In which Ibn Ezra puts his shoe on the other foot

Avraham ibn Ezra is justifiably famous for his near-modern view of Biblical anachronisms. At the end of Deuteronomy, he says the last 12 verses of the Torah were written by Joshua. Earlier, he identifies four other verses, or part of verses, that he supposes were added by a later editor - a view that is endorsed by his super-commentary the Tzafnas Paneach, who adds that the Sages, and Prophets were authorized to add glosses and other explanatory notes to the text of the Torah.

This approach to anachronism, of course, is no longer viable in Orthodox Judaism, or as one Rabbi I know put it: I don't think we'd let the Ibn Ezra daven with us.

Perhaps my Rabbi friend will change his mind after I show him how Torah-true Ibn Ezra can be when the spirit grabs him. For example, see what Ibn Ezra has to say about Gen 36:31 which reads "These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before a king reigned for the children of Israel."

The question, first, is obvious. If the Torah was written during Moshe's life, how could anyone say with any certainty that these are the only Edomite Kings that ruled prior to Saul? And indeed a certain Yitzchaki, whose book is now lost, suggests that this chapter was added later, perhaps during the days of Yehoshofat, the father of Joram, the Davidic King who suffered (and lost) the Edomite rebellion.

The ibn Ezra reacts to this speculation with the righteous anger we might expect from a yeshiva guy, declaring that Yitzchaki's book should be burnt, and that "all laugh at him" (a nasty pun on his name.) But what gives? Why does Ibn Ezra deny Yitzchaki a prerogative he takes for himself? Why is he, but no one else, permitted to point out anachronisms?

Kefira notes: It should also be said, that scholarship sees the whole story of Jacob and Esau as an etiological tale developed to explain events recorded in Samuel and Kings. Saul defeats Edom in battle the begining of his reign, and for the next 140 odd years Edom is a vassal state. Scholars speculate that Edomites practiced a religion that was nearly identical to the Israelites and may have had other things in common (thus the two nations are "brothers"). According to the Bible itself, Edom was established as a nation, while Israel was still a collection of tribes (thus Edom is the "older brother") The story of Rivka's oracle, and the stolen birthright, may have been a tidy explanation/justification for Edom's dependency on Israel during the early years of the kingdom. Edom rebelled against the 8th Israelite king, leading to additional speculation that the 8 Edomite kings mentioned in Genesis were intended to represent some parallel in strength, or the idea that power switched between the two states after even increments of time.

Update: Josh Waxman thinks Ibn Ezra objects to the possibility that a whole section might have been added after Moshe. Apparently, he accepts that a few lines of explanation were occasionally needed and provided, but can't allow that later generations added entire narratives. I see the appeal of this suggestion, but don't agree. Of the four anachronisms Ibn Ezra publicly admits, only one adds extra information. The others are just superfluous remarks.

---

Search for more information about the Holy Torah at 4torah.com.