Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kdlitwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>]

   I don't understand the comment below from Niels Lemche, but I do want to 
respond to
what he said a few days ago.  I won't quote, just restate.
1.  Niels said that not all Greek history writing was done on the model of 
Thucydides,
let alone all classical historiography (in general Roman historians had lower
standards than Thucydides and his followers).  I grant this to be true. In 
fact,
almost no statement of absolutes regarding history writing in any period is 
true.
The following, however, should be noted:
a.  Herodotus, while important, is only a little different in approach from 
Homer, but
very different from Thucydides and virtually all historiographers of the 
classical
period after Thucydides.
b. Herodotus is just one writer, as opposed to the great many I could talk 
about, such
as Thucydides, Xenophon, Seutonius, Polybius, etc.  Niels accused me of a 
"one-eyed"
view of Hellenistic historiographers.  Is it one-eyed, which I assume means 
myopic, to
say that Hellenistic historiography is characterized primarily by the works 
of these
twenty writers, while granting there a couple of exceptions which are in no 
way
indicative of the general practice?  Niels is the one who introduced how the 
Greeks
wrote history.  There is no "one way" the classical historiographers 
approached their
subject, but the majority follow in the footsteps of Thucydides (imitation 
was quite
important in classical writers, including historiography -- for more see John
Marincola's work on authority in ancient historiography (that's the 
approximate
title).  I was responding to Niels' characterization of Hellenistic 
historiography
which I believe to be quite incorrect.

    Niels Lemche also responded to a reference I made to the book by Albert 
Cook,
History/Writing, by stating that the important book in the field was by van 
Seeters on
the Hebrew Bible and Herodotus and that he (Niels) didn't want to waste his 
time on a
nobody.  Here we come to an important question of scholarly method.  My area 
of
specialization is Luke-Acts.  I know who writes in that field.  If I want to 
look at
an issue in Luke-Acts, like genre, I go to Loveday Alexander or Charles 
Talbert.  I
don't go to Rendtorff for a discussion of the relevant issues because that is 
not his
area of specialization, though he could doubtless learn the issues.

  In the same way, if I want to understand Hellenistic historiography, to 
whom should
I go?  Classical scholars in the area of historiography and other historians, 
like
Fornara, Hayden White, Albert Cook, Marincola, etc., or do I go to someone 
who is a
non-specialist in classical historiography, like van Seeters?  I go to the
specialists. Cook may be unknown to Niels Lemche, but that is only because he 
is
getting to historiography through biblical studies instead of going directly 
there to
the specialists in the field.  Going to the specialists, instead of through 
some
biblical scholar is a much better approach.  If I may mount my soapbox 
unabashedly for
a moment, I find it quite problematic, not to say ironic, how many works I 
read in
biblical studies that presume to make pronouncements about historiography in 
other
fields, when all that the given work does is quote other biblical scholars.  
Hardly
anyone ever seems to go to the proper place, the specialists in the field.  
That's not
to sound arrogant.  There are many more things I can learn about Hellenistic
historiography, but at least I've gone straight to specialists in the area.

    Finally, with regard to van Seeters' book specifically, Niels Lemche 
pointed to
this book to show that biblical writers knew and used Herodotus.  Let me say 
just two
things:
1.  No one has provided hard evidence, like citations, or clear imitation of 
style
even to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any biblical author knew of, let 
alone
was influenced by, Herodotus.  Unless you can show me a biblical text that 
says
"Herodotus says", you lack anything even remotely resembling hard evidence. 
ALl you
have is a speculation.

    Also, for it to be remotely relevant that Herodotus even existed, you 
must assume,
since you can't prove from hard evidence (but only attack alternate positions 
based on
an argument of near silence) that all the biblical books were written after 
Herodotus
AND that all the biblical authors had access to Herodotus AND that they 
cared.  You
can't do any of those.  So picking out of the air the one classical writer 
which meets
the model you want to impose on the biblical writers is hardly an appropriate
approach.  When you have hard evidence, like exact citations, or monuments, 
or the
physical room that Judges was composed in with a well-worn copy of Herodotus, 
you lack
completely the kind of hard evidence you've been asking me for.  That sword 
swings
both ways.

Ken Litwak

Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

> 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.
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: kdlitwak AT concentric.net
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.