by jimwalton » Tue May 01, 2018 3:48 pm
> there isn't particularly good evidence for a united kingdom.
I agree that it's hotly debated, but recent archaeological discoveries are revealing that the dynasty of David was a reality (the Tel Dan inscription), and that Jerusalem and other localities in Israel had far greater functions as administrative centers than previously thought. New information coming to light is changing scholarly understanding of the era. I know there is only one archaeological reference to David, and none to Solomon (by name and in specific). I agree that it's passionately argued.
> Moses as tradent. "no, there is none at all."
Obviously I disagree, and I listed some of my reasons, so you can't say there is "none at all." I gave you some. You obviously disagree with what I said, but it shows that there is internal evidence to the existence of Moses and his law/writings. That can't be denied. Possibly you feel the evidence is underwhelming, and obviously you're not convinced, but you just can't credibly say "there's none at all."
> the entire exodus narrative is anti-historical.
This isn't true either. There's much in the Exodus account that is dead-on historical. What we DON'T have yet, however, as everyone knows, is concrete evidence of the exodus itself. But there are many elements about the account that are incredibly historical, things that could not reasonably be known in later eras.
> israel didn't withdraw from egypt
You can't say this with certainty. There were many and even large Semitic and Bedouin groups in Egypt in the mid-2nd millennium BC. We know from extra-biblical sources that immigrant regularly entered and settled in Egypt, and that there was a strong influx of Canaanites into the Eastern Delta from 2030-1650 BC. Some are depicted in the tomb of Khnumhotep (1850 BC). The Hyksos even ruled over the Delta from 1650-1550.
> the egyptian borders at the time israel is supposed to be escaping into canaan included canaan.
There was a strong Egyptian presence in Canaan, but it was waning at the time of the Exodus and Joshua. The Amarna letters tell us that Canaan in the 15th century was an Egyptian province, but their interest there related mostly to trade. It wasn't technically within Egypt's border. The political situation at the time favored an escape and break-through into Canaan. By then the sovereignty of Egypt was hardly felt. The Hittites in the north were on the decline. Without a strong overlord, there was intense rivalry between the various city-states and regional kings (Joshua 12 alone mentions 31 kings). It was an ideal time for an exodus from Egypt and invasion of Canaan. There's a lot of historicity in the biblical story.
> deuteronomy is a peculiar text in that it just repeats most of the law, with some additions that become suddenly relevant during the reign of josiah, towards the end of the kingdom of the judah.
This is a scholarly opinion, but not the only one, and it's far from settled. Far from just repeating most of the law, Deuteronomy takes the form of a 2nd millennium treaty. Exodus gives the law, Deuteronomy forms it into a legal contract. While it's quite repetitious with Exodus, its place is not only to make a contractual treaty (the centrality of loving and obeying the covenant God), but also to emphasize one God, one people, one sanctuary, and one law. It's has its place different from Exodus.
> why would you think that moses didn't speak hebrew?
Hebrew did not evolve as a language until the time of the united monarchy. Some artifacts archaeologists have recovered (that are in the Jerusalem Museum) show a proto-Canaanite script, the forerunner of the Hebrew alphabet, from the Middle Bronze Age (1500s BC). Hebrew evolved as a language in the era of King David. It's impossible that Moses spoke Hebrew.
> scholars pretty universally agree that deuteronomy is either a singular coherent work, or two coherent works intertwined
This understanding is changing, and it's nowhere near universal anymore. There are at least 5 popular theories:
- One author, later editors
- Multiple authors, later editors
- As Deuteronomistic history from the era of Josiah and later (650-400 BC)
- Oral tradition of old (Moses?), multiple authors and later editors
- Later editors collecting Israelite folktales
The proposed dates of its writing go all the way from Moses (1400?) to Ezra (400ish).
You just can't make all these claims that you are throughout your post. This stuff is much debated and in flux.
> Genesis 10...known how? none of this remotely aligns with archaeology.
- Japhethites. A Babylonian map from the 7th or 8th c. BC names people identifiable with this list (Magog, Tubal, Meshek, Tyras, Togermah, Dodanim, etc.) There are also several that seem, based on Assyrian and Babylonian records, to have originated in the region of the Black Sea (Gomer, Ashkenaz, Madai, et al.)
- Gomer is the Cimmerians north of the Black Sea, possibly ancestors to Germans
- Magog, linked with Gyges of the Lydian kings, also spoken of in Plutarch and Herodotus, among others.
- Madai, later known as the Medes of Iran and Persia.
- Javan, the Ionians, or Greeks. Javan refers to all Greece.
- Tubal, possibly Asia Minor (Turks) or on the Tobal River in Russia.
- Meshech, possibly also from eastern Turkey or Russia (Moscow)
- Tiras. Josephus says the ancestors of the Thracians.
- Ashkenaz - German ancestors.
- Riphath. Josephus says ancestors of Paphlagonians.
- Togarmah. Armenians. This ancestry name has given us the names of Turkey and Turkestan. The Armenians came to be called the House of Targom.
- etc. through the whole list.
> the text indicates monolatry, even if other texts are monotheistic.
You can't say this with certainty. I respect your opinion, but that's what it is, and I know it is shared by many scholars. And I agreed that the Israelites believed in a divine council, but not a council of gods.
> "el" doesn't become generic until it's applied to yahweh.
'El occurs as the name of a specific deity in Ugaritic and Phoenician culture. Both Speiser and Walton say that in ancient Aramaic (the inscription from Sujin), the two are originally generic appellatives that are combined into a compound to be the personal names of deities. But in ancient Canaan, as best as we can tell, El Elyon is a generic identification of deity. Moshe Greenberg, also, claims that 'El is common noun and not necessarily an allusion to the Canaanite god 'El. Kittel also says they are generic terms for god.
All through your post you seem to think that your perspective is the only one and that it is a settled matter—that you are relating the only position on the table. It's just not so.
> there isn't particularly good evidence for a united kingdom.
I agree that it's hotly debated, but recent archaeological discoveries are revealing that the dynasty of David was a reality (the Tel Dan inscription), and that Jerusalem and other localities in Israel had far greater functions as administrative centers than previously thought. New information coming to light is changing scholarly understanding of the era. I know there is only one archaeological reference to David, and none to Solomon (by name and in specific). I agree that it's passionately argued.
> Moses as tradent. "no, there is none at all."
Obviously I disagree, and I listed some of my reasons, so you can't say there is "none at all." I gave you some. You obviously disagree with what I said, but it shows that there is internal evidence to the existence of Moses and his law/writings. That can't be denied. Possibly you feel the evidence is underwhelming, and obviously you're not convinced, but you just can't credibly say "there's none at all."
> the entire exodus narrative is anti-historical.
This isn't true either. There's much in the Exodus account that is dead-on historical. What we DON'T have yet, however, as everyone knows, is concrete evidence of the exodus itself. But there are many elements about the account that are incredibly historical, things that could not reasonably be known in later eras.
> israel didn't withdraw from egypt
You can't say this with certainty. There were many and even large Semitic and Bedouin groups in Egypt in the mid-2nd millennium BC. We know from extra-biblical sources that immigrant regularly entered and settled in Egypt, and that there was a strong influx of Canaanites into the Eastern Delta from 2030-1650 BC. Some are depicted in the tomb of Khnumhotep (1850 BC). The Hyksos even ruled over the Delta from 1650-1550.
> the egyptian borders at the time israel is supposed to be escaping into canaan included canaan.
There was a strong Egyptian presence in Canaan, but it was waning at the time of the Exodus and Joshua. The Amarna letters tell us that Canaan in the 15th century was an Egyptian province, but their interest there related mostly to trade. It wasn't technically within Egypt's border. The political situation at the time favored an escape and break-through into Canaan. By then the sovereignty of Egypt was hardly felt. The Hittites in the north were on the decline. Without a strong overlord, there was intense rivalry between the various city-states and regional kings (Joshua 12 alone mentions 31 kings). It was an ideal time for an exodus from Egypt and invasion of Canaan. There's a lot of historicity in the biblical story.
> deuteronomy is a peculiar text in that it just repeats most of the law, with some additions that become suddenly relevant during the reign of josiah, towards the end of the kingdom of the judah.
This is a scholarly opinion, but not the only one, and it's far from settled. Far from just repeating most of the law, Deuteronomy takes the form of a 2nd millennium treaty. Exodus gives the law, Deuteronomy forms it into a legal contract. While it's quite repetitious with Exodus, its place is not only to make a contractual treaty (the centrality of loving and obeying the covenant God), but also to emphasize one God, one people, one sanctuary, and one law. It's has its place different from Exodus.
> why would you think that moses didn't speak hebrew?
Hebrew did not evolve as a language until the time of the united monarchy. Some artifacts archaeologists have recovered (that are in the Jerusalem Museum) show a proto-Canaanite script, the forerunner of the Hebrew alphabet, from the Middle Bronze Age (1500s BC). Hebrew evolved as a language in the era of King David. It's impossible that Moses spoke Hebrew.
> scholars pretty universally agree that deuteronomy is either a singular coherent work, or two coherent works intertwined
This understanding is changing, and it's nowhere near universal anymore. There are at least 5 popular theories:
- One author, later editors
- Multiple authors, later editors
- As Deuteronomistic history from the era of Josiah and later (650-400 BC)
- Oral tradition of old (Moses?), multiple authors and later editors
- Later editors collecting Israelite folktales
The proposed dates of its writing go all the way from Moses (1400?) to Ezra (400ish).
You just can't make all these claims that you are throughout your post. This stuff is much debated and in flux.
> Genesis 10...known how? none of this remotely aligns with archaeology.
- Japhethites. A Babylonian map from the 7th or 8th c. BC names people identifiable with this list (Magog, Tubal, Meshek, Tyras, Togermah, Dodanim, etc.) There are also several that seem, based on Assyrian and Babylonian records, to have originated in the region of the Black Sea (Gomer, Ashkenaz, Madai, et al.)
- Gomer is the Cimmerians north of the Black Sea, possibly ancestors to Germans
- Magog, linked with Gyges of the Lydian kings, also spoken of in Plutarch and Herodotus, among others.
- Madai, later known as the Medes of Iran and Persia.
- Javan, the Ionians, or Greeks. Javan refers to all Greece.
- Tubal, possibly Asia Minor (Turks) or on the Tobal River in Russia.
- Meshech, possibly also from eastern Turkey or Russia (Moscow)
- Tiras. Josephus says the ancestors of the Thracians.
- Ashkenaz - German ancestors.
- Riphath. Josephus says ancestors of Paphlagonians.
- Togarmah. Armenians. This ancestry name has given us the names of Turkey and Turkestan. The Armenians came to be called the House of Targom.
- etc. through the whole list.
> the text indicates monolatry, even if other texts are monotheistic.
You can't say this with certainty. I respect your opinion, but that's what it is, and I know it is shared by many scholars. And I agreed that the Israelites believed in a divine council, but not a council of gods.
> "el" doesn't become generic until it's applied to yahweh.
'El occurs as the name of a specific deity in Ugaritic and Phoenician culture. Both Speiser and Walton say that in ancient Aramaic (the inscription from Sujin), the two are originally generic appellatives that are combined into a compound to be the personal names of deities. But in ancient Canaan, as best as we can tell, El Elyon is a generic identification of deity. Moshe Greenberg, also, claims that 'El is common noun and not necessarily an allusion to the Canaanite god 'El. Kittel also says they are generic terms for god.
All through your post you seem to think that your perspective is the only one and that it is a settled matter—that you are relating the only position on the table. It's just not so.