Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 20.13 02/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>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 

400 BCE? Ten generations after Zerubbabel would be more like 330 BCE
allowing only 20 years per generation.

>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, 

But where have I done this, Peter? Where have I enunciated such a
circularity that you have insisted on here? Please show me. If you cannot,
don't force such things onto me.

>and linking that to your theory of 
>the origin of the Sabbath. 

I have partly linked the sabbath to Chr not the other way around.

>Do you have any evidence for such a dating 
>(rather than lack of evidence for other dating) independent of your 
>Sabbath theory? 

1) Qumran doesn't have any exemplars from Chronicles, yet Qumran is a good
   representation of what we know was available at the time;
2) Chronicles only lists 24 priestly families, but 1QM talks of 26, though
   the mishmarot, from just prior to 63 BCE have 24;
3) The priestly line of Zadok is terminated with Jeshua and the return,
indicating
   the loss of Zadokite predominance; et al.

>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.

This stuff needs no response. Peter, you're doing your old tricks again.
Stick to what we are talking about and not your projections please.

>> 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.

Try reading some more modern analyses.

Your assumptions about the language need to be fleshed out. They seem like
wishful thinking to me.

>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.

I don't think there's any way for one to date the specific material you are
proffering (Exodus 16, 20:8-11, 23:12, 31:12-17 and 35:2-3) in itself. Let
me ask you, without referring to some other fellah's wishful thinking, to
provide some mechanism for dating of this specific material. IE, don't hit
me with useless authorities who were writing about amphictyonies and other
such creative ideas. (It's only obfuscation.)

Note the insertion of the decalogue in Deuteronomy, the only place you'll
find mention of the sabbath in that book. Which was written first the text
of the decalogue or Exodus? Where did it appear first, Exodus or Deuteronomy?


Cheers,


Ian