Conclusive evidence and archaeology

Bill Ross wross at
Sun Sep 3 11:29:10 EDT 2000

> theres no such thing as conclusive evidence when we are talking about
> documents over 2 millenia old.

People can conclude from the evidence, if they are willing to look at it.

"Conclude" implies an end. The problem with "conclusions" is that they tend
to be replaced by new "evidence" the next year, when new information is
unearthed. Liz, I can't believe that you are defending the authority of such
flimsy "evidence" as "conclusive"!

Friedman's book, while being *very* outdated, gives an excellent
introduction to the documentary hypothesis...I heartily recommend it, even
tho I don't agree with him any more.

Last year's "conclusive evidence"?

Bill Ross

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list