Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - SV: SV: Re[2]: Ur Kasdim II

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
  • To: "'Jonathan D. Safren'" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>
  • Cc: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: SV: SV: Re[2]: Ur Kasdim II
  • Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:57:17 +0100



Dear Jonathan,

This is basically a misprission of Tom's position and mine. Basically all
evidence whether early or late will be on the same level. But in case you
have an example of a certain phenomenon, that has been around from say 1000
BCE to 0, you cannot say whether your evidence belong to the first, the
middle or the late part of its career. You must introduce other evidence
that may narrow down the number of possibilities. I hope that it is what you
intend to say. You are entitled to restate the old German position that
history writing originated in Israel in the 10th century or even earlier.
That is a hypothesis that can be falsified in the scholarly way, and it is
OK. You (or rather I) mifgt say that it belongs mainly to the Hellenistic
Period. That is also a scholarly position that can be falsified. The same to
the many middle persons who opt for a Josianic date, or a date dutring the
Babylonian exile in the strict sense.

NPL


> ----------
> Fra: Jonathan D. Safren[SMTP:yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il]
> Svar til: Jonathan D. Safren
> Sendt: 5. januar 2000 22:10
> Til: Biblical Hebrew
> Cc: 'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'
> Emne: Re: SV: Re[2]: Ur Kasdim II
>
> Sometimes the simplest explanation, if sufficiently supported (and that
> includes relations and analogies) - is the best one..
> I'm not advocating a return to fundamentalism. My claims, as well as my
> research, have all been based on the premise that the Torah is not a
> unified work of Mosaic origin. But why should the latest attribution of
> Biblical texts necessarily be the best one? (Same goes for the earliest
> attribution).
> I think, Nils and Thomas, that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed,
> as I believe Ken Litwak has cogently argued in his comparison of the
> assumption of lateness for Biblical historiography vs. the assumption of
> earliness for the classical Greek and Latin authors. But time (and
> further epigraphic finds) will tell.
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> Jonathan D. Safren
> Dept. of Biblical Studies
> Beit Berl College
> 44905 Beit Berl Post Office
> Israel
>
>
>
> ---
> 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.
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page