Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>Surely, Ian, on your presuppositions the whole of this discussion 
>thread is a waste of time because there is no evidence to show that 
>Deut 32:7-9 is earlier than the 2nd century BCE, or whatever the date 
>is of that tiny scrap of parchment which Dave described. So it seems 
>rather odd that you are coming in on one side of this rather than the 
>other.

Dear Peter,

Perhaps you have not quite grasped my presuppositions. I said in the post
you are responding to that the documents that we can specifically date to
the second century used el elyon. I have never claimed that the biblical
documents were written in the second century BCE. It is merely then that
our copies date to. That is also a problem, for there is no way to connect
those documents with the times that they refer to (other than assuming that
because they deal with a traditionally datable period that the texts also
belong to that datable period).

It would seem that one is being rather presumptuous to say what I think is,
or is not, a waste of time, when one has not got a clear idea what my views
are.

I can say that there are a number of indicators that would allow us to put
some order into the development of ideas found in the OT/HB. I have already
mentioned the use of el elyon. Here are a few other indicators: 

1) The Astronomical Book in 1 Enoch, which dates to the third century BCE,
makes it clear that the previous calendar in use was a 360 day version
which the AB indicates is inaccurate and champions the 364 day calendar.
This indicator would say that works such as Ezekiel part of the Noah
narrative and certain other works should be dated around the time of the
writing of the AB because of their adherence to the 364 day calendar.

2) A form of the Semitic calendar used in Babylon and in Syria seems to
have been introduced into Jerusalem for secular purposes with the hegemony
of the Seleucids, that calendar being likely absorbed into the hellenizing
priestly movement's cultic practices: Daniel for example tells us that
Antiochus IV "shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law"
(7:25b). And note the novelty of Syrian months in 2Macc15:36: "the twelfth
month -- which is called Adar in the Syrian language". The
Babylonian/Syrian calendar was coming into established use at that time and
will only have marginal presence in the OT/HB.

3) The Levites in Deuteronomy (and Malachi) are clearly not second-class
sacerdotes, yet by the time of Ezekiel (44:9-14 esp. v13) they are excluded
from important tasks. Between the former and the latter come the rise of
the Aaronids and more especially the Zadokites.

4) The day of atonement is not to be found in Deuteronomy: it obviously was
not part of the cult when that book was written.

5) The Sabbath, originally in contrast with the New Moon, was the festive
fifteenth day of the month (Shabattu). By the time the Gen1 creation was
written the Sabbath was the seventh day.

6) Gen1 assumes a day commencing in the morning, whereas in certain even
later works the day begins in the evening. (This is probably another facet
of the "attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law" under Menelaus.)

There are numerous other dating indicators to consider -- these are just
those that came to mind (I haven't attempted a coherent exposition of the
range of ideas involved). Inerrantists won't like this approach to the
literature, but it should help to give some more tangible datings to the
relevant works. 

Ezekiel for example would be dated much later than is the convention,
though such a redating is supported by other indications, such as the
strange prophecies against Tyre and Sidon which were both well under the
wraps of the Assyrians and then the Babylonians by the presumed time of
writing of Ezekiel, so there was no contact between the Phoenicians and the
Jerusalemites until the second temple. There are close contacts between
Ezekiel and the DSS, as in their views of the new temple, the views
regarding the Zadokites, the interest in Daniel, Job and Noah, speculation
on all of whom was found in the third/second centuries.

The move to monotheism is difficult to plot due to the fact that it has
been clouded by scribal intervention. We have seen that Deut 32:43 was
emended by later scribes removing the polytheistic implications. Gideon,
also known as Jerubba'al, is mentioned in 2Sam11:21 as Jerubbesheth. Why?
Mention of Ba'al was not acceptable, so one replaces the name with the word
"shame". Note also the son of Saul, Ishbosheth ("man of shame"): noone
would call themselves such a name, but then in 1Chr8:34 we find the
original, Ishba'al. This is active scribal intervention on Samuel after
Chrons had used it to remove the Ba'al blight. (See my earlier post on Ba'al.)

I'd guess that you'd probably want to revise my indicators individually so
as to maintain a literalist interpretation of the facts, as you have
attempted with the archaeological evidence regarding the Philistines,
Hittites, exodus, conquest, Jericho, Ai, etc. (I didn't go into the fact
that Palestine was well within Egyptian hegemony until the Philistine
invasion cut off their connections.)


Ian