Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: historiography

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: historiography
  • Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:27:46 -0500


See my comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: historiography
Author: <jwest AT highland.net> at Internet
Date: 29/12/1999 15:27


At 01:21 PM 12/29/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Niels,
>
>I will preface my remarks with the fact that I am merely a student and not
a scholar
>in the sense of the word for which it seems to be used on the list. I am
also new to
>the list so I haven't made many comments trying to make sure I understood
the nature
>of the discussion. I will also note that last night while I was looking
through my
>collection of "Bible Archeology Review" I came across your name in one of
the letters
>to the editor. I certainly was impressed.

Niels Peter's credentials are not limited to a letter to the editor. Take a
look at Amazon.com and any of the many bibliographic search engines on the
web to get a taste of his accomplishments.

PK: If an author's credentials are judged by his appearances at
Amazon.com etc, I guess that NPL would be left well behind by Billy
Graham and be nowhere near Tom Clancy!

>
>Let me also say I saw the use of the term "minamalist" (I believe that is
correct)
>associated with your name. Could you explain to me what that term means?

It is a false and misleading derogatory epigram placed on various folk like
Tom Thompson, NP Lemche, and Davies by those who are more fundamentalist in
their theology.

PK: "Fundamentalist" is a false and misleading derogatory epigram
placed on various folk by those who are more liberal in their
theology.

<snip>

>
>Extrapulating the current conclusions that you and Ian seem to be making,
wouldn't
>that mean that from the perspective of the 1930's the text couldn't be much
older than
>the Massoritic text (or whichever text was the oldest at that time).? Is my
>represtentation of your position correct?

Not at all. There are dozens of mss which predate the MT Codex L.

PK: This is deliberate obfuscation. No-one mentioned Codex L. The
mention of the Masoretic Text was a collective reference to a
collection of MSS from a particular period. Some are a little older
than Codex L. What is the date of the earliest datable MS of a
significant portion of the Hebrew Bible which would be considered as a
representative of the MT. Anything before the 10th century CE? I
thought not. So the point remains that the earliest texts available in
the 1930s were around 1000 years newer than the DSS. Do you disagree?

<snip>

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page