Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>This is the crux of Ian's reasoning.

Obviously not, Dave. But I do want to show that one cannot use an unknown
quantity as though it were fact and hope to get away with it.

The "crux" of my argument is the archaeological material that points in a
particular manner, as I see it.

>If it's wrong, then the rest of the material falls.

So, this logic is not helpful. If one is going to introduce evidence one has
to validate that evidence, not just assume it. One can just as easily assume
the contrary.

>But the idea that the biblical tradition is this late is a
>definite minority view

Agreed.

>(and with good reasons)

Naaa. Saying so doesn't make the wish come true.

>and the idea that
>Israel was "an apparently non-literate society" has no evidence at
>all to back it up.

The earliest textual evidence we have to my knowledge is from about the time
of Hezekiah.

>So I suggest that Michael focus on this erroneous
>premise, and everything else will pretty much fall into place.

Naturally, Dave, you could have focussed on this "erroneous" premise if you
had had something to back it up. Not having done so, nullifies the value of
the statement, doesn't it? You can say anything is erroneous, if you don't
have to show it. However, as I have already said, your logic is not correct.
I have simply said that you cannot use the biblical literature as historical
material given our knowledge at the moment. We only have the earliest
biblical material from the second century BCE, and, taking this date, how
can we use a text which cannot be seen at all as being contemporary?

There are two issues involved, Dave. Don't confuse them.


Ian