Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 21.08 15/02/99 -0800, Ken Litwak wrote:
>Ian, being able to date a MS and being able to state that it is a
>copy, not an autograph, is a useful exercise for showing the latest
>possible date a text could have been written and then, and only then,
>can you work backwards to possible dates of autographs.  

When you write a draft of a thesis how long does it take for the draft to
become the final product? The autograph will show the same sorts of signs
as the draft; the copy will be as neat as the final thesis. This means that
there could be a gap of say a week between the autograph and the copy -- as
an indication of the usefulness of making a distinction between autograph
and copy.

>I would make
>two points.  First, you do in fact say that you assign some texts to the
>second century BC.  Why?

Ezra:
1) No-one cites the work until after the time of Josephus, who knows 1 Esdras
2) The character is specifically missing from Ben Sira's list of important
people
3) The Aramaic of the text has been repudiated as not authentic of the
Persian era, Garbini calling it a much later attempt to simulate Persian
chancelry Aramaic.

Ezra is a cannibalised form of the Hebrew original version of 1Esdras: when
it was constructed part of 1Esdras was probably incorporated in Nehemiah as
well (Ne 7:73b - 8:12, though almost certainly to the end of the chapter,
for the end of 1 Esdras has been lost).

Daniel:
(Hopefully there's no need to list the numerous indications that it came
from the second century. If you find need, I'll gladly accommodate.)

Gen14:18-20:
1) All dated uses of el elyon are to the second century
2) The passage is not found in Jubilees (which was written in the second
century)
3) Besides Ps110, GenApoc and 11QMelch no text knows of Melchizedek until
the book of Hebrews
4) Melchizedek combines the two function of priest and kings only as the
Hasmoneans did

Ps110:
1) Not even found amongst the DSS
2) Combines the roles of king and priest (historically attested only to the
Hasmoneans)
3) Cites Melchizedek (see above)

Isaiah19:18:
Seems specifically to allude to the temple of Onias at Heliopolis.

(Others haven't come to mind...)

>    It is a basic premise in historical work to be able to identify your
>materials and their dates, including the likely date of he autograph.  

Have you any way of determining the date of the autograph from the copy?

>     Second, let me suggest that there is not the strong connection
>which you seem to imply between the credibility of a text and being able
>to find archaeological and epigraphic evidence for it.  This is true
>for  at least three reasons.
>a.  Archaeological data is at best incomplete and always little more
>than some raw data with someone's interpretation imposed on it.  That
>interpretation may be valid, but to speak of the archaeological data, as
>though that was somehow an objective entity out there is
>methodologically inappropriate.  

The problem is of course that the archaeological data (along with the
epigraphic data) is all we have from the period. It is our only hard data.
When the hard data shows that the Philistines arrived in Palestine in a
particular period, yet the literary account tells us they were there well
before the time indicated by the hard data, we must follow the hard data at
the expense of the literary accounts.

Naturally the archaeological record is incomplete: it's like using the
contents of one person's garbage bin to comment on the whole culture of the
epoch. Yet from that garbage bin certain things can be ascertained and it
is those things that become primary witnesses to their period. One still
has to fathom the quality of the witness.

>b. The most that one may gain from epigraphic data is that at some point
>in time, someone recorded something in writing.  This tells us nothing
>about the veracity of the writing at all.  Most of the evidence you tend
>to cite comes from official annals, the very kind of source I consider
>least reliable.  

Cyril Aldred made an extremely detailed analysis of events in Akhetaten
based mostly on wine jar seals and the archaeological evidence. It is worth
reading.

All witnesses must be tested. If they cannot be tested, then they have
little use.

>c.  99% of what we "know" historically is based on textual accounts, not
>on material evidence, whether archaeological or epigraphic.  

Sorry, Ken, but with regard to the ancient world this pronouncement is
*totally wrong*. The world of Ebla at the end of the early bronze period
has come to light expressly through the archaeological and epigraphic
records. Many ancient cities have come to light even though there was no
literary texts that dealt with them. Our knowledge of Egypt comes from an
enormous series of contemporary reports found on temples and in tombs which
were at the time published available to public criticism if they were
seriously false.

In Roman studies, where there is a conflict between the literary account
and the archaeology and epigraphy, it is always the literary account that
loses.

>Therefore,
>the alleged lack of such physical corroboration is not particularly of
>relevance in my view.  

If you don't want to do history, this is fine.

>It may help illuminate a particular period, or
>tell us something about a given site, and suggest possibilities, but
>that is about all.  Most evens I can point to which most scholars would
>say happened are based on textual accounts.  What makes Tacitus or
>Polybius especially trustworthy?  It's certainly not some mountain of
>archaeological and epigraphic data.  

It is because they have shown themselves to match the archaeology and
epigraphy on the occasions where applicable, along with the individual
writer's express views on historiography, that render them usable as
sources. Without that relationship with the archaeological and epigraphic
record they can't make the grade. If you cannot test a witness for
veracity, how can you use the testimony?

>The biblical texts are not credible
>or incredible based on the amount of archaeological data or epigraphic
>data I can find to corroborate them . They stand alone as texts, on an
>equal footing with any Assyrian text.  

In a court of law, ie where evidence really counts, unqualified witnesses
are not permitted. Many Assyrian texts that we have come to us from well
defined archaeologically dated periods, ie they were in the right place at
the right time, important in our court of law. Whether there testimony is
valid or not, rests to be ascertained.

>Here's the dating issue Ian.  YOu
>would likely assign several Assyrian texts to about the time of the
>events they describe.  Since we don't have a physical biblical MS from
>that time, you seem to discount the biblical texts a later, unreliable
>witnesses.  

The best we can say is that we can only date the biblical accounts back to
the second century and are therefore not locatable at the right time.

>IF that is not your view, it is certainly my reading of
>other scholars, such as the Copenhagen school.  Dubbing an eight century
>Assyrian tablet as reliable, 

As I have said before, and let me repeat it again, the ancient text, be it
Assyrian or whatever, is at least in the right place at the right time.
They are the equivalent of the eye witness. You still have to evaluate
their testimony. Please do not mistake my argument. If it is still unclear
ask, do not misrepresent it.

>just because it is not biblical and because
>it is eighth century is not valid in terms of historiographical method. 
>A biblical text, whose autograph is of unknown date may be just as
>reliable, 

When you say "may be just as reliable", you say that it isn't, for due to
its "may" status we cannot place it anywhere. It is purely optative.

>and only having it in a copy is not particularly relevant to
>its reliability.  

A copy is not inherently unreliable. If you can, through various means,
demonstrate its veracity, then its testimony will probably be noted.

>That is NOT how historiography is done.  So I would
>assert that making a connection between the existence of physical data
>and a text, while interesting, bears little relevance on its
>credibility.  

Without corroboration of the witness, Ken, they can say whatever they like
and there is no way to test them. This is not evidence.

>If you haven't read Cook, Writing/History, I suggest that
>you do so before you respond.  

If Cook doesn't provide any substantial means of testing the veracity of
his witnesses, I'd recommend some other analyst of historiography. The
first step in doing history is to muster reliable sources.


Ian