In a prior talk on the evolution of the scriptures, we focused on the Pentateuch, the first five books of the bible also known as the Law of Moses. In that analysis we traced how this collection of writings was itself an amalgamation of various sources that was edited and reworked on a number of occasions to forge the final form we have in our possession today. The same can also be said of much of the rest of the Old Testament and we will now take a look at the historical books and the wisdom literature which also bear the telltale signs of editorialization.
Beginning with the Book of Joshua which picks up the story of the Israelites after the death of Moses, we have at least a dozen appearances of the phrase “unto this day” as we had seen in the Torah. As noted in the Books of Moses, this expression was identified as a gloss inserted by editors perhaps centuries after the original story was written as a form of commentary. To cite a couple of these references, we allude to the story of the Gibeonites, a Canaanite tribe which effectively tricked the Israelites so that they could continue to keep their home in the Promised Land. Though Joshua couldn’t kill or drive them out of Canaan, he did the next best thing by subjugating them into perpetual slavery at the service of the Israelites. According to the text, “Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.” A few chapters later, we have the phrase appearing again pertaining to another tribe the Israelites failed to drive out of the land. We read, “As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.” It is clear from later Jewish history that David finally took Jerusalem from the Jebusites around 1000 B.C., so it seems that this comment derives from a time a little earlier, perhaps during the compilation of the scriptures at the hands of Samuel and his school, “the sons of the prophets” some 300 years after the death of Joshua.
That Samuel and his colleagues used multiple sources to compile the pre-monarchic historical books seems clear from evidence within the Book of Joshua itself. In telling the story of a battle with the local Canaanites, the story recounts, “On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: ‘O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as is written in the Book of Jashar. Literally meaning “the Book of the Upright,” it seems that the Book of Jashar was an early chronicle of Israel’s Wars since coming out of Egypt and continuing at least through the life of David. There is a second reference to it in the Books of Samuel at the time that King Saul and his sons died in battle on Mount Gilboa. David wrote a poetic lamentation about the event “and ordered that the men of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar.”) No longer extant, we have no record of the original document except the excerpts that have been extracted from it in the Bible, but it may have been similar to another source book which the Pentateuch makes mention of known as the “Book of the Wars of the Lord.”
And speaking of the Pentateuch once again, the Book of Joshua contains a narrative which further supports the idea that much of the first five books of the Bible were not directly attributable to Moses himself but written by authors even centuries later. After the Israelites crossed into the Promised Land it is recorded that the Lord instructed Joshua to “make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” After this command, we are given a detailed explanation of why this was necessary. Apparently, according to the story, “All the people that came out [of Egypt] had been circumcised, but all the people born in the desert during the journey from Egypt had not.” It seems that the failure to circumcise in the desert was in direct violation of a Levitical law which we are told God spoke to Moses: “On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.” It also was an infraction of the earlier Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham which allegedly Moses recorded for us and which instructs, “For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised.” Of course it is hard for us to see how Moses could have given such a law and then allowed it to be largely ignored during his own lifetime only to be enforced once Joshua assumed power.
Continuing our survey of the historical books, we turn to the Book of Judges which appears to have been compiled in the monarchic era. Particularly in the later chapters there is a common phrase, “In those days Israel had no king” which tips us off to the fact that the work as we now possess it dates from at least the time of Saul, but internal evidence suggests a good deal later than that. It seems that those who edited the book were indeed fans of the kingship, and that zealousness seems to have poured over into the editing of some of the narratives.
In the time of the judges, there was a brief experiment with a monarch in the person of Gideon’s son, Abimelech. After his father’s death, he sought to have power exclusively rather than share it with his seventy brothers who were conceivably the rightful successors of the judge. So he murdered all of them and then convinced the people of Shechem, his hometown to recognize him as king. We are told that he reigned over them for three years before trouble ensued, but interestingly the editor of the story suggests that “Abimelech had governed Israel three years” and not just the one city of Shechem. This must be seen as a gross exaggeration anticipating the day when a man would reign over a united Israel, for at this time the tribes were at best a loosely connected federation.
The first sixteen chapters of the Book of Judges are for the most part a chronological account telling the story of the twelve judges that ruled Israel between Joshua and the monarchy. But the last five chapters of the book appear to be an appendix with random accounts that don’t quite fit in with the earlier flow of the book. Two of the chapters in particular have the markings of propaganda foisted by Judah against the Northern tribes. Undoubtedly written at the time of the Divided Kingdom, the narratives seem to be a projection of the Southern Kingdom’s contempt for the rival worship system in the North to a time centuries earlier when religious bickering between the tribes did not exist.
The story begins with a man named Micah of the tribe of Ephraim who with the help of his mother cast various idols out of silver and then hired a Levite from Judah to be his priest. His shrine was later visited by five men from Dan who on behalf of their tribe were seeking out land to conquer in Canaan, for we are told at this time they still had not settled into a territory of their own. While staying with Micah, the men sought out his blessing to attack a certain Canaanite town, and receiving it they departed to join 600 other Danite warriors. The whole party returned to Micah’s home shortly thereafter and asked the Levite to come with them taking along all of Micah’s idols. The man consented to come along and act as priest for the people of Dan utilizing Micah’s household gods. We are told that the men of war attacked the Canaanite town of Laish, razed it to the ground and then rebuilt it as the city of Dan. According to text, “There the Danites set up for themselves the idols, and Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses, and his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan until the time of the captivity of the land. They continued to use the idols Micah had made, all the time the house of God was in Shiloh.”
Obviously writing sometime between the exile of the Northern Kingdom in the 8th century B.C. and the exile of Judah in the 6th century B.C., it is clear that the editors had nothing but contempt for the tribe of Dan whom they identified as a band of malevolent idolators. But it seems very unlikely that the Danites were involved in such unauthorized worship early on in the period of the judges. Rather, it is much more plausible that the editors from Judah were extrapolating a more contemporary condition they were familiar with further back in time.
We learn from the Book of Kings that after the Kingdom was divided, Jeroboam the first Northern monarch feared that he would not be able to keep his territory from falling back under the control of King Rehoboam of Judah. His concern was that the tribes of the north would continue to go down south to the temple at Jerusalem to offer sacrifices and in doing so they would ultimately pledge their allegiance to Rehoboam. So his advisors recommended that he create a rival system of worship in the north. Jeroboam proceeded to cast two golden calves, much like Aaron did centuries before for the people to sacrifice to. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” The passage then goes on to indicate that Jeroboam erected one calf at Bethel and the other in Dan. So it is clear that from the time of the Divided Kingdom in the 10th century B.C. until the Northern Kingdom’s captivity, Dan was a bastion of idolatry and was loathed by the faithful followers of Yahweh in Judah. It seems that this hatred was mapped to a more a remote time as depicted in the account from the Book of Judges. However it seems historically unwarranted.
Now turning briefly to the Book of Ruth which itself may be thought of as an appendix to the Book of Judges, we have a good example of an interpolation or editorial comment for the clarity of the reader. In many modern bibles it is rendered as a parenthetical citation and gives an explanation of a custom in the story that would be otherwise unclear to the more modern audience that it was being updated for. Near the climax of the narrative, when Boaz agrees to marry Ruth we are told that he first needed to get the permission of another kinsman who had more of a right than he did to marry the widow. The account goes on to say cryptically that this other man removed his sandal and gave it to Boaz. However it offers an ample note to explain this strange gesture to those Israelites of a later era who would be just as mystified as we would be. The citation says, “Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.” Apparently, the one closer of kin had ceded his right to Boaz and made this clear through the shoe transfer ceremony in the presence of the town elders. The custom itself seems to be of ancient Semitic origin originating in Acadia.
Right after the Book of Ruth we come to the Books of Samuel which chronicle the story of the prophet and then the lives of Saul and David. In the introductory chapter we learn that Samuel’s mother was barren and unable to conceive a child. This was a source of bitterness to her, but after making a vow to the Lord to dedicate a son to his service, she conceived. When the boy was old enough, she turned him over to the high priest at Shiloh to train him in the service of God. After this transfer she offered a prayer of thanksgiving and praise to God which in keeping with our theme of editorialization is of some interest. At the end of the prayer is an unexpected statement that proclaims, “He (God) will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.” The sentiment is all well and good but in keeping with the chronology of Israel, it was allegedly uttered some 50 or more years before the beginning of the monarchy when her own son Samuel would anoint Saul the first king. In light of this, we have no reason to question that Samuel’s mother (Hannah) offered a prayer to God at this time, but it is most certainly true that her words as they appear in our modern bibles have undoubtedly been modified and augmented by others, especially those with a royalist agenda.
As we progress further into the Books of Samuel and consider the lives of David and his contemporaries, we encounter more that seems at odds with what we read in the Pentateuch. It is clear that in David’s day that there were no qualms about an Israelite marrying a foreigner. David who had eight wives that we know of was married to a Syrian woman named Maacah who bore him two children. His son Solomon had a great number of wives also, many of which were foreigners. Apparently his first and favorite wife was Naamah the Ammonitess who bore him his heir to the throne Rehoboam.
What is concerning about the marriage to Naamah is the injunction of the Book of Deuteronomy that commands, “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, even down to the tenth generation.” By this standard, it would have been impossible for this woman to become an Israelite national and by extension, her son Rehoboam would also not be recognized as a legitimate son of Israel. Of course this would have meant that he was an invalid king, and yet we have no hint in the historical books of any such sentiments against him.
The Mosaic Law unequivocally forbids intermarriage with foreigners saying, “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and quickly destroy you.” However we have a good number of examples in the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings of unions with non-Israelites without commentary or criticism. Jael, a famous heroine and contemporary of Deborah the judge was married to one Heber the Kenite. Gideon the judge whom we considered earlier was married to many women including a Canaanite of the city of Shechem. Boaz was of course married to Ruth, a first generation Moabite and great-grandmother of King David. The famous monarch also had another renowned foreigner in his lineage, namely the Canaanite Rahab of the city of Jericho. And David’s wife Bathsheba was originally married to a Hittite named Uriah, whom he lamentably murdered to acquire her.
Other pairs could be mentioned in addition to these, and so we must ask if the Mosaic Law was so staunchly opposed to intermarriage with foreigners, how is it that there was so often disregard for this precept, even among the best people of Israel? Naturally, we are suggesting that some of the commands we now have in the Law of Moses regarding foreigners were not codified in the Torah during the time of Joshua, or the Judges, or even the Kings of Israel and Judah. Rather they seem to reflect a much later period, perhaps the post-exilic timeframe when the Jews freshly returned from captivity were zealous for religious and racial purity. Having learned the lessons of worshipping other deities the hard way, they were eager not to repeat the same mistakes, and so it became imperative that a Jew avoid any union with a foreigner who might lead him away from Yahweh as happened in the centuries leading up to the Exile. This idea was taken so seriously that in the Book of Ezra we have the account of the Jews putting away all of their foreign wives in one large national campaign of repentance.
It is likely that this same post-exilic sentiment was responsible for the general intolerance of foreigners that is evident in the Mosaic Law, particularly in the Book of Deuteronomy which we have seen has a number of suspected addendums to it from centuries later. We have at least a couple passages that order the slaying of those who worship other gods which of course would entail foreigners who did not know Yahweh. It is unquestionable that at times God ordered the total destruction of the local Canaanites as the land was being conquered, but the idea that the only good “non-Israelite” was a dead “non-Israelite” seems to be missing from the historical books, particularly the Books of Samuel and Kings.
Especially in the time of David, foreigners rose to places of great prominence in government and military service which seems very much against the tone of the Torah. David’s personal bodyguards, the Gittites, Cherethites, and Pelethites were not Israelites but groups of Philistines who served both David and Solomon. Also among David’s elite circle of warriors, the famous “Mighty Men” there are numbered at least three foreigners including Zelek the Ammonite, Uriah the Hittite, and Ithmah the Moabite. It seems that these were all respected men living in the land of Israel around the turn of the First Millennium, B.C. Uriah of course is well known to us as the victim of David’s sin. God was certainly very angry when David took Uriah’s wife in an adulterous affair and then later had him killed. That God would have such regard for a foreigner like this can hardly be reconciled with the idea of the Deity ordering the deaths of thousands just because they were non-Israelites. We can only conclude that the strong discrimination against foreigners in the post-exilic period was absent in earlier centuries, but the later generations were nonetheless sure to taint the scriptures with their bias. As a result we have conflicting information in the Old Testament, particularly between some of the alleged commands of God and every day practice even among the shining stars of Israel.
We consider now the Books of Kings and Chronicles which tell the story of the monarchy from the David until the Exile. Both of these works make reference to source material upon which the canonical books are based including the books of various famous prophets like Nathan and the “Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah” which seems to be the now lost annals of the Jewish monarchs. There is a great deal of overlap between the Books of Kings and Chronicles for indeed they were both compiled from similar sources. However it is clear that the Book of Kings is far older and consequently more accurate when we compare the two works.
When we compare the accounts of David’s last charge to Solomon before his death, we find a fairly brief rendition in the Book of Kings but in the Book of Chronicles we have a lengthy discourse which seems a little unrealistic for a weak and dying man to have uttered. More than likely the latter version is an augmentation of what was actually said based on other speeches, prayers, and writings of David that the editors had access to.
According to the Book of Chronicles, part of David’s charge to Solomon was a public event accompanied by prayers and many sacrifices. The text informs us that when this festivity was over, “They made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the Lord to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest.” Naturally the term “governor” tips us off to the fact that the Book of Chronicles was edited in the post-exilic period when kings no longer ruled Palestine but governors working under their Persian overlords. That Solomon was said to have been anointed and made king a second time is not found in the Book of Kings and so seems suspect. More than likely it was a later invention inserted into the work to show parity with his father David who had been anointed three times that we are aware of during the course of his life.
The Books of Kings and Chronicles share a number of stories in common, but one in particular illustrates how the records used in forming the latter had to some degree deteriorated compared to the more ancient documents used to compile the former. The Chronicler tells us that “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.” If we compare this passage with the more ancient one at the end of the Books of Samuel, we learn the identity of the man from which David obtained the land to be Araunah the Jebusite, a much more Semitic sounding name. It is clear that Ornan is a bastardization of Araunah. Actually it comes from the name Orna, the Hellenized form of Araunah which suggests to us that at least some parts of the Book of Chronicles were still under construction as late as the Greek conquest in the 4th century B.C.
Moving on now to what is commonly known as the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament, we examine the Book of Job which has strong evidence of being an amalgamation of two parts written perhaps hundreds of years apart. Though the story as we now have it is fairly fluid, the discontinuity between the original narrative and the latter tale is apparent if we pay attention to the details.
The whole book as we now possess it spans forty two chapters but it would seem that the original story comprises chapters 1&2 and most of chapter 42, while everything in between is a later addition. We first suspect this to be the case on the basis of the type of literature we see in each part. The more ancient and core account of Job is written in prose while all of the intermediate chapters are unquestionably in poetic form. Then there is the contrast between the authors’ choice of the way God is referenced in the two sections. In what is presumably the older story, Yahweh is employed exclusively while in the more recent addition, the more common name for God, El Shaddai is used. Often it is the case that the more generic names for God are used in the Old Testament in reference to non-Israelites such as Job, and so the later addition to the Book of Job seemed to keep with this tradition while the more primitive story wasn’t concerned about that distinction.
The older story bears the marks of an account that was depicting characters in the early 2nd Millennium, B.C. while the latter part of the Book of Job has details that link it to a time nearly 1000 years later. The core account that we find in the first couple and last chapters of the book appears to depict a background characteristic of one like Abraham who lived around 2000 B.C. The main protagonist Job is depicted as monogamous with a non-submissive wife which highlights the influence of matriarchal culture still existent at that time. We are told that Job’s daughters were given an inheritance which further supports this idea of greater equality between the sexes at the time in contrast to the era of patriarchal Israel. Additionally we learn from the story that Job offered sacrifices for his family, essentially functioning as a proto-priest at a time when heads of families performed this service. At least within Israel it was not until centuries later that a formal priesthood took over the job of making oblations for the people.
If we analyze what we are calling the newer part of the Book of Job, we see internal evidence that links it with the end of the Second Millennium B.C., the period of Samuel and David who might have had some role in its creation. One such detail is the mention of iron tools which did not become prevalent in the Near East until the end of the Bronze Age around the 12th century, B.C.
But more than just these historical disconnects between the two sections of the Book of Job is the substance of the narratives themselves which to a certain degree contradict each other. In the original roughly three chapter story, we have an author writing to teach a theological idea, namely that suffering isn’t always the result of personal sin. This ancient narrative wishes to illustrate that hardship and difficulties sometimes come to us as a form of testing even when we have been very upright before God. The character Job is tested twice in severe ways and throughout his suffering maintains his integrity and does not rail any accusation of wrongdoing against God. The story concludes with Job being praised by God for speaking of God “what is right” while Job’s “friends” and harshest critics are condemned for speaking of the Almighty in error. Ultimately Job is rewarded for his trial and material wealth is restored to him again.
However, in the intermediate chapters of the Book of Job, which we affirm is the later addition to the more ancient story, we see a poetic dialogue between Job and his friends consuming almost all of that narrative. In contrast to the shorter prose account, we find Job complaining that he has been wronged by God in his suffering, citing numerous times that he has been blameless and undeserving of the calamities that have befallen him. Finally at the end of these dialogues, God himself interrupts the conversion between Job and his friends and proceeds to excoriate Job for his misconceptions saying, “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?” Clearly we have somewhat of a disparity between the two parts of Job with God apparently contradicting himself in his sentiments toward the protagonist. We can only reconcile the problem by acknowledging two distinct authors with different theological purposes in each section of the now amalgamated book that we possess.
After the Book of Job, we find the Book of Psalms in our modern Bibles, a collection of 150 spiritual poems compiled by the Hasidim in the final editing of the Old Testament in the 5th century, B.C. It is interesting that we find virtually identical copies of some of them in earlier books of the Old Testament. For example, Psalm 18 is almost the same as 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 105 is nearly identical to 1 Chronicles 16. Repeat psalms also appear within the official Book of Psalms itself and we could consider the great similarity between Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 and also between Psalm 60 and Psalm 108.
We could rightly ask why there should be any redundancy. We don’t we find exactly one copy of each in the Old Testament? Certainly there is no good theological reason to need two or more versions of the same material, and so we conjecture that multiple copies are an extraneous result of the editing process. From the time that authors such as David wrote the original text of particular psalms, a number of versions evolved as they passed through the centuries and through the hands of many scribes. When it was time to compile what would become the canonical scriptures, the editors had in some cases a number of sources with differing versions of the no longer extant original. It seems that they did their best to choose the best one, but in those cases that they couldn’t decide they chose to include more than one variant of the psalm to “cover all the bases.”
In the first lecture on this topic, we had traced how a significant portion of the Books of Moses derived or were at the very least greatly influenced by the writings of other cultures. To a certain extent the same can be said of at least one psalm which shares a very close parallel with an Egyptian Hymn. Though it would be inconclusive to say that this psalm derives directly from an Egyptian source, they mirror each other thematically and are worthy of our consideration.
Not long after the Israelites made their Exodus, the Egyptians began to experiment with a monotheism of their own. Putting away their pantheon of deities for a time, the Pharaoh of the time tried to enforce the worship of Aton, the Sun God to the exclusion of everything else. During this time what is known as the Hymn to the Aton was composed. Though written 400 years before Psalm 104 it is very strong parallels and we can only infer some remote connection.
We could look at a couple of examples comparing the texts to see the similarities. In one excerpt of the Hymn of the Aton we read, “The world came into being by thy hand, according as thou hast made them; when thou hast risen they live. When thou settest, they die.” Psalm 104:29, 30 uses analogous language speaking of how God’s creatures are born and die: “Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.”
The dependence of God’s creatures on him is also highlighted in both the psalm and the Egyptian hymn. Psalm 104:27 says, “These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.” And the Hymn of the Aton expresses it with comparable sentiments: “Thou suppliest their necessities; everyone has his food and his time of life is reckoned.”
The Book of Proverbs also has links with the wisdom of other cultures including Egypt. About 1500 years before the time of Solomon who wrote most of the Proverbs, a document called the “Instruction of Ptah-hotep” was written by the vizier of the 5th Dynasty Pharaoh Izezi and relates the man’s advice to his son and successor. In one verse of the text, he writes, “If thou are one of those sitting at the table of one greater than thyself take what he may give when it is set befoie thy nose. Thou shouldst gaze at what is before thee.” It seems that Proverbs 23:1-2 has links with this clause, for it says something very similar: “When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy Throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. “
The Sayings of Ahiqar, an Assyrian sage of the ancient Near East also seems to have provided some inspiration for a biblical proverb or two. One verse of this collection says, “I have lifted sand and I have carried salt, but there is naught which is heavier than rage.” And we can compare with it Proverbs 27:3 which states, “A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both.”
Like the Psalms, the Proverbs also have there fair share of duplicate entries which we would attribute to the same reason, namely compilation from multiple sources. To cite one duplicate pair as an example, we refer to Proverbs 19:25 which says, “Flog a mocker and the simple will learn prudence; rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge.” We can compare this with Proverbs 21:11 which echoes the same thing: “When a mocker is punished the simple gain wisdom; when a wise man is instructed, he gets knowledge.”
Proverbs 25:1 announces, “These are the proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” What this suggests to us is the compilation of the Proverbs was the result of the same kind of process as was employed in forming many of the other Old Testament books. The remains of various older scrolls were copied and/or combined, often without any attempt at chronology or sequence. And anyone who is vaguely familiar with the Proverbs will note that it is a collection of random sayings without any thematic grouping.
Like our survey of the Books of Moses, we have taken a brief look at the Old Testament historical and wisdom literature attempting to piece together its evolution into the books we now possess in final form. Rather than attributing any one book to a particular author, we have come to conclude that each is more realistically a hodgepodge of various sources, compiled together, edited and revised several times before coming into the familiar texts we now recognize. As with the Pentateuch we recognize inconsistencies in these books as a reflection of the changing beliefs of the editors who were not always careful to recast everything according to their own biases. Indeed political agendas and the all too human element are very evident in these particular Old Testament books. Once again, we must try to understand the background story in the formation of these writings to sort out spiritual truth from the prejudice of men which certainly dots the pages of the whole Old Testament canon. Without attempting to decouple these from each other, we may run the risk of ascribing some false concept to Deity and at the very least scratch our heads in confusion.