Torah: Kinship Story or National History? by slaveofone
Quite some time ago, I commented on Awilum that one of the things which makes historical investigation of Torah difficult is that much of the Pentateuchal history is a personal/family/private history instead of the public kind that most ancient documents are concerned with.
Therefore, we have virtually no chance of finding extra-biblical evidence of the Patriarchs or the events and circumstances that shaped their lives. One who requires this in order to believe the Pentateuchal narratives are historically accurate demands what historical investigation cannot reasonably provide.
Angela Erisman of Imaginary Grace challenged my assessment of the part Torah plays in Israelite history, saying that the narratives are primarily public/national, not private/personal. I did not at the time attempt to support or defend my position. Here, however, I hope to look at some specific linguistic evidence from the texts in question that, I believe, do considerable damage to the concept of Torah as representing national history as opposed to a personal/private family record.
In People
and Nation
of Israel by E.A. Speiser, originally published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, June 1960, the differentiated use of ’am and goy (translated people
and nation
respectively) in Hebrew literature is discussed. Several details are worth mentioning. First, YHWH is never connected linguistically to a nation (goy), but a people (’am). For instance, there is no such thing as the construction goy-YHWH (nation of YHWH), only ’am-YHWH (people of YHWH).(p.158) For this reason, Speiser says, all references to Yahweh as a ’national’ God at any given time are terminologically inaccurate
(ibid, note 5). If the head of a nation is the king and if the head of the king is a god, it stands to reason that unless the distinction is specifically made, such a god would be identified intimately in terms of the nation. But YHWH is not defined by a nation. He transcends national and political boundaries (or rules over all the kingdoms of men as is later described in Daniel), setting up and pulling down nations as he wills…including Israel. This is not only shocking generally speaking, but crippling to the idea that Israel is describing or establishing a national identity in Torah.
’Am is also often prefixed in Hebrew names. We have, for example, Amminadab and Ammiel, whereas there is no such thing as Goyminadab, Goymiel, or any other goy-prefixed name.(ibid, p.159). This serves to identity a person with a common ethnic family or lineage as opposed to a national or political body, which is not what one would expect if the characters or authors of the texts were more concerned with the later than the former. Indeed, even Israel herself is referred to in the first five books of Moses with ’am instead of goy. For instance, Exodus 1:9 calls the Israelites an ethnic family line (or ’am) that Pharaoh must let go, not a nation (or goy). In Numbers 23:9, Balaam prophetically announces the Israelites as a people (’am) that will not be reckoned among the nations (goyim). According to linguistic evidence such as this, biblical Israel is a kinship group, not a national one.