Subject: RE: Autographs, MSS and REAL Historiography Re: Methods in biblical scholarship
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:36:44 -0500
At 10:01 AM 12/28/1999 +0100, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
>> ANother matter that springs from this is taht those who make the
>> assumption taht MS date somehow relates to auttograph date is that we
>> should not have a prolem with saying the biblical texts are not
>> historical while treating stelas as plain, objective truth. The texts
>> have been robbed of the chance to speak of what happneed. So to deal
>> with this, they are givne genres completely out of keeping with what
>> they internally show of htemselves. 1 Samuel is historiography. Read
>> Albert Cook, Histoyr/Writing, before you disagree. It is not simply
>> eidfying litrature or fictiojn just because one wishes to pan its
>> accounts as unhistorical.
> [Niels Peter Lemche]
> Your hvae so litrtle sense of what history was about in ancient
>times that I suggest that you start studying the subject. I would suggest
>that you start by reading Quintillian, and continue with Cicero, and then
>you can come back.
I prefer Thucidides myself. History in ancient times is what it is now:
propaganda. The term objective historuy is an oxymoron.