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.
Angela Erisman Says:
Thanks for picking up this thread; it’s a very interesting one. I have a couple of comments in response.
First, I must apologize for the imprecision of my own terminology in my previous comment. “Corporate entity” is much better than “nation” because “nation” invokes a modern concept that is not easily applicable to ancient societies. In any case, both am and goy are corporate (not private/familial) entities, whatever their basis (i.e., whether political or ethnic). You do mention genealogies, and this could be a way of getting at “familial,” but we know that the biblical genealogies are ways of talking about relationships between groups, particularly because some of the names in these genealogies are names of places and groups, not individuals (check out the Esau genealogy in Gen 36 in particular; the genealogies in Chronicles are another good example).
Take Abraham and Lot. Lot is the “ancestor” of Moab and Ammon, and the “brotherhood” of Abraham and Lot is a way of expressing the kinship between Israel and the groups in Transjordan. Likewise, Jacob and Esau is a way of expressing the kinship between Israel and Edom (a rather contentious brotherly relationship, clearly, but a kinship nonetheless). These relationships between corporate groups are expressed in both story and genealogy in kinship terms, but this does not mean that the stories are private.
Calvin Pitts Says:
Your insights regarding ‘AM vs GOY are powerful, but do you realize the implications of this as they relate to the secular State of Israel?
I am doing a study of 1 Samuel 8:4-22 where Israel demanded that they be made a nation LIKE OTHER NATIONS. Israel did not want to be ‘AM, but GOY. When God granted this demand, the historical implications have been awesome. This study has taken me deep into the Talmud, which is my current research.
Do you have other published comments relating to "Israel as ‘AM" vs. "Israel as GOY"?