The Theological Ruminator
OK, I grant that you're doing this from memory, but I'm winging it so we're even. I have some questions and comments:
1. What does it do to your theory if the Exodus is dated to the 13th century? Why is the Pentateuch dated to the early 15th century? If it's due to the dates in the Former Prophets, I'm not convinced such numbers are intended literally. If you say because of this phenomenon of language, see 4A.
2. A major point you need to supply is how extensive the phenomonen is in the Pentateuch. Is it everywhere? Is it only occasional? What does it mean if it only appears in, say, J, which is said to hold the oldest tradition? I'm ignoring the similar text-critical questions that come to mind here.
3. NOBODY disputes that parts of the Pentateuch are quite early. Those that see the Pentateuch as religious fiction will take some stuff back to proto-Israelites living in Edom even as far back as the 15th-16th century and perhaps earlier. That's why #2 is importa
Rats. I lost the best point. I'm too tired to go back and do it again.
That character limit is annoying huh? For a few bucks you can upgrade my account so you don't have the trouble again! 
Otherwise try cutting and pasting from Word.
I agree with what you say in point two. As I was writing my "rumination" I realized that this was critical to the theory. Certainly the extensiveness of the phenomenon is critical for this point. A scattered usage might even be a stronger point for JEDP theorists - depending on where they are used.
On Exodus dating, I have no comment. I haven't studied that at all. Sorry.
Good points, though.
Okay. I just tried my first Hebrew search on Bible works and discovered the answer to Roy's point two. I think I did the search right, but then again, I'm only in my sixth week of hebrew.
The irregular personal pronoun for "she" that occurs only in the Pentateuch occurs 129 times.
The regular form for "she" which occurs throughout the Bible occurs only 8 times. It is found in Gen 14:2,26:7, Ex 1:16, Lev 5:11, 11:39, 13:6, 16:31, 21:9.
Well, not sure what that demonstrates but there it is.
OK, now that I'm awake, my next point dealt with dealt with languages and geography and their changes and the firm date of 1380 and the convenient dating of the Pentatuech to a mere 20 years earlier. I concluded by stating that to firm this up for me I need two things: A) the phenomenon was extensive in the Pentateuch. You've shown it is (did your search have no hits elsewhere or did you only search the Pentateuch?). B)This change was firmly established--no exceptions--in the Levant,not simply Mesopotamia, by the mid 14th century. Even granting B, I'm plenty skeptical of what it might mean for dating, based upon several things that got truncated last night. I'll bet your prof doesn't date any other OT book before the Monarchy (if he does there is no way he can be firm in it). That's a lot of years for which we have very, very, very scant evidence about how Hebrew was functioning. FWIW, I have the same thought about JEDP that I have about the Jesus Seminar--interesting and cre
FWIW, I have the same thought about JEDP that I have about the Jesus Seminar--interesting and creative but absolutely lacking any more certainty than taking the Pentateuch as coming from one source and acknowledging some later streamlining of the tradition. So, primarly, what I'm reacting to is a detail here: the dating. Depending on how late this phenomenon still appears impacts what it might mean. In other words, it may indeed be a problem for the 4 source theory but still add nothing to the case for Mosaic authorship. Quibble? Perhaps. I did a quick search on ATLA and I think I saw a few articles that may touch on it but for some reason I can't access the online articles at home today. I would be very interested to see how DH theorists explain this.
What all this has to do with the Man from the Sea in 4 Ezra is killing me!
Man from the Sea? And no, the alternate form of "she" occurs only in the Gen-Deut. Thats according to my prof. and my search.
And I agree it doesn't "prove" Mosaic authorship. Clearly, language develops over time and saying "aha" the date change is RIGHT here is virtually impossible to ascertain. BUT I do think this demonstrates a problem in the JEDP theory. Not only is it pretty much conjecture anyway, it also has the problem of the language of the P. at least in this part appearing quite old. Certainly, no matter how you dated things elsewhere, this argues for primacy for the P. and for an early dating of it. Definitely earlier than an "Ezra" scribe redacting it.
Man from the Sea=Messianic Warrior in 4 Ezra.
As to your comments, yes, I agree completely, except I don't think that this shows that the Pentateuch NECESSARILY must be old (pre-monarchic), just not strictly Deuternomic. There could be a lot of other reasons for the phenomenon. But it appears to be the best explanation to me. I find it interesting how much of 19th century German scholarship has come crashing down in the last 20 years despite some desperately clinging to it.
Right. I'm not saying that this for sure debunks JEDP and for sure demonstrates an old date for the P. I'm just saying, like you, it is ammunition in that direction.
I guess a remaining question for me would be why you have the 8 regular occurrances of "she" in the P. Why the sporadic change to the later form?
To be honest, I don't even think something like that is worth pursuing. Somewhere in the tradition somebody changed it. Or maybe they represent 8 instances of other tradition(s) being inserted. How could we possibly know? I don't think 8 instances equals "you can't say it's from one source!" Though maybe you can propose the JEDP(s)he theory!
Come on now - something not worth pursuing?
I don't have a smiley face :-(
I feel so '90's
Actually if you type the characters for a smiley face, then it will "create" the smiley face for you.
How come it didn't create the frowny face?
OK, I'll bite:
Commenting by HaloScan
