Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Yahwism (was: their altar)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Yahwism (was: their altar)
  • Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:59:39 +0000

On 13/03/2005 16:37, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

... This would show that even the Pentateuch (and the entire Bible, actually) is written in spelling that does not predate the exile. This provides the
linguistic grounds for doubting the authorship.


This procedure, even if valid, provides no such grounds. It is common practice for many schools of copyists to update spellings - as you will find when you compare the DSS Isaiah scroll with the MT consonants, and is even more clear when from New Testament manuscripts. But a change of spelling does not imply a change of authorship, but only superficial editing (possibly unconscious) to fit modern standards.

Peter,

It seems to me that some progress has been made now, since you accept that the historical sources (Kings, mainly) cannot provide evidence for the condemnation of Asherah in earlier times. I agree, that since this is evidence from silence, this in itself cannot be used as evidence.

This is why the final step is to look for evidence for the contrary
position - that Asherah-type worship of Yahweh was done in line
with the establishment view. Since I have already detailed this
view, you might just want to reread it. Namely, the Asa episode
and Ex 34:13 can be read as implying that Yahweh may have
had an Asherah and that this was accepted by religious/royal
authorities. ...


Not at all, concerning the Asa episode. You cannot make a passage which says "black" say instead "white". The passage as it stands paints Asherah worship black, with no compromise. There may be good reason to consider this black to be a later coat of paint. But that is not evidence that in fact at the time Asherah worship was white. The paint analogy is not a perfect one, because in this case there is no way of stripping off a new coat to find what lay beneath. If we reject the blackening as unreliable, we are left with no information either way about the previous colour.

Even the argument that Asa's mother Maacah approved of Asherah worship cannot be used as it is simply unsafe to accept part of a sentence ("because she had made an image of Asherah") while rejecting the rest of the sentence "Asa deposed his mother Maacah ... repulsive". If the rejection and deposition is a later fiction, then the idolatry may just as well be.

As for Exodus 34:13, to quote your words, "why should we pick the Massoretic over the Septuagint or the Samaritan?"

...
I do find it interesting, that originally, though, you claimed that
"we have historical records in the books of Kings, as well as the
Mesha stela." Now, though, when I presented a possible
interpretation of the Mesha stele, you say that it is speculation
upon speculation. It is speculation to interpret the Mesha stele
or the book of Kings as agreeing with one point of view, but it is
hard evidence when used for the Deuteronomistic point of view?


I agree that basing reconstructions on Kings is somewhat speculative, although less so than some of yours in that I am working from an actual existing text, rather than from a speculatively reconstructed text like J. But you ignore my repeated point, that we can say almost nothing one way or the other, because, as I have accepted, both sides are speculative. But you continue to try to tilt things so that your side is preferable to what you consider to be mine, although there is in fact even less evidence for your side than for mine.

...

Now, it is nice you agree that the people at K. Ajrud were
"obviously" religious people. I personally would have used the
word "likely." Anyhow, it is unlikely that "religious people," prophets or priests, would have allowed "regular people," even believers, to enter their holy site. ...


You misunderstand me. I didn't mean that they were religious professionals. I doubt if there were any at K. Ajrud. I mean that they were regular people, traders, who were religiously observant, as perhaps everyone was in those days.

... The prohibitions regarding the
Temple, as well as the behavior of Elisha in 2 Ki 6:1-3, suggest
that prophets and priests tended to seclude themselves in the
specific sites they inhabited, ...


Again, I note that you bring up Kings when it suits you. But it doesn't help you here; there is no reason to suppose that the building built for Elisha was holy or off limits to ordinary people.

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



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page