Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ken Litwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> 
> Ken,
> 
> You are not reading. If you were you wouldn't have posted this. It's all
> been dealt with already.
> 
> Basic words:

> archaeology, epigraphy, verification, witness accreditation

Ian, first, let me say that I have been reading.  I've been reading both
your posts and works on historiography.  Second, these are nouns, not
methods.  These are nouns, not principles.  They say nothing about how
to evaluate epigraphic data, how to interpret archaeological data or
what sort of controls should be placed upon the reading of that data. 
You have said absolutely nothing to tell us exactly how we may determine
the reliability of a witness.  YOu have only disparaged, without much
basis, the Scriptures of Israel, mostly because you date them to the 2nd
century B.C., a methodologically flawed position, as I have reiterated
more than once and you refuse to respond in a meaningful way, i.e.,
quote some historiographer who discourses on the issue, and give solid
reasons, not merely assert your position.  How do you do verification? 
What constitutes verification?  How much verification do we have for
other sources?  This last is a major weakness in your position.  You
cite some monument as though the mere existence of that monument proved
the reliability of its contents.  That is not proper method.  You have
not said it all before because I've been reading hoping you would do
so.  Since you continuously avoid this, I'm left wondering if you really
have any principles other than "the OT must be wrong."  Again, if you
claim to be doing proper historical research, would you please tell us
from whence your principles derive?  Name names.  That's a pretty common
thing in scholarship you know.  If you are prepared to provide a proper
prolegomena to your comments, I would welcome it.  Otherwise, if you are
going to make the usual response, please don't even bother.  I want to
do _rigorous_ historical scholarship, not engage any more in what seems
unconstructive.

Ken Litwak