Historiographical Dating
Under this approach (termed historico-criticism by Wellhausen and his predecessors),
texts are dated in conjunction with historical theories that also seek
hypothetically to explain by whom the texts were introduced and for what historical
motives. A proposed historical background becomes the key to dating the
text. This approach was utilized by the historian Wellhausen and in recent times
by Davies and Albertz.
This book takes the position that the dating of texts should be strictly divorced
from the writing of history. Dating a text is an attempt to establish a fact, while
history writing, or historiography, whether ancient or modern, is ultimately a
form of storytelling, an entirely different enterprise. It is the essential task of the
historian to synthesize and interpret, to take into account all available historical
data83 and to transform them into "history," that is, a story that in some ways
makes sense of the past. In a sense, the skills of the historian work against the
interests of scientific investigation, for a sufficiently persuasive and engaging
historian may be capable of telling a story so detailed and compelling that it
takes on the semblance of fact. But a historian's ability as a storyteller should not
translate into authority as a creator or arbiter of historical fact. For this reason,
the ascertaining of the underlying facts of history—including the dating of
texts—should be pursued as a technical discipline separate from historical
exposition.
Inductive Dating
Under this approach, features of a text are compared for significant correlation
with contemporary literary genres, literary parallels, language usage, cultural
details, social institutions, relevant archaeological discoveries and other concretely
historical data.84
One important instance of this approach was Van Seters'
comparison of Jewish historiography with that of other cultures. He established
that the historiographical writings of the Hebrew Bible showed influence from
Mesopotamian historiography of ca. 750 BCE or later85 and Greek historiography
of 520 BCE or later86 (although Van Seters avoided drawing chronological conclusions
from the Greek data which were inconsistent with his theory of an exilic
period dating of J87).
Garbini, who viewed the prominence of Ur and Harran in
the Abraham story as details deriving from the time of Nabonidus, also utilized
inductive dating technique. The best practitioner of this approach is arguably
Redford, who showed that the Egyptological data of the Joseph and Exodus
stories was consistent with the Saite, Persian and Ptolemaic periods.
One limitation of this approach is that in many cases it is subject to the
criticism of being an argument from silence. The many Egyptological parallels
of the Joseph and Exodus stories starting with the Saite period listed by Redford
do not preclude similar, less frequently attested or (so far) unattested Egyptian
language parallels, etc., of an earlier period.
The inductive dating approach thus in many cases falls short of absolute
proof, since it often simply points to a specific period rather than absolutely
excluding earlier or later periods. This is not always the case, however, as sometimes
it is possible to show that a particular detail is not only appropriate for one
period but also is anachronistic for other periods. For instance, the mention of
"Ur of the Chaldees" is anachronistic before the ninth century BCE, when
Chaldea first appeared as a locality in Assyrian records.88 Similarly, Lydia (Lud)
in the Table of Nations is anachronistic before ca. 700 BCE.89 The mention of
coinage prior to the seventh century BCE is anachronistic, as likely also the mention
of camel transport before about the ninth century BCE.90 Yet such details can
always be argued to have been late glosses on an older text.
Another limitation of this approach is the often capricious manner in which it
preconceptions of terminus a quo and ad quem, when other periods not considered
might provide equally good or better parallels. Van Seters, for instance,
arbitrarily took the historiographical data to indicate a date of composition of the
sixth century BCE. As Lemche pointed out, the historiographical data equally or
better fit the Hellenistic period. Redford admirably considered data from all
Egyptological periods and found the Joseph and Exodus stories to correlate with
Saite, Persian and Ptolemaic data. Yet in his statement of conclusions, he arrived
at a date in the Saite or Persian period, when a Ptolemaic era dating is equally
indicated. Redford evidently considered a Ptolemaic (Hellenistic) era dating
excluded by unstated terminus ad quem evidence of a non-Egyptological character.
Subjective and often unstated assumptions of terminus a quo and ad quem
dates thus significantly affect inductive dating arguments, both in determining
the scope of historical investigation for collection of relevant data and in the
chronological inferences drawn from those data.
Deductive Dating
Under this potentially rigorous dating approach borrowed from classical studies,
terminus a quo and ad quem dates are determined by source-critical evidence,
defining a date range outside of which it is impossible the text was written.91
This is usually accomplished by deductively establishing a sequence of literary
dependencies that identify dated texts both older and younger than the one in
question. The objective is to establish as narrowly as possible the upper and
lower chronological limits within which the text must have been written.
Garbini paid the closest attention to terminus ad quem data, but developed no
terminus a quo arguments. Among those who do not consider the Pentateuch
completed under Ezra, a terminus ad quem of ca. 300 BCE is almost universally
accepted for the composition of the Pentateuch, although Garbini argued for a
final redaction, including the addition of Genesis, at the time of the Septuagint
translation (ca. 270 BCE), and Lemche also allowed for a third-century BCE
Pentateuchal date.92
This book utilizes both deductive and inductive dating arguments, while historiographical
dating arguments are strictly avoided. First, deductive techniques
are used to establish that the earliest evidence of the Pentateuch is its translation
into Greek, resulting in a terminus ad quem date of ca. 272-269 BCE (rather than
ca. 300 BCE based on a mistaken attribution of a fragment of Theophanes to
Hecataeus of Abdera).
A terminus a quo of 278 BCE is then established based on
the Pentateuch's utilizing Berossus (278 BCE), Manetho (ca. 285 BCE) and likely
Cleitarchus (ca. 275 BCE), as well as displaying knowledge of the organization
of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic realms of 278 BCE or later. This hard evidence
deductively establishes a date range of composition of 278-269 BCE for the
Pentateuch.
Within that date range, additional date evidence of an inductive type is also
developed. The Curse of Canaan is argued to have reflected conditions at the end
of the First Syrian War, ca. 273-272 BCE.
Geographical references in the
Exodus account that appear to display knowledge of the Ptolemaic water lock
put in place in ca. 273-272 BCE also point to the same date. These inductive
arguments are the basis for the proposed more precise dating of 273-272 BCE for
the Pentateuch's composition, but it must be emphasized that the deductive
terminus a quo and ad quem arguments pointing to 278-269 BCE are central to
this book, while the inductive arguments are supplemental and secondary.
An important benefit of dating texts by means of literary dependencies is the
generation of additional data relevant to establishing textual provenance. The
identification of specific texts influential on the formation of the Pentateuch
(notably Berossus and Manetho) unexpectedly points to an intellectual (if not
necessarily strictly geographical) provenance of Alexandria, and documents the
exact means by which Jews were exposed to Greek and Mesopotamian histori-
ography and Mesopotamian cuneiform traditions by way of the Alexandrian
Library.
Date, language and locale favor identifying the authors of the Pentateuch
with the Septuagint scholars who were present at Alexandria at the requi-
site time, knew both Greek and Hebrew, were said to have been knowledgeable
in Greek literature, and had access to the Great Library where the Greek literary
texts antecedent to the Pentateuch were housed.
The identification of the date,
locale and authors of the Pentateuch, carefully established step by step, provides
for the first time a rigorous logical foundation for drawing substantial historical
conclusions regarding the circumstances under which the Pentateuch and other
biblical materials were composed. It must be emphasized that these historical
conclusions rise or fall on the strength of the supporting arguments and in no
way guided the preliminary research on date and provenance this book presents.
Conclusions regarding the official Ptolemaic patronage of the authors of the
Pentateuch and later biblical literature arose organically out of the earlier
inquiries first into date and then into provenance: the impact of Alexandrian
scholarship on the composition of the Hebrew Bible came as much as a surprise
to this author as it may to many of his readers.
