Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ken Litwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>]

Ian, being able to date a MS and being able to state that it is a
copy, not an autograph, is a useful exercise for showing the latest
possible date a text could have been written and then, and only then,
can you work backwards to possible dates of autographs.  I would make
two points.  First, you do in fact say that you assign some texts to the
second century BC.  Why?

    It is a basic premise in historical work to be able to identify your
materials and their dates, including the likely date of he autograph.  

     Second, let me suggest that there is not the strong connection
which you seem to imply between the credibility of a text and being able
to find archaeological and epigraphic evidence for it.  This is true
for  at least three reasons.
a.  Archaeological data is at best incomplete and always little more
than some raw data with someone's interpretation imposed on it.  That
interpretation may be valid, but to speak of the archaeological data, as
though that was somehow an objective entity out there is
methodologically inappropriate.  
b. The most that one may gain from epigraphic data is that at some point
in time, someone recorded something in writing.  This tells us nothing
about the veracity of the writing at all.  Most of the evidence you tend
to cite comes from official annals, the very kind of source I consider
least reliable.  
c.  99% of what we "know" historically is based on textual accounts, not
on material evidence, whether archaeological or epigraphic.  Therefore,
the alleged lack of such physical corroboration is not particularly of
relevance in my view.  It may help illuminate a particular period, or
tell us something about a given site, and suggest possibilities, but
that is about all.  Most evens I can point to which most scholars would
say happened are based on textual accounts.  What makes Tacitus or
Polybius especially trustworthy?  It's certainly not some mountain of
archaeological and epigraphic data.  The biblical texts are not credible
or incredible based on the amount of archaeological data or epigraphic
data I can find to corroborate them . They stand alone as texts, on an
equal footing with any Assyrian text.  Here's the dating issue Ian.  YOu
would likely assign several Assyrian texts to about the time of the
events they describe.  Since we don't have a physical biblical MS from
that time, you seem to discount the biblical texts a later, unreliable
witnesses.  IF that is not your view, it is certainly my reading of
other scholars, such as the Copenhagen school.  Dubbing an eight century
Assyrian tablet as reliable, just because it is not biblical and because
it is eighth century is not valid in terms of historiographical method. 
A biblical text, whose autograph is of unknown date may be just as
reliable, and only having it in a copy is not particularly relevant to
its reliability.  That is NOT how historiography is done.  So I would
assert that making a connection between the existence of physical data
and a text, while interesting, bears little relevance on its
credibility.  If you haven't read Cook, Writing/History, I suggest that
you do so before you respond.  

Ken Litwak