Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

See my comments preceded by PK.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Historiography and Peter
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet 
Date:    19/02/1999 07:39


At 12.56 17/02/99 -0500, Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG wrote: 
>
>Well, if I look I can find many datable passages referring to 
>Melchizedek which are not from the 2nd century BC but are later (for a 
>start, look at Hebrews). Is that relevant? Yes, because it shows that 
>a reference to Melchizedek in one document is no evidence that other 
>references to Melchizedek are contemporary.

There is an interesting question that comes out from under this: why is it 
that the next users of terms such as "God Most High" and "Melchizedek" are 
Christian?

PK: I didn't say that. Are you saying it? If it is true, then perhaps 
it is simply that we don't have much Jewish literature from the 1st 
century BC or the early 1st century AD.

>And as far as I can tell
>that is the only evidence you have for dating Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 
>in the 2nd century rather than at any earlier time. (OK, you spoke of 
>Hasmonean priest-kings, but then David appears as a priest-king in 2 
>Samuel 6, also 8:18, and there is good evidence surely for 
>priest-kings in the patriarchal period as traditionally understood).

We have the conflict between David who has his priests and David who is a 
priest. The most logical way to resolve this conflict is to say that the 
David the priest flowered under the Hasmoneans.

PK: By what system of logic? Another logic might suggest that the 
record of David as priest-king was partly suppressed by later 
advocates of a solely Levitical priesthood. Or more simply, David was 
the chief priest and Nathan etc his assistants.

>Whereas there is good linguistic evidence for these passage being 
>earlier.

I have seen the sorts of linguistic approaches that make assumptions about 
linearity and the diachronic nature of the linguistic evidence without 
considering dialectic and synchronic possibilities.

>As for a monotheistic Moses, the presence in Egypt in the 5th century 
>and in Judah in the 8th century of syncretistic polytheistic Jews is 
>quite irrelevant.

To the contrary, you leave out the important parts: this is Yahwistic 
religion, not to Ba'al, Asherah, the Hosts of Heaven, and all the ones we 
hear about in the biblical texts. This is Yahweh and his consort(s), one 
example being in Judah, while the other being in contact with Jerusalem. 
These are datable witnesses that testify to polytheism. Let's have a few 
eye-witnesses that testify to monotheism in that age.

PK: What age? The age I am talking about is 14th-13th century BC, not 
8th or 5th. In that age the texts about Akhenaten witness to 
henotheism in the environment of the Israelites.

>Here is a version without ifs: There were
>near-monotheists in Egypt in and around the time of Akhenaten.

I gather that these were those Egyptians in the court of Akhnaten.

The polemic use of "near-" here is quite interesting.

PK: Let me say "strict henotheists" rather than "near-monotheists", by 
which I mean those who only accept one divinity as a legitimate object 
of worship, without denying the existence of other spiritual beings. 
Presumably Akhenaten was not an individual crank but was part of a 
henotheistic movement which may have existed, away from the official 
limelight, long before and long after him.

>There
>exists a narrative stating that a (near-??)monotheist from Egypt 
>(named Moses) led a group of slaves out of Egypt, at an uncertain time

Is this the biblical one whose ancestry goes back to our knowledge to the 
second century BCE?

PK: Your "to our knowledge" is used in an interesting sense. What you 
mean is that you have no knowledge, according to your own criteria, 
from before that time. I think a reference to "ignorance" rather than 
"knowledge" would have been more appropriate.

>which may have been a little before or a little after the time of 
>Akhenaten.

The general theory says that the exodus took place at around the time of 
Merneptah. This would have been 150 years after Akhnaten.

PK: Whose general theory? Bright argues for rather earlier, late in 
the reign of Rameses II, Kitchen suggests earlier in the same reign, 
around 1280. Others have argued for 15th century. Presumably we must 
date the exodus, the "40" years in the wilderness and some part of the 
conquest before Merenptah's Israel stele of about 1220 BC. Or are you 
arguing that Merenptah's boasted victory over Israel was actually the 
drowning of his army in the "Sea of Reeds"? No, I suppose you are not 
arguing for a historical exodus at all, so at least let me have my 
ideas about it. Kitchen's dating would actually have Moses, if really 
aged something like 80 at the time of the Exodus, growing up during 
the reign of Akhenaten. There is certainly nothing improbable in 
henothesitic religious ideas (even if suppressed from official public 
life after Akhenaten's time) remaining influential among a minority 
for a century or more. (Look at my views! ;-)

>This narrative is to this extent confirmed in its 
>compatibility with the history of Egyptian religion.

I just (very briefly) stumbled over the Book of Moses as revealed to Joseph 
Smith. By your logic the contents of that book would also have been "to 
this extent confirmed in its compatibility with the history of Egyptian 
religion".

PK: Did you stumble over it for long enough to read it? I have not, so 
I won't comment on it.

We seem to have different tasks. Mine is to do history.

PK: Mine, when I reply to such things, is to keep history in its right 
place, and to defend my views (and my religious beliefs, I admit it!) 
from those who attack them with no arguments other than from silence.


Ian

Peter