Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:55 AM, George Athas wrote:
> Gabe, I think we are essentially in agreement. Yes, I would
> argue that the biblical documents are a mixture of actual
> history, legend, folklore, myth, and drama. I think the ancients
> were probably honestly engaging in the task of history, but
> they didn't have the means or standards that we today use.
> Therefore, they had to use what was at their disposal: oral
> tradition, popular memory, the odd document, folklore,
> personal experience, and imagination.

Hi George,

I think even Karl's "Lecturer" would count as oral tradition and
popular memory.  It is a historical claim -- that names and
titles were placed at the end of documents only in a particular
historical period (until 1500 BCE).  Yet, even though wide
evidence has been adduced to show that the historical claim
is wrong and was not part of the original theory that he is
advancing, he continues to hold on to what he remembers
(popular memory) and what he heard (oral tradition) and what
he remembers having heard.  This is an integral part of his
understanding of the Bible and even relates to whether he
allows certain Biblical data (such as Ruth 4:18) to be
considered relevant for the interpretation of other Biblical
data (Genesis).  For most of the list, this is unacceptable,
and would therefore appear as if the Biblical authors were
using different standards than we do.  But for Karl, the
Biblical authors are using the same standards as he does.
What you consider "myth" by the Biblical authors is
considered by Karl legitimate historical method.
Conversely, what Karl considers "myth" is a more limited
concept than yours and necessarily conveys negative
connotations that you do not attach to the term.

Yitzhak Sapir