Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 20.48 16/02/99 -0500, Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG wrote:
>
>Ah, I wonder if we are now getting to the root of your difficulties, 
>Ian. 

Peter, I'm not too interested in your diversionary tactics. What "the root
of my difficulties" may be is probably beyond you and it is quite
presumptuous of you to speak this way.

>You are arguing circularly for the late date of the Melchizedek 
>and El Elyon passages 

There is little that I can see that is circular about the notion that *all*
our datable references to el elyon are in the second century BCE. If you
have means to prove this wrong, please do so. Have you also got datable
sources that use Melchizedek beyond those from the end of the second century?

Perhaps you'd like to call arguments that Daniel is from the second century
circular as well.

I fear the usage you give to the phrase "arguing circularly" translates
down to not agreeing with you.

> (I could "prove" by exactly the same arguments 
>that Gen 14 and Ps 110 are 19th century BC!),

I don't believe you could, but try, if you will.

>and now assuming 
>disproved monotheism in Moses' time. Why? 

The Hebrews at Elephantine who were in communication with Jerusalem saw
nothing wrong with their polytheism. The building at Kuntillat Ajrud in
southern Judah from the eighth century BCE was a Yahwistic polytheistic
sanctuary. Yahweh in his divine council in the midst of the gods is
definitely not monotheistic.

As we only have the biblical accounts as to the historicity of Moses, one
has to project backwards from the second century BCE, hoping that the
detail in the literature is accurate enough to indicate that our
hypothetical Moses existed at a particular time. This is no way to do
history, Peter. Why do you do it?

>Do you hold to the 19th 
>century view (which perhaps had racist undertones??) that mankind 
>developed from "primitive" animism to "advanced" monotheism? 

What??

>Anyway, 
>something close to monotheism is by no means improbable for Moses, if 
>he was raised in Egypt not long after the time of Akhenaten.

I hope you don't if your way through life completely Peter. But let me give
you a few ifs as it seems this is something you can appreciate: if the
Egyptian Moses was an extension of the tribal leader Moses, it is most
likely that the extension was developed when some of the exiled Hebrews
fled to Egypt: it was some time after that that Egyptians started
speculating on the Hebrews and their connection with the Semitic Hyksos and
their expulsion. This seems like a prime time for Hebrew mercenaries --
many Hebrews ended up in the service of the pharaohs (both native and
foreign) as soldiers. This of course would be the right sort of conditions
for the development of a phrase like the Yahweh of Armies. But enough
speculation...


Ian