...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[Peter Kirby]

Different views, "hard hearted"?

Protocol for this forum:

When it is possible, try to give others the benefit of the doubt here that they are attempting to uphold the expectations of the forum, just as you try your best to adhere to the same standards.

Please do try to understand that I never suggested that anyone holding a different view was "hard hearted". Please try to understand that I was addressing people who, like myself often enough over the years, have had a very hard time even countenancing the possibility of a certain new idea - especially one that goes against the grain of all our culture has bred into us. It was not an insult. I understand totally how hard it is to even begin to crack open the possibility of a major rethink of something that has had a very long and rich heritage in scholarship.

Academic discussion should focus on the arguments and I raised an argument in that comment that I would really like you to address.

I would love to engage in a serious discussion about the arguments presented. That would be in the area of "norms of academic discussion". I would love to engage in dialogue with different points of view because then I am forced to think more deeply and widely about my own position, and I enjoy the learning that comes with that. "Criticism must focus on the arguments of others", is one of this forum's protocols. Could you kindly do that, please? I have raised a number of questions that I find important enough to raise considerations about a Hellenistic date --

Do you have an argument to justify why the thesis of such a late date should not be taken seriously? I have seen arguments for taking a Josiah date for Deuteronomy seriously, and for a Babylonian captivity date of key developments to be taken seriously. I have also outlined arguments why those early dates should also be seriously questioned.

In response I understand that you have listed certain artefacts or items without providing accompanying argument to apparently suggest that a late date should not even be given serious consideration. I have asked a couple of times if you could explain how silver amulets and the Deir 'Alla inscription testify to the creation a pre-Hellenistic text and void any serious consideration of a Hellenistic date for the Pentateuch. Given the absence of any explanation for how those items necessitate an early date, I think my argument about the circularity -- and hence the non-validity -- of the proposition that they support an early date for the Pentateuch/Primary History stands.

As for the Elephantine papyri, it appears that the only argument that can be related to those for a Persian era existence of the Pentateuch is speculation about what persons might have thought or known about.

So are you able to address why the grounds I have set out here in this thread should not open up a serious consideration of the possibility of a Hellenistic date?

Prolegomena: I don't have a thesis on the dating of the books of the Old Testament that I intend to defend.

Given the plea for a discussion... some thoughts:

(1) The thread has been about the Pentateuch. References have been made to "all" the OT books or texts, but generally that remains an unexplained reference, other than the mere statements that draw all the books together.

(2) Much has been made of the idea, as if it should no longer be disputed, that a variety of arguments are "circular" and therefore invalid. I consider that these arguments may be invalid. I am not convinced that an accurate and genuine understanding has been presented of when circularity is necessarily implied. I am instead thinking that your presentation would be strengthened if you never used the word "circularity" at all. This would force you to think about the potentially non-circular structure of the argument, presenting it in a form that is potentially invalid but for different reasons. Then you would be able to identify why this strong-manned argument is still invalid. This is mentioned in the spirit of your point about potential weaknesses, and I will leave it there.

(3) What does it mean that some thesis "should be taken seriously"? I can imagine quite different interpretations (the first being one that I think is not intended, but which sheds light on the second):

(a) The nature of the historical evidence of a matter of shared understanding, but the ethics of using certain rhetoric is at stake. This would focus the question on: should there be boundaries of "serious" discussion that are beyond the pale? If so, where is that boundary set? The starting point of that kind of discussion would be that the thesis in question is already considered to be inferior on the evidence. Without a shared starting point that it is not genuinely the better hypothesis, there's no point holding it up as a case study in where those lines are drawn.

(b) The ethics of using certain rhetoric and the way that such boundaries is set is a matter of shared understanding. The premise of the discussion is that such boundary setting is profitable or at least normative. Based on that premise, the question is just: does this cross the line? And against the conclusion that it does not meet the criteria of inquisitorial censure, it is maintained that it musters some minimum level of plausibility that avoids falling outside the fold.

That is essentially an illiberal premise, in the sense that it is opposed to the kind of advocacy of unfettered inquiry and intellectual tolerance that is the hallmark of, say, a Bertrand Russell. It presupposes a shared sense of appropriate intolerance, leaving the only unresolved question that of measuring out just how bad the thesis is (or maybe even good? but any real goodness is not necessary) to avoid the fate of being properly taken unseriously.

(c) I don't necessarily think this is the point either. Perhaps the matter of "should be taken seriously" has entered the OP - becoming the OP's thesis itself - without wishing it should be a point of discussion at all. Perhaps it is due to a perception that the thesis is not "taken seriously" and a sense that it should be, not least because of a general belief that ideas sincerely tended should be taken seriously.

All of this is to say that a framing of "should be taken seriously" takes us well and away from just the question of what the state of the question is. It muddles that discussion, maybe in ways that are not intended.

Perhaps it is just intended to be (d), a discussion of the thesis and its evidence (or, as it has also been framed, the nature of the evidence against the thesis).

(4) Leaving behind the questions of the last point, let it be presupposed out of liberality (if nothing else) that the thesis should be taken seriously. I have no problem with this.

We may still struggle to develop a shared language to describe the nature of the evidence and the relative validity of hypotheses on the basis of them. This will often be a difficulty (in general) unless the thesis is being advanced as more likely than not. There is no great confusion about that kind of claim, which allows evidence to be brought forward in a straightforward way as either supporting it as true or not.

The OP does not attempt to advance that point (of being actually likely), so it leaves as an important point trying to define what is the nature of the situation being claimed.

Hopefully this is taken in the spirit is offered, of providing a little of a discussion as it was earnestly requested.

[neilgodfrey]

.,,

[neilgodfrey]

...

[Peter Kirby]

To comment on this example would be appropriate (and require some literature searching), but some bigger questions have been raised anway, to which I turn now.

The structure of the argument for old dating of the biblical literature is as follows:

1. there is the assumption that a historical narrative (say, Josiah's) is grounded in historical events

2. on the basis of that assumption, the text's narrative is then analysed to see if it might contain some elements that reflect a historical core

3. the logic of the narrative indicates that the Deuteronomy was found by Josiah, which appears to be an explanation to justify the Mosaic authorship what would be in fact a recent composition.

4. the assumption of historicity behind the narrative has led directly to the argument that Deuteronomy was composed around the time of Josiah. Our argument for the date of Deuteronomy rests on our belief in the core historicity of the narrative. Why else would it have been written?

Is there a "potentially noncircular structure" of such an argument or have I misrepresented the argument? Is not the source made to confirm itself? How can the historicity argument be falsified?

What have I missed? I see that type of argument throughout the literature.

Continuing with an example according to which you see:

assumptions pertaining to the historical value of the biblical narrative subtly subvert the whole process

Saying instead that we should consider the narratives about King Josiah equivalently to narratives of the Trojan war:

Do classicists or archaeologists in other fields have this same conundrum? Yes, but from my own reading the approach is quite different to the secondary or literary sources. Homer, for example, is set aside as literature and nothing or very little more, while a picture of the Homeric age, not the Trojan war narrative, is built up from archaeological data and literary references that can be independently determined to go back to "the Homeric age".

Offering this alternative stance:

Why not simply set it aside as a narrative, a story, full stop?

And positing that:

But other historians rarely nowadays try to save some narrative core in a good ancient story in the same way biblical scholars seem often to try to salvage biblical narratives.

Offered from the perspective that the narratives about King Josiah are in the category of "a good ancient story," a category that implies that they should be approached in the same way as Homer (i.e. set aside as a narrative, a story, full stop). The perspective being assumed here can be considered further, and it is indeed worth taking seriously.

It is said that a contradicting assumption "pertaining to the historical value of the biblical narrative" in a positive, favorable way is based on a cultural bias:

Yes, Josiah might have undertaken the reforms attributed to him. Uehlinger gives other kinds of evidence to support this, but they all come back to the same starting point: the presumption to accept that the biblical story has some historical validity. That is a cultural bias, I suggest.

Which is obvious enough, to the extent that it is true, given that nobody can dispute that a cultural bias in favor of viewing the text that way is operative in many people who write about these topics. And if we are going to talk about cultural bias in general here (and I'm not talking about you - and I've been assuming that you're not talking about me), is that all we can say about cultural bias? That it is operating in one direction in the case of the biblical narratives, that it is operating in favor of viewing the biblical narratives as being historical? No, it isn't. And I'm not simply referring to the bit where some people are coming at it from the opposite direction, having some impetus to say that it is not historical, although that is obviously also true about some.

The question being answered by all these various assumptions is this: what kind of text is this? To what shall I compare it? This is a question. And, yes, due to cultural bias, general familiarity with the text and often some kind of importance assigned to the subject, everyone asking this question tends to have an answer that they think they already know: it is this kind of text. If someone has somehow completely overcome all cultural bias here, they are a rare specimen of a human being. And that's enough of that talk about cultural bias from me here.

To the question: what kind of text is this?

The answer is suggested: to know what kind of text it is, you must only (emphasis intended) look outside the text, specifically:

The only way to break "that word that should not be mentioned" is to appeal to independent evidence that supports the narrative itself, not just some of the background scenery to the narrative.

And so the idea of "circularity" becomes a defense for the proposal of the "only way" to answer the questions of what kind of text this is -- "to appeal to independent evidence" regarding matters of historicity -- which allows us to make progress on all the other questions. The idea that this is the "only way" to answer the questions about what kind of text is here produces the necessity of taking up the perspective offered: that is, the category of "a good ancient story" that should be "simply set it aside as a narrative, a story, full stop" without "independent evidence." A few things happen along the way here:

(1) There is a certain quietude and finality of a verdict. After reviewing "independent evidence," we're done. That's it. Maybe something new turns up, rarely, but a person can say they've probably reviewed all that is currently out there.

(2) There is a certain claim of objectivity. This procedure leading to a verdict - "independent evidence" or lack thereof - can be argued to have been performed correctly according to "the same principles other historians are familiar with," leading to a conclusion that is sometimes not accepted due to a "cultural bias."

(3) There are fewer avenues through which the verdict could be rendered differently. The limits of discussion are set as being those that involve "independent evidence." Anything else is taken off the table.

(4) A simple response is available for anything else that is offered that isn't "independent evidence." The response is that this necessarily entails "circularity."

(5) The question of whether there is anything to "salvage" in "historical value" is answered: no, there isn't. This provides a limited purpose answer to the question of what kind of text it is: it isn't the kind of text from which historical value can be salvaged.

(6) This limited purpose answer can be derived without needing to solve the full question of what kind of text it is and without needing to bring in any detailed consideration of the text otherwise.

I would offer that the approach is completely genuine, sincerely motivated by a search for truth, honestly derived from a deep awareness of the relevant literature, and (it should be obvious) involving the above six points as a considered conclusion. Indeed, I sympathize with its project and understand how it developed in a way that is considered truth-preserving from a few points considered to be plain.

I need to step away from my computer. I can't offer further comment on the approach taken right now.

[AdamKvanta]

If I start a new thread to discuss this topic would you like to set out the arguments there?

Ok, I'll try.

[StephenGoranson]

Above, Mon Feb 26, 2024 7:09 am, I wrote, in part:

"That other books, such as the Iliad, the four Vedas, some Zoroastrian texts, and others, surely date before the earliest extant copies is widely-accepted fact. The long, diachronic history of the Hebrew language is also relevant here. The profile of extant texts can change radically, as the Qumran mss discoveries demonstrated by pushing back Torah scroll attestation by more than a thousand years; one might do well not to forget such. Yet the potential relevance of these examples is sometimes ignored, again via special pleading."

NG replied to that first sentence, Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:55 pm:
"That goes without saying and does not affect the debate."
Given the acceptance of that observation, I suggest that it is relevant and does "affect the debate."
In other words, it is a widely-recognized model of known traditions. As an option, surely it is a better model than supposing that the Torah-community (or communities) had no form of written Torah, at all, for multiple centuries.

As to the second sentence--"long, diachronic history of the Hebrew language," including paleo-Hebrew--,
it is not sufficient to dismiss that. Not by saying one knows too little enough Hebrew. Not by saying, well, maybe such language change--ALL?--can be explained by archaizing. Not by imagining that a putative Hellenistic committee de novo archaized--selectively. Not by forgetting that to archaize writing one must needs, to imitate, have available prior archaic writing.

[Peter Kirby]

Quoting this:

In this post I will explain "my personal reason" for strongly suspecting a Hellenistic origin of the biblical literature -- though I am sure I have come across the same ideas throughout different books and articles over the years. It follows on from #5 in the preceding post. When I wrote that I was expecting to follow up with detailed discussions from interpretations of the archaeological finds but have decided now to put that off for later.

My "personal vibe" that is in sync with the Hellenistic era is reflection on "the nature of the biblical literature itself". The Primary History is not the kind of literature that arises sui generis from a vacuum. One expects to see antecedents over time that lead to that kind of work. And the closest antecedents we find are in the Greek literature, not in that of the Syria-Mesopotamian regions. Assyrian vassal treaties, the epics of Gilgamesh, of Baal, and so forth, simply fall short by comparison.

But what kind of society produces that kind of literature?

This Hellenistic era hypothesis can be grounded in the interests of pure historical research.

A recent post, which I read after my previous post was written, writes of different possible groundings:

In short, I understand very well the notion that "the idea of x seems so contrary to all I have heard and learned and studied and been persuaded to believe over all my adult life". I understand that thought totally. But what if....?

The OP also explored this theme:

Biblical scholars, it is no secret to anyone, not even to themselves on the whole, do have interests that go beyond pure historical research.

Unfortunately, our cultural heritage has taught us too well that certain narratives about the past are "facts" (or at least based on facts) so that we find it very difficult to remove these from our minds when trying to see clearly the material evidence before our eyes.

Change is very often a generational thing. It happens as the new ideas are embraced by the new students who are less emotionally and intellectually committed to the old ideas.

Similar themes have been mentioned again:

The biblical works have traditionally been understood as the product of an evolution over centuries, usually said to be from the ninth or eighth to the third centuries, under the influence of Mesopotamian, Hittite, Syrian, Ugaritic, Egyptian cultures.

Again:

We have become so habituated to conceptualizing the OT as having "all the signs of a long process of development and a combination of different sources". The Hellenistic hypothesis does not dispute the "combination of different sources" but, as you know, proposes a different explanation for the data that has long been assumed to have had a gradual accretion over centuries.

Again:

One can understand being overwhelmed with incredulity at the suggestion of such a late provenance of the OT, but if we consider the extant evidence (and absence of it), even if we don't like the idea, can we not say that "logically" it is plausible, even a "technically reasonable" hypothesis on the basis of the extant evidence alone -- but not if we give more weight to traditions of scholarship that have given us an entirely different concept of the Bible?

Again:

who cannot possibly conceive of any serious possibility that the Pentateuch and other biblical books through to 2 Kings in particular might have been composed in the Hellenistic era

Again:

Please try to understand that I was addressing people who, like myself often enough over the years, have had a very hard time even countenancing the possibility of a certain new idea - especially one that goes against the grain of all our culture has bred into us. It was not an insult. I understand totally how hard it is to even begin to crack open the possibility of a major rethink of something that has had a very long and rich heritage in scholarship.

And in the most recent post, already quoted.

Since this theme is already on the table of discussion, it would not be inappropriate to explore just a little more. As it has already been said, it cannot be disputed that "scholars ... have interests that go beyond pure historical research." It is not wrong to say that prior experience and commitments can make it feel more difficult to give credit to certain arguments. One aspect of this has already been discussed and remarked upon in the quotes above.

For my part, I will make it clear that these comments are written in general. It's of no interest here to debate personalities or speculate regarding someone's intentions. There can always be individuals who are not subject to any given influences. That doesn't mean that these influences are not there in the culture.

One influence that is present in our culture is an emphasis on argument and debate about religious tradition. The internet especially has facilitated the growth of this debate among participants who otherwise might not have anyone similarly engaged to interact with. The fault lines of these arguments and debates most frequently fall along the lines of identity differences among the participants in these debates. Consider, for example, debates between Protestants and Catholics. A key difference in identity between them is the way that the authority of tradition is treated, particularly the authority of the bishop of Rome.

Another influence that is present in our culture is an emphasis on some presumed canons of objective scientific research being accorded the highest respect in this kind of argument and debate. Quite often, the differences of identity are not disputed directly in terms of the doctrines being held by each party. More direct debate over the doctrines themselves has a medieval, scholastic flavor that doesn't as easily commend itself to those participating. Would it not be preferable for the participants if the debate could instead be referred back to discussions of facts, presumably those that can be settled by shared reference to a respected secular program of study? This requires reframing the discussion in terms of some point of fact.

The search for this point of fact to be debated is itself a creative act that involves reference to the commitments of the respective identities. Once found, however, that creative process and reference to those motivating concerns can be hidden from view for the purpose of the discussion. This allows the debate regarding competing identities to be fully sublimated into a debate regarding presumed facts, which can simultaneously refuse to acknowledge any motivation for the discussion in one's identity and also contend to show the invalidity of someone else's commitments in terms of their identity, solely on the basis of the alleged nature of the facts. This achieves much more than simply referring the debate to shared concerns over proper research on a secular basis. It allows someone to maintain a frame that their own motivations have nothing to do with their own commitments and identity. It allows a kind of privileged view from nowhere, protecting one's own identity as beyond discussion while striving to undermine the validity of other identities by proxy. That proxy is the point of fact or the point of doubt that is made the subject of discussion.

In the case of discussion between Protestants and Catholics, one point of doubt that has been made the subject of discussion is the idea that Peter went to Rome. Casting doubt on that accomplishes all the goals just mentioned. In the case of discussion between non-theists and Christians, currently a very common flashpoint is doubt regarding the historicity of Jesus, which also has all the same functions. None of these are self-evident choices for what to make a flashpoint of discussion, and indeed that is one of the benefits of conducting discussion on these points, that deflection can always be made that the the interests involved are those of pure historical research.

In these discussions, argument for the legitimacy of doubt and argument for the opposite conclusion serve the same function. In either case, a point can be scored against the traditions of others that their tradition is in some way discounted by the canons of research. Often, argument for the legitimacy of doubt is taken as of first importance. This stance is almost certainly the most efficient in the interactive format of online discussion, given the way that it allows the point to be considered accomplished through either the argued failure or lack of effort on the part of others in the conversation. This is indeed the shape of many discussions with reference to defending non-theistic identities. Its importance can be illustrated by the way that atheism has been firmly defined as "a lack of belief," supporting a more passive tactic of defense.

Until recently, I was not aware that there were recognized flashpoints of discussion, framed in terms of a dispute over supposed facts or legitimate doubts about history, regarding the legitimacy of the Jewish tradition. I was under the impression that those flashpoints, if they existed, had more to do with, say, Moses or Abraham. I underestimated the potential of the needs for such flashpoints to be produced, the usefulness of their function in the discussion as outlined above, to create new ones when old ones have gone stale.

That has indeed been the shape of the development on the forum. The discussion of Jewish texts and history, lacking any clear points over which the validity of identities could be negotiated through a sublimated discussion that refers to points of fact and legitimate doubt, had languished on this forum. For life to be breathed into the discussion, along the lines outlined above, a similar flashpoint was required. One has developed.

Here we find that a point of legitimate doubt or differing view is contrasted with what is described as ideology:

Don't we have all that Old Hebrew, all those antique texts, all that accumulation of different writings and redactions (and marginal notes) over centuries if not even millennia that have been collated at various points to give us our Holy Writ? The entire Judeo-Christian tradition of the West hangs on that "fact", does it not?

That is, the various sources were melded into one at one time, not over centuries. (Of course, such an idea will mean we have to discard other accretions, such as an ideological longue durée.)

In a way that is all-encompassing:

As for the scope of 'ALL' in the OP, -- yes, I meant "ALL of the OT literature": Latter Prophets, Writings, as well as the Pentateuch and "Former Prophets", or "Primary History".

In a way that can serve the same functions as similar discussions outlined above, a contest of identities that is presented in terms of staying close to the procedures of historical research. This kind of framing would also naturally lead to regarding the discussion as involving competing camps, one on the side of opening up traditional assumptions, the other on the side of keeping a lid shut on them and apologetically defending the received tradition. At the same time, while those who are cast on the other side of the proposition are associated with their presumed identities and presumed concerns that involve defending those prior commitments in the face of disconcerting ideas that would undercut everything with which they are familiar, the presentation can seek to find a ground that has nothing intentionally to do with a discussion over competing identities. Similar to the other cases above, one of the great virtues of this kind of stance is that it allows an implied critique of commitments others make to be undertaken in a way that removes the question of one's own commitments from view, allowing it to be presented as though it were between a perspective of taking no commitments and resistance to abandoning one's commitments.

A project of this kind is capable of rhetorically taking anyone who might claim to be disinterested off the sidelines. If someone is not convinced of the efforts of the project to establish its points, points which are framed in terms of a presumed nature of historical fact and the legitimacy of doubts regarding the same, someone might be tempted to place themselves in the discussion to attempt to state their point of view regarding the claims being made in terms of its merits as historical research. Because of the nature of such a project, since polarization is not accidental but essential to a project like this, these responses are drawn into the framing of being apologetical and in defense of a tradition. This serves the overall framing that the project is introduced simply in regards to the historical evidence and its interpretation, which is an essential part of the value of the project. Framing the project through a symmetry of identities in competition would undermine the attempt to use neutral canons of evidence to discredit what is perceived to be core to the identities of others. An essential part of the rhetorical effectiveness of a project like this is redirecting the concerns behind the questions asked towards neutral ground.