Mine is the electronic edition, and all I can guess is that they numbered it differently.
Unfortunately Friedman is well outside the consensus here, in particular because of the characteristics of the Hebrew of P, which is very obviously not Archaic Biblical Hebrew, and shows it is in a transition stage from Classical Biblical Hebrew to Late Biblical Hebrew.
The two-source-hypothesis appears to remain a valid model to explain the origins of the biblical Primeval History, albeit with some medications. There is little need to correct the literary-historical data for the priestly texts that we only mentioned in passing. Concerning the identification of priestly—and thus also non-priestly—texts, the consensus remains well founded. The same can be said of dating P to the end of the Exilic period or to the beginning of the Second Temple period. Equally undeniable is the fact that P is a source that begins in Gen 1 and moves beyond the Primeval History.", Ronald S. Hendel, “Historical Context,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Craig A Evans, Joel N Lohr, and David L Petersen (2017), 132.
Most of Genesis 1-11 is written in Classical Biblical Hebrew, with few exceptions. But the fact that it contains some Late Biblical Hebrew indicates that parts of the text were written at the end or after the exile.
“Outside of these few texts with features of Archaic Biblical Hebrew or Late Biblical Hebrew, the language of Genesis belongs to the period of Classical Biblical Hebrew, which ranges roughly from the ninth-sixth centuries BCE. This is the language of Hebrew inscriptions from this period and is very close to the contemporary language of Moabite and other Northwest Semitic inscriptions.”, Ronald S. Hendel, “Historical Context,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Craig A Evans, Joel N Lohr, and David L Petersen (2017), 56.
This language distribution pattern is in agreement with the hypothesis of an exilic writer.
These are not incompatible. This is what he says.
“'The long poem that takes up Deuteronomy 32, known as the Song of Moses, is an independent poem that was inserted by the Deuteronomistic historian in the Dtr2 edition of the work.”, Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 361.
He believes the Song of Moses is an independent archaic text which was not originally part of Deuteronomy, but which was known to, and inserted by, am exilic scribe.
Sure. He says right here that the reference to the creation in Exodus 20:11 is the work of the exilic redactor.
“The text of the Ten Commandments here does not appear to belong to any of the major sources. It is likely to be an independent document, which was Inserted here by the Redactor.”, Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 153.
So he’s another scholar on my list of those who understand the reference to the six days of creation in Exodus 20:11 to be an exilic expansion of the text.
It’s here. Note in particular this part of the argument.
- It has long been recognized that there are differences between the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the Decalogue.
- Examining the Exodus version, it is clear that the narrative switches back and forth between God speaking in the first person, and someone speaking of God in the third person. This reads naturally as someone adding their own comments to what God said.
- When the sections in the third person are removed, the Exodus Decalogue is virtually identical to the Deuteronomy Decalogue. This corroborates the hypothesis that the third party sections were added to the Exodus Decalogue at a later date.
See the following commentary.
Hossfeld contends that the variations (major or minor) are deliberate and accord with the perspective from which each composition was made. Specifically, zkr (Exod 20:8) is a secondary development from the original šmr (Deut 5:12) under cultic influence typical of the exilic and post-exilic period. The reduction of the animal participants in Sabbath observance from “your ox, or your ass, or any of your cattle” (Deut 5:14) to “your cattle” (Exod 20:10) matches the usage of the priestly creation account. The conclusion “that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you” (Deut 5:14) is an indigenous deuteronomic expression that contributes to its unique rationale for the Sabbath (Deut 5:15). The rationale for the Sabbath in Exod 20:11, on the other hand, draws upon Exod 23:12; Deut 5:12–15 (for the verb nwh) and upon Gen 1:1–2:4a, and it is thus secondary to that of Deuteronomy.", N. E. Andreasen, “Review of Der Dekalog: Seine Späten Fassungen, Die Originale Komposition Und Seine Vorstufen, by Frank-Lothar Hossfeld,” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 441.
“To be sure, I am prompted by the tension to explore the matter, but grammatically one can see a distinction is being made by the reference to God in first person in Exod 20:2 and by the reference to him in third person in Exod 20:9–11, especially in the conclusion: “Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Is it not more plausible that this statement is made by the narrator rather than God? To make the matter clearer for students, I may put vv. 9–11 in parentheses.”, Bruce K. Waltke, “Review of Interaction with Peter Enns,” Westminster Theological Journal 71, no. 1 (2009): 121.
I will address this again later.
Of course the chapter breaks aren’t important. But the fact that these are separate narratives is important. Previously you based your case on the claim that the same word is used in both the Babel narrative and the Deuteronomy narrative. But now I’ve shown you that the word in Deuteronomy isn’t actually used in the Babel narrative, you say “That a different word is used is hardly relevant”. Of course it’s relevant, because it makes any connection between the two even more tenuous and even less likely.
Yes it is, because neither Genesis 10 nor Genesis 11 actually mention the important content of Deuteronomy. Let’s look at the entire passage in Deuteronomy.
8 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.
Whoa, see that part in bold? You missed that part out. Where do we find that part in either Genesis 10 or Genesis 11? Nowhere. Nor is there any account in either Genesis 10 or Genesis 11 of God giving the nations their inheritance, and setting up their boundaries. In Genesis 10 we have the migration of the sons of Noah before Babel, and in Genesis 11 we have a small group of people scattered from a local area. No reference to nations at all.
Sure there is, there’s the widespread idea in the Ancient Near East that the territory occupied by humans was appointed by the gods.
“32:8. deity granting nations inheritance. In Israelite theology Yahweh had assigned each nation its inheritance (5:2, 9, 19; Amos 9:7), though there is also some accommodation to the concept that each god gave territory to his people (Judg 11:24).”, Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Dt 32:8.
“32:8 Deuteronomy 32:8 may reflect the old mythology of the divine council assembled at New Year under the tutelage of Elyon (“Most High”) to determine the destiny of the nations for the ensuing period (see above on 13:1–5; cf. Ps. 82). In the demythologizing process, Elyon has become a title of Yahweh, who is alone supreme.”, Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI; Edinburgh: W.B. Eerdmans; Handsel Press, 1992), 282.
And what do you know, there are 70 gods in the Ugarit pantheon, just like there are 70 elohim mentioned here.
“The equivalent term in other Canaanite languages is benei ʾel(im), and according to Ugaritic mythology there are seventy such beings.”, Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 514.
So yeah there’s a very simple explanation outside Genesis 10-11, and that explanation actually accounts for all the data, not just a little bit of it.
According to Occam’s Razor the simplest explanation accounting for all the data is preferable. The great strength of my argument is that it accounts for all the data in the simplest way. The greatest weakness of your argument is that it fails to account for most of the data.
But that is not the argument at all. The argument is this.
- Genesis 1-11 is exilic, based on multiple lines of independent evidence.
- Deuteronomy 32:8 does not contain any clear reference to any part of Genesis 1-11.
- The idea that Deuteronomy 32:8 cites Genesis 10 or 11 does not account for all the data in Deuteronomy 32:8.
- An alternative explanation for Deuteronomy 32:8, accounting for all the data in the passage, is a more efficient explanation.
- This alternative explanation for Deuteronomy 32:8 also harmonizes with all the evidence for an exilic Genesis 1-11.
See my previous comments.