Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: Miscellaneous minor points (El vs. YHWH, etc...) and history for the xxx time.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
  • To: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Miscellaneous minor points (El vs. YHWH, etc...) and history for the xxx time.
  • Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:41:01 +0100




> I notice the phrase "As the god of Israel comes to be considered
> the highest (or even only) god" and wonder if you see this as a
> diachronic development as some do. I confess I have problems
> with the idea, because I don't see any necessity for it. We have
> the Ugarit materials that show us a pantheon headed by El, but
> when we overlay this on the Hebrew biblical materials it seems to
> me that we assume an evolution from this pantheon to the
> monotheistic approach of the Israel of the monarchy (usually by
> late-dating at least some texts). Do you think it's possible that
> Hebrew culture, however it may have developed, *began* as an
> experiment in monotheism? This would account for the repeated
> slippage back into idolatry and polytheism that is denounced from
> Joshua onwards (obviously I'm assuming a certain degree of
> historicity for some of the accounts in this question, which I know
> will raise some hackles). I'd be interested to know your view on
> this.
>
> Again, good to have you back!
>
>
> Dave Washburn
>
This will work if a person presents a synchronic reading of biblical
literature as a historical reading. It also has to be based on biblical
evidence only. The moment we move from the texts of the HB to its supposed
historical referent, the world of historical Israel, it breaks down. Even a
moderate conservative biblical archaeologist like Bill Dever will say that
everything they--the archaeologists--find points at a society in Palestine
in the Iron Age that was polytheistic, right down to at least the exile.

Again the main problem is that the biblicist approach does
deliberately ignore the discussion in the scholarly world of the status of
the biblical narrative vis à vis ancient history.

Shortly the scholarly fields of battle as far as history is
concerned:

The patriarchs are no more in focus. few -- even among the
conservatives -- will accept the historicity in the way it was supported by
some of the Albright circle a generation ago (anything to the right of
Albright will not even be discussed anymore).

Egypt and Exodus (no, not another discusion about this) will be
reckoned legendary traditions. Some may opt for a relation here to the
Hyksos expulsion, some not, and even in the first case it will be a literary
and not a historical relationship that is of interest.

Settlement, Period of Judges and early (united) monarchy are in the
focus of attention these days because of a new terminology: the transition
period that covers the transition from the LB age to the Iron II age,
roughly 1250 - 900, but can be extended to at least 1300 - 800. The biblical
periodization seem not to have much in common with what is now-a-days from
the vantage point of the archaeologists possible. But--as I said--this is
the field of battle at the moment, so much has still to be said here and the
discussion is no way closed.

Israel and Judah in the Iron Age II. Well, many historians will by
now be in doubt that a united kingdom ever existed. It seems likely that the
development in the hills of Samaria and in Galilee did not follow the one in
the Judean hills. Judah developed later than Israel/Samaria, a delayment
that may have ebeen about a hundred years.
Again this is a battle field, and so far no conclusions have been
reached that can be called 'final'.

I might continue by presenting more problems. But this is enough to
say that there is a division between critical scholarship and the rathr
naive picture of ancient Israel presented by the HB that is growing. Also
the conservative scholars have to admit this and pay attention to it, as the
recent volume I have mentioned several times on this list: Baker and Arnold
(eds), The Face of the Old Testament (Baker, 1999) shows. Also people far to
the right of this person now know that a simple paraphrase--even a
rationalistic one--is not sufficient to solve the problems and bridge the
gap.

So returning to the issue here, it is of course possible to
posttulate an original Israelite monotheism as Albright did many years ago
(From the Stone Age to Christianity) linking Moses monotheism to Akhnaten's,
but since all of this is embedded in later legendary narratives, it is
basically a postulate that is not supported by evidence outside of the Bible
pertaining to the periods in question. So any claim that the biblical
evidence is definitive and must be trusted, places the discussion on a
planet of its own.

And finally, because a new flame can easily arise, how do we relate
this discussion and this gap to the history of the Hebrew language? By
ignoring the gap or by reckoning it to be there and worth a serious
consideration? I will say that there are no easy solutions to any problem
relating to the HB and it language, no way to get around the historical
problems related to historical Israel or to the formation of the biblical
literature.

NPL




  • RE: Miscellaneous minor points (El vs. YHWH, etc...) and history for the xxx time., Niels Peter Lemche, 02/20/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page