Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Brian Jones wrote:

>I accept Liz's statement that we all have assumptions, often
>unrecognized, that we need to examine closer.  However, Daniel's
>assumptions in this argument, that the biblical text is based on
>historical events and should be accepted as historical barring evidence
>to the contrary, have always been explicit and cannot be refuted by
>simply asserting that this assumption is wrong.  On the other hand, Liz
>seems to have based her comments on the "assumption" that barring
>supporting evidence or a detailed (perhaps provable) explanation for the
>source and transmission of a text, the text should be regarded as
>lacking historicity.  This is an argument from absence and a logical
>fallacy. 

An event lacks historicity until historicity can be shown. 

We need some way to say that one event recorded in a text 
can be used as historical data, while something perhaps 
written in some other text can't. Credibility per se is 
not a criterion. Credibility is the meat of many novelists 
and fantasticators. 

>If Liz wants to take the stance that she will not accept the historicity
>of an event described within the Bible without proof of its historicity,
>that is her prerogative.  However, such a stance is not inherently more
>logically valid than Daniel's position that the historicity should be
>accepted unless proven otherwise.  

In the field of history it certainly is.

>Both positions may seem untenable to
>those of the opposite view, because it makes it difficult or impossible
>to "prove" to someone of the opposite bent something that you believe
>but don't have much evidence for.  

We are not simply examining two opposing views. The pursuit of 
history is what was being discussed. One requires criteria to 
say what is historical.

>But that is in fact the nature of "faith", 

We are not dealing with faith.

>and those who take Daniel's view do not have their faith
>challenged by these type of questions because the questions only
>indicate that we don't know everything, which doesn't prove anything
>except that we don't know everything.

When someone tomorrow returns to using the data under consideration 
in open debate as though it were historical, it means that that 
person is not going to communicate, because historical research has 
rules that they are not following.


Ian