At 01:21 PM 12/29/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Niels,
>
>I will preface my remarks with the fact that I am merely a student and not
a scholar
>in the sense of the word for which it seems to be used on the list. I am
also new to
>the list so I haven't made many comments trying to make sure I understood
the nature
>of the discussion. I will also note that last night while I was looking
through my
>collection of "Bible Archeology Review" I came across your name in one of
the letters
>to the editor. I certainly was impressed.
Niels Peter's credentials are not limited to a letter to the editor. Take a
look at Amazon.com and any of the many bibliographic search engines on the
web to get a taste of his accomplishments.
>
>Let me also say I saw the use of the term "minamalist" (I believe that is
correct)
>associated with your name. Could you explain to me what that term means?
It is a false and misleading derogatory epigram placed on various folk like
Tom Thompson, NP Lemche, and Davies by those who are more fundamentalist in
their theology.
>
>It also indicated that you believe that the text of the Hebrew Scriptures
originated
>around a time no earlier than 200 B.C.E. I hope this is not a
misinterpretation of
>the words I read in BAR, and in the various emails that have been scrolling
accross my
>screen.
Niels Peter is not the only scholar of note to hold this position. See
Thompsons writings as well and Fred Cryer's as well as Keith Whitelam.
>
>If we were to place this position in a historical context of the 1930's
before the
>discovery of the Qumran communities stash of hebrew texts that the oldest
manuscripts
>found up to that time would be the basis for our determination of the age
of the
>writing. We would then I persume conclude that the oldest text that was
extant in
>that day, the Massoritic text or whatever, would be the oldest evidence for
the Hebrew
>Scriptures.
But even the Qumran texts dont predate the 2nd century BCE.
>
>Extrapulating the current conclusions that you and Ian seem to be making,
wouldn't
>that mean that from the perspective of the 1930's the text couldn't be much
older than
>the Massoritic text (or whichever text was the oldest at that time).? Is my
>represtentation of your position correct?
Not at all. There are dozens of mss which predate the MT Codex L.
>
>I would think this would be a hard position to maintain.
Read the seminal essay in the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
(year and date escape me at present-- NP will most likely happily provide it).