Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: Re[4]: historiography (Ken, again)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
  • To: "'peter_kirk AT sil.org'" <peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • Cc: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Re[4]: historiography (Ken, again)
  • Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:58:54 +0100


Well, I am not the only person to be jumbing around here. It is not that
there is much of a web for Ahab and Hezekiah, but the people who composed
those sectors of Kings got the chronology right, and that is the important
thing--of course because of the synchonisms. Finally, one part of Roman
history writing is closer to Herodotus than to Thucydides, the one by
Livy--was it originally 125 books or so? But as I maintained in my
discussion with Ken Litwak, classical historywriting is more than just one
author and one genre. There is nothing wrong about my analogy.

NPL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter_kirk AT sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2000 06:26
> To: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> Subject: Re[4]: historiography (Ken, again)
>
> Excuse me, but my comparison was David and Solomon against Herodotus
> and Thucydides. So what is the relevance of 1st century BC Rome? I am
> accepting that there is little archaeological evidence for the period
> of David and Solomon, but as you yourself wrote there is good external
> evidence for other parts of the web e.g. the reigns of Ahab and
> Hezekiah.
>
> By the way, why write of me in the 3rd person and then send to me
> only? Did you intend to send this to the list? I think the list
> deserves some sort of answer, or it might assume that you have none.
> Mind you, I think you will need a better one than just complaining
> that you have seen the argument many times before.
>
> Peter Kirk
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re[3]: historiography (Ken, again)
> Author: <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
> Date: 02/01/2000 10:11
>
>
> The situation in Rome is immensely diverse. You have texts from many
> hands,
> and you have monuments, inscriptions and all that. You can distinguish
> between primary material and secondary elaborations (like Shakespeare).
> You
> have evidence of various kinds that do fit in. As to David and Solomon,
> you
> have biblical stories that do not fit in in the 10th century. I see now
> that
> the discussion about archaeology is starting again...have to see the mail
> to
> react to it, but as far as archaeology goes, i long ago sided with
> Jamieson-Drake and the Tell Aviv archaeologists as to the 10th century,
> and
> it with great satisfaction that I realize that they are now speaking about
>
> the obvious that the was no fast chance from the LBA to the EI, it was a
> transition period that lasted for at least 300 years. Things started
> returning to its usual self in the 9th century in the North, and in Judah
> in
> the 8th century, that's how I have been interpretating the physical
> remains
> for years, and that's the way Finkelstein now sees it, and has clearly
> spoken out his opinion on this. Ergo, the scenario below by PK is totally
> out of touch with any situation that has to do with Palestine in the 10th
> century (the normal date of David & Solomon), my scenario for Rome in the
>
> 1st century BCE is not.
>
> By twisting words and creating absurd images of the past, PK seems to do
> his
> best to blur the issues, and he will probably be back in a moment saying
> that it is me. That's the technique when somebody tries to disregards
> facts
> and obscure the issues. We have in my business seen it a hundred times--a
> year--and find it absolutely boring.
>
> NPL
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: peter_kirk AT sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, 02 January, 2000 06:04
> > To: Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject: Re[2]: historiography (Ken, again)
> >
> > Ah, now you are using just the argument which I did for the Hebrew
> > Bible well before the 2nd century BCE. Let me adapt your words to that
> > situation:
> >
> > Again the web created by the authors of the Hebrew Bible makes it
> > possible to date persons like David or Solomon to a specific time. The
> > alternative would be to say that this web has been constructed by a
> > circle (quite an extensive one) of authors from a much later period.
> > That would exclude anywhere outside Judea because of lack of knowledge
> > of Hebrew in that part of the world. As to Judea, they would know
> > Hebrew in its late* Hellenistic form, but should in order to create
> > this web be able to write in standard Biblical Hebrew (DH), late
> > Biblical Hebrew (Chronicler), place the Writings in the right place
> > and do their dialects as well. The literary data from the Hebrew Bible
> > do fit together and seem also to go well with external evidence as
> > well.
> >
> > * if Byzantine Greek is "late" relative to classical, the DSS Greek is
> > "late" realtive to BH
> >
> > Now we may not have quite as much material or linguistic evidence for
> > BH as for classical Greek, but the argument is just the same. So, if
> > your argument is valid, is mine invalid, and why? Or is the different
> > simply in the quantity and/or quality of the evidence?
> >
> > Peter Kirk
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator
> > _________________________________
> > Subject: Re: historiography (Ken, again)
> > Author: <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
> > Date: 01/01/2000 17:25
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > [Niels Peter Lemche] Again the web created by several classical
>
> > authors makes it possible to date persons like Thucydides or Herodotus
> to
> > a
> > specific time. The alternative would be to say that this web has been
> > constructed by a circle (quite an extensive one) of authors from a much
> > later period. That would exclude Western Europe because of lack of
> > knowledge
> > of Greek in that part of the world. As to Byzans, they would know Greek
> in
> >
> > its late Byzantine form, but should in order to create this web be able
> to
> >
> > write in Ionian Greek (Gerodotus), clear Attic Greek (several otgher
> > authors), place Pindar in the right place and do his dialect as well.
> The
> > literary data from classical sourcs do fit together and seem also to go
> > well
> > with external evidence as well. It is probably time for Ken Litwak to
> stop
> >
> > this ridiculous discussion about classical analogies.
> > NPL
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page