Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - The Hermeneutic Circle

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: barre AT access1.com
  • To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: The Hermeneutic Circle
  • Date: 07 Feb 2000 22:27:03 -0800


Right, but who wants to be certain? It is not even possible theoretically.
I can also add that
Hivites are thought to be Hurrians and the Hurrian names are well attested at
El Amarna
where they appears as rulers of cities just as does Hamor. Further, I have
learned we can
narrow Lab'aya dates to 1370-1350 which would place Jacob's fighting years in
this span.
Further, both Hamor and Jacob would have been regarded as habiru and it seems
likely that
Abram migrated during this era and joined the trend. So in the end I do not
subscribe to the
view that we are seeking certainly but merely assessing the probability of a
hypothesis such as
this which may either be degraded, remain as is, or be strengthened by the
data and
additional evidence that time will bring. The hypothesis is offered, as are
all in my view, for
consideration, assessment and further research. Also, Jacob calls the former
inhabitants of
the city "Amorites," which seems not to be those who come from the west but
those who
migrated westward, for that is what they did.

I have been talking about this quest for what about to "quick and cheap"
certainty. It is an
arbitrary value. Is the DH certain. No, it will never be. Is it highly
probable, virtually certain
or what. It is not heuristically profitable to limit our interests only to
theses that rate high in
probability. Why, especially since the field is empirical and therefore
dynamic. Therefore,
my theses are not offered to "convince" people but to offer a hypothesis that
best accounts
for the data such as it is at the present time. In practical terms, the
hypothesis is in your head
and you will be able to watch for relevant data or new evidence that affects
its status.
Whether it goes up or down makes no difference to me because my task is to
reconstruct this
culture accurately and objectively on the basis of the best information
available. Very few
understand this methodological stance and that in my view marks them as
amateurs.

The hypothesis, with its limited data, is nonetheless an important one for
the simple reason
that it has no competition. It is the reigning hypothesis, presently by
default. It is also
interpretively useful, for it indicates that we should be looking to the
Amarna age for
patriarchal origins--not in the many others that have been suggested on the
basis of parallel
customs from Nuzi or Genesis 14. Actually, I guess the thesis does have
competition. So
which is more probable and why? Assessment. Does it not make sense that
the patriarchs
would come in to be habiru in the century before the emergence of Merneptah's
Israel? It
also fits into my relative chronology. So basically, my view is to generate
hypothesis,
whatever may be the scope of the data, and to introduce them to the field to
make their own
assessment and so that they will watch for relevant data or the introduction
of new evidence
for or against. Scholars who are strongly attached to their own ideas and
have a difficult time
concluding that they are wrong betray their lack of objectivity--which I am
sure you will
agree foundational with regard to competent research.

It is hard to be certain? Is is rare, yea theoretically impossible. So what?
On a probability
scale of 1-10, we should be constructing on those hypothesis that radiate out
from 5.
Lemche is only interest in probably 8-10. But those are the thesis that need
the least work
but yet provide a springboard to deal with related issues of a lower
probability rating.

So if you want me to launch into a diatribe, simple state something like "it
is hard to be sure,"
or "it is not falsifiable," or "it is too speculative" or some such phrase
that reflects a shallow
methodology. Here is what I follow. It is known as the "hermeneutical
circle."

Data - Evidence - Hypothesis - Evidence - Data

Relevant data in isolated from which arguments are made to support a
hypothesis of varying
probability. Time usually produces either more data and therefore new
evidence or new
evidence may be construed from the original data. These in turn affect the
hypothesis, either
supporting or degrading its probability level. With a change in the
hypothesis, the previous
evidence and data are seen afresh, pointing the way to finding new relevant
data and there
new evidence which again affects the hypothesis and the cycle begins again.
Therefore, it is
most important that hypothesis be constructed irrespective of their initial
probability rating.
This is why I call my latest "A Working Synthesis." Analysis and synthesis
are mutually
informing and we won't get very far with modest syntheses of particular
issues. Therefore, I
suppose I am finding myself calling for an adequate methodology that does not
disparage the
formulation of hypothesis on the basis of their probability rating. Indeed,
the generation of
hypotheses is critical to the enterprise, especially in light of the
minimalist malaise. The quest
for certainty is not achieved by restricting oneself to high probability
theses. That leads
nowhere as is so brilliantly illustrated by you know who. No, hope for solid
finding must
engage in the generation of any hypothesis since it introduces ideas for
consideration by the
Academy.

Can we be certain? Almost, virtually certain, but with a little patience.

Thank you for letting me get this off my chest.

Regards,

LMB

> ** Original Subject: Re:
> ** Original Sender: Job Wei <h9398374 AT hkstar.com>
> ** Original Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 19:40:36 -0800

> ** Original Message follows...

>
> Dear Dr Barre,
>
> At 12:58 AM 06/02/2000 -0800, you wrote:
> >Dear Mr. Wei,
> >
> >I have put together an argument that dates Jacob and I thought it would be
> of interest.
> >
> >As Jacob was not originally a part of the Abrahamic line, we must remove
> him from our
> >relative chronology and date him independently.
>
> Yes
>
> One of the El Amarna letters (286)
> >states that Labayu had given up Shechem. This may well be the Hivites to
> >whom
> >Hamor belonged. It is also possible that Hamor himself took the city,
> explaining why he
> >so proudly named his son after it. With regard to the fate of Shechem,
> the Labayu--
> >Hamor--Jacob sequence allows us to relatively date Jacob's migration from
> Aram to this
> >generation as a contemporary of Labayu (before he was killed by the people
> of Gina) and
> >of Hamor. Therefore Jacob's migration from Aram and his presence in
> >northern
> >Palestine may be syncretized with Hamor's seizure of Shechem from Labayu in
> the
> >Amarna era.
>
> It is very difficult to be certain. The link is indeed a possibility but
> there are no conclusive evidences to find Jacob taking over Shechem from
> Labayu or Hamor directly.
>
> Thanks for sharing,
>
> Wei
>


>** --------- End Original Message ----------- **

>





---------------------------
L.M. Barre
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael
Point Loma, California









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page