Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Post-exilic Genesis ?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Post-exilic Genesis ?
  • Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 00:01:13 -0500


The problem with your argument here is that you are only speculating
that Genesis was originally part of a greater composition in the way
you describe. It is not usually considered part of the Deuteronomistic
History. So your "end dates the beginning" argument (doubtful in the
best cases - works can be added to and progressively updated) does not
apply to Genesis.

Why do you find a closer model for Genesis in Greece rather than in
Mesopotamia? Is Genesis really so much closer to Herodotus than to
Gilgamesh? Of course it is different from both.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Post-exilic Genesis ?
Author: <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com> at Internet
Date: 21/01/2000 22:50

<snip>

As pointed out earlier, the big mistake is to study Genesis in isolation
from the greater composition of which it is apart, which ends in 560 BCE (2
Ki.25:27). The end dates the beginning. I note that modern Classical
scholars have concluded that the earliest histories in prose form for the
Greeks is the middle of the 6th century BCE. This date fits nicely with
Genesis-2 Kings as a "prose" history dated to the same middle of the 6th
century BCE (560-550 BCE).


All the best,

Walter Reinhold warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany





  • Post-exilic Genesis ?, Walter Mattfeld, 01/21/2000
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Post-exilic Genesis ?, Peter Kirk, 01/22/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page