Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: "Post-Exilic" Genesis (long)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
  • To: 'kdlitwak' <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>
  • Cc: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: "Post-Exilic" Genesis (long)
  • Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:15:34 +0100



> Walter Mattfeld wrote:
>
> > In reply to Mr. Washburn's most recent comments challenging my position
> that
> > Genesis is a fifth century BCE creation I have assembled a list of what
> I
> > consider to be "historical markers" indicating Genesis was not written
> by
> > Moses in the 15th century BCE as he maintains:
> >
> > Please note that all these "markers" are not of the 2nd millenium BCE,
> they
> > are of the 1st millenium BCE:
> >
> > Cities:
> >
> > Calah, of no importance till the 9th century when it becomes a capital
> of
> > Assyria.
> > Nineveh, becomes a capital 705-612 BCE and thereupon achieves "world
> > renoun".
> >
> > Nations (Peoples):
> >
> > Gomer (Assyrian Gimirraa) appear for the first time on the historical
> scene
> > in Assyrian records of the 8th-7th centuries BCE, terrorizing Anatolia,
> > Ararat, Media and Assyria.
> >
> > Media takes on no importance till the 9th,8th and 7th centuries BCE when
> she
> > struggles against Assyria.
> >
> > Magog, has been suggested by some scholars to be Assyrian mat-Guggu (the
> > land of Gog, alluding to Gyges of Lydia), if they are correct, this is a
> 7th
> > century BCE marker.
> >
> > Meshech, Assyrian Mushki, makes its first appearance historically in
> > Assyrian annals of Tiglath-Pileser I (ca. 1100 BCE)
>
> Um, how do I say this? You're not serious with this are you? The fact
> that a city
> is not otherwise known from extant texts proves that another text which
> mentions it
> must be later than the text which first mentioned it or something like
> that? I am
> incredulous. That's like going into something relatively recent like
> California
> history and saying that no one could have mentioned Sacramento before it
> was
> important, so any letter or book which does so, regardless of its reputed
> date, must
> be later. Just because, so far as other extant texts are concerned, some
> city was not
> of note is completely irrelevant to whether it was known or not and to
> whether or not
> the author (that is, the one who wrote our version of the tradition) knew
> of it or
> thought it was of note. I live in Milpitas, CA. To date, that's a
> relatively
> insignificant California city. That doesn't mean that if it gets famous
> one day that
> my email mentioning it must have been wrongly dated to today, simply
> because no one
> else on the list probably knows of this city. Let's try logic:
>
> Premise A: The Bible mentions a city that no other known, extant text
> knows of which
> dates from the 2nd millennium BC.
> Premise B: (the unspoken premise, I won't bother with the Greek term for
> this kind of
> argument) No biblical author could possibly know about a city before it's
> attested in
> texts from another source.
> Conclusion: Therefore, the biblical texts mentioning this city must be
> dated to the
> 1st millennium.
> I would hope that even without having taken Logic 101 everyone on the list
> can see how
> illogical (in the formal sense) this argument is.
>
> Ken Litwak
>
[Niels Peter Lemche] It is not that Litwak is wrong, neither is he
right. What Matfeld tries to do is to create a kind of
historical-geographical scenario that in together points towards a later
date that, say 1000 BCE. Individual entries in the scenario might be
so-to-speak an e silentio argument, but in together they creates this kind
of scenario that is something else and forces upon the scholar the issue:
Did he start with the right question, assuming the Bible to be historically
correct on this and going back to this early period?

NPL





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page