Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ken Litwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> 
> 
> I understand that you don't like the Philistine example, though it is prime
> and unassailable (and not just in Genesis). How about most of the conquest
> stories? How about the idea of monotheism back to Moses's times?

   Ian, what are tiy tryiung to say here?  Are you trying to say that
you can demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that no Israelite
belived in only one God in the 14th cent BCE?  That's not possible.  No
valid historical method could ever show that.  Can you prove beyond any
shadow of a doubt tha there wasn't a conquest?  No.  YOu can only show
that some scholars interpret what little archaeological data there is to
indicate that the conquest did not happen.  That's a long, long way from
proof in any valid histoircal approach.  Incidentally, the Philistine
case is NOT unassailable, when there are plausible explanations other
than your assertion that the text is simply wrong.  Since you can't
show, beyond a shadow of adoubt, what the original circumstances were of
the composition of Genesis or what its author or audiecne knew, proper
historical method demands greater tentativeness in your conclusions. 
But I forgot. You don't seem to want to ever be bothered with method. 
YOu just want to asert things like the above.  At least, you've never
ever replied to me with a discussion of method.  

Ken Litwak