Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uzi Silber <uzisilber AT gmail.com>]

Uri, who wrote the work on biblical toponyms? uzi





On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net> wrote:

>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Uri Hurwitz" <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 8:32 PM
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
>
>
>  Hi Jack,
>>
>>  It is logical to apply to modern scholarly work
>> the same critical approach that one applies to ancient
>> texts such as Joshua or other HB books.
>>
>>   Therefore it may be worthwhile to check other modern
>> scholarly opinions about the complex issue of dating
>> the composition of biblicsl books. These are
>> controversial subjects.
>>
>>    Even the dating of archaeological strata is
>> disputed, as we know. For instance, the 10th - 9th
>> centrury controversy is well known. Cf. the Finkelstein
>> - Mazar charming dialogue in book form on the matter.
>>
>
> Absolutely, Uri.  I have, of course, read the majority of respected
> scholars (and some unrespected ones) on the issue of dating the composition
> of the books of the Tanakh.  This is not a scientific area and relies almost
> solely on the objectivity of the scholar who may have his/her own agenda
> and/or biases easily couched in scholarly jargon.  Even I have my tendency
> to lean in the Albrightian direction, since he taught me, and I have to
> force myself to set aside the great respect I had for him to consider more
> "modern" approaches.  So the first thing in considering scholarly opinions,
> outside the evidence, is the standard "consider the source."  I know that a
> "minimalist" is almost always going to have a skeptical view of a new found
> artifact that might be 1st temple period.  If a find is a piece of
> epigraphy, the flood gates really open wide.  Since inscriptions are my
> thing and I am also a scientist, my views on the ivory pomegranate as well
> as the "James ossuary" were both the same since they both came to light.  If
> the patina is genuine and can be found within the incised inscription, it is
> genuine. Period.  I sat back and watched the cacaphony from scholars who
> shouted, "hoax! Fake! Forgery!" when most had never examined the artifacts
> themselves.  Erroneous viewpoint on orthography and grammar were easy to
> dismiss.  My view remains the same. They are genuine and there are numerous
> "modern scholarly opinions" with which I disagree.  Of course, things have
> come a long way in the last 50 years, since your 1964 paper,  in the
> development of of scientific and technical manpower and capabilities in
> Israel along with breakthrough methodologies in radiometry and analysis. The
> Biblical texts, however, do not have patinas or any physical characteristics
> (apart from the DSS) to examine.
>
>
>
>
>
>>    Of course not everything had been  excavated yet.
>> Even in Jerusalem suprising findings keep occurring.
>> I'll only mention one here: the Reich-Shukron discovery
>> of a bullae hoard which preceded Hezekiah's date by over
>> a century, and points to wider literacy at a considerably
>> earlier stage than had  been assumed till then.
>>
>
> Yet I have read opinions by some scholars that the provenanced bullae with
> names from the City of David dig were forgeries and "salted" into the dig.
> Reich and Shukron's discovery was fascinating since they appear to be
> "blanks" prepared in advance in an administrative building not unlike blank
> business cards found in the human resources department of Halliburton for
> new employees.  As I recall, the dating of them was subject to lively
> disagreement.  Later, the Rafayahu Shalem bulla was found dated to the 8th
> century BCE.  I am constantly on the edge of my seat waiting for the latest
> from Professor Mazar.
>
>
>
>>   Which leads me to my final point: the literary form
>> dated by some to the sixth century is polished in
>> comparison, say, to Mesha. Such literary polish cannot
>> spring up over night. The presumption that it required
>> generations to develop can not be far fetched. Thus
>> valid earlier material may well have been preserved
>> in these texts, whenever they attained  their final form.
>>
>
> One of my points over the years is that often modern literate scholars,
> born and raised in a literate culture, do not relate to an ancient ORAL
> culture and its means of information transmission.  The extremely small
> percentage of the population that was literate were setting down oral poems
> and songs, centuries old, to writing.  How literate was the guy that incised
> the Mesha stela?  Was he just well crafted on the script and followed a
> scribe's written template?  Does epigraphy give us a sufficient sampler to
> determine the development of "polish" over time?
>
>
>
>>   I suggest, as I said, that other authorities be consulted
>> on the geography of the Place Names in  Joshua.
>> Incidentally a moderator of this list
>> published serious work on  biblical toponyms.
>>
>
>
> I have read some of the more serious arguments to Finkelstein and Silberman
> on the Joshua sites (I avoid apologist arguments) but in the end I still see
> a system of 48 towns that did not exist as occupied sites in the late Bronze
> Age. Some, like Mephaath were not settled until Iron II at the end of the
> 7th century BCE (taking the position that Umm-er-Rasas is the site of
> Mephaath but the same date of occupation would hold for Tel-Jawa.  Arad, to
> me, is more concise.  The Canaanite city, supposedly the one mentioned in
> Joshua 12:14, was abandoned in the EBA (2650 BCE) and resettled in Iron II
> by the Israelites.  Considering the 7/6th Century BCE flags and allowing the
> time for collective national memory to forget when these towns were built or
> resettled, I cannot see these texts having been written later than the
> latter half of the 6th century.  Always open to have my paradigms
> refashioned (after all, being shown to be mistaken is also progress), I
> would be very interested in any work on these toponyms but the archeological
> data is daunting.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jack
>
> Jack Kilmon
> San Antonio, TX
>
>
>
>>   Best,
>>
>>   Uri Hurwitz                               Wilmington. VT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>



-- 
Regards,
Uzi