Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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


I don't know anyone who takes it for granted, do you?


> 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.
>

Did you read what I wrote?

>
> >> 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.


Did I? Didn't you say not finding those bones is evidence against the
veracity of the text? So is not my answer that the probability of those
bones surviving even one century being almost nil indicate that we should
not expect to find them after all? Doesn't that probability negate your
proof?

>
> >> …
> >> 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.


I looked up online sources, and find they are all over the map. Some say
that smelted iron was known as early as 3000 BC, and in Egypt by 1500 BC.
Others agree with you.


>  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)


Weapon? Or any tool with an iron (steel) blade, like a hoe?

How out of place would it be describing a steel tool imported from a place
where tempering was known?


> or a the material of which a yoke is made (Deut 28:48).


Look at the context, is this a literal yoke, or metaphorical?


>  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.
>

What? I don't see your logic here. Or are you deliberately making a crazy
statement for effect?

>
> > 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.
>

A good scholar also doesn't limit himself to one answer, when the evidence
isn't there.

So to repeat Rolf, what evidence should we expect to find if a 15th century
BC exodus occurred, the lack of which disproves the story? On the other
side, which are found that should not be found?

>
> >> 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 --


Let's go through these one by one —


> duplications,


What do you expect from a work that was 40 years in the making? That he'd
remember every small detail and make a concerted effort to avoid
duplications?

Then look at Deuteronomy—its purpose is that of a farewell address, whose
very purpose is to review at least the highlights (i.e. duplicate the
mention) of the past 40 years. Why shouldn't there be deliberate duplication
there?


> contradictions,


Where? List them.


>
> inconsistencies,


With what? On what basis?


> and harmonizations


Doesn't every good writer harmonize? Or do you mean this in an unusual.
technical manner?


> -- that are suggested by the
> Documentary Hypothesis is evidenced in the text itself,


How many of these are due to a poor understanding of the Hebrew language
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.


Why do you think the Pentateuch is call the Pentateuch? And why are there
five books? Do you suppose that is due to the thematic differences between
the five? And you don't think that maybe that was deliberate?


>  For example, what evidence do you have that
> Deuteronomy was ever part of the same work as Gen - Num?


What evidence do you have that it wasn't? Especially after it was listed
that Moses (the same author) was listed as the one who wrote it and
delivered it?

>
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Karl W. Randolph.