Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

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