Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Walter,
> It is my understanding that one of the purposes of this list is a study of
> the historicity behind  the texts, not merely queries about linguistic forms
> of verbs and tenses. This list is open to a wide variety of views from
> Liberal to Conservative, Jewish to Christian, as well as Agnostics and
> Aetheists. You have a delete key on your computer, if you object to
> presentations from certain individuals, myself included, just hit delete,
> you don't have to read the arguments if they are disturbing to you.

I in fact do use the delete key on your posts a lot, but not because 
they disturb me.  It's because a) they have nothing to do with 
biblical Hebrew, and b) they are built on very poor foundations.  The 
statements about Jericho are a case in point, as John Ronning 
already mentioned.  Nevertheless, I predict that the points he 
raised concerning Kenyon's dates for Jericho will have no effect on 
your "research" because you already have your mind made up.

> My research is concerned with establishing just when these texts were
> written by using archaeologically dated towns and cities whose names appear
> in the various books of the Hebrew Bible. There are a variety of scholarly
> ideas about the dates of these texts. Scholarly arguments involve refuting a
> position and offering another in its place, that is what I am doing. No one
> is happy about having their position or understandings challenged, but in
> order to advance scholarship and understandings, refuting and advancing new
> paradigms is what scholarship is about.

Trouble is, you haven't refuted anything.  So far you have been 
basing your arguments on tired old statements such as Kenyon's 
about Jericho - never mentioning that her excavations apparently 
suffered from a high degree of inter-layer contamination among 
other problems - and dubious, at best, name identifications such 
as the one about Madai, and it doesn't seem to matter how much 
evidence is brought to bear showing the inherent problems with this 
"evidence," nothing sways you.  True scholarship is willing to look 
critically at its own hypothesis, and change it if the evidence 
brought forth suggests otherwise.

> I can see where one would interpret refutations as "all this negativeness,
> nothing positive to say," but the purpose of Humanist scholarly inquiry is
> about constantly seeking better explanations.

And why is the "Humanist" approach the only or best one?  This 
has never been shown, merely assumed.  In addition, as already 
mentioned, it's not even being applied consistently.  "Humanist 
scholarly inquiry" is not synonymous with "apostles of denial."

> I would say finally, for those who are satisfied with the views they hold,
> and who don't want to be disturbed by a challenge to those views, simply use
> your delete key when you see anything from me, for I will always be
> challenging (I also welcome challenges and rebuttals to my views, that's how
> I grow in knowledge).

This sounds more than a little arrogant.  What disturbs me is not 
some purported challenge to my views, but the fact that you 
continue to use a methodology that many on this list have already 
shown to be terminally flawed.    It's not working, Walter.  You 
need to change it.  That's how you grow in knowledge.

This is all aside from the fact that, as I said, the subjects have 
nothing to do with biblical Hebrew.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                                   Psalm 86:11