Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 22.11 01/01/00 -0800, kdlitwak wrote:
>
>
>Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
>
>>         [Niels Peter Lemche]  Again the web created by several classical
>> authors makes it possible to date persons like Thucydides or Herodotus to a
>> specific time. The alternative would be to say that this web has been
>> constructed by a circle (quite an extensive one) of authors from a much
>> later period. That would exclude Western Europe because of lack of
knowledge
>> of Greek in that part of the world. As to Byzans, they would know Greek in
>> its late Byzantine form, but should in order to create this web be able to
>> write in Ionian Greek (Gerodotus), clear Attic Greek (several otgher
>> authors), place Pindar in the right place and do his dialect as well. The
>> literary data from classical sourcs do fit together and seem also to go
well
>> with external evidence as well. It is probably time for Ken Litwak to stop
>> this ridiculous discussion about classical analogies.
>
>It would seem to me this is precisely the argument being made by Jim West,
Ian, you,
>Thomas Thompson, etc.  All the relationships among the biblical books were
invented by
>a circle of authors who created the web of relationships themselves.  

You may as well make statements about Winnie the Pooh, Ken. As long as you
take an introverted view of texts and refuse to place them in their
historical context as provided by the physical evidence, you can move your
lips but nothing will come out. Your denial of the necessity to verify the
validity of literary texts is a strong acknowledgement of the failure of
biblical archaeology. Just as astronomy emerged from the study of
astrology, so has archaeology emerged from under the aegis of biblical
archaeology.

>I'm afraid that
>I don't consider a "web of relationships" evidence of anything.  You kept
talking
>about hard evidence.  To me that means that I can go to the battle field
where the
>battle of Waterloo or QarQar or the Pelopenesian War and find bodies
dressed in
>appropriate clothes, weapons, supplies, etc, which can be dated fairly
precisely to
>the correct date for the battle.  

Funnier things have happened, Ken. There have been finds from the
battlefield near Lake Trasimene which evince a battle between Romans and
Carthaginians.

At the same time the example of the two field reports of the battle of
Qadesh is useful. One comes from Egypt the other from Hittite royal
records. No collusion there, right Ken? Yet, knowing the terrain and
reading the two different points of view, a good understanding of how the
battle went can be gained. This is epigraphic evidence for you to have to
deal with. Yes, note, physical evidence is not only archaeological but also
epigraphic materials.

>If literary testimony from the Bible is irrelevant,
>than it is inconsistent to treat data from other literary sources, simply
because they
>exhibit a web of relationships which could have been created in a number
of ways, as
>important.  You're privileging one set of texts and dismissing another
without
>warrant.

This is just self-deception, Ken. No privilege. A text has to fit the
rigour of historical accreditation. You wouldn't accept just anyone's word
in a court of law... or would you? Perhaps you would, if you were
consistent with the mummery you've been performing recently.


Cheers,


Ian