Дубина Мардука писал(а):В 13 и 17 стихах место, куда Яхве должен привести свой народ, описывается такими выражениями как: "жилище святыни", "гора достояния", "святилище, которое создали руки Твои". Эта терминология, больше всего, наводит на мысль о Сионе.
С этим нельзя не согласиться. Вот что пишет В. Пропп в Йельской Серии:
To many, it is self-evident that 15:17 refers to Mount Zion. After all, Jerusalem housed Israel’s most magnificent sanctuary, Solomon’s Temple, which that king calls, in language reminiscent of Exod 15:17–18, mākôn ləšibtəkā ʿôlāmîm ‘the firm seat for your eternal sitting/throne/dwelling’ (1 Kgs 8:13). Similarly, the expression har qōdeš ‘mountain of holiness’ frequently connotes Zion (Isa 11:9; 27:13; 56:7, etc.). And Ps 74:2 describes Zion in vocabulary particularly recalling Exod 15:13, 16–17: “Remember your community which you got (qānîtā) of old, you redeemed (gāʾaltā) your property (naḥălātekā) tribe, Mount Zion on which you resided.” Likewise, Psalm 78, which exhibits many contacts with Exod 15:1b–18 (see below), includes a claim that Yahweh himself built Solomon’s Temple (v 69; compare Exod 15:17). The image of Yahweh planting the people on his mountain, moreover, finds its closest parallel in Ezek 17:22–23, where the ostensible referent is again Zion (cf. Ezek 20:40). Lastly, given the parallels between the mountain of 15:17 and Mount Zaphon, it is significant that Ps 48:3 calls Mount Zion “Zaphon.”
The nonmention of Zion in 15:1b–18 is no obstacle to this theory. Were the Song performed in Solomon’s Temple, there could have been no doubt of the location of Yahweh’s chosen abode. The chief difficulty is rather that modern linguistic studies consistently date the Song of the Sea to the premonarchic period (Cross and Freedman 1975; Robertson 1977; see APPENDIX A, vol. II). Unless the Song is a skillful forgery, Zion and its Temple cannot be the original referents. The application of certain themes from the Song to Jerusalem may simply reflect adaptation to a secondary context. Indeed, since almost all the terms used of God’s “sanctum” have Canaanite prototypes, we must posit some intermediary between Ugarit in the fourteenth century and Jerusalem in the tenth. That is, there must have been a pre-Solomonic temple or temples, whether Canaanite or Israelite, preserving the ideology of Zaphon.
http://www.biblicalwritings.com/xii-but ... ommentary/
Дубина Мардука писал(а): А в 14 стихе филистимляне упоминаются среди жителей Ханаана, хотя они поселились там не ранее середины 12 века до н. э.
Да, это явный анахронизм. Интересно, как здесь выходят из положения господа Cross, Freedman и Robertson? Я подозреваю, что они используют теорию "средневековых менестрелей", это когда музыкально-поэтическое произведение при исполнении адаптируется к текущим политическим реалиям.