historiography

David Humpal ebedyah at elite.net
Wed Dec 29 07:20:08 EST 1999


Niels wrote, "...the argument there is that we have to
present a decent argument if we want to antedate the content of a manuscript
to the period that precedes the oldest copy of the text. The burden of proof
rests on the people who think so, that the text is older than the oldest
extant manuscript...."

I don't understand how you can assign a burden of proof here for one
position over another.  It seems to me that if a manuscript purports to be
from a certain time period, the burden of proof must lie in disproving that
statement, or at least equal weight must be given to the actual words of the
text as is given to the date of extant manuscripts.  Historically, documents
we now label pseudepigraphic only became that way because the manuscripts
were proven to be not what they claimed to be.  In other words the burden of
proof lay in disproving the claims of the text.  This approach to me seems
to have just as much merit as your approach.

Rev. Dave Humpal ebedyah at elite.net
First Christian Church, Merced, California
Bible Study Site http://www.elite.net/~ebedyah/PastorsHomePage.htm





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list