Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Tory:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I wasn't attempting to make fantastic lifespans "believable" by pointing
> out that the Hebrew tradition that is presumably behind the LXX figures in
> Gen 11 "looks" more credible than the outcome with the figures we see in the
> MT. The historical accuracy game is a game I'd rather not play.


As far as I know, the historical accuracy game is outside the scope of this
forum.


> What I'm saying is something along the lines of Robert Alter, The Art of
> Biblical Narrative, 1981, i.e. that there is here in this LXX tradition a
> more credible view of the past conveyed by the narrator (= usually the
> author of the final form of the text). Whether that tradition actually
> reflects reality is irrelevant to a literary-critical approach: it is enough
> to recognize that the biblical writers believed in the stories they told.
> That's why we have them.
>

By literary-critical approach, do you mean looking at the text according to
linguistic and literary standards to try to understand it, without passing
judgments on its origins nor sources?

>
> Tory Thorpe
>
> P.S. I thought bible-believing evangelic Christians did not question the
> data in Genesis?


The term “Bible-believing evangelic Christian” has been appropriated by
people who question even the resurrection of Jesus, let alone claiming that
the Bible is a tome of myths and legends, not trustworthy. That’s why I say
the term is meaningless. Your question reflects an older reality that is no
longer operative.

Karl W. Randolph.