SV: [ANE-2] SV: Pentateuch question and pottery
- Thank you Maeir for the correction. When I wrote that the pottery was difficult to distinguish, I was too quick and thinking about surface surveys and their dating.
Aren Maeir wrote:
Hi! Once again, the question of the dating of the biblical text
based on linguistic criteria pops up. What is disturbing about these
ongoing discussions is that strong opinions on the supposed
inability to linguistically date "strata" in the biblical text, are
most often espoused by scholars who are not linguists! (and once
again, as in the past, let me stress, that I don't consider myself
in this esteemed group of competent linguists...).
The overall majority of recognized, competent, linguists of biblical
Hebrew (and cognate languages) are strong supporters of the
chronological/typological approach. For an additional review of this
issue, see B. Schniedewind's piece in the most recent issue
of "Hebrew Studies".
As to Iron Age pottery (which I do know a little about ...). 8th and
7th century pottery are hardly "notoriously" hard to differentiate.
Actually, there are quite a few extremely diagnostic criteria for
differentiating 8th and 7th cent. assemblages (such as certain bowl,
jug and jar types). What does, at times, pose a problem is that
certain types continue from the 8th into the 7th centuries, and
thus, for example in survey, it is at times hard to differentiate
this. But in excavated assemblages this is MOST definitely not the
case. In the current state of archaeological knowledge in Israel,
etc., the 8th and 7th cent. pottery is well known. Gone are the days
in which this is a problem ... All one has to do is look at some of
the more recent publications dealing with these issues (such as the
new Lachish report; Tel Batash II; etc.).
Nevertheless, it should be stated that one cannot assume that the
typological scheme in Cisjordan fits in perfectly with that of
Transjordan. One should compare between sites within the same
Jerusalem/Ramat-Gan/Gath (in that order ...)