Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Bill:
As I understand Jim, he claims to be upholding the Biblical narrative.
However, when analyzing the Biblical narrative according to its linguistic
and historical claims, it gives a different story than Jim's. The
traditional view is based on taking the text as given as an accurate
recounting of the relevant history.

Therefore, the traditional view has relevance as an answer to Jim's wild
speculations: not due to its claims to tradition, rather because of its
adherence to linguistic and historical norms.

Personally, I think the minimalist position, that it is all mere myth that
might have a kernel of truth, that has been passed down over generations,
has a stronger case than Jim's.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Bill Rea <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz>wrote:

> Karl wrote:
>
> > Secondly, the historical narratives of the Patriarchs is put in the early
> > bronze age, not late.
>
> Ah, but that's his point, or at least part of the point, that both `secular
> scholars' and the traditional view are wrong. You can't just restate the
> traditional view and think the argument is settled.
>
>
>
> Bill Rea Ph.D., 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                           (/'