Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] theories and standards

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gabe Eisenstein <gabe AT cascadeaccess.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] theories and standards
  • Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 23:41:22 -0700

George:

If I understand what you say about the ancient concept of history, it seems to be about what I envisioned by calling it a mix of history with legend and literature. The question is, what criteria of validity did the audience apply? I suggested that a narrative could have been considered valid in virtue of expressing things about national identity, sociological realities, etc., rather than in terms of historical verifiability as we understand it.

Regarding Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon:

The point isn't just that there is some vague similarity but that a number of aspects of the former text that are mysterious unto themselves are explained by the latter, including the ordering of the curses and the meaning of obscure terms.
Furthermore, there is no evidence for the idea that these specific curses were around for a thousand years, or indeed that they represent formulas at all, apart from the ordering of the associated deities. It's entirely possible that they are unique creations, and therefore most logical to assume that one text influenced the other or were both influenced by a common source.

If Copenhagen boys have something illuminating to say about this I'd like to hear it.

Karl:

I guess I still haven't understood how biologists studying evolution could maintain that science can't investigate the past. I said that biology, geology, etc. deal with past events and you called it a self-contradiction. How so?
You give the example of the sun going backwards. What about other non-repeatable events like the formation of the solar system or the creation of the Rocky Mountains? Scientists give accounts of these events using causal mechanisms that can also be observed at work elsewhere; but there is no repeatability because the events take millions of years to unfold.
Generally speaking, a complete causal account of what is observed includes an account of how it got that way. Is that illogical to you?

You suggest that there is another, nonscientific, way of investigating the past by "different rules". I'm sure I don't understand this, but it must allow you to come up with stuff like Adam and Noah writing parts of Genesis. I'll stick with one set of rules for investigating both present observables and their causal histories.


Gabe Eisenstein




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page