Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Peter:
>>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.

Ian:
>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.

We have things like Psalms of Solomon, Ezra which has edited out the "God
Most High" from its source (1 Esdras), some bits of Enoch. However, you
seem to be working under the impression of very early dates for the
Christian literature: for most cases an early date is unsustainable.
Consider the messianic notion of the son of man that comes from the
gospels: it is patently un-Jewish, even in the Daniel7 passage which seems
to have spawned the idea. Son of man in second temple literature was
expressly human, with numerous parallellisms of man with son of man.
Daniel7 talks of one like a son of man coming on the clouds, ie in the
human form. The gospel idea finds no support in the OT/HB, but further,
Paul knows nothing about the son of man rhetoric (you start claiming
argument from silence -- though silence can be deafening at times), and the
letter to the Hebrews uses the same old significance for "son of man", as
though there was nothing special about the term -- and obviously there
wasn't. The gospel material was later than one would hope.

Peter:
>>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).

Ian:
>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? 

We have a historically verifable situation with the Hasmoneans: their coins
indicate the dual role. As to David, all you can do is guess. This is of
course one of the problems you have trying to make sense out of documents
whose connection with the events they relate is unknown.

>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.
>

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

Peter:
>>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.

Ian:
>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.

This seems to mean to me that you would like there to have been a religious
system for the Hebrews in the fourteenth century BCE that doesn't even seem
reflected in the eighth or fifth centuries.

Don't get me wrong however. Henotheism was the way for eons before all the
confusion with the unification of Egypt. Each nome had its own god. Even
later with the predominance of Amun there was a lot of syncretism, Amun-Ra,
Amun-Min, but Amun in some form was often the only god for many. Akhnaten
merely set up an alternative against the priests of Amun: one can, I think,
trace a process of subdued conflict between the pharaoh and the priesthood
of Amun who had gained a lot of power through their active role against the
Hyksos. Tuthmosis IV had his vision from Ra-Harakhte (the sun rising high)
at the Sphinx. Amenhotep III seems to have supported believe in Ra-Harakhte
and perhaps it was during his reign that the name Aten came into use again,
to be taken up in a more public way by the son not destined to rule. It was
until that time I think a personal cult and not open to the riff-raff.
Akhenaten had no interest in the people and after imposing Aten on the
country he withdrew to Akhetaten to maintain his purity. There is little
hope in this situation that his brand of henotheism rubbed off on anyone.

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

Ian:
>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.

Henotheism had different forms in Egypt but his was really nothing new
except for the fact that he had the power to nominally impose it on
everyone, though in fact all that happened was that the temples were closed
and the country fell into chaos, with economic problems and looting.
Foreign affairs stopped working and Egypt lost a lot of ground outside the
country, but Akhenaten probably didn't care enough. I see very little one
can eke out of Akhenaten's personal religion.

Peter:
>>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

Ian:
>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.

So we dispense with the euphemism. You are arguing through silence that as
one can't prove it wasn't so, it must be so. We are ignorant of the quality
of information in the biblical stories prior to the second century BCE. We
have no way of going earlier.

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

Ian
>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! ;-)

I suppose any jockey's bet is as good as another's. Perhaps the Hebrews
were really the Hyksos, as the post-exilic Egyptians started to think.

You should be able to see though, that the situation regarding the
historicity of the whole story is so vague that each pundit has his own
piece of the action. History can be so flexible, can't it? I was probably
only following the line of thought of people like Kenyon.

It's a shame that at whatever time you would like to place the exodus
event, it seems that there was no fall of Jericho -- unless you go back to
the time the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt and then there was a related
fall of Jericho. With other cities falling at that time it seems a likely
event that they fell to the Hyksos.

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

Ian:
>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.

A few lines. Liked the rhetorical style. But don't escape: the reference
was to a work whose origin cannot be placed before the beginning of the
last century, though it claims internally to be from Moses. The OT/HB
cannot be dated before the second century -- I keep returning to this
point: you seem to want to grant the material special status as though it
is a bona fide reflection of the 15th century BCE when you haven't
presented the credentials of your witness. Will you ever?

Ian:
>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.

When you argue from texts whose date can only be substatiated to the second
century BCE there is a silence of thirteen centuries that you are arguing
for. This is not history. This is not historical process. This is special
pleading and as a corollary it is a rejection of witnesses with better
credentials. History, it would seem, becomes a victim here.


Ian