b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: kdlitwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>
- To: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
- Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: historiography
- Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 12:53:31 -0800
Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> Why the Siloam inscription? And the Hinnom amulets, one 50% of the Blessing
> of Aaron. the second 75%, but this is a religious formulaic text that can
> have existed for centuries before it was included in the narrative in
> Numbers. Who can say?
Isn't it a gratuitous assumption to suggest this may have existed for
centuries?
Would it not be fairer to the hard evidence to say that it popped into
existence at
the moment the extant text was written? After all, if the biblical texts
were first
composed, as some like Davies assert, in the Persian or Seleucid period, then
Israelite religion was invented de novo at the exact same time. That would
fit the
hard evidence, n'est pas? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but asking
for
consistency. If we are going to do absolute obeisance at the altar of hard
evidence
(written texts and artifacts), we should never leave that post.
Ken Litwak
-
RE: Re[2]: historiography
, (continued)
- RE: Re[2]: historiography, Niels Peter Lemche, 12/30/1999
- Re: Re[3]: historiography, Jim West, 12/30/1999
- Re: Re[2]: historiography, Jim West, 12/30/1999
- Re: historiography, Moshe Shulman, 12/30/1999
-
Re: historiography,
Jim West, 12/30/1999
- Re: historiography, Moshe Shulman, 12/30/1999
- Re[2]: historiography, peter_kirk, 12/30/1999
- RE: Re[2]: historiography, Niels Peter Lemche, 12/30/1999
- Re[5]: historiography, peter_kirk, 12/30/1999
- Re[4]: historiography, peter_kirk, 12/30/1999
- Re: historiography, kdlitwak, 12/31/1999
-
Re: historiography,
Jim West, 12/31/1999
- Re: historiography, kdlitwak, 12/31/1999
- RE: historiography, Niels Peter Lemche, 12/31/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.