Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 17.04 04/12/99 -0500, peter_kirk AT sil.org wrote:
>Let me ask you, Ian, to show some datable evidence for your own 
>theory. 

I have given a fairly restricted dating for Chronicles. Make some argument
rather than insinuation.

I have also attempted to show that the solar calendar was in use for a
particular period down to 63 BCE and overlapping the use of the lunar
calendar imported by the Seleucids, which you don't deal with.

Both the above provide dating. And as I have provided some dating, I have
reasonably asked for anyone who wants to claim, intuite, guess or otherwise
divine a dating for particular things to do so rather than rely on some
"authoritative" scholar(s) opinions.

If you actually read all the post you seem to be responding to I did give
George some other indications for my reasoning. However, George accepts the
status quo for some reason and I was fishing for some relevance for
accepting that status quo by asking for some dating. You also accept the
status quo and are liable to provide dating rather than hiding behind
authority.

>As far as I can tell, you can date nothing except by 
>speculation and the sort of specious argument "there is no proof that 
>X existed before year Y, therefore X was written around year Y". Even 
>passages which most scholars date early (e.g. Exodus 21-23) 

Peter, I don't care what most scholars say. I am interested in what they
can show. The goods haven't been produced by most scholars, only assumed.

>you choose arbitrarily to date however best fits your theory (that is what I 
>meant by my warning about circular argument). 

You are using a circular argument yourself. You don't want to analyse what
I put forward because it doesn't agree with your positions therfore it must
be wrong, so you don't analyse what I put forward... The best you can come
up with is insinuation of something you haven't documented.

>I am sure that whatever 
>dates George or anyone else might come up with you would find some 
>grounds to doubt, if they didn't fit your theory. 

This is dogma from you, Peter. You believe something and project it onto
me. I don't have to say anything: you do it all by yourself.

>By your own criteria 
>the datings on which your own theory is based are equally suspect. So 
>you can hardly expect George to answer your request.

To be precise, a lot of people are making dating assumptions that have
never been justified. You are one. Either justify them or stop using them
in scholarly debate.


Cheers,


Ian