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

Dating the J&E texts (was Levites as Egyptian converts)

Expand Messages
  • jdcroft@yahoo.com
    ... and ... both after ... the mass ... Yes, I feel the description given for Solomon s united monarchy was an attempt for Judah to take the leading position
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 1 1:18 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Scott Boyd wrote to my post:

      > Given what you say below and in your dating of J&E in your Lybians
      and
      > Cushites post, are you of the mind that the J&E texts developed
      both after
      > 722? And would that mean that they both developed in Judah given
      the mass
      > migration?

      Yes, I feel the description given for Solomon's united monarchy was
      an attempt for Judah to take the leading position once Israel had
      collapsed. Historically until then the Samarian court had been a lot
      more sophisticated and culturally developed that the Jerusalem area
      which had hardly developed far above the early tribal culture
      described for the Patriarchs and in Judges. Certainly such a low
      cultural level of development is what the archaeology shows.

      I feel that the following the asylum given the Israelite refugees by
      Hezekiah's father, this provided the perfect circumstances for the
      attempt to reconstruct as much of the traditions and beliefs of the
      northern kingdom as possible. The "anti-monarchial" nature of the E
      source, however, could not have developed within the Israelite
      kingdom - it must have developed later - when the kings could be held
      responsible for the debacle following the Assyrian invasion. There
      is other internal evidence of the E source which suggests that it
      must have been put together in this period.

      The J source, which in certain ways is a more primative document
      thatn the E source, I see as a Judean reaction to the creation of the
      E source. E preserved the documentation of the north, of Shechem and
      the Ephraimite/Manasseh traditions. By comparison J is a pro-Judaite
      view. It was the J source that developed the legend of the United
      Monarchy, which I feel has difficulties being historically
      justified. At best I feel the Davidic kingdom may have been an
      abortive attempt at state building by a mercenary in Philistine
      employment. The E source was hostile to the David tradition,
      explaining the negative parts of the portrait of the Bible (the
      positive elements are all J source materials).

      So you are right, I see both traditions developing in Judah, but one
      having a source from the perspective and point of view of the emigres.

      Hope that helps

      Regards

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