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
Re: [b-hebrew] theories and standards
, (continued)