historiography

peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Thu Dec 30 01:27:46 EST 1999


See my comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: historiography
Author:  <jwest at highland.net> at Internet
Date:    29/12/1999 15:27


At 01:21 PM 12/29/99 -0600, you wrote: 
>Niels,
>
>I will preface my remarks with the fact that I am merely a student and not 
a scholar
>in the sense of the word for which it seems to be used on the list. I am 
also new to
>the list so I haven't made many comments trying to make sure I understood 
the nature
>of the discussion.  I will also note that last night while I was looking 
through my
>collection of "Bible Archeology Review"  I came across your name in one of 
the letters
>to the editor.  I certainly was impressed.

Niels Peter's credentials are not limited to a letter to the editor.  Take a 
look at Amazon.com and any of the many bibliographic search engines on the 
web to get a taste of his accomplishments.

PK: If an author's credentials are judged by his appearances at 
Amazon.com etc, I guess that NPL would be left well behind by Billy 
Graham and be nowhere near Tom Clancy!

>
>Let me also say I saw the use of the term "minamalist" (I believe that is 
correct)
>associated with your name. Could you explain to me what that term means?

It is a false and misleading derogatory epigram placed on various folk like 
Tom Thompson, NP Lemche, and Davies by those who are more fundamentalist in 
their theology.

PK: "Fundamentalist" is a false and misleading derogatory epigram 
placed on various folk by those who are more liberal in their 
theology.

<snip>

>
>Extrapulating the current conclusions that you and Ian seem to be making, 
wouldn't
>that mean that from the perspective of the 1930's the text couldn't be much 
older than
>the Massoritic text (or whichever text was the oldest at that time).?  Is my 
>represtentation of your position correct?

Not at all.  There are dozens of mss which predate the MT Codex L.

PK: This is deliberate obfuscation. No-one mentioned Codex L. The 
mention of the Masoretic Text was a collective reference to a 
collection of MSS from a particular period. Some are a little older 
than Codex L. What is the date of the earliest datable MS of a 
significant portion of the Hebrew Bible which would be considered as a 
representative of the MT. Anything before the 10th century CE? I 
thought not. So the point remains that the earliest texts available in 
the 1930s were around 1000 years newer than the DSS. Do you disagree?

<snip>

Peter Kirk




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list