Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Yahwism (was: their altar)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Yahwism (was: their altar)
  • Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:51:48 +0000

On 07/03/2005 14:09, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

... As for the capability of writing, one should note that this is the first site where
some type of literature of a religious-theological nature
is found in the area, at a time when writing at all is very
rare. ...


Not necessarily, only that very little written material has survived. It might have been mostly on perishable materials. As a parallel, it is known that writing was used extensively in the Persian empire, in Aramaic, but almost none of this has survived. This might give the initial impression that writing was much less common than in the earlier Assyrian and Babylonian periods, but the distinction is in fact one of preservation.


... (would one expect a source from
London to tell the story of the Chosen Nation USA,
describing England as a small state in the Union?) ...


No, because this was never true - although at one time more or less vice versa.

...

Nevertheless, I think many issues are problematic and
are just unknowns. ... There are just a lot of unknowns that must be treaded carefully. And here is not the place to
propound any ideas beyond a simple suggestion or
statement for thought.


I am happy to agree that there are a lot of unknowns. My objections come up only when someone, like Dora, comes up with assertions in this area, qualified only by the patronising "Just one thing it sounds like you may not be aware of".

...


Because the Deuteronomist would inject his own values into historical descriptions of earlier periods, this is evidence that must be ignored. ...


Not ignored. No evidence should be ignored. It should of course be treated with care. But we must be aware that ANY evidence we find, even contemporary inscriptions, is necessarily injected with the values of the individual author and so not representative of society as a whole. The Kuntillet Ajrud inscription is almost the only surviving contemporary record of a whole society. If American society were to disappear entirely but the only accidentally surviving 20th century material happened to be from the Ku Klux Klan or the Black Panthers, would that material be taken as typical of the society even if contradicted by detailed, although biased, historical accounts from the 21st century?

If we want to know what the Yahwist found repugnant, we must look at J and only J. (I think it's not even
clear today that J predates Deuteronomist, which is why in
my earlier message, I described it in terms of "classical"
criticism. I think he does predate him, though.)


Well, there is a methodological problem here, that we don't know what is "J and only J", or even that J existed at all at least as a coherent source. And of course if J is later than D, that is quite incompatible with your identification of the milieu of J with Kuntillet Ajrud.


... We know nothing of other statements that may
be theologically loaded.


True, including the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription which is itself theologically loaded and so not necessarily representative of anything.


...

Perhaps, although I think you are attempting to read modern
meanings into ancient words. When you bless yourself by
the name of a god, it is unlikely to be someone else's god.
It is your god. In any case, it seems more reasonable to
suppose some connection between the site and Israel than
with any other nation (Edomites, Judahites) in the area.


Well, I accept that blessing oneself by Yahweh of Samaria in some sense makes this Yahweh one's own god. But it doesn't make one an Israelite. Kuntillet Ajrud was very likely a crossroads in the desert where traders set up shrines to a variety of gods, who were perhaps worshipped rather eclectically. If there was no such variety there, why the need to identify this Yahweh? Perhaps because there was another, now lost, shrine across the road to Yahweh of Jerusalem, with no consort? Who knows? So we can safely come back only to "There are just a lot of unknowns that must be treaded carefully."

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page