Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear George,

It is no problem that we have disagreements; to the contrary, it may 
illuminate important questions.

> 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,

RF:
We all have our horizon of understanding that will influence us, and 
a scholar should do his or her utmost to minimize this influence. It 
is interesting to to hear that you have modified your original 
position.
> 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.

RF:
I heartily agree with your words about "a modicum of doubt to our 
conclusions"; this is one of the principal points I have tried put 
across. And this doubt should not only relate to our own conclusions, 
but to the whole history, the whole chronology, and to the whole 
culture of the ancient Near East, as they are presented in modern 
lexicons and textbooks. But that is not the case! There are so many 
dogmatic presentations to find. And please note that in my previous 
post I have not defended a 15th century writing of the Pentateuch, an 
8th century writing of Isaiah, and a 6th century writing of Daniel, 
but I have claimed that there are no compelling evidence that can 
falsify these dates- this is a negative (and scientific) standpoint 
and not a positive one.

Let us now try a scientific approach to the question about the 
authorship and time of writing of the Pentateuch.  We have two tools 
at our disposition, namely, induction and deduction. Because of the 
Problem of Induction we do not come very far by using this tool, but 
the other may be more promising. I use the hypothetic deductive 
method (HDM) and form the following hypothesis, "The man Moses wrote 
the Pentateuch in the 15th century B.C.E. (NB: This is a hypothesis 
to be tested and not a defence of a particular position.) To treat 
this hypothesis in a scientific way we need to find what the 
hypothesis predicts, and then test these predictions, in order to see 
if the hypothesis can be falsified. But what does it predict? This is 
a very difficult question, and I invite the list members to make 
their comments.

One prediction would be: If a Moses of the 15th century wrote the 
Pentateuch, we will not expect to find anachronisms in it.

(For those who are not accustomed with "anachronisms," the following 
example can be given: A book published in 1932 where we find the 
words "the first world war" contains an anachronism, because the war 
that ended in 1918 was only called "the great war" in 1932; only 
after the war that ended in 1945 one could speak about the first and 
second world war.)

Can we say that Deuteronomy 34:5-12 is an anachronism? No, because it 
is obvious that these verses were added by another person, and this 
fact tells us nothing about who wrote the preceding text ( se also 
Joshua 24:29-33). But what about Genesis 14:3 and the words HW) YM 
HMLX? It  may or may not be an anachronism. It could indicate that at 
a time after the death of Moses someone wrote the first part of the 
Pentateuch on the basis of older information. Or it could indicate 
that some time after the death of Moses the place of the Valley of 
Siddim was forgotten, and a scribe who copied a manuscript added the 
mentioned words as an explanation. But we cannot know what is correct?

The two examples illustrate a very important point: When we look at 
the prediction of a hypothesis in order to falsify this prediction, 
we can only use clear-cut evidence that only can be interpreted in 
one way. And where can we find such evidence regarding the Pentateuch?

You mention historical issues, literary issues, and theological 
issues. I challenge the list-members to apply the HDM to these issues 
and point out predictions and show how these are falsified by data. 
Or, if you do not want to use the HDM, you can use any other 
scientific method to falsify the hypothesis I have proposed. If this 
is not possible, we are not aware of any data that do falsify the 
hypothesis.

We may treat the books of Isaiah and Daniel in a similar way: "The 
book of Isaiah was written by the man Isaiah in the 8th century 
B.C.E." and "The book of Daniel was written by the man Daniel in the 
6th century B.C.E."  Please form predictions.

As for the book of Isaiah, I am not aware of anything in its text 
that would falsify the proposed hypothesis. The real issue is its 
prophecies. If we have exported God to the sphere of metaphysics, we 
must conclude that human beings cannot foretell the future, but that 
is really what Isaiah pretend to do (as some would say). These must 
be history in prophetic disguise, is the argument, and they must have 
been written after the events. But there may for some who have a 
non-god approach be a double standard here. It is much easier to 
believe that the "prophecies" of Isaiah were guesses that were 
fulfilled by chance or coincidence than to believe that life on earth 
came into existence by chance, something that is impossible according 
to the laws of nature as we know them.

As for the book of Daniel, we know that language is ambiguous, and 
ambiguousness can even be consciously chosen. I see no problem here. 
I am not aware of any historical difficulties in Daniel that would 
falsify any prediction of the hypothesis. The only problem is "Darius 
the Mede". But we know very, very little about the last days of the 
Neo-Babylonian Enpire and the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire, and 
there are some candidates for this king. Moreover, it is not wise to 
accept evidence from silence.

So the challenge stands: Describe what the three hypotheses predict, 
and show how each one can be falsified by unambiguous evidence.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew