peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Thu Dec 30 12:00:56 EST 1999

Dear NPL,

I am taking the unusual step of forwarding your personal comments to 
the list because I think that the list deserves to see how you react 
when someone presents to you evidence which goes against your 

Please, I don't have direct access to your thousands of pages or time 
to wade through them. If you are not willing to answer my posting 
yourself on this list, please give me the reference to any work of 
yours, or of anyone else who supports your position, which gives 
well-argued refutations of the proofs which Moshe and I have put 
forward. Or am I to conclude that these arguments were somehow ignored 
in your thousands of pages? If so, perhaps it is you who are excluding 
yourself from the scholarly discussion.

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: historiography
Author:  <npl at teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date:    29/12/1999 23:31

For the xxx time today. read the literature. This is not ex nihilo--nothing 
really is--is a conclusion drawn from almost 200 years of continuous 
historical-critical scholarship. I simply do not have the time to rewrite 
the -- according to Ian Hutchinson-- thousands of pages that I have already 

If you choose to ignore the literature--mine as well as my colleagues, 
minimalists, maximaluists or whatever name you prefer--you have chosen not 
to be part of the scholarly discussion.

And maybe it is now time to end this trend. It must be utterly boring to 


> -----Original Message-----
> From:     peter_kirk at sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk at sil.org] 
> Sent:     Thursday, 30 December, 1999 07:46
> To:     Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:     Re[2]: historiography 
> 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
> <snip>
> ..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.
> Best,
> Jim
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
> Jim West, ThD
> jwest at highland.net
> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl at teol.ku.dk 
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list