Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> This whole discussion seems to be divided into two camps: (1) those who
> propose that the ancients had the same sense of 'history' as we moderns do;
> and (2) those who propose that the ancients had a different sense of
> 'history' to us moderns.
>

Do we moderns share the same view of history? Right now I’m of the opinion
that we don’t.

>
> Firstly, our modern sense of history has only really arisen since the
> printing press made the dissemination and preservation of information
> commonplace. The rise of the newspaper and journalism also helped
> considerably in preserving memories of factual events.


Did the invention of a certain mechanism mold the understanding of history,
or was that view of history already extant?


> Prior to that, history was often a creative enterprise, including memories
> of factual events; pre-scientific hypotheses about the past, such as
> aetiologies;


Don’t we still do that?


> retrojection, whereby the past was described like the present;


Isn’t that the basis for the belief in evolution, as well as your questions
doubting the long ages mentioned in the Bible?


> propaganda, whereby the past was moulded to a desired shape;


Do we need to go beyond the practices of the Fascists in Italy, Nazis in
Germany, Communists in all the lands where they ruled and rule, and what
passes for “history” in U.S. public schools today?


> dramatic techniques, to make it memorable and entertaining; and many other
> phenomena.
>
> In terms of Esarhaddon's vassal treaties: I'd say it was a fairly common
> notion that if an underling failed in their treaty obligations that they
> would be cursed, and blessed if they met them. The notion is really not that
> unique. So, the blessing/cursing concept of Deuteronomy could come from just
> about any time - Bronze Age right through to Hellenistic Era. What is
> interesting, however, is to compare the specific blessings and curses and
> see where the closest parallels for Deuteronomy are from. This, of course,
> doesn't give us a date for Deuteronomy, but it could be one brick in a
> larger argument to say that Deuteronomy could be from the era of its closest
> parallel, or even slightly after it.
>

One problem with this effort is the paucity of surviving documents: a
document from the 15th century BC may have been even closer to Deuteronomy
than the Esarhaddon’s vassal treaties, but didn’t survive. You can’t rule
that out. And who is to say that Esarhaddon didn’t get a copy of Deuteronomy
and based his treaties from what he found there? While highly unlikely, you
can’t rule that out. Or another option, when David made neighboring kingdoms
into vassals, did he base his vassal treaties on Deuteronomy, and Eserhaddon
acquired a copy of one of those? Speculation reveals several possibilities
that don’t require that Deuteronomy be at the same time or slightly later
than Eserhaddon.

Any attempt to date Deuteronomy based on highly speculative musings that
contradict clear statements to the contrary are going to be rejected by
many.

>
> And no, Gabe has not mistaken the force of the historical task.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au


Karl W. Randolph.