andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 3:54 am I am unable to regard this as prima-facie plausible.
I was reminded of the opening paragraph in the introduction to a 1904 study making a case for the Hellenistic origin of ideas and conflicts found in the OT:
I am well aware that many will not even get past the title of this book [= Greek Philosophy in the Old Testament], which is likely to provoke their strongest objection. Therefore, I would like to ask the reader to suppress all doubt as long as the train of thought and the chain of evidence, as they unfold from beginning to end, are not clear to them. Generally, this is easier said than done. Because the preconceived judgment that we bring to the reading of the holy scriptures and the ancient interpretations dealing with them greatly complicates objective consideration. The sacred awe for the divine spirit that speaks from the Old and New Testament writings, which we do not like to think of as the result of a natural, long cultural development, forbids us to consider foreign, and moreover profane, influences. — I myself had to overcome this perennial awe. I know too well how much I recoiled at the thought that the hagiographers were largely created in the Greek era and under the influence of the Greek spirit when it first occurred to me, and how anxiously I tried to dismiss it! But that was futile effort. It kept coming back, more insistently each time. Only after years of continuous reflection and research, and when I saw how many riddles it promised to solve for me, was I able to rise to greater inner freedom, to let go of the illusion of the venerable age of these biblical works created by traditional transmissions, which indeed opened up the rewarding perspective on the astonishing receptivity and adaptability of Judaism, which actually seemed to predestine it as a "guide for mortals." Thus, the gain was greater than the loss. (translation)
That paragraph appears to argue for late OT dating on the basis that the author, compared to many others, is psychologically more advanced, more healthy, more free of, in effect, brain washing.
Can a sane person think a book is older?
The above quote from Moritz Friedländer, I am currently, provisionally assuming, was posted approvingly by NG.
If so, is it fair to say that there may be a danger, for those who agree with Friedländer, in projecting upon others who think portions of the OT were written before the time of Alexander the Great a mental incapacity?
In context Moritz Friedlander is advocating a Hellenistic date for the 'Writings' Ketuvim or Hagiography. For Ecclesiastes I am sure he is right and he may be right for other Ketuvim.
It may be worth noting that in the Academic Discussion,
thread
"Why the Hellenistic era for ALL 'Old Testament' books should be taken seriously,"
NG wrote, in part, Tue Feb 27, 2024 2:47 am:
"A question for the more hard hearted sceptics 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:"
Is it "hard hearted" to be unpersuaded by an unproven assertion?
And when, or in what context, does NG shun "sceptics"?
