Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Karl,


> Rolf:
>
> snip
>  >
>
> Here I bring up the related question, what do we know about those centuries?
> Is there any reason to doubt the dates assigned to pottery styles and other
> marker technologies? In other words, the evidence is not found because we
> are looking for the wrong evidence?

RF: I would say that dates that go back to the middle of the first 
millennium B.C.E based on pottery, C14  and other methods are quite 
reliable (+/- 50 years or more). But further back the uncertainty 
increases exponentially with elapsed time. In any dating method there 
are axioms and assumptions, and the results may be wrong.

> >  The mentioned example is an archaeological one. Some days ago I
> >  focused upon the text of the Pentateuch and formed the hypothesis:
> >  "The Pentateuch was written in the 15th century by a man called
> >  Moses."  To doubt that something that is written in the Pentatauch
> >  really happened is a psychological matter that is based on logic, or
> >  faith, or philosophy etc. By forming this hypothesis I tried to put
> >  the matter regarding the writing of the Pentatauch into a scientific
> >  setting. The hypothesis predicts that we will not find anachronisms
> >  in the text, and i discussed some possibilities. Then I asked the
> >  list members to mention other predictions that could be tested. But
> >  no one responded. So, I try again with a question based on the
> >  hypothesis: Which sides/characteristics/matters in the Hebrew text of
> >  the Pentateuch forbid a 15th century writing?
>
> Isn't even asking the question assuming data that we don't have? How would
> we recognize an anachronism or a loan word? Wouldn't we need a large body of
> literature, larger than the Tanakh by at least a few times, and of known
> venue, in order to answer these questions? In the case of a suspected loan
> word, is this a case of a word from another languages to Hebrew, or from
> Hebrew to the other language, or maybe both were from a third language?
> Further, aren't loan words, if they catch on, usually nativized within a
> generation or two, sometimes enough that they are hard to connect to their
> origins?
>
> In short, aren't you asking unanswerable questions, given the paucity of
> data we have?

RF:
I would not say that source criticism, redaction criticism, textual 
criticism and other critical approaches to the text of the Tanakh are 
in vain and should be avoided. By the help of such methods quite a 
lot of interesting results can be achieved. The problem as I see it, 
is that scholars generally do not take Duhem-Quine's problem into 
consideration. And because of that, many draw sweeping conclusions on 
the basis of their material and forget the role (and uncertainty) of 
their auxiliary hypotheses. That is particularly the case when they 
by the help of the language try to fix the time of writing of 
particular Bible books. I have not defended any standpoint as to the 
time of the writing of the Pentateuch, but I have called for evidence 
that can exclude a 15th century writing. And so far I have seen no 
evidence. it seems to me that faith in authorities is the basic 
reason for this rejection.

(Wikipedia: "The Duhem-Quine thesis (also called the Duhem-Quine 
problem) is that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in 
isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one 
or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or 
auxiliary hypotheses). The hypothesis in question is by itself 
incapable of making predictions. Instead, the consequences of the 
hypothesis typically rest on background assumptions from which to 
derive predictions. This prevents a theory from becoming conclusively 
falsified through empirical means if the background assumptions are 
not proven (since background assumptions sometimes involve one or 
more scientific theories, and scientific theories are never strictly 
proven.")


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
> From kwrandolph AT gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 12:10:59 2009
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 99E4F4C01E; Thu,  5 Feb 2009 12:10:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (yw-out-1718.google.com [74.125.46.155])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4074C017
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu,  5 Feb 2009 12:10:58 -0500 
(EST)
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 9so142275ywk.60
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:10:58 -0800 
(PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.105.13 with SMTP id d13mr367636wfc.196.1233853857795; Thu, 
	05 Feb 2009 09:10:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <cd8.44224abe.36bc58ed AT aol.com>
References: <cd8.44224abe.36bc58ed AT aol.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:10:57 -0800
Message-ID: <acd782170902050910j53a5e787m784a27f7d1d45dda AT mail.gmail.com>
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Halhul, Jezreel and Timnah
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:10:59 -0000

Jim:

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:59 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Karl:
>
>
>
> You wrote:  "You have yet to make the case that the cities that you menti=
on are anywhere else than south of Hebron, where history, archaeology and l=
inguistics all
> put them."
>
>
>
> Let's take your theory of the case seriously and see if it works.  You vi=
ew all 10 towns listed at Joshua 15: 55-57 as being located south of the ci=
ty of Hebron.  In particular, you have asserted repeatedly that I am in err=
or in maintaining that Ziph, Timnah, Jezreel, Maon and Carmel are not locat=
ed south of the city of Hebron.
> Let's check it out.
>
>
>
> 1.  The land south of the city of Hebron is not very good land.  It is th=
e Northern Negev Desert, which has never supported a large human population=
.
>
Have you looked at a map of the region, in particular one what has the
option of satellite images, such as Google maps or Yahoo maps? Thought not.

If you had, you would have seen that the Judean highlands extends miles
south of Hebron, before you reach the northern Negev.

> 2.  I Samuel 30: 26-31 lists about 10 towns south of the city of Hebron. =
That would be most, if not quite all, of the towns that existed south of t=
he city of Hebron.
>
Where is your evidence for this claim? Just because 1 Samuel doesn't list
certain towns, doesn't mean they didn't exist. Further, why list towns that
were not part of the action involved? And just because they were not part o=
f
the action, does that mean that they didn't exist?


>   I Samuel 30: 31 then says that those were  a-l-l  of the places where D=
avid hung out in those days.
> When are you going to learn Hebrew so you can intelligently discuss this?

The structure of the sentence indicates that while some places were named,
verse 31 then tacks on a disclaimer referring to all the unnamed places as
well.


> 3.  Now let's see if any of the 10 towns at Joshua 15: 55-57, all of whic=
h you see as being located south of the city of Hebron, are places where Da=
vid hung out south of the city of Hebron.
>
In view of 1 Samuel 30:31, isn't this a foolish question?


> Your theory of the case cannot withstand a review of the Biblical evidenc=
e.
>
Does yours have any Biblical basis at all? Even your "disproof" of mine? So
far, you haven't shown any. Does taking words and phrases out of context,
ignoring geological and historical evidence, repeating straw man arguments
even after many repetitions of being shown that they were false, misuse of
Hebrew terms and phrases, add up to convincing arguments?


>   There is no "history, archaeology and linguistics" from prior to the co=
mmon era to support your view either.  You're 0 for 10 in matching city nam=
es at Joshua 15: 55-57 with the towns south of the city of Hebron where you=
ng David hung out.  That's the same batting average as mainstream scholars =
on this issue.
> You are making assumptions that the text does not make. What if the text
makes claims that contradict your assumptions, do you say that the text's
"batting average" is pretty poor too?


> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
Karl W. Randolph.