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

Re: [ANE-2] Re: R. Gmirkin on the date of the Pentateuch

Expand Messages
  • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
    Dear George, So you seriously believe that a 6th-5th cent. B.C. date for the promulgation of the Torah is unrelated to David Noel Freedman s preferred
    Message 1 of 37 , May 2, 2006
      Dear George,

      So you seriously believe that a 6th-5th cent. B.C. date for the promulgation
      of the Torah is unrelated to David Noel Freedman's preferred history of
      development?

      With regard to source criticism as a means of dating texts, this has been
      used very effectively in classical studies for years. If text A uses text B,
      and text B uses text C, and the dates of A and C, then this furnishes
      extremely objective evidence that the date of B lies between A and C.

      Russell Gmirkin

      The entire concept of dating a work based upon the perceived relationships
      to other literature seems to me highly suspect since it imposes upon the
      development of the literature a schema of one's own construction rather than
      seeking to find indications within the literature which are unrelated to one's
      own preferred history of development.
      D. N. Freedman in _Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography_, pp. 3-15
      (Eisenbraun's, Winona Lake: 1992) posits the establishment of the text of the
      Torah with its promulgation by Ezra in the 6th-5th cent. B.C. based on
      orthography. This seems to me to be more secure than a dating based on subjective
      factors such as one's own schema for the development of the literature.






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jack Kilmon
      From: Niels Peter Lemche ... I am having problems accepting this particularly with texts so heavily redacted over centuries. The
      Message 37 of 37 , May 4, 2006
        From: "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...>

        > The Book of Isaiah cannot be older than its youngest component.

        I am having problems accepting this particularly with texts so heavily
        redacted over centuries. The "historical Isaiah" (The Isaiah of chapters 1-39) lived somewhere during the last half of the 8th and earliy 7th centuries BCE. Deutero-Isaiah (ch. 40-55) lived some 150 years later and Isaiah III (ch. 56-66) later yet. It would seem to me that a text cannot be dated older than its OLDEST component with the caveat that older material can be added later. I think the most comprehensive work to date on Isaiah is "The Book Called Isaiah" by H. G. M. Williamson of Oxford.

        The oldest component that can be dated by epigraphy, of Numbers is the
        Priestly Blessing discovered on silver amulets from Isaiah's time but this does more to show the complexity of this problem. It cannot be stated with certainty that the blessing was not copied from a text of Numbers (the amulet blessing is missing a line found in numbers) and it cannot be stated with certainty that the text WAS copied from numbers rather than from an oral tradition that later found its way to Numbers.

        I do see three different hands (Deutero-Isaiah the most lyrical) in Isaiah, though.

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