kdlitwak at concentric.net
Fri Dec 31 15:53:31 EST 1999
Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> Why the Siloam inscription? And the Hinnom amulets, one 50% of the Blessing
> of Aaron. the second 75%, but this is a religious formulaic text that can
> have existed for centuries before it was included in the narrative in
> Numbers. Who can say?
Isn't it a gratuitous assumption to suggest this may have existed for centuries?
Would it not be fairer to the hard evidence to say that it popped into existence at
the moment the extant text was written? After all, if the biblical texts were first
composed, as some like Davies assert, in the Persian or Seleucid period, then
Israelite religion was invented de novo at the exact same time. That would fit the
hard evidence, n'est pas? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but asking for
consistency. If we are going to do absolute obeisance at the altar of hard evidence
(written texts and artifacts), we should never leave that post.
More information about the b-hebrew