OBST 800 Short Paper Comparative Literature 10-01-2023

docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

800

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by kristophermichaelwilliams

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY Short Paper: Comparative Literature Submitted to Dr. Michael Graham, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of the course OBST 800-B02 Old Testament Backgrounds by Kristopher Williams L25494524 01 October 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………. 1 ASSESSING EXTRA-BIBLICAL COMPARATIVE LITERATURE…………………….2 PROBLEMS WITH USE OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE…………………………. 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………..9 ii

INTRODUCTION At the beginning of the 20 th century, critical academic scholarship accepted the thesis that the accounts concerning the biblical patriarchs are historically unsound. The so-called Documentary Hypothesis, developed by several scholars during the 18 th and 19 th centuries but systematically codified by Julius Wellhausen, presented the literary composition of the entirety of the Pentateuch as occurring in stages in response to certain historical and political realities of the time of composition. Many argued that the patriarchal narratives of Genesis 12-50 were fabricated by scribes during the time of the United Monarchy while anachronistically claiming a beginning for the Hebrews in a distant past. It was argued that the ideas, events, and cultural situations presented in Genesis 12-50 could be placed in the 1 st millennium B.C. The confidence in a “late” dating of the cultural and historical situation(s) of the patriarchal period has declined over the past century. 1 Though lacking absolute consensus, the majority view seems to rest upon the idea that the patriarchal period presented by biblical authors can be placed in the first half of the 1 st millennium B.C., though precise dates are lacking. Scholars base these claims upon analysis of many archaeological/literary remains recovered and analyzed since the 1920’s that seem to demonstrate customs and cultural values observable in Genesis 12-50 that are similar to those of peoples that would be near-contemporaries of the patriarchs. While not offering definitive, extra-biblical “proof” of the existence of the patriarchs, these items, especially the comparative literature, offers evidence that the way of life demonstrated in many situations in the patriarchal narratives is consistent with those of other ANE literature that can be dated to situations extant in the early 2 nd millennium B.C., allowing 1 See, however, John van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1975), for a sustained argument denying the historical reality of the patriarchs that places their creation as an anachronistic projection during the Babylonian Captivity period of the 6 th century B.C. See also Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Press, 1974) for a similar approach. 1

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

for the placement of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Joseph and his brothers, in a historically searchable backdrop. Thus, the more potent apologetics argument that can be utilized by faith- based individuals against sometimes hostile skeptics is not that extrabiblical literature provides definitive proof for the existence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, the recovered literature from the ANE allows for comparative presentations of names, movements of peoples, law codes focusing on civil and family relationships, and general cultural beliefs in order to observe parallels between the actions and societal beliefs of biblical individuals chronicled in Genesis 12- 50 versus those of the various ANE civilizations. This analysis, rather than being the creation of Hebrew scribes writing in the 1 st millennium B.C. without access to historical items extant a millennium before, may enable the patriarchal narratives to be placed confidently in the early 2 nd millennium B.C. without reliance on the claims of faith alone. ASSESSING EXTRA-BIBLICAL COMPARATIVE LITERATURE While not exhaustive, some of the major archaeological/literary finds of the 20 th century that continue being analyzed for comparative purposes are the so-called Ebla Tablets, the Mari Tablets, and the Nuzi Tablets. These items contain a variety of literature that, prima facie , may not seem to have any direct application for understanding the patriarchal narratives. The literary remains range from “family law” items, such as marriage contracts and those concerning inheritance of property, to items affecting and describing business and commercial arrangements codified in contractually binding documents. The utility is that these items may allow for comparative examination of accounts preserved in Genesis that have escaped the understanding of biblical scholars since the biblical texts assume continuity of understanding within a certain cultural milieu, meaning that they do not explain the customs since they were understood by the then-contemporary audience. 2

When a parallel is claimed or denied by scholars, one method utilized is to examine the veracity of the claim is to examine a particular custom or narrative between ANE documents and various biblical passages in order to offer plausible argumentation for similar context. This comparative method may allow for placement of the biblical narratives within a particular time period and allow for recognition of historical reliability of ancillary items without offering “proof” for the theological claims made in the text. However, this approach may not always be definitive. In some cases, extant extrabiblical material used for comparative purposes may be very sparse, often limited to a single document. This means that conclusions, either supporting parallelism or denial of contemporary cultural affiliation between biblical and non-biblical material, may be affirmed or denied through reliance upon a lack of evidence. Additionally, it is also possible to misinterpret the ANE literature due to a lack of familiarity with the methods and languages associated with the independent discipline in order to reconstruct various social customs. 2 For instance, it is very rare for the ANE comparative literature and biblical texts to exhibit the exact statements. Ephraim Speiser notes one particular alignment between Genesis 27:2, where Isaac says “I have grown old” before attempting to bestow a blessing upon his oldest son, Esau, and recovered material in which “the pronouncement ‘I have now grown old’ was at Nuzi a recognized formula accompanying a solemn final declaration; and such declaration had special standing precisely because they expressed a man’s last wish.” 3 Here it can be reasonably that the biblical text demonstrates a clearly known formula utilized by a contemporary civilization in which the patriarchs interacted. In this instance, we can observe the overlapping of practices. 2 See Ephraim A. Speiser, “I Know Not the Day of My Death,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 74, no. 4 (1955), 252–56, for a discussion and examination of some of the literature in a specific context. 3 Ibid., 253. 3

Similarly, some cuneiform texts unearthed at Nuzi show practices similar with those observed in the biblical text, though not utilizing the same verbiage (e.g., also involving Esau and the “sale” of his birthright in Genesis 25). In his “An Old Babylonian Herding Contract and Genesis 31:38f,” Jacob Finkelstein examines ancient herding contracts extant in Babylon in order to provide greater explanation for Jacob’s complaints to Laban. Finkelstein’s analysis and exposition of the Babylonian texts demonstrate a greater context that Laban was in default of his socially and legally binding agreements regarding the care of herds. It is seen that the biblical texts demonstrate similar phraseology with the herding texts, allowing the exegete to better understand that Jacob was not merely complaining, but citing legal grievances against Laban. Finkelstein’s ultimate conclusion is that “only a thorough appreciation of the herding agreements of the Ancient Near East, and their distinctive phraseology, together with their modern analogues, can bring home the full force of the Jacob-Laban relationship, as described by the former’s account of it, when the two came to the parting of their ways.” 4 Similarly, analysis of a variety of documents across the various ANE cultures allows for the dismissal of previously “certain” ideas. It was once thought that the negotiations for the cave of Machpelah in Genesis 23 strictly followed Hittite patterns of negotiation for land sales. In his “The Legal Background of Genesis 23,” Gene Tucker examines available material and argues that the ideas utilized by Abraham for the transfer of property crossed several ANE cultures and do not demonstrate strict adherence to Hittite juridical practices alone, which he takes as suggestive of an early 2 nd millennium B.C. situating of Abraham. Tucker notes especially “the material of the story cannot be taken as contemporary with the events it describes on the basis of the legal practices it mentions unless it reflects customs which occur only in the second 4 J. J. Finkelstein, “An Old Babylonian Herding Contract and Genesis 31:38 f,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 88, no. 1 (1968), 36. 4

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

millennium and not later.” 5 This argument rejects the arguments made earlier by M.H. Lehmann in support of Hittite laws regarding the purchase of the cave of Machpelah by Abraham, though it does not necessarily confidently press the idea of a late 2 nd millennium memory of events later recorded by biblical authors. 6 Utilization of intertextuality between biblical texts may shed some light on the dating problems. It can be observed that many social and custom differences extant during the telling of the patriarchal narratives are not extant in the remainder of the Pentateuch, suggesting a change in customs over time, though this is not to claim that some cultural features common across the entire ANE do not persist from the time of the patriarchs until the arrival of the Hebrews in Canaan. It can be easily observed in the biblical texts that inheritance customs claimed in the patriarchal period modified. Genesis 25:5-6 states that “Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.” This stands in stark contrast to the legal claims made in Deuteronomy, which provide split inheritance according to the following: If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved , who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first fruits of his strength . The right of the firstborn is his (Deuteronomy 21:15- 17, ESV: emphasis added). 7 It can be argued here that a late cultural practice (split inheritance) is not assumed and projected anachronistically into the patriarchal narratives, thereby preserving the possibility that 5 Gene M. Tucker, “The Legal Background of Genesis 23,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 85, no. 1 (1966), 84. 6 See M.R. Lehmann, "Abraham's Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law,” in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 129 (1953), 15-18, for a brief presentation engaging the literary finds. 7 Note that Deuteronomy 21 does not specifically prohibit polygamy in its addressing of inheritance. The text acknowledges the practice without comment. 5

the accounts in Genesis 12-50 preserve culturally normative practices in their respective periods in line with the general cultural milieu of the ANE. A second alteration in practice between Genesis 12-50 and later Pentateuchal data revolves around acceptable marriage customs. According to Genesis, Abraham, on at least two occasions, utilized a ruse to protect himself against kings by having Sarah pose as his sister (the Egyptian Pharaoh in Genesis 12 and Abimelech in Genesis 20). In both cases, supernatural intervention led the rulers to discover the ruse and express their consternation about being tricked and experiencing supernatural punishment. The account of Pharaoh’s discovery is recounted without Abraham speaking. In the case of Abimelech, the text records Abraham offering an explanation that he technically has not lied to the king, stressing that “she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother , and she became my wife” (Genesis 20:12, ESV: emphasis added). The later Pentateuch specifically prohibits all types of sexual interactions with sisters, whether biological or step-siblings (see Leviticus 18:9 & 11; 20:17; Deuteronomy 27:22). Any type of brother-sister marriage is forbidden in the context of Exodus- Deuteronomy, and following through the remainder of the OT, but is recorded without direct prohibition in Genesis 12-50. In Genesis, polygamy itself is not directly proscribed by Yahweh or the biblical author, with readers readily observing that Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29). Deuteronomy 18:18, situated after the Exodus, itself many centuries after the patriarchal period, specifically prohibits this type of union by noting that “you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.” Again, writers could have projected then-current practices into the patriarchal period, but this is not observed. PROBLEMS WITH USE OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 6

Once criticism that can be reasonably applied against the use of ANE cuneiform archaeological/literary items for comparative purposes against biblical accounts is that any parallels observed are scant. In other words, there are not currently enough documents to demonstrate numerous data points to support or an interpretation, meaning that one may obtain support for a position through one isolated example without being able to confidently assert overarching representation of the phenomenon. Moreover, the literary genres of comparative literature do not necessarily match with those of Genesis 12-50. While it may be acceptable to examine Leviticus and Deuteronomy through the lens of ANE legal documents since they address similar concerns, stressing the similarities between incidental items contained in narrative, theological documents with contract and marriage law written in different languages over centuries may be tenuous. 8 In his “The Scandal of the ‘Great Sin’ at Ugarit,” W.L. Moran notes the use of the term “great sin,” seen in Genesis 20:9 (but also see Exodus 32:21, 30, 31 and II Kings 17:21), and its appearance in Egyptian documents of the early 1 st millennium B.C. and the Akkadian documents uncovered at Ugarit. 9 The context of the respective documents allows for adultery to be the reasonable conclusion for “great sin” across each of the cultures and languages. However, the very similarity and longevity of these practices makes it very dangerous to vociferously argue for a definite date for the patriarchs since many ideas and practices persisted over long periods of time. With Ugarit’s destruction occurring in the middle of the 13 th century B.C., and the observance of similar language in Egypt long after, confidently placing Genesis 20 within a narrow temporal window based on these uses of the phrase is not useful. 8 Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives , 294-5. 9 W. L. Moran. “The Scandal of the ‘Great Sin’ at Ugarit,” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 4 (1959), 280. 7

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bright, John. A History of Israel . 3 rd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981. Finkelstein, J. J. “An Old Babylonian Herding Contract and Genesis 31:38 f.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88, no. 1 (1968): 30–36. Lehmann, M.R. "Abraham's Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 129 (1953): 15-18 8

Lubetski, Meir, Claire Gottlieb, and Sharon R. Keller . Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Moran, W. L. “The Scandal of the ‘Great Sin’ at Ugarit.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 4 (1959): 280–81. Noth, Martin. The History of Israel . 2 nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Thompson, Thomas L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Press, 1974. Tucker, Gene M. “The Legal Background of Genesis 23.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85, no. 1 (1966): 77–84. 9