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: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] theories and standards
  • Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:10:26 +0100

I'm gonna have to agree with Karl on this one Yizhak. He didn't say most of the things you asserted below.

He acknowledged that the conclusions of the website were questionable. The only point he agreed with was that the data puts other interpretations in question as well. He provided the example of JFK which showed how data putting things in question and agreeing with extreme conclusions does not equate to the same thing. He put a lot of effort into making this clear.

James Christian


Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:

Yitzhak:
You didn’t read my message carefully, did you?

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

Hello Karl,

I would like to make some things clear.

1) I consider it more reasonable that the lecturer you heard to have
been correct in what he said, and you to have misunderstood him
or otherwise not correctly remembered what he said. In the end,
though, it doesn't really which of you got it wrong. The facts you
describe are simply flat out wrong.


You have made other sweeping statements like this which were not
supportable, so why should I accept this one?


2) It appears to me that the theory that the lecturer you heard was
advocating is the Wiseman theory. This theory depends on the
use of colophons. This theory also accepts the standard dates
for Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim. In this sense, the theory the
lecturer you heard was advocating is incompatible with the theory
on this website. However, I consider it unlikely that the theory
originally made any difference in date about literary conventions
that took place before or after 1500 BCE. It is quite clear that if
all the Old Babylonian materials are dated after 1000 BCE, then
we have no comparative evidence for literary conventions and
we are left to date the verses in Genesis on the material in
Genesis alone. Furthermore, if all the Old Babylonian materials
are dated after 1000 BCE, then we have plenty of evidence for
the *LATE* use of whatever literary conventions you think were
compatible with Genesis.


I do not need to repeat myself beyond saying that the theory I was taught
was similar, but distinctly different from the Wiseman colophon theory.


3) I think it is in your interest to reject unconventional theories
and not just accept any unconventional theory that happens to
footnote its claims. I could give you standard text critical
scholarship and it would have footnotes and you would reject
it. But you appear to accept any guy who thinks he can prove
the Bible if only he could show that the name Ploni was the
same person as the name Almoni. Just because a website
has nice footnotes does not mean it is dependable. Even
wikipedia has footnotes.


You didn’t read the footnotes, nor note the distinction I made between the
footnotes and his theories, did you?


4) Thutmosis III is not Shoshenq, no matter what Velikovsky
thought.


Shisherke (Thutmosis III) ≠ Shoshenq ≠ ששק no matter what you think. The two
Egyptian names refer to two different people. Looking at the three
names, ששק is most similar to Shisherke.


While I respect your interest in checking up on what your
lecturer said, I really hope that this does not mean making
use of this website. The website is ridiculous.


What do you think equating much of his material with conspiracy theories
makes it?

Yet the original research that he references, such as archeological data and
ancient records, makes much of accepted academic history equally ridiculous.


Yitzhak Sapir


Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page