JEDP (Mo & Deut)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Sun Dec 19 11:53:54 EST 1999


>>How about if you start talking about the subject when you have acquired
>>what you feel is necessary instead of making pronouncements that don't
>>consider the bulk of the literature?
>
>Ian, this is rude. 

Is it rude to say that you are not talking about JEDP which is in the title
of this thread, for which knowledge of the other pentateuchal books is
esential, as part of the complex that is tied to the documentary hypothesis?

>I was never talking about Deuteronomy. I was talking about evidence 
>for redaction in Genesis. You wanted to talk about Deuteronomy, and I
replied that I 
>declined to get into this discussion, and now you accuse me of trying to
talk about 
>something that I am not prepared to talk about.
>
>>Can one talk about JEPD without considering all the Pentateuchal books?
>
>One can talk about hints of redaction in Genesis without mentioning
Deuteronomy. 

By limiting the discussion to one book you are unable to make essential
comparisons with the other pentateuchal books.

>Peter Kirk asked for evidences that Genesis was not a unified composition
under a 
>single author. I did my best.
>
>>While we're on Genesis, riddle me this: was the Melchizedek episode not
>>written in the second century? This seems to be indicated by its use of the
>>god reference, the "Most High God" (el elyon, ie not simply elyon -- I
>>haven't seen a means of dating that, have you?), which is found in texts
>>that are clearly datable to the second century (Ben Sira, Daniel, Judith,
>>Jubilees, various DSS). The Asaph psalm 78 also uses el elyon, and the
>>Asaph psalm 79 seems to deal with Antiochus IV's attack on Jerusalem.
>
>I would say that the Melchisedek episode was written in its current Hebrew
form in the 
>15th century BC. 

Why would you say that, if you have no evidence?

The Melchizedek episode is never referred to in biblical literature as one
might expect of something that was written when you'd like it to have been,
so there is no indication of any tradition behind it. The only other time
Melchizedek is mentioned is Ps110 which wasn't found amongst the DSS psalm
scrolls -- there is a sequence missing from 110 to 117.

The book of Jubilees which parallels the content of Genesis has no
Melchizedek episode. (For those interested this is a little more complex
because the Ethiopian version has had some transmission problem at the
point, but there is no such problem in the Syriac.)

>I date Daniel to the 6th or 5th century BC. 

It might be intersting to see what corroborates the claim that it is from
the 6th or 5th centuries BCE, but like the previous statement I guess it's
just another expression of belief.

Daniel has chronology all wrong: if it were written when you would like it
the chronology wouldn't be in such a mess. Daniel's Aramaic is a farce, not
representing the Aramaic that it was trying to fake. Daniel has good
crypto-historical information about the reign of Antiochus IV up to the
point before his death, which it gets all wrong: this is vaticinio ex
eventu until we get to the death which is real prophecy and it is wrong.
The point of error is about 164 BCE. If you refer to most scholarly
commentaries on Daniel, you might get some hint of why your dating is out
of the question.

>Asaph seems to be 
>talking about Nebuchadnezzar, if you ask me.

Then why have the people in Jerusalem become a taunt to their neighbours?
The people are still in Jerusalem and they are mocked by those round about
them. What is there to suggest Nebuchadnezzar?

>>Doesn't the anachronism regarding Abraham in Philistineland show that the
>>text was written well after the arrival of the Philistines who hit the
>>coast around 1175 BCE? There is no knowledge of the arrival of the
>>Philistines so they arrived before the emergence of the culture which
>>produced Genesis.
>
>I am something of a Velikovskian when it comes to the Phillistines. 

Velikovsky was off his face, working in a period when we didn't have enough
information. We know now that he is simply wrong, confused and didn't know
what he was talking about, though he sired a crew of weird pseudo-history
writers, including David Rohl.

>I believe Ramses 
>IIIs temple allegedly depicting battles between Libyans, Egyptians, and
"Phillistines" in 
>around 1175 BC is actually the tomb of Nectanebo I 

My, my, my. This is *incredible* stuff. Ramses III's name is splattered all
over the temple. It is famous in history for its long usage. You will note
that there is other evidence that connects Ramses III with the period of
the Philistines (as well as Merneptah with other sea peoples). There is so
much to support its relation to that king that I guess there is no real
point in continuing.


Ian

>and depicts battles between 
>Egyptians, Greeks, and PERSIANS in the 4th century BC. Such an
interpretation 
>would require an entire reworking of just about evrything there is
concerning the 
>Phillistines. I don't buy that Phillistines were 12th century sea peoples
one bit. They 
>were probably tied to Mycenian events.
>
>>What about the table in Genesis 10? If there was a son of Cush called
>>Sabteca, doesn't this imply some time long after the period of the Kushite
>>dynasty in Egypt, for isn't a group indicated by Sabteca just a dim record
>>of the Kushite king Shabtaka?
>
>Haven't looked into it. I will.
>
>>And talking about doublets (there is at least one triplet), the best one
>>can do with them is to argue for plurality of hands, not duplicity (a
>>"twoness", to use an Anglosaxonism) of sources. Limiting the number of
>>sources to two or three or four needs to be argued, not assumed.
>
>I put the number of sources for Genesis at 9, plus one redactuer. These
nine may 
>have used other sources, but who is to know?




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list