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.
>
>Precisely what you're doing with the material I quoted; I thank you
>for agreeing.

That's what I call contorted, Dave.

>> 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.
>
>And that's exactly what I did, Ian.  I assumed the contrary of your
>late-dating.  Again, I thank you for agreeing with me.

You miss the point, Dave. The text because it's value is not known cannot be
used, so it doesn't matter how humorous you want to be, it won't change the
fact that as evidence it is inadmissable. Try and get such "evidence" past a
judge... "umm, your honour, I know we cannot say when this text was written,
but, umm, I know it's relevant to this case."

This does not necessarily mean that the content does not reflect what it
claims to reflect. It means that because of its nature its value cannot be
ascertained and is therefore inadmissable.

>Check out Donner and Rollig, among others.

OK

>My intent was merely
>to point out the assumptive nature of that one statement about late-
>dating and illiteracy.

They are in fact two separate issues and were made in two separate
statements.


Ian