Dating Biblical Authorship

Many critical biblical scholars and historians of ancient Israel connect the Deuteronomistic History to the book of Deuteronomy, arguing they were composed at roughly the same time. How does that conclusion influence how scholars interpret the content of both biblical sources? How does that interpretation influence the interpretation of the archaeological record, particularly for Israel's early history (pre-monarchy)?

When the Deuteronomistic history is linked in time to the book of Deuteronomy, it establishes an early date for the occurrences within the books. If the authorship occurred at the same time, the historical content will be far greater than if composed at a later date. The internal consistency would be greater since less time has elapsed to allow for human forgetfulness or changes to the text. Finkelstein adhering to a late authorship view of these books believes they reflect the political and religious ideology of their time while containing historical memories of Israel’s past. Thus the message is modified to the current political message and the ancient memories are tailored for that message. The text thus must be viewed with a critical eye to discern between ideology and true historical fact. The range of viewpoints is wide in the field. The extreme would say the, “Bible is a Hellenistic composition with (almost) no historical value, and that the entire "history" of Israel, from the patriarchs, through the exodus, the conquest, the monarchy and the exile and restoration, never happened.” Such a viewpoint dramatically affects the treatment of the text and the consideration of it its validity.

If the text contains true historical value, then archeological finds should corroborate the accounts. Those items found would be viewed through the lens of an earlier chronological dating system. Finds would also work to prove the Biblical stories. Kitchen and Hendel examine items such as the Mari and Nuzi tablets to corroborate the social milieu depicted in the Bible. If these items confirm a similarity between early near Eastern culture and the Biblical text, then there is room to argue for ancient authorship. Finds like the Merenptah Stela are interpreted differently to represent different times and different models of Israel’s history: either as a nomadic group or closer to an organized state just before the Monarchy. Minimalists such as Thomas Thompson who adhere to a late authorship date and Jan Van Seters interpret any data with a critical eye. Thompson casts doubts on the Tel Dan Inscription’s reference to, “the house of David” saying it does not mean David was a historical ancestor. Depending on the presuppositions about the Biblical text, the interpretations for the archeological findings differ.

Footnotes:
Yigael Levin, Hebrew Discussion Board: Brief definition of "minimalism" and "maximalism," http://www.wwuheiser.com/minimalmaximal.pdf.
Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007).
Yigael Levin, Hebrew Discussion Board: Brief definition of "minimalism" and "maximalism," http://www.wwuheiser.com/minimalmaximal.pdf.
Michael Heiser, Ancient Israel.
Michael Heiser, Ancient Israel.

Patriarchs: Historical or Legendary? Pt. 1

Imagine…

As the Constitution’s signatures still sat wet, the question arose amongst the auspicious Congress, “Does not this new nation need a historical background as a foundation for the new Republic?” Indeed, the need for heroic figures and a common cultural background to unite and inspire the thirteen legislatures and their people groups so aroused the writers leading them to assign Thomas Jefferson with the task of creating a national history. Hence the account originated: of a brave Italian explorer, Christopher Columbus, lineage of the Separatists and Moravians who followed the reformed faith of Martin Luther and the courageous Miles Standish and Thomas Hooker. Indeed, contemplated the Congress upon reviewing the historical and detailed nature of Jefferson’s work, such a “history”, though fictional, embodied the spirit of freedom and bravery to be emulated and found in this new land and home. Thus in further legal documents and popular Gazette reports, the Congress promoted the created heritage to the American populous.

Imagine such a scenario. Imagine it truly relates the origins of our national heritage. What pride would you take in following, honoring and imitating such a respectable…but fictional legacy? The scenario illustrates the position of the minimalist school on Israel’s heritage portrayed in the Biblical account. Israel Finkelstein writes on the minimalist viewpoint,
It [Old Testament] is a largely fictional composition motivated by the theology of the time of its compilation, which occurred centuries after the alleged events took place….it contains only vague and quite unreliable information about the origins and early history of Israel…. the authors…stitched together old myths, folktales, imaginary records, legendary narratives, and a few memories of historical facts…into a single saga of apostasy and redemption.
In other words, the authors wrote up a history with a specific ideological bent for political purposes. Such a viewpoint targets the Pentateuch’s veracity, a portion containing Abrahams, Jacobs and Isaacs’ stories, pivotal to the Biblical chronicle and theology. Thus with archaeology’s emergence, the Bible’s historicity has been challenged. Its historical portions and accounts of the Patriarchs remain highly critiqued due to a lack of archeological confirmation. With textual criticism, the dating of Patriarchal narratives has raised questions on authorship and date composition along with questioning the reliability and possibility of historical data and the accounts’ oral transmission. Such doubts engendered the hypothesis that the biblical account was constructed during the Persian or Hellenistic periods in an attempt to create a history and present an ideology. Such challenges and hypotheses demand a response. While the Scriptures demonstrate certain literary styles such techniques do not invalidate the content. While scholars doubt the possibility for accurate oral transmission, it is a viable option in a culture accustomed to its practice and especially when a sovereign God directs the transmission. The archeological field contains a variety of arguments for or against the Patriarchs’ existence but contains enough data to maintain their historicity. Overarching each of these considerations is the theological testimony for and dependence on the historical nature of these biblical characters. This response will address theories on the Bible’s literary genres, the debate and evidence regarding the Patriarchal narratives’ historicity and the theological implications of either viewpoint.

Consider...

Imagine.
As the Constitution’s signatures sat still wet the question arose amongst the auspicious Congress, “Does not this new nation need a historical background as a foundation for the new Republic?” Indeed the need for heroic figures and a common cultural background to unite and inspire the thirteen legislatures and their people groups so aroused the men leading them to assign Thomas Jefferson with the task of creating a national history. Hence came the account of a brave Italian explorer, Christopher Columbus, lineage of the Separatists or Moravians following the reformed faith of Martin Luther and the famous and courageous and Miles Standish and Thomas Hooker. Indeed, contemplated the Congress upon reviewing the historical and detailed nature of Jefferson’s work, such a “history”, though fictional, embodied the spirit of freedom and bravery to be emulated and found in this new land and home. Thus in further legal articles and popular reports, the Congress promoted the created heritage to the American populous.
Imagine such a scenario. Imagine it truly relates the origins of our national heritage. What pride would you take in following, honoring and imitating such a respectable…but fictional legacy?

Levirate Marriage: Addressing its Cultural and Theological Complications

(Please excuse any theological mistakes, I do not mean this to be the final word, simply some initial thoughts and my current understanding of the issues. May God's name and Word be held in high esteem and His Word stands supreme over any of what I might express here, this is what I believe at my current understanding)

In Ruth 4:13 the text reads, “So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her … and she bore a son.” While this may appear to recount a regular marriage, it really symbolizes the contested legal tradition of levirate marriage. Levirate marriage in the Bible, as defined by E. W. Davies, “prescribed that a widow whose deceased husband had died without male heir marry one of his brothers, presumably the next eldest one who was himself unmarried.” Complications in practicing levirate marriage arise if the next brother is already married. If this man married his sister-in-law would he be engaging in adultery and polygamy? Does the Bible contradict itself and sanction such practices? Through a theological viewpoint, this study seeks to answer the questions raised. In Genesis, God designed and established marriage as a union between one man and woman who become “one flesh.” The same God instituted the Mosaic Law thereby sanctioning levirate marriage and providing legal provisions for its enforcement. In considering the practice, it appears polygamy is allowed; however, God from the beginning in Genesis and through his final revelation in the New Testament indicates marriage is between one man and woman. To present this argument an examination of levirate law in the Scriptures, a consideration of foundational preconceptions, the evaluation of adultery in relation to the law and the consideration of polygamy is required.

In examining levirate law within the Bible, several primary passages surface presenting its legal stipulation, its practice on Old and New Testament times. In Deuteronomy 25:5, the law reads, “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family … Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.” Thus if a husband dies without heir, his wife is to marry a brother and produce an heir to preserve the family name. Later, the book of Ruth describes Boaz acting upon the law and marrying Mahlon’s wife, Ruth. The practice seems to continue through the time of Jesus, near late 100 B.C. and 1st century A.D, because certain religious leaders quoted this practice while asking him a trick question. The tense used in their question, “If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother” reveals levirate marriage remained in practice. Jesus’ answer in Matthew 22 does not negate the law, rather it explains a theological truth which eliminates the possible problem of multiple husbands for one woman in heaven. Thus from the early Old Testament law, to its application in Israelite society, to its mention and affirmation in the New Testament Jewish culture, levirate law plays a viable role within the Bible.

In determining whether levirate marriage constituted adultery and promoted or allowed polygamy, some definitions must be given. To define the difference between marriage and adultery the study utilizes the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage based on Yahweh’s revelation in Genesis 2:25. Christ, in discussing divorce and marriage quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:25, verses describing a union of two who become one; additionally, Jesus bases the legal binding of the two upon God who “has joined [them] together.” This union, designed from the beginning continued to be approved and legitimized by God. Conversely, adultery is seen as separating this union and is specifically prohibited in Exodus 20:14. From this understanding of marriage the question then arises, whether levirate marriage was adultery by modifying the latter marriage model.

Given the established definition of marriage and adultery, it is critical to examine levirate marriage within its cultural and theological context. The Bible describes a levirate marriage occurrence before the establishment of the Mosaic Law. In Genesis 38, Judah’s son Er dies leaving Tamar his wife and no male heir; consequently, Judah commands Onan to, “perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Thus before God establishes His law for Israel, the patriarchal family was aware of and practiced levirate marriage. The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible notes, “Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.” In the former passage, Judah had married a Canaanite woman and was therefore in contact with the Canaanite culture. If levirate marriage was indeed known amongst the cultures surrounding Jacob’s family, the practice possibly infiltrated the budding Israeli culture. If the practice emerged from a pagan culture, could it mistakenly have been incorporated into Israel’s legal code? Michael D. Matlock writes, “As with many of the Deuteronomic laws, this law does not create a new institution but codifies an old one.” He goes on to argue that chapter five with its copy of the 10 commandments is an outline for the following chapters, 6 through 26. If so, the clause on levirate marriage falls under the tenth commandment, “And you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor’s house….” Matlock argues that a levir (brother of the deceased) actually fulfills the tenth commandment when he performs his duty to his sister-in-law because he will withstand a financial loss as the widow’s wealth passes on to the male engendered in their union. By fulfilling his levir’s duty he does not covet the widow’s economic wealth, rather sacrificially helps perpetuate his brother’s lineage. If Matlock’s argument is accepted, it is understood that the Mosaic Law not only accepted levirate marriage but also mandated its fulfillment.

Coming with the presupposition that the Scriptures are divinely inspired, one believes the Mosaic Law is from God. By including levirate marriage in the Law, God grants it a legal standing and justifies its fulfillment. When Boaz sought to perform the duty of the levir, he went before elders of the city and conducted the transaction before them. His union to Ruth was done in full compliance with the established authorities and the divinely inspired legal code.

Despite these arguments, another complication arises as other sections of the Mosaic Law seem to condemn the relations found in levirate marriage. Leviticus 18:16 reads, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife” here, levirate marriage is seemingly prohibited. However, levirate marriage played an important role in protecting widows and maintaining the paternal lineage. Matlock notes an economic and societal reason for the practice, “The third and final concern of the levirate marriage is providing for a widow and securing the respect she gains from having a son. In the societal structures of ancient Israel, the levirate law is one way of helping a widow maintain her well-being.” Additionally, Matlock points out how levirate law maintained familial land within Israel: the importance for this act rests on the land’s value in God’s saving plan for Israel. As Charles P. Baylis notes, from Ruth’s levirate marriage, “descended David … the one from whom came the promised Messiah.” Jesus Christ, the Messiah, descended from Ruth and Boaz. The Levitical law warns against incest for its own sake. While levirate marriage could be defined as incest, its practice served the purposes explained above. Through the procedural steps outlined in Deuteronomy 25: 5-6, the Mosaic Law established a context for “incest.” Its context offered a redefinition for the action making the union viable in the sight of the law and it’s Author.

While levirate marriage is not legally adultery, does it validate or promote polygamy? Within the biblical biographies cases of polygamy emerge: Jacob with Leah and Rachel or King David and his multiple wives. The New Bible Dictionary discussing the seventh commandment on adultery states, “Relations between a married man and an unmarried woman do not qualify as adultery. Hence polygamy is not automatically excluded by this commandment, although in practice it was rare in OT times.” Under his specific definition on adultery, the author feels polygamy is not directly condemned. Charles Hodge similarly argues the Mosaic Law does not condemn the practice; however, Hodges goes further to explain the nature of God’s law. The law is formulated for man in their specific environment and existence; thus, God can change or update the regulations. Certainly such concepts appear inconsistent with God’s revealed character, yet the Scriptures illustrate the concept through the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. The Old Covenant provided a preliminary arrangement used to symbolize and prepare the Jews for future developments. The same progression is seen with marriage. Christ notes, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Marriage is an earthly institution which serves to demonstrate Christ’s relationship with His redeemed church (and certainly the natural means to procreation) but will be unnecessary in Heaven. In applying this concept to Old Testament polygamy, one might view it as a phase in God’s revelation. It can be argued that polygamy is not God’s original design and despite its presence within Israeli culture it was not encouraged. Alfred Edersheim notes:
In reference to both these [polygamy and divorce], however, it must be remembered that they were temporary concessions to “the hardness” of the people’s heart. For, not only must the circumstances of the times and the moral state of the Jewish and of neighboring nations be taken into account, but there were progressive stages of spiritual development….Suffice it, that “from the beginning it was not so,” nor yet intended to be so in the end…. Moreover, it is impossible to read the Old, and still more the New Testament without gathering from it the conviction, that polygamy was not the rule but the rare exception, so far as the people generally were concerned.
Thus, God through the Law established regulations which His people could work with at the time but with further revelation He unfolded more aspects of His holy will. In one way God revealed His original intent for marriage through His creation of Adam and Eve, by depicting a monogamous relationship in the Song of Solomon and finally stipulating the original intent through Christ and the Apostles.

To conclude, levirate marriage within Israeli culture raises important theological and cultural concerns. While Mosaic Law prohibits relations between brother and sister-in-law, levirate marriage provides a legal exception to preserve familial lineage and provide for widows. God desires to preserve the Israeli bloodlines for the purpose of engendering the Messiah. When asked about levirate marriage, Christ does not condemn the practice but does denounce adultery; therefore, it can be gathered that levirate marriage was not considered adultery. On the subject of polygamy, God led Israel through stages of revelation and eventually eliminated the practice in the final revelation stage through Christ’s definition of marriage and the epistles. Thus levirate marriage and its implications fit within a theological and cultural framework during God’s preliminary revelation. Christ provided the final revelation, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Bibliography
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.

E. W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” VT 31 (1981): 257–68; D. W. Manor, “A Brief History of Levirate Marriage as It Relates to the Bible,” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin (NS) 20 (1982): 33–52.
Edersheim, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2003.
Baylis, Charles P. "Naomi in the book of Ruth in light of the Mosaic covenant." Bibliotheca sacra 161, no. 644 (October 2004): 413-431. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 6, 2009).
Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988. 1406.

Matlock, Michael D. "Obeying the First Part of the Tenth Commandment: Applications from the Levirate Marriage Law." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31, no. 3 (March 2007): 295-310. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 6, 2009).
E. W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” VT 31 (1981): 257–68; D. W. Manor, “A Brief History of Levirate Marriage as It Relates to the Bible,” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin (NS) 20 (1982): 33–52.

What does this Quarter hold?

Amid my Education classes, I will take Ancient Israel, History 390. I am thrilled to learn about such a pivotal culture and land.

Proving the Bible True

"Much of the minimalist effort has been invested in the claim that David and Solomn-the founders of the Jerusalem Dynasty- are not historical figures. They argued that...they are not mentioned in any extra-biblical texts and should therefore be seen as legendary personalities. This arguement suffered a major blow when the Tel Dan basalt stele was discovered in the mid- 1990s. It comprises several fragments of a triumphal inscription written in Aramaic....It describes from the Aramean perspective, the territorial conflict between Israel and Damascus in the ninth century [B.C.] and records how an Aramean king (Hazael) launched a punishing offensive against his southern enemies...in which-so he claimed-he killed the king of Israel and his ally, the king of the 'House of David' (or bytdwd). This was the first time that the name of "David" was found in any contemporary source outside the Bible.... Moreover, it most probably specified the names of the two later kings-Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah-both of whom are mentioned in the biblical text."

-The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archeology and the History of Early Israel by Isreal Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar. Edited by Brian B. Schmidt. Pg. 14