2) This is a forum for discussing the language found in Tanakh, not
its authorship.
Just as there was trade in objects, so there was trade in ideas as
well. The Jewish diaspora, started under Nebuchadnezzar, could very
well have reached Greece by the time of Plato, so you can't rule out
his being influenced by and taking examples from Hebrew sources. Jews
and Jewish ideas were known in Hellenistic cities in Asia Minor by
Plato's time.
You admit "But yes, these theories do ruin both judaism and
christianism if they are right." That admission is enough to say that
you are not to push your beliefs, for that is proselytism to your
religion. You may mention your beliefs, and others on this list may
counter with interpretations based on their beliefs, but in the
absence of historical data neither can insist in this forum that his
interpretation is the correct one. Proselytism is the venue of other
forums, please not here.
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tanach book order - different in Christian Bibles
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 00:39:37 -0700
Philippe:
One of the rules on this forum is that we do not push our private
beliefs concerning the dating of Tanakh. I will invoke it here for the
following reasons:
1) All of us start with beliefs that cannot be rationally defended.
Not one of us starts with 100% rationality. For example, which is to
take precedence—history or a rationally defendable argument? The
Hellenistic model was to take rationality, while Tanakh and the New
Testament chose history (on this level, both Tanakh and the New
Testament stand in stark contrast to Hellenism, an argument against
either document being Hellenistic). But why choose one model over the
other? That's a matter of faith, yours is no less faith than mine,
just a different faith.
2) This is a forum for discussing the language found in Tanakh, not
its authorship. While the oldest examples of Tanakh are copies from
Qumran with a frustratingly few examples of Hebrew from other sources
from when Tanakh was allegedly written other than what is internal to
Tanakh, we have insufficient historical data either to prove or
disprove the internal dates. Thus whether one accepts them or not is a
matter of faith, yours is a faith that they are not accurate, mine a
faith that they are.
3) The late dating of Tanakh, with Ayrian centric invention of all
major themes and ideas, from the documentation I have seen, started
around 1800 among German rationalists who believed evolution (yes,
evolution predates Darwin by millennia, Aristotle, for example,
believed that evolution procedes through natural selection, Darwin's
supposed innovation). But was that an accurate depiction of history?
According to M.C. Astour in his book "Hellenosemitica" 1967, much of
Greek civilization, even religious beliefs, was an import to Greece
from West Semitic tribes living in what is now Turkey around 3,000
years ago; e.g. the Dionysius cult, even in the terms used in its
practice, show semitic influences from Tamuz worship, yet Dionysius is
known from Linear B documents. So who borrowed from whom?
You brought up the example of "sumphonia" as an example of Hellenism,
but is it? The Masoretes who added the vowel points were influenced by
Hellenism, but what about the author of Daniel? The unpointed text
could just as well be pronounced as "xiwamepaniyahe" or it could have
been an instrument imported from Greece (international trade existed
back then), thus the use of this term is not evidence of Hellenistic
period authorship. Your doubt that Nebuchadnezzar could have had such
an instrument is personal opinion, not historical evidence.
Just as there was trade in objects, so there was trade in ideas as
well. The Jewish diaspora, started under Nebuchadnezzar, could very
well have reached Greece by the time of Plato, so you can't rule out
his being influenced by and taking examples from Hebrew sources. Jews
and Jewish ideas were known in Hellenistic cities in Asia Minor by
Plato's time.
You admit "But yes, these theories do ruin both judaism and
christianism if they are right." That admission is enough to say that
you are not to push your beliefs, for that is proselytism to your
religion. You may mention your beliefs, and others on this list may
counter with interpretations based on their beliefs, but in the
absence of historical data neither can insist in this forum that his
interpretation is the correct one. Proselytism is the venue of other
forums, please not here.
To close a much wordier response than I expected, and knowing that you
are new to this list, while you are free to mention your beliefs and
how they influence your understanding of Tanakh, even to its dating,
we are not to push our beliefs as the only correct interpretation of
controversial subjects because that is proselytism.
Karl W. Randolph.
Ps. As for Daniel's 70 sevens of years, Jerusalem was not destroyed
and needed complete rebuilding after Antiochus IV Epimanes, neither
was there a seven year war starting 483 years later, midway through
which sacrifices were stopped, yet both descriptions, as well as all
the other details of that prophecy, fit the rebuilding under Nehemiah.
> Regards,
>
> Philippe Wajdenbaum
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.