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: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:16:04 +0000

On 16/03/2005 14:29, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

... the fact that you (both Peter and Karl) accept Deuteronomy to be dated to Moses makes my claims dependent upon the dating of Deuteronomy. ...


I didn't actually say this. For one thing I didn't mention Deuteronomy. And then I was only pointing out that certain evidence for later authorship which someone had put forward was in fact very weak evidence, for later true authorship rather than redaction. I consider the issue to be open, not clearly proved either way.

... but a very great
majority would agree that the Pentateuch as a whole does
not actually claim to be written by Moses. It may claim that
God spoke to Moses, but it doesn't say that this event
occured in the present time of the writer.


And the great majority of Deuteronomy is put on the lips of Moses in person, which is a prima facie claim that this material originated from Moses. Such a claim needs to be tested, of course, but it is a real claim.

... Heshbon did not exist before 1200 BCE, and the first major building at the site apparently occured only during the 9th-8th centuries, with the building of a reservoir/pool at the site. ...


Such negative conclusions can drawn from archaeology only with very great care. Perhaps the earlier site of Heshbon was in a different place from the later city, not yet excavated. Perhaps all earlier remains were eroded before or destroyed by the later building works. Perhaps the earlier settlement was of nomads with temporary structures, which notoriously leave very little archaeological trace.

... using the Shoshenq
campaign as a guide for the dating of the United Monarchy, ...


This dating method is back to front. Shoshenq was originally dated from the United Monarchy data based on the dates given in KIngs, and on the assumption that the biblical Shishak is to be identified with the Egyptain Shoshenq I. There is very little evidence for the dating of Shosenq independent of Kings, and what there is in fact suggests a rather later date than the one usually given.


...
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/heshbon.html


which states "In spite of some searching in the area, no other candidate for the Heshbon of Sihon has yet been found." - i.e. clearly supporting my position that the argument from silence is unsafe.

...

The Pentateuch is written in spelling that cannot predate the
exile. This means, the Pentateuch as we know it today was
actively edited in the Second Temple period. ...


No. Copyists, ancient and modern, routinely update spelling to match modern conventions (e.g. I routinely adjust American English quotations to the British English I am used to), and I accept that that has happened, but that is quite different from your "active editing", and even more different from authorship.


It may have been
edited before, and in fact, I think there are very good linguistic
reasons why it probably was composed beforehand and many
portions of it simply passed on with updated spelling. But linguistic evidence that shows the Pentateuch was actively edited up and until the Second Temple period is sufficient to claim that the Pentateuch might have been composed during the First Temple period as, ...


I don't see what link there is between Second Temple spelling adjustments and the question of whether the text was originally authored 100 or 1000 years (to suggest some extreme positions) before the Second Temple was built - or for that matter whether it was an early Second Temple period composition. Authorship and editing by copyists are independent activities.


... in fact, most scholars claim. Specifically, it places your claim of only "minor post-Mosaic editorial changes" as speculation ...


My point was that there is no evidence for anything more. I am not making any claim that nothing more took place, I am just asking for proper evidence for such changes if their existence is to be more than speculative.

... no less than the claim that during the early Second Temple period the various sources of the Pentateuch were conflated together. You must show reasonable evidence to believe that the Torah dates from before the Monarchy and the Judges. ...


I am not making the claims, you are. So the burden of proof is on you. You can't say that your position must be right because I can't prove my position, you have to prove your own one or agree that we don't know one way or the other.

... And while you are free to hold
that "I see no clear evidence of post-Mosaic authorship in the Pentateuch," the fact that most scholars would date Deuteronomy much later is sufficient to request you explain
your evidence for Mosaic authorship.


On the contrary. For one thing, my statement "I see no clear evidence of post-Mosaic authorship in the Pentateuch" does not imply that I see any evidence that against such authorship. Also, Mosaic authorship is the internal claim of (most of) Deuteronomy and has been the traditional interpretation of scholars for millennia before anyone rejected it. And the evidence on which some people rejected it has been examined and found wanting. I simply ask for some convincing evidence from those who continue to hold to later authorship.

--
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: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 15/03/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page