Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Ian: <snip> 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. <snip>

Peter: This is not the forum for me to disagree with you on NT dating. 
My point referred only to Hebrews, not the gospels, and dated it after 
the early 1st century. By your own argument Hebrews is relatively 
early, and I think it would make little sense if written after AD 70. 
What reputable modern scholars date it after the 1st century?

<snip>

Ian: 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.

Peter: No, I am not guessing! I am following a sound critical method 
of interpretation of ancient documents which has been followed by many 
reputable scholars. You may disagree with this approach but you have 
no right to mock it.

<snip>

Ian: 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.

Peter: The ancestors of the Hebrews must have had some religious 
system in the 14th century, and there is good reason to think that 
they had contact with henotheism in Egypt (if there is any truth at 
all in the exodus traditions). We have very little information about 
their religion until the 5th century, just one 8th century shrine 
which may have been quite untypical. Then we seem to have henotheism 
as well as polytheism in the 6th-5th century, and probably earlier, 
depending I admit on dating of documents. We certainly have monotheism 
in the 2nd century. We have documents, admittedly from one party and 
possibly later (but surely the history was not completely forged), 
indicating a struggle between henotheism and polytheism before the 
exile. I think that builds up to a reasonable case (though not proven 
on your view of the documents) for a continuing tradition of 
henotheism, at least among a minority, from early times until the 
exodus.

Ian: <snip> 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: He must have been a very ineffective despot if what he imposed 
on his country had no effect on anyone.

<long snip>

Ian: ...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?

Peter: I have presented all the credentials I intend to. Please listen 
to what they say and then evaluate them.

Ian: 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.

Peter: What better witnesses? I don't think I have rejected any 
positive evidence (though I may have reinterpreted some). I have only 
rejected your method of arguing from silence in favour of a method 
(not my own, that of very many scholars!) of provisionally trusting 
the records we do have in so far as they have not been proved wrong.

Peter Kirk