Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

You have dated Chronicles after about 400-350 BCE (depends on how you 
read the text!). You have provided no other evidence of dating of 
anything before the 1st century BCE. So how can you claim to date 
anything in the 2nd century or earlier? (OK, I will allow that 1 
Maccabees is probably a more or less contemporary and accurate record 
for a snapshot from the 2nd century.) Even more so, how can you claim 
that anything did NOT happen at the time that most scholars maintain? 
You cannot prove them wrong any more than I can prove them right. The 
most you can possibly argue is as follows:

We don't know whether a lunar, solar or anything else calendar was at 
use in any time before the 1st century BCE, and we have no way of 
telling.

We don't know whether a seventh day, mid month or anything else 
sabbath was celebrated at any time before the 2nd century BCE, and we 
have no way of telling.

Do you agree with these statements? If not, why not?

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Sabbath Origins
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    04/12/1999 11:48


At 17.04 04/12/99 -0500, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>Let me ask you, Ian, to show some datable evidence for your own 
>theory.

I have given a fairly restricted dating for Chronicles. Make some argument 
rather than insinuation.

I have also attempted to show that the solar calendar was in use for a 
particular period down to 63 BCE and overlapping the use of the lunar 
calendar imported by the Seleucids, which you don't deal with.

Both the above provide dating. And as I have provided some dating, I have 
reasonably asked for anyone who wants to claim, intuite, guess or otherwise 
divine a dating for particular things to do so rather than rely on some 
"authoritative" scholar(s) opinions.
<snip>

To be precise, a lot of people are making dating assumptions that have 
never been justified. You are one. Either justify them or stop using them 
in scholarly debate.


Cheers,


Ian