According to the table in the back of the NWT, Genesis and Exodus were composed around 1300 BCE, by Moses (who also wrote in Exodus about his own death, nice feat). However, the oldest existing copies or fragments of Genesis are only from around 200 BCE.
Additionally, comparison of Genesis with Sumerian and Babylonian creation accounts reveal many, many similarities, and the Sumerians and Babylonians had there stories LONG before 1300 BCE...so it appears that someone copied someone else merely changing a few names to suit a different audience. In journalism this is called "plagarism".
It is admitted that the Hebrews were captive in Babylon sometime before 500 BCE, but long after 1300 BCE. During their captivity, they would have been exposed to Babylonian literature (well, those who could actually read) and word-of-mouth stories recited publicly.
So, when do you REALLY think the Hebrews "composed" THEIR creation account, Genesis? Was Genesis the first book the Hebrews had, or were others, such as Psalms and Proverbs, actually written earlier? How long AFTER the events described were various Old Testament books ACTUALLY written? Which do you think have the LEAST disparity between the events described and the actual time of writing?
When were the Earliest Bible books composed?
by gaiagirl 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
gaiagirl
-
Leolaia
One thread I have always wanted to do is present a revised table of when the biblical writings were probably really authored, along with many other early Jewish and Christian books that they co-existed with. Had this forum continued past December, I probably would have done this.
The dates for many (actually, most) of these books in the NWT table have no real basis, especially since there is much evidence against these dates. For instance, the Hebrew language found in the books of the OT spanned over many centuries and it shows the kind of changes in the language you would expect -- just as the English of Chaucer represents a different stage in the development of the English language as the language of Shakespeare, and the Elizabethean English of Shakespeare is certainly different from the English of today. The Hebrew language similarly is attested in different stages: (1) Early Biblical Hebrew [twelfth-tenth centuries BC], (2) Classical Biblical Hebrew [ninth-seventh centuries BC], (3) Transitional Biblical Hebrew [seventh-fifth centuries BC], and (4) Late Biblical Hebrew [fourth-second centuries BC]. The chronology of the development of the language can be observed outside the OT through extrabiblical texts like inscriptions.
The oldest parts of the OT are EBH poetic texts like the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15), the Blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49), the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33), Psalm 29, and so forth. These probably date to the twelfth and the eleventh centuries BC. The language in these poems are especially archaic and filled with difficult, obsolete expressions. The Epic tradition of the Pentateuch (the "J" and "E" sources), on the other hand, represents a later stage in the language. The CBH language in the patriarchical stories (including J's creation account in Genesis 2-3) is linguistically more similar to other CBH texts like the stories of David in 1-2 Samuel than it is to earlier or later material. The Priestly ("P") material in the Pentateuch (which includes the creation narrative in Genesis 1) represents an even later stage in the literary language -- TBH, which can be found also in Deuteronomy, 1-2 Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other texts from the era. This is transitional between CBH and LBH. A very large proportion of the OT represents an even later stage in the language; LBH can be found in post-exilic works like Ezra, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes, Zechariah, Esther, 1-2 Chronicles, Daniel, etc.
The redaction of the Pentateuch is post-exilic but the language in the JE material suggests that much of its content dates to the eighth or seventh centuries BC. This is still about 500 or 600 years after the putative time of Moses. The Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 presents an interesting example of how the archaic language of EBH was misconstrued by the later redactor who inserted this poem into the Epic work. One archaic feature is the use of preterite yiqtol tense forms in reference to the conquest of Canaan (v. 13-14), a feature shared by other Late Bronze Age texts at Ugarit and the Tel el-Amarna correspondence. This usage died out in later Hebrew (where yiqtol came to be used mainly for the imperfect and sometimes with jussive force, with the older narrative preterite continuing via the prefixed wayyiqtol forms), so instead of referring to the past conquest of Canaan, the verb forms were misunderstood by the redactor of the Pentateuch as pertaining to a future conquest of Canaan. Hence the writer placed the poem on the mouth of Moses (looking to the future to the conquest of Canaan), when in fact the poem originally referred to the settlement of Canaan by the Israelites as a past event. The preterite use of wayyiqtol, on the other hand, predominates in CBH and TBH (but not in later LBH), as can be seen in P's creation account in Genesis 1, where it is constantly used. This clearly belongs to a later stage of the language than the Song of the Sea, as borne out by many other features.
Additionally, comparison of Genesis with Sumerian and Babylonian creation accounts reveal many, many similarities, and the Sumerians and Babylonians had there stories LONG before 1300 BCE...so it appears that someone copied someone else merely changing a few names to suit a different audience. In journalism this is called "plagarism".
The borrowing was probably mediated by oral tradition (with its own creative impulse), so "plagiarism" is a bit too strong -- I would reserve that term for direct literary dependence, such as is probably the case with the "plagiarism" in the book of Proverbs of the Egyptian Wisdom of Amenemope.
It is admitted that the Hebrews were captive in Babylon sometime before 500 BCE, but long after 1300 BCE. During their captivity, they would have been exposed to Babylonian literature (well, those who could actually read) and word-of-mouth stories recited publicly.
There was probably quite a lot of influence at the time of the Exile, but the JE Epic tradition seems to be older than that (by at least a century or two). What should be recognized is that Babylonian writings were read in the Levant itself long before the Exile. The thirteenth-century BC Canaanite archive at Ras Shamra contained a copy of the Gilgamesh Epic, as well as a fragment of the Atrahasis Epic flood myth. Another fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic was discovered at Megiddo, dating to the fourteenth century BC. So it is probable that Israelite versions of the Mesopotamian stories were current in the eighth and seventh centuries BC. That the Gilgamesh Epic itself had an influence on the primeval traditions of the Jews can be seen at least in the fact that "Gilgamesh" is the name of one of the giants before the Flood in the third century BC Book of Giants, one of the writings in the Enochic corpus (cf. also "Atanbish" and "Hubabish" in the Book of Giants, which may reflect the names Ut-Napishtim and Humbaba in the Gilgamesh Epic).
-
OnTheWayOut
I am a G.E.D. high school drop out, but I read alot. I understand and agree
with what Leolaia says. But it is all theories.Adding to it, Ezra (or a group represented as Ezra) may well have brought
all the available information together in one tale. It has been theorized that
the different accounts from the ten-tribes and the two-tribes were merged
during Babylonian captivity. There is evidence in the double shadows of
tales. There is evidence in one chapter where God is Elohim and is Yahwah
in the next chapter- one was from the ten-tribes and the other from the two-tribes.Many OT writings may have originally been kissing up to the king. Well, after the
king died, the story was written without that old king's name. It just became
a son-of-God in some sense, a generic futuristic wonderful ruler.It is theorized that the Jews were never in Egypt as slaves. There is no evidence
of slaves building the Egyptian empire and much evidence that the Jews developed
in Canaan completely different than the explanation from the Bible. My theory from
things I have read is- Just as Revelation is a dig at Rome, the Exodus may have been
an encouragement to the captives of Babylon as they were getting out. That would
make the foundation of Judiasm (and Christianity by extension) totally fabricated. -
PrimateDave
I highly recommend Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? He gives a scholarly, yet very readable, account of the origins of Genesis through Deuteronomy with insight into other parts of the so-called Old Testament. He presents time frames similar to those in Leolaia's post above.
Friedman's book is based on the Documentary Hypothesis, aka Higher Criticism. The Watchtower Society has condemned Higher Criticism in its publications, but never once has the Society given an objective explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis nor presented any type of Scholarship with a viable alternative. Mr. Friedman himself admits that real Biblical Scholarship is about gathering evidence and revising theories based on an accumulating body of knowledge. His intellectual honesty is very refreshing. It contrasts starkly with the "scholarship" of the Watchtower Society and other Fundamentalist Christian groups.
Dave -
reniaa
but isn't the hypothesis only as good as the evidense and since we do not have original manuscripts etc it is a theory that is ultimately unprovable?
I remember hearing scholars said OT was written same time as NT before the dead sea scrolls were found.
-
megs
Since the first dead sea scrolls were found in 1947, if you heard them say that, you must be a lot older than you look Reniaa!!
-
PrimateDave
Frankly, Reniaa, if you haven't at least read the book Who Wrote the Bible? then you really have no basis on which to commend or criticize it. Read the book (not a review of it), and then you will have something useful to contribute. Leolaia's excellent post above will make much more sense to someone with a good understanding of the Documentary Hypothesis and its long history.
There is no absolute "truth" being promoted here. Real Scholars can and do disagree, but they can back up their arguments in open debate, not hiding behind a veil of "divinely revealed" dogma. No, I am not a Scholar, and, no, I am not challenging anyone to a debate. I make my point about the Watchtower Society's lack of Scholarship based on a wealth of information freely available to anyone who chooses to examine it. If you choose to ignore it by making nonsensical objections, then I choose to ignore your replies.
Dave -
Leolaia
I remember hearing scholars said OT was written same time as NT before the dead sea scrolls were found.
I have read a great portion of the critical literature for the past 200 years and I have never seen such an extreme claim. It is rather ridiculous on the face of it since the NT extensively quotes and alludes to the OT.
but isn't the hypothesis only as good as the evidense and since we do not have original manuscripts etc it is a theory that is ultimately unprovable?
Almost anything in history is technically "unprovable", just as the case with many matters of faith (e.g. "Did Alexander the Great really exist? How do you really know for sure?"). But unlike faith, history aims to assess the evidence and come to conclusions on which position best accounts for the available evidence. In other words, depending on the quality of the evidence, it is possible to probabilistically determine the likelihood that a given hypothesis is true. The Society claims that a single author (Moses) wrote the Pentateuch in the fifteenth century BC, and that is a hypothesis (drawn from tradition) that can be tested alongside others. The evidence shows that this hypothesis is exceedingly remote and should justifiably be rejected in favor of the hypothesis best supported by the evidence -- that the Pentateuch is a composite of materials written at least 600 years later. The evidence is less clear about some of the finer details, where there is quite a bit of debate among scholars (e.g. Was "P" written before the Exile, during the Exile, or after it? Did the stories take their present form in their tradition history prior to being written down?), but the evidence is decisive on the simple matter of whether the Pentateuch was written down in the fifteenth century BC by a single author. It is about as glaring as watching an episode of Sex and the City and seeing everyone speak Old English; bear in mind that the fifteenth century BC takes us to a time even prior to EBH to a form of Canaanite language more akin to Ugaritic and the Canaanite used in the Tel el-Amarna letters. The evidence that establishes this is akin to the kind of evidence that shows that the Book of Mormon was not written in ancient times but was actually composed in the early 19th century AD.
Adding to it, Ezra (or a group represented as Ezra) may well have brought all the available information together in one tale.
The final redaction of the Pentateuch by well be attributed to Ezra, who is described as well-versed in the Law and who prepared and read the "Book of the Law" before the Jewish people (Ezra 7:6, 10, 14, Nehemiah 8:1-18, 9:3, 10:26-36), and whose reading of the Law instituted new practices that heretofore had not ever been observed (Nehemiah 8:17). It is worth noting that later tradition claimed that Ezra was responsible for composing the entirety of the Law under divine inspiration, as all the original copies had been destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's sacking of Jerusalem (4 Ezra 4:24, 14:21-48). This is possibly a reflection of the knowledge that it was Ezra who put the Pentateuch together.
-
OnTheWayOut
but isn't the hypothesis only as good as the evidense and since we do not have original manuscripts etc it is a theory that is ultimately unprovable?
So look at the evidence for yourself. There are no original manuscripts of OT (or NT for that matter)
so read the books that discuss the evidence. Find out how much is known about the different styles
that show up in Genesis. Heck, you could study ancient Hebrew if you want to learn more.
Do you know that electricity is still a theory? Don't blast the analogy, because I know it ain't the same
thing. We see the effects of electricity. But look at the theories of religion and the Bible and think,
dammit, think. Some guys in the ancient past said Moses and Joshua and ..... wrote this and that.
Why do experts think they are right and why do experts think they are wrong.We already learned what not examining for ourselves gets us.
Hey, let's not make another Reniaa thread. These are all theories in answer to a valid question. It's
okay to suggest problems in the theories, but let's not degenerate into a bashing thread or a believer
vs. unbeliever thread. -
hamsterbait
The Witchtower, and Church Tradition claim that:
1 Revelation was written by the Apostle John - a Galilean fisherman. Yet the language is that of an educated Greek, not somebody who spoke the dialect of Nazareth. EVIDENCE of what, exactly? The early church was more aware of this than we are, and rejected the Revelation as part of the canon for this very reason. Or do we just close our mouth and hold our nose, hoping it goes away.
2 Job was written by Moses, who met Job and got the story first hand from him. Yet the language is a later form of Hebrew, and contains Aramaic phrases - a dialect that the jews did not speak until after the Babylonian conquest. EVIDENCE of what?
These facts I got by reading and studying, not by throwing my hands up and saying "there is no way of knowing for sure so why bother?" Thank God the medical profession doesn't do this or we'd still be dying of Cholera, polio, smallpox and cancer by many more millioms every year that we do today.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that the old Aid book and Inspired book both admit that the Revelation to John is ascribed to the Apostle by Church tradition, yet the Insight and revised inspired book simply say that it is appropriate that John the apostle was chosen to pen it.
HB