b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
- To:
- Cc: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: RE: second century etc.
- Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 10:27:28 +0100
the following underlined part was not Dave but me,
NPL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com [SMTP:Polycarp66 AT aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, 24 December, 1999 04:23
> To: dwashbur AT nyx.net
> Subject: Re: second century etc.
>
> In a message dated 12/23/99 9:47:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
> dwashbur AT nyx.net writes:
>
> <<
> [snip]
> > This mail is principal in character. I do not say that there cannot
> > be anything older than the 2nd century BCE. But it is hard to prove if
> we
> > have no data, as you may see it. the oldest MSS for the Hebrew texts
> are
> > still DSS, i.e. presumably 1 cent. BCE, or perhaps 1st cent. CE, which
> means
> > that the ungoing discussion about the dating of the DSS is very
> important
> > also for the dating of biblical texts. Whenever we moves beyond the
> time
> > limit set by the date of the earliest manuscripts, we are depending on
> > personal ideas, wishes, guesses etc.
>
> NPL,
> Looking for a clarification here about methodology, so hopefully the
> analogy I use won't seem too terribly off-topic. Westcott and Hort
> argued that the phenomena they saw in certain NT manuscripts of
> the 4th century CE enabled them to place the text underlying the
> mss around the second century, based on a number of criteria that
> would take us too far afield to list. Am I correct in understanding
> that you question this kind of methodology? IOW, if 4th-century
> mss are all we have, a 4th-century text is all we can discover? If
> I've misunderstood you here, please correct me.
>
> >>
>
> That makes two of us. I have hesitated to say much regarding this having
> only recently joined the list. It seemed that I must have come in on the
> middle of the discussion so I was not certain that I was correctly
> understanding your position. I think, however, that such a late dating is
>
> not a very tenable position even though I do not subscribe to a Mosaic
> authorship of the Pentateuch (or any part thereof). Perhaps you could
> refer
> those of us who are new to the list to prior posts which would clarify
> your
> position.
>
> george
-
second century etc.,
Dave Washburn, 12/23/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Fwd: second century etc., Polycarp66, 12/23/1999
- RE: second century etc., Niels Peter Lemche, 12/24/1999
- RE: second century etc., Niels Peter Lemche, 12/24/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.