03-15-2008, 10:11 AM
Quote:Was Exodus written 400-300 BC or AD? Either way it seems very young, or does that allow for earlier writing being present and only taking a final shape at that time?Straight to the heart of the problem - there are indeed older parts in the Exodus, and earlier compositional strata. The problem is known as the Documentary Hypothesis (although it is, after more than a century of diligent study, hardly hypothetical). The Wiki-article is outdated and too optimistic about what can be known, but still useful if you accept that the J/E-part is now contested. In our particular case, the following conclusions appear to be more or less correct.
(1)
The topographical names of the Exodus story make no sense. During the last decades, most of them have been identified (see this book by Herbert Verreth for the most recent overview). If you follow Moses' route, he first turns south and continues to the south, and then he is suddenly back at his starting point and moves to the north. After that, he is in the south again, continues to the southeast, and then he is in the north again, and continues to the northeast, where he reaches the sea. The obvious conclusion is that two itineraries have been integrated.
(2)
This can on numerous cases be corroborated. Take, for instance, Moses near the mountain. Is it called Horeb or Sinai? And how many people witness God? It is a remarkable text: now it is Moses alone, then it is the entire people, then it is repeated that it is Moses alone. Then, we read about tho otherwise unknown "elders". Again, watch the movements by Moses: he goes up the mountain, and then he goes up the mountain - although we have not heard that he went back. Etc. Again: two sources (perhaps more).
(3)
The age of the two sources for the Exodus story can be derived from several aspects, including the toponyms (Herbert Verreth again). The story of the passage through the sea is in the youngest part.
(4)
Dating this source is difficult, although it must be pre-330 BC, because the Torah is (in main outline) accepted by the Samaritans, and the schism took place in 330. One theory, which I personally find convincing, is that this youngest source, which focuses very much on the cult in Jerusalem, was written at an age in which priests were in charge of Judah - i.e., after the Babylonian exile, during/after the reforms of Ezra. That brings us to a moment after 450.
(5)
The documentary hypothesis (i.e., the idea that the Torah has several sources) can be tested. For example, the idea that there is a young text that can be detected by its toponyms, is corroborated by the fact that in the chapters identified as belonging to this source, we also see an interest in the Jerusalem cult; a certain vocabulary that is absent elsewhere, etc. That does not mean that all scholars agree. (As I said, the Wiki is too optimistic in its presentation of the debate.)
(6)
The following, fascinating hypothesis can not be tested, but is worth a thought. In 351, the Persians tried to reconquer Egypt, which had been lost since 404. They were defeated by Nectanebo II at precisely the point where Moses went through the waves. It would be a nice piece of irony by the composer of this part of Exodus to turn the tables, and present the place where Egypt won its last victory as the site of Egypt's greatest defeat.
This can not be proved, but note that irony is almost everywhere in the Bible; take, for instance the story of the Tower of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar had boasted that at the construction site, all languages of the world were spoken, and presents this as a symbol of his power. The author of the Bible picks up the boast, and even quotes another boast ("the tower will reach into heaven"), but turns the story into one about human pride that is punished by the creation of all languages.
(7)
I think that the Bible should in the first place be read as literature, as an important source about how people, long time ago, thought about important questions that we still discuss today. One does not have to be Jewish or Christian to read the Torah. In fact, most believers will gladly accept suggestions on the interpretation of the Bible by non-believers.
What I find unacceptable is believers who, because a scholar is not a believer, do not listen to his theories. This is what happened to one of the best books on the Jewish Bible, by a Dutch journalist, Marcel Hulspas ("En de zee spleet in tweeen...). He has jokingly been called "a professional atheist", but his book is, although difficult to read, superior to anything else on this subject. I have seen reviews which dismissed it because, as a non-believer, he was prejudiced and arrived on conclusions too soon. Few of his reviewers will have studied the Bible as much as Hulspas, who devoted eight years to his book. (That believe itself is also some sort of prejudice, is a point I will not digress upon, because the word "prejudice" is too negative.)
