Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

Uri wrote:-

>   I don't know what what you mean by describing their words as
>  "very non- standard". It is true that Thomas Thompson often
>  uses an opaque style, but this is far from being "non standard",
>  neither is it confined to some biblical scholars. Some consider
>  a bombastic and convoluted style  an inadequate cover for
>  paucity of thought.

When Thomas Thompson was on this list the issue of when the Hebrew
was written was discussed. As you are probably well aware Thompson
said it was written late, I can't remember the exact dates but I think
it was somewhere 2-3 centuries BC. When prodded by other members he
said there was a historical memory which went further back than that.
After several exchanges what Thompson appeared to be saying was that
the Hebrew Bible reached its final form around that time. When asked
outright why he expressed this as being written rather than reaching
its final form he said he didn't see there was any difference.
In my view saying the Hebrew Bible was written 2-3 centuries BC would
be misleading to most people, me included.

I found Thompson's style of argument very similar to our resident
philosophical presuppositioners who have a priviledged position for
their views and demand hard physical evidence for any other view.
I understand why Thompson is called a minimalist. As there are no
physical manuscripts dating before somewhere around 2-3 centuries
BC then that's all that's supportable in terms of dating its writing.
If you wanted to date the documents earlier than that I expect he
would argue that you have to physical evidence of documents (i.e.
manuscripts) prior to that date. Certainly other resident minimalists
in the past have argued that explicitly. To them, without manuscripts it
becomes speculation. I think such a line of argument would appear to most
people to be deliberately obtuse.

In what they wrote I don't think they would doubt the historic
existence of someone like Omri because there's physical evidence
in the form of the Mesha Stele. But if I understood their argument
correctly all that they would allow that to establish is the existence
of Omri, you could not generalize the evidence to any other part
of the text being historically accurate. Again I think such a line of
argument would appear to most people to be deliberately obtuse,
that's assuming they understood it.

If I understand Jim's line of argument he is claiming that there
is physical evidence for the Genesis stories but that he alone in
the world can interpret it properly. This, of course, is the problem.
The physical evidence has to be clearer than that or its not
really worth much.

I hope that clarifies.

Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332        /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                    (/'