Assumption #1 ATHEISTIC MINDSET
The fundamental
position underlying the Documentary Hypothesis is that there is no God or gods
and, consequently, no divine messages to humans.
Put
simply, all so-called divine revelation texts: in Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism, etc. are all ‘man-made’ ‘pious fictions’.
This
cornerstone belief causes dissonance among people and religious
organizations who believe that there is a Divine Creator or gods but
accept the scholarship of the Documentary Hypothesis.
Julius
Wellhausen, the most famous proponent of the Documentary Hypothesis, was the
son of a Protestant minister. He rose
to the position of professor of theology at Greifswald University, but in 1882
resigned his theology chair after deciding his publications and advocacy of the
Documentary Hypothesis was inconsistent with the role of teacher of theology
and mentor to young clergy.
To quote
his letter of resignation[i]:
I became a theologian because the
scientific treatment of the Bible interested me; only gradually did I come to
understand that a professor of theology also has the practical task of
preparing the students for service in the Protestant Church, and that I am not
adequate to this practical task, but that instead despite all caution on my own
part I make my hearers unfit for their office. Since then my theological
professorship has been weighing heavily on my conscience.
Thereafter, Wellhausen moved to a number of universities and
continued his career as professor of Oriental languages[ii].
I
mention Wellhausen’s story because I acknowledge that he, and those proponents before
him, and those after him to this day, have acted in good faith and with
integrity, in the pursuit of what they, in good conscience, believe to be the
truth.
The same pursuit of truth and integrity apply to the Jewish
branches of Reform and Reconstructionism which have accepted the Documentary
Hypothesis.
Each has
delt with the ‘conundrum’ in its own way.
Reform broke away from traditional Jewish Orthodoxy and its
strict 613 ‘Divine’ Commandments; adjusting to the Modern World and allowing
its members – and clergy -- to keep what ‘traditions’ they wanted while
preserving the synagogue and group services as its anchor.
Mordechai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionism, was
raised Orthodox, moved on to the Conservative movement and finally set out on
his own ’vision’ of Judaism: that Judaism is an ‘evolving religious Civilization’.
His ideas, elaborated in his major works, were put into practice with his
distinct The New Haggadah for Passover (1941) and new, radical, Sabbath
Prayer Book (1945).
Both outraged his Conservative Theological Seminary colleagues,
and the Orthodox community excommunicated him.[iii]
In 1968, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in
Wyncote, Pennsylvania opened, thereby formalizing the denomination’s
independent identity and theology[iv].
Kaplan never adhered to Reform as he felt they had gone too
far, and he was a very active, life-long Zionist hoping for the restoration of
the Jewish state in Israel as the ‘centre’ for worldwide Jewry.
CONCLUSION
The
Documentary Hypothesis is based on an atheistic view of the world and which
sees so-called ‘holy’ texts as man-made ‘pious fictions’.
Attempts to
find a ‘compromise’: to accept the Documentary Hypothesis while preserving
belief in a God (of some sort) exist. Efforts to preserve the institutions and
history of the Jewish people at some level have given birth to Reform Judaism
and the Reconstruction movement.
Now, I
believe there is no way to convince an atheist that God exists and that there
can be – has been -- Divine revelations.
But I do
believe the two other cornerstones or pillars upon which the Documentary
Hypothesis has been built can be shown to be faulty, false and untrue.
Assumption
#2 ONE DIETY ONE NAME
The
Documentary Hypothesis, has as its second tenant that a deity can only have one
name.
This is
true of Greek, Roman and even Norse mythologies with which these European
scholars were familiar with. And ancient Egypt as well. All human-like nuclear and extended families.
|
GREEK NAME |
ROMAN NAME |
ROLE |
|
King of
the Gods |
||
|
Goddess of
Marriage |
||
|
God of the
Sea |
||
|
Youngest
son of Uranus, father of Zeus |
||
|
Goddess of
Love |
||
|
God of the
Underworld |
||
|
God of the
Forge |
||
|
Ceres |
Goddess of
the Harvest |
|
|
Apollo |
God of
Music and Medicine |
|
|
Goddess of
Wisdom |
||
|
Goddess of
the Hunt |
||
|
God of War |
||
|
Mercury |
Messenger
of the Gods |
|
|
Bacchus |
God of
Wine |
|
|
Proserpine |
Goddess of
the Underworld |
|
|
God of
Love |
||
|
Terra |
Goddess of
Earth |
|
|
Somnus |
God of
Sleep |
|
|
Ops |
Mother of
Zeus / Wife of Cronus |
|
|
Uranus |
Father of
the Titans |
|
|
Victoria |
Goddess
of Victory |
|
|
Aurora |
Goddess
of the Dawn |
|
|
Faunus |
God of
shepherds |
|
|
Luna |
Goddess
of the Moon |
|
|
Sol |
God of the
Sun |
|
|
Hercules |
Son of
Zeus |
|
|
Ulysses |
Greek Hero |
https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/greek-vs-roman-gods/
The Norse
gods had Odin as “allfather”, wife Frigg, son Thor (the god of thunder), Loki (
the evil trickster), and at least 8 other ‘main’ gods.[v]
It is
even true of ancient Egyptian mythology with its 11 main gods.[vi]
So there
is some logic to the assumption of one god – one name, based on these other
ancient civilizations and religions.
But all
the Documentary Hypothesis proponents until recent times were Christian.
Yet the
very heart of their own religion: a tripartite ‘godhead’ consisting of the
Father, the Holy Spirit and a Son named Jesus – all co-eternal and a ‘unity’,
i.e., The Trinity, did not caution them that their one god – one
name principle may not have applied in all religions: and, in
particular, to Judaism and its Bible core texts.
Mesopotamian tradition:
The head
god of the Babylonian First Dynasty (19th century BCE) was Marduk[vii].
In the 7
clay tablets called Enuma Elish, there is an entire section which gives
the 50 names – yes, 50 names – of the head deity, Marduk[viii].
The
tablets found in the mid-19th century were first translated from
fragments in 1876.[ix]
Enuma Elish gives each name with a detailed list of the
special qualities it represents.
For example, his name Marukka, means he is
also the creator of all.
His name Barashakushu stresses he is
“…wide is his heart, warm his sympathy.”
His name Lucaldimmfrankia is used when he sits at the head of the pantheon
of gods assembly. His name s
Asarludu shows he is the ‘mighty leader’ and protector of all the other gods.
So, there
is a Near Eastern, Mesopotamian and ancient precedent for multiple terms for a
single deity.
In fact,
Hammurabi in his Law Code (mid-18th century BCE)[x] begins with acknowledging Marduk and then
lauds himself and his power and diverse roles and achievements over 30 times![xi]
Judaism and the Bible
In the
Bible, the most common references for the one and only Deity are יְהוָה and אֱלֹהִים.
יְהוָה – called in English
(based on ancient Greek) the Tetragrammaton (i.e., ‘the 4 letters’) appears 6220 times in the Hebrew Bible[xii].
It
is a conflation of the verb ‘to be’ in its past-present-future infinitive
forms. And it means The Eternal.
To
quote our daily siddur prayer Adon Olam:
,וְהוּא הָיָה, וְהוּא הֹוֶה He was, He is, and He shall be in glory.
. וְהוּא יִהְיֶה,
בְּתִפְאָרָה
Yehee Kavod:
|
מָלָֽךְ יְהוָ֥ה : םיִ֖וֹגּבַ וְיֹֽאמְר֥וּ יִמְלֹ֖ךְ
יְהוָ֥ה ׀ יְהוָ֣ה מֶ֖לֶךְ, מָלָךְ֘ יְהוָ֣ה,
לְעֹלָ֥ם וָעֶֽד |
And the nations will say: The Eternal is King. The
Eternal was, the Eternal is and the Eternal will be for ever. (My translation) |
אֱלֹהִים appears some 2598 times[xiii].
Often יְהוָה and אֱלֹהִים appear
side by side as in Gen. ch 2: 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 22.
The term אֱלֹהִים (and its variant אֵל) simply
mean a deity or a god. They are generic.
They
are used in the Chumash and other Scriptures as well for pagan, false
gods. And even for angels, powerful
human rulers and judges!
Just check the extensive Brown-Driver-Briggs breakdown and Bible citations at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm
.
So, of
these two, most common references, only the Tetragrammaton, יְהוָה , is the EXCLUSIVE, PROPER name of the
Deity of the Bible.
אֱלֹהִים
is a ‘secondary’ reference term: when not used for pagan deities, angels,
rulers, etc.
As well,
it often has possessive suffixes added: “Mine/Our”, “Your” and ‘Their”. unlike
the name יְהוָה which never, ever gets such treatment.
Psalm
30:13 “My”
|
יג לְמַעַן, יְזַמֶּרְךָ כָבוֹד--
וְלֹא יִדֹּם: |
13 So that my glory may sing praise to
Thee, and not be silent; O Eternal, my
God, I will give thanks unto Thee for ever. |
Deut. 5:
23 “Our”
|
כג קְרַב אַתָּה וּשְׁמָע, אֵת
כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ; וְאַתְּ
תְּדַבֵּר אֵלֵינוּ, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר יְהוָה
אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֵלֶיךָ--וְשָׁמַעְנוּ וְעָשִׂינוּ. |
23 Go thou near, and hear all that the Eternal,
our God, may say; and thou shalt speak unto us
all that the Eternal, our God may speak unto thee; and we will hear
it and do it.' |
1 Samuel 5:7 “Our” Referring to the pagan Philistine
deity, Dagon
|
ז וַיִּרְאוּ אַנְשֵׁי-אַשְׁדּוֹד,
כִּי-כֵן; וְאָמְרוּ, לֹא-יֵשֵׁב אֲרוֹן אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
עִמָּנוּ--כִּי-קָשְׁתָה יָדוֹ עָלֵינוּ, וְעַל דָּגוֹן אֱלֹהֵינוּ. |
7 And when the men of Ashdod saw that it
was so, they said: 'The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us; for
His hand is sore upon us,
and upon Dagon our god.' |
Deut. 5:6 “Your”
singluar
|
ו אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם
מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים: לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עַל-פָּנָי. |
6 I am the Eternal, thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. |
Deut. 11:13 “Your” plural
|
יג וְהָיָה, אִם-שָׁמֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ
אֶל-מִצְוֺתַי, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם, הַיּוֹם--לְאַהֲבָה אֶת-יְהוָה
אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, וּלְעָבְדוֹ, בְּכָל-לְבַבְכֶם,
וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁכֶם. |
13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall
hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love
the Eternal, your God, and to serve Him with
all your heart and with all your soul. |
|
טו וַתֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה שָׁבָה יְבִמְתֵּךְ,
אֶל-עַמָּהּ, וְאֶל-אֱלֹהֶיהָ; שׁוּבִי, אַחֲרֵי
יְבִמְתֵּךְ. |
15 And she said: 'Behold, thy
sister-in-law is gone back unto her people, and unto her
god; return thou after thy sister-in-law.' |
Ruth 1: 15 “Her”
After Naomi sent away one daughter-in-law to return to her family of pagans.
Judges
9:27 “Their” Rebellion plot involving a festival to a pagan
deity.
|
כז וַיֵּצְאוּ הַשָּׂדֶה וַיִּבְצְרוּ
אֶת-כַּרְמֵיהֶם, וַיִּדְרְכוּ, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ, הִלּוּלִים; וַיָּבֹאוּ, בֵּית אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ, וַיְקַלְלוּ
אֶת-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ. |
27 And they went out into the field, and
gathered their vineyards, and trod the grapes, and held festival, and went
into the house of their god, and did eat and
drink, and cursed Abimelech. |
Such possessive
suffixes are regularly attached to the generic term אֱלֹהִים:when referring to the Deity of the Bible or to
pagan gods. But they are never, ever
attached to the august and proper single name of the Eternal, יְהוָה.
Rabbinic tradition
Why often
use two different terms?
As stated
by the Art Scroll Chumash (7th ed. 1997) commentary on p. 11,
the 4-letter proper names יְהוָה represents His Attribute of
Mercy. The term
אֱלֹהִים reflects His Attribute of Strict Justice.
A more in depth explanation is offered by Hertz’s The
Pentateuch and Haftorahs (1958) pages 7-8, which adds that the
Tetragrammaton is used in close relationships with individuals and
nations, and in
revelations, while the term אֱלֹהִים stresses rulership as master
of the world.
This distinction is reflected in King David’s Psalms and in
the central Genesis account, the Binding of Isaac.
Gen. 22:1-19 recounts a test of Abraham’s dedicate to and
faith in the Deity who led him out of Mesopotamia to Canaan.
This Deity is referred to as אֱלֹהִים
in verses 1, 3, 8 and 9.
More
specifically, He is referred to as הָאֱלֹהִים, “the God”, i.e., the one and only real God, in verse 1, 3 and 9. A necessary clarification as the Bible uses אֱלֹהִים
for false
pagan gods as well (as noted above).
הָאֱלֹהִים orders
Abraham to take his only, beloved son, Isaac, and sacrifice him at a far-off
hill some 3 days journey away.
Abraham rises early and makes all the preparations for the
trip himself. And when he reaches the
chosen spot, he builds a stone alter, ties up his son, places Isaac on the
alter and is about to use a knife to kill Isaac before incinerating his body as
a sacrifice – when a voice from the Sky above intervenes. He is told to stop and not harm the child in
any way.
He is then given a blessing for his unwavering obedience to
the Deity.
The message to stop, and the second, blessing message are
given by יְהוָה (verses 11, 15-18).
And when a thankful Abraham decides to ‘name this holy
location’ Abraham uses יְהוָה:
|
ד וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָהָם שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם
הַהוּא, יְהוָה יִרְאֶה, אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר
הַיּוֹם, בְּהַר יְהוָה יֵרָאֶה. |
14 And Abraham called the name of that
place The Eternal-will see; as it is said to
this day: 'In the mount where The Eternal is seen.' |
(My English translation)
As for King
David, his psalms constantly speaks to the Deity as יְהוָה except in 3 psalms where he addresses the Divine only as אֱלֹהִים: Psalms
57, 60 and their merged version Psalm 108[xiv].
These psalms mark low points when The Eternal seemed distant
and disinterested:
- Psalm 57 - while
David was hiding alone in a cave awaiting Saul and his troops.
- Psalm 60 –
recounting how God let Edom to rise up and ravage the land and Jewish people.
In this
regard, Psalm 64 is also noteworthy.
Here David refers to the Divine as
אֱלֹהִים three (3) times and only once as יְהוָה – in the last verse.
The psalm
is about evil people who cause harm and do not fear retribution and justice from
the Divine – אֱלֹהִים , but when the
psalm switches to commenting on the righteous in the last verse, it is יְהוָה – the merciful Eternal who cares for his faithful.
In his other
numerous psalms, David always praises and ‘reaches out’ to יְהוָה, the proper name of The Eternal: the all
merciful, caring and approachable God.
Consequently,
the rabbinic tradition-- as more fully elaborated by Hertz -- is consistent
with both the text of the Binding of
Isaac and King David’s psalms.
Documentary Hypothesis spin
According to
the Documentary Hypothesis, a deity can have only one name.
They have
tried to separate out the ‘threads’, i.e., passages or even single verses, which
refer to the deity named יְהוָה from
those passages and verses where the deity is named אֱלֹהִים.
Where, as in
Genesis ch 2, the two references are used back to back constantly (as cited
above) Documentary Hypothesis proponents
argue that this shows some later 'editor'
altered the text before him to try and 'merge' the two separate
deities into one.e
But they
never answer the obvious question: Why did this ‘editor’ not use the two names
together each time, but, instead, left large sections with one name or the
other? As in Genesis Ch 1 which uses
only אֱלֹהִים.
Also, this
anonymous ‘editor’ could only have done this by making a new hand written copy
of the Chumash (and ensuing Bible texts) as there is no way to insert extra
words into a Torah or other Bible scroll.
I.e., No room for caret (^) marks and obvious word insertions.
He would
have had to handwrite a new ‘revised’ Chumash and other Bible texts.
And, of course, this ‘editor’
scribe would have had to be able – once he created his new ‘revised’ scrolls --
to destroy all existing Torah and other Bible scrolls which did not contain his ‘merging’: as part of this cover up.
CONCLUSION
The
Documentary Hypothesis' assumption that each deity can have only one name or
reference may be true of Greek, Roman, Norse and Egyptian mythologies, but it
is not true of Mesopotamia's Marduk nor the
Diety of the Hebrew Bible
This mindset does not fit the
reality of the Bible’s texts: with Genesis ch 22 and David’s psalms being key
examples.
It is, put simply, overly simplistic and wrong.
Something individuals raised as Christians: with
the tripartite Father, Holy Spirit and Son named Jesus Trinity, should have realized from the start.
Using alternate references to the Divine back to
back is not a later editor doing deity ‘merging’ but rather a sign of reverence
and piety, and poetic emphasis.
The Samaritan Pentateuch
The Samaritans, people resettled in the lands of
the conquered Kingdom of Israel soon after 722 BCE (2 Kings 17:24-28), have
their own version of the Pentateuch as their single text, holy bible.
The handwritten scroll text -- passed down from
generation to generation for well over two and a half millennia -- is in the
ancient alphabet script also used by Jews until the Babylonian Exile of 586
BCE. [xv]
Their script, called Samaritan script, is
identical to the early Hebrew script called
paleo-Hebrew[xvi].
While the Samaritan’s text has
many differences from the Jewish Masoretic text – most notably an extra Mount
Sinai tablet commandment specifying their Mt Gerizim as the site of the future
Temple of God (Exod. 20) [xvii] – their Pentateuch version uses the
Tetragrammaton and אלוהים exactly as they are used in the Masoretic.
For example,
their Genesis ch 1 and ch 2. ex
Gen. ch 1 uses only the Hebrew
term אלוהים = God[xviii],
and in Ch 2 it uses the Tetragrammaton + אלוהים
exactly as in
the Massoretic text.[xix]e
Consequently, the Samaritan Pentateuch is independent proof that
there was no such i'merging' or
editing re: the names of the God of the Bible after c. 722 BCE. ex
This commonality and date cause the
Documentary Hypothesis more problems, as will be elaborated in part 3: The
Greek Tragedy.
Assumption #3
THE GREEK TRAGEDY
The ancient
Greeks have long been icons in western Civilization. These clever and
innovative people gave us philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), science
(Archimedes), biology (Aristotle), mathematics
(Euclid), architecture ( Parthenon),
literature (Homer), drama/theatre ( comedy, satyr and tragedy e.g., Aristophanes, Sophocles, Euripides),
true to life sculpture (Venus de Milo), geography and anthropology (Herodotus),
history (Thucydides) and democracy (Athens).
So great were
its achievements that the early Romans adopted all these innovations except for
Athenian direct democracy -- preferring their own representative democracy
model.
And
thereafter, all the countries and cultures of Europe, Great Britain and,
ultimately, the New World and the ‘land down under[hg1] ’ copied the
Greeks.
The Alphabet - Old View
The invention
of the Alphabet as a writing system was revolutionary.
Unlike
ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics or the Mesopotamian Cuneiform system – with
their hundred of complex symbols that made learning to write and read a many
years challenge -- the Alphabet drastically reduced the learning curve: as one needs to learn just some two dozen or
so simple letter shapes. And anyone – even a child -- by the end of two years
of schooling at most, can write and read alphabet texts.
And so, far
more people – even young children – were able to become literate.
Now, for a
long time it was believed the Greeks invented the alphabet.
It is true Greek
is the ‘mother’ of all western alphabets via Rome, and all Eastern European
alphabets via 9th century Greek Orthodox missionaries who invented
the Cyrillic alphabet to fit these eastern Slavic tongues[xx].
And, it was
believed, the Greek Alphabet ‘concept’ also spread to ancient Mesopotamia:
replacing complex cuneiform in the Assyrian Empire and the Babylonian Empire.
The alphabet ‘offspring’ became the standard among them and their successor,
the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great -- as all shared the Aramaic language,[xxi] and
its Aramaic alphabet of just 22 consonant letters[xxii].
As the Greek
alphabet only emerged the 8th century BCE according to most scholars[xxiii], and
thereafter slowly spread or was ‘copied’ by other peoples, any other alphabet writings
that claims to be older than the 8th century would be ‘fictitious’: ‘later
creations’ taken from folklore, legends and myths.
Moreover, it
was believed that the Israelites or Hebrews were tribes of historically nomadic
animal herders (sheep, goats, cattle) who maintained a simple, ‘primitive’
culture even when settled in ‘backwater’ Canaan. Only with the Babylonian
conquest in 586 BCE and mass expulsion to Babylon did these ‘Judean
hillbillies’ become civilized: adopting, inter alia, the
Babylonian calendar and month names, and, most importantly, learning to write
and read the kindred language of Aramaic and coping its alphabet system and
square writing for their own Hebrew writings.
This square
lettering, long called Ketav Ashuri in Hebrew,
has been used for Torah scrolls, all other Bible texts, the legal texts of the
Mishnah and Talmuds, prayer books and rabbinic Bible commentaries (outside of
French Rashi), etc. for the last 2 ½ millennia.
Implications for Hebrew and the Bible
As the
Chumash claims to be God’s words dictated to Moses after the Exodus (variously
dated mid-15th century BCE, late 14th century or 13th
century BCE)[xxiv]–
in Hebrew script no less – the above view of the alphabet’s Greek origin and 8th
century BCE date made most of Hebrew scriptures ‘later pious fabrications’.
This would
apply to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
It would
apply to the ‘histories’ of Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1 and 2, Kings 1 and 2.
And, similarly,
any text linked to c. 11th or 10th century BCE David and
Solomon as authors: Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and Song of Solomon.
The books oftransparent
Ruth, Jonah and Job would also fall into ‘later creations.
Only two
groups could be ‘authentic contemporary documents’: the books of the Prophets
and Lamentations (586 BCE),
and the post- Babylonian Exile Chronicles 1-2, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.
And the list
of key ‘fictitious character and events’ -- or at best folklore legends – begins
with Adam and Eve and continues through Noah and the Flood, to Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, Joseph and his brothers, and runs through Moses/the Exodus/the
revelation at Sinai and all the way through King David and King Solomon and the
Jerusalem Temple.
All because
it was believed the alphabet was a Greek invention of the 8th century
BCE and Hebrew writing was a post-586 BCE ‘offshoot’.
The Alphabet – Current View
By the early-20th
century, the archeological evidence from the Near East made clear that the
Greeks did not invent the alphabet.
They had ‘adopted’
and ‘improved’ on the Phoenician alphabet of 22 consonants by adding symbols
for their Greek vowels.
Herodotus
long ago had stated that the Greeks learned the Alphabet from a Phoenician trader
named Kadmos. And Plato and Tacitus claimed the Phoenicians, in turn, had
learned the alphabet from the Egyptians[xxv].
But until the
early 20th century, the ancient claims by Herodotus, Plato and
Tacitus: of a Phoenician origin for Greek, lacked archeological support.
Then, with
the discovery in 1904-5 of very earlier alphabet inscriptions called proto-Sinaitic,
the texts that had long been known and even
deciphered in 1758, finally found a niche and a Phoenician identification[xxvi].
The alphabet
of the great sea faring traders of Phoenicia was a ‘secondary’ spread.
The first
finds of the first alphabet: called proto-Sinaitic (or proto-Canaanite) discovered
in Sinai desert, were soon matched by finds in Egypt and Canaan – and dated to
the mid-19th century BCE onward.[xxvii]
The initial
1904-5 finds included a small sculpture of the Egyptian goddess Hathor with an
inscription in hieroglyphics and proto-Sinaitic which became a kind of Rosetta
Stone for deciphering proto-Sinaitic.[xxviii]
As
proto-Sinaitic has letter shapes that match some simple Egyptian hieroglyphics
such as ox (A), house (B), water (M), head (R), tooth (SH) and fish (D), it is
believed the inventor(s) of the first alphabet ‘copied’ such hieroglyphs in
creating a simplified alphabet writing system.
Whether the people
who wrote these earliest alphabet inscriptions found in the Sinai were foreign
slaves, hired foreign tradespeople, Canaanites or even Egyptians is subject to
debate.[xxix]
Implications for Hebrew and the Bible
One might,
based on this 20th century archaeological new evidence, expect scholarly views
re: the development of Hebrew writing – and the ‘authenticity’ of the Chumash
and most Hebrew Scriptures – to radically change, but this has not been the
case.
Phoenician is
still seen as derived from proto-Sinaitic (also called proto-Canaanite) and, in
turn, led to the Geek alphabet.
But, as noted by
Wikipedia, scholars now believe Hebrew writing – in its original paleo-Hebrew
script -- only emerged c. 800 BCE, though Wikipedia’s entry for paleo-Hebrew
notes surviving inscriptions such as the Gezer Calendar which go back to the mid-10th
century BCE ‘might’ be early Hebrew.[xxx]
With either dating,
the above list of core Bible texts remain – except for possibly 2 Kings --
‘fictitious’ ‘later creations’.
The idea that the
Hebrews, the Children of Israel who settled and conquered Canaan no later than
the 13th century BCE, would have also immediately learned to use
this already existing proto-Sinaitic (proto-Canaanite) alphabet – over 500
years old by then – is ‘rejected’.
Yes, for
Canaanites and neighbouring Phoenicians, but NO for Hebrew and Jews!
Eureka Moment
Professor Joseph Naveh,
in his compact Origins of the Alphabets: introduction to archaeology (2004)
summarizes his many years of research and goes into great detail explaining the
evolution of writing direction and especially letter shapes from the original
proto-Sinaitic or proto-Canaanite first alphabet and later diffusion and
differentiation.
Of particular
relevance here is his analysis and comments re: Canaanite, Phoenician and Hebrew.
1. Each of these three did not appear suddenly in
a fixed final form on day one, but evolved over decades and even centuries as
different scribes within a country or ethnic group ‘experimented’ with writing
direction and letter shapes. (p.18)
2. Many societies began
alphabet writing by copying/using an already existing neighbour’s alphabet
script passed on by social and economic contact or conquest. (p. 20, 21-22)
3. A standardized, unform
script only emerges when a consensus emerges among diversely located scribes or,
more likely, a centralized authority imposes its preference. (p. 24)
It is at this ’final’ point that one can call and distinguish between
Canaanite or Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew script in surviving texts. (p. 18 continued
p. 20)
4. Consequently, in the Fertile Crescent: where
different populations and countries were all Semites and spoke kindred
languages, a group could for an extended period of time be ‘literate’, i.e.,
write and read, using an earlier alphabet of a ‘neighbour’. (p. 21)
Therefore, it is
important to distinguish between when a groups became ‘literate’ and when they
evolved their own distinct – standardized – script to which Epigraphers can
give a name.
Naveh, therefore, argues
that the Gezer Calendar of c. 950 BCE found within the territory of the united kingdom
of King Solomon is ‘Jewish’ whether one argues the script is Phoenician, Hebrew
or an intermediary stage. (p. 21 continued
p. 24).
He also stresses the
discovery of the Moabite Stone dated c. 850 BCE.
It is from a stella
erected by the Moabite King Mesha lauding his building projects and especially
how he freed Moab from the control of the northern Kingdom of Israel.
Naveh makes the following
points which lead to related implications:
1. The stella inscription
relates to the war between Israel and rebel Moab as recorded in 2 Kings ch 3. (p.23)
·
It thereby offers independent, contemporary proof of the ‘authenticity’ of
the 2 Kings text. The stella names the
northern Kingdom of Israel and its King Omri and is the first ‘independent
proof’ of their existence.
2. The script of the Stella
is paleo- Hebrew - here used to write kindred Moabite words. (p.24)
·
As the inscription dates from c. 850 BCE and is in formalized Hebrew
script, it proves Hebrew – as a
distinct script or ‘writing’ language -- is far older than those who suggest
a c.800 BCE ‘beginning’.
3. As he notes p.21 and
continued p. 24, the Hebrew tribes who invaded and conquered Canaan would
certainly have seen and almost instantly begun to use the Canaanite alphabet
for their own writing needs, adopting thereafter the Phoenician variant style
that became widespread (even to the Greeks), and finally developed their own
script that ultimately became formalized and is called by epigraphers
paleo-Hebrew (p. 26-27).
·
This would mean the Hebrew tribes were alphabet literate and could write and read for their own purposes from the
time of the Conquest of Canaan.
·
Historians who use the appearance of the final, formalized paleo-Hebrew script as the guideline to when Israelite society
and culture became ‘literate’ --i.e., ‘civilized’, are badly mistaken.
·
Using final, formalized paleo-Hebrew as the criteria or benchmark re: the
‘authenticity’ of any early Israelite ‘text’ is equally misguided and wrong. What
is later found transmitted in paleo-Hebrew could have been written down and transmitted for centuries in Phoenician
and even much earlier Canaanite script.
Put simply, the
super-simple and effective alphabet concept spread like wildfire, and through
economic and social contact -- and conquest -- diffused quickly among the
Semites and their kindred languages: all of whom lived in the relatively small
area of the western shore of the Mediterranean.
That is why their
alphabets share one characteristic that separates them from Greek and its
descendants: they had no vowel sound symbols, only consonants.
And as for
Israelite literacy and writing, reading Naveh’s small book was, for me at
least, a Eureka moment.
Epigraphers
certainly understand that writing scripts do not appear in their final version
on day one, and that people often adopt someone else’s writing script for
centuries before they develop their own distinct style.
Cuneiform, after
all, was a universal writing system across Mesopotamia and down to Egypt for well
over two millennia. By fifteen (15)
different language groups from c. 3,200 BC onward[xxxi].
So, no one – no
archaeologist or historian or textbook writer - should rely on the moment a
writing script becomes crystalized to mark the start of that
culture and that society’s emergence into ‘literacy’ and ‘civilization’.
That step probably
took place centuries before.
The Alphabet – radical 2017 view[xxxii]
In 2017, Douglas
Petrovich, a scholar in Ancient Near East archology and epigraphy[xxxiii],
published his research on the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.
His
conclusion: they are ancient Hebrew.
His book, The World’s
Oldest Alphabet: Hebrew as the language of the proto-consonantly script (Carta
Jerusalem, 2017) found 16 of the inscriptions spell Hebrew words and names.
·
Sinai 151, dated 1842 BCE, names Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim with the
text being a letter written by the latter.
·
Sinai 351, dated c. 1480 BCE, records an unusual doubling of the Nile’s
normal flooding. It includes a sentence of some 21 Hebrew letters.
·
Sinai 357a contains the name Ahisamach (father of Oholiab, the Tabernacle
craftsmen as stated in Exod.
31:6).
·
Other inscriptions contain the names Asenath (the wife of Joseph) and Moses.
Yes,
Moses. The Moses inscription is dated to
1446-47 and, according to Petrovich’s translation, refers to the 10 Plagues.
He
consequently dates the Exodus to that year and the original settlement of
Israelites in Egypt -- starting with Joseph, to 430 years (Exod. 12:40-41) beforehand:
1876 BCE.
Date Projections
Using Petrovich’s
Exodus date, and the specific statement in 1 Kings 6:1 – that King Solomon in his 4th year
began to build the Temple exactly 480 years after the Exodus – the
Temple construction would have started in 967-6
BCE.
|
א וַיְהִי בִשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה
לְצֵאת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם בַּשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִית בְּחֹדֶשׁ
זִו, הוּא הַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי, לִמְלֹךְ שְׁלֹמֹה, עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּבֶן
הַבַּיִת, לַיהוָה. https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a06.htm |
1 And it came to pass in the four
hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the
land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the
month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the
LORD. |
This would
also mean Solomon’s reign of 40 years was from 970-1 BCE to 930-1 BCE.
And King
David’s 40 years from 1010-1 BCE to 970-1 BCE.
Petrovich’s
mid-15th century date for the Exodus and conquest of Canaan --
starting 40 years later -- would leave the era of Joshua and the Judges to some
350+ years until King Saul’s coronation.
His reign, as
argued in an earlier blog, was not the 2 years as traditionally understood by
Jews based on 1 Samuel 13:1.
He was a youth when Samuel
anointed him (1 Samuel 9:2) and when he died in defeat at Mount Gilboa, so too
did his three military age sons: Jonathan, and Ishvi, and Malchi-shua (1 Samuel 31:2). Jonathan was already a commander ( 1 Samuel
13:2) and left behind a five year old son (2 Samuel 4:4).
Moreover,
King Saul was replaced as king by another of his sons, Ish-boshet who was
already age 40! (2 Samuel 2: 10)
So, as argued
in a previous blog, King Saul must have reigned 30 or even 40 years.
Implications for Hebrew and the Bible
Petrovich’s
readings of the ancient proto-Sinaitic inscriptions make Hebrew the original
alphabet (as his book title states) and Joseph and his sons as its creators
in the mid-19th century BCE Egypt.
His Moses and 10 Plagues identification from a mid-15th
century inscription and resultant date for the Exodus all fit with the
established later chronology range for King David, King Solomon and the
building of the First Temple in Jerusalem, but now after a length Judges era
followed by King Saul.
Even if one
does not accept his translations and ‘interpretations’, the current
‘established’ view of an 8th century or even mid-10th
century origin for Hebrew script, makes no sense.
Proto-Sinaitic
– also called proto-Canaanite – existed from the mid-19th century
and a distinct, formalized script called Phoenician emerged on the northern
border of Canaan by the 12th century.[xxxiv]
The labels
for different alphabet scripts: Canaanite, Phoenician, Hebrew, etc., become
misleading and ‘mis-information’ when archeologists and historians create the
impression a people only became literate style of their own.
Naveh’s epigraphy
expertise and his explanations make this abundantly clear.
Documentary Hypothesis
This theory,
most fully formulated by Julius Wellhausen at the end of the 19th
century[xxxv],
holds that the Chumash or Torah is a ‘merging’ of 4 separate sources from
diverse eras and different authors. At some point, a master editor, called ‘the
redactor’ melded them together to appear to be one work from the remote past by
a person named Moses.
It believes
that the sections that refer to the Deity as יְהוָה (J) are by an author living in the Kingdom of Judea and those
that use אֱלֹהִים (E) are by a
different, Kingdom of Israel author. In
passages where the two names appear side by side, e.g. Genesis chapter 2, an
‘editor’ has tried to cover up and merge the two ‘different’ deities into one.
A third
author (P) is behind all
passages that deal with Temple rituals and laws: i.e., Leviticus, the
Tabernacle sections of Exodus and the so-called “10 Commandments’ given at
Mount Sinai.
Lastly,
Deuteronomy, which presents Moses’ final sermons and death, are seen as atransparent much
later creation by a fourth source (D). It is identified
as the “book of the Law” ‘discovered’ in the Temple in the 18th year
as of King Josiah (622 BCE) as noted in
2 Kings 22: 3, 8-11.
Finally,
a ‘master editor’ – possibly Ezra the scribe (c. 480-440)[xxxvi]
– finished the task of merging all four (4) sources and creating what seems to
be a continuous, single source text by
Moses.
Theory Evolution[xxxvii]
Wellhausen’s
timelines placed J first, during King Solomon reign (c.950), E a century later and from the
Kingdom of Israel, D from King Josiah’s era and the ‘discovery’ of a ‘Book of the
Law’ in 922 BCE, and, finally, P, attributed to the mid-fifth century BCE and Ezra
the scribe.
In more
recent years, there has been an ongoing redating and further ‘deconstruction’.
Some see J is dating from
the Babylonian Exile era (mid-6th century) and place E first.
Some hold
that Deuteronomy (D) actually consists of at least three (3) separate ‘sources’ from
different periods -- melded together.
The
oldest being the laws given in Deut. ch. 12-16. These are dated variously to Josiah’s reforms
of 922 BCE, the Babylonian captivity era (6th century) and even the
Persian empire (539-332 BCE).
Chapters
5-11 are seen as later additions and chapters 1-4 as the third, even later
addition. [xxxviii]
And, some
argue that the final merging of all texts into one ‘continuous’ Chumash
or Pentateuch was not done until the Persian Era (539-332 BCE) or even the
Hellenistic period (333-164 BCE).[xxxix]
As well, Martin
Noth’s idea -- first published in 1981 in his The Deuteronomistic History -- has gained major support. He believed Deuteronomy should not
be treated as part of the Chumash but as the first work of Israelite “history”.
He called Deuteronomy and the six ensuing volumes “the Deuteronomistic history”[xl].
Finally,
the prominent, Jewish American scholar Richard E. Friedman has argued that[xli]:
1. The P texts are from the
time of King Hezekiah and his religious reforms (early 7th century
BCE) and in fact runs into the later half of the book of Joshua.
In his later The Bible with Sources Revealed (2003)
pp. 15-16 he now attributes P to the prophet Ezekiel (d. c. 570 BCE) and the
6th century.
2. In Who Wrote
the Bible? (1987), he argued the core of the D text was created
by the prophet Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch (late 6th century) and they
also wrote large
sections of Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1 and 2 and Kings 1 and
2[xlii].
He elaborates on this further in The Bible with Sources Revealed (2003) pp. 14-15.
(This is an extension of Noth’s view.)
3. In The Hidden
Book in the Bible (1998), he now suggested that the J text, the oldest
and from the separate Kingdom of Judah after the c. 930 BCE division, begins in
Genesis ch 2 and runs not only through the books of the Chumash but also through
Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1 and 2 and ends with 1 Kings chapter 2[xliii].
4. That the author of the extended J texts was possibly a woman of upper class. (Hidden pp. 51-52)
5. The E text is from the
same era but from the Kingdom of Israel (c.930 to 722 BCE).
6. That J and E were ‘merged’ by
an editor or “Redactor” soon after 722 BCE.
As can be
seen from the above, except for the universal agreement that the Chumash or
Torah is a ‘composite’ text from different authors and periods, there is now no
real consensus of which ‘source’ was first and even the time period of the
various sources and ‘final merging’.
The
underlying, singular mindset, is that no one author could create the diverse
themes and topics that make up the five sections of the Chumash/Torah -- let
alone do so prior to the reign of King Solomon.
One might
note that by comparison, in this mindset, Shakespeare would have
had to be four (4) different people. For how could a single person write such great
Tragedies, great Histories, great Comedies and great Poetry?
Each involves
different knowledge and skill sets.
Judah and Tamar
The story of
Judah and Tamar is a good illustration of the mindset and fissures in the
Documentary Hypothesis camp.
The story of
Judah’s one nightstand with Tamar, Genesis ch. 38, has long been seen by
Documentary Hypothesis advocates as a later ‘insertion’ into the ongoing story
of Joseph which begins in Gen. ch. 37 and continues in Gen. ch.39.
But Robert
Alter, himself a Documentary Hypothesis supporter, in his The Art of
Biblical Narrative, chapter 1 (revised ed. 2010), has convincingly shown that based on
its literary themes and especially key wording, chapter 38 is an integral
part of the same ‘source’ as the rest of the Joseph story.
Samaritan Pentateuch
Lastly, Documentary
Hypothesis proponents have never addressed the evidence of the Samaritan
Pentateuch, a variant of the Jewish Masoretic Chumash text, that dates from soon
after 722 BCE.
It is written
in a script called Samaritan
script, which is identical to the Hebrew called paleo-Hebrew[xliv].
It contains
all five (5) sections of the Chumash – including all of Deuteronomy –
and is essentially the same as the text of the Hebrew Torah as transmitted over
the millennia.
It is independent
proof that the compete Chumash/Torah was extent by 722 BCE: when the
newly resettled Samaritans petitioned their Assyrian overlord to send them an Israelite ‘priest’ and needed
materials so they too
could worship the Deity of the land (the northern kingdom) as done previously
by its Israelite inhabitants (2 Kings
17:24-28).
Even the northern kingdom which broke away c. 930xxxiv and
often succumbed to pagan Baal and Asherah worship (1 Kings 18:19) still
preserved the Chumash, the Torah text, and traditional rituals and practices at
the two temples thatr its first ruler, Jeroboam, set up at Dan and Beth-el.(1Kings 12:26-33 )
So, the mere
existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch soon after 722 BCE demolishes many of the
Documentary Hypothesis timelines.
And it
precludes the ‘multiple Deuteronomy composition’ which supposedly began with
the newly discovered “Book of the Law” ‘uncovered’ in the Temple in Josiah’s 18th
year as king (c. 622 BCE) as
mentioned in 2 Kings 22:8-11.
The Samaritan
Pentateuch predates Josiah’s reign and ‘discovery’ by some 100 years!
In fact, the
production of the Samaritan Pentateuch soon after 722 BCE took place some 50 years before King Hezekiah reigned,
some 100 years before Josiah’s reforms, some 150 years before Jeremiah and Baruch,
and over 250 years before Ezra.
Put simply,
the entire Chumash and all its five subsections existed as a single scroll well
before 722 BCE and before even the division of King Solomon’s kingdom some 300
years beforehand.
SUMMARY
The
Documentary Hypothesis that has taken hold among academics since Wellhausen is
based on 3 pillars or assumptions: atheism, one god--one name, and a view of
Hebrew and its alphabet as a very, very late creation: what I called the Greek
tragedy.
Atheism
rejects the existence of any God or gods and, consequently, any text that
claims a ‘divine origin’ is seen as a ‘pious fabrication’.
Such a world
view is, I believe, not subject to argument or conversion.
But the two (2)
other pillars are, I believe, faulty, false and untrue if all the evidence:
both archaeological and otherwise, is taken into account.
The one god –
one name principle may be true of the Greek gods, the roman gods, the Norse
gods, the Egyptian gods in their multi= member families and pantheons, but why
must all other religions follow this principle?
Ancient Babylonian Marduk with his 50 names certainly did not.
As for the Chumash,
its Deity also has multiple terms of reference: namely יְהוָה
, אֱלֹהִים , short form אֵל and שַׁדַּי . Respectively 6220, 2598, 31[xlv]
and 48[xlvi]
times in the entire Scriptures.
The
Tetragrammaton, יְהוָה is the one and only unique proper name used
for the Deity.
אֱלֹהִים is often used for pagan, false gods, and even
angels and human rulers. It is a generic
term. As is its variant אֵל.
Often יְהוָה and אֱלֹהִים appear side by side.
And אֱלֹהִים often has ‘attached’ a possessive pronoun of “mine”,
“our”, “your”(singular and plural), “his/her” or “their”.
Something that is never, even done with the name יְהוָה which means The
Eternal.
As for שַׁדַּי,
it has
slipped through the Documentary Hypothesis sieve even though it appears as אֵל שַׁדַּי in Genesis 17:1, 28:3, 35:11, 43:14, 48:3 and
especially Exod. 6:3; and all alone in
Gen. 49:25, Num. 24:4 and 24:16[xlvii].
The
Chumash and thereafter the prophets and psalms felt it appropriate to juxtapose
two and even three references to the Deity, at times, for reverent praise
and poetic emphasis.
So, the
one god -- one name principle or thinking is wrong and does not match the
reality of the Bible texts.
As for
the Hebrew alphabet and what I call the Greek tragedy, Wellhausen formulated
his Documentary Hypothesis -- first publication in 1878 -- more than 25 years
before archeologists discovered examples of proto-Sinaitic script (dating back
to the mid-19th century BCE) and simultaneously identified
Phoenician script and its role as the source of the ancient Greek alphabet.
Would Wellhausen have altered his views if he had had this new archaeological information and the insights that have emerged over the ensuing decades? Or if he had been aware of the existence soon after 722 BCE of the Samaritan Pentateuch?
Would the subsequent Documentary Hypothesis proponents ‘rethink’ if they paid attention to the above archaeology evidence and the existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch?
In the chaos
that is today’s fractured and conflicting Documentary Hypothesis camp, a
massive ‘stepping back’ and ‘rethinking’ is needed: if they wish to be honest
and embrace all the evidence presented above.
[ii] Ibid.
[viii]
Google: The fifty names of Marduk What we find in the list … Zenodo. Download is /The%20Fifty%20names%20of%20Marduk.pdf
[x] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C5%ABma_Eli%C5%A1
section: Dating the myth
[xii]
Strong 3068 See https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm
[xiii][xiii]
Strong 430 See https://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm
[xiv] Soncino, The Psalms (1945)
commentary p. 364.
[xvi] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_script and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet
[xxiii]
Some have argued it was
created much earlier, as far back as the14 century BCE but these views are
speculative and the earliest archeological Greek alphabet texts are from the
mid- 8th century. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Greek_alphabet
[xxiv]
The dating of the Exodus and
how long the Israelites so-journed in Egypt is disputed. The Bible itself in
Exodus 12:40-41 states – twice – the Israelites lived 430 years in Egypt. This is similar to the Divine message given
to Abraham in Gen. 15: 13 where it foretells his descendants will be enslaved
in a foreign land for 400 years. But
Rabbinic
tradition – based on the geneology of Jacob’s descendants in Gen. 48:8-27
concluded the 400 year figure was to be calculated from the birth of Isaac 30
years after the Divine promise and so the sojourn in Egypt was just 210 years.
(See https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/jbq-past-issues/2016/443-july-september-2016/long-sojourn-egypt-210-430-years/ ).
The
date the Exodus is variously placed as mid-15th century, end of 14th
and even 13th century BCE (respectively, Douglas Petrovich, Rabbinic
Judaism (c. 1313 BCE), and both Wikipedia “The Exodus” and Britannica online
“Exodus”.)
[xxv] Origins of the Alphabet;
introduction to archaeology, Joseph Naveh (Palphat Ltd. Jerusalem Publishing House, 2004) p.14
[xxix]
http://www.codex99.com/typography/11.html
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script . The script is also called proto-Canaanite.
[xxx] See for c. 800 BCE date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet
and for 10th century BCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet .
[xxxii]
Book is summarized in a live
interview with Fox News, published as https://www.foxnews.com/science/hebrew-may-be-worlds-oldest-alphabet
[xl] The Torah: A Beginner’s Guide, Joel S Kaminsky and Joel N Lohr
(ONEWORLD, Oxford, 2011) p.142. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Noth
[xli] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard
Elliott Friedman and Richard E. Freidman, The Bible with Sources
Revealed, pp. 3-6.
[xlii]
Ibid.
[xliii]
See Richard E. Freidman, The
Hidden Book in the Bible summary chart, p. 12.
[xlv] אֵל is my count
from Brown-Driver-Briggs list #6 at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/410.htm
[xlvii]
Right column verse list at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7706.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment