[b-hebrew] Synchronic or diachronic?

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Feb 3 18:45:53 EST 2009


Lloyd:

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:04 PM, LM Barre <l_barre at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Members of b-hebrew seemed to be convince the diachronic studies of the
> Hebrew Bible are impossible.  This is just biased and ignorant.  For
> example, we can approximately date Psalm 29 by the Ugaritic feature of the
> enclitic mem in v1 as I mentioned.
>

With ANE history so %$#@!d up, depending on which historian you ask, was
Ugaritic 1400 BC, or as late as after 600 BC? That takes in the whole swath
from Joshua's invasion, to the Babylonian Exile. So what is the approximate
date?

Then there's the question of how much cross fertilization was there between
languages? Even cognate languages?


>
> I have no problem with synchronic interpretations as such.  But to insist
> that it is the only one possible flies in the face of biblical references
> books for one.  Even Wikipedia is diachronic.
>

On this list, Wikipedia is a joke as far as accuracy is concerned.

As far as synchronic or diachronic interpretations are concerned, you can
believe which ever you want. But you can't preach either one without hard
evidence to back it up. Interpretations are not evidence.


>
> Lloyd Barré
> http://freewebs.com/lmbarre
>
>
Karl W. Randolph.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list