Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 02/06/2004 13:01, Michael Banyai wrote:

> Dear Peter Kirk,
>
> this sounds like a very nice logical argument:
>
>  
>
> > I continue to reject this conclusion. Firstly, the premise is not true 
> > as there are differences in style and language. But even if it were 
> > true, there is nothing to stop skilled authors in later centuries and 
> > quite different places from deliberately mimicking the style of the 
> > earlier books. To show this, consider that a skilled writer in America 
> > could today produce texts which are stylistically identical to 
> > Shakespeare (I don't say with the same artistic merit), but that does 
> > not prove that they were written in 16th-17th century England.
> >    
>
>
> But where is the equivalent for this than given in the case of biblical literature. If 
> it should be as you assume of a later date and copying some older prestigious models, 
> where are these models "Vorbilder" we know nothing of?
>
> Since this kind of literature ought have existed at the time point of the creation of 
> that "later" biblical material, where has the illustrous model disappeared 
> and why?
>
> All the best,
>
> Bányai Michael
> Stuttgart
>
>  
You misunderstand me. The illustrious model has not disappeared, it is 
other parts of the Bible. Certainly the details will be controversial, 
but the kind of model I have in mind is:

1) Deuteronomy was written at one time and place.

2) The other literature e.g. much of Joshua-Kings which so clearly 
echoes the languages and themes of Deuteronomy was written at a later 
time, and potentially a different place, in imitation, either deliberate 
or accidental, of Deuteronomy.

Therefore, Michael's stylistic argument that Deuteronomy and 
Joshua-Kings were written at one time and place fails.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/