Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> 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. 

This in itself is nothing more than an assumption, and not a very good one
at that.  "Shown" how?  What are the criteria, and who decides?  History
is hardly a monolithic science, and there are various and sundry
approaches.  Ian is welcome to his, but it is hardly the only one.  Once
again, all this shows is that everyone has assumptions.  Apparently, some
are more aware of that fact than others.