spin

The earliest texts that we have of parts of the Hebrew bible come from Qumran. One of these has been dated to about 200 BCE. Now this is only a manuscript, so it in no way reflects the dating of the original text. However, our problem is how can we get back earlier than 200 BCE in order to give any credence to the content in the so-called history books? How can we make historical statements based on texts whose dates of writing we cannot say? The purpose of such a dating would allow us to make reasoned statements about the significance of texts, about their historical importance, about how they really relate to other cultures' texts.

If you have a serious way to get to any solid dating prior to 200 BCE, here is the place to set it down.


spin

Celsus

Ask very nicely, and maybe send it some flowers in advance.

I think I'll let Doctor X have a shot at this first.

Joel

DrJim

Can't help Spin out here in terms of a definite answer, but I know a real good way NOT to do it. For instance:
De Vries, in the preface to his Word Biblical Commentary on 1 Kings (WBC, 12; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985, p. xli) says the true meaning of a passage is found in its "original " structure, setting and intention. He claims that one should begin analysis with ‘elemental oral and written units’ and not the 'end product'.


But how can one have an 'elemental' unit (written or oral) without examining the 'end product': since that final text is all we've got?

I don't really see how one can with any certainty provide a dating methodology. Everything involves pretty subjective judgments. Some general comments on some popular methods:

Earliest Possible Date: In instances in which real events / people are mentioned, (however elaborated) one can establish a composition date between the real event and the earliest known manuscript. This, h owever, can't really narrow the range down to less than several centuries in many cases. Another issue is that one episode recorded in the Bible might employ a very ancient traditional tale but put it in a new chronology. Theoretically at least, the "original" may be very much older than the time period implied in the actual biblical episode.

Presumed "fit" with historical contexts. Many biblical texts are dated according to how the apparent ideology / theology of the passage seems to express the spirit of a particular time or the perspective of a writer or movement which can be dated on other grounds. This, however, is very subjective and often very circular: scholars know the "spirit of the times" and moverments (say of Josiah's reign, or the "Solomonic enlightenment") only from historicizing biblical texts and dating them to about the time the events described therein were supposed to have transpired. What "fits" the reconstructed times are often the very group of texts they are attempting to date: anything that does not fit is excised as secondary.
Some folks find in a biblical episode find masked allusions to very differnet historical events. For instance, Spin has suspicions that the Kings story of Josiah is told in a way to make allusions to events in the Hellenistic period (I can't remember the details, its Monday) The strength of any such arguement would depend on the degree to which the biblical story is shaped to fit. I think a really excellent case can be made for dating a lot of Daniel by such a scheme, I'm going to have to look harder at Spin's take on the Josiah narrative once I have some time (I'm not ruling it out, though).

Dating the Language. There is another thread dealing with this, especially regarding Friedman's claim he can date P on the basis of the "pre-exilic" language. Of course languages develop over time, but multiple forms of a language can exist side by side. Again, an awful lot of what is claimed about the development of Hebrew is based on chronologies of biblical material identified by other means. If those other means fail the critical test, then so too does alot of support for an absolute chronology of Hebrew literary forms.

In general, its all a rather tenuous business. There are some very fundamental issues involved, such as the validity of the chronological scheme of "pre-exilic / exilic / post-exilic periods". Since the "exile" itself is a construct of later tradition, adapting the memory of one set of actual deportations to national / ethnic mythology (the myth of the "empty land"), it may not be all that useful in producing even generalities of what 7th or early 6th c. Judean texts would be like, in distinction to late 5th century ones.

For instance, should one find "post-exilic" additions only in the "lavender and roses" section of Amos (9:11-15)? I think it fully possible that a writer in the late 5th or 4-3rd century, for that matter, could have produced pessimistic oracles of doom for perceived injustice and apostacy in the name of the ancient prophet. IF one begins with the "Historical Amos" there is need for the "late redactor" only occassionally. If one begins the process of thinking who could have produced what by looking at the time of the actual manuscripts we have and really takes the lack of an "historical Amos" to explain the existence of the bulk (if not entirety) of the book of Amos.

Anyway, some blurry general thoughts on a Monday morning to get the ball rolling.

JRL