No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Early? late? a reply to F.H. Cryer
Abstract
The article clarifies the position taken in the author's 1990 doctoral dissertation vis?'a?vis the distinction between Early and Late Biblical Hebrew. This distinction functions as a frame of reference for what is essentially an effort to detect linguistic similarities and differences between the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.
In 1966 a solution of the chronological system used in main parts of the Old Testament was presented by K. Stenring. It was built on three parallel calendars running from the Creation up to the return from the Exile. Different tests indicate strongly that the system was used in the OT. How it works is illustrated by three examples. Some consequences are taken up for consideration. One is that the documentary hypothesis in its classical form ought to be abandoned. Further, there is great likelihood that not only a chronological but a much more thorough redaction of the concerned books took place and was presented to the people as late as in the 230s B.C. Finally it is argued that the content and aim of this �canon� would be best understood as a means of protecting and unifying the people against the wave of Hellenism, at the same time as it served the interests of the leading circles and the priesthood of the time.
A bit more than a quarter of a century has passed since the publication of Thomas Thompson's landmark The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, inaugurating what has been called the Copenhagen School, typified by the works of Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche, who now both teach at the University of Copenhagen. Few works have changed the face of biblical scholarship so completely. In conjunction with John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition, Thompson's book sounded the death knell for those who insisted on the historicity of the patriarchal period, a relatively common position up to that point, especially in America. By illustrating that details of the Genesis narratives reflect first rather than second millennium institutions, contrary to the claims of Albright, Gordon, Speiser, and others, Thompson began a revolution in biblical scholarship.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.