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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jan-Wim Wesselius
    ... Dear NP, I would prefer not to be taken together with the scholars (however competent) who *compare* the Hebrew Bible with various works of
    Message 1 of 9 , May 3 3:37 AM
      On 5/3/06, Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...> wrote:
      >
      > <snip>
      >
      > I do not necessarily endorse Gmirkin's dating, but it is more than just a
      > casual comparison. I know that the moment Greece is brought in, several
      > colleagues use and especially used to get red spots (if not for Gordon's old
      > idea about a Mycenean relationship). Van Seters went for the 6-5th century
      > by mean of comparison, other people have asked about Herodotus (Weselius,
      > Flemming Nielsen and more: didn't Freedman himself go together with Sarah
      > Mandell about the same?).
      >

      <snip>

      Dear NP,

      I would prefer not to be taken together with the scholars (however
      competent) who *compare* the Hebrew Bible with various works of classical
      Greek and Latin literature. In my opinion, such comparison is bound to lead
      one astray, however interesting the parallels may be. Note that for a number
      of aspects of the Hebrew Bible the closest parallels are to be found in
      Ovid's Metamorphoses, centuries after the latest possible date for the
      Primary History.

      What I did, especially in my article in SJOT of 1999 ("Discontinuity,
      Congruence and the Making of the Hebrew Bible"), was to show that most
      "historical" books of the Hebrew Bible derived their ToC (along with some
      other structural features) from other works in and outside of the Hebrew
      Bible: an up to then unobserved, but hardly unique strategy of
      intertextuality.

      All the rest is consequences from and commentary on that fundamental
      observation. A small number of people have shouted very loudly against the
      supposed consequences (indeed, it would mean that the Primary History was
      written after 440 BCE by authors who had access to Greek literature), but
      without tackling the observations underlying them, so the value of their
      remarks is null and void. I discussed these comments in some detail on my
      website www.jwwesselius.nl, feeling somewhat too embarrassed to put my
      reaction in print.

      A somewhat watered-down reaction, however, can be found on p. 256-257 of my
      article on the book of Daniel in Aramaic Studies 3 (2005) 241-283. See also
      my article in H.M. Niemann and M. Augustin, Stimulation from
      Leiden(Frankfurt 2006) 35-43.

      My apologies to the list for the self-promotion, but I cannot make my point
      without mentioning these articles.
      With kind regards, Jan-Wim Wesselius, Theological University Kampen, The
      Netherlands


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RUSSELLGMIRKIN@aol.com
      Dear Niels Peter, People have never understood the emic/etic argument behind my Canaanites from 1991. The Canaanites of the OT is simply non- Israelite
      Message 2 of 9 , May 3 6:30 AM
        Dear Niels Peter,

        People have never understood the emic/etic argument behind my
        Canaanites from 1991. The Canaanites of the OT is simply 'non-
        Israelite inhabitants of Palestine'. The perspective is on one hand the
        people of God, Israel, and on the other godless Canaanites --
        and then, of course we have the no good Philistines.
        Niels Peter Lemche


        I found your book quite convincing, and I use the term Canaanites in the
        sense of "pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine" (who likely included the
        ancestors of the Israelites) and later 'non-Israelite inhabitants of Iron II
        Palestine' (where Israelite and non-Israelite are as retroactively defined in the
        [Hellenistic era] biblical text). We don't appear to find Canaanite as a
        self-designation in the records of the ANE. Like you, I doubt the Iron II
        'Canaanites' and 'Israelites' much used either term, certainly not in the
        either-or manner found in the polemics of the later HB.

        And, finally, dear Russell or Yitzhak, it is bad manners to use
        the word 'dishonest'...

        And yet I give Yitzhak high points for engaging the evidence, trying to
        follow my argument and accurately representing my positions. Bygones!

        Best regards,
        Russell Gmirkin







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Niels Peter Lemche
        Somehow I agree with George here. Again, like in archaeology, a text is dated according to the youngest part, and not the oldest. But the idea that a text from
        Message 3 of 9 , May 3 4:23 PM
          Somehow I agree with George here. Again, like in archaeology, a text is dated according to the youngest part, and not the oldest. But the idea that a text from say 250 BCE will not contain information from another and earlier period is not very convincing. In discussing such matters, we need to include more than one parameter.

          The Book of Isaiah cannot be older than its youngest component. This means the book as preserved in the HB and in the DSS. This does not say that, e.g., the Deuteronomistic parts were written in the 3rd or 2nd century BCE.

          Again, it is necessary to find methods that allow us to control the speculation.

          Niels Peter Lemche

          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af gfsomsel@...
          Sendt: 3. maj 2006 16:09
          Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
          Emne: Re: [ANE-2] Re: R. Gmirkin on the date of the Pentateuch

          In other words, the Pentateuch cannot have been written prior to approx. the 3rd qtr of the 3rd cent. B.C. therefore any reference thereto must postdate that time. I would say that this argument is somewhat circular in itself.


          george
          gfsomsel
          _________

          -- RUSSELLGMIRKIN@... wrote:

          George,

          Such dateable texts might be those such as First Isaiah which is fairly
          universally accepted as being from the time it purporsts


          I was going to comment on the circularity of a dating argument that contains
          such assumptions, but NPL already did. Let me just add that an important
          implication of the dating of the Pentateuch to c. 273-272 BCE as argued in my
          book is that texts such as First Isaiah that utilize the Pentateuch must
          necessarily postdate 273 BCE in their final form. Materials in the prophets
          without Pentateuchal allusions might predate 273 BCE, and a very valuable future
          study would be to rigorously identify such potentially older materials and to
          look for commonalities in genre and language. (For instance, it seems to me
          that Pss. 1-50 were already in existence in 273 BCE based on that criterion,
          unlike the remainder of Psalms which are full of Pentateuchal references.)
          My intuition is that the woe oracles may be older compositions.

          Best regards,
          Russell Gmirkin





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          Yahoo! Groups Links






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







          Yahoo! Groups Links
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.