peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Thu Dec 30 01:45:39 EST 1999

If those who support earlier dating are obligated to offer proof, 
those who reject it are obligated to examine that proof and give a 
convicing answer to it.

I have offered proof (posting of 28 December, subject "Re: 
Autographs...: BH, Moabite and DSS language") that Exodus and most of 
the other historical books existed long before the 2nd century BCE, 
based on the similarity of their language to the that of Moabite Stone 
and their difference from that of literature known to be 2nd century 
BCE. In none of the hundred or more postings since that one has anyone 
yet attempted to refute this point.

Moshe has also offered proofs which he summarised as such: "This is my 
problem with Niels and the 2nd BCE date. Two pieces of facts would 
strongly argue against the Biblical texts being new at that time: 1. 
There is a first temple period example of the priestly blessing. It's 
use at that time showed that it was not new at that time. 2. The way 
the Biblical texts are used show that they are not considered new. If 
we were talking about any other work of liturature those two would be 
enough to date it at least 5+ centuries earlier."

If you, NPL etc. cannot refute the proofs which we have offered, all 
of your fine or not so fine arguments about historiography will prove 
to be a waste of electrons, for you will be forced to accept a 
pre-exilic dating for these historical books.

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: historiography
Author:  <jwest at Highland.Net> at Internet
Date:    29/12/1999 09:52


..Exodus, for example, may have existed before the 2nd century BCE- but 
without ms support that is a mere supposition and those claiming otherwise 
are obligated to offer proof.



Jim West, ThD
jwest at highland.net

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list