1. The only possible exception would have occurred circa 538 B.C.E., when Cyrus the Great ended the Babylonian captivity (which lasted a total of 48 years) and allowed the held captive in Babylon to return to Judah to rebuild the Temple. It is generally thought, however, that only the upper classes had been carried of f into exile in the first place, and that the land itself had remained in the hands of lower class who had been left behind. In any event, history records no outside opposition to the exiles upon their return to their homes. See A History of the Jewish People, ed. H.H. Ben-Sasson (Harvard University Press, 1976) pp. 160-162. 2. For the exceptions, which generally support the conclusions below, see Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol. ll, byj. David Bleich (KTAV, 1983), Chapter EX. See also Religious Zionism: Challenges and Choices (OZ VeSHALOM PUBLICATIONS, English Language Series #1). 3.Genesis 11:27-35:39. The established academic view, dating from mid-century and based largely on William F. Albright’s sifting of the archeological and textual evidence, upholds in general terms the historicity of the patriarchal age. More specifically, it holds that the patriarchal narratives, while written late, were originally oral traditions of the ancient Hebrews a stateless, pre-literate tribe of West Semitic stock who immigrated into Palestine from Mesopatamia some time in the first half of the second millenium B.C.E.. See, for example, the new Cambridge Ancient History (University of Cambridge Press, 1970). Lately, however, these conclusions have come under challenge by biblical scholars who maintain that, at best, Albright establishes a plausibility, not a probability. They prefer the German hypothesis popular a century ago, according to which the patriarchal narratives were manufactured out of whole cloth very late in Israel's history (after the Babylonian exile) and were retrojected into a mythlogical, pre-Mosaic age. See Abraham in History and Tradition by John Van Seeters, (Yale University Press, 1975) and The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives by Thomas L. Thompson (Walter de Gruyter, 1974). Be that as it may, it is important to emphasize that the dispute is not material to the issue at hand, for the present essay rests, finally, on nothing more than a close, critical reading of the actual texts as we find them today. Consequently, it is unaffected by all questions of provenance. Nevertheless, for purpposes of exposition, I have followed the established academic opinion which upholds the historicity of the patriachal age; whether or not my argument adds to the plausibiity of that hypothesis I will leave it for the experts to decide. 4. Since Wellhausen, the scholarly consensus has been that the book of Genesis is, together with the rest of the Torah, a highly Composite text woven out of various strands the so-called J, E, P, D codes, etc. which were written down separately and then redacted by various hands over a period ofcenturies. See, e.g., the article “Genesis” by O. Eissfeldt in the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 5. William Gesenius, A Hebrew and Engiish Lexicon of the Old Testament (Houghton Mifflin, 1906). 6. Bruno Kish, Scales and Weights: An Historical Outline, (Yale University Press, 1965), p.32. 7. Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (Penguin Books, 1966) p. 138. 8. Cf. the midrash on the question: “Why is Genesis included in the Torah?" Nachmanides’s answer was that Genesis was included to show that God‘s promises to Israel were conditional and not absolute. See Religious Zionism." Challenges and Choices (OZveSHALOM PUBLICATIONS, English Language Series #1) pp. 23, 35-56. |
Home >