Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SV: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism or YHWHism

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Niels Peter Lemche Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:37 AM To: Subject: SV: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism
    Message 1 of 27 , Jan 5, 2010
      From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:37 AM
      To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: SV: [ANE-2] 7th century Judaism or YHWHism

      > His mail was in answer of Jack Kilmon's previous one:
      > First paragraph:
      > 1: The Hebrew Bible says that a kind of centralization took place in the
      > days of the Judean king Hezekiah. Although he did not -- according to 2
      > Kings -- go far enough. Josiah did better than him (but cf. the
      > corrections in Chronicles). This is an old assumption not really
      > supported by extra-biblical evidence. But somehow people should read
      > their Bible more carefully, as it also states that Josiah's reform was a
      > failure, and that his successors took up the evil habits of their
      > forefathers. Ezra is a totally obscure person, except in tradition (the
      > genealogy presented would have made him a very old chap when he arrived
      > in Jerusalem, and he at least had nothing to do with rebuilding
      > activities). The building of Haggai's temple may have happened, although
      > now severely disputed by modern scholars like Diana Edelman who places
      > it much later, in the 5th century. The missing indications of a
      > resettlement of Jerusalem before the late 5th or even early 4th century
      > BCE also speaks again the assertion made by the Bible that it happened
      > in 516 BCE. So to place Ezra in tghe line of centralization is
      > speculation.
      > 2: The idea of the Exodus story and its relations to Jerusalem is
      > another example of pure speculation. Jack should not be blamed too much,
      > as this was no more than many people were asserting when he was young.
      > The members of that generation of scholars -- including the venerable
      > names of Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth -- have by later colleagues been
      > termed "die grossen Hypothesenmacher".
      > Then in the second paragraph we find a number of old ideas -- or
      > assertions.
      > 1: Canaan as a term for Palestine in the 1st millennium. When we in this
      > millennium find extra-biblical references, they say "Phoenicia". Jack's
      > introducing biblical geography as if it was historical geography.
      > 2: the Dating of the Exodus narrative to the 8th century BCE: Au courant
      > with the opinion of critical scholars 40 to 50 years ago. It is
      > generally not accepted anymore, and for many reasons. Pentateucal
      > studies has made many steps forward since those days, since the Toronto
      > lectures of Winnett, the teacher of Van Seters. So if people want to
      > understand what has happened, a brush up would be recommendable. A
      > rather traditional -- in the modern sense -- survey which nevertheless
      > includes much of interest as to these changes was published a couple of
      > years ago by Ska. We have witnessed from morately conservative Israeli
      > scholars an endeavour to defend old dates, especially of the Priestly
      > writer and based on language. This discussion hasd entered a new phase
      > with the publication of a number of studies tearing away this
      > foundation, by Knauf, Rezetko, Young and more.
      > When this list opened, it was a demand that the discussion should be
      > based on facts. Readers may want to ask for facts embedded in this new
      > discussion, and when the moderators sometimes are very reluctant to
      > accept mails about biblical topics, they may understand that it was
      > normal in biblical studies to exchange (non-existing) facts with
      > assertions.
      > They may also understand that some of the so-called left wing biblical
      > scholars (normally a term found in American studies -- traditionally
      > European scholarship has been called so, such as the aforementioned Alt
      > and Noth by members of the [William Foxwell] Albright guild, who
      > considered them to be "nihilists" and worse) are not really interested
      > in this discussion about historicity. We prefer today to discuss
      > authors' intents and the memories embedded in their writings. There are
      > also theological reasons for this but this definitely does not belong
      > here. I have done my part of this (so far) in my recent book, The Old
      > Testament between Theology and History from 2008.
      > Niels Peter Lemche

      Niels, I appreciate your viewpoint. Always have. Why? Even though I do
      not agree with some of your positions, I agree with the process. If
      consensus is not challenged, the process stops. One thing that cannot be
      charged is that you do not challenge. BUT in my 70th year I will never
      apologize for having been a student of Professor Albright and good ideas do
      not have expiration dates.

      Hope you have a great New Year,


      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.