Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>]

-- K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Tory:
> This is why arguing dates is off list for this
> group.

The list seems willing to discuss a wide range 
of topics related to Biblical Hebrew. It is impossible
to have a discussion about it without dates.
 
> When Rolf mentions
> that "Yet there are at least eight other solar
> eclipses that may fit the
> description." how can we dogmatically insist that
> only one particular one is accurate? 

Because unlike the accepted date the "at least eight" 
other possible fits are incompatible with the rest
of the interlocking evidence. I'm afraid it is not
enough 
to point out how the description of the eclipse in the

Assyrian eponym chronicles B1 and B2 will fit several 
eclipses within the same saros family.

> How many secular historians accept the
> consensus only with the
> proviso that it is open to amendation when better
> data is found?

I don't think it matters how many secular historians
do. 
It is how science works regardless of how many
historians 
are actually good scientists. 

The reason we do not need a consensus about very
recent 
dates in history is because the evidence is available.
For dates 
in the very distant past the evidence is often patchy,
conflicting, 
or non-existent. A consensus is nothing more than the
best 
interpretive fit pending further evidence or pending
better 
arguments of how the existing evidence should be
interpreted. 

Put another way, a consensus is where the balance of 
probablility lies at the time of writing. As of 21
April 2008, 
the standard chronology of Neo-Babylonia is preferable
to 
any radical revision.
 
> To sum up: while there is a scholarly consensus, we
> must recognize that it
> is based on a certain amount of guesswork, educated
> guesses, but fuzzy
> enough that one cannot use that scholarly consensus
> dogmatically.
> 
> Karl W. Randolph

Yes we can. In scholarship we can continue to speak in

dogmatic terms until the situation changes, and until
the 
balance of probability shifts. There is evidence the
earth is 
flat, and that is why people believed it to be flat
for many 
years; but there is now more and better evidence to
say it 
is round. Nothing wrong with being dogmatic about
that.
It does not matter how many holes exist in a current 
consensus. What matters, and what makes a consensus 
a consensus, is that it has to have fewer holes than
any 
alternatives. If you think you may have an idea with
fewer 
holes, publish it, explain why it is better  than the
existing 
consensus, and yours may well become the new
consensus.

Best regards,
Tory Thorpe
Modiin, Israel