Protocol for this forum:Different views, "hard hearted"?
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.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.
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?
Statistics: Posted by neilgodfrey — Tue Feb 27, 2024 1:59 pm