Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Hi Rolf!

I must admit to skipping a little bit of your post. However, let me respond 
to what I did read.

I am in agreement with you about Systemzwang. The Hebrew verbal system is one 
of the most obvious cases, as you yourself note.

With regards to the Torah, Isaiah, and Daniel - I beg to differ.

While many today might simply rest on the conclusions of a previous 
generation without reconsidering the assumptions, etc., not all scholars do 
this. I came to critical study of the Bible from a particular faith 
perspective, and had all my assumptions challenged in the process. The 
ensuing learning and research which this engendered was invaluable, and I 
think I can safely say that I didn't fall into the Systemzwang trap you 
mention. Indeed, one of the ways I teach my own students now is not to feed 
them my own conclusions (or anyone else's), but rather to raise issues and 
possibilities. I grade their work on their ability to interact critically 
with arguments rather than their ability to duplicate past views.
Regards,

In the case of Torah, Isaiah, and Daniel, I think the arguments for Mosaic 
authorship (Torah), 8th century BC (Isaiah), and 6th century BC (Daniel) are 
highly problematic. There are historical issues, literary issues, as well as 
theological issues which, in my mind, militate against these dates. This does 
not mean it is impossible to argue for these dates. But, as I've said many a 
time, there is a big difference between possibility and probability.

For example, the arguments that the historical difficulties and ambiguities 
in Dan 1-6 can be overcome such that a 6th century BC date can be maintained 
is like a house of cards - possible to erect, but quite flimsy. To me, the 
argument sounds a bit like saying, "Well, if there is a left-handed albino 
midget from Tanzania who plays ukulele on Tuesdays in Buenos Aires, then yes, 
Daniel is a 6th century BC work."

Nonetheless, the way to overcome Systemzwang is not to propose traditional 
dates of authorship, but to acknowledge probability and to have the epistemic 
humility to acknowledge that there is always at least a modicum of doubt to 
our conclusions, meaning they are always provisional. That includes your 
conclusions and mine.


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au