argument from silence. We know when certain words were formed. We know that Hebrew progressed through various stages, from proto-Hebrew/paleo-Hebrew (no earlier than the eleventh century), to archaic biblical Hebrew (tenth century to the sixth centuries, until the exile), then to standard biblical Hebrew (eight to sixth centuries), then late biblical Hebrew (fifth to third centuries). Over time the script changed, the vocabulary changed, the grammar changed. Texts written in different forms of Hebrew can be differentiated from each other by virtue of the characteristics of each written form.

What you are arguing is like saying that a book which uses words like “refrigerator”, “internet”, “TV”, “radio”, “Soviet Union”, “Barak Obama”, and “global warming” could have been written 300 years ago, because lots of the other words in the book are words which were used 300 years ago, and it’s just “an argument from silence” to argue that these words weren’t used before the late twentieth century. This is directly analogous to Genesis 1-10, since Genesis 1-10 likewise uses geographical names, personal names, and vocabulary which either didn’t exist at earlier times or had changed their meaning over time.

To take an example, the word “raqia” (firmament), is only found in Genesis 1, Psalm 19, Psalm 150, Ezekiel, and Daniel. In other words, outside Genesis 1, it is only found in exilic or post-exilic works. Earlier books of the Bible used a verb form of this word, but the noun form does not appear until the exilic era. We know that pre-exilic Hebrews had the concept of the firmament, but they didn’t use the word raqia to describe it, they used different words. It is only in the exilic era that raqia appears as a single word for the firmament. In pre-exilic books the word šāmayim is used for the heavens. In exilic books we find both šāmayim and raqia are used for the heavens.

Similarly, the Hebrew phrase for “breath of life” used in Genesis 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22, is not found anywhere else in Scripture. Elsewhere in the Bible, a completely different phrase was used consistently. However, this “breath of life” is found in the Eridu Genesis, a Sumerian text which was copied and read by the Babylonians, and would have been taught to Babylonian educated members of the Hebrew exilic elite (Daniel 1:3-4).

Wait a minute, you just removed the entire Deuteronomistic history. Why?

Arguably? Deuteronomy says explicitly that the purpose of the sabbath is to commemorate the exodus from Egypt, not the creation week. If the sabbath was instituted to commemorate the creation week, why didn’t Moses know about it?

The purpose of those points is to establish a terminus ad quo. Certain parts of Genesis 1-11 could not have been written earlier than the monarchy. That pushes the date forward. Then you look at other passages of Genesis 1-11, and you find that they indicate an even later date. You keep doing this until you find the terminus ad quo.

But that isn’t my argument. It isn’t just that the names aren’t mentioned (though since Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings contains many genealogical lists you have to explain why none of them go back any earlier than Abraham’s family), it’s the fact that the events and locations aren’t mentioned either; Eden, the serpent, the fall, the flood, the tower of Babel, all immensely significant and formative events, none of which are mentioned from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings.

Well let me quote from someone who helpfully made a useful point about this.

The fact is that Genesis 1-11 contains strong literary parallels with a number of Akkadian and Sumerian texts, parallels which are not the product of oral tradition but which have the exactitude of literary tradition; a scribe was reading those texts and had them in mind when writing Genesis 1-11. This requires a scribe literate in Akkadian cuneiform, and the earliest indication we have that any Hebrew scribe was literate in Akkadian cuneiform, is in the exilic era.

1 Like

I’ll begin with the Israelite knowledge of Akkadian cuneiform, and that this could only have been known during the exile and later periods. To help argue this, you quote no one else but myself when I argued that there was simply no knowledge of Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian knowledge to transfer to any biblical work. Two points must be made here. Firstly, I was applying this to Israel’s entire history, including during and after the exile. After the exile, there’s still not a single word in the entire Hebrew Bible directly derived from Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, or other cuneiform languages. There still isn’t a single cuneiform inscription in the entirety of Israel during and after the exile. Secondly, I extensively explained how these near eastern myths, from Eridu Genesis to the Epic of Atrahasis ended up being embedded into the text of Genesis 1-11. This is what I said earlier:

What I’m suggesting is that these stories of the man and women in the garden with the tree, the confusion of the languages, the floods, etc, were common near eastern stories and motifs common to all ancient near eastern societies and cultures. These weren’t Sumerian stories or Egyptian stories, they were near eastern stories that would have been inherited from generation to generation by anyone living in the general near eastern area. In other words, these stories would have been with the Israelite people from the very beginning of their emergence, and the fathers of the ‘founders’ of Israel would have known them, and the fathers of the fathers of Israel’s founders would have known them, and the fathers of the fathers of the fathers of Israel’s founders would have known them, etc. Everyone would have known them, just like everyone in Europe knows about the story of Adam and Eve – it’s not that the British got the story from the Germans who got the story from the Greeks, it’s simply that the story of Adam and Eve is part of the common cultural milieu of European and western society, so it’s no surprise that the Brits know it, and the Brits knowing it doesn’t at all imply that they took it from one particular culture, nor does Israel knowing of the flood story imply that they in turn took the flood story from one particular culture (like Sumer). The flood story (and other stories) were not cultural stories, they were multi-cultural stories.

In my view, the Israelite’s did not get a working knowledge of these stories through reading the cuneiform tablets, these stories were common near eastern stories known to everyone in Israel at the time as they had been passed down from generation to generation throughout the ancient near east. You’ll realize that through the entirety of Genesis 1-11, the primeval history never directly quotes from any of these stories, it takes and transforms their framework and larger narrative into its own. They knew these stories, not by reading them, but because these stories were embedded into the cultural milieu of the ancient near east.

To take an example, the word “raqia” (firmament), is only found in Genesis 1, Psalm 19, Psalm 150, Ezekiel, and Daniel. In other words, outside Genesis 1, it is only found in exilic or post-exilic works. Earlier books of the Bible used a verb form of this word, but the noun form does not appear until the exilic era.

You’re going to need to be a little more specific than that. What was this ‘different form’ that is only used before the exile, and then evolves into the ‘noun form’ of raqia only during and after the exile? I went through Strong’s concordance, and could not find a single one. I already understand that the Hebrew language changed over time, however you still have not been able to demonstrate that these words didnd’t exist at earlier periods or only originated in these later periods. This is not at all analagous to using the words ‘radio’ or ‘television’ 300 years ago, these terms are very clearly documented and directly pertain to the invention of new technologies/things. There is no such invention in Genesis 1-11 that happened in the exilic/post-exilic eras.

Arguably? Deuteronomy says explicitly that the purpose of the sabbath is to commemorate the exodus from Egypt, not the creation week. If the sabbath was instituted to commemorate the creation week, why didn’t Moses know about it?

“Why didn’t Moses know about it?” seems like a strange question, tugging tightly on an argument from silence. Deuteronomy says the entire law originated as something Israel owed God after he brought them out from the land of Egypt. However, the sabbath day system of working for six days and resting on the seventh unequivocaly originates from the Israelite belief that God had worked six days in creating the heavens and the earth and then rested on the seventh. This is explicitly told to us in Exodus.

Exodus 11:8-11: Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

The Sabbath system derives from the creation week, and the Deuteronomistic history cites the sabbath system. And, according to what you first said on this thread;

If you want a more nuanced view, I regard most of the Pentateuch as pre-exilic, but Genesis 1-10 as exilic at earliest. See here4 for my reasons.

So, is Exodus 11 part of this “most of the Pentateuch” that you consider as pre-exilic? Because, if it is, this is an explicit pre-exilic citation of Genesis 1-11 that you’re looking for and should settle this. I definitely consider the entirety of Exodus to be pre-exilic, considering I think there’s significant evidence that Exodus utilizes pre-exilic, and sometimes very pre-exilic information and tradition.

I think, in conclusion, that your seven points can’t demonstrate an exilic/post-exilic composition of Genesis 1-11. Remember, two of your points only argue for a dating of after 1000 BC and 930 BC respectively, so you only really have five arguments that challenge my position that it was written anywhere from the 10th-6th centuries BC. I don’t think you’ve really proven any elements in Genesis 1-11 are exilic/post-exilic.

Apart from Ugarit? Why didn’t you mention Ugarit? Regardless, there is no need to identify words in the Hebrew Bible “directly derived from” other cuneiform languages (even though they are there). We have concepts, literary forms, and vocabulary in Genesis 1-11 which are clearly Sumerian and Akkadian imports. Genesis 1 itself starts with exactly the same literary form as the Eridu Genesis. I’ve already mentioned the “breath of life” import from Sumerian.

Ok so please present all the evidence that the Hebrews knew these stories, and that they were all well known to everyone in Israel, passed down from generation to generation. Are you going to argue that this was through oral tradition or something? Where is the evidence for this?

No it doesn’t quote them, it does something else; it polemicizes them, and it also follows their literary forms. It follows their literary forms so closely that it’s clear there’s a literary relationship between the texts. This is not a relationship which is sustained by oral tradition.

It’s easy to identify the difference. For example, at Megiddo a fragment of the Epic of Gilgamesh was found. It was a pedagogical text, a scribal writing exercise for students learning to be scribes. But it was not copied from a text of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was written from memory, and the corruption and errors in the text indicates the scribe neither understood fully the language in which he was writing, or the text he was transcribing. This would not have happened if these stories were already a common part of Hebrew consciousness; a scribe who already knew the story would not be making such blunders, they would be so familiar with the story and its vocabulary that they would have written it accurately.

So why is it that Genesis 1-11 follows so closely even the literary forms of the Mesopotamian texts?

I already told you, it’s the verb form of raqia (the verb form is rāqaʿ). You can find it in texts such as Exodus 39:3, Numbers 16:39, 2 Samuel 22:43, and Job 37:18. It’s right there in Strong’s (#7554).

In case you haven’t realized, the burden of evidence is on you to prove that they did exist. I’ve already demonstrated that the pattern of distribution we have is exactly what we find with words which originate at a later date, words which even you acknowledge could not be early.

Of course there is, I’ve even shown you examples like the breath of life and raqia.

It is not an argument from silence; I pointed out that when Moses told Israel the reason for the sabbath, he said explicitly that it was a commemoration of the exodus. That’s not an argument from silence, that’s an argument from positive evidence. The burden is on you to explain why Moses said this, and didn’t say that the sabbath commemorates the seven day creation week.

Yes, but not all of it. Mainstream scholarship recognizes this reference to the creation week as a later addition, which was added only after Genesis was already written. It was not original to the pre-exilic text of Exodus 11.

On the contrary, the point is that if you acknowledge the evidence from points 1 and 2, then how can you deny the evidence of the other five points? On what basis do you acknowledge the linguistic argument in points 1 and 2, and then deny the same linguistic argument when it’s used later? Could I ask if you’ve looked at how much of the Hebrew in Genesis 1-11 is early, archaic, or late?

@ManiacalVesalius,

I am puzzled. @Jonathan_Burke has been explaining the evidence for why he thinks some texts are Exilic or Post-Exilic.

Then you argue that his evidence isn’t credible, since the only time Jewish scribes would know words as he suggests is in or after the Exile.

Well… yeah. That’s the point of the evidence!

When you write:

"I’ll begin with the Israelite knowledge of Akkadian cuneiform, and that this could only have been known during the exile and later periods. "

I’m looking around to see if anyone reading your statement is seeing the same thing I’m seeing. Yes. Right. Israelite knowledge could only have come from the Exile and Later Periods.

I think you are struggling with the idea that there is no law requiring several books in a historical timeline to be written in the same sequence!

In the Greek writings after Homer, several Greek writers expanded on a single sentence of Homer, and expanded the sentence into an entire “back story” - - to explain why Homer wrote the sentence he did.

In many cases, different Greek writers wrote different back stories - - because both writers had their own idea for what happened - - not because one or the other had special information on what actually did happen.

@ManiacalVesalius

I think you would get more enthusiastic cooperation from @Jonathan_Burke if when you asked him to do you a favor you made some effort to have shown that you have read his material.

You ask “What is the reason for claiming this reference to the ‘creation week’ is a later addition…?”

Did you actually read this concluding paragraph from one of his posts?

“None of the books from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings show any knowledge of Adam, Eve, the garden, the serpent, the fall, Cain and Abel, the flood, or the tower of Babel, the sabbath memorializing the creation (Moses explicitly says the sabbath memorializes the exodus from Egypt), or any of the events of Genesis 1-10. It’s not merely that these chapters aren’t quoted, it’s that most of the Old Testament shows no knowledge of them at all.”

Or perhaps you just forgot the point it was making.

If in Exodus Moses specifically states: “the sabbath memorializes the Exodus from Egypt…”, and if Moses had also written the story of the Creation Week (the other reason for the Sabbath?), don’t you think he would have mentioned it instead, or along with, his other statement?

On the other hand, if someone was writing a long set of telescoping backstories for Exodus (aka, Genesis), it would be understandable that the writer does not allude to Exodus, because that would prove Genesis was written after Exodus, and the scribe didn’t want to interfere with the “focus” on the first days of creation.

@ManiacalVesalius

Your quote above is no different from your earlier quote:

How is it that this paragraph doesn’t explain the “why”?

“None of the books from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings show any knowledge of Adam, Eve, the garden, the serpent, the fall, Cain and Abel, the flood, or the tower of Babel, the sabbath memorializing the creation (Moses explicitly says the sabbath memorializes the exodus from Egypt), or any of the events of Genesis 1-10. It’s not merely that these chapters aren’t quoted, it’s that most of the Old Testament shows no knowledge of them at all.”

After reading his explanation, you should be able to grasp the mechanisms that his analysis engages:

My analysis of what Jonathan describes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If in Deuteronomy [my first version erroneously mentions Exodus here] Moses specifically states: “the sabbath memorializes the Exodus from Egypt…”, and if Moses had also written the story of the Creation Week (the other reason for the Sabbath?) as it is suggested in Exodus, don’t you think he would have mentioned it instead? - - or mention it along with his other statement he makes in Deuteronomy?

On the other hand, if someone was writing a section of Genesis as part of a long set of telescoping backstories for Exodus, and inserts a post-exilic comment in Exodus to support the Genesis Back-story, it would be understandable that the scribe of Deuteronomy doesn’t make any effort to Creation or the Exodus reference to creation, because that would prove this part of Genesis was written after Exodus.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After reading Jonathan’s explanation (with the implicatinos they entail) the only remaining question should be “Who agrees with this?”

That’s pure circular reasoning there, pal. The reference to the creation week in Exodus is an addition. Why? Because Genesis 12-2 Kings doesn’t have any knowledge of the primeval history. Therefore, the reference to the creation week in Exodus must be a later addition.

The entire consort you’re promulgating is an exercise of circular reasoning.

If in Deuteronomy [my first version erroneously mentions Exodus here] Moses specifically states: “the sabbath memorializes the Exodus from Egypt…”, and if Moses had also written the story of the Creation Week (the other reason for the Sabbath?) as it is suggested in Exodus, don’t you think he would have mentioned it instead? - - or mention it along with his other statement he makes in Deuteronomy?

Argument from silence. I’ve seen the chaos that happens when atheists try to explain why this or that in the Bible “should” have mentioned this or that given a certain hypothesis, and this type of psychoanalysis of what the author “should” have written always leads to nonsense conclusions. In the end of the day, you aren’t atheists and neither am I, but the chaos that occurs as a result of this chaotic reasoning is no less subtle.

And, again, are you going to address my most recent comments on the etymology of Moses name or do you agree with me now? I might as well be told what’s on your mind since getting that screenshot of the Pennsylvanian Sumerian Dictionary wasn’t easy.

Okay… here’s a couple of clarifications:

  1. Your image of “mus” = snake is a very impressive database on the actual cuneiform symbols, rather than on the words (whether transliterated or translated). So your observation that there is only one attested example under 1500 BCE (compared to 97 under 2000 BCE) shows an interesting extinction of the use of that particular cuneiform. Since “snakes” themselves probably still had a robust presence in the ANE, I can confidently suggest that some other sign was becoming more common while the one we see here (which looks a bit like an oboe?) was becoming less common.

In your more recent post, you suggest that I am using circular reasoning.

Text-Critical analysis can have the appearance of circularity, but it’s really about the psychology of story telling and composition. Naturally, people can go overboard on such things.

But in this case, @Jonathan_Burke makes an awfully good point about Moses. If he wrote Deuteronomy, Exodus and Genesis, you would not expect him to formulate two different reasons for the Sabbath. When a writer comes up with a 2nd reason for something, they frequently find a way to dovetail the new reason into a discussion of the old reason.

But this is not what we see… plus the sheer oddity of the Deuteronomy explanation. If the Exodus explanation about the Creation story was generally known, I don’t see any sense in the Deuteronomy explanation.

1 Like

Here’s a broad range of Google Book pages … offering various views on the “MS” cuneiform on any or all of these meanings:

  • Priest
  • Hero
  • Illustrious
  • Leader
  • Expert

In some discussions, the term is a duplicative: “mas-mas” or “mas-masu”, which is an obvious “intensification” of whatever the meaning of “mas” is assumed to be originally.

Naturally, it would be a neater picture of “Mus” or “Mas” were identical, but considering even the same word had more than one way of being represented in cuneiform, it’s not going to be too tidy.

So, if cuneiform instructors taught Hebrew scribes that “mus” meant one thing, and “mas” meant another thing, the vowels were always going to drop out when it came to putting something in writing (if you are using the Semitic scripts).

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

Before I advance anything, I need to quickly address something you mentioned on the side:

But in this case, @Jonathan_Burke makes an awfully good point about Moses. If he wrote Deuteronomy, Exodus and Genesis, you would not expect him to formulate two different reasons for the Sabbath.

Moses did not write Exodus or Genesis. Moses may or may not have written some form of Deuteronomy that we can’t exactly know of today. But the traditional idea of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is impossible to maintain in light of recent scholarship, and the fact that, as many have shown, the Pentateuch itself says that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. Christopher Rollston from George Washington University wrote this important piece that has convinced me of this:

By the way, I must once again draw to the claim that Genesis 1-11 was never referred to until the exile. I cited Exodus to refute this, but Jonathan claims it’s a later addititon and so now we wait to see his references. Since then, in my research, I have come across another reference to Genesis 1-11 (which is VERY early) by mere coincidence. In the Old Testament, there are a number of songs and poems which are very archaic. It’s like in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where we find an early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 dating to the earliest days of Christianity. In the Old Testament, we have old songs/poems like the Song of Deborah, Song of the Sea, Blessing of Jacob, and another one which I will draw from here, the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1-43). According to Richard Elliott Friedman regarding this song, a major scholar in the field, “Near the end of the Torah comes a song. The text atttributes it to Moses. It may not in fact be by Moses, but it is in fact very old” (The Exodus, HarperCollins, 2017 p. 169). This song dates may date somewhere from the 10th-8th centuries BC, anyhow some centuries before the exile and predating Deuteronomy itself, and says:

“When the Highest gave nations legacies, when He dispersed humankind, He set the people’s borders to the number of the children of Israel” (Deut. 32:8).

The dispersion of humankind is clearly referring to the belief that God, after what happened at the tower of babel, confused the languages of the people and dispersed them across the world. This is recorded in Genesis 11, part of the primeval history. So, this is a clear reference/allusion to the primeval history before the exile. I don’t know when @Jonathan_Burke will be back but let’s see how he addresses this and the Exodus passage.

I will write in response to your recent notes on similiar words mas/mus in Hittite, Akkadian etc in a future comment.

@ManiacalVesalius

@Jonathan_Burke is probably going to tell you that you reading of the text is misleading.

You provide this quote:
“When the Highest gave nations legacies, when He dispersed humankind, He set the people’s borders to the number of the children of Israel” (Deut. 32:8).

Your version includes the term “dispersed” … and you don’t even try to include the phrase “Sons of Adam”.

If we look at multiple translations, we see slightly different things:

Translations for Deu 32:8
KJV
When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

NKJV
When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.

NLT
When the Most High assigned lands to the nations,
when he divided up the human race,
he established the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number in his heavenly court.[fn]

NIV
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.[fn]

ESV
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders[fn] of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.[fn]

CSB
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance[fn]
and divided the human race,
he set the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the people of Israel.[fn]

NASB
“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
When He separated the sons of [fn]man,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.

NET
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly.

RSV
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

ASV
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
When he separated the children of men,
He set the bounds of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.

YLT
In the Most High causing nations to inherit, In His separating sons of Adam – He setteth up the borders of the peoples By the number of the sons of Israel.

DBY
When the Most High assigned to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.

WEB
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

VUL
quando dividebat Altissimus gentes quando separabat filios Adam constituit terminos populorum iuxta numerum filiorum Israhel
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So what version is Friedman using? None of the usual versions use “dispersed”. They use the more generic term for “separation” , or “assignment”, or what he “gave” them. And even if they did use it, I would be suspicious of a reference like this that seems to intentionally exclude any mention of the drama of the Tower’s construction!

And the reference to “Adam” is only used a few times, apparently under the impression that it is “generic mankind”, rather than a specific reference to the companion of Eve who we would call “the” Adam.

Before I deal with the rest I’ll address this quickly.

  1. I don’t know where your quotation comes from, but I own Friedman’s book Exodus and it isn’t there (in fact the book doesn’t even have 169 pages). Nor is it in his earlier work “The Bible With Sources Revealed”. Can you find any evidence that Friedman believes this verse in Deuteronomy is evidence that Genesis 1-11 is pre-exilic?
  2. The word for dispersed/divided in Deuteronomy 32:8 is not used anywhere in the tower of Babel narrative, so there isn’t even a linguistic connection.
  3. I cannot find any commentator who suggests that Deuteronomy 32:8 is a reference to the tower of Babel; they all say it is a reference to the believe that God established areas where each nation should live, at creation, before nations even existed.

So far you’ve been able to assert evidence for only two references to anything in Genesis 1-11, in the entire body of text from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings. That really says it all; there’s just no evidence that Genesis 1-11 were known before the exile. I was hoping you would address my entire argument about the Exodus passage but since it seems you’re not going to, I only need to reply to your comments on the small bit you did mention.

Even though this comment is in response to gbrooks, I need @Jonathan_Burke to read it as well. I’ll deal with gbrooks comments first.

Richard Elliott Friedman, being the renowned scholar he is, takes to translating the verses for himself. (This is something I’ve seen pretty much most top scholars do in their books. Bart Ehrman translates the verses for himself. So does Richard Hays. Significant scholars don’t think they have much need for translations since they can simply read the original text.) Anywhere, all cited translations you provide support me, and you’re certainly wrong. A quick check will make it clear that every commentary ever written, and scholarly analysis ever written, understands this verse the same – it’s taking about the dispersion of humanity in Genesis 10-11. As I said earlier, all the translations you provided support me, since, for example, when the NASB translates “separated” (instead of dispersion apparently) in Deuteronomy 32:8, it also translates “separated” in Genesis 10:32, since both verses use the same Hebrew word פָּרַד (parad, see Strong’s Hebrew #6504 and click on the concordance). It’s the same in the Hebrew, being picky about English synonyms won’t get you anywhere. Again, there’s not even a dispute among scholarship whether or not the Song of Moses alludes to the dispersion/separation/whatever word you want to use of humanity in Genesis 10-11, it’s a pretty obvious fact. In fact, this is Friedman’s interpretation as well.

In fact, to confirm this, in the last minute of typing this I simply went to Google Scholar, typed in and enterred ‘Deuteronomy 32:8’ and clicked on the first thing that popped up. What came up was an exposition on this passage by Michael Heiser, and he practically presupposes this is talking about what’s happening after the confusion of languages in the Tower of Babel. See his full paper:
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=lts_fac_pubs

Trying to find a way around this passage isn’t going to end well.

As for the mas/mus thing again, it appears the word has relatives in and among other Semitic languages that aren’t too far from Israel in time, certainly a lot better than Sumer. Nevertheless, I still see a weak connection – one of the translations is priest, though Moses wasn’t a priest. Some others are ‘lord’ and ‘illustrious’, although the Bible never appears to ever identify Moses with lordship or someone being magnificent or illustrious. Rather, when God tells Moses he will bring His people out of Israel, Moses actually asks “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” Moses considers himself of low ability, in fact, unable to bring Israel out of Egypt at first. I don’t find this supposed root having any connection to the actual Moses. Secondly, I’ve already explained why Egyptian is a much better source of influence than these other Semitic languages – Moses is born in Egypt, he’s raised by Egyptians, the entire story is about him getting from Egypt to Israel. Where does Hatti or Akkad ever come to play? And, furthermore, besides the fact that the entire thing is about Egypt, there are hundreds of Egyptian loanwords in the exodus and wilderness narratives alone as I have already explained, and there’s a bunch of characters in the exodus and wilderness narratives we already know to have Egyptian names. Why not also Moses? And wouldn’t an Akkadian name appearing out of the sudden be an obvious anamoly? Even the Hebrew midwife Puah has an Egyptian name! And, if you actually look at all the Egyptian names in the Old Testament, you’ll realize that all of them belong to members of the Levite tribe. Not a single person with an Egyptian name in the entire Old Testament is not part of the Levite tribe. And, lo’ and behold, Moses is a Levite. I think the case is so overwhelming that to consider these other (weak to begin with) possibilities is really jusg trying to overcomplicate an otherwise straightforward etymology (backed up by scholars anyways).

Now, regarding Jonathan Burke. I was initially confused by this:

I don’t know where your quotation comes from, but I own Friedman’s book Exodus and it isn’t there (in fact the book doesn’t even have 169 pages). Nor is it in his earlier work “The Bible With Sources Revealed”. Can you find any evidence that Friedman believes this verse in Deuteronomy is evidence that Genesis 1-11 is pre-exilic?

I’m not sure if Friedman has an earlier book called Exodus. I’m talking about the one published, like, in the last few months or something by HarperCollins. I came across it in my bookstore a few days ago so I just picked it up and read it. Click here if we have some sort of confusion about which book I’m talking about. Published September 12, 2017 by HarperCollins, some 281 pages long. If we are still mixed up about this I’ll take a picture of my copy in my next response if we’re still mixed up about this.

Friedman cites the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy as an ancient poem predating Deuteronomy itself by some centuries, and understands it as a reference to the dispersion of humanity recorded in the Genesis story. He even cites Genesis in his analysis of what he’s talking about. I’m rather certain Friedman makes it clear in his book that he thinks J, E, P, and D (J and P are the important ones here since they are what compose the primeval history of Genes) are all pre-exilic. In fact, I think he dates the P source about a century before Deuteronomy (in his book he even calls the people who try to push back their dates ‘late daters’ who ignore the fact that all these books are written in pre-exilic Hebrew). I don’t have an exact quote right now, but suffice it is to say, Friedman considers Deuteornomy 32:8 to regard the dispersion of humanity after the story of the tower of babylon and he thinks the entire thing is pre-exilic anyways. I might search for a quote and post is later in this comment. But first;

The word for dispersed/divided in Deuteronomy 32:8 is not used anywhere in the tower of Babel narrative, so there isn’t even a linguistic connection.

Actually, they’re the exact same word. Here’s the word-by-word Hebrew in Deuteronomy 32:8. Here’s the word-by-word Hebrew in Genesis 10:32. Both Hebrew words are different forms of the same Hebrew word, parad, or Strong’s Hebrew #6504. Simply click on the Hebrew words in my links and you’ll realize they both quickly go back to parad/strong’s hebrew 6504.

I cannot find any commentator who suggests that Deuteronomy 32:8 is a reference to the tower of Babel; they all say it is a reference to the believe that God established areas where each nation should live, at creation, before nations even existed.

Besides Friedman already mentioned, most actual analyses I’ve seen make it clear this goes back to what happens right after the tower of babel conundrum. In response to gbrooks comment, I directed him to this paper from Michael Weiser who places this event right after the tower of babel incident, since, well, it appears to be talking about the exact same thing. He basically presupposes this is what’s happening and shows no knowledge of even the idea that it could be talking about something else. Friedman, too, seems to simply presuppose this. I was stranged to see you say no commentaries mention it, since when I simply go to the list of commentaries on Deuteronomy 32:8 on BibleHub a lot of them have it. Elliott’s commentary, Bensen’s commentary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown’s commentary, John Gill’s commentary, etc (besides already mentioning Friedman, Weiser etc). Also see this one. I don’t think any scholar denies this connection, it seems quite obvious to me. Where else does a dispersion of the languages actually ever happen? Is Deuteronomy referencing Enermaker or something?

I was hoping you would address my entire argument about the Exodus passage but since it seems you’re not going to, I only need to reply to your comments on the small bit you did mention.

I don’t know if you missed my last response to you, but I tried to address your entire comment. Click here to see my last response (I admit me and gbrooks fattened up the thread since you last posted).

So far you’ve been able to assert evidence for only two references to anything in Genesis 1-11, in the entire body of text from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings. That really says it all; there’s just no evidence that Genesis 1-11 were known before the exile.

Firstly, my research is ongoing. I may find more. Secondly, even if there are only two, that’s enough to plunge a spear into the idea that Genesis 1-11 isn’t referred to all. We can’t exactly speculate all too much here on why these authors aren’t very interested in Genesis 1-11. This text is entirely allegorical to begin with, the OT authors seems more interested in the actual history of Israel and so I don’t find it surprising that Genesis 1-11, by my count so far, is only mentioned on two passing occasions. Right now, I’m toiling with a passage in Job where God sets the boundaries for the waters after the flood and whether it may or may not allude to God setting the ‘boundaries’ of the waters after the flood in Genesis 9 so it no longer destroys humanity. This one is pretty vague so I’ll keep it at rest. As I see it, two mentions is enough, the real oddity is why these authors aren’t interested in the primeval history.

That is the book I am talking about. My edition has only 158 pages.

I would like to see direct quotations please.

If you don’t have a direct quotation, where are you getting all that information from Friedman? You may not be aware of these facts.

  1. Friedman identifies two levels of Deueteronomist composition; Dtr1 (pre-exilic), and Dtr2 (exilic).
  2. Friedman identifies a later redactor, R, who revised and compiled the earlier sources, in the exilic era.
  3. Friedman identifies the reference to the creation in Exodus 20:11, as the work of the exilic redactor, not a pre-exilic writer.
  4. Friedman identifies the song of Moses as an independent poem which was inserted into Deuteronomy by Dtr2, the exilic writer.

So he does not actually believe that the entire Pentateuch is pre-exilic. His view is a lot more complicated than that.

That’s a word in Genesis 10, not the Babel narrative (which is in Genesis 11). As I said, the word is not used in the Babel narrative to describe the scattering of people. Modern scholars typically note the same word in Genesis 10, but do not say it is in Genesis 11.

[quote=“ManiacalVesalius, post:51, topic:37158”]
I was stranged to see you say no commentaries mention it, since when I simply go to the list of commentaries on Deuteronomy 32:8 on BibleHub a lot of them have it. Elliott’s commentary, Bensen’s commentary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown’s commentary, John Gill’s commentary, etc (besides already mentioning Friedman, Weiser etc).[/quote]

I note that you’re citing scholarship from well over 100 years ago. I also note you’re not reading the commentaries very closely.

  1. Bensen cites Genesis 10 and says nothing about Babel.
  2. Gill cites Genesis 10 and says that the separation was the work of the sons of Noah (not that it was the product of Babel).
  3. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown cites Genesis 10 and says that the separation was the work of the sons of Noah (not that it was the product of Babel).

Barnes and Ellicott (not “Elliot”), are the only two which actually say this is a reference to Babel. I think you’re doing the same with more modern commentaries in at least several places, assuming that when they cite Genesis 10 they are referring to Babel. And by the way, it’s Heiser, not Weiser.

Yes that’s the post I mean. You didn’t address my entire argument about the Exodus passage, you just took one small part of it and replied to that. But if that’s all you’re going to write, I’ll respond to that.

Well no, if we have only two apparent references, it doesn’t help your case at all. Occam’s Razor tells us that there is a more efficient explanation than that Genesis 1-11 were all prexilic but people just chose not to talk about anything in them except for about twelve words, on just two occasions.

What you’re doing right there is assuming Genesis 1-11 were pre-exilic, and then saying that we can’t speculate on why pre-exilic authors aren’t very interested in them. This is ad hoc reasoning to support a conclusion you’ve already arrived at.

Because it didn’t exist. This is the more efficient explanation.

@ManiacalVesalius

Yes, yes… it’s obvious to Friedman. But not to any of the other top-flight translators that aren’t trying to cherry-pick the scriptures.

I’m from the translation school that thinks when something is omitted it is usually not an accident.

I’ll let @Jonathan_Burke tend to your assertions. There’s no point in my attempting it. You haven’t agreed with a single one of my proposals. But I’ve been discussing them with you because you seem interested in the evidence involved. Needless to say, I believe you have concluded that the evidence is minimal.

George

@ManiacalVesalius

This is how you straight arm your way through a discussion?

You say Moses is “no priest” … and yet he is the Leading Levite in all Exodus?

He is not categorized as “Illustrious” … and yet Exodus describes his face as literally “glowing”. And if you don’t like the literal use of “lustre” … he is certainly the leader of Exodus.

I don’t think you and I are very good research partners. Your tolerance for novel ideas is pretty low, and my tolerance for rejecting everythiing that isn’t the status quo is pretty low too.

This is how you straight arm your way through a discussion?

You say Moses is “no priest” … and yet he is the Leading Levite in all Exodus?

He is not categorized as “Illustrious” … and yet Exodus describes his face as literally “glowing”. And if you don’t like the literal use of “lustre” … he is certainly the leader of Exodus.

To be quite honest, I’m going to reevaluate this. It appears that the parallels are, at least, not non-existent. So for this, I’ll make a concession. I don’t think it’s as good as mose in Egyptian (which we know was part of Egyptian names, I don’t see evidence that mus/mas was part of any names at the time). And I’ve already frequented enormous other sums of evidence why I overall conclude Moses name is of Egyptian etymology. You haven’t convinced me otherwise, it looks like you’ve simply described me as part of the “status-quo” (even though a lot of my opinions are anything but majority scholarship) and left it at that.

I guess I should ask you myself. What do you think there is more evidence for, Egyptian mose or semitic mus/mas? Taking into account that Egyptian had vastly more influence over the Levant than Akkad/Hatti/etc, and that the entire exodus story is Egyptian, and that there are hundreds of Egyptian loanwords in the books of the Bible describing the exodus and wilderness narratives, and a bunch of those characters themselves have Egyptian names, do you still conclude that there’s more evidence for mus/mas which seems to have no evidence besides having the same spelling (which is also covered by mose anyways)? This is an honest question.

Your tolerance for novel ideas is pretty low, and my tolerance for rejecting everythiing that isn’t the status quo is pretty low too.

Quite frankly, I don’t appreciate the disrespect from this statement.

Yes, yes… it’s obvious to Friedman. But not to any of the other top-flight translators that aren’t trying to cherry-pick the scriptures.

Apparently, you’d also like the disrespect Friedman. Please, tell me, in what conceptual way does Friedman’s argument cherrypick anything? The book is $30 books and worth buying, I’ll wait to see you explain this. Friedman, in his book, wasn’t even looking to “prove” Genesis 1-11 is pre-exilic or something, in fact that had literally nothing to do with the topic of his book or his argument. This is an off-the-cuff connection he made in the biblical text.

By the way, your statement that I haven’t agreed to a single one of your proposals is incorrect. I’ve accepted that there does appear to be more similarity from mus/mas to Moses than I’ve seen before, and once you’ve shown that the word mus extended outwards from Sumerian language to Hittite/Akkadian/etc languages, that still existed during Israel’s time, I also dropped my argument that this word and nation has zero continuity with Israel.

At the very least, I’ve learned a lot more through this conversation, hopefully you have as well.