Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:02 AM, K Randolph wrote:

>> The Bible cannot itself be taken as evidence.
>
> Yes it can, though the question is, evidence of what? For those who trust
> its accuracy, it is evidence of the whole story. For those who have doubts,
> it can be recognized as having a large dollop of myth enveloping a kernel of
> truth, i.e. a small group, maybe? Sort of like the story of Troy? Only those
> whose religion totally rejects the Bible can discount it entirely.

No.  Anyone who does not "trust its accuracy," (a way to say that he takes
it for granted to begin with that the Bible is completely true, and therefore
external evidence unnecessary) can discount the Bible entirely, just like
anyone who does not "trust its accuracy," can accept it entirely as well.

>> Let us then delineate something that could remain: [...] So how about a
>> large pile of bones belonging to 18 million quail.
>
> Not so quick. Wouldn't these bones survive if and only if they were all
> taken out and piled into a big midden, and even then it would help if the
> midden were buried shortly thereafter? [...]

You missed the point.

>> …
>> Textually, we could suggest something else: If the Pentateuch was
>> written after the 10th century, we would expect to find mention of
>> iron tools.  Prior to this, we would expect copper tools to
>> predominate.  We thus find such verses as Num 35:16, Deut 27:5,
>> or Deut 28:48, which mention ONLY iron tools, to be specifically out
>> of place.  The iron chariots of Jos 17:16-18 also have very little to do
>> with the 15th or 14th centuries.  Of course, you can doubt it, you can
>> try to falsify it, but it shows you what happens once we have a
>> specific proposition on the table: it becomes scientific and open to
>> discussion and alternative explanations.
>>
>
> Here we are talking about technology transfer during a transitional phase.
> Do you really think it happened all at once? Or did it happen slowly, in
> stages, slowed down by cultural and other factors? It is known that iron was
> known in the ANE centuries before the "official" start of the "iron age".
> But it was not widely used for tools or weapons because it is at the same
> time both softer and more brittle than bronze. But once you tempered iron
> with a certain amount of carbon in it, you got something that was both
> harder and less brittle than bronze.

Iron smelting was not known in the ANE prior to the 12th century.  Prior
to that, iron was used mostly for decorative purposes and it is present in
primarily ceremonial weapons.  Simple wrought iron was, as you say, too
soft and brittle to actually be used in a weapon meant for functional use.
Therefore, it is surprising and out of place to read a purportedly 15th 
century
document describe it as the primary metal in a weapon that kills someone
(Num 35:16) or a the material of which a yoke is made (Deut 28:48).  Num
35 is particularly interesting since it is clear, as you say, that it is meant
for boasting, because people who had such special tools like iron, wood,
or rocks were too egotistical and if they used it to kill someone they must
be put to death, but someone who used a humble weapon made of bronze
could go free.

> Rarely can you investigate all possibilities in one experiment. Rolf
> mentioned one experiment, you just mentioned others as well. The problem
> with all of the possibilities mentioned by Rolf as well as you, is that
> there is a lack of positive evidence for any, as well as a lack of evidence
> that will disprove them.

A science experiment the way you might do in high school or in college
labs is planned and focused and organized ahead of time.  However, a
scholar who develops a particular theory, especially in humanities, runs
through many possibilities before getting something final that withstands
criticism.  Well, maybe not every scholar but good scholars do.

>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it also means
>> you have no sound proposition to begin with (by definition: sound
>> means it rests on solid evidence).

> So do you admit that there is no sound proposition to begin with, when
> dealing with the Documentary Hypothesis?

That the Pentateuch has all the makings -- duplications, contradictions,
inconsistencies, and harmonizations -- that are suggested by the
Documentary Hypothesis is evidenced in the text itself, and we know for
a fact that such methods were used in harmonizations during the ancient
times: http://yitzhaksapir.googlepages.com/tatian'sdiatessaron
The only thing unsound is the proposition that the Pentateuch was
originally a unitary work.  For example, what evidence do you have that
Deuteronomy was ever part of the same work as Gen - Num?

Yitzhak Sapir