Celsus

Doctor X,

My sincerest apologies for getting into this discussion at an inappropriate time... I'm working on Intro to Archaeology III at the moment and I absolutely must get it done by Thursday or else I'll suffer my own forfeit. So this discussion will have to take the back seat for now (probably Monday at the earliest). Also, you could have at least informed me about sending off my comments to Friedman. Then I could have inserted some wisecracks about J writing during her PMS.

Joel

Doctor X

Celsus:

HA! Actually, he has backed off on that--at least I have not stumbled over it in his Hidden Book of the Bible. In his latest edition of WWtB? has castigates without naming him Harold Bloom for going to far with a "hey, maybe it is possible."

Do not worry about the time--I have some reading to do as well, particularly his response to Van Seter.

Amlodhi:

I do not believe he dates J/E that early--10th Century. He gives a range based on the fact that there was a divided kingdom between 922-722 BCE. He tightens J to 848-722 BCE based on its concession that Edom will be independent of Judah--which happened during the reign of Judean king Jehoram. He states that he feels based on his research that E is within 25 years of 722 BCE. J is clearly "pro-Judah" whereas E is clearly pro-Northern kingdom. Also, and you have to take his word for it because I am Hebrew illiterate, J and E have an early form of Hebrew that is consistent with Hebrew of the period.

--J.D.

spin

Divided what?

Bet you still put your teeth beneath your pillow too -- I mean the ones that fall out, not that you take out.

Yeah, well, what are his exemplars for the Hebrew of the period, whichever period he is referring to? The Lachish letters?

This is where the stuff falls apart -- when you start crapping on about datings. Naturally E had to have been before 722 BCE according to his speculation -- that's when Samaria fell.

Couldn't this E just as easily be from the Samaria of the 3rd or 4th century BCE?


spin

Doctor X

Spin:

Do you have evidence against two monarchies?

As for the dating, your date for E would put it after P which is rather difficult.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Linguistic:

When we saparate the texts that have been identified with the various sources, we find that they reflect the Hebrew language of several distinct periods.

The development of Hebrew that we observe through these successive periods indicates that:

* The Hebrew of J and E comes from the earliest stage of biblical Hebrew.
* The Hebrew of P comes from a later stage of the language.
* The Hebrew of the Deuteronomistic texts comes from a still later stage. . . .
* P comes from an ealier stage of Hebrew than . . . the book of Ezekiel. . . .
* All of these main sources come from a stage of Hebrew know as Classical Biblical Hebrew, which is earlier than the Hebrew of the postexilic, Persian period (known as Late Biblical Hebrew).

This chronology of the language of the sources is confirmed by Hebrew texts outside the Bible. The characteristics of classical Biblical Hebrew are confirmed through comparison with inscriptions that have been discovered through archaeology, which comes from the period before the Babylonian exile (587 BCE). The characteristics of Late Biblical Hebrew are confirmed through comparison with the Hebrew of later sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

--R. E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed

He lists a crap-load of references.

--J.D.

spin

1) Israel had a presence in Gezer, Lachish and two smaller spots, Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud, right when we are supposed to have a Judah.

2) Judah doesn't appear in history until just before Hezekiah's time, when the big player of the area, Samaria, was under attack from Assyria -- while the cat's away the mouse will play.

3) Jerusalem was tiny until Hezekiah's time, nowhere near as big as Lachish.

So, where is Judah??

What makes you think that, if you know I don't trust any of the dates you're bandying around?


spin

Amlodhi

Did a quick review . . you're right. In appendix 3, pg. 378 of his "Hidden Book in the Bible", Friedman says, ". . . these source works (J & E) must derive from the period of the divided monarchy." When I read that a bell went off. Perhaps I had, over time, misconstrued that statement in my mind as, "from the division of the monarchy".

Still, based on some of the recent archaeological data, I must wonder if his dating of the J source is a bit early. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the bulk of the J source was penned in the early to mid-7th century.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Doctor X

Spin:

I do not really see how that contradicts a divided monarchy. Granted the "monarchies" are embelished in the OT texts and, frankly, the "great kingdom" ruled by David and Solomon probably had no existence. Friedman does not argue for their history.

You will have to do better with the dating of the sources.

Amlodhi:

His dates seem "early to mid-7th century."

--J.D.

DrJim

One big problem with developing a chronology of the language is that the only real "Biblical Hebrew" is in the Bible, the very thing that one is attempting to date. What extended literary texts in "biblical Hebrew" exists from the Judah's monarchic period? What were the scribal conventions governing the production of the biblical literature? Can Friedman be so sure that post-monarchic writing styles were variable enough to allow for "traditional" or "archaic" forms alongside more modern forms? Look at modern bible translations, all sorts of different styles. I have even seen translations of Egyptian texts rendered in King James English, not to mention Quran's as well. There is established practice that English religious texts may rely on antiquated forms of language. Now, perhaps an expert in English could tell an authentic 17th century text from a modern use of 17th century English. Do we have enough data to know this for the Hebrew Bible?

I don't claim to be linguist, but it seems to me that to compare developed literary and ideological texts from the Hellenistic period withletters, short inscriptions (e.g., Siloam Tunnel), and seals and what not from the monarchic period is problematic unless one addresses the differences in genre and possible corresponding scribal conventions.

Friedman would obviously think there is enough extra-biblcal data to break the logical circle of producing a chronology of Hebrew based on analysis of the biblical texts then dating biblical texts based on the chronology.

There is a paper published in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures on a minimalist program for Hebrew linguistics.
Vincent de Caën, Hebrew Linguistics and Biblical Criticism: A Minimalist Programme


The published abstract:

A quote from the paper's conclusion:

Anyway, I'm no linguist, but still I think it wise not to let Friedman have everything his own way as far as dating any example of the language.

JRL

spin

There was probably no Judah until Assyria made it possible by reducing Samaria's hold over its territories.

Archaeologically Jerusalem was a one cow town before Hezekiah.

Samaria had control of the Shephelah down to Kuntillet Ajrud, so Judah didn't exist there.

Administrative centres are usually the biggest thing in the area. Instead Jerusalem was much smaller than Lachish.

The archaeology of the situation doesn't allow the existence of Jerusalem power. The only rebuttal you have is "but the bible says..." Doh.

You'll have to think about things a bit more.


spin