Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Ashley:
>I stand in agreement with  Peter and with Bill.  I am sure that there must
>be a historical chat forum somewhere....

Bill:
>> I agree with Peter here. This list is for Biblical Hebrew. Where
>> historical evidence helps us to understand the texts it is very welcome,
>> but the list is not primarily for people to "do history". It is
>> quite clear from the exchanges taking place that our current historical
>> knowledge isn't particularly useful in helping us understand the
>> texts. People make very different interpretations based on the same
>> historical evidence.


When people feel free to use literary information indiscriminantly as though
it were historically validated information, then one can make very different
interpretations.

When scholars claim to do history discussing anything but historical data,
as we have seen with a number of my respondents here on this list, then all
you end up with is literary chatting, masquerading as history.

With the obstructionism one sometimes finds it becomes exceptionally hard to
do history, because other things are getting in the road of progress. The
need of certain members to adhere almost inerrantly to texts is the sort of
approach that makes ascertaining the historical context of texts extremely
difficult.

Look at the battle that has raged over the Daniel text. This is one which
has a clear second century context for at least the second half. The text
becomes important as a historical document when one sees this. It's
significance becomes clearer, is easier to understand for translators and
can be shown to have great importance in our  understanding of the years
after the pollution of the temple at the hands of Antiochus IV.

If one doesn't want to understand the principles of history, then I don't
see why one should even bother to comment. History is not important to such
a person. They wash their hands of significant input if they are in the
business of translation.

If you confront the archaeological data I have put forward in respect to the
historical data we have for the Israelite kingdom and the lack of data for a
Judean kingdom along with evidence against such a kingdom (what for example
is Arad of the house of Yeroham?), there is serious evidence against a
literal reading of the historical books. In the discussions we have had here
you will notice that there has been no positive evidence whatsoever for a
"divided monarchy". If the historical books don't have an accurate
understanding of the period, when were they written? What does this mean
regarding the interpretation of those texts? If you can't, or don't want to,
answer these questions, then don't hide from history, learn more.


Ian