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: 
>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 
>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 


>Extrapulating the current conclusions that you and Ian seem to be making, 
>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?


Peter Kirk

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list