Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Yitzhak, Respose canaanites and Language

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Joel Stucki <joel AT stucki.ws>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Yitzhak, Respose canaanites and Language
  • Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:45:24 +0100

On 01/07/2006 04:09, Joel Stucki wrote:
...
Yitzhak gave a very good post on minimalist vs maximalist that
summarizes the situation very precisely. I encourage you to read that
post. Basically anything earlier than the Davidic Monarchy is
hopelessly lost to time and lack of records. While there is nothing
that would make the biblical story impossible (although there are a
few rough spots), there is also nothing to support it. A good question
would be: what do we know about the progression of Hebrew from David's
time to the second temple period? To reconstruct earlier than this
(and you will find no shortage of theories tracing Hebrew back to
Adam) is a matter of speculation or faith.
Where Yitzhak and I differ is that he has defended the position that
scholarly methods and archaeological/linguistic data are the only
method available to know the "true" history. While I have great
respect for that position I would have to say that inspiration is also
a source for knowing the "true" history but discussion of such is way
beyond the scope of this list. However, if you are looking to know
much about such details of Abraham I am afraid that is the only place
you can turn. Best of luck to you.

Joel, while I agree with you in looking to inspiration, I disagree with you that it is only on this basis that we can know any details about Abraham. Even if we leave inspiration, faith etc out of the equation, in Genesis (let's limit this discussion to chapter 12 and following) we still have a document which purports to be the ancient history of the people of Israel, from Abraham onwards. I agree that (apart from faith) we cannot know for certain how well this document corresponds to the actual facts about the past. But nothing significant in it has been shown to be wrong e.g. by archaeology, and indeed the general picture of life in Canaan and Egypt has been confirmed. The normal scholarly approach to ancient documents of this type, where the stories are not full of supernatural elements, is to accept them as probably based heavily on truth although also embellished. For example, in the 19th century it was fashionable to reject the Iliad as myth, but then Schliemann found Troy, and archaeology has confirmed that the general picture of the Aegean at that time; so now the Iliad is understood as generally historical, although embellished in its details. (With the Acts of the Apostles there has been a similar story.) If Genesis were considered on the same basis as other such documents, chapters 1-11 would be understood as legends with little basis in truth, but chapters 12-50 would be accepted as generally true, although no doubt such matters as Abraham's and Sarah's age when Isaac was born would be rejected as exaggeration. This is not speculation but sound historical method, in a context where are unconfirmed historical records. It seems to me that scholars only reject Genesis as totally unhistorical because they are overreacting to fundamentalist claims that every last word in it is infallibly true. But there really should be a middle way in which Genesis is treated like any other ancient document.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page