Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A different generation of biblical scholarship
  • Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:12:53 -0800

Bill:
In looking at the history of languages and literary styles, the only thing
we can say for certainty about changes over history is that there is no
universally true, linear pattern which all languages follow. Languages gain,
and lose phonemes over time, and there is no way to predict exactly how and
why. Different people's literary styles can be vastly different, even within
the same language within the same time period. Again no way to predict it.
The only way to trace it is afterwards, through looking at recorded
evidence: either by looking at a large body of literature of known venue, or
by looking at the same document in several versions, and tracing its change
over time.

In the absence of corroborating literature, is not a document with a claimed
time and place of authorship itself an anchor point against which more newly
found documents are to be evaluated?

Do you claim that a particular interpretation is "evidence" for a particular
theory because it fits with a pre-determined ideology? Or is that an example
of circular thinking?

Is it not your definition of "evidence" in that it includes concepts which
cannot be observed, highly idiosyncratic?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Bill Rea
<bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>wrote:

> Karl wrote:
>
> >Questions in Pentateuchal studies that postulate a J, E, P or any other
> >such source hypothesis, because they have no evidence, are pushing
> >beliefs. Those are the little questions that are irrelevant.
>
> I would like the moderators' opinions on this statement. I've always
> understood they were in scope. I understand why Karl wants them out
> but it requires his idiosyncratic definition of evidence. Needless to
> say, but I'll say it anyway, his definition of evidence is not shared
> by many scholars.
>
>
> 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 (/'




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page