Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

A few additional notes on this

NPL

> ----------
> Fra:  Charles David Isbell[SMTP:cisbell AT home.com]
> Svar til:     Charles David Isbell
> Sendt:        31. januar 2000 05:55
> Til:  Biblical Hebrew
> Emne:         Re: Re[2]: Date of the Exodus (still shorter)
> 
> Dear Dave:
> 
> I am the person who wrote the sentence that so offends you.  ["But the
> argument being made seems to be that the ancients thought (ha ha) that God
> did a miracle, but we moderns know that it was a volcano that fooled them
> into thinking YHWH had acted for them."]
> 
> Please reread it to understand what I said.  I am not laughing at you or
> anyone else.  I am caricaturing what I believe to be an incorrect emphasis
> of SOME who profess to be believers in miracles, but circle the
> intellectual
> globe in an attempt to PROVE the biblical story.  What you do or do not
> believe is not my concern.
> 
> You make one affirmation that seems to me correct, but the inference you
> draw from it is flawed.  You say: "in actuality, no history can be
> verified
> in the sense that scientific convention currently defines it."  Is that
> not
> the point!  How can a volcano or a posited 300 foot flame verify a
> miraculous account?  Please note that I am not debunking the biblical
> story.
> In fact, I rather think I respect it on its own terms quite deeply.  I
> have
> no need to import science or ancient weather forecasters to "prove" the
> Bible.
> 
> I also find interesting your connection between something that happened
> yesterday (that would be not at all out of the ordinary) with something
> that
> happend millennia ago that the biblical narrative claims is sui generis. 
> 
        This is central to the discussion. It tells us that D.W.'s
understanding of history seems close to the one of the biblical authors. It
is in no way modern, i.e. it is before 1800. If D.W. will accept this,
we--the historians of the modern age--know how to analyze his contributions,
i.e. as a late continuation of an ancient tradition. I say this without any
animosity of any kind. If D.W. is in doubt, I can recommend that he also
gets acquainted with not least Roman history writing, such as Suetonius or
Livy where miracles are also counted as important.

> Your words:  "I can't verify that I had breakfast yesterday any more than
> I
> can verify the plagues of Egypt.  But if I tell you that I had breakfast
> yesterday you likely take my word for it because I was there."  But you
> see,
> I take your word for it because it is such a commonplace occurrence, not
> because you were there.  If you told me that yesterday morning something
> happened at your breakfast table that had never before happened in the
> history of the world, then I would be very skeptical.  
> 
Like the Church of Rome that will never accept a miracle just because some
believer believed it to have happened. They have for centuries had a special
commission to overlook such cases. As happened at Lourdes that was not
immediately recognized to be a holy place.


> And who in your
> scheme was "there" to furnish us an eye-witness account of the plagues?  A
> writer of history who gave us the names Puah and Shifrah but failed to
> identify either Pharaoh, leaving us open to the 21st century attack of the
> Hyksos?  What kind of history is this?
> 
> Again you scold me.  "We may be overly smug in our attitude toward the
> ancients, but it's an unwarranted smugness."  My Dear Dave, did you
> actually
> read my posting?  I am accusing of smugness those who feel the need to
> import science to prove the Bible. Perhaps that includes you, perhaps not.
> My respect for the ancients credits them with the good sense to have been
> able to recognize a recurring phenomenon of nature if that had in fact
> been
> what happened.  They did not believe they witnessed the results of a
> volcano
> coming from hundreds of miles away, they thought YHWH was overpowering the
> Pharaoh in his own home town.  That is THEIR story and I would like for
> them
> to be allowed to stick with it.  You on the other hand believe that a
> volcano explains the mystery of the biblical story so tightly that I and
> all
> others with whom you disagree must be compelled to see the error of our
> ways.  In what way is your belief superior to mine?, when you are the one
> importing a natural weather phenomenon into the biblical text, apparently
> because you are not satisfied with the text as it stands.
> 
> And by the way, can anyone on the list point us to any other time anywhere
> in the cosmos when a volcano caused ALL ten plagues, in just that order,
> including the selective slaying of the first-born?
> 
> I don't mind that we disagree.  I do, however, refuse to accept your
> characterization of yourself as the more pious of the two of us, the more
> believing.  In a subsequent post, I will be speaking directly to some of
> the
> points raised by Peter Kirk.
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Charles
> 
Well roared, Lion! The same here. Even if I am considerd a redical, what has
this to do with my personal piety? Maybe somebody here on this list think
that they can monopolize piety. If so, they, and not we--the scholars--are
transgressing the rules of engagement also on this list.

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.
>