Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Mattfeld <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: Dating the Pentateuch, Davidic Anomalies (1 Sam. 30:26-31)

<snip>

> > > Jattir is currently identified with Khirbat `Attir, the pottery
> sequences
> > > suggest the city was not in existence in the days of David, the late
> > > 11th/early 10th centuries BCE:
> > >
> > > "In 1971 the Levitical City survey found that the earliest occupation
at
> > > Khirbet `Attir was Late Iron II...Most of the Iron II pottery comes
from
> > the
> > > 7th/6th centuries; the 8th century was also represented. The
> > identification
> > > of Khirbet `Attir with biblical Jattir stands. Although the
> archaeological
> > > evidence does not support an occupation of the site during the
conquests
> > of
> > > King David, it was occupied during the writing of the Deuteronomistic
> > > history." (ABD 3.650, John L. Peterson, "Jattir," 1992)
> >
> PK: For you to use this last clause in an argument for the dating of the
> > Deuteronomistic history is circular reasoning. If we ignore the last
> clause,
> > this is just argument from silence.
> > >
> WM: What silence ? There is archaeological data of the Deuteronomistic era
> but not of the Davidic, how is this "circular reasoning" ?
>
PK: The point is that Peterson is assuming a date for the Deuteronomistic
History, 6th-8th century, so you cannot use that as evidence for that same
date. More to the point, there is silence: nothing has been found from
before Iron II, but maybe it is somewhere else or eroded. There is no way to
be sure, just as with Aroer.

Otherwise, thanks for your honesty in presenting not only the information
which supports your case.

Peter Kirk

<snip>