I haven’t been following this discussion, nor do I intend to, since I’m rather busy wrapping up my next book for Routledge academic press. I gather my dating methods are for whatever reason a matter of controversy. The above list is a nice comprehensive survey of such techniques used in scholarship. I have found a subset of these particularly useful in my own research on the dating of the Pentateuch and other biblical texts. For those who might be interested, here’s my most recent discussion, from a peer-reviewed paper I was invited to present by the organizers of an international scholarly conference on the Septuagint translation. I will divide it into two parts due to length considerations.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:56 pm We now have this list for finding the terminus ad quem for a text:
(1) from dating its author, with both:
(1) (a) source criticism regarding authorship, using external and internal evidence
(1) (b) information regarding the author, using external and internal evidence
(2) from internal evidence
(2) (a) references in the text to contemporary people and circumstances
(2) (b) incidental use of certain words and phrases (identified individually)
(2) (c) statistical analysis of the text
(3) from external evidence
(3) (a) the first quotation or other utilization of the text by some other datable work
(3) (b) the reference to an earlier quotation that has been lost but has been dated
(3) (c) references regarding when the text was composed
(4) the dating of a manuscript of the text by:
(4) (a) stratiographic analysis (via archeology)
(4) (b) re-use of manuscript on recto or verso, when the re-use can be dated
(4) (c) use of papyri in the binding or wrapping that can be dated
(4) (d) specific references in the manuscript (e.g. in the margins) that can be dated
(4) (e) paleography (human-based)
(4) (f) paleography (computer-based)
(4) (g) ink analysis
(4) (h) radiocarbon dating
Gmirkin, Russell, “The Historical Context of the LXX and its Hebrew Vorlage” in Johann Cook and Gideon R. Kotzé (eds.), The Septuagint South of Alexandria: Essays on the Greek Translations and Other Ancient Versions by the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (LXXSA) (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 193; Leiden: Brill, 2022), 28-49 [32-36].
3. Terminus ad quem
In Greek and Roman classical studies, a text is typically dated using source critical arguments by examining its literary relationship to other firmly dated texts in order determine to their relative sequence. For instance, if text A draws on target text B, which in turn draws upon text C, then B’s date necessarily lies sandwiched between those of the younger text A and the older text C. This process works well in a period well-populated with dated texts, such as the Greek, Hellenistic and Roman eras (Gmirkin 2006: 20-21).
Applying this tried-and-true procedure taken from classical studies, the first step is to identify other texts that draw upon the Pentateuch in order to establish the latter’s terminus ad quem or latest possible date of composition. The most prominent such text is the Septuagint translation (cf. Lemche 1993; Garbini 1988: 135-36), whose date we take as 273-269 BCE (Gmirkin 2006: 81-88). Given that the LXX is a wooden or literal translation from its Hebrew Vorlage (Tov 2015: 18-30; van der Louw 2007: 119-20), it follows that an antecedent Hebrew text existed in some form by ca. 270 BCE.
A key question is whether this terminus ad quem of ca. 270 BCE can be pushed earlier by the existence of earlier firmly dated texts that draw upon the Pentateuch. No such text exists in Hebrew. The Elephantine papyri, documents written by members of a Judean-Aramean military colony in Egypt ca. 450-400 BCE, provide compelling evidence that the Pentateuch simply was not in existence at that date. Despite being in close contact with religious authorities in Jerusalem, this community knew nothing of biblical writings, written laws, or any prominent figure from biblical traditions such as Abraham, Israel, Moses or Aaron. Work was not forbidden (and on occasion enjoined) on the seventh day (TAD D7.16.1-5) and the observance of Passover as an agricultural festival lacked any connection to Moses or the Exodus (TAD A4.1; D7.6.9-10; D7.24.5). The polytheistic residents of Elephantine had their own temple of Yah(weh), contrary to Deuteronomistic law, a temple evidently sanctioned by Jerusalem’s priests (TAD A4.7.17-19). While twentieth century scholarship struggled to reconcile the document trove at Elephantine with then-prevailing models of the early date of the Pentateuch, characterizing the practices of the Elephantine community as aberrant and heterodox, a straightforward interpretation of these textual finds is that Pentateuchal writings were completely unknown as late as ca. 400 BCE (Gmirkin 2006: 28-33; Granerød 2016). The absence of personal names drawn from biblical traditions in the Samaritan texts of Wadi Daliyeh (Cross 1963; Gropp et al 2001) reinforces the absence of external contemporary evidence for Pentateuchal writings as late as ca. 325 BCE, at the dawn of the Hellenistic Era.
Turning to writings in the early Hellenistic Era, there once existed a broad consensus that a passage in Diodorus Siculus, Library 40.3.1-8, which referred to Mosaic writings, represented an excerpt from the Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus of Abdera, written for Ptolemy I Lagus in 320-315 BCE, and seemingly demonstrating the existence of the Pentateuch decades before the LXX translation. However, I was able to show that the passage in question actually derived from Theophanes of Mytilene in 62 BCE (Gmirkin 2006: 34-67; 2014: 61-83), removing that passage as an early witness to the Pentateuch. Remarkably, the first external evidence for the Pentateuch in either Hebrew or Greek is thus the LXX. This firmly establishes a terminus ad quem of ca. 270 BCE: datable external witnesses that might establish an earlier date for the creation of the Pentateuch simply do not exist.
In Greek and Roman classical studies, a text is typically dated using source critical arguments by examining its literary relationship to other firmly dated texts in order determine to their relative sequence. For instance, if text A draws on target text B, which in turn draws upon text C, then B’s date necessarily lies sandwiched between those of the younger text A and the older text C. This process works well in a period well-populated with dated texts, such as the Greek, Hellenistic and Roman eras (Gmirkin 2006: 20-21).
Applying this tried-and-true procedure taken from classical studies, the first step is to identify other texts that draw upon the Pentateuch in order to establish the latter’s terminus ad quem or latest possible date of composition. The most prominent such text is the Septuagint translation (cf. Lemche 1993; Garbini 1988: 135-36), whose date we take as 273-269 BCE (Gmirkin 2006: 81-88). Given that the LXX is a wooden or literal translation from its Hebrew Vorlage (Tov 2015: 18-30; van der Louw 2007: 119-20), it follows that an antecedent Hebrew text existed in some form by ca. 270 BCE.
A key question is whether this terminus ad quem of ca. 270 BCE can be pushed earlier by the existence of earlier firmly dated texts that draw upon the Pentateuch. No such text exists in Hebrew. The Elephantine papyri, documents written by members of a Judean-Aramean military colony in Egypt ca. 450-400 BCE, provide compelling evidence that the Pentateuch simply was not in existence at that date. Despite being in close contact with religious authorities in Jerusalem, this community knew nothing of biblical writings, written laws, or any prominent figure from biblical traditions such as Abraham, Israel, Moses or Aaron. Work was not forbidden (and on occasion enjoined) on the seventh day (TAD D7.16.1-5) and the observance of Passover as an agricultural festival lacked any connection to Moses or the Exodus (TAD A4.1; D7.6.9-10; D7.24.5). The polytheistic residents of Elephantine had their own temple of Yah(weh), contrary to Deuteronomistic law, a temple evidently sanctioned by Jerusalem’s priests (TAD A4.7.17-19). While twentieth century scholarship struggled to reconcile the document trove at Elephantine with then-prevailing models of the early date of the Pentateuch, characterizing the practices of the Elephantine community as aberrant and heterodox, a straightforward interpretation of these textual finds is that Pentateuchal writings were completely unknown as late as ca. 400 BCE (Gmirkin 2006: 28-33; Granerød 2016). The absence of personal names drawn from biblical traditions in the Samaritan texts of Wadi Daliyeh (Cross 1963; Gropp et al 2001) reinforces the absence of external contemporary evidence for Pentateuchal writings as late as ca. 325 BCE, at the dawn of the Hellenistic Era.
Turning to writings in the early Hellenistic Era, there once existed a broad consensus that a passage in Diodorus Siculus, Library 40.3.1-8, which referred to Mosaic writings, represented an excerpt from the Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus of Abdera, written for Ptolemy I Lagus in 320-315 BCE, and seemingly demonstrating the existence of the Pentateuch decades before the LXX translation. However, I was able to show that the passage in question actually derived from Theophanes of Mytilene in 62 BCE (Gmirkin 2006: 34-67; 2014: 61-83), removing that passage as an early witness to the Pentateuch. Remarkably, the first external evidence for the Pentateuch in either Hebrew or Greek is thus the LXX. This firmly establishes a terminus ad quem of ca. 270 BCE: datable external witnesses that might establish an earlier date for the creation of the Pentateuch simply do not exist.
