JEDP (Melchizedek) (Peter)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Tue Dec 21 16:36:22 EST 1999


Hi Peter.

I'm finding it difficult to keep up with everyone here.

At 00.18 21/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Ian, you can't have it every way! Do you, or do you not, hold that it 
>is impossible to date any part of the Hebrew Bible to before the 
>second century BCE? 

Not quite. One can pin down what was from the second century and what is
presupposed by texts from the second century (and thus is earlier). Then
again there is a lot of stuff that simply can't be dated one way or
another. I have tried to work on indications of institutions and traditions
to help pin down relative orders of some texts. As you've seen, I consider
Deut mainly to have been written before the other pentateuchal books and
much of those written before the second century. The prophets give such
indications of having been prior to the second century, though some are
clearly earlier than others. 

>You have said that, or very nearly that, before, 
>and you have persistently rejected any arguments for any earlier 
>datings of any specific books I and others have named.
>
>So when you ask others to provide proof of dating of anything earlier 
>than that, it is already clear that you will not accept their 
>evidence. So all you are doing is trying to trap them.
>
>See my further comments below.
>
>Peter Kirk
>
>.. All you need to do is provide datable exemplars regarding el elyon to any 
>period prior to the second century BCE, ...
>
><snip>
>
>.. I can date *all* datable usage of el elyon to the second century 
>(or a little later)...
>
>PK: Of course, because you have already rejected the possibility of 
>anything being datable to before the second century. 

But this I haven't done.

>So if anyone 
>comes up with a counter-example, whether from 3rd, 14th or 20th 
>century, all you do is say "undatable" and resort to your old 
>arguments on dating. By your methods, I could say exactly the same of 
>all datable usages of YHWH, Elohim, Shaddai etc etc.
>
><snip>
>
>I think it's quite damning that despite the proposal that Melchizedek
refers to 
>someone from a very early period, there is no speculation on, or use of,
the mys
>tical personage until Hasmonean times -- and then Melchizedek becomes
relatively
> popular.
>
>PK: Please name some documents in Hebrew which you date to earlier 
>times which contain speculation about any person but not about 
>Melchizedek. Or for that matter any document of such date, other than 
>short inscriptions, which fails to mention Melchizedek.

How about the Enoch books? The Noah material? None of the prophets show
knowledge about Melchizedek...

Cheers,


Ian




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list