Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your post.

I asked you:
>Are you implying that the redaction of texts that went towards the making 
>of an biblical book reflected the opinions and theological viewpoints of a
>period several generations if not several hundred years before that
redaction?"

and you responded:
>No, I am talking, as I thought Lloyd was, about the opinions and 
>theological viewpoints of the original writers of the source 
>documents, and pointing out that (in my view and perhaps also in 
>Lloyd's) these (or at least much of them) were written close to the 
>times described in them and accurately reflect those times. 

I would think that this is beyond our knowledge and reflects your desire
rather than anything you can know.

What we do know is that there are at least a few sources and they have been
combined. That means that not only were they written some time after the
events, but combined after the time of writing, so we can establish at
least a three stage process required for the writing of one document,
writing of another, collection and collation. This should at least separate
the final result from the reputed time of the events roughly three times
what you initially hypothesized. Further, the various sources have been
analysed by many scholars as each having a number of redaction layers in
them, reflecting continuing traditions of textual activities. This again
should suggest even further distance between time of reputed event and
final form.

So there is a problem with the assumption of the texts having been written
close to the times described. Yet, there is also the necessity to question
the notion of accurately reflecting the times. Despite claims of fantastic
accuracy in transmission, the earliest copies of OT/HB documents we have
reflect differing scribal traditions, showing differences that question
accuracy. I have also shown a simple case that demonstrates scribal
interaction with a text to improve it: names like Jerubba'al (Gideon) and
Ishba'al (son of Saul) end up in Samuel as Jerubbesheth and Ishbosheth. The
scribes involved have found it unacceptible to maintain the shameful name
of Ba'al in the sacred texts under their control and Saul's son ends up
with the unbearable name "man of shame". You cannot discount scribal
interaction with a text to improve their texts -- just look at the Matthean
improvement by going back to the Hebrew original and putting Jesus on two
animals for the entry into Jerusalem.

>I was not 
>referring to the opinions and theological viewpoints of a hypothetical 
>redactor; if he had any, for he doesn't seem to have been interested 
>in harmonising alleged theological contradictions between his sources.

Contradictions per se were not problematical and were often left in texts.
I had in mind other sorts of interactions with texts including
improvements, errors such as haplologies and misreadings, glosses and other
clarifications, insertions (eg other traditions, including newer ones) and
omissions.

I can't see any reason for treating these texts any different from others
that have had long transmission histories.


Ian