kwrandolph at gmail.com
Fri Dec 28 10:23:27 EST 2007
On Dec 27, 2007 2:43 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir at gmail.com> wrote:
> Already the Talmudic sages were divided on the last verses of the Torah,
> and others (prominently Ibn Ezra) also noted anachronisms. These were
> all good god-fearing people who believed in prophecy, and yet they allowed
> that anachronisms are not necessarily explained by prophecy. What is
> significant, however, is that a prophecy can tell the future, but it
> speaks to
> the present. Thus, even a prophecy of the future should show signs of
> recognizing all the conditions (for example, the political conditions) of
> time it was given, even if they would be long gone by the time the
> is fulfilled. Someone who substantiates a text's anachronisms on
> grounds, must still show how it applied to the time to which he believes
> it was originally given.
This is a view of prophecy that is not accepted by many on this list. The
moment that the requirement that a prophecy apply also to the time it was
given is removed, so also the "anachronisms" connected with them are
You are adding a requirement that did not exist in the original text, i.e.
you practice eisegesis.
> Besides, as I stated originally, even aside the DH, there are other
> such as archaeological evidence that is incompatible with many details of
> the Patriarchal, Exodus and Conquest narratives. That alone is sufficient
> lead us to understand that the composition of these narratives is in the
> 1st millennium BCE, and mainly faint memories if even that go back
> I'll discuss this more when I finish Kitchen's article.
I echo Shoshanna Walker here concerning archeological evidence.
> Yitzhak Sapir
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew