Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Digging in the Dirt: 1, Experts: 0

Via Libertas et Memoria, a story on biblical origins:
Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing - an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign.

The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)

Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.
If lectures from John Goldingay have taught me anything, it's that history is complicated. The reigning biblical studies paradigm dates the finalized text of the Old Testament at somewhere in the 6th Century BCE. This corresponds historically to a little vignette in 2 Kings where King Josiah finds an old copy of what sounds like the Pentateuch. The idea is that 2 Kings 22 is more or less reliably reporting an event which marks the fixing of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch in this form survives the exile, a few new(er) histories and wisdom writings (e.g., Nehemiah, some Psalms, possibly Ecclesiastes) and finalized versions of the prophets (esp. 2nd and 3rd Isaiah, Jeremiah) are added, and, somewhere between 2nd and 1st Century BCE, a final form of Daniel is tacked on. Voila! the Old Testament.

Until now, it was conjectured that the form of the Pentateuch discovered in Josiah's court may have been written as late as the early 6th Century. So, basically, some priest writes a bunch of the Pentateuch, drops it in a closet, it gets lost for twenty or thirty years, is discovered, and is then hailed as the ancient text of Israel. Seriously. That's what they think.

On the conservative side of the debate, scholars will suggest that tightly controlled oral traditions preserve stories, poems, songs, and wisdom in original form from the 12th Century BCE until they are committed to ink at an indeterminate time, lost or forgotten during the reigns of naughty kings, and then rediscovered by Josiah's people and preserved through the exile.

Turns out, they're both wrong!

Until now, we had no evidence of biblical Hebrew being used before the 6th Century. That is, the language preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls was thought to have developed much later than the time of David. What's cool about the text discovered by archeologists is how it shows problems in the views of both camps. Clearly, Biblical-style Hebrew was in use at least as early as the 10th Century. And even cooler is that the recovered text is not biblical, but echoes prominent biblical texts (Ps. 72:3, Ex. 23:3, and Isa. 1:17). What's likely is that oral and written traditions were in effect (as conservatives assumed), but that they were probably looser than conservatives would have liked. What eventually gets fixed in the biblical record very much preserves the language and spirit, if not the precise grammatical constructions or internal logic, of original utterances.

To the archeologists: keep digging!

3 comments:

  1. Maybe said earthenware maker was fashioning a gift for his teenage son who spoke Hebrew slang. This could give more credence to that Message Bible you read :).

    p.s. Sorry to be the comment killer on your first post :).

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the Hebrew written word was developed to this extent at such an early period, could that be considered another (small) piece of evidence that Solomon's kingdom really could have been as wealthy and powerful as the Bible claims it to have been?

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Neil: I think the Message analogy is a good one.

    It also might be kind of like the kitch paperweight that has a verse fragment like "The Lord is my strength." Maybe there were early forms of written scripture that the pot-maker appropriated.

    @Dan: Fifty or sixty years ago it was hip to just deny that David and Solomon even existed--or if they did that they were just regional tribal chiefs. Their story was blown up and blown up until, you guessed it, some priest in the exile cobbled together the legends and called his production the true official history.

    Nowadays scholars tend to be more sanguine about the "actual history" of David and Solomon. The thought is something like, "Well, all those stories had to come from *somewhere*." So really this discovery probably won't impact prevailing opinions about the Davidic and Solomonic histories, but it will have people rethinking the status of scriptures.

    ReplyDelete