Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ken Litwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> 
> Ken might do well to note the combination of archaeological and epigraphic
> remains, not simply the archaeological. Perhaps the historical sources as
> well when used in conjunction with the above can provide some aid. Where
> there aren't these elements, I can see no way of doing history. Is there
> any reason for treating texts like the OT/HB differently from those such as
> the Rig Veda or the Epic of Gilgamesh without using archaeological and
> epigraphic materials?
  Ian, I don't think you precisely saw my pont.  DId Hannibal cross he
Alps?  How do you know?  There's no archaeological or epigraphic
evidence for this nor just about any Graeco-Roman history.   Did teh
Civil War inthe US happen?  How do we know?  It's certainly not from
archaeological or epigraphic data as such.  It's from written records. 
It's not just the Scriptures of Israle that have a problem if we require
archaeoogical and epigrapic data.  It's just about everything any of us
would call history.  One hundred yeas from now, about the only proof
most of us existed will be solely "writen records", not meaningful
archaeological data.  I'm in favor of treating all written docuemnts
with the EXACT SAME standards, not appying one set to biblical texts,
another to Babylonian texs and another to Roman sources and another to
eighteenth century sources.



Ken Litwak