shaky ground: the tenuous foundation of dating all … · shaky ground: the tenuous foundation of...

SHAKY GROUND: THE TENUOUS FOUNDATION OF DATING ALL OT TEXTS LATE

by

Matthew W. Neal

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for OT 834 History of Israel: Methodological Issues

The Master’s Seminary

Sun Valley, California

April, 2006

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

FIRM GROUND: THE TEXTS THEMSELVES .......................................................................... 5

SHAKY GROUND: THEORIES ABOUT THE TEXTS ............................................................ 10

Historical Content ......................................................................................................... 11

Ideological Propaganda ................................................................................................. 16

Literary Context ............................................................................................................ 25

BREAKING GROUND: WHERE TO BUILD? .......................................................................... 31

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 38

1

INTRODUCTION

When studying a work of literature, one of the most important pieces of information to

ascertain is the date of composition. Most modern works make this task effortless: Simply turn to

the back of the title page and read the copyright date.1 Ancient works, however, are not always

so explicit, and thus one at times finds it necessary to make arguments about the date of

composition based on the content of the writing itself. Into this latter category falls the Hebrew

Bible. This work of literature, known as the OT in Christian thought and throughout the rest of

this paper, does not include a timestamp for either its composition as a whole or the writing of its

constituent components. Thus, OT scholars have debated both when the OT reached canonical

form and when individual books of the OT were penned.

Normally, more conservative scholars opt for earlier and singular2 dates of composition

based primarily (but not wholly) on the testimony of the texts themselves. Less conservative

scholars find this approach somewhat naïve and simplistic. Thus, they frequently opt for later

and multiple dates of composition based primarily (but not wholly) on a critical analysis of the

text using the tools of literary criticism. This approach, in turn, is deemed somewhat speculative

and subjective by their more conservative counterparts. In a broad way, these general

descriptions serve as two poles in a continuum in the debate over the dating of the OT.

1 Of course, one may need to expend a bit more effort if the copyright date signifies a

new edition or translation. Still, the process is quite straightforward.

2 That is, they generally do not argue for a long process of redaction by multiple editors.

2

A survey of Old Testament introductions demonstrates that it is not difficult to find

scholars who consistently date individual books as well as the canon as a whole in accordance

with the more conservative pole. Examples include Gleason L. Archer, Jr., R. K. Harrison, and

Merrill F. Unger.3 If a given writing has a range of possible dates, these scholars almost always

choose a date near the terminus a quo of the range. The OT documents are thus seen as an

ancient and early testimony about Israel.

This same survey reveals that it is even less difficult to find scholars who vary in their

dating of individual books and the canon as a whole. Examples include Otto Eissfeldt, Ernst

Sellin, and, to a lesser extent, Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III.4 For some

writings, these scholars will select dates near the terminus a quo of the range of possible dates.

For others, they will select a date near the terminus ad quem. That is, they will sometimes date in

accordance with the more conservative pole, and they will sometimes date in accordance with

the less conservative pole. Likewise, scholars of this mediating stance often date portions of an

3 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago:

Moody Press, 1994); R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson

Publishers, Inc., 2004); Merrill F. Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament (Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1951).

4 Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, translated by Peter R. Ackroyd

(New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965); Ernst Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament,

translated by W. Montgomery (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1923); Raymond Dillard

and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1994). Dillard and Longman could almost be placed in the group

who consistently date in accordance with the more conservative pole. However, they do allow,

for instance, for a second Isaiah and second author of Daniel.

3

individual book differently. In any case, some portions of the OT are seen as an ancient and early

testimony about Israel, whereas others are considered to be much later than the events they

describe.

Interestingly, until recently there has not been a significant group of scholars who

consistently date individual books as well as the canon as a whole in accordance with the less

conservative pole. That is, very few scholars have suggested that the vast majority of the OT

should be seen as originating much later than the events they describe. Nevertheless, this idea

was initiated by Niels Peter Lemche in 19925 and has found a few adherents since that time.

6

According to these scholars, though small strands of the OT may have more ancient origins, the

vast majority of the OT is a creation of the Hellenistic period or later.

5 The essay in which this idea was initiated has been reprinted in Niels Peter Lemche,

“The Old Testament—A Hellenistic Book?,” in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography

and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, edited by Lester L. Grabbe (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield

Academic Press, 2001), 287-318. According to that reprint, the original expression of this idea

goes back to a public lecture held in Copenhagen on March 31, 1992. The idea was then

published that same year in Danish in DTT 55 (1992): 81-101 and in the following year in

English in SJOT 7 (1993): 163-93. The 2001 publication is used throughout this paper since it

represents a “rewritten and greatly expanded version” of the original Danish article and a

“slightly revised version” of the English one (see page 287 of 2001 edition).

6 E.g., Thomas M. Bolin, “When the End is the Beginning: The Persian Period and the

Origins of the Biblical Tradition,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10/1 (1996): 14-

15; Thomas L. Thompson, “The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive

Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine,” in The Triumph of Elohim, edited by Diana Vikander

Edelman (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 108-9. Philip Davies

(as far as the present author could find) does not comment directly on Lemche’s thesis, but

several of his writings indicate that he approves of the concept. E.g., In Search of “Ancient

Israel” (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 72-73; “Whose History? Whose

Israel? Whose Bible? Biblical Histories, Ancient and Modern,” in Can a “History of Israel” be

Written?, edited by Lester L. Grabbe (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 104-5.

4

OT scholars have not readily accepted this thesis that the entire OT is a late creation. It is,

however, generating significant attention, for the reconstructions of Israel’s history built upon the

foundation of this supposition are almost completely antithetical to that portrayed in the OT.7

The purpose of this paper is to analyze not the reconstructions built by these scholars but rather

the arguments used to construct the foundational premise itself. In other words, how strong is the

evidence used to support the consistent dating of all OT texts to the terminus ad quem of possible

dates? Is it strong enough to provide a firm foundation upon which new reconstructions of

Israel’s actual history may be built? Or, will these new reconstructions crumble due to the shaky

foundation upon which they are built? Because Lemche’s article8 has proven to be seminal for

this viewpoint, primary focus will be directed towards it.

7 It must be admitted with Lemche (“Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Ancient

Israel?,” SJOT 8/2 [1994]: 166-67) that the deconstruction of Israel’s history as portrayed in the

OT was already underway before the advent of this supposition. As scholars in the mediating

stance gravitated more and more towards the non-conservative pole, the history of Israel as

represented in the OT was maintained less and less (cf. Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and

Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox

Press, 2003], 3-35). Still, though the consistent dating of OT texts towards the less conservative

pole may be merely the next step in a gradual process, it is nevertheless a significant step

inasmuch as it is the last step. With this supposition, the history of Israel as portrayed in the OT

is not overthrown in pieces but virtually in its entirety. It is no wonder, therefore, that significant

attention to this idea has been garnered. After all, series titles such as “Can a ‘History of Israel’

be Written?” and “Did Moses Speak Attic?” are, to say the least, provocative.

8 Lemche, “A Hellenistic Book?” See fn. 5 for full information.

5

FIRM GROUND: THE TEXTS THEMSELVES

“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” The point of this pithy proverb is that one

should prefer certainty over quantity. Take a little of what is guaranteed instead of risking it all

for the chance of getting more. Of course, pithy proverbs don’t always apply in every situation,9

and one could imagine an appropriate addendum to this particular one: “If, however, the two are

within reach, grab them too!”

This proverb (and its addendum) illustrates well the primary motivation of scholars like

Lemche who date the vast majority of the OT late: One should start with what is known with

certainty and only thereafter move towards what is merely possible. In other words, instead of

basing reconstructions of Israel’s history on theories which are plausible but not guaranteed, one

should be more scientific and base reconstructions on suppositions which are guaranteed to be

factual.

What, then, can be known with certainty about the dates of OT documents? The “bird in

the hand” in this case is the existence of the texts themselves. The “two in the bush” which may

or may not be “within reach” are then ideas about the origins of the extant texts. Note the

following arguments:

Although it has become a standing procedure in the study of the Old Testament to begin

where we know the least [i.e., at the terminus a quo of a range of possible dates] and to

end at the point where we have safe information [i.e., at the terminus ad quem of the

range, namely “the moment when we possess the first complete scroll or book containing

9 A feature which must be keep in mind when reading the biblical book of Proverbs. See,

e.g., Tremper Longman III, How to Read Proverbs (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,

2002), 57.

6

the text . . . as a whole”] in order to explain what is certain by reasons uncertain and from

an unknown past, it is obvious to almost everybody else that this procedure has no claim

to be called scientific. We should rather and as a matter of course start where we are best

informed. Only from this vantage point should we try to penetrate into the unknown

past.10

To begin at the beginning: what do we know about the origins of the writings now

contained in the Hebrew Bible? Our starting-point has to be the scrolls found at Khirbet

Qumran because we have no manuscripts earlier than whatever period is assigned to the

writings from Qumran. So we must start in the third/second century BCE—that is, in the

Greek period. We have no reliable information before that period. Of course there are

many biblical scholars who like to make grandiose speculations about the imagined

origins of the scrolls constituting the Bible and they are not above suggesting that many

of the writings go back centuries before the third century. But how could they possible

know this? What is the hard evidence for their speculative fantasies?11

If there is to be a default mode for this debate, then let it be the one here outlined—the

Qumran hypothesis—and let others who wish to argue for an earlier period of origins

produce the arguments, manuscripts, and data to support such a radical departure from

the default mode point of view.12

Two observations should be made: First, there is seemingly a vast gulf between two types

of knowledge: One is “safe,” “scientific,” “informed,” “known”, “reliable,” and supported by

“hard evidence.” The other is “uncertain,” “unknown,” “unreliable,” “grandiose speculation,”

“imagined,” “speculative fantasy,” a “radical departure,” and needs to be “penetrated into.” Such

10 Lemche, “A Hellenistic Book?,” 294.

11 Robert P. Carroll, “Jewgreek Greekjew: The Hebrew Bible is All Greek to Me.

Reflections on the Problematics of Dating the Origins of the Bible in Relation to Contemporary

Discussions of Biblical Historiography,” in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and

Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, edited by Lester L. Grabbe (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield

Academic Press, 2001), 93 (emphasis original).

12 Ibid., 94. This methodology is applauded by Thomas L. Thompson, “The Bible and

Hellenism: A Response,” in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the

Hellenistic Period, edited by Lester L. Grabbe (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press,

2001), 274.

7

a bifurcation logically derives from a view of knowledge that requires verification for something

to be truly known, a view held by all of the scholars proposing the view under consideration.13

Second, the arguments clearly show that the firm ground of “text in hand” is only a

“beginning,” a “starting-point,” a “default mode,” or a “vantage point” from which penetration

into the less certain realm of knowledge may begin. The arguments, it seems, are not meant to

produce an agnosticism regarding the history of Israel but only to ensure that one begins at the

proper place.14

From this solid foundation, scouting expeditions into the “realm of the unknown”

13 The present author disagrees with this view of knowledge (cf. Provan, Long, and

Longman, Biblical History, 54-56). However, this paper primarily critiques not the verification

principle but rather the arguments proffered for dating all OT texts late. For the purpose of this

paper, therefore, the verification principle will be allowed to stand, and the arguments for dating

all OT texts late will be analyzed with that presupposition in mind. It is worth noting in passing,

however, that even when assuming the verification principle, the gulf between the two realms of

knowledge may not be so vast as described. For example, consider if the above quotations were

taken from the first half of the twentieth century and not the last half. The “default mode” for the

debate at that time would have been the fourth to fifth centuries AD (i.e., the dates for extant

LXX texts a, A, and B), and, according to Carroll, it would have been a “radical departure” to

suggest the origin of the texts might be centuries older. With the discovery of the Dead Sea

Scrolls in 1947, this “radical departure” into “speculative fantasies” immediately became the

new “default mode!” The two realms of knowledge are thus not always galaxies apart; rather,

items in one realm may quickly transfer from one to the other! Given this, it seems wise to be a

bit more circumspect in describing reasonable ideas which have simply not yet been verified.

14 Interestingly, despite this observation, Carroll does not seem to escape agnosticism

himself: “It [whether or not the OT is a late and fanciful creation] is a question I ponder regularly

but am never certain as to what the answer to it might be. If a gun were put to my head and I had

to give a straight, honest answer to the question I would be hard put to provide an adequate or

satisfactory answer. I would still have to confess to not knowing how best to answer that

question . . . . I know that there is a problem of historiography here and I recognize the

problematic nature of the question, but I remain uncertain as to my own (considered) answer to

whatever and however the question of ‘the Bible and its relation to history’ may be posed.”

Robert P. Carroll, “Madonna of Silences: Clio and the Bible,” in Can a “History of Israel” be

8

may be made which will hopefully bring back “some of the fruit of the land” (Num 13:20). In

fact, despite the deprecating verbiage above, scholars of this persuasion do not even presume that

such a starting point rules out the possibility of the OT texts being ancient.

We are compelled to begin, not from theory, but from the foundation of what is known

historically about the tradition; that is, from the contexts in which the traditions have

been handed down. Only from such secure later contexts can the earlier periods that are

implicitly more speculative be tolerably entered. Arguments based on literary and

intellectual contexts are not destroyed by this discussion. It is only the historical anchors

and the security of what is only seemingly known that are cut loose.15

Now it is quite easy to provide a reasonable argument in favor of an earlier date. Such an

argument might, for example, be based on the fact that fragments (but so far only

fragments!) of the books of Samuel have turned up among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It will

presumably also be possible to argue in favor of an even earlier date that these Dead Sea

Scroll fragments, and to base our argument on the fact that these books were incorporated

into the form of the Septuagint that has been transmitted by the Codex Vaticanus. Nor

can it be ruled out that they are much older, but in this case it is difficult to find hard

evidence for such an early date.16

To summarize, scholars who consistently date the OT towards the terminus ad quem17

of

possible dates think the starting point for the debate on dating must begin at the terminus ad

quem. That is, after all, the only place where one’s knowledge is certain, or, put differently, the

only place where one has verification of his/her knowledge. However, one may progress from

Written?, edited by Lester L. Grabbe (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 85-86

(emphasis original).

15 Thompson, “Matrix,” 108.

16 Lemche, “A Hellenistic Book?,” 295. Lemche is obviously discussing the book of

Samuel in particular, but his comments are exemplary of his general stance on the subject.

17 And again, the definition of this endpoint for such scholars is “the moment when we

possess the first complete scroll or book containing the text . . . as a whole” (ibid., 294).

9

that point to earlier dates as the evidence allows,18

and such scholars admit that reasonable19

evidence might be available to do just that.

The astute reader will ask, then, why is the starting point the ending point? In other

words, something else must follow to actually date OT texts late and not just start the debate at

that point. Conservative scholars, for instance, might agree with such a starting point and then

“penetrate into the unknown past” of early dates. In doing so, they would be expected to provide

conclusions which are “safe,” “scientific,” “informed,” “known”, “reliable,” and supported by

“hard evidence.” In the same manner, are not Lemche and company required to provide

confirmable evidence to support the idea of dating all OT texts late? If such hard evidence is not

available in either case, must not one simply remain ignorant at the starting point? This, after all,

would be in keeping with the verification principle. However, since Lemche and others make

18 As mentioned in fn. 13, one must not miss that the presupposition of the verification

principle stands below such argumentation. For those who do not adhere to this principle, the

starting point is testimony which must then be allowed to stand unless invalidated. One may, that

is, progress to later dates as the evidence allows. Again, however, the stance of this paper is to

allow for the verification principle for the sake of argument and then analyze the arguments

given for dating all OT texts late with that principle in mind.

19 There is a bit of equivocation on the reasonableness of such arguments. In fact, in the

two groups of block quotes encountered to this point in the paper, one can see evidence of this

wavering. The first group refers to such arguments as speculation and fancy; the second group

refers to them as reasonable and possible. One wonders if a bait and switch technique is in play

in regard to the treasured verification principle: “Come join us in our scientific debate; credible

evidence will convince us to allow for earlier dates.” Having accepted the challenge, the

conservative scholar (or at least the viewpoint of the conservative scholar) is then mocked and

ridiculed as fanciful. Just to be very clear (for the last time), the present author is “taking the

bait” in the present paper but strongly believes that conservative scholars should not give in to

the supposed “objectivism” of rejecting testimony and only allowing “unbiased” or “hard”

evidence.

10

assumptions based on the late date of the OT texts (i.e., it appears they are working outside the

realm of ignorance),20

one expects to find verifiable evidence to take one from late dating as a

starting point to the point where this conclusion inevitably follows. So, how reliable is the

evidence presented by such scholars? Having begun to build upon the firm ground of “text in

hand,” what kind of material will be used for the remainder of the foundation?

SHAKY GROUND: THEORIES ABOUT THE TEXTS

In his seminal article mentioned above, Lemche gives clear and explicit argumentation

for moving from the starting point of consistently late dating to the conclusion of consistently

late dating. His argument includes the following: (1) The historical content of the OT conflicts

with what is known about the history of Palestine. (2) The OT writers created their documents in

the Jewish Diaspora as ideological propaganda promoting the idea of a renewed kingdom

centered in Jerusalem. (3) The literary context of the Hebrew Bible mirrors that found in Greek

works of the Hellenistic period.21

20 E.g., Lemche (Ibid., 316), argues that the Christian church should incorporate the

apocrypha into its canon on the basis that the Hebrew Bible was a Jewish polemical creation of

the Hellenistic age made in reaction to the Christian acceptance of the Septuagint. The most

obvious assumption, however, is the rejection of the OT as a reliable witness to the history of

Israel. Thus, for instance, Thomas L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People from the

Written and Archaeological Sources, Studies in the history of the ancient Near East 4 (Leiden,

The Netherlands: Brill, 1992), 353-54, writes, “An understanding of the coherence of the biblical

tradition, as arising out [sic] first within intellectual milieu of the Persian period, causes great

difficulty in affirming the historicity of the Israel of tradition at all.”

21 Lemche, “A Hellenistic Book?,” 308-9. Lemche includes one additional argument

attempting to persuade the reader that the OT documents could not have been composed in the

Persian period and thus must be dated to the Hellenistic age. Since this is an argument internal to

11

In analyzing each of these propositions, two questions will be asked: First, can the

argument successfully pass the verification principle? After all, this is the modus operandi of

such scholars as demonstrated above. Second, is the argument plausible? If the answer to the first

question is affirmative, the answer to this second question follows easily, for if the argument can

be verified, obviously it is not only plausible but certain. If the answer to the first question is

negative, however, this second question will help reveal whether or not the argument should be

trusted by those who do not adhere to the verification principle.

Historical Content

It is a fact that the history of Israel as told by the Old Testament has little if anything to

do with the real historical developments in Palestine until at least the later part of the

Hebrew monarchy. It cannot be excluded (and there is, as a matter of fact, no reason to

exclude) that we here and there possess genuine historical recollections, but it should at

the same time be argued that from a historian’s point of view we have to consider the

historical literature in the Old Testament a poor source of historical information.22

An initial reading of this argument suggests that Lemche is indeed continuing to build the

foundation for dating texts late on verifiable data. After all, he asserts that “it is a fact” that the

OT presentation of Israel’s history conflicts with what is known about the history of Palestine.

Lemche does not document the proof of this “fact,” and one gets the impression that it is such

common knowledge that he finds it unnecessary to belabor the point.

the community of scholars who date all OT texts late (i.e., it merely answers the question “how

late” and not “should they be dated late”), it will not be discussed in this paper.

22 Ibid., 308.

12

He is not much more explicit—though just as dogmatic—in his handling of particular

historical details earlier in the article. For instance, regarding the conquest narratives of the OT,

he writes: “[T]hese tales have nothing to do with historical circumstances at the end of the Late

Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. This is not a postulate, but a fact.”23

In this case,

he at least references a earlier writing of his which supposedly demonstrates this fact; however,

he refrains from establishing the fact in the present context “since it has been evident for a long

time that the historical ‘reality’ referred to in the book of Joshua has disappeared.”24

Lemche also comments on the united monarchy, noting that “scholars (including the

present writer) have always thought highly of the historicity of David and considered it an

established fact.”25

However, modern studies are slowly overturning this consensus by providing

“a very strong [case] in favor of abandoning the time of the united kingdom as a historic age.”26

Perhaps, the implication seems to be, it will not be long until the deconstruction of the united

monarchy as presented in the OT is also considered a fact.27

23 Ibid., 299.

24 Ibid., 298. A perusal of Lemche’s earlier writing demonstrates that the “fact” is

established on the basis of logical argumentation and archaeological evidence.

25 Ibid., 300.

26 Ibid., 301.

27 In the meantime, Lemche’s summary statement (see fn. 22) is manifestly exaggerated,

for there he treats as “fact” the overthrow of OT history “until at least the later part of the

Hebrew monarchy.”

13

Before commenting on such “facts” of historical discrepancy, consider one more example

from the writings of Philip Davies: Davies asserts that “[t]he ‘Israel’ of the biblical literature is,

at least for the most part, quite obviously not an historical entity at all.”28

This quite obvious fact

is “nowadays accepted by the great majority of biblical scholars” in regard to the Patriarchs,

“widely acknowledged, if by a slightly lesser majority” in regard to the Exodus and wilderness,

believed by “a still substantial majority of scholars” in regard to the period of the Judges, and

soon to be embraced by the vast percentage of scholars for the rest of Israel’s history, even

though now—or at least in 1992 when Davies wrote—the “majority” resist such a conclusion.29

Davies, like Lemche, does not establish this fact of historical incongruence but rather

merely appeals to it as a commonly known entity. In fact, one gets the impression that facts in

this case are being defined based on scholarly consensus. “How do we know the OT account

conflicts with history?” one might ask. The reply of Lemche and Davies seems to be, “Everyone

knows that.” If a follow-up question should be given, “Yes, but we asked how, not who,” perhaps

the reply would be, “Scholarly articles using logical argumentation and analyzing archaeological

data prove this.”30

Yet, does this answer locate the conclusion in the realm of “safe,” “scientific,”

“informed,” “known”, and “reliable” conclusions supported by “hard evidence?” This is, after

all, the only type of conclusion acceptable when working under the verification principle.

28 Davies, Search, 25.

29 Ibid., 25-27.

30 Cf. fn. 24.

14

Lemche and Davies seem content that their conclusions do remain in the realm of “fact.”

However, the present author cordially refrains from following their lead. After all, what makes

such facts different from the “facts” previously adhered to by Lemche but now overturned?31

Indeed, it was the scholarly consensus for centuries that the OT documents were historically

reliable, but did that make the conclusions of the previous consensus factual? Surely Lemche and

Davies would say no, yet in so doing they prohibit themselves from now claiming scholarly

consensus as the measure of factuality. There is, to be sure, no reason to differentiate between

the two, and if current circumstances are presently leading to a new consensus, there is nothing

to hinder future circumstances from overthrowing this new consensus. As it turns out, then, the

“facts” of Lemche and Davies are really no different than the “speculative fantasies” and

“grandiose speculation” of the biblicists. Both are attempts to rationally interpret the existing

data. Neither are self evident truth.

Actually, the above point is somewhat moot. After all, it is not the verification of

Lemche’s view on the content of the OT that is at stake but rather his view on the date of the OT.

31 See fn. 25, where Lemche notes that he has traded his old “fact” of the existence of the

united monarchy for his new “fact” of its non-existence. It is both amusing and surprising that

scholars so readily and unashamedly assert new “facts” in the face of the failure of old ones. For

example, note the declaration of H. H. Rowley regarding the puzzling identity of Darius the

Mede: “These new texts have determined the identification of Belshazzar, as has been said; and

beyond that, they have brought to light material which is relevant for the discussion on the

question of Darius, and in view of the unimpeachable reliability of the sources now open to us,

the reconciliation of the book of Daniel with history is quite impossible” (Darius the Mede and

the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel [Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board,

1959], 9). So, one must conclude that the enigma of Darius the Mede is unsolvable based on the

unimpeachable reliability of sources which themselves overthrow the previously impossible

explanation of Belshazzar’s existence in the book of Daniel!

15

Lemche’s point is that the OT must be dated late because of the “fact” that it presents a picture

of Israel’s history that cannot cohere with what is known about Palestine’s history. However,

granting for the moment the factuality of the current scholarly consensus, does Lemche’s point

necessarily follow? Could a historically inaccurate text be old? There is certainly nothing

illogical about such a supposition. Would not one need something in addition to historical

inaccuracy to prove that a text postdates the events that it describes? To hastily jump to

conclusions without such additional information would seem to contradict the verification

principle which is held in such high esteem. After all, all that is known in this case would be that

the texts were historically inaccurate. It is a “radical departure” into “uncertain,” “unknown,”

“unreliable,” and “imagined” “speculative fantasy” to conclude on this alone that the OT texts

must be dated early.

It is clear, then, that dating the OT late on the basis of historical incongruence is not a

procedure which can be verified. In regard to the other question to be asked—whether such an

idea is plausible even if not certain—one may say that the answer depends on one’s view of the

premise: If indeed the OT is full of historical inaccuracies, it is indeed more likely (though not

inevitable!) that it should be dated later rather than earlier, for generally (but not always!) the

farther removed a witness is to the events being described the less accurate that testimony will

be. However, in the opinion of the present writer, the premise itself is far from plausible. For,

though the current scholarly consensus seems to be moving in that direction, there are a

significant number of apt scholars who are resisting the trend and providing excellent

argumentation to support the biblical testimony.

16

Ideological Propaganda

An extensive part of this literature should be considered the creation of the Jewish

Diaspora, first and foremost the patriarchal narratives, the story in Exodus about the

Israelites in Egypt and their escape from Egypt, but also the conquest narratives in

Joshua. All of these aim at one and the same issue, at the more or less utopian idea that a

major Jewish kingdom—even empire—should be (re-)established in Palestine, an idea

that emerged in spite of the fact that it had no background in an ancient Israelite empire.32

According to Lemche, this feature of the OT text follows from the previous:33

Since the

OT clearly contradicts what is known about the history of Palestine, one must assume that

motivations other than recounting history stood behind its writing. Likely, Lemche argues, a

desire to promote the establishment of a glorious Israelite kingdom in Palestine prompted the

composition of the Hebrew Bible. Since the Jewish Diaspora provides a context which readily

explains the existence of such propaganda, it makes sense to date the OT into the period of

Israel’s dispersion.34

So goes Lemche’s second argument for dating the OT documents into the Hellenistic era.

Before analyzing this argument using the two questions enumerated above, it will be helpful to

highlight a similar argument made by Philip Davies. He contends: It is clear that the Israel

depicted in the Bible never existed, and thus the OT is “essentially an adventure of creativity.”35

Why, he asks, would someone desire to create such a body of literature? After all, writing takes


33 And, since the previous was not “verifiable truth,” it is obvious from the start that the

present argument which is built upon the earlier must also not be categorized thus.

34 Ibid., 299-305.


17

time and money, especially in pre-modern times. This last fact, however, provides the necessary

clue to answer the question: Since only a ruling class would possess the time and resources to

produce a body of literature like the OT, they alone qualify as possible authors. Still, why would

even a ruling class which possessed the necessary resources actually expend those resources to

create its own written corpus? The expenditure would be worth it, Davies argues, for the body of

literature would serve to unify a people group in a cult-based society of which they would remain

the elite. Essentially, the created tradition subdues the masses by generating loyalty based on

putative history.36

These are astounding theses which would certainly require one to read the OT quite

differently. Indeed, Lemche, Davies, and others do provide readings of the OT which differ

dramatically from traditional ones.37

Since conclusions are thus being drawn and published, one

would assume that Lemche, Davies, and others believe that such an understanding of the OT’s

origin is established and verifiable fact. After all, to argue from theories about OT documents

being early is “uncertain,” “unknown,” “unreliable,” “grandiose speculation,” “imagined,” and

“speculative fantasy.”38

So, is the origin of the OT as a late creation for ideological purposes

verifiable fact?

36 Ibid., 110-15.

37 E.g., Ibid., 112-13: “The establishment of a temple and priesthood, a sacrificial system,

a caste system . . . and an ideology of holiness to support it, were not separable as ‘religious’

characteristics from other means of political control. . . . The fetish of cultic holiness will serve

to strengthen the authority of the priesthood and secure the pre-eminence of Jerusalem.”

38 See fns. 10-12.

18

Interestingly, Lemche acknowledges that it is not. For instance, in writing about the

“creation” of the conquest narrative in Joshua, Lemche states,

[W]hat do the narratives in Joshua really tell us about if they do not inform us about a

conquest of Palestine in ancient times? The answer is clear and obvious: the book of

Joshua informs its readers about a conquest that never happened. The next question is

then: why does this book of Joshua present information about a conquest that never

happened? The answer to this last question may not be as clear as the former one,

because we cannot say that it is based on hard evidence; it rather depends on scholarly

theories and hypotheses. One possible answer could be that the tradition of Israel’s

foreign origin was invented at a later date in order to create a racially pure Israelite

nation.39

Clearly, Lemche admits that the OT may or may not be an ideological invention. It is merely

“one possible answer” based not on “hard evidence” but rather on “scholarly theories and

hypotheses.” In admitting this, Lemche reveals the contradiction in his position: Conservative

scholars must provide “hard evidence” to move from the starting point of an early date to the

conclusion of a late date, but he himself provides “soft evidence” to establish the conclusion of

an early date! One cannot dismiss the arguments of conservative scholars as having “no claim to

be called scientific”40

while at the same time presenting evidence of the same kind. If Lemche

finds all evidence (whether for an early or a late date) to be speculative, logical consistency

requires him to remain agnostic since his presuppositions include the verification principle.

39 Lemche, “A Hellenistic Book?,” 299 (emphasis added). In addition to demonstrating

the hypothetical nature of Lemche’s argument about the OT being an ideological creation, notice

that this quotation also reaffirms two comments about his position mentioned above: (1) He

believes it is “clear and obvious” (i.e., a verifiable fact) that the OT is historically defunct. (2) He

bases his arguments about the OT being an ideological creation upon this “clear and obvious”

fact.

40 See fn. 10.

19

Does Davies admit this characteristic of the evidence? That is, does he also confess the

speculative nature of arguments about the OT being a literary creation? Davies is certainly not as

explicit as Lemche in this regard, but one does get the impression that he realizes the tentative

nature of his arguments. Consider the following:

We have in 5th century Yehud/Judah a newly-constructed society without an identity and

with a number of tensions . . . .We can posit with some probability a conflict between

immigrants and indigenous populations, the establishment of a city and temple center in

Jerusalem, the institution of a religious law and bond of allegiance to a deity (‘covenant’),

and the promotion of an ethic consciousness as features which constitute the emergence of

a governing caste or class. These measures constitute a massive exercise in self-definition,

in which I take the creation of the biblical literature to be a further enterprise . . . . How far

the models are reliable depends on how reliable is the picture given in Nehemiah, and I

have some doubts about that. But the consensus view sees the immigrants as forming a

temple- and Jerusalem-centered exclusive cultic society which controlled in the name of

its law the economic and political life of the province, to the initial exclusion of those who

could not claim membership by exilic ancestry.41

Clearly, Davies is not dealing in the realm of “hard evidence” or “verifiable facts.” His view is

only one that he can “posit with some probability.” Amazingly, he recognizes that his view is

dependent upon the history recounted by Nehemiah, yet he himself has serious doubts about the

integrity of that history! He assuages his doubts, though, by reminding himself that the consensus

still recognizes Nehemiah’s history as reliable. Yet, this is the same author who declares the

consensus to be moving toward the rejection of all biblical history!42

Davies is clearly

contradicting the verification principle by accepting the OT as a late invention. As with Lemche,

his presuppositions ought rather to lead him to agnosticism.

41 Davies, Search, 111 (emphasis added).

42 See fn. 29.

20

By their own admission, therefore, arguments about the late creation of the OT as

ideological propaganda are speculative at best. However, the second question still needs to be

asked: Are these arguments plausible? That is, though such are arguments are not certain, what

is the likelihood that they nevertheless accurately portray “what really happened?”

To answer this question, one must examine the historical reconstructions offered by

Lemche and Davies. It is clear that they think the OT is a literary creation, but how do they think

such a creation came about? According to Davies,43

the temple school in Jerusalem had several

different “colleges,” and each of these colleges were responsible for producing various portions

of the OT. As a basis for their creations, they used snippets of truly ancient tradition which they

modified and used as a pattern. Lemche has a similar explanation, although in his case it is three

pubs and not several colleges which produced the literature. Lemche gives various options

regarding where these pubs (by which he jokingly intends “groups”) were located.44

43 One must not ignore or conceal Davies’s introduction to his historical reconstruction:

“The following section is an exercise in imagination whose purpose is purely heuristic. It is not

to be taken as a hypothesis, since we have too little knowledge of the actual circumstances to test

it, and perhaps we always shall. (Ibid., 115). Clearly Davies does not want his reconstruction to

be construed as an actual hypothesis or theory, and in referencing it in this paper the present

author does not intend to override this warning. However, this is still the best reconstruction

Davies has to offer as a “fleshing out” of his theory and is thus an important element in

considering the plausibility of his view on the origin of the OT. Further, he goes on to treat it as a

theory inasmuch as he provides argumentation for it (“What follows at least conforms to what

we know of scribal techniques and practices,” 116).

44 Niels Peter Lemche, “How Does One Date an Expression of Mental History? The Old

Testament and Hellenism,” in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in

the Hellenistic Period, edited by Lester L. Grabbe (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press,

2001), 223-24. Lemche’s reconstruction is clearly meant to be humorous. As with Davies,

21

Both of these reconstructions are certainly conceivable. After all, they are quite generic;

they simply state that several different groups having several different emphases produced a

literary tradition that served to unify a distinct group of people. One could certainly envisage a

number of situations in which that might take place.

However, the present author finds one significant problem with this possibility: If the OT

was a late invention of ideological propaganda created to bring about present results, why is the

present never addressed? If the biblical authors “made use of ideological patterns in order to

depict particular historical relations,”45

why are the historical relations never brought out? If

Israel’s historic relation to ancient enemies was created to inform present relations with other

nations, why are no contemporary enemies ever mentioned?46

If Israel’s historic religion was

invented in order to guide the present state of the cult, why is that present state consistently

ignored?47

though, it still needs to be examined, for, according to Lemche, “[a]lthough no more than a joke,

it may nonetheless be closer to reality than we perhaps realize” (224).

45 Lemche, Ancient Israel, 52.

46 Cf. Lester L. Grabbe, “Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period,”

in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, edited

by Lester L. Grabbe (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 154: “Why should the

Greeks be absent, if large chunks of the Prophets were written when the Greeks ruled the ancient

Near East? It is possible that the Greek overlords could be prophesied about under a cipher of

some sort, but ciphers are not usually used completely consistently or completely without any

attempt to indicate their true meaning.”

47 Cf. Bob Becking, “The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Israel: Three Preliminary

Statements,” in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic

Period, edited by Lester L. Grabbe (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 84-85.

22

It makes no sense for a propagandistic document to ignore the issue it was written to

address. Such an idea may be likened to a company paying for an advertisement but never

mentioning the name of the product being sold. Such a notion is patently absurd, especially when

one keeps in mind the effort required to create and preserve a document like the OT.48

Proponents of consistently late dating are not unaware of this problem.49

For instance,

Davies admits, “Unfortunately, the literature in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament very largely

does not identify its authors, nor the time, place, or occasion of their [sic] production. For that

reason, determination of the historical setting of any biblical text is difficult.”50

Despite this,

Davies asserts that the “primary respect” in which the OT may be used to reconstruct history is

by providing a window into the context in which the literature was written. Only in a “secondary

respect” may the literature inform one’s understanding of the history which the documents

themselves describe. Lemche concurs:

Thus it appears that one’s point of departure for the study of the ‘historical’ traditions in

the Old Testament must be the acknowledgement that these traditions primarily reflect

the period in which they arose, and that they tell us primarily about that period, and only

secondarily about any earlier period which they may purport to describe.51

48 See fn. 36.

49 For a fascinating example of one who is not necessarily a proponent of consistently late

dating (see fn. 14), note Carroll, “Jewgreek Greekjew,” 106-7. Carroll observes the oddity of the

Chronicler’s failure to mention the Second Temple and somehow concludes that the omission

testifies to the “deep unreliability” of the biblical writer as a historical source!

50 Davies, “Biblical Histories,” 104-5.

51 Lemche, Ancient Israel, 54-55 (emphasis added).

23

How Davies and Lemche come to this startling conclusion is unclear. If they believe that the

biblical authors intended their readers to learn primarily about their own context and only

secondarily about what they describe, why does the OT “very largely” not speak about that

context? Were the biblical authors simply utterly unskilled in writing propaganda?

There are further difficulties with viewing the OT as a late creation of ideological

propaganda which make this hypothesis implausible. One of these difficulties concerns the

length of time needed to produce the entire OT.52

According to those who consistently date the

OT late, the entire corpus was produced in a relatively short period of time. This opposes the

more traditional understanding which envisions a diachronic development within the corpus,

including such things as intertexuality,53

linguistic development,54

and textual variation.55

The

52 Jens Bruun Kofoed, Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical

Text (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 99-100; cf. Zecharia Kallai, “Biblical

Historiography and Literary History: A Programmatic Survey,” VT 49/3 (1999): 339-40.

53 Rainer Alberts, “An End to the Confusion? Why the Old Testament Cannot be a

Hellenistic Book!,” in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the


2001), 38-40; Kallai, “A Programmatic Survey,” 339. The response to this problem by those

consistently dating the OT late is to argue for contemporaneous intertextuality (e.g., Davies,

Search, 124-27).

54 Bob Becking, “Three Preliminary Statements,” 87; Martin Ehrensvärd, “Once Again:

The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew,” SJOT 11/1 (1997): 29-40. The response to this

problem by those consistently dating the OT late is to argue for synchronic factors such as age,

dialect, geography, gender, and social status (e.g., Lemche, “A Hellenistic Book?,” 314-15;

Davies, Search, 97-101).

55 Cf. Davies, Search, 96-97. Davies argues that “quite complex literary developments

can occur over an apparently short period of time.”

24

scope of this paper prohibits a detailed examination of this problem; it must be sufficient for the

moment to simply state that the present author finds the novel responses to these phenomena by

those consistently dating the OT late quite unconvincing and certainly not fully developed.56

A final problem which makes this view less probable is the large amount of negative

material found in the OT. As an example of how this negative material relates to the present

discussion, consider Lemche’s discounting of the Davidic material: Lemche argues that the

narrations of David’s rise to power “represent an ideological programmatic composition which

defends the assumption of power by the Davidic dynasty.” Given this positive bias, the narratives

“cannot be regarded as an attempt to write history, as such.”57

However, it is quite clear that

much of the OT presents Israel’s history—including portions of David’s life— in a negative

light, and thus Lemche’s sweeping conclusion is invalid. Davies also fails to provide a

reasonable explanation for the vast amount of negative material in supposed propagandistic

documents portraying the “glory days” of Israel. He claims that the scribes who worked for pay

and thus were required to write what they were told did not hesitate to take opportunities to

criticize the regime for which they worked. They got away with this, however, because their

views were “always expressed in the words of an earlier prophet, so that no direct criticism of the

56 Cf. Avi Hurvitz, “The Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’ and the Linguistic Evidence

of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations,” VT 47 (1997): 314-15.


25

current authorities is explicit.”58

These feeble attempts to deal with the negative content of the

OT makes the view that the OT is a late invention of ideological propaganda far from persuasive.

Literary Context

The writers who invented the ‘history of Israel’ seem to have modeled their history on a

Greek pattern. The first in modern times to stress this point is presumably John Van

Seters, although his reference to Hecataeus of Miletus may seem gratuitous, as we no

longer possess Hecataeus’s history, except in the form of rather diminutive fragments. It

would be preferable to propose the history of Herodotus as the earliest point of

comparison and to indicate that there are a number of similarities between the histories of

Herodotus and the Old Testament. Both histories have as their beginning a perspective

that encompasses the world as such, and this perspective narrows down to single nations

only at a later point, respectively the Greek and the Hebrew. I should like to stress this

point without ignoring the many significant differences between Herodotus’s history and

the Old Testament historical literature. It is only my intention to indicate that the biblical

historians display a knowledge of the Greek tradition, and that this could hardly have

been the case before Greek historians were to become known and read in the Near East.59

As one who has never read Herodotus’s history, has encountered only snippets of the

work by Hecataeus of Miletus, and knows very little about comparative Greek and ANE

literature, this topic of literary context seems quite daunting to the present author. To be sure,

Lemche is in a more informed position to know whether or not the context of the OT better fits

in the Hellenistic period or some other time frame. Nevertheless, the specific scope of this paper

allows some comment to be made regarding Lemche’s connection of the OT with the Hellenistic

period. In particular, one can analyze Lemche’s contention to determine whether or not his

argumentation is carried on in the realm of verifiable fact.


59 Lemche, “A Hellenistic Book?,” 308-9.

26

At the beginning of a discussion on Hellenistic influence on the OT, Lemche argues that

the biblical writers viewed the past as “a kind of never-never world” in which anything possible

(e.g., miracles) could happen.60

Thompson notes this as well and encourages scholars to excise

material recounting “impossible” occurrences as “obviously unhistorical.”61

The reason for

making this point in the present context is to introduce an idea not mentioned by Lemche or

Thompson when discussing miraculous events in the OT: “Biblical historiography has some

elements in common with other ancient historiographies (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Hittite, and

early Greek) in that it includes the intervention of supernatural powers in human affairs.”62

In

other words, the shared belief in miraculous events wrought by the hand of God in human history

connects the OT not with the Hellenistic age but rather with the greater ANE literary context.

The question of the literary context of the OT is up for discussion, therefore, at least in regard to

the miraculous events portrayed.

Lemche goes on to discuss the complexity of the OT literature itself. Here, it seems, the

question of literary context is not up for discussion. He states in quite definitive language that

“[e]very part of the collection of Scripture included in the Old Testament displays a

sophistication that brings us far beyond the cultural borders of an undeveloped basic agrarian

60 Lemche, “Mental History,” 204.

61 Thomas L. Thompson, “History and Tradition: A Response to J. B. Geyer,” JSOT 15

(1980): 59.

62 Edwin Yamauchi, “The Current State of Old Testament Historiography,” in Faith,

Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context, edited by A.

R. Millard, James K. Joffmeier, and David W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 3.

27

society.”63

This dogmatic statement claims that one must locate the literary context of the OT

beyond ancient times when such a developed body of literature was not possible for Israel. Only

in the Hellenstic era, asserts Lemche, did Israel experience the kind of cultural renovation which

would provide a suitable context for the OT to be written.64

The sophistication manifest in the

OT is “far beyond” what could be expected from primitive Iron Age Israel.

Yet, this argument, which seems factual and concrete at first, is actually quite uncertain.

To begin with, it assumes—against the biblical testimony—that Israel did not possess a level of

sophistication before the Hellenistic era but was rather only a simple agrarian society. In

addition, the assumption of a flourishing society as an essential prerequisite for the OT is up for

debate, for widespread literacy and cultural complexity are not fundamentally necessary in order

to produce a sophisticated corpus of literature.65

In fact, one could just as easily argue that a

decline in society might prompt a group to compose a recounting of its history.66

Still, even if

such a developed society was necessary, it is not clear that the Hellenistic era provided Israel

63 Lemche, “Mental History,” 209.

64 Niels Peter Lemche, “Good and Bad in History: The Greek Connection,” in Rethinking

the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of

John Van Seters, edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,

2000), 129.

65 David M. Gunn, “The Myth of Israel: Between Present and Past,” in Did Moses Speak

Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, edited by Lester L. Grabbe

(Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 186.

66 Alberts, “An End to the Confusion?,” 31.

28

with this. Hellenism did not merely advance Jewish society but also threatened it.67

Thus, the

connection between the OT literary context and Hellenism based on sophistication is far from

certain.68

There is yet another reason why Lemche’s connection of the OT literary context with

Hellenism seems less than certain. Namely, Lemche himself provides numerous examples

throughout his writings of comparisons between the OT and other ANE documents! Thus, when

discussing the narratives which speak of David’s rise to power, Lemche references a similar

document composed in the fifteenth century in northern Syria.69

When discussing the

Deuteronomistic history, he likens the narrative form to Assyrian annals.70

Other scholars have

certainly noted such comparisons as well.71

67 Ibid., 32.

68 This conclusion is bolstered by Lemche’s mention of the Primary History (Gen to 2

Kgs) as a prime example of sophistication, for Van Seters himself, according to Lemche, does

not deny the connection between that work and Mesopotamian primaeval traditions (Lemche, “A

Hellenistic Book?,” 209, fn. 27).


70 Lemche, “Good and Bad,” 136. In “Mental History?,” 210, he states: “It goes without

saying that the form of these very narratives, almost exclusively prose narrative, is also an

indication of a milieu of written literature that is almost unique in the ancient Near East. Literary

fiction in the form of prose narrative was not widely distributed among the cultures of the ancient

Near East” (emphasis added). If such a form was not available before the Hellenistic era, perhaps

a strong argument could be made for Greek influence. However, that examples existed (even if

there were not many) demonstrates that borrowing or learning could have come from another

area.

71 E.g., Hans M. Barstad, “Deuteronomists, Persians, Greeks, and the Dating of the

Israelite Tradition,” in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the

29

Furthermore, Lemche’s connection between Greek literature and the OT often seems

remote at best. For instance, he argues that the author of Genesis 1 borrowed from Thales of

Miletus because both spoke of the four basic elements of creation, the hot (light), cold

(darkness), dry (earth), and wet (water).72

This astounding supposition can by no means be

considered conclusive. To begin with, Lemche’s linking of heat with light and cold with

darkness is perhaps strained. Even if this be not the case, is it not possible that the connection

between the author of Genesis and Thales is not direct but rather based on a common observation

of the world? But, if there are thus multiple ways to explain the existing evidence and even some

amount of data which counteracts Lemche’s view,73

it is presumptuous to declare his particular

view as the established truth of the matter. As before, his conclusion lacks the support necessary

to be considered verifiable fact.

In another place, Lemche connects the OT with Greek literature inasmuch as both use

speeches (i.e., rhetoric) to make their points and both view life as the stage where good and evil

are played out.74

Is this, one wonders, unique to Hebrew and Greek thought? Surely not. The

weakness of this link is only magnified when Lemche’s goes on to admit that the OT contains


2001), 76; Yamauchi, “Current State,” 3-4.


73 E.g., Alberts, “An End to the Confusion?,” 40, notes that the Pentateuch lacks many

Hellenistic features.

74 Lemche, “Good and Evil,” 138.

30

numerous and skillful references to Near Eastern tradition. Because of this dual connection,

Lemche refers to the biblical authors as “Hellenized Orientalists.”75

Based on the strength of the

two connections, the latter portion of the title seems much more evident than the former. After

all, not all literature so readily demonstrates borrowing from the ANE material, but surely much

literature uses recorded speech as a medium for communication and presents the realm of

humankind as a stage where good and evil play out.76

The above discussion is perhaps as far as the present author can currently go. It should,

however, demonstrate that it is not verifiable fact that the literary context of the OT was the

Hellenistic age. In fact, the above discussion possibly demonstrates that an ANE context is more

plausible than a Greek one. In any case, the solution is not nearly as certain as Lemche and

others would like to maintain, and it thus seems unwarranted for those adhering to the

verification principle to use it as a support for consistently dating the OT documents late. Again,

in the face of such speculative argumentation, it seems much more consistent for scholars such as

these to remain agnostic about the dating of the biblical texts.

75 Ibid., 139-40.

76 Other connections brought out by Lemche seem to be shared not just by the OT and

Hellenistic literature but also by other types of literature. For instance, Lemche avows that the

OT authors “display a knowledge of the Greek tradition” inasmuch as they begin their histories

talking about the world in general and end them focusing on a single nation (see fn. 59).

However, the Sumerians, for example, wrote history centuries before the Greeks which began

with stories about creation in order to explain their niche in the world. Cf. Richard E Averbeck,

“The Sumerian Historiographic Tradition and Its Implications for Genesis 1–11,” in Faith,

Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context, edited by A.

R. Millard, James K. Joffmeier, and David W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994),

98-100.

31

BREAKING GROUND: WHERE TO BUILD?

It is helpful at this point to summarize the preceding: A new group of OT scholars has

emerged which consistently dates the OT documents toward the terminus ad quem of possible

dates. Such scholars adhere to the verification principle and thus argue that one must begin the

argument about dating where scientific evidence is available, namely, the physical dates of

extant texts.77

To proceed further in the discussion, they argue, requires evidence of the same

sort. Conservative scholars usually do not offer such “scientific” evidence when they argue for

earlier dates. Rather, they generally date texts based on the historical referents in the texts

themselves. The above discussion has shown, however, that scholars who consistently date texts

late similarly fail to provide solid, “scientific” evidence for their dating.

This situation presents no dilemma for conservative scholars who do not adhere to the

verification principle. Their willingness to trust the testimony of the Scriptures allows them to

comfortably date the OT early. However, it is clearly a contradiction for those who do adhere to

this principle to continue asserting with certainty that the OT in its entirety is a late creation. As a

result, though adherence to this principle is not intended to lead to agnosticism,78

it turns out to

be the inevitable and logical result based on the amount and type of evidence currently available.

77 It should be noted (and has not yet been noted) that this supposition itself is up for

debate. After all, the physical texts themselves must be analyzed and assigned dates based on

reasoning and logical argumentation. Texts do not contain dates as an essential property which

may simply be read as certain fact!

78 See fn. 14.

32

In light of this, scholars who consistently date the OT late should no longer emit

smokescreen arguments about their position being “certain” and “obvious” versus other views

which are “uncertain” and “speculative.” As it turns out, no position lays claim to “hard

evidence” as conclusive support. One is instead left with an array of possibilities for dating the

OT and no immediately obvious answer. Carroll summarizes well the question which thus lays

before OT scholars:

So should this whole historiographic discussion now be consigned to silence? For how

are we to interpret the silence of the Bible about its own production? What hermeneutic

of silence should we develop then in these cases? The absence of evidence about the

Bible’s origins, composition, collation and of reliable evidence about its subsequent

canonization poses profound and fundamental problems for any historiographical theory

about biblical origins and development. It is not, of course, a case of the Bible not (never)

having existed in the past—that would be an absurd conclusion—but it is a case of our

not knowing how it came into existence: that is, when its constituent scrolls were first

committed to writing, when these scrolls were first collated into collections of significant

scrolls and then when they were canonized as authoritative community writings. Now

that is an incredible amount of nescience for biblical scholars to have to admit to and to

have to factor into their historiographical writings on the Bible.79

Carroll goes on to say, “Speculation may be entirely necessary and proper in the absence of

concrete data, but it will always be open to competing speculations and will always remain what

it is—speculation.”80

In other words, since there is a gigantic lacuna of verifiable evidence

related to the dating of the OT, one must in essence give up the verification principle, even

though it is such a treasured possession. In the discussion of dating the OT, it turns out to be an

untenable presupposition to hold.

79 Carroll, “Jewgreek Greekjew,” 100-1.

80 Ibid., 101.

33

Carroll’s suggestion is certainly a helpful start. One cannot get very far in a discussion

about the dating of the OT if every fact must be “verifiable.” According to the findings of this

paper, in fact, one stalls at the starting point of “text in hand.”81

However, in the opinion of the

present author, Carroll does not speak precisely enough. There are at least two problems with his

argument that “speculation” is only proper when verification isn’t a possibility and that the

results of such “speculation” by necessity remain tentative: First, it is unwarranted to use the

pejorative “speculation” to speak of the process he is describing. Clearly he uses this term

because he feels that the lack of concrete data allows only for “guessing” at the origins of the

OT. However, with the verification principle temporarily inoperative, does not ample evidence

regarding the dating of the OT open up to Carroll? The lacuna is not so gigantic when one allows

testimony to be a source of evidence. Second, Carroll overstates his point when he says that such

“speculation” by necessity remains tentative. On the contrary, one can place firm trust in a

source which consistently proves to be reliable, even if the content of that source’s testimony is

not immediately verifiable.82

To be sure, there may be debate about the reliability of the OT

documents as a source. Nevertheless, one cannot rule out the possibility of making firm

conclusions apart from the verification principle, for it is not a logical necessity.

The most significant concern with Carroll’s argument is that it does not prove that one

should depart from agnosticism. He is basically arguing that one can depart from the scientific

81 If, indeed, even this can be maintained as verifiable fact (see fn. 77).

82 Since the OT claims to be the revelation of the God who “cannot lie” (Tit 1:2; cf. Num

23:19), this principle may be particularly applicable!

34

starting point of “text in hand” in argumentation but not in reality. In other words, while making

an argument, one can posit ideas. However, in the end one must remain agnostic, for the

evidence allows for no other position. One cannot arrive at a firm conclusion. One cannot know.

As mentioned, though, agnosticism is not a logical necessity. “Blessed are they who did

not see, and yet believed” (John 20:29). In fact, agnosticism about whether or not to believe the

Word of God is in the end inexcusable.83

God is to be believed apart from humans being able to

verify what He says. Not making a judgment about what He has said is in essence no better than

rejecting what He has said, for doing so questions His reliability.

In choosing a foundation upon which to build a history of ancient Israel, therefore, one

must carefully consider the options available. Some say that certain ground is known to be

reliable and stable whereas the firmness of other ground is uncertain. However, it turns out that

one must exercise faith to build on the former ground no less than the latter. The builder of

Israel’s history must weigh the evidence for each foundation and choose wisely. In all events, the

builder must not refuse to proceed with construction on the basis of a paucity of evidence, for

there is too much at stake to not move forward.

CONCLUSION

In a discussion on written sources of the OT, Lemche makes a curious assertion regarding

the Bible’s account of Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem: “The obvious conclusion is that the

83 And, the Word of God very clearly asserts that portions of the OT were not written

late. E.g., “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me” (John 5:46).

35

biblical text has ‘decorated’ the truth, and this is probably the case.”84

His switch in terminology

is quite intriguing: If it is “obvious” that the Bible is exaggerating or distorting what actually

happened, how is it only “probable” that this is what took place? One gets the impression that the

conclusion is not so obvious after all but is rather only one of a series of possibilities, one which,

of course, Lemche feels is most probable.

This quotation from Lemche aptly summarizes the findings of this paper: The claims of

many OT scholars about conservative students of the OT are true. Such students believe many

things about the Bible that are not currently verifiable as fact. However, the idea that less

conservative scholars are following “obvious” conclusions characterized by full certainty is not

the case. Rather, their beliefs also rest on possibilities. Conservative and non-conservative

scholars are thus not so different after all. There is, to be sure, a more “scientific” position which

suspends all belief until facts are proven conclusively. This agnostic position is dangerous,

however, inasmuch as it constitutes in the end a refusal to believe what God has said.

Conservative students of the OT must defend the faith revealed in the Bible against both

the “speculative fancies” of those who consistently date the OT late and the unwillingness of

agnostics to trust the testimony of God’s Word. In doing so, they should not overstate their own

position in the sense that they must never forget that their knowledge of God is indeed received

through faith. Having heard the testimony about God from holy men of old, they believe.

84 Lemche, Ancient Israel, 70 (emphasis added).

36

When refuting the arguments of those requiring “scientific data,” it is reasonable for

conservative scholars to suspend belief in testimony, accept the verification principle for the sake

of argument, and demonstrate how the evidence presented does not adhere to the treasured

principle. When responding to those who refuse to place trust in God’s Word because of a lack

of “hard evidence,” one must highlight the fact that remaining “neutral” about what God has said

is essentially the same as not believing Him.

Before concluding, the significance of engaging in this defense should briefly be

highlighted. Aggressively seeking to establish the reliability and antiquity of the OT texts may

seem like a pedantic and impractical exercise. However, the issues involved are far weightier

than this. The consistent dating of the OT as a late, literary creation not only demeans the

historical accuracy of the text but also impinges on the glory of the Gospel. Significant concepts

such as sin and holiness are transformed into manipulative means by which to gain and sustain

political control.85

The dating of the OT thus has significance to life’s most important question:

“What must I do to be saved” (Acts 16:30):

Thompson’s understanding of the epistemological capacity of humans and the

compositional techniques of the biblical writers has wide implications not only for

historical studies and biblical exegesis but also for biblical theology – implications that

Thompson is well aware of himself. . . . If the presupposition is right, namely, that the

religious perception of a given biblical writer is founded on evoked truth and grounded in

created reality, it can be maintained—as Thompson does—that (a) it did not matter for

the ancient writer and does not matter for us whether any correspondence or coherence

can be created between created reality in the texts and true reality outside the texts, and

(b) the religious perception of the text must be regarded as authoritative, that is, “canon,”

only for a very limited group of people in Palestine during the Hellenistic period. What is

85 See fn. 37.

37

at stake, then, is not just an outdated picture of Israel’s past and ancient composition

techniques, but nothing less than the authority and status as “canon” of Scripture for

ancient as well as modern man.86

86 Jens Bruun Kofoed, “Epistemology, Historiographical Method, and the ‘Copenhagen

School,’” in Windows into Old Testament History, edited by V. Philips Long, David W. Baker,

and Gordon J. Wenham (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

2002), 38-39.

38

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alberts, Rainer. “An End to the Confusion? Why the Old Testament Cannot be a Hellenistic

Book!” In Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the

Hellenistic Period. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe, 30-46. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield

Academic Press, 2001.

Archer, Jr., Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. Chicago: Moody Press,

1994.

Averbeck, Richard E. “The Sumerian Historiographic Tradition and Its Implications for Genesis

1–11.” In Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near

Eastern Context. Edited by A. R. Millard, James K. Joffmeier, and David W. Baker, 79-

102. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Barstad, Hans M. “Deuteronomists, Persians, Greeks, and the Dating of the Israelite Tradition.”

In Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic

Period. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe, 47-77. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press,

2001.

Becking, Bob. “The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Israel: Three Preliminary Statements.” In

Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period.

Edited by Lester L. Grabbe, 78-90. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Bolin, Thomas M. “When the End is the Beginning: The Persian Period and the Origins of the

Biblical Tradition.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10/1 (1996): 3-15.

Carroll, Robert P. “Jewgreek Greekjew: The Hebrew Bible is All Greek to Me. Reflections on

the Problematics of Dating the Origins of the Bible in Relation to Contemporary

Discussions of Biblical Historiography.” In Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish

Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe, 91-

107. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

________. “Madonna of Silences: Clio and the Bible.” In Can a “History of Israel” be Written?


Davies, Philip R. In Search of “Ancient Israel.” Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press,

1992.

________. “Judaeans in Egypt: Hebrew and Greek Stories.” In Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish



39

________. “Whose History? Whose Israel? Whose Bible? Biblical Histories, Ancient and

Modern.” In Can a “History of Israel” be Written? Edited by Lester L. Grabbe.

Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Deist, Ferdinand E. “The Yehud Bible: A Belated Divine Miracle?.” Journal of Northwest

Semitic Languages 23/1 (1997): 117-42.

Dillard, Raymond B. and Tremper Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. New York:

Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965.

Ehrensvärd, Martin. “Once Again: The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew.” Scandinavian

Journal of the Old Testament 11/1 (1997): 29-40.

Grabbe, Lester L. “Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period.” In Did Moses

Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period. Edited by

Lester L. Grabbe, 129-55. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

________. “Who Were the First Real Historians? On the Origins of Critical Historiography.” In

Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period.


Gunn, David M. “The Myth of Israel: Between Present and Past.” In Did Moses Speak Attic?

Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period. Edited by Lester L.

Grabbe, 182-99. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1969; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2004.

Hurvitz, Avi. “The Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’ and the Linguistic Evidence of the

Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations.” Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997): 301-

15.

Kallai, Zecharia. “Biblical Historiography and Literary History: A Programmatic Survey.” Vetus

Testamentum 49/3 (1999): 338-50.

________. “The Patriarchal Boundaries, Canaan and the Land of Israel: Patterns and Application

in Biblical Historiography.” Israel Exploration Journal 47 (1997): 69-82.

Kofoed, Jens Bruun. “Epistemology, Historiographical Method, and the ‘Copenhagen School.’”

In Windows into Old Testament History. Edited by V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and

Gordon J. Wenham, 23-43. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 2002.

40

________. Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text. Winona Lake,

Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Lemche, Niels Peter. Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society. Translated by Fred

Cryer. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988.

________. “Clio is Also Among the Muses! Keith W. Whitelam and the History of Palestine: A

Review and a Commentary.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 10/1 (1996):

88-114.

________. “Good and Bad in History: The Greek Connection.” In Rethinking the Foundations:

Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van

Seters. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer, 127-40. Berlin: Walter de

Gruyter, 2000.

________. “How Does One Date an Expression of Mental History? The Old Testament and

Hellenism.” In Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the

Hellenistic Period. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe, 200-24. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield

Academic Press, 2001.

________. “Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Ancient Israel?.” Scandinavian Journal of

the Old Testament 8/2 (1994): 165-90.

________. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox

Press, 1998.

________. “The Old Testament—A Hellenistic Book?.” In Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish



Longman III, Tremper. How to Read Proverbs. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Na’aman, Nadav. “The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-Evaluation of the Book of

Kings as a Historical Source.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 3-

17.

Pasto, James. “When the End is the Beginning? Or When the Biblical Past is the Political

Present: Some Thoughts on Ancient Israel, ‘Post-Exilic Judaism,’ and the Politics of

Biblical Scholarship.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 12/2 (1998): 157-202.

Provan, Iain, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville,

Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Provan, Iain W. “Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History

of Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995): 585-606.

41

Rast, Walter E. Tradition History and the Old Testament. Guides to Biblical Scholarship: Old

Testament Series. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.

Rowley, H. H. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. Cardiff,

Eng.: University of Wales Press Board, 1959.

Sellin, Ernst. Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York:

George H. Doran Company, 1923.

Smith, Morton. “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 71 (1952): 135-47.

Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological

Sources. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 4. Leiden, The Netherlands:

Brill, 1992.

________. “History and Tradition: A Response to J. B. Geyer.” Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament 15 (1980): 57-61.

________. “How Yahweh Became God: Exodus 3 and 6 and the Heart of the Pentateuch.”

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 68 (1995): 57-74.

________. “The Bible and Hellenism: A Response.” In Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish



________. “The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian

Period Palestine.” In The Triumph of Elohim. Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman, 107-

24. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

________. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York: Basic

Books, 1999.

Unger, Merrill F. Introductory Guide to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1951.

Wesselius, Jan-Wim. “Discontinuity, Congruence, and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.”

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 13/1 (1999): 24-77.

Yamauchi, Edwin. “The Current State of Old Testament Historiography.” In Faith, Tradition,

and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context. Edited by A. R.

Millard, James K. Joffmeier, and David W. Baker, 1-36. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,

1994.

shaky ground: the tenuous foundation of dating all … · shaky ground: the tenuous foundation of...

Documents