Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Yitzhak: See below:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>

> 
> Karl,
> 
>   I also dislike the recent trend to
> bring in bible mystery, cherokee or japanese "evidence" but I guess
> that is within the purvue of this forum.

Like you, I found this problematic. Interesting, but not on 
topic.

>  Dora's claim regarding
> evidence is necessarily an issue of belief.  Dora does not belief
> the bible is evidence.  There are many people on the list who accept
> that "if the Bible claims X, then X is true."  For those, this belief of
> Dora's clashes.  Hence, Dora might have better said "There is no
> archaeological evidence Solomon built the Temple."  However,
> even those who think that everything the Bible says is true realize
> that Dora was evidently aware of the Biblical claim (since it is the
> primary source for the claim Solomon built the Temple) so by
> "evidence" she must have meant "non-Biblical" evidence.  However,
> if Dora's statement is problematic, so is the following statement by
> you:
> 
> > The historical, written record claims that Solomon had the
> > temple in Jerusalem built ...
> 
> It is a written record (and one that is attested only rather late for 10th
> century events at that), but is it historical?

It is historical as it has been the accepted record for over 
two millennia. What you and Dora question, does it record an 
accurate history concerning events that supposedly transpired 
about a millennium previous to extant copies? Within the 
context, it makes the claim that it is accurate history and 
your questioning the accuracy of that claim does not negate 
the fact that the claim is made.

What is accurate is that it is a historical, written record, 
i.e. it is a historical document, which is a written record,
the interpretation of same is where we differ.

>...
> 
> You are saying he hired workers, bought the supplies, etc, evidently
> relating to Biblical verses of which Dora would not agree.  However,
> the Bible names these months by name (Ziv, Bul, Etanim) which are known
> as Phoenician month names from external sources, while archaeological
> evidence shows that Israelite and Judaean pre-exilic inscriptions refered
> to months by numerals

Exodus also mentions the month Abib.

We don't know if the man on the street used only month 
numbers when speaking. It has been awhile since we have had 
a native speaker to interview. Both may have been used, with 
numbers possibly predominating, we just can't know.

> (although evidently, there was no problem
> with "idolatrous month names" as can be seen by the modern
> situation).  This suggests that these names are _perhaps_ references
> taken from Phoenician records.  That type of external reference,
> which is unexpected and yet fits within the general context of the
> story, building the Temple using Phoenician supplies, might suggest
> an historical document (receipts from Phoenicia?) might lie behind
> the Biblical description.  However, just like you might be satisfied
> simply by pointing out to the logic of using workers or supplies as
> explained in the Bible, it is reasonable for Dora to go on and ask for
> non-Biblical evidence and I guess every now and then the topic of "is
> the Bible evidence" will come up whether we like it or not, but that
> probably cause at least one side to sooner or later move into
> denigrating name-calling of the other's beliefs and will be closed.
> 
Dora didn't ask for archeological evidence, she just made a 
bald statement of belief.

> So, for me to sum up,
> 
> > Dora's statement skirted, if not crossed,
> > the line of ideological neutrality to advocacy.
> 
> Dora's statement no more skirted it than your reference to an
> "historical written record," and I really wish we could discuss non-
> Biblical evidence without getting "but why don't you accept the
> Bible as evidence" at every turn.
> 
You know I don't do that. This is a red herring.

I have repeatedly mentioned that I am ready to agree to 
disagree on how we view history, to concentrate on what 
exactly the Hebrew Tanakh says.

> Incidently, the argument was something like this:
> 
> 1) Josiah is said to have found a book of law in the Temple, and we know
> that builders put law books in the foundations of temples.  What do you
> think? [A this point I felt this was too tricky to get into 
> especially in light
> of recent discussions]
> 2) That must mean the book of law is the one Solomon placed there hence
> proving that the Torah as we have it today was available at the time of
> Solomon.  [From my point of view, this is an attempt to proselytize and I
> attempted to ignore it.]

This is a legitimate question, if it were true. However, as 
also pointed out by others on this list, there is very good 
reason to doubt that as even a possibility. Just asking the 
question is not an attempt to proselytize. 

> 3) But there is no evidence that Solomon actually built the Temple.
> 
> This is when you went in and said "More accurately, you don't believe the
> evidence that was presented."  Now, Dora was referring to external
> archaeological evidence.

She made no such restriction on her statement.

>  Your statement seemed to draw it back to #1,

How? By what convoluted reasoning does that come up?

> ...
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

Yitzhak, as I wrote before, and I will repeat, I answered 
Dora's statement only. I did not address the question of 
whether or not the scroll found had been hidden in the 
foundation of the temple, as Dora also did not address it 
in her statement. For you to bring it up is irrelevant.

You read much more into statements than what is said.

Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm