mshulman at ix.netcom.com
Wed Dec 29 15:03:48 EST 1999
At 06:25 PM 12/29/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>I still think that you do not know what you are talking about. I did never
>express anything along this line except what is based on the kinds of
>investigations you continuously ask for. Good grief, I have been in this
>business for more than 30 years and have hundreds of publications to look
>for. Go and read for yourself, or wait for Tom Thompson's and mine Changing
>Perspectives (our Opera minora) that should begin to appear from 2000.
Niels I recognize an appeal to authority when I see one. If you have not
noticed my primary acedemic training was in mathematics, and quite frankly
your arguments here are foolish in the extreme. I have a great deal of
respect for some of what you have said, but quite frankly your answers have
been lacking. I have pointed out specific questions as to why other methods
are not applied here. Ken gave a good example (probably better then I could
without spending some time at it.) We are dealing with the scientific
method of gaining knowledge which has little to do with the numbe ror years
of publications one has. I don't think anything I asked was too complex. I
didn't ask for the solution to the 4 color problem, or Fermet last theorem.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Moshe Shulman [SMTP:mshulman at ix.netcom.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 29 December, 1999 17:02
>> To: Biblical Hebrew
>> Subject: Re: historiography
>> At 04:20 AM 12/29/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Niels wrote, "...the argument there is that we have to
>> >present a decent argument if we want to antedate the content of a
>> >to the period that precedes the oldest copy of the text. The burden of
>> >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
>> >from a certain time period, the burden of proof must lie in disproving
>> >statement, or at least equal weight must be given to the actual words of
>> >text as is given to the date of extant manuscripts. Historically,
>> >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
>> >proof lay in disproving the claims of the text. This approach to me
>> >to have just as much merit as your approach.
>> David, the problem is that, as Ken pointed out, Niels is 100% wrong here.
>> Nobody in the area of ancient liturature accepts the methodology of not
>> predating a document before the earliest example. You could imagine what
>> would be the dating of Homer, Josephus and many others. It is just frankly
>> wrong. One of the basis for plausibility of an argument is based on
>> analogy. Our approach to the Biblical text should be no different then our
>> approach to any other ancient text. Those who are not using the same
>> appraoch, as Niels is, have the burden of proof as to their methodology,
>> and why an exception needs to be made for the Biblical text. If there is
>> one, I have never seen it.
>> moshe shulman mshulman at NOSPAMix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
>> CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh http://www.chassidus.net
>> Outreach Judaism http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
>> ICQ# 52009254
>> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl at teol.ku.dk
>> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: mshulman at ix.netcom.com
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
moshe shulman mshulman at NOSPAMix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh http://www.chassidus.net
Outreach Judaism http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
More information about the b-hebrew