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

SV: [ANE-2] SV: Pentateuch question and pottery

Expand Messages
  • Thomas L. Thompson
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      Thomas

      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
      general area.

      Aren Maeir
      Jerusalem/Ramat-Gan/Gath (in that order ...)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.