Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Jim West:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>

> 
> On 05/08/2005 00:08, Jim West wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Peter Kirk wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/08/2005 20:50, Jim West wrote:
> >>
> >>> The DtrH does not find its genesis (thats a funny yet ironic 
> >>> phrase) in the period of Josiah.  It was written after the 
> >>> exile.  And probably during the Hasmonean period. ...
> >>>
> >>
> >> What evidence do you have for this unqualified assertion? I note 
> >> that in a later posting you qaulified it with "in my 
> >> estimation". But why didn't you write that the first time?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well one can generally presume that anytime anyone writes 
> > anything they are expressing their views.  I presume, for 
> > instance, that what you write is what you think. ...
> 
> 
> No, Jim, if I write that something happened, without qualification, I
> mean not just that it is my view or opinion that it happened, but that I
> know that it happened, beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot know, beyond
> reasonable doubt, that the DtrH (whatever that might be) was written
> after the exile, because there is insufficient evidence. But I would let
> this pass if you could provide some good evidence that this actually
> happened.
> 
Jim: I concur with Peter on his assessment of language use. 
In fact, this was at the heart of my recent tiff with Dora 
Smith and Yitzhak, that they wrote as if what they wrote 
was an established fact, instead of a sectarian doctrine or 
personal opinion that their expressions really represent. 
People who start with different beliefs come to completely 
different conclusions when examining the same data. For 
example, because I start with a theological position that 
states that the Bible was written at the times it claims it 
was (not all books are date stamped, including many of the 
"historical" books in Tanakh), I see a completely different 
pattern of language development than you do.

> ...
> 
> >
> >>> ... But you are right- there is scant archaeological evidence 
> >>> for anything in the Hebrew Bible.
> >>>
Here you are asking of archeology what archeology can't do; 
compounded with a failure to read the text carefully at 
times.

First, the material effects that survive the decay of time 
are often so fragmentory that they can give only a partial 
picture of ancient events, at best. Often surviving 
fragments completely miss important events. Then there is 
the factor of the interpreter, did he correctly understand 
those fragments that he found?

Secondly, have you not noticed, especially in the ANE, that 
the most important finds almost always involve the discovery 
of documents? But even here we have only a tiny fraction of 
those written. Those peoples who used writing materials that 
do not survive the vicissitudes of time have their most 
important artifacts missing in the archeological record.

Finally, many times I have noticed a failure to read the 
text critically. Rather I see modern expectations often 
read back into the text. Often what the text doesn't say is 
as important as what it does say. When one carefully reads 
the text, modern expectations sometimes are not supported. 
Strip away these modern expectations, and some of the 
apparent contradictions between archeology and the text are 
resolved.

> 
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

Karl W. Randolph.

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