Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> Rolf Fruruli wrote
> 
> I am aware of many good and not so good arguments regarding a post-exilic
> writing of the whole Tanach, and of similar arguments regarding the
> writing
> of some of the books in the First Temple Period. However,what surprises me
> greatly, is the lack of awareness inside the different "schools" that
> *proofs* are lacking, and that their *evidence* is based upon this
> assumption which is based upon that assumption which is based upon this
> assumption... All of us entertain particular viewpoints and have taken
> certain standpoints. It is natural that we seek evidence and use it to
> argue for our own position, but such historical evidence is not
> *conclusive*. So why all this dogmatism which sometimes is no less than
> fundamentalistic dogmatism? Our views of history is not better than our
> assumtions and our interpretation of historical artifacts.
> 
> NPL
> You are of course right in your main point--we are not talking about
> natural science in the Newtonian fashion--but you can create scenarios,
> more or less likely scenarios at that, and presumably you will end with
> one that says that your scenario is the less likely. I suppose that well
> augmented scenarios for, say a later first temple date, an exilic date and
> a second temple date can make sense, but you certainly get entangled in a
> mass of problems, if you try to get further back. 'Proof' is a strange
> word in humanities. As if detached, objective scholarship is possible and
> can be vindicated by proofs.
> 
>