Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

With TLT's permission I am forwarding the following to the list. Note 
the conclusion, contrary to Walter Mattfeld's, that the Pentateuch 
including Genesis is pre-exilic.

To me, acceptance of a common corpus of holy books is good evidence of 
some kind of early unity. Later, certainly by 1st century CE, there 
was division. That implies to me some kind of split, at some stage. At 
any rate, we must consider at what point the books were first accepted 
in Judea and in Samaria, and it seems unlikely that this would have 
happened at a time when the two groups were in fierce opposition to 
each other. 

I already answered a few weeks ago Walter Mattfeld's alleged proof of 
dependence of Genesis on a Greek myth - the basic point being Ken 
Litwak's "chicken and egg" one, that the Greek myth could just as well 
have originated in the Phoenicia, Judea or Mesopotamia. This is 
Walter's only evidence for Genesis being post-exilic.

Walter's arguments are logically flawed by his shift from Lydia being 
"not known to exist" before a certain date to it being assumed not to 
exist. Even if this point is allowed, his other evidence suggests 
editing in the 7th century BCE, after Nineveh became capital of 
Assyria but before its fall, but fails to demonstrate initial 
composition in that period. The name "Asshur" is of course found in 
Genesis 10:11 and it is interpretation to read "Assyria", the land, 
here. Perhaps the otherwise odd "that is the great city" in 10:12 was 
originally attached to "Asshur", and the later editor inserted the 
names of the great Assyrian cities of his/her own period. Compare 
Genesis 2:14 which is geographically correct only if "Asshur" is the 
city.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Forward Header 
__________________________________
Subject: SV: SV: Re[2]: SV: historiography (TLT)
Author:  <tlt AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date:    17/01/2000 10:18


If my comments were off list, it was a mistake. Please do share it with the 
list.
Palestinian states and regions have a lot in common. I do not see any cause 
to assume a unity between Samaria and Jerusalem at any early period. 
Therefore, I see no reason for a separation or 'split'. That idea I think 
was nailed down by Josephus' reading of the Bible.
Thomas

> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra:        Peter Kirk [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org] 
> Sendt:        15. januar 2000 21:50
> Til:        tlt AT teol.ku.dk
> Emne:        Re: SV: Re[2]: SV: historiography (TLT) 
>
> Dear Thomas,
>
> I am sorry if I was unclear, but I was referring to Ian's methods (as 
> demonstrated on this list) rather than to yours.
>
> It was Ian's argument, and I think a good one, that having a common
> set of holy books, the Pentateuch, indicates some kind of prior unity 
> - not necessarily complete unity, but at least something rather
> different from the divided situation we see reflected for example in 
> the New Testament.
>
> Of course there are differences between the Judean and Samaritan
> Pentateuchs, but these are a lot less than the similarities, and are
> easily explained (if not dated) by textual processes and some partisan 
> revision. If we can date the time when your "separate routes" were
> first taken, we must say that the Pentateuch was substantially
> complete at that time, i.e. we must date to before that time anything 
> which is common between the Judean and Samaritan versions, which is a 
> lot! Now if you are accepting that the separate routes were taken
> before the Elephantine correspondence in the 5th century, you must 
> accept that the books dated to before that time. If the picture
> presented by Nehemiah is anything to go on, the split was very likely 
> between those who returned to Jerusalem after the exile and those led 
> by Sanballat, or the family of Sanballats, who had remained in the
> land. That would imply a pre-exilic complete Pentateuch - a very
> significant conclusion, especially in view of the arguments various 
> people are making that the whole Hebrew Bible dates from the
> Hellenistic period.
>
> Maybe you are suggesting a period of more-or-less peaceful coexistence 
> between separate Jerusalem and Samaritan cultic centres, during which 
> books were passed from one to another. That is of course possible. But 
> it would be hard to reconcile this peaceful coexistence with
> acceptance by both sides during this period of a newly written
> Deuteronomy (though in slightly different forms, each side naming its 
> own cultic centre!), for this book clearly anathematises any other
> cultic centre. Conclusion from this: it is unlikely that Deuteronomy 
> was first written during the Hellenistic period; rather, it predates 
> Elephantine and is very likely pre-exilic.
>
> I would like to share this with the list, but your comments were 
> off-list. Let me know if that is OK.
>
> Peter Kirk
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> Subject: SV: Re[2]: SV: historiography (TLT) 
> Author:  <tlt AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
> Date:    15/01/2000 12:06
>
>
> Dear Peter Kirk,
> I don't know what you mean specifically in your references to my methods 
> let
> alone anything about latest possible time.
> The language of 'split' implies prior unity. In dealing with Samaria and
> Jerusalem, one has distinction and difference without a split. Elephantine 
>
> does indeed point to such differentiation: both geographically and in 
> terms
> of cultic center. The issue for me is not so much whatever you mean by
> finalyzing a pentateuch (which pentateuch?) as rather when the Pentateuch 
> becomes Jewish and takes a separate route from the Samaritain pentateuch. 
> Thomas
> > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > Fra:     Peter Kirk [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org] 
> > Sendt:     15. januar 2000 02:03
> > Til:     Biblical Hebrew
> > Emne:     Re[2]: SV: historiography (TLT) 
> >
> > Agreed. But your methods can only give you a latest possible time for 
> > the finalisation of the Pentateuch, and so for you to say that the
> > split between Judea and Samaria came after that tells you nothing
> > about the dating of the latter. Don't fall into the trap of assuming 
> > that latest possible dates are actual dates.
> >
> > Perhaps the argument works better in the other direction. Now I know I 
> > am not an expert in this field. But it seems that we could read the
> > Elephantine texts as suggesting that there was already a split between 
> > Judea and Samaria. Does that not imply, by your own argument below,
> > that the Pentateuch was finalised before the date of the Elephantine 
> > texts?
> >
> > Peter Kirk

<snip>