Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/25/2003 11:37:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mshields AT mail.usyd.edu.au writes:

> Furthermore, if a unity has been identified in the final composition, does
> this not undermine the basis for DH which originated in the supposed lack 
> of
> unity in the final form of the redacted documents? To rephrase from the
> above:
> 
> >From a literary-critical point of view the overall disunity of the
> composition may be attributed to the schema imposed upon the final material
> by the modern form critics.
> 

Au contraire, mon frére.  The form-critic does not impose any disunity but 
discerns how disparate units came to be conjoined.  The form-critic may not 
so specifically deal with the documents of the DH, but rests upon the results 
of textual criticism.  In other words, for form-critics the DH is a given.

gfsomsel
>From yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il  Wed Feb 26 03:37:46 2003
Return-Path: <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from beitberl.beitberl.ac.il (beitberl.ac.il [62.0.12.20])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5F320016
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:37:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ws.beitberl.ac.il (beitberl-ext.beitberl.ac.il [62.0.12.10])
        by beitberl.beitberl.ac.il (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id KAA22317;
        Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:38:27 +0200 (IST)
Received: from beitberl-ext.beitberl.ac.il(62.0.12.10) by ws.beitberl.ac.il
        via csmap        id 1413; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:36:18 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <002f01c2dd73$610cc6c0$c8c8010a AT beitberl.ac.il>
From: "Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il>
To: <lizfried AT umich.edu>, "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <NFBBKDEKJBKDMCGCFJNKMEBAENAA.lizfried AT umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Priestly Stratum
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:45:08 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="windows-1255"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:37:46 -0000

Dear Liz,
Y. Kaufmann considered P to be entirely pre-exilic and Avi Hurvitz considers
the language of P to be pre-exilic, but there are a number of flaws in their
arguments, one of them being that the division between Priests and Levites
reflects the Josianic Reform and is first mentioned, outside of P, in
Ezekiel.
On the other hand, I think Kaufmann was correct in his comparison of Lev. 17
with Deut. 12, in which he demonstrated that Lev. 17 reflects the cultic
situation before the centralization of the cult - unless we want to say that
the Josianic Reform is only a literary ideal, and that even in post-exilic
times not all Priestly circles accepted centralization - witness Onias IV
and his temple in Heliopolis (or was it Leontopolis?).
Kaufmann was also right, in my opinion, in his claim that the Priestly style
of writing was something that characterized priests and is not evidence for
lateness. Thus, the fact that Ezekiel writes in a style similar to P is not
evidence that the Priestly style is making its early and firstg appearance,
but that Ezekiel had received a priestly education and was writing in the
manner he had learned at school.
The amulet containing the Priestly Blessing (Num. 6:24-26) discovered at
Ketef Hinnom and dating from the late 7th century BCE is evidence that at
least part of the Priestly traditions are pre-exilic.
In sum, I would say that the Priestly "Code" is a collection of many
Priestly traditions, which took shape over a considerable period of time,
beginning before the Exile and continuing on into Second Temple times.
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Safren
Editor
Mo'ed  - Researches in Judaic Studies
Center for Jewish Holiday Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office
44905 Israel