Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Well, I accept that you have made a good case for dating Chronicles no 
sooner than around 400 BCE from the number of generations of the 
Davidic line given (also not much later, for if later why not more 
generations?) You are also on reasonable grounds in dating it later 
than the books it epitomises.

The circularity I was looking at was at your dating Chronicles in the 
Hasmonean period 250 years later, and linking that to your theory of 
the origin of the Sabbath. Do you have any evidence for such a dating 
(rather than lack of evidence for other dating) independent of your 
Sabbath theory? Or for that matter for a similar dating of any of the 
material which mentions the seventh day sabbath such as the other 
references I quoted? If so, please tell me. If you have no such 
evidence, your argument that mention of the Sabbath implies a 
Hasmonean date is circular, simply because you have failed to 
demonstrate any link between mention of the Sabbath and the Hasmonean 
period, but merely surmised this from your understanding of 1 
Maccabees.

See also some a further comment below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Sabbaths
Author:  <MC2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    02/12/1999 09:39


> ==========================
> From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:44:09 -0500
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu> 
> Subject: Sabbaths
> ==========================
>
> Watch out for circular argument here!

<snip>

> Also don't forget that the seventh day sabbath is clearly stated 
> in Exodus 16, 20:8-11, 23:12, 31:12-17 and 35:2-3, not generally 
> considered especially late.

By whom? The Aaronid content in Exodus is clearly later than the non-Aaronid 
Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy argues for the admission of the Levites into the 
temple
-- coming in from the local shrines -- on a par with the Jerusalem priesthood.

PK: "Clearly" to whom? Not to me! This whole paragraph is dependent on 
the shaky foundation of Wellhausen's theory of history of religions 
which has been proved many times to be baseless. Please forget such 
doctrinal edifices, treat them on a par with those of our recent 
lamented (?) friend Michael, and look at the text. For one thing, it 
is quite clear from the language and the cases treated that the Book 
of the Covenant is much older than most of the Hebrew Bible; it fits 
better in the 2nd millennium than in the 2nd century.

PK: Concerning the Book of the Covenant, the evangelical scholar Alan 
Cole wrote (Tyndale Commentary on Exodus, IVP 1973): "It certainly is 
a homogeneous whole, dealing with the simple problems of bronze-age 
society. Because of this, even extreme critics usually allow an early 
date for this section (the period of the judges at latest)...", and in 
a footnote: "Noth and Alt would place it in the post-conquest period." 
And there is nothing about Aaron in the whole section.

<snip>