Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

Well, I am not the only person to be jumbing around here. It is not that
there is much of a web for Ahab and Hezekiah, but the people who composed
those sectors of Kings got the chronology right, and that is the important
thing--of course because of the synchonisms. Finally, one part of Roman
history writing is closer to Herodotus than to Thucydides, the one by
Livy--was it originally 125 books or so? But as I maintained in my
discussion with Ken Litwak, classical historywriting is more than just one
author and one genre. There is nothing wrong about my analogy.

NPL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter_kirk AT sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> Sent: Monday, 03 January, 2000 06:26
> To:   npl AT teol.ku.dk
> Subject:      Re[4]: historiography (Ken, again)
> 
> Excuse me, but my comparison was David and Solomon against Herodotus 
> and Thucydides. So what is the relevance of 1st century BC Rome? I am 
> accepting that there is little archaeological evidence for the period 
> of David and Solomon, but as you yourself wrote there is good external 
> evidence for other parts of the web e.g. the reigns of Ahab and 
> Hezekiah.
> 
> By the way, why write of me in the 3rd person and then send to me 
> only? Did you intend to send this to the list? I think the list 
> deserves some sort of answer, or it might assume that you have none. 
> Mind you, I think you will need a better one than just complaining 
> that you have seen the argument many times before.
> 
> Peter Kirk
> 
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re[3]: historiography (Ken, again)
> Author:  <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
> Date:    02/01/2000 10:11
> 
> 
> The situation in Rome is immensely diverse. You have texts from many
> hands, 
> and you have monuments, inscriptions and all that. You can distinguish 
> between primary material and secondary elaborations (like Shakespeare).
> You 
> have evidence of various kinds that do fit in. As to David and Solomon,
> you 
> have biblical stories that do not fit in in the 10th century. I see now
> that 
> the discussion about archaeology is starting again...have to see the mail
> to 
> react to it, but as far as archaeology goes, i long ago sided with 
> Jamieson-Drake and the Tell Aviv archaeologists as to the 10th century,
> and 
> it with great satisfaction that I realize that they are now speaking about
> 
> the obvious that the was no fast chance from the LBA to the EI, it was a 
> transition period that lasted for at least 300 years. Things started 
> returning to its usual self in the 9th century in the North, and in Judah
> in 
> the 8th century, that's how I have been interpretating the physical
> remains 
> for years, and that's the way Finkelstein now sees it, and has clearly 
> spoken out his opinion on this. Ergo, the scenario below by PK is totally 
> out of touch with any situation that has to do with Palestine in the 10th 
> century (the normal date of David  & Solomon), my scenario for Rome in the
> 
> 1st century BCE is not.
> 
> By twisting words and creating absurd images of the past, PK seems to do
> his 
> best to blur the issues, and he will probably be back in a moment saying 
> that it is me. That's the technique when somebody tries to disregards
> facts 
> and obscure the issues. We have in my business seen it a hundred times--a 
> year--and find it absolutely boring.
> 
> NPL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:        peter_kirk AT sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org] 
> > Sent:        Sunday, 02 January, 2000 06:04
> > To:        Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject:        Re[2]: historiography (Ken, again) 
> >
> > Ah, now you are using just the argument which I did for the Hebrew
> > Bible well before the 2nd century BCE. Let me adapt your words to that 
> > situation:
> >
> > Again the web created by the authors of the Hebrew Bible makes it
> > possible to date persons like David or Solomon 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 anywhere outside Judea because of lack of knowledge 
> > of Hebrew in that part of the world. As to Judea, they would know
> > Hebrew in its late* Hellenistic form, but should in order to create 
> > this web be able to write in standard Biblical Hebrew (DH), late
> > Biblical Hebrew (Chronicler), place the Writings in the right place
> > and do their dialects as well. The literary data from the Hebrew Bible 
> > do fit together and seem also to go well with external evidence as
> > well.
> >
> > * if Byzantine Greek is "late" relative to classical, the DSS Greek is 
> > "late" realtive to BH
> >
> > Now we may not have quite as much material or linguistic evidence for 
> > BH as for classical Greek, but the argument is just the same. So, if 
> > your argument is valid, is mine invalid, and why? Or is the different 
> > simply in the quantity and/or quality of the evidence?
> >
> > Peter Kirk
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> > _________________________________
> > Subject: Re: historiography (Ken, again) 
> > Author:  <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
> > Date:    01/01/2000 17:25
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >         [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. 
> >         NPL
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk 
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.