Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: historiography

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: historiography
  • Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 00:57:21 EST


In a message dated 12/31/1999 6:59:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
kdlitwak AT concentric.net writes:

<<
I understand this perfectly. No MS, no book or text or work. If I can't
hold in my
hand a copy of the whole work when it seemingly should have been composed, it
wasn't. Right. So you can't prove that a Hebrew version of Esther existed
until
the 9th cent. AD, right? >>

Actually, Jim is right. You cannot prove its existence without the
manuscript -- or some other evidence from the supposed time of its
composition which clearly points to that fact. Which means that we probably
will never prove that any of these writings were in existence much earlier
than we can at this moment.

Lack of absolute proof, however, is not proof that it did not exist at an
earlier time. The documentary hypothesis and form critical methods can
establish something very close to proof -- a probability if you like. Like
you I feel uncomfortable with what appears to be scepticism carried to an
extreme. If someone wishes to take the lack of proof as evidence for their
non-existence (as in stating that David or the Kingdom of Judah did not
exist), I would say that then the burden of proof lies on their shoulders.
They themselves are asserting matters for which there is no proof. In fact,
since we have the tradition that they did exist, they are going counter to
whatever evidence there is.

george




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page