Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Friday 29 July 2005 15:39, Jim West wrote:
> Dave Washburn wrote:
> >And this is based on..............?  Nothing, as far as I can see, except
> > the oft-discredited DH idea and its various progeny.  Perhaps it is you
> > who are making the mistake of localizing the globalized.  The fact is,
> > you don't know.  This is just the view you prefer.
>
> It is the view, not that I prefer, but makes the most sense.  It never
> ceases to amaze me the claims that are made for scripture which
> scripture does not make for itself.  If you suspect that tradition is
> sufficient to establish truth then, in some quarters, tradition teaches
> that Moses wrote the King James Version of the bible and that is the
> version Jesus used too.  But that is idiocy isnt it.  And yet, it is a
> tradition believed and adhered to.

Must we endure such caricatures?  I thought this kind of guilt by absurdly 
remote association was beneath you, Jim.

> Appeal to tradition to establish truth is methodologically flawed.
> Moreover, it is shocking.

It depends on the tradition, doesn't it?  Many, many traditions and stories 
are based on historical fact.  If you start throwing them all out just 
because they happen to fall into the category of "tradition" (however one 
defines that term) there's not going to be much left.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have 
married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)